Global Warming: Two Startling Assertions

Within days of each other, two startling assertions regarding Earth’s atmosphere have been made. Seemingly unrelated, in fact they both question scientific consensus, a panicking public, environmentalism as governance, and economic chaos as government policy. All near and dear principals to Obama, the EU, and the UN.

The Available Evidence Does Not Support Fossil Fuels as the Source of Increasing Concentrations of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

Tom Quirk, a polymath from Australia working in the UK, set out to prove the obvious. That fossil fuels have contributed to the slow build up of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. Since the measure of Carbon Dioxide and its migration have been fairly easy to determine by methodologies established in the early 60s, this should have been given a short project, merely reflecting the obvious. Oops. As Jennifer Marohasy quotes the abstract on her blog:

“THE conventional representation of the impact on the atmosphere of the use of fossil fuels is to state that the annual increases in concentration of CO2 come from fossil fuels and the balance of some 50% of fossil fuel CO2 is absorbed in the oceans or on land by physical and chemical processes. An examination of the data from: i) measurements of the fractionation of CO2 by way of Carbon-12 and Carbon-13 isotopes; ii) the seasonal variations of the concentration of CO2 in the Northern Hemisphere; and iii) the time delay between Northern and Southern Hemisphere variations in CO2, raises questions about the conventional explanation of the source of increased atmospheric CO2. The results suggest that El Nino and the Southern Oscillation events produce major changes in the carbon isotope ratio in the atmosphere. This does not favour the continuous increase of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels as the source of isotope ratio changes. The constancy of seasonal variations in CO2 and the lack of time delays between the hemispheres suggest that fossil fuel derived CO2 is almost totally absorbed locally in the year it is emitted. This implies that natural variability of the climate is the prime cause of increasing CO2, not the emissions of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels.”

If borne out by further study, it means that the entire carbon dioxide argument for anthropogenic global warming is wrong. And note, historically, a rise in CO2 has been a trailing statistic. How very interesting. Is all the panic, the economic havoc, the political power grabs relating to AGW based on incomplete and faulty science? Science so obviously wrong that the government is surely aware at some level?

This has likely happened before.

Ozone Hole Fluctuations Caused By Cosmic Rays, Not Chlorofluorocarbons?

From a letter of findings by Q. -B. Lu:

“This Letter reports reliable satellite data in the period of 1980–2007 covering two full 11-yr cosmic ray (CR) cycles, clearly showing the correlation between CRs and ozone depletion, especially the polar ozone loss (hole) over Antarctica. The results provide strong evidence of the physical mechanism that the CR driven electron-induced reaction of halogenated molecules plays the dominant role in causing the ozone hole. Moreover, this mechanism predicts one of the severest ozone losses in 2008–2009 and probably another large hole around 2019–2020, according to the 11-yr CR cycle.”

The 11 year cycle is the short sunspot cycle. When the sunspots are minimal, as they are now, cosmic radiation peaks. This, along with the .0001 drop in solar radiation (measuring from high to low), apparently enhances cloud formation resulting in a cooling trend. Satellite data became available in 1979. Until now, and rather inexplicably, when you think of it, no one bothered to analyze the upper atmospheric chemical reactions effected by greater cosmic radiation. Perhaps resulting in a totally fallacious scientific “consensus”. As well as the resultant panic, commencing in 1970 (1974 would be a peak ozone depletion year) and government caused economic chaos.

Chlorofluorocarbons were outlawed from every day use in 1995 because scientists had ‘proved’ that they destroyed the upper polar ozone layer.

Now that is food for thought.

by pat

Other Sources - wattsupwiththat.com – Galactic Cosmic Rays May Be Responsible For The Antarctic Ozone Hole

Image – Startling Stories
Image – Ozone Layer
Image – Toilet Snorkel