Skip to content

Britain To Save The World!

January 9, 2022

By Paul Homewood

 

Britain is leading the fight to save the climate!!

 

 

image

53 Comments leave one →
  1. Devoncamel permalink
    January 9, 2022 7:42 pm

    Since the UK contributes 1% of global CO2, who will notice or care? The delusion continues.

    • Mack permalink
      January 9, 2022 9:30 pm

      Correction, since the UK contributes 1% of global co2 from ‘anthropogenic’ sources. That’s 1% of the 3% of the total global co2 emissions created by man, as opposed to the 97% of the actual atmospheric co2 total created from natural sources over which man has no control. 1% of sweet FA is still FA. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron which, unfortunately, seems to encapsulate 97% of the current vocal grant harvesting members of the climate catastrophe scientific community.

      • jimlemaistre permalink
        January 9, 2022 9:37 pm

        Well said !! . . . Plus . . . that 1% of 3% is a percentage of 0.04% of the total atmosphere.
        Interesting . . .

      • Chaswarnertoo permalink
        January 10, 2022 3:18 am

        Jim. You misplaced a decimal point. 0.01 x 0.03 x 0.0004 = 0.0000012 % of total atmosphere. My maths may be out too, but it’s a lot closer than yours.

      • January 10, 2022 2:13 pm

        I think this mindset that because man made emissions are only 3% of the total they do not matter is incorrect. “Climate scientists” are surely not that dim that they have not thought of this for themselves. For one thing, we are growing the whole carbon cycle by 3% every year, continuing over many decades. That’s a lot.
        Whatever the reason, the constant repetition of this idea on climate-sceptic sites does not do our cause any good. Because it is easy for the other side to debunk it, and to point out the lack of true understanding on the sceptic side.

      • January 10, 2022 2:18 pm

        Another thing, just because CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere does not mean it is of no importance. Anyone who has seen the recent papers on CO2 IR absorption in the atmosphere should know this. The actual position is that the CO2 IR absorption bands are almost saturated. The probability of a IR photon directed upwards from the surface making it out into space is tiny. So even though it is only 0.04% it is absorbing IR photons very effectively.

      • jimlemaistre permalink
        January 10, 2022 2:26 pm

        On July 18th, 2011 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), an agency of the United States Government, declared, in Scientific American and also in Nature Geoscience on July 17th, 2011, that more than 1/2 of all the heat that keeps planet Earth from freezing in the cosmos, comes from the fission reactor at the Earth’s core. The other half of the heat that keeps life possible on Earth, comes from the Sun. The Earth’s core is proven to be 6,230o centigrade . . . Equal to the temperature of the surface of the Sun. Scientists described the core of the Earth as a Fission reactor producing more than one half of all the heat needed to survive in the Universe. Then, we careen through space at 1,700 kilometers per hour circling around the Sun, where temperatures are . . . Minus 270 degrees Celsius (-540 F).

        https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/nuclear-fission-confirmed-as-source-of-more-than-half-of-earths-heat/

        Earth – 2,760 Kilometers – Blue and Green Crust – 30 km both sides combined
        2,730 Kilometers Hot, liquid, Rock!

        The Core, A Fission Reactor – 6,230 degrees . . . as hot as the surface of the Sun
        The Red – 1,000 degrees under blue . . . 1,800 degrees near yellow
        The Blue and Green is Floating Randomly on Liquid Hot Lava
        Man-Made Global Warming . . . Not Likely . . .
        50% of Earth’s Heat – From the Core . . .
        50% of Earth’s Heat – From the Sun . . .

        Pages 13 & 14 . . . https://www.academia.edu/45570971/The_Environmentalist_and_The_Neanderthal

      • In The Real World permalink
        January 10, 2022 3:25 pm

        KB , climate Scientists are not dim . They know that they have to keep putting out their lies to try to hang on to their jobs . .https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/50-years-of-failed-doomsday-eco-pocalyptic-predictions-the-so-called-experts-are-0-50/

        And they will never admit that the UKs total CO2 omissions are only 1 part in 10 million parts of atmosphere because more people will start to realise that it is impossible for that tiny tiny amount could have any effect on the climate .

        And we are not growing the total atmospheric amount . Human emissions are such a tiny percentage of the whole that the pandemic lockdown , with massive reductions in travel , flying , and about 80% less traffic across most of the world , had absolutely not effect on the total .

      • Ian permalink
        January 10, 2022 4:32 pm

        As if man’s emissions, let alone those in the UK, would change how much CO2 is in the air.

        https://rclutz.com/2021/11/06/ipcc-data-rising-co2-is-75-natural/

        https://scc.klimarealistene.com/2021/10/new-papers-on-control-of-atmospheric-co2/

      • January 10, 2022 5:04 pm

        jimlemaistre
        The fission reactor at the core is fringe science at best.
        The 20TW they claim it produces is nowhere near the amount that stops the Earth from freezing. Look up how much heat comes from the sun. Let me save you the bother, it is 173,000TW.
        20TW is 0.01% of 173,000TW, not 50%.
        Like I keep saying this kind of stuff does the cause no favours at all.

    • David V permalink
      January 10, 2022 2:14 pm

      But 1% has been achieved by exporting nearly all CO2 producing industry to the likes of India and China – Boris’ worthless virtue signalling – context is everything, per Jim below.

      • jimlemaistre permalink
        January 10, 2022 4:48 pm

        Thanks Ian . . . Good references !

      • jimlemaistre permalink
        January 10, 2022 5:30 pm

        KB, here is an excerpt from the original . . .

        Neutrinos and antineutrinos, which travel through mass and space freely due to their lack of charge and other properties, are released by radioactive materials as they decay. And Earth is chock full of such radioactive elements—primarily uranium, thorium and potassium. Over the billions of years of Earth’s existence, the radioactive isotopes have been splitting, releasing energy as well as these antineutrinos—just like in a man-made nuclear reactor. That energy heats the surrounding rock and keeps the elemental forces of plate tectonics in motion. By measuring the antineutrino emissions, scientists can determine how much of Earth’s heat results from this radioactive decay.

        How much heat? Roughly 20 terawatts of heat—or nearly twice as much energy as used by all of humanity at present—judging by the number of such antineutrino particles emanating from the planet, dubbed geoneutrinos by the scientists. Combined with the 4 terawatts from decaying potassium, it’s enough energy to move mountains, or at least cause the collisions that create them.

        The precision of the new measurements made by the KamLAND team was made possible by an extended shutdown of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear reactor in Japan, following an earthquake there back in 2007. Particles released by the nearby plant would otherwise mix with naturally released geoneutrinos and confuse measurements; the closure of the plant allowed the two to be distinguished. The detector hides from cosmic rays—broadly similar to the neutrinos and antineutrinos it is designed to register—under Mount Ikenoyama nearby. The detector itself is a 13-meter-diameter balloon of transparent film filled with a mix of special liquid hydrocarbons, itself suspended in a bath of mineral oil contained in a 18-meter-diameter stainless steel sphere, covered on the inside with detector tubes. All that to capture the telltale mark of some 90 geoneutrinos over the course of seven years of measurements.

        The new measurements suggest radioactive decay provides more than half of Earth’s total heat, estimated at roughly 44 terawatts based on temperatures found at the bottom of deep boreholes into the planet’s crust. The rest is leftover from Earth’s formation or other causes yet unknown, according to the scientists involved. Some of that heat may have been trapped in Earth’s molten iron core since the planet’s formation, while the nuclear decay happens primarily in the crust and mantle. But with fission still pumping out so much heat, Earth is unlikely to cool—and thereby halt the collisions of continents—for hundreds of millions of years thanks to the long half-lives of some of these elements. And that means there’s a lot of geothermal energy—or natural nuclear energy—to be harvested.

        Best we share data and confer . . . Conflict serves no-one . . .

      • January 10, 2022 6:29 pm

        jimlemaistre

        So that is saying radioactive decay is responsible for 20TW. Not a fission reactor. The radiogenic heating is accepted science and is not new at all. It is well known. In fact Google Lord Kelvin who calculated the planet can’t be more than 20 million years old because it would’ve cooled down. That is the story of radiogenic heating and it is not a new story.
        To repeat again, 20TW of radiogenic heating is tiny compared to what we receive from the sun, which is 173,000TW. Forget about radiogenic heating and climate change. Not relevant.

    • January 10, 2022 5:19 pm

      Ian: Re the human/natural CO2 split. Don’t you think it is a bit of a coincidence that nature suddenly decided to add 100ppm of CO2, just at the same point as human emissions were taking off? Why would it do that?
      The Berry paper has apparently been published, let’s see what responses it generates from the professional atmospheric scientists.

      • jimlemaistre permalink
        January 10, 2022 7:04 pm

        KB . . .. T

        The words I use and the descriptions I use ALL come from the paper . . .
        Read the whole thing and point out what they are missing . . . We all may have something to learn . . . Respectfully. You are obviously well trained in this field of research . . .

      • January 10, 2022 7:15 pm

        KB. Very pretty. Problem is, we have geological history which indicates no correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and Surface temperature…..none! The oft cited and wilfully incorrectly interpreted saw tooth pattern obtained from the Vostok Ice Cores shows the degassing signature of the oceans as they warm up. CO2 increases following temperature increase not the other way around. The complete lack of correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and surface temperature has been again confirmed by W. Jackson Davis in his 2017 paper “The Relationship between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration and Global Temperature for the Last 425 Million Years”. Climate 2017, 5, 76; doi:10.3390/cli5040076. Atmospheric CO2 concentration has been as high as 7000ppm and the planet was doing just fine. What you appear to have assumed is that the planet systems are static (they most certainly are not) and you also have not taken on board the roll of evolution. Without the geological context all there is is speculation based on embarrassingly short term empirical (and modelled ) data. As part of this you miss that the average level of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is 2500ppm and when the vegetables you like to eat evolved it was between 2500-2800ppm which is why commercial greenhouse growers pump CO2 to get them to grow bigger, faster whilst using less water. Only one other time during Earth’s history has the concentration of atmospheric CO2 been as low as today and that was across the Carboniferous/ Permian boundary so right now the concentration far from too high is still too low. There is a gross assumption also today that the Carbon Cycle is in stasis. It has been increasingly out fo sync for 160 million years. For that 160 million years atmospheric CO2 concentration has been decreasing in a linear fashion YET temperature has not indeed at no time throughout geological history has there been any correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature. This decline has been caused by the evolution of marine organisms which sequestrate CO2 to combine with calcium to make hard shells. Their success at doing this is made testament to by the incredible volumes of organic shelly limestones in the world in which CO2 removed from the Carbon Cycle has been locked away. That 160million year linear decrease led to the perilous state of affairs during the first part of the current Ice Age when atmospheric C02 levels fell to 180ppm or 20-30ppm above the death of plants. If that 160 million year decline is extrapolated forward it will be seen that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 meets the red line for photosynthesis in a little over one million years from now, or sooner if the lunatics get their way. Regarding the absorption qualities of CO2, have you compared the electromagnetic spectra of CO2 to the significantly more abundant Water Vapour? The CO2 signature is swamped by the signature of Water Vapour which conveniently the IPCC ignore as “too difficult to measure”! It is patently clear from Geological History that atmospheric CO2 is not the temperature control knob that those addicted to climate industry funding would like it to be. Terrible to see that statistically significant empirical data is ignored and replaced by the averaging of wrong models.

        A statement I have made many times but perhaps can take the challenge.

        “There exists no statistically significant empirical data of any kind which supports the claim that CO2 liberated by man back into the Carbon Cycle (from where it was removed) during the past 100 years is in any measurable way responsible for all or part of the current 350 year old warming, the fourth such warming in recent human history”.

        Do not take my work for it, go look your self, it does not exist. That then creates a small problem which the Climate Industry glosses over. You see to have a “proven effect” ( claimed climate change) there has to be a “proven” cause ( CO2). As I just pointed out without empirical data supporting a hypothesis there are only claims against CO2 and claims and assertions no matter how sincerely believed are not science.

        Without a “proven” cause, there cannot be a “proven” effect. Q.E.D.

        I put inverted commas around the word “proof” as there is no proof in science, only theses supported by statistically significant empirical data obtained by a falsifiable method adhering to the scientific method which has been externally and rigorously checked for faults and/or bias.

        Putting Earth processes of which the atmosphere is part into it’s correct geological context is critical to avoid aliasing of data. Science is the pursuit of truth and not a political tool. Calling something science or saying the word a thousand times is not science. I think the appalling way we have seen hard data abused and made worthless during the COVID pandemic is a lesson to all of us just how easy it is for the unscrupulous to ignore basic physics and geological history and invent project climate fear.

      • jimlemaistre permalink
        January 10, 2022 7:48 pm

        Well said as always . . . I will preserve for future reference . . . Thanks.

      • January 11, 2022 12:45 am

        pardonmeforbreathing: I could well agree with a lot of that. However my point was about oft-repeated climate sceptic memes that many seem to believe but which are easily refuted.
        Yes CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere, but it does not automatically follow that it has little or no effect on temperature. Why do so many seem to think it does?
        In your case, you are saying CO2 has no warming effect. The onus is on you to prove why a known IR absorber in the atmosphere has no effect. It would be surprising if it didn’t, because the laws of physics says it does. The CO2 greenhouse effect is completely logical physics, it’s up to you to show why the laws of physics somehow don’t apply.

      • jimlemaistre permalink
        January 11, 2022 3:23 am

        KB, Ian and Pardonmeforbreathing I left an answer to KB below . . . I hope you find my answer of interest . . .

      • Chaswarnertoo permalink
        January 11, 2022 8:40 am

        KB. As the oceans warm they outgas CO2. This is settled science, unlike your AGW nonsense.

      • jimlemaistre permalink
        January 11, 2022 6:20 pm

        Chaswarnertoo, so true . . . plus as the glaciers recede from warming the permafrost thaws and releases organic matter so long ago frozen including CO2.

        Manmade CO2 represents 3% of total annual inputs to our Global Climate. Nature is responsible for 97% of all Annual inputs of CO2 in our Global Climate. A 1% increase in natural CO2 of .97%, is 3 times more than a 10% increase in Man-Made inputs or .3%. That same 1% increase from Nature is 16 times more than the 20% reduction or .6% proposed by the Paris Accord. All we study and put forward is human contribution of CO2. Clearly, context is absent from the discussion surrounding Global Climate Change and the fact that Planet Earth is Warming. Nature’s historic role and the magnitude of that role, in context, is missing from the analysis in our current narrative on Climate Change. All of this data is drawn from IPCC graphs of ‘CO2 emissions in the 1990’s’.

        Climate Change is Happening, Plant Earth is Warming ! TRUE !

        What are ALL the Input Factors – In Context ?

        What is Nature’s role in Climate Change ? A simple Question . . .

  2. January 9, 2022 7:43 pm

    THank goodness!

    And its actually a small effect on an tiny contribution to the dominant emitters whose emissions are rising before they take aANY measures to do what we did decades agaoo, gas and nuclear that work.

    We;re already wasting £10Billion pa. What’s not to ike. It’s not as if we had other uses for the money.

  3. Colin R Brooks AKA Dung permalink
    January 9, 2022 8:18 pm

    From Tony Blair onwards the one thing in which we have consistently led the world is virtue signalling Prime Ministers (although Carrie deserves more than a mention).

    • Robert Christopher permalink
      January 9, 2022 8:37 pm

      I think you have mentioned her twice.

    • Chaswarnertoo permalink
      January 11, 2022 8:56 am

      Nobody elected the idiot Carrie Antoinette.

  4. jimlemaistre permalink
    January 9, 2022 8:27 pm

    Well this may come as a shock to many, but ALL those numbers are totals. No consideration for things like population density of the polluter nation or the size of the polluter nation or the forest area of the producer nation. No bottom line, lowest common denominator number for comparative data results. I am Canadian. 20 years ago a French dignitary came to Canada on behalf of the United Nations to decry the sorry state of Canada’s shoddy treatment of our Boreal Forests . . . I Blew A Gasket . . .

    Europe’s G- 20 countries would fit into Canada’s forests 1.5 times. Canada’s Protected Forests could swallow France . . . but worst of all . . . when Rome conquered Gaul in the year 60 . . . 80% of France was Boreal Forest. Today 70% of France is deforested . . .

    So . . . Context is an issue in every discussion, especially when it comes to the environment. What are all the baseline facts Not just the Totals. So, I suggest that if you really want to compare we need numbers that are based on a lowest common denominator. For total Pollution . . . CO2 per Sq. Km. For Forestry, % coverage, for population, people per sq. km. All of these facts are available from the United Nations or the internet if you wish to work them out ,or you can read what I discovered . . . for most European countries unfortunately it is NOT flattering . . .

    https://www.academia.edu/50913774/Global_Environmentalism_A_New_Standard

    • Chaswarnertoo permalink
      January 11, 2022 8:55 am

      CO2 is not a pollutant, though. It is essential plant food and dangerously low. The climate would be a lot better if CO2 were around 1000ppm.

  5. Jack Broughton permalink
    January 9, 2022 8:45 pm

    The eco-warriors regularly claim that the UK must self-destroy because we were the origin of the industrial revolution: this graph shows, simply and clearly that the UK’s total historical emissions are insignificant in the real world.

    • Julian Flood permalink
      January 10, 2022 1:39 am

      Independence Daily has an article about how the UK can apologise to the world for making it a better place. It’s entitled Fashion Footwear Can Save the World.

      JF

  6. January 10, 2022 12:53 am

    Note the tiny proportion of the whole emitted by Africa. How long before this becomes a major emitter?
    If the world would spend a little of the AGW wasted money on improving the lot of Africans and others in impoverished countries instead of forcing the west’s woke ideology on them, what a change we could make.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      January 10, 2022 3:37 pm

      Africa is being colonised by China now so I think they would have something to say about anybody else from the World elbowing in on their new territories.

  7. Julian Flood permalink
    January 10, 2022 1:40 am

    Independence Daily has an article about how the UK can apologise to the world for making it a better place. It’s entitled Fashion Footwear Can Save the World.

    JF

    • 1saveenergy permalink
      January 10, 2022 8:14 am

      So, the gloves are off !!!

  8. Gerry, England permalink
    January 10, 2022 10:42 am

    Until people stop voting for the 3 main parties and any other idiots that believe in windmills such as Tice’s Reform Party, then this lunacy will continue until the grid does finally collapse.

  9. Vernon E permalink
    January 10, 2022 10:56 am

    Rachel Reeve’s interview on BBC yesterday confirmed that her party is following the same idiocy as the Tories and have absolutely nothing to bring to the table other than irrelevant fiddling with VAT. The choice is binary – either we pursue the war on carbon and bomb ourselves back to the Middle Ages with acute poverty as the norm or we say that we don’t have a dog in this race and try to return to prosperity. There is no third choice.

    • Gamecock permalink
      January 11, 2022 1:01 pm

      False dichotomy. You could bomb China. When it comes to emissions, Britain is a pissant. China is the big kahuna.

      Which makes UK’s self-immolation even more bizarre.

    • jimlemaistre permalink
      January 11, 2022 5:58 pm

      There is a third choice . . . clean up what is attached to CO2 with scrubbers and Electrostatic precipitators, etc. etc. and clean up the air we breathe . . . the technology is there . . . has been for over thirty years . . . See Beldune New Brunswick Canada, Coal fired power generator . . . They even make Gypsum Board ( drywall) by recycling the water used in the scrubbers. Environmentalists are NOT into promoting this kind of clean up . . . Pages 7 & 8

      https://www.academia.edu/45570971/The_Environmentalist_and_The_Neanderthal

      That would mean crawling into bed with the Enemy . . . The fossil fuel industry . . . Instead they let the house burn down because the thermostat doesn’t work. CO2 as the cause of Climate Change is an intellectual, theoretical, scientific possibility that can be shown in a lab. Out here on Planet Earth where all the interconnected moving parts are a living breathing mechanism . . . CO2 is a pip-squeak . . . compared to atmospheric rivers of Heat and Water emanating from the Equator, or the effects of Volcanoes erupting under the oceans like at The Axial Seamount,

      https://www.academia.edu/49442870/The_Axial_Seamount_Nature_s_Response_To_500_Years_of_Cooling

      or The violent effects of Major Volcanoes above VEI 6 which we have not been seen in over 100 years. We are being manipulated by theory and a Grand Theology of ‘Man-Made Climate Change’ that looks good on paper . . . But makes No Sense when compared to Nature. History teaches us many, many lessons . . . Environmentalist propagandists choose NOT to compare the present to the past . . . Why should they . . . They have got it all figured out ?

      My thoughts . . .

  10. January 10, 2022 12:08 pm

    UK govt says: ‘Let’s saw off the branch of the tree we’re sitting on.’

    What could possibly go wrong?

  11. jimlemaistre permalink
    January 10, 2022 4:13 pm

    Nothing . . . The branch will be held up by CO2 . . . while the tree falls over . . .

  12. cookers52 permalink
    January 10, 2022 5:25 pm

    We are very good at demolishing power stations.

    As to the contributions of climate science to our understanding of the rock we live on, well that’s open to debate.

    At this point in time our understanding of things is incomplete, and scientific facts always have a half life.

  13. Cheshire Red permalink
    January 10, 2022 7:26 pm

    That graph shows that since roughly 1970 the UK has been out-emitted by ALL the major world players.

    US, North America without US, India, China, Asia and even Africa have ALL emitted more CO2 than the UK.

    The chart claims UK emits more CO2 than ‘Europe’, but that cannot be right?

    Either way it’s 50 years of irrelevance. For this, our government wants to all-but destroy us? Honestly, I think we’re at the point where pushback is needed across the land.

  14. jimlemaistre permalink
    January 11, 2022 3:12 am

    KB . . . Let me try. CO2 continues to dominate Man-Made Climate Change protocols all over the world. The Science and the physics seem quite solid . . . Until you consider how planet Earth could go through 18 cycles of warming WITHOUT CO2 leading the way EXCEPT since 1750 . . . Now all of a sudden it is Man-Made CO2.

    https://www.academia.edu/49421861/CO2_Cradle_of_Life_on_Planet_Earth

    There is something, however that does lead Scientifically to Climate Change throughout the Ages . . . Water in all three of it’s states. Solid, Liquid and as a gas.

    As a solid it accumulates, mostly in the Northern Hemisphere above the continents and at the North Pole. This cycle continues, on average for 500 about years. Throughout the Holocene this Cooling can always be linked to Volcanoes . . . First with at least one Major Blast of VEI 6 or greater and then followed by a series of major Volcanoes that never quite give the climate of the Northern Continents to recover before the next one hits.

    The Dark Ages Cooling Period

    A new era to end those “Glory Days” of Roman superiority in the known world. You guessed it . . . Volcanoes. This time two Colossal Volcanoes on opposite sides of the Pacific Ocean erupted more or less at the same time (in planetary terms). First the notorious Indonesian Volcano, Krakatoa erupted as a VEI 7 volcano. Early Chinese reports of this Eruption have been confirmed. Then, more or less in the same year, Ilopango in El Salvador, Central America, Erupted as a VEI 6.9 volcano. Documentary evidence clearly demonstrates that the years 435 and 436 would launch the worst natural Climactic Disruption in 10,000 years. Global changes resulting from the Environmental Catastrophe affected Humans from Mongolia to Constantinople, Greenland to Antarctica which precipitated plague, famine and widespread death from starvation and disease. Great migrations and tumultuous events ensued which brought on the fall of the great Mexican city of Teotihuacan, the Anglo-Saxon victory over the Celts and the rise of the unified peoples of China. If one Volcano, Tambora, registering 7 on the VEI index brought Volcanic Winter to the summer of 1816, just imagine the consequences of two in the same year . . .

    The Little Ice Age

    Another 500-year period of substantial Global Cooling. Once again, in the 1450’s, two Volcanoes rating VEI 6 erupting in relatively the same time frame. First eruption X in 1453; some suggest it could have been the notorious Krakatoa, again. The second was Kuwae (usually considered first), part of the island nation of Vanuatu, in 1457 just three years later. Analysis of these volcanoes is strictly from ice core data because they pre date written records and European exploration. They both show up in ice core samples extracted from Antarctica and Greenland. Predating these two however, is a recently identified Indonesian volcano dating from 1258 called Samalas in the Rinjani Volcanic Complex. It was a VEI 7, but has been described as what might have been the largest single eruption in the last 10,000 years. Again, famine, starvation and severe weather were being reported worldwide. This eruption was but a precursor for the environmental tragedy yet to come.
    This time, a stream of colossal volcanoes over a period of nearly 700 years kept the world suppressed under sharply lower temperatures and covering the planet in Glaciers in places not seen in 1000 years. In the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres vol. 118 Jihong Cole-Dai et al. suggest that “the most prominent century-scale climactic episode in the last 1000 years is likely The Little Ice Age”. Here is the list of consecutive VEI 6 or greater volcanoes that we are aware of in that 700-year period. 16 all together.

    Samalas, Philippines 1258 – 7, 1280 Quilotoa, Ecuador – 6, Unknown (Krakatoa?) 1453 – 6, Kuwae, Vanuatu 1457 – 6, 1477 Baroarbunga, Iceland, – 6, 1580 Billy Mitchell, New Guinea – 6, 1600 Huaynaputina, Peru, – 6, 1660 Santorini, Greece, – 6, 1660 long Island, New Guinea, – 6, 1783 Laki, Iceland – 6+, 1809 unknown south America – 6, 1815 Tambora, Indonesia – 7, 1835, Cosiguina, Nicaragua – 6, 1883, Krakatoa, Indonesia – 6, 1902, Santa Maria, Guatemala, – 6, 1912, Novarupta, Alaska – 6.

    That is 14 – VEI 6 volcanoes, and 2 – VEI 7’s. Just to add a little more emphasis to the climatological effects of Volcanoes, in or around the years where these Volcanoes erupted the following civilizations disappeared. Easter Island, The Great Zimbabwe, The Myan civilization and the Vikings of Greenland. The cumulative effect of Volcanic activity is enormous. Pages 34 – 37

    https://www.academia.edu/45570971/The_Environmentalist_and_The_Neanderthal

    Then . . . After EACH of these cooling periods initiated and sustained by repeated Volcanic activity . . . after the Volcanic Winters have subsided . . . Planet Earth returns to what I call ‘The Norm of Warm’. I have traced these cycles back 150,000 years, tied directly to Volcanoes. That volcanic activity is directly caused by the increscent movement of Tectonic Plates. North America and South America are moving westward an average of 2.5 cm.(1 in.) per year. Australia is moving north by about 7 cm. each year, colliding with the Pacific Plate, which is moving west about 11 cm each year. Africa and Eurasia are pressing against one another.

    During cooling periods the Continents of the Northern Hemisphere are pressed down into the Mantle and a ‘sort of bending’ occurs close to the Equator. Three major zones are effected. Central America, from Australia and New Zealand to the Philippines and last but not least The Mediterranean Basin from Gibraltar to the Strait of Hormuz. VEI 6&7 Volcanoes are common and frequent in Global terms in these areas that I call ‘Bend Zones’.

    When Warming Periods occur . . . Ice melts . . . Turns into water and accumulates in the Gyers of the Oceans and at the Equator . . . Pressing down ever so slightly on the Earth’s Mantle to accommodate the extra mass from the increased volume. Equatorial heat acts to evaporate the Extra water volumes and hurricane storm activity increases in volume and intensity. Meanwhile, the increased water volumes pressing down on the tectonic plates and down against the mantle eventually leads to increased earthquake activity in Volcanic regions and eventually sets off another round of Volcanism. Starting the whole cycle back to cooling once again . . . History tells these truths . . . CO2 is NOT part of this story and does Not control the cycles of Nature . . .

    My thoughts . . .

    • Chaswarnertoo permalink
      January 11, 2022 8:43 am

      You and your facts. Heretic! 😇

      • Gamecock permalink
        January 11, 2022 1:02 pm

        True. Facts don’t work against moral posturing.

      • Gerry, England permalink
        January 11, 2022 2:10 pm

        Or against religion.

      • jimlemaistre permalink
        January 11, 2022 5:22 pm

        Chaswarnertoo, Thanks . . . I resemble that remark . . . 😎

    • January 11, 2022 2:55 pm

      jimlemaistre
      But what about the physics ? You yourself say it is pretty sound. Increased CO2 SHOULD warm the planet, and that follows from the physics. You’ve got to explain WHY the physics does not work as expected, not simply argue that it appears not to be important from the historical record.
      You give examples of climate change caused by non-GHG factors, but that does not mean the GHG effect is not there. It has just been masked by bigger events in the past.
      I honestly don’t think our cause is helped by denying the CO2 warming effect then arguing using fringe science. It’s much better to embrace it but argue how important it really is, is there really an “emergency” and what is it sensible to do about it.

      • jimlemaistre permalink
        January 11, 2022 4:34 pm

        KB . . .

        The biggest issue is NOT the CO2 per say it is what is attached to CO2 that is causing Planet Earth to warm faster. One of the first questions little children will ask is, Daddy, What makes the clouds ? The answer is water, as a gas then the #2 ingredient is Dust . . . DUST ! Fine Dust.

        The industrial consumption of Fossil fuels that produces energy of all types leads to MASSIVE quantities of ‘Fine Dust’ that can and does cause increased cloud formation especially at Equatorial regions where evaporation from the Oceans is at it’s highest, Globally. The atmosphere at the Equator is 17 km. above the surface, while above the Northern hemisphere it is only 14 km. In this spinning vortex above the surface, water and dust accumulate into cloud formations that carry ever increasing water volumes end heat energy north in storm systems which then deposit that heat energy from the Equator as rain.

        One example is Hurricane Claudette in June of last year. It deposited 9″ of rain in New Orleans, tracked North East leaving vast amounts of water in it’s wake . . . It continued to track North East over the Atlantic then it struck Europe. Remember the flooding of early last summer ? Well the same thing happened to Vancouver in mid November. That was the tail end of typhoon that had struck Indonesia just a couple of weeks before. We received 9″ of rain in one day !

        Planet Earth is a ‘centrifuge’. Everything spins. the atmosphere, the Oceans, even the molten core of the earth . . . the mantle by way of convection from the outer core to the crust and back again. the atmosphere of Planet Earth is spinning faster than the outer crust of the earth. The planet is spinning at about 1,670 km/h (1,037.5 mph). The temperature gradient is derived from the differential solar heating of the spherical surface of a planet: the surface is generally warmer at the equator and grows progressively cooler as we move poleward. The centrifugal effects of the earth’s rotation, the Coriolis force, deflects the south – north transport of heat from the equator to the poles into the east-west motion of the jet stream.

        Humans produce more and more dust from burning Fossil Fuels predominantly between the two jet streams closest to the Equator. That dust enters the vortex that is our atmosphere and collects with water at the Equator. The clouds within the atmosphere are a store of energy. That store of energy and the cloud cover that is generated contains the heat energy attempting to radiate out from the Earth’s core . . . Global Warming . . . Increased heat retention . . . increased storm activity . . . increased precipitation . . . all from the Natural cycles of water aided and abetted by the ‘DUST’ entering the atmosphere thanks to the Human consumption of Fossil Fuels . . . and NOT the CO2.

        This dust is easy to control if our ‘Fetish’ with CO2 could be pushed toward building Scrubbers and Electrostatic Precipitators on every industrial smokestack in the world . . . Then change could come . . .

        My thoughts . . .
        Copyright 2022

  15. HoxtonBoy permalink
    January 11, 2022 10:59 am

    One thing we can be sure of is that whatever action is taken , CO2 is going to rise to about 600-800ppm before it levels off. This is well below toxic level (1500 ppm) for humans but the important point surely is whether the CO2 absorption effect rolls off exponentially after 400ppm – as I have seen quoted but with no scientific evidence to back it up. i.e what we need to know is how much warming a doubling of CO2 will cause. If it is 1C then there is nothing to worry about – in fact it will be an advantage. If it is 4C then we are in deep s—..

    • January 11, 2022 3:52 pm

      HoxtonBoy: the CO2 absorption is almost saturated already, in the sense that an IR photon at the CO2 absorption wavelengths, emitted from ground level, is unlikely to make it out into space. The issue is that, as the path length is reduced, it follows that the atmosphere absorbs photons at lower altitude and so atmospheric warming occurs in the lower atmosphere. But purely from a planet heat-balance point of view, we are already way out on an almost flat exponential.
      The climate sensitivity factor to CO2 doubling is highly uncertain. The IPCC now say it is between 2 and 4.5 degrees or something like that (check figures). In reality it could be as small as 1 degree with zero “feedbacks” or even less if feedbacks are negative.

    • January 11, 2022 9:55 pm

      HoxtonBoy ” the CO2 absorption effect rolls off exponentially after 400ppm – as I have seen quoted but with no scientific evidence to back it up”

      If you are happy to accept NASA data as evidence, the NASA Planetary Spectrum Generator (PSG) can be used to determine the amount of absorption (and hence ‘Radiative Forcing’) for a range of concentrations of the gases that make up the atmosphere.

      I have done this and collated the data as described here: https://cw50b.wordpress.com/cagw
      I have found that absorption has an approximate (but not exact) logarithmic relationship to increasing concentration, which is well known and mentioned in the IPCC assessment reports.

      This is an ongoing project but an early estimate is that a doubling of CO2 concentration from 275ppmv to 550ppmv (at 80% RH) can at most result in a temperature increase of about 0.9K. Going from 275 ppmv to 800ppmv, the increase is about 1.4K. These values include the ‘feedbacks’ of water vapor and lapse rate but exclude clouds and aerosols, which NASA consider to be negative, hence the claim of ‘at most’

      I have translated this into an interactive “Control Knob” that compares the increase in global temperature derived from the NASA data with the increase claimed by the IPCC: https://cw50b.github.io/

  16. tony522014 permalink
    January 12, 2022 9:21 pm

    Dear Paul, I very much appreciate your efforts, and I hope you’ll forgive me for offering my own thoughts on the catastrophe the Climate Change people are causing by concentrating on CO2 and methane while ignoring what may be the real cause of the modest global warming which would actually continue at a slightly higher rate with renewables. Basically I have seen no mention anywhere of the huge amount of heat being pumped directly into the atmosphere by the burning of all the so-called fossil fuels. I’ve therefore tried to produce a provisional estimate of how much the world’s primary energy consumption from all sources may contribute to warming the atmosphere. This is purely the amount of heat released for direct heating (or cooling) of buildings and indirect heat release via industry and transport, etc. Basically, if energy is produced, then the heat eventually ends up in the atmosphere and/or the ocean. Where else do people think it goes? So to get some idea of the amount of direct atmospheric heating we’re all producing, I’ve tried to pull together figures on: 1.    Global primary energy consumption – i.e. everything that eventually ends up as heat. 2.    A very rough estimate of the total mass of the atmosphere (based on a statement that if you compressed the whole atmosphere to sea-level pressure it would occupy about 1.5km altitude). 3.    The energy needed to raise the temperature of a given mass of air by 1 deg Celsius at a starting temperature of 10C. The table I’ve put together (below) suggests that primary energy consumption would raise the temperature of the entire atmosphere by 0.574C per annum. But that of course is on the implied assumption that none of this heat is lost into space or into the ground, whereas obviously the atmosphere is radiating solar, volcanic and anthropogenic heat into space all the time. Even so, the primary energy consumption seems to be adding a significant amount of heat at ground level, which could well explain the “global warming” measurements to date. But despite Greta’s apocalyptic claims, any additional heat simply increases the rate of radiation. If you turn your central-heating thermostat from 20C to 21.5C, the house doesn’t melt. It just loses heat at a slightly faster rate. The irony is of course that all the “renewable” energy systems are far less efficient because of the need to transmit energy over long distances by electric power lines. So Net Zero (whatever that really means) will actually produce more atmospheric heating than occurs at present. But I don’t think it matters – even at the current relatively high rate it will only raise the temperature slightly, and that will be balanced by a slightly higher rate of heat loss from the atmosphere. I’d be interested to know your thoughts on this, particularly as I may well have got the figures completely mixed-up, given all the factors of 10 involved! Estimated atmospheric warming due to heat from global primary energy consumption Specific heat capacity of air              1.006 kJ/kgC    A Density of air at 10C          1.2466 kg/m^3     B Mass of air at 10C              1,246,600,000 kg/km^3   C = B x 10^9 To heat 1 cu km by 1C                        1,254,079,600 kJ   D = A x C Atmosphere volume              777,524,216 km^3   E To heat atmosphere by 1C                 9.75077E+20 kJ   F = E x D Global primary energy consumption p.a.       5.6E+20 kJ    G Atmospheric warming by primary energy consumption per annum:.                                        0.574 deg C   H = G/F What do you think? After all, the graph in your piece below effectively shows the increasing heat production rates as well. Yours, Tony Budd

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: