Theory throws hot water on CO2 global warming ‘con’
In 2017 I created the mosaic of M&Ms pictured above to represent the relationship between the atmosphere and CO2. After photographing it, I ate it.
Each of the M&Ms in the brown box represent 400ppm of the atmosphere. The enlarged M&M in the middle is the 400ppm of CO2 with the green (95 per cent) being natural CO2, while the red dot represents the remaining 5 per cent of CO2 released by humans. The magnified M&Ms across the bottom show 19 green (H2O) for every one red (CO2) M&M.
Continuing on from the visual…
The warming advocates say there is not much difference between H2O and CO2, so they can (and do) ignore H2O in their calculations. This is invalid for the following reasons:
- There is 75 times more H2O than CO2 in the atmosphere. Mining dump trucks compared to wheelbarrows.
- The fact that anthropogenic CO2 is only 5 per cent (1/20th) of the CO2 released into the atmosphere with the other 95 per cent from the oceans, volcanos, dying vegetation, and other natural sources. A shot glass of booze compared to a bottle.
- Water vapour is an estimated 30 per cent (1.3 times) more powerful greenhouse gas (GHG) than CO2. This is calculated by the amount of heat H2O can absorb compared to CO2 (this was described in detail in my 2006 book on anthropogenic global warming).
So, in the green corner we have Wimpy Anthropogenic CO2 (WACO2) weighing in at 1', while in the blue corner we have Buckets Galore (BG), weighing in at 1950' (75 x 20 x 1.3).
Yet governments are betting our future, our prosperity, that WACO2 is powerful enough to change our climate, while the BG impact is not worth worrying about.
So, why are they being so stupid? Can't they think? Apparently not. And the rest of us are no better for letting them do it. We are the top of the evolutionary chain, but seem to have the reasoning capacity of a sloth.
So why has the anthropogenic CO2 been singled out? It's because "the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere 'cannot' be directly controlled by human behaviour", but CO2 can be. And by limiting anthropogenic CO2 emissions, the plan is to save civilisation by destroying it and in the process send us back to the dark ages.
Or as H.L. Mencken said: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-front for the urge to rule it".
And as Anon put it for net zero emissions: "It is a looming disaster and the politicians (who I suspect don't even know what it really means) are steering us towards it with their eyes wide open - and their tongues as forked as a snake's".
To summarise where all this is taking us: "God help the future generations".
And finally, just to add a little salt to the wound so to speak: The atmosphere, depending on which way the wind blows, along with ocean currents, precipitation and some volcanoes has an impact on our weather, but very little on our climate. Climate, overall is driven from the goings on in the universe around us.
ED'S NOTE: Apologies to the author, but similar to another letter earlier this month, I insist on applying my own fact-checking logic to this debate. According to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in 2019 the global average atmospheric carbon was 409.8ppm (compared to the previous highest concentration of 300ppm in the past 800,000 years). In 1970 this figure was 326ppm. This is an increase of 83.8ppm in the past 50 years, which we can safely assume is almost entirely or at the very least mostly the result of anthropogenic causes. Without extrapolating further into the history of the industrial age, this is more than 20 per cent of the total CO2 in the atmosphere, and therefore the red centre of the green M&M depicting CO2 in Ibbo's insightful visual representation of the earth's atmosphere should be at least four times larger.