Putting to rest the CO2-caused global-warming scare

August 9, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

The following shows excerpts from two research efforts that explain why CO2 contents of the atmosphere are not worth worrying about.

theresilientearth.com

Why Carbon Sequestration Won’t Work
By Doug L. Hoffman, 2010 08 08

For those who believe in anthropogenic global warming, carbon dioxide is public enemy number one. They warn that CO2 must be avoided at all costs or Earth will heat up uncontrollably causing all sorts of ecological havoc. One proposal for avoiding global warming is the sequestration of CO2 by trapping it at combustion sites or extracting it directly from the air. Supposedly, such sequestration could help avoid a large rise in atmospheric CO2 from the use of fossil fuels, avoiding the hellish fate that surely awaits mankind otherwise. Referred to as carbon capture and storage (CCS), the coal industry has seized on sequestration as a way to get greens off their backs and stay in business. However, it is not clear how effective different types of sequestration and associated leakage are in the long term, or what their consequences might be. A recent paper takes a critical look at the sequestration option….

In the ocean storage option, CO2  is injected at depths between 2,500 and 3,500 m ( 8,000 to 11,500 ft), in the low–mid latitude reaches of the ocean. Total dissolution of the CO2 into the water column was assumed. Quite unsurprisingly, not all of the carbon injected stayed sequestered, and their were some rather draconian side effects as well.

The study found that deep-ocean carbon storage leads to extreme acidification and CO2 concentrations in the deep ocean, together with a return to the adverse conditions of a business-as-usual projection with no sequestration over several thousand years. In other words, it won’t work in the long run and it will mess up the oceans. Bad idea….

…unsurprisingly, the model simulations found that all three of the leaky geological storage scenarios didn’t eliminate global warming, they just postponed it….

Depending on the storage mechanism, side effects include damaged underground aquifers and expansion of ocean “dead zones.” Moreover, once started down the sequestration route, mankind would be committed to a continuous effort for a length of time longer than all of human history past. What a deal….(Full Story)

By co-incidence, climaterealists.com shows an article, “Mean Free Path of Photons through the Troposphere and Time of Crossing Path of Photons,” by Dr. Nasif S. Nahle, Scientific Research Director at Biology Cabinet, 2010 08 09.

That article states that,

The CO2 is diluted in the atmosphere in a concentration of 0.038%, and it has been proposed by the IPCC as a main driver of the climate on Earth. Contrary to what the IPCC proposes, the physics of the thermal energy transfer indicates smashingly that the CO2 is not capable of changing the temperature of the atmosphere in a significant way….

The cited study report states that,

The water vapor in the atmosphere, at an average density, allows the photons go into the troposphere towards the outer layer of the tropopause in 0.024 s. Compared the water vapor ability to avoid the escape of photons from the atmosphere with the capacity of the atmospheric CO2 to avoid the photons escape to the outer space (0.0042 s), we can assure with 100% of certainty that the CO2 is irrelevant on warming the atmosphere or the surface. (p. 12, second-last par.)….

If we consider also that the carbon dioxide has a total absorptivity and total emissivity by far lower than those of the water vapor, we can fairly conclude that the carbon dioxide is not a driver of the climate on the Earth. The whole climate is driven by the hydrological cycle, and the main retainers of the solar thermal energy are the oceans, the land, the subsurface materials and the water vapor….(p. 13, 4th par., Full Report)

There it is, carbon capture and sequestration is a wild goose chase, a cure for a non-existing problem, but a lot of people will be employed to earn revenues — and even far more will be forced to pay for all of that — so that a few parties hyping up that particular, unfounded climate-change scare can make hundreds of billions and trillions of dollars in profits.

For those who argue that the science on all of that is settled, no, it isn’t!  The only thing that is settled is that there is an enormous profit incentive, and that there will be an enormous amount of profit that can be made for as long as those who need to pay for it all are willing to have the wool pulled over their eyes.

Posted in Propaganda debunked, Alarmist Insanity, Climate Change, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | No Comments »