Scientific Papers Indicate Natural Processes Dominate Changes In Ozone Hole, Methane And CO2 Emissions

What If Human Emissions

Aren’t All That Influential?

We have been led to believe that we can control the size of the ozone hole and both methane and CO2 concentrations with our emissions.

We have also been led to believe we control weather patterns (storminess, droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes); we control tropospheric, atmospheric, surface, and deep ocean temperatures; we control glacier retreat and advance; we control relative sea level; we control whether or not over million species go extinct by 2050 . . . all by emitting more or less gaseous substances in our pursuit of energy and comfort.

What if we are overestimating our impact on the planet?  What if our gaseous emissions don’t really have anywhere near the impact we think they do?

What if we are too arrogant to even consider the possibility that the Earth cannot be “saved” by building more wind turbines and solar panels and recycling more plastic?

“We’re so self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. ‘Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.’ And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. Save the planet – we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet.”
“The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages … And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are!”  — George Carlin

NASA: Montreal Protocol Not Responsible For Ozone Changes – Natural Meteorology Is


NASA Reveals New Results From Inside the Ozone Hole

“NASA scientists have revealed the inner workings of the ozone hole that forms annually over Antarctica and found that declining chlorine in the stratosphere [from reduced human emissions] has not yet caused a recovery of the ozone hole. …. [T]wo new studies show that signs of recovery are not yet present, and that temperature and winds are still driving any annual changes in ozone hole size. … The classic metrics create the impression that the ozone hole has improved as a result of the Montreal protocol. In reality, meteorology was responsible for the increased ozone and resulting smaller hole, as ozone-depleting substances that year were still elevated. The study has been submitted to the journal of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

“‘Ozone holes with smaller areas and a larger total amount of ozone are not necessarily evidence of recovery attributable to the expected chlorine decline,’ said Susan Strahan of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.”


Most Of The Measured Change In Ozone Is Natural, Not Anthropogenic


Hess et al., 2015

[A] large portion of the measured change [in ozone] is not due to changes in [anthropogenic] emissions, but can be traced to changes in large-scale modes of ozone variability. This emphasizes the difficulty in the attribution of ozone changes, and the importance of natural variability in understanding the trends and variability of ozone.

Introduction: “Lin et al. (2014) attribute decadal changes in the interannual Mauna Loa ozone record to shifts in circulation patterns. However, at other locations, ozone exhibits considerable interannual variability on decadal timescales that has not been adequately explained (e.g., Koumoutsaris et al., 2008). In many cases, this ozone variability is not easily ascribed to changes in emissions. For example, changes in emissions do not explain the baseline ozone trends at Mace Head, Ireland (e.g., Hess and Zbinden, 2013; Fiore et al., 2009), measured as strongly positive during the most of the 1990s but since leveling off (Carslaw, 2005; Derwent et al., 2007, 2013; Simmonds et al., 2004). In an analysis of ozone trends over Europe, Wilson et al. (2012) conclude that the impact of European precursor emission reductions was masked by other sources of unknown ozone variability. Analyses by Logan et al. (2012) and Cui et al. (2011) show that the measured ozone increases at Alpine sites over Europe during the 1990s followed by decreases after 2000 are not easily explained by changes in emissions or changes in lower stratospheric ozone. Pozzoli et al. (2011) conclude that changes in meteorology and natural emissions account for 75 % of ozone variability from 1980 to 2005, largely masking changes in anthropogenic emissions. On decadal timescales, ozone trends can depend sensitively on the exact time period examined (Cui et al., 2011).”


Ozone Hole Grew To (2015) Record Size Due To Natural Forcing


Ivy et al., 2017

Recent research has demonstrated that the concentrations of anthropogenic halocarbons have decreased in response to the worldwide phaseout of ozone depleting substances. Yet, in 2015 the Antarctic ozone hole reached a historical record daily average size in October. Model simulations with specified dynamics and temperatures based on a reanalysis suggested that the record size was likely due to the eruption of Calbuco, but did not allow for fully-coupled dynamical or thermal feedbacks. We present simulations of the impact of the 2015 Calbuco eruption on the stratosphere using the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model with interactive dynamics and temperatures. Comparisons of the interactive and specified dynamics simulations indicate that chemical ozone depletion due to volcanic aerosols played a key role in establishing the record-sized ozone hole of October 2015. The analysis of an ensemble of interactive simulations with and without volcanic aerosols suggests that the forced response to the eruption of Calbuco was an increase in the size of the ozone hole by 4.5 million km2.”


Due To Measurement Uncertainties, ‘Methane Emissions Might Not Have Increased Dramatically…After All’


Turner et al., 2017

“We conclude that the current surface observing system does not allow unambiguous attribution of the decadal trends in methane without robust constraints on OH variability, which currently rely purely on methyl chloroform data and its uncertain emissions estimates.”

[press release]

“[M]ethane emissions might not have increased dramatically in 2007 after all. Instead, the most likely explanation has less to do with methane emissions and more to do with changes in the availability of the hydroxyl (OH) radical, which breaks down methane in the atmosphere. As such, the amount of hydroxyl in the atmosphere governs the amount of methane. If global levels of hydroxyl decrease, global methane concentrations will increase — even if methane emissions remain constant, the researchers say. … When atmospheric concentrations of methane increase, it may not be correct to chalk it up solely to an increase in methane emissions


Recent Methane Rise ‘Biogenic’ – Fossil Fuel Emissions Not A Driving Factor


Nisbet et al., 2016

“The isotopic evidence presented here suggests that the methane rise [2007-2014] was dominated by significant increases in biogenic methane emissions, particularly in the tropics, for example, from expansion of tropical wetlands in years with strongly positive rainfall anomalies or emissions from increased agricultural sources such as ruminants and rice paddies. Changes in the removal rate of methane by the OH radical have not been seen in other tracers of atmospheric chemistry and do not appear to explain short-term variations in methane. Fossil fuel emissions may also have grown, but the sustained shift to more 13C-depleted values and its significant interannual variability, and the tropical and Southern Hemisphere loci of post-2007 growth, both indicate that fossil fuel emissions have not been the dominant factor driving the increase. A major cause of increased tropical wetland and tropical agricultural methane emissions, the likely major contributors to growth, may be their responses to meteorological change.”


IPCC Estimates Of Methane Emissions Overestimated, Not Distinguishable From Natural Background


Ruppel and Kessler, 2017

“On the contemporary Earth, gas hydrate is dissociating in specific terrains in response to post-LGM [last glacial maximum] climate change and probably also due to warming since the onset of the Industrial Age. Nevertheless, there is no conclusive proof that the released methane is entering the atmosphere at a level that is detectable against the background of ~555 Tg yr−1 CH4 emissions. The IPCC estimates are not based on direct measurements of methane fluxes from dissociating gas hydrates, and many numerical models adopt simplifications that do not fully account for sinks, the actual distribution of gas hydrates, or other factors, resulting in probable overestimation of emissions to the ocean-atmosphere system.”


The Domination Of Natural CO2 Emissions


Carey et al., 2017

“While scientists and policy experts debate the impacts of global warming, Earth’s soil is releasing roughly nine times more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than all human activities combined.”


Reich et al., 2016

Plant respiration results in an annual flux of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere that is six times as large as that due to the emissions from fossil fuel burning, so changes in either will impact future climate.”


Zimmerman et al., 1982

The estimated gross amount of CO2 produced [by termites] is more than twice the net global input from fossil fuel combustion.  As we noted above, termites process the  equivalent of about 28 percent of the earth’s NPP [net primary productivity, or plant energy].”


Harde, 2017

The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%, [and] its fraction to the COincrease over the Industrial Era is 15%


Munshi, 2015

“[R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

39 responses to “Scientific Papers Indicate Natural Processes Dominate Changes In Ozone Hole, Methane And CO2 Emissions”

  1. SebastianH

    Can’t comment on ozone or methane right now, but I’ll comment on those last CO2 papers since we are currently having a related discussion in a thread in another post:

    1) Munshi, 2015:

    A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

    No it’s not a necessary condition. Natural variability didn’t just vanish with the advent of the human race.

    It was found that the observed correlation between these variables derives solely from a common direction in their long term trends

    And that’s what it is all about.

    2) Harde, 2017:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/02/something-harde-to-believe/

    3) Zimmerman et al., 1982:
    This one says it is 4 GtCO2 or 1.1 GtC: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JD095iD04p03619/full
    This one basically says the same:
    http://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/bgc-systems/pmwiki2/uploads/Site/sanderson_1997.pdf

    Which one is correct?

    4) Reich et al., 2016:
    “changes in either will impact future climate” … oh yes, they will. But the difference between emissions and absorption didn’t change by much in the last decades, see: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/compress:12/derivative/detrend:1.5 … very small fluctuations compared to what humans emit. And: if natural emissions would drop by 10 GtC tomorrow and absorption would continue as it did before, the CO2 concentration increase would stop and atmospheric CO2 content would start to decline. But it would still drop way faster if humans wouldn’t also emit roughly 10 GtC (or double that in 30-40 years if past increases in emissions continue on).

    5) Carey et al., 2017:
    You left out the key sentence in the summary: “As the global climate warms, will soil respiration rates increase, adding even more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and accelerating climate change?”

    That could be indeed a very big problem, because even if we could reduce our emissions to a minimal amount, if this happens we can’t do anything. That’s basically a Science News story warning from catastrophic climate change.

  2. David Johnson

    Dear God Seb. get real. “As the global climate warms, will soil respiration rates increase, adding even more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and accelerating climate change?” So they haven’t a clue, but come up with a scary sentence just to keep the pot boiling.

    1. SebastianH

      Tell Kenneth to “get real”. He is the author of the post and brought up that “news story”.

  3. Stephen Wilde

    Solar activity appears to be the main influence on both the ozone hole AND climate variability as per the mechanism described here:

    http://www.newclimatemodel.com/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/

  4. Scientific Papers Indicate Natural Processes Dominate Changes In Ozone Hole, Methane And CO2 Emissions | Principia Scientific International

    […] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]

  5. Juergen Uhlemann

    Humlum et al., 2012

    The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658?v=s5

    One of the graphics:
    Global changes in atmospheric CO2 levels lag global temperature
    http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0177447d843a970d-pi

    If you use http://www.woodfortrees.org, then you can create the graphic yourself
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:24/mean:12/from:1958/to:2016/plot/hadcrut4gl/isolate:24/mean:12/from:1958/to:2016

    I’ve seen this relation many years back, but lost the link. Thanks to Sebastian Lüning (Die kalte Sonne), who had send me a link in relation to Humlum et al., 2012.
    It is amazing that a closer look and a different point of view turns the whole argument by 180 degree. The ice core data show the same CO2 lag in the past and the AGW believer turned it around to proof that man is causing it.

    1. SebastianH

      Juergen Uhlemann,

      apparently you do not realize what this graph (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:24/mean:12/from:1958/to:2016/plot/hadcrut4gl/isolate:24/mean:12/from:1958/to:2016) shows. By using the “isolate” feature you are removing any trend (by removing the running mean over 24 months) just leaving the noise (or variations). So you compare variations to variations.

      This gives you a graph that shows the usual lag of CO2 concentration changes behind temperature changes, but it doesn’t show you if the overall increase in concentration correlates to or lags temperatures in any way. That’s an important difference.

      However, you can get the CO2 concentration trend and temperature trend on that graphing site, too 😉

      Here you go:
      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/mean:12/offset:-318/scale:0.01/plot/gistemp/from:1958/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1958/offset:0.14/mean:12/plot/rss/offset:0.30/mean:12/plot/uah6/offset:0.43/mean:12

      (the offsets for the temperature datasets were taken from the “getting the baselines right” explanation: http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes#baselines)

  6. Juergen Uhlemann

    Guess what SebastianH, this comparing variations to variations was exactly what I had in mind.
    This “usual lag of CO2 concentration changes behind temperature changes” is exactly the point. This shows the action and reaction relationship and it means that the man made climate change argument can’t be right.
    This means that the comparison I show can help to start to develop the physical law or at least some of it. To many factors are involved to understand earths climate.
    It is clear that the CO2 can’t have any (or very very little) impact on the temperature. At the time the temperature reaches a maximum and the CO2 is still increasing, the temperature drops. This show that the CO2 is NOT the cause.

    Maybe I can show you in a simple example what I mean.
    You leave an open barrel outside and you find after 1 year that the barrel has a certain amount of water in it. Can you tell me when or how often it rained?
    By your graph it is impossible. You just know that it increased.
    If you check every day at least once the water level, you would know how much it rained since you checked last. This is science or in other words meteorology.

    I’m just saying: Details is the key. Just consider “Richard Feynman on Scientific Method (1964)” https://youtu.be/0KmimDq4cSU
    Btw.: Do you know the difference between Newton’s and Einstein’s law of gravity, which are quite similar. Einstein’s law of gravity explains why Mercury moves the way it does. Again, details!

    Btw.: The renewable energy guys work with the same “one year” argument and that it gets every year better and better. If you know the problems that Germany experienced on the 24th of January this year, then you might understand that the yearly installation increase is the wrong point of view. Wrong action/reaction relationship. The sun and the wind are the drivers and not the solar farms and the wind farm.

    One more thing. “Average” is just an amazing argument and does not tell you anything at all. I’ve seen in the past comments that the average of CO2 is correct, as the CO2 is distributed quite well.
    The GEOS-5 / GMAO / NASA data displayed at https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/equirectangular shows a different picture. The difference between the max and min value of the CO2 can be as much as 40 ppmv, which is more that 10 times the yearly. increase. I wonder how high the measurement failure rate at Mauna Loa is.

    1. SebastianH

      This shows the action and reaction relationship and it means that the man made climate change argument can’t be right.

      You are making the same mistake, Kenneth makes.

      At the time the temperature reaches a maximum and the CO2 is still increasing, the temperature drops. This show that the CO2 is NOT the cause.

      No, the temperature change reaches a maximum and the CO2 change lags behind that. Huge difference.

      A small (+-1 ppm) change of the yearly CO2 increase from one year to the other caused by natural fluctuations doesn’t make 4.5+ ppm / year of human emissions just go away. Here is a graph for you: http://imgur.com/a/ZFoN8

      The blue line is the yearly CO2 increase in the atmosphere. It “wiggles” a bit because of those natural changes and you can probably see how little those variations contribute to the overall yearly CO2 increase. Above is the red line … human emissions. That’s where the increase mainly comes from, because without those emissions the yearly CO2 increase would look like the yellow line.

      You leave an open barrel outside and you find after 1 year that the barrel has a certain amount of water in it. Can you tell me when or how often it rained? By your graph it is impossible. You just know that it increased. If you check every day at least once the water level, you would know how much it rained since you checked last.

      Ok, let’s check that barrel every hour. You’ll see exactly when it rained and how much was added. Maybe you sometimes use the water for your garden and you’ll see that drop too. But what you are forgetting is, that there is a garden hose connected to that barrel that constantly outputs orders of magnitude more water than what you get from the rain.

      Got it? Those small variations from rain and garden usage (ups and downs) pale next to the garden hose output. The water level in your barrel mainly increases because of the garden hose, not those small variations.

      I wonder how high the measurement failure rate at Mauna Loa is.

      As long as the conditions don’t change at that place, why does it matter that CO2 is not well mixed and concentration changes with seasons? It’s not the only CO2 measurement station on this planet, but the one with the longest record apparently.

      1. Juergen Uhlemann

        Thanks for the link to the human emissions that is added to the atmosphere. Quite interesting what you presented. Just one question, where is this data coming from? According to the “PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency + European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability” report, the amount in 2014 was 35.7 billion tonnes CO2.
        https://tinyurl.com/gtxweao

        We both agree that the CO2 measured on Mauna Loa increased since 1959.

        There is an old NOAA document from October 1974 that has this text:
        “Annual average temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere increased rather dramatically from about 1890 through 1940, but have been falling ever since. The total change has averaged about one-half degree Centigrade, with the greatest cooling in higher latitudes.”
        https://tinyurl.com/hvchrc3
        Unfortunately, there are only CO2 measurements since 1959, but if I consider 1959 to 1073 then according to Mauna Loa this totals to 14.21 ppm. This is about 6.5 times the increase of 2014 alone. CO2 increase and cooling.

        If you know it or not, this was the time when scientists believed that a new little ice age is coming. Still in 1978, the well known late Dr. Steven Schneider believed it. You know, the man “literally” behind Al Gore (Video @1:56). https://youtu.be/1b2_g4ww6es
        This means that from 1940 to at least 1978 it cooled so much that scientists talked about a little ice age. You know that this time frame counts as climate data, as it is at least 30 years long.

        The following 20 years the temperature increased, which is not a time frame to count as climate data. Then came the pause, which even the IPCC admitted.
        2016 was now with 14.8 degree Celsius the warmest year ever, which is 0.2 degree Celsius below the 15 degree Celsius (the globe’s normal 20th century mean temperature).

        1. SebastianH

          Hmm, did you understand what I was writing? Because I see no mention of the problem in your reply.

          To your more or less unrelated points:

          Just one question, where is this data coming from?

          CO2 concentration data comes from woodfortrees, human CO2 emissions comes from Kenneth Richards (in another comment thread on this blog), but I confirmed them doing a quick Google search. The unit is GtC not GtCO2 … the factor to convert between those two is 3.67, i think. So 35.7 GtCO2 equals 9.7 GtC.

          if I consider 1959 to 1973 then according to Mauna Loa this totals to 14.21 ppm. This is about 6.5 times the increase of 2014 alone. CO2 increase and cooling.

          Why do you see this as contradiction? It cools in the night, despite CO2 content in the atmosphere increasing. The small difference from ~315 ppm to ~329 ppm doesn’t cause much change in CO2 forcing, but it’s there. Without it, it would have cooled even more. CO2 induced temperature increase is “on top” on all natural variations of temperature (like day/night, like the seasons or like changes in TSI, etc).

          If you know it or not, this was the time when scientists believed that a new little ice age is coming

          I know that. It was also a time where scientists believed a lot of other things. Errors were corrected and knowledge was gathered and grew exponentially since then, as did everything else. We have a much better understanding of the world as in the 60s and 70s 😉 Do you disagree?

          The following 20 years the temperature increased, which is not a time frame to count as climate data.

          Then go even longer: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1958/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1958/offset:0.14/mean:12/plot/rss/offset:0.30/mean:12/plot/uah6/offset:0.43/mean:12

          Do you see a hiatus?

          Or lets take ocean heat content: https://www.nature.com/article-assets/npg/nclimate/journal/v6/n4/images_article/nclimate2915-f4.jpg

          Any hiatus? Except indeed the cooling the 60s and directly after El Ninos in 1983 and 1998/99.

          2016 was now with 14.8 degree Celsius the warmest year ever, which is 0.2 degree Celsius below the 15 degree Celsius (the globe’s normal 20th century mean temperature).

          What is that supposed to mean?

          http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1958/compress:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1958/offset:0.14/compress:12/plot/rss/offset:0.30/compress:12/plot/uah6/offset:0.43/compress:12

          Do you see any sign that the 20th century was 0.2 degrees warmer than 2016?

          1. Juergen Uhlemann

            SebastianH, you really amuse me. 😀

            “It cools in the night, despite CO2 content in the atmosphere increasing.”
            That is given, but this is local. At the same time there is daylight at other locations on this globe and “mean” temperature is day and night combined. I know that the Irish Met office is measuring every hour at 25 locations and this is thrown into the mix.

            The title of your graph says “CO2 in the atmosphere vs. human emissions” and it reads in the graph “Atmospheric carbon content added” then you one is wrong. “The equivalent carbon content concept is used on ferrous materials, typically steel and cast iron, to determine various properties of the alloy when more than just carbon is used as an alloyant, which is typical.”

            Your question “Do you see a hiatus?” – The hiatus discussion is in IPCC Working Group I 2013 Report. The word hiatus is used 53 times. http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf
            “Nevertheless, the occurrence of the hiatus in GMST trend during the past 15 years raises the two related questions of what has caused it and whether climate models are able to reproduce it.” means nothing else as that the understanding is not better than in the 60sand 70s. The believe has changed.
            On the other hand, the NOAA document talks about real measurement “… falling ever since. The total change has averaged about one-half degree Centigrade” and this should be still in the data set today. If not, than someone has changed the original data set.

            The discussion about the start and end of an increase within a temperature graph starting at the end of a little ice age is not really helpful. The only thing that one can see is that the CO2 value has increased constantly since 1959 but the temperature has not like in the hiatus. This just proves that the “climate models” can not reproduce it and this means that the understanding has still a big hole.

            I guess you did not see NASA’s press release or you would not ask what it means. “NASA, NOAA Data Show 2016 Warmest Year on Record Globally” https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally

            The reference “0.2 degree Celsius below the 15 degree Celsius” is in relation to http://notrickszone.com/2017/06/17/what-a-mess-spiegel-reveals-scientists-dont-know-real-temperature-of-the-planet/#sthash.p1iVf10V.dpbs

            Just one more thing:
            “Let’s recall that the planetary average is today 15 °C, but if we calculate the average over the last million years, we will get something closer to 11 or 12 °C, because Earth has mainly experienced ice ages over that time. Source: Zachos et al., Science, 2001”
            Maybe I should use more the termonology of the NASA in 2010 “This absorption and radiation of heat by the atmosphere—the natural greenhouse effect—is beneficial for life on Earth. If there were no greenhouse effect, the Earth’s average surface temperature would be a very chilly -18°C (0°F) instead of the comfortable 15°C (59°F) that it is today.”
            https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php
            If 15°C is comfortable, what is then 14.8°C? I would say 0.2°C below the comfortable 15°C
            This means that we have not reached the comfortable 15°C and comfortable is basically not considered too warm.

      2. Eduardo Ferreyra

        SebastianH – You said:
        “No, the temperature change reaches a maximum and the CO2 change lags behind that. Huge difference.

        That’s precisely what Eric Monin et al., found back in 2001. “CO2 increase lags 600-800 years temperature increase. It was the conclusion of their study published in Science. So it is, as you said: “…CO2 change lags [temperature maximum]. Where is the difference between what Kenneth Richards says -and all of us sceptics too?

  7. Maggieopige

    Energy Secretary Rick Perry said Monday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming, a statement at odds with mainstream scientific consensus but in line with the head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

    Asked on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” whether carbon emissions are primarily responsible for climate change, Perry said no, adding that “most likely the primary control knob is the ocean waters and this environment that we live in.”

    Perry’s view is contrary to mainstream climate science, including analyses by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The EPA under President Donald Trump recently removed a web page that declared “carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas that is contributing to recent climate change.”

    Taking down the web page came after EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, appearing on “Squawk Box” in March, said “there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact” of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases on the planet.

    “So, no, I would not agree that (carbon dioxide) is a primary contributor to the global warming that we see,” Pruitt said.

    The Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, organized by the United Nations, calls carbon dioxide the biggest heat trapping force, responsible for about 33 times more added warming than natural causes.

    The panel’s calculations mean carbon dioxide alone accounts for between 1 and 3 degrees warming, said MIT atmospheric scientist Kerry Emanuel.

    Perry, like Pruitt, rejected the scientific consensus on climate change.

    “This idea that science is just absolutely settled and if you don’t believe it’s settled then you’re somehow another Neanderthal, that is so inappropriate from my perspective,” he said.

    Being a skeptic about climate change issues is “quite all right,” Perry added, saying skepticism is a sign of being a “wise, intellectually engaged person.”

    Recently, The Associated Press sent Pruitt’s comments to numerous scientists who study climate. All seven climate scientists who responded said Pruitt was wrong and that carbon dioxide is the primary driver of global warming.

    Perry, in his TV appearance Monday, said there should not be a debate about whether the climate is changing or if humans have an effect on the climate. Instead, he said the debate should be on “what are the policy changes that we need to make to affect that?”

    Shaye Wolf, climate science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said Perry “has the science exactly backward.”

    Far from being a key cause of climate change, “the world’s oceans are actually another victim of greenhouse pollution,” Wolf said. “Our oceans absorb millions of tons of carbon dioxide a day, making them dangerously acidic.”

    Warming oceans also put “tremendous stress on marine life,” Wolf said.

    ([url=http://www.zx-printing.com/]Booklet printing[/url], [url=http://www.zxprinter.com]printing in China[/url]).

    NASA and NOAA reported in January that earth’s 2016 temperatures were the warmest ever. The planet’s average surface temperature has risen about 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the late 19th century, “a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere,” the agencies said in a joint statement.

    Earlier this month, Trump announced he will withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord. The agreement signed by 195 nations in 2015 aims to decrease global carbon emissions in an effort to head off the worst predicted effects of global warming, including worsening storms, catastrophic droughts and city-drowning sea level rise.

    The Trump administration has also moved to roll back or delay numerous rules approved by the Obama administration to cut pollution from mining operations, oil and gas wells and coal-fired power plants.

  8. Studi scientifici indicano che i processi naturali sono dominanti sui cambiamenti del buco dell'ozono, del metano e sulle emissioni di CO2 : Attività Solare ( Solar Activity )

    […] Fonte: notrickszone […]