"What Causes Climate Change" Part-I, The trivialities of the human-caused greenhouse effect. By Terigi Ciccone, Dr. John Doner | November 12th, 2020 | Reads the NASA headline,i followed by this lead paragraph: "Scientists attribute the global warming trend observed since the mid-20th century to the human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"— warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space. The authors addressed this question in many articles, posts, and discussions concerning the many Natural Cycles as the dominant force for climate change. But NASA wants to make us think that CO2, and more specifically Human-made CO2, is the dominant force that we need to focus on and control if we are to save the planet. In this segment, we get some help from famed atmospheric physicist Fred Singer and see what he has to say. According to Dr. Singer, CO2 does not dominate the radiative forcing of climate change. It is Water Vapor that rules the Greenhouse Effect. For this exploratory journey, we will use an article by Fred Singer, which was initially published as a Letter to the Editors of the Wall Street Journal, ii titled "Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System." We will focus on answering the following critical questions: • • •
What are the greenhouses gases? How much does each greenhouse gas contributes to the overall greenhouse effect? Lastly, determine what the human contribution to the greenhouse effect is?
We will use this article to quantify, compare, and contextualize the exact role CO2 and methane plays in the greenhouse effect and compare it to all greenhouse gases and water vapor. We will determine how much of these greenhouse gases are human-made and compare that with nature made portion. In a subsequent Part -II, we will see if or how this human-caused greenhouse effect may or may not correspond to a change in radiative forcing. Table 1 uses values from October 2000, when the CO2 atmospheric concentration was about 368 PPM. The latest measurements indicate that CO2 has reached nearly 420 PPM, but the comparative base remains equally valid today. It's hard for the average person to reconcile these PPM values. So, let's use a slightly different scale that more familiar in our daily lives. Let us put 1,000 dots on a piece of paper to represent the major gases in the atmosphere. 780 of those dots are for nitrogen, 210 for oxygen, 9.3 dots for argon; we already have used up 999.3. That leaves only a trivial 0.04 of a dot for CO2 and 0.03 for all the remaining gasses. 1
The first important point is that, since the start of the industrial age, humans have increased the atmospheric CO2 by only 3.225%iii (11.88/368.4). Meanwhile, natural sources like vegetative decay, the oceans, animal respiration, etc., added almost six times more than the humans did. The natural sources include vegetative decomposition, animal respiration, the seas, and tectonic/volcanic activities. Note also that the above small increase in CO2 is still 120 times greater than the methane rise. But science tells us, not all greenhouse gases are the same; some are much more potent greenhouse gas than others. And we now make that adjustment in table 2. Table 2. Here, in the second column, we see the relative strength multipliers compared to CO2. For example, methane is 21 times more potent than CO2, and NO2 is an incredible 310 times more potent. When adjusted for their potency, CO2 reduces from 99.438% of the greenhouse effect to the smaller 72.369% (368.400/509.056 = 0.72369). If humanmade CO2 accounts for 3.225% (11.880/368.400 = 0.0225) of total CO2, the adjusted human-made CO2 becomes a mere 2.33% (11.880/509.056 = 0.0233) of the global warming CO2 cause.
2
But wait, what about water vapor that was to have been the dominant factor? Where is it, and what does it do? Glad you asked, and here it is in Table 3. In Table 3, we see that 95% of the entire greenhouse effect is dominated by water vapor. We see the proportional adjustment in the last column. There we see CO2 in second place at 3.618% of the total greenhouse effect (72.369% x 0.05% = 3.618). Similarly, methane becomes 0.360% and N2O at 0.950%, and all the other gases at 0.072%. But again, go back and focus on the big picture water vapor controls 95% of the total greenhouse effect.
We put it all together. We see and display the percent values of the human-made portion from nature made part in the adjacent figure, all adjusted to account for water
3
vapor. The human contribution to water vapor production is about zero, but we assigned a value of 0.001%. Following the same method, we see the human contribution for CO2 at 3.225%, methane is 18.338%, and N2O at 4.933%. In table 4, we now calculate the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution to greenhouse gases (3.618%) and the percentage of human-made sources (3.225%). We find that only 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due CO2 from human activity (0.03618 X 0.03225= 0.00117=0.117%).
Based on concentrations (ppb) % of All adjusted for heat retention Greenhouse % Natural characteristics Gases
% Man-made
Water vapor
95.000%
94.999%
0.001%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
3.618%
3.502%
0.117%
Methane (CH4)
0.360%
0.294%
0.066%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
0.950%
0.903%
0.047%
Misc. gases (CFCs, etc.)
0.072%
0.025%
0.047%
Total
100.00%
99.72
0.28%
Following the same procedure, we calculate the human-caused greenhouse effect contribution for each remaining constituents and come to a startling revelation. The total human contribution to the greenhouse effect from CO2, Methane, and all the other sources totals an insignificant 0.28% of the entire Earth's greenhouse effect. Special note. Now that we have calculated all of the above values for all greenhouse effect gasses, how does that translate into atmospheric heating? Dr. Singer drops an attention-getting hint at the top of page 2. There he states: "Caveat: This analysis is intended to provide a simplified comparison of the various man-made and natural greenhouse gases on an equal basis with each other. It does not consider all of the complicated interactions between the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial systems, a feat which can only be accomplished by better computer models than are currently in use". Translation - Dr. Singer tells us, the average American, that scientists do not seem to know how this greenhouse effect translates to a change in global temperatures and climate change. The physics, thermodynamics, and fluid mechanics are too complicated, so the UN/IPCC and NASA climate models' output is not data or evidence of climate change. These outputs are only the modelers' personal opinions. In the subsequent PartII, we will explore at least how these Greenhouse gas contributions may translate to radiative forcing. 4
Portions of this article are excerpted from the 2020 book A HITCHHIKERS JOURNEY THROUGH CLIMATE CHANGE by Terigi Ciccone and Dr. Jay Lehr. The book is the best source for parents and grandparents to explain climate change reality to their children.
Terigi Ciccone Engineer, Science Enthusiast, and Artist. Loves reading and travel, Naturalist, Author of the new book "A Hitchhiker's Journey Through Climate Change."
Dr. John Doner Ph.D. Mathematics, Chief Industrial Scientist at two major corporations. Current interests Climatology, Electronic design, 3D printing
https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ Headline November 11, 2020. https://climatecite.com/water-vapor-rules-the-greenhouse-system/ by Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former director of the US Weather. iii IPCC AR4 places the human CO2 production at 3.6%. i
ii
5