By David Wojick, Ph.D. ~
Many of my disagreements with the IPCC AR6 science Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) are just that, disagreements. I think their reasoning is faulty but at least I understand it. See my last article — “The UN IPCC science panel opts for extreme nuttiness“.
One SPM section, however, is so wrong that it must be a deliberate deception. The purpose seems to be to make the atmospheric CO2 increase look like a simple accumulation of our emissions. I call this the pollution model of CO2 and it is extremely misleading. The truth is well known so this must be a deceptive act on the IPCC’s part.
Here is the opening summary paragraph. The first sentence is a ridiculous 51 tortured words long, the second (and last) sentence states the hoax very clearly.
“While natural land and ocean carbon sinks are projected to take up, in absolute terms, a progressively larger amount of CO2 under higher compared to lower CO2 emissions scenarios, they become less effective, that is, the proportion of emissions taken up by land and ocean decrease with increasing cumulative CO2 emissions. This is projected to result in a higher proportion of emitted CO2 remaining in the atmosphere (high confidence).“
There is even a fancy graphic, Figure 7, claiming to show how much the “cumulative CO2 emissions” will reduce the effectiveness of the natural sinks.
The idea here is that some fraction of our emissions is absorbed by land (the biosphere) and ocean. The remaining fraction stays in the atmosphere, creating our cumulative emissions, which is the (supposedly very bad) CO2 increase.
Given that the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 is less than our annual emissions, this simple story works well. So we find it is a common theme in ordinary discourse. But the scientists who oversaw the writing of the SPM are experts on this stuff and they know it is wildly false. Our CO2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere.
The reality they hide is something called the “CO2 flux”. This is the part of the carbon cycle that makes (carbon based) life on Earth possible. The CO2 flux is an enormous amount of CO2 that is both emitted and absorbed every year. Natural emissions are something like 20 times our emissions. So when it comes to CO2 emissions we are small stuff. Keep that in mind.
Moreover, the flux is so huge that roughly 25% of the atmospheric CO2 is exchanged every year. A quarter of the CO2 molecules are absorbed, replaced by newly emitted molecules. But this inconvenient fact is never mentioned by the IPCC.
The point is that given this huge flux our emissions do not stay in the atmosphere very long before they are absorbed. The standard estimate (well known to the IPCC) is that fully half of our emissions are gone in less than 3 years from their time of emission. Almost all are gone in less than 8 years.
Technical note: the exact math of the flux is very hairy. Some molecules are absorbed within seconds of being emitted. A molecule emitted out of and absorbed right back into the leaf of a tree for example. Same for a molecule from a house under a tree. Other emitted molecules may never be absorbed, or not for a million years or so. The exact numbers are a matter of research and debate, but the rough numbers are well established.
In short, while our CO2 emissions may (or may not) cause the observed increase, they for sure do not compose it. The CO2 increase is definitely not composed of our cumulative emissions, as the SPM falsely says it is, because our emissions are absorbed in just a few years thanks to the flux.
What are we to make of this glaring error? Which is only glaring to experts. Given that the SPM scientists are in fact experts, this colossal error must be deliberate. After all, it perpetuates the simple minded pollution model which then facilitates the alarmist political agenda.
Note that this glaring falsehood is given “high confidence“. What a joke! They probably have high confidence that it will fool the policy makers, as well as the press and public.
In plain language this is a hoax. There is no scientific issue here, no disagreement or argument. They are saying something important that they know perfectly well to be false. They are lying to the policy makers, deliberately perpetuating the myth that the CO2 increase is just our cumulative emissions building up over time. It is nothing of the sort and they know it.
David Wojick contributes Posts at the CFACT site. He is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy.
Read more excellent articles at CFACT http://www.cfact.org/




willingwheeling
Sun 08/22/2021
Reblogged this on Willing Wheeling.
LikeLiked by 1 person
PA Pundits - International
Sun 08/22/2021
Hoax is another name for LIES!
Remember that FACT. It’ll save your life.
LikeLike
Nick Anaxagoras
Sun 08/22/2021
The ubiquitous K-T atmospheric heat budget diagram shows 63 W/m^2 LWIR upwelling from the surface
Click to access TFK_bams09.pdf
This value appears TWICE!
Once sourced from the 161 net, net solar energy that arrives at the surface from the sun, the remainder after subtracting sensible and latent flows. Since it is not shown it must have slipped behind the sofa.
Second as part of the theoretical, “What if?” calculation for a BB at the surface temperature of 16 C used to calculate emissivity, i.e. 63/396=0.16.
When the music stops the solar 63 has chair in which to sit.
The theoretical, “What if?” calculated 63 does not.
The greenhouse effect is a fifth-grade math error.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ilma630
Sun 08/22/2021
And yet not just politicians call for this hoax, but the churches also. Jesus said “I tell you the truth” many times, so the church too needs to speak the truth, and the CO2 hoax isn’t it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
pochas94
Sun 08/22/2021
These guys take great comfort in knowing they are “doing the right thing,” and so little white lies are, regretfully, necessary. Lying is a privilege vested in the politically powerful.
LikeLiked by 1 person
oldbrew
Sun 08/22/2021
Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
Alarmist CO2 hokum on the rise.
LikeLiked by 1 person
HiFast
Sun 08/22/2021
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
LikeLiked by 1 person