Tuesday, November 24, 2009

CO2 only works in the Northern Hemisphere

All the global warming hysteriacs claim that CO2 is the cause of global warming. I think I can disprove that. CO2 is spread evenly throughout the atmosphere. It blocks outgoing radiation everywhere equally because the physics is simple: X quantity of CO2 will increase the optical depth of the atmosphere by amount Y. Optical depth in simple terms is the opacity of the atmosphere to a given frequency. CO2 absorbs infrared, and so to certain infrared wavelengths, the atmosphere doesn't look clear and it has a hard time escaping. That is the theory.

Now look at the picture below.

You can go to the website, the NOAA website, and make this map. It is a trend map. It shows not the temperature but the rate the temperature is rising. A positive trend means the location is warming (reddish colors); a negative trend meand the location is cooling. Note that from 1971 to 2009, only the northern hemisphere is warming. Antarctica is cooling. Isn't that interesting. CO2 doesn't work in Antarctica!!!

The real answer is that CO2 isn't the cause of the warming or the cooling. It is hyper-illogical to think that CO2 causes warming in the northern hemisphere and cooling south of 60 deg S latitude, that is, in Antarctica.

Then there is another issue. Think of all the caterwalling that we have heard about how global warming is going to melt Antarctica, raise the sea levels and drown all those Bangladeshi's who are too stupid to move out of the way of the rising waters. Given that we know that Antarctica was below freezing in 1971, and we know from the trend map that it has been getting colder over the past 40 years or so, the global warming hyper-illogical hysteriac is asking us to believe that Antarctica is going to melt while it is getting colder by the year!

Only global warming makes people believe such nonsense.


  1. I made this comment on your December 6th blog as well. This 'anomaly' is the product of a reversing Global Dimming effect from the passage of the Clean Air Act and similar legislations in Europe and much of the industrialized nations. I'm going to try and explain it so it gets across. Since the turn of the century we've been pumping tons, millions of tons, of CO2 and soot into the atmosphere, CO2 happens to disperse well, and until recently, get dissolved in the ocean- but particulates don't. Since >50% of the industrial activity has been in the northern hemisphere and that soot tends to stays there, effectivly blocking solar radiation from reaching the surface. This is why it's 'getting colder' and pan evaporation has gone down. Since 1970, we've cut particulate emissions incredibly, as a result, the air is cleaner: they've stopped blocking the sun: it gets warmer. I haven't researched as much about the Antartic cooling trend but I assume its a product of same legislation. Black soot and particulates in the southern hemispheres are depositing with fresh snowpack, absorbing more sun and heated the surface. Since the 70s, with less soot, theres more snow, and the natural albedo effectly cools that region. Same thing is happening in the north snow deposits, except there's not enough area to reflect all this newfound incomming sun and counteract the warming.

  2. If you're interested in temperature anomaly maps like these, UCAR compiled an awesome animation from 1870 with IPCC projections to 2099 here:

  3. Speaking of different effects in different hemispheres, I am curious as to what you make of the temps at this site.

    To see what I'm talking about, go to lower left and select "Sea Surface" and "Draw Graph." Note that there are TWO temperature peaks, the highest being in March and the second being in September. That would make sense if temps are averaged over the whole earth, with the southern oceans (the bulk of the world's water) contributing most at the end of their 'summer' and the northern oceans influencing matters at the end of theirs.

    Now, select "near surface layer" (atmoshphere) and the two peaks not only dissappear, but the one that's left doesn't even 'split the difference', as it were, with it's only peak occuring in July. There should still be two peaks, one for southern and one for northern hemisphere's, I would think.

    It doesn't seem to add up, or am I missing something? Any ideas?

    Thanks in advance.

  4. I'd try e-mailing one of the authors for that site. Looks to me like the "Sea Surface" data is what you'd expect to see looking only at the ocean area and not the land, but the "near surface" data appears to be temperatures you'd expect from land-only, not averaging it with "near-ocean surface" data. Satellite data is great stuff but by the time they put it in utilities like this site so many people have made their assumptions on what it should represent it's hard to get good data.