Monday, December 6, 2021
Home Middle Column Skeptical UN IPCC Scientist Mocks: 'CO2 control is failing so the 'soot'...

Skeptical UN IPCC Scientist Mocks: ‘CO2 control is failing so the ‘soot’ fall-back position is being adopted by those who like to pretend people effect global climate — we don’t’

-

UN IPCC scientist Richard Courtney responds to global warming activists lament on the “fixation on carbon dioxide.” [See: Climate Activists Shock Admission: ‘Climate change campaigners should not have fixated on carbon dioxide’ — ‘only responsible for about half of the problem’ – September 18, 2009 – ‘If climate negotiations 20 years ago concentrated on low-hanging fruits, the fight against global warming would have been more successful’]

Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK based atmospheric science consultant, is featured on page 224 of the 2009 U.S. Senate Report of More Than 700 Dissenting Scientists Over Man-Made Global Warming.

Courtney’s September 21, 2009 comments reproduced below from UK Telegraph.

I was amused by this article from [UK Telegraph’s] Geoffrey Lean. It seems to be a desperate attempt at a fall-back position because it is now obvious there will be inevitable failure of the coming CoP15 at Copenhagen.

This statement in the article gave me an especial laugh:

“Take black carbon, which gives soot its colour. It is now accepted to be the second biggest contributor to climate change, responsible for between 10 and 25 per cent of it. Formed through incomplete combustion of wood, vegetation and fossil fuels, it lands a unique double whammy.”

Lean says controlling “black carbon” emissions is “low hanging fruit”. But the IPCC ignored all my several peer review comments which called for correct inclusion of soot/aerosol (i.e. those I copy below and several others).

My peer review comments for IPCC AR4 which called for correct inclusion of soot/aerosol including the following three that together demonstrate the IPCC has deliberately played down “black carbon” effects in its attempts to overstate carbon dioxide effects.

It seems CO2 control is failing so the ‘soot’ fall-back position is being adopted by those who like to pretend people effect global climate: we don’t.

Richard

Below are Courtney’s key comments submitted to the UN IPCC in his role as an IPCC expert reviewer.

Page 1-25 Chapter 1 Section 1.5.11 Line 30
For accuracy and completeness, after “burning of fossil fuels,” add “Additionally, it has been found that increases to sulphate aerosols combined with soot particles have a strong warming effect (0.55 Wm-2) greater than that of methane (0.48 Wm-2), and these combined particles are also linked with the burning of fossil fuels (ref. Jacobson MZ, Nature, vol. 409, 695-697 (2000)).”

Page 2-3 Chapter 2 Line 50
Replace “second” with “third” because the statement in the draft is incorrect when the effect of water vapour is ignored as is the convention in this Chapter except for Section 3.2.8.
1. CO2 has RF of 1.63 Wm-2,
2. particles of sulphate aerosols combined with soot have RF of 0.55 Wm-2 (ref. Jacobson MZ, Nature, vol. 409, 695-697 (2000))
3. methane has RF of 0.48 Wm-2.
The authors of this chapter seem to be ignorant of the warming effect of sulphate aerosols combined with soot particles.

Page 2-4 Chapter 2 Line 2

Page 2-4 Chapter 2 Line 2 of the draft says nitrous oxide is the “fourth most important greenhouse gas” and Page 2-3 Chapter 2 Lines 50 and 51 (wrongly) say methane is “the second largest RF contributor” (assuming that the effect of water vapour is ignored as is the convention in this Chapter except for Section 3.2.8.). But the draft does not state the third largest contributor.
Before Page 2-4 Chapter 2 Line 2, the draft needs to be amended to include the RF of particles of sulphate aerosols combined with soot that is the second largest RF contributor.
1. CO2 has RF of 1.63 Wm-2,
2. particles of sulphate aerosols combined with soot have RF of 0.55 Wm-2 (ref. Jacobson MZ, Nature, vol. 409, 695-697 (2000))
3. methane has RF of 0.48 Wm-2.
4. and nitrous oxide has RF of 0.16 Wm-2.
The authors of this chapter seem to be ignorant of the warming effect of sulphate aerosols combined with soot particles. But their correct statement that nitrous oxide is the “fourth most important greenhouse gas” implies that they are choosing to deliberately ignore the warming effect of sulphate aerosols combined with soot particles.

- Advertisment -

Related Articles

Fossil Fuel Restriction Dam Starting To Break

Predicting the date when the Europeans will wake up to their ridiculous energy folly is a lot like predicting the date of the demise...

Guardian Author Discovers the Benefits of Petroleum Based Plastic Greenhouses

Guardian Gardening expert Kim Stoddart escaped climate change in the South East of England by moving to a frigid Welsh hilltop - then discovered...

Tasmania Building a “Black Box” Recorder for Climate Change

The box, a steel and granite monolith, will be filled with hard drives to record everything we say right up until our civilisation falls,...