- Piers Corbyn argues that Man-made Global Warming caused by CO2 is “nonsense”. Instead, he argues that “In the long run CO2 levels are an EFFECT NOT A CAUSE of changes in Climate / temperatures,” and that it is the sun that drives climate.
- He challenges whoever is willing in Reading University or other appropriate institutions to a debate on the failed Global Warming scam Vs evidence-based science.
- Piers Corbyn is an astrophysicist and Director of WeatherAction long range (months and years ahead) forecasts. He has a First class degree in Physics from Imperial College and an MSc in Astrophysics from Queen Mary College. He has published numerous peer-reviewed academic papers ranging from meteorology to cosmology and galaxy formation and has presented at many international conferences.
The mainstream media peddle the claim that 97% of (climate) scientists believe in man-made Global-Warming and that, therefore, there is no debate to be had on the subject. This is false and irrelevant. To get the 97% figure, they basically counted people who had mentioned Climate-Change in an abstract or heading of a scientific paper. Dr Legates has reviewed the work and shows that, in fact, only 0.3% of the papers claim that ‘man had caused most post-1950 warming’. Nonetheless, science isn’t about consensus, it is about facts; and no Global-Warming Inquisition is going to prevent me exposing their nonsensical theories. So here goes.
“…not only is the man-made Global Warming story false, the tax and control policies pursued because of it are hugely damaging for ordinary people.”
The CO2 “Climate-Emergency” story says that the trace gas CO2 (0.04% of air) is the main “control knob” of weather extremes and climate, and that Man’s CO2 – 4% of 0.04% of the atmosphere – is a major dangerous factor in this. Therefore, the story concludes, you must be taxed and controlled.
To put that in perspective, imagine if the whole atmosphere is represented by a rod the height of Big Ben’s tower (316 ft); the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) on top and Man’s contribution to that CO2 is between 1 & 2 mm – a pigeon dropping – on top. Look at the Big Ben picture and think about what climate alarmists are claiming!
For the CO2 narrative to be true REQUIRES:
- Man’s (4%) CO2 to control the rest of (96%) CO2.
- CO2 to be the main controller of temperature and climate.
BOTH CLAIMS FAIL AGAINST SCIENCE, and are not made any less false by any number of new or old celebs generating large carbon footprints by attending “Save-The-Planet” stunts where they tell us all to not fly, not eat meat, not drive cars, not breathe etc. Nor do the industrial scale official temperature data set “adjustments”, alarmist forecasts which never come true, or the hysterical propaganda claims of “record” heat at questionably selected urban heat islands, make falsity valid.
The first contention, the idea that Man’s CO2 controls the rest of natural CO2 – plant growth and decay, termite CO2/Methane production (which is significantly more in net supposed “greenhouse” effect than Man’s – and thus it is questionable as to why we have not declared war on termites), volcanoes etc etc. – is an absurd conspiracy theory of nature. There is no evidence for this madness. Do termites in the jungle increase CO2 production when you ride in a bus around your town, simply because your CO2 is human produced?
The second assertion, that CO2 controls climate is negated by observations. In the long run CO2 levels are an EFFECT NOT A CAUSE of changes in Climate / temperatures. Sea temperatures rule CO2 as the oceans hold 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere. If the sea warms, CO2 is released (like warming a glass of fizzy drink) and if it cools it absorbs CO2 from the air. This happens on a daily/weekly/monthly/yearly basis and on average CO2 in the whole atmosphere stays around for a few years before going back into the upper levels of the ocean or into the soil; CO2 levels in these relatively small changes LAG behind temperature changes. [REF.1,2,3,4,5]
On longer time scales extra CO2 emitted from the sea surface in warm periods gets swallowed up into the cold deep ocean by currents off e.g. Greenland and emerges 500-800 years later in the air over the Pacific etc. after a long deep sea trek (more info click here and see slides 43 & 44). So, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, over the long run, is an effect, and not a cause, of temperatures and lags behind the climate by about 500-800 years.
This is backed up by observable, scientific data. On the scale of decades over the last hundred or so years, and in spite of what climate alarmists claim, CO2 has been steadily rising while temperatures have oscillated – half the time moving with CO2 and half against – see above graph of USA temps (red+black) & CO2 (green). Over a longer period, ice-core data shows that CO2 levels, smoothed over centuries, FOLLOW world CLIMATE temperatures by about 500-800years. This is shown in the graph below (Note here time is Right to Left).
The current increase in CO2 levels in the last 100 years are after effects of the medieval warm period. This took place around 500-800 years ago and was warmer than our current period, despite having fewer people burning fewer fossil fuels, by about one degree worldwide, or at least two degrees in parts of temperate zones. It was a period of economic boom for most of Europe where crops grew faster etc. But most importantly, it was the heating during that period which has been driving the rising CO2 in the atmosphere over the last hundred or so years.
This “tail-wagging dog” problem is known to Climate Scientists. Their response is something like “Yes but the extra CO2 that comes off AFTER temperatures go up then makes it extra warm.” This assumes what it’s trying to show – that CO2 has warming powers – and means there would have to be another peak or raising of temperatures AFTER the peak or top level in CO2. THAT IS NOT OBSERVED.
[Hockey stick graph REF.6]
The idea that CO2 has magic warming powers is based on Fake Physics!
The BBC and schools use a “back radiation” explanation of Global warming by a “CO2 blanket” – that is, the increased CO2 in the atmosphere forms a blanket preventing heat returning into space, thus keeping the Earth warm. An American double-glazing company apparently believed this nonsense and tried to make “better double glazing” by putting CO2 into the inter-glass space – yes, they went bust… [REF.7]
This is because it is contrary to basic physics? Objects in a “radiation enclosure” will actually balance out to the same temperature (reach equilibrium) independent of their colour (Physics is non-racist!). A white, grey or black ball will warm at different rates, yes, but they reach the same temperature (absorption=emissions) – and this is the same for regions of CO2 enriched air. Indeed, if their nonsensical theory was true, the CO2 would emit more heat than it would absorb, from which we could power a heat engine forever, thus breaking the first law of thermodynamics (as we get something for nothing). The second law of thermodynamics (a receiving object cannot get hotter than its source) is also broken, because the theory requires extra CO2 in the atmosphere to get extra warm compared with its source (the earth), which it sends back making the ground extra warm – like a ponzi scam investment scheme! In other words the “back-radiation” model of Greenhouse effect is delusional nonsense.
“…data shows that CO2 levels… FOLLOW world CLIMATE temperatures by about 500-800years.”
Better scientists know that the CO2 blanket / “back radiation” theory is bad physics and resort to another more valid explanation, which in the end also fails. The better approach is to examine the lapse rate – the fall in temperature as we go higher in the atmosphere, or the height above ground at which heat (radiation) escapes into space; the lapse rate actually has nothing to do with CO2 or any other so called “greenhouse” gas. Nonetheless, if there are more greenhouse gasses around – CO2 etc. – the height at which radiation can more easily escape, all things being equal, goes up. This slightly deeper (from radiation outgoing “top” to ground) atmosphere leads to the ground getting warmer (because you go further down from there to reach the ground). That all sounds Ok (even if a small effect)! However, this model also says that with more CO2 the upper atmosphere at a certain level will get warmer. Based on this, a hotspot above the equator was predicted as CO2 increased from 2000 to 2010. However the hotspot turned out to be a coldspot!
Why did the theory’s predictions fail? Because physicists were trying to over-simplify reality. The heat-exit height is not a static temperature but has day night fluctuations which get larger when there is more CO2 (and other “greenhouse” gasses) and this makes more cooling (further explained in box Fake Physics in More Detail) – thus giving us the observed cold spot (which, lapse-rated to the ground, makes a relative cooling which can negate the original expected surface warming). (see slides 53, 54, 55 here).
So, if sea temperatures rule CO2, what rules climate temperature?
The Sun rules the climate! Smoothed world temperatures are nothing to do with CO2 and follow solar activity. In the first graph above, the black dotted line is added to show the ~60yr solar-magnetic / Lunar cycle which we at www.WeatherAction.com show as the main likely cause of fluctuations in climate temperature over the last century. Likewise, previous Little Ice Ages all occurred when solar activity was low – e.g. the Maunder Minimum (~1645-1715) and Dalton Minimum (~1790-1830). Yes, the sun, that big ball of fire in the sky, is far more important for the climate than we are…
Indeed, the sun’s current activity suggests that another new Little-Ice Age is upon us. The recent low activity solar cycle 24 and expected low cycle 25 mean we are at the early part of another Little Ice Age. There are many sub-cycles especially involving the magnetic solar (“Hale”) cycle (~22yrs NOT the ~11yr cycle), and Timo Niroma showed that 10 Hale cycles give an approx (smoothed out) repeating pattern of solar activity and hence ~Temperatures. The last 10,000 years – the relatively warm ‘interglacial’ period since the last ice age – has had 10 sub peaks of warmth. The previous 9 have all been warmer than this one while they had LESS CO2. This peak, smoothed on scales of say ~60yrs, has ended – and the true peak was probably ~1930s/40s judged (eg) by the annual number of days 100F & 110F are exceeded in USA. The ~22yr and ~60yr fluctuations are smaller. This says one thing. We’re at the knee of the expected curve match with ~221 yrs ago. Another Dalton/Maunder level minimum is upon us.
Our current weather extremes match a developing Little-Ice Age. This year’s weather extremes and contrasts, which were well predicted in long range by www.WeatherAction.com, come from wild, on average south-shifted, jet stream swings. These are the wrong type of extremes for the CO2 story which must have a generally warmer world and so a North shifted, shorter, less wavy Jet stream. Occasional EXTREME hot blasts and extreme cold periods, as we have been experiencing, are a signature of Little-Ice-Age circulation: for example, some weeks of the hot ‘Belgian Wind’ 1666 parched London – the Thames froze many times in Winters around then.
The BBC, mainstream media, establishment and energy companies recognise this. They usually respond with dishonest exaggerations of heat using dodgy urban heat island data to pretend the world’s warming when it’s now cooling. Their data “adjustments” (fraud) which have likely “increased” recent temps by about 0.5 to 1C have been exposed by the late Christopher Booker, Tony Heller @SteveSGoddard, and www.WeatherAction.com). The figure is a sample of their hype; also, see the box above Global Warmist, iconic hockey stick graph exposed a fraud.
Indeed, in 2004 I presented to the elite Global Oil Summit, Houston, Texas where I was well received by the various attendees (including Director of Iraqi oil, the US military, Putin’s chief economic and science policy advisor etc.). Afterwards the then (retiring) Chief Executive of a major oil giant came to me and showed similar graphs to what we had produced saying that they were ‘on the case’ and wanted my ‘independant corroboration’. Following this, we decided that we would approach oil companies for money (along with the UN so we could keep impartial), but the oil companies came straight back with, “We like Mr. Corbyn’s work but we will not be able to fund him because we don’t want to upset the Green Lobby.” From this event in 2004 the Oil companies accepted that Solar activity drives climate but decided to go with the CO2-driver fake science to make higher profits (from rising oil prices) and have stuck with that position and are happy to be portrayed as a false enemy of the (so-called) Green Lobby as long as it boosts profits. Their deal with governments is that (see their websites via my Presentation) they go along with anti-CO2 measures “as long as there is a uniform price for carbon across the board”. Hence the increased energy charges (subsidies) needed to make biofuels, wind farms etc “economic” mean a huge ongoing increase in their profits. Note on a world scale only 2% of energy is “sustainable”.
“Our current weather extremes match a developing little-ice age.”
However, not only is the man-made Global Warming story false, the tax and control policies pursued because of it are hugely damaging for ordinary people. It is these green policies which have been deindustrialising our country (which really just exports – not reduces – CO2 emissions abroad at the expense of jobs in Britain), increasing energy prices for the poorest, and causing mass power cuts in developing countries. The population of bats, birds and pollinating insects is endangered by wind farms, and EU regulations push for deadly flammable building insulation – as in Grenfell Tower. Millions die of fuel poverty related causes due to Climate policies every year. The largest victim group is African women suffering and dying from smoke inhalation due to open cooking fires because “sustainable” climate policies hold back coal-fired power station electrification of Africa (and thus hold back economic development) – effectively, UN-EU Climate policy is racist. I Could Go On.
It is for this reason that I, Piers Corbyn, challenge whoever is willing in Reading University or other appropriate institutions to a debate on the failed Global warming scam Vs evidence-based science.
- Join in #Action4Life! #CO2isGOOD4You! #RealGreenNotFakeGreen! Activity 20-26 Sept to counter the anti-science globalist plunder brainwashing protest / “Climate strike”.
- The BBC must answer #Scientists4Truth challenge – Give evidence CO2 drives Climate.
- On short time scales of changes involving sea surface and land with air CO2 changes LAG temperature changes by ~10 months.
- See Mike Haseler (on Prof Murry Salby) [MH-MS] “Climate What we know and What we don’t”, Fig 12, ISBN 1901546640 via St Matthew Publishing email@example.com
- The large slow changes of CO2 involving deep sea cold water subduction lagging temperature by ~500-800yrs are imposed on shorter term changes smoothed over ~decades, involving land and sea surfaces.
- The ‘lifetime’ of CO2 in air is a few years. It must be a fraction of CO2 decay time (~9yrs) for CO2 containing C14 created by nuclear testing [MH-MS]. Prof Salby soundly shows IPCC (Bern Model) claims for longer lifetimes are false.
- The main sources of CO2 into the atmosphere are from Tropics NOT from the industrial Usa-Europe-China temperate belt [MH-MS showing SCIAMACHY satellite].
- Article further detailing the Hockey Stick case: http://www.mikesmithenterprisesblog.com/2019/08/the-iconic-image-of-global-warming.html?m=1
- principia-scientific.org April 7th 2016.
Astrophysicist and Director of WeatherAction
6 thoughts on “PIERS CORBYN Man-Made Climate Change Does not Exist!”
Thank you for this clarity. It is hard to stand against mainstream dogma when it controls the media. We need this debate brought out into the open for all to see. I have never been a fan of climate hysteria. The engine of our weather is the sun and it always will be!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for a comprehensive, easy to understand explanation. For non-scientific minds this is invaluable and needs to be spread far and wide.
Hi Mr. Corbyn,
this is a very good piece of writing. Thank you for your excellent work.
Just one thing, in the following excerpt (in the text it is next to the picture of the Big Ben) there is an error:
“To put that in perspective, imagine if the whole atmosphere is represented by a rod the height of Big Ben’s tower (316ft); the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 1.5 inches (38cm)… ”
The 38 cm should be 3.8 cm.
You may want to correct that so that the piece is flawless.
Thankyou! This has been edited.
As a degreed Civil Engineer and 40-year environmental professional doing business in the U.S. and Europe with my own company, I have studied the question and must conclude that:
1.Carbon Dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have no measurable effect on planet temperatures. Proponents of Man-Made-Climate-Change point to elevated CO2 levels in the atmosphere during warm periods as evidenced by ice core samples. Closer examination of these samples disclosed that the elevated concentrations occurred at the end of the warm period making it an effect, not a cause. When temperatures are elevated, oceans give up their CO2 to the atmosphere. Something else caused the warming.
2. 400 ppm CO2 is supposed to be close to a point of no return. This is the mathematical equivalent of one part in 2500 parts. Specific heat of carbon dioxide is roughly only twice that of other atmospheric constituents. Causing a measurable temperature increase would be like powering the lights of a major sports stadium through a single household extension cord. For those who avoided high school physics, specific heat is the amount of heat energy in btu’s or calories required to raise the temperature of a substance, one degree. A specific heat twice the other air components would have enough heat energy to raise the other 2499 molecules 2/2499 (0.0008) multiplied by the temperature differential, degrees.
3. The apparent agent of planet temperature change is sunspot activity. The Maunder Minimum, a 200-year period of almost no sunspot activity, is associated with the Little Ice Age which ended in 1849. It has been gradually warming since and is still not as warm as the Medieval Warm Period which saw orchards in Greenland.
4. Polar ice on other planets in our solar system are observed to grow and recede at same rate as our own.
You Don’t Need to Take My Word For It
Study by Nearly 2 Dozen Scientists Finds Sun, Not CO2, May Be Chief Cause of Global Warming
C. Douglas Golden, The Western Journal August 17, 2021
As the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change prepares to meet in three months in Glasgow, Scotland, to discuss cutting emissions further, a new paper argues rising temperatures may be the result of the sun, not carbon dioxide.
According to The Australian, a paper by 23 experts from 14 different countries who are experts in solar physics and climate science says the 16 most prominent datasets of solar output — including those used by the United Nation — show solar energy is more to blame than carbon dioxide for global warming.
The peer-reviewed study was published in the journal Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics
LikeLiked by 1 person