Does CO₂ Create Global Warming

I started this quest trying to find how CO₂ was measured and what data sets were used to support the greenhouse hypothesis.  I did not find what I expected.

I expected to have an average of CO₂ level that had been compiled from multiple stations scattered about the globe, and from that data I would be able to determine the standard of deviations collect from the samples to create a global mean. What I have found is that they primarily base their modeling on a few stations. Primarily, the Mauna Loa Observatory, in Hawaii. Most of the other stations that data is used from have similar characteristics. Most are in high altitude regions, and enjoy cold and dry climates, with a few exceptions. One being America Samoa, located between New Zealand and Hawaii, and not at a high elevation.

This I have deduced is important from the way that CO₂ is measured, they pass infrared wavelength through the sample, and measure how much of the wavelength was absorbed to determine the number of particles that are contained in the sample. Before they can do this they have to remove the remaining particles of water from the sample. That led me to think that the absorption rate for H₂O was similar to the absorption rate of CO₂. I am still researching this data, and will not cover it here.

This is an important factor, since H₂O makes up a greater percentage of atmospheric gases than CO₂ even at higher altitudes.  We are talking levels approaching 100 times greater than CO₂ at high altitudes. Something like 30,000 ppm (particles per million) to roughly 372 ppm of CO₂.

To me this has led to an Emperor has no cloths scenario. In which we are told that if you cannot see the effects of global warming, you are uneducated or a fool.  And that 98% of all scientist believe in anthropologic global warming. Is this true or are they afraid of being labeled a fool?

To be clear I am not a scientist, and I believe that human activity does have an effect on the overall climate. Whether this is good or bad depends on the criteria you use, or what you measure.

I will not argue that to date human activity has exacerbated natural weather events. It is hard to dismiss the Dust bowl created in the 1930’s as just a drought. The drought may have been a natural occurrence, however, it was made worse by poor land management practices, and the introduction of mechanized farming. And the 1995 flood reached record levels because of changes to the Missouri, Mississippi Rivers, and the surrounding flood plain areas.

We are taught in grade school of the water cycle. Carbon also has a cycle. This can clearly be seen in the data collected from Mauna Loa. In the winter CO₂ levels rise because more CO₂ is produced than used. Then it starts falling in the spring until it reaches its minimum for the year in fall and starts rising again.

The best model to explain this season cycle is a tree. A tree buds in the spring and starts to develop leaves, which are used for photosynthesis. Photosynthesis combines CO₂ from the air with H₂O with the energy of sunlight to create sugars that are used to grow the tree, and they exhale O₂. Now the sugars that are used to grow the tree become sequestered in the new growth on the tree, and this carbon will remain sequestered until the tree dies and deteriorates. Now in the fall, the leaves lose their function and fall off of the tree. These leaves will deteriorate and release their carbon as CO₂. This is the simple explanation for the seasonal variations of CO₂.

Where everything falls apart for me is when you contribute all the ills of global warming to CO₂ and seem to ignore more prevalent gases that make up the atmosphere. For years, we have been taking sequestered H₂O from the ground and using it in high desert environments. Could this not also have the effect they have been placing on carbon? That is why I question the motivation. Who can they get more money from? Big oil, or millions of smaller users of water? Who makes a better villain? An oil company or a farmer? And don’t complain with your mouth full.

I do not argue that CO₂ has been rising over the past century. I just think that there is a possibility that this rise could be a result of climate change, not a driving force. After all, look at the seasonal fluctuations now. Could this not be happening on a larger scale as growth cycle lengthen and create more new growth? Then when the climate becomes less beneficial, could not this new growth add to the total rise in CO₂ as it dies off and deteriorates at a faster pace than new growth? Thus becoming a lagging indicator instead of a predictor.

With the climate models based on educated guesses, instead of factual data, climate change has become settled politics, not settled science. You tell me we must act now to stop global warming. What if you are wrong and looking at the wrong criteria?  Could you not be causing more harm instead of stopping a perceived threat?

So, I will set here among the uneducated fools and say. “The Emperor has no cloths.” Until, you can produce factual, unbiased data.