1. Very good. I will work on this in Gallatin County.
    I think you should use 3(a) or 3(b) when referencing the a and b of point 3 in later points.

    1. Dear DMA, Thank you. In response, I updated the resolution by making (a) and (b) separate paragraphs in both this post and in the Word downloads.

  2. Where the CO₂ originated from is basically meaningless, in my estimation, in that there is so little of it in the atmosphere that it is NOT going to do anything other than make plants grow better as more of it is added to the atmosphere.
    There are some obsessed with the supposed increase of 338 ppm to 416 ppm of CO₂ and I hope that this information will help the alarmist to sleep better at nights.
    A part per million is like 1 drop of ink in a large kitchen sink.
    A large kitchen sink is about 13-14 gallons. There are 100 drops in one teaspoon, and 768 teaspoons
    per gallon.
    Some other things that are one part per million are…
    One drop in the fuel tank of a mid-sized car
    One inch in 16 miles
    About one minute in two years
    One car in a line of bumper-to-bumper traffic from Cleveland to San Francisco.
    One penny in $10,000.
    I know that you understand that these 72 additional ppm are spread out over this 16 miles in different one inch segments and wouldn’t it be a task to be told to sort out the 416 pennies from the number that it would take to make up $10,000.
    At 416 parts per million CO₂ is a minor constituent of earth’s atmosphere– less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth’s current atmosphere is CO₂ impoverished.
    Let’s picture this in another way to really get an idea of the scale of CO₂ compared to the total atmosphere. The Eiffel Tower in Paris is 324 meters high (1063ft). If the height of the Eiffel Tower represented the total size of the atmosphere then the natural level of CO₂ would be 8.75 centimeters of that height (3.4 inches) and the amount added by humans up until today would be an extra 3.76 centimeters (1.5 inches)

    1. J Doug Swallow, I don’t think it is relevant how much or how little CO2 there is in the atmosphere.
      It is important what a variation of a amount of a certain substance does to environment or to humans and animals.
      For instance 150 ppm of hydrogen cyanide is deadly within an hour of exposure. That is only halve a drop of ink in the kitchen sink.
      On the other hand, people need 195,000 ppm of oxygen for breathing and less is also deadly.
      Exposure of people to 5000 ppm CO2 for 8 hour a day is said to be safe.
      Before we can say what the minimum and maximum levels of CO2 are, we need to know what exactly these levels do to environment.
      It is way to easy to say CO2 is a greenhouse gas and will cause global warming or climate change.
      Way to many ‘experts’ like Bill Gates and Al Gore are promoting this and people believe them.
      Proof of warming and how much at what level by CO2 need to be determent. I haven’t seen that yet. Models and observations are not in agreement.

      Dr. Ed, could you write your Climate Resolution so that it can be used in other countries, like Canada without reference to President of US. Thank you.

      1. It is obvious that the gases that comprise the atmosphere mix and move but it is also obvious that the heavier gases such as CO₂, that is one and one-half times heavier than what is called “air”, sinks. Here is information taken from the Excel spreadsheet extension of CRC 85th edition 2004-2005 handbook on physics and chemistry; therefore, that the information was presented comes from the above stated source. The mass of CO₂ in the atmosphere is approximately 1.06186E+14 x 10^14 kg . The Mass of Oxygen (O2) in the atmosphere is: 0.23 x (5.12 x 1018kg) = 1.1776 x 1018 kg (1.2 x 1018 kg)
        % increase in CO₂ per year = 1.1 x 1015/1.23 x 1018 x 100% = 0.089% or 8.9 x 10-4
        Total % increase in CO₂ in one year is: 8.9 x 10-4 x 0.03 = 2.7 x 10-5
        So, in one year the Carbon Dioxide content of the atmosphere would change from 0.03% to 0.030027%. (these figures are for the burning of gasoline)
        To increase CO₂ by a third: 1.23 x 1018/3 = 4.1 x 1017.
        would take: 4.1 x 1017/1.1 x 1015 = 372 years.
        CRC Handbook Chemistry and Physics, 85th Edition

  3. This is an excellent and very worthwhile initiative. However, the main premise “human CO2 has caused only 8% and natural CO2 92% of CO2 in the atmosphere as of 2021” is readily refutable by the alarmists (and by anyone else).

    Through Holocene time (the last 11,700 years), atmospheric CO2 was 250-285 ppm, until ~1850 when man’s industrial CO2 emissions began (start of Industrial Revolution). Since then, atmospheric CO2 has climbed steeply. Proving that man’s emissions are the main driver of this post-1850 rise in CO2, ice cores show that the last five interglacial periods (the Holocene being the most recent one) all reached levels of 250-300 ppm, i.e. a sort of ‘equilibrium’ value. CO2 today (Feb 2021) is 415 ppm. For references see ‘Bullet 8A’ at … https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332245803_33_bullet_points_prove_global_warming_by_the_Sun_not_CO2_by_a_GEOLOGIST_for_a_change … and click on ‘Linked data’.

    Thus man is undeniably the main cause of the post-1850 rise in CO2. CO2 is undeniably a greenhouse gas. But CO2’s greenhouse effect is more than cancelled out by natural negative feedbacks ignored or grossly underestimated by the IPCC … https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348689944_Global_Warming_By_Surging_Sun_Not_CO2_5_Slides_5_Minutes

    The Sun controls climate. CO2 is irrelevant to climate; but its increase is wonderfully greening our Earth (plant ‘fertilisation’ by rising CO2, boosting photosynthesis) and is hugely beneficial for raising agricultural output, perhaps enough to feed 8 billion humans.

    I have a manuscript in preparation.

    1. Dear Roger,

      Thank you very much for your comment and for your link to your Technical Note on Research Gate. It is indeed a very impressive review of all points that seem to be relevant to the subject of human-caused climate change. I would even like to post it on this website.

      Your comment led me to reread my proposed resolution above and this led me to realize that my point 7, to which you object, is a repeat of my point 6 using a different base for the stated percentages. Therefore, I may remove my point 7. However, that will not remove the issue where we disagree.

      Your paragraph 8A is the only paragraph where I disagree with your Technical Note, so this point is worthy of our discussion. Your second paragraph above quotes your paragraph 8A.

      Here is my view:

      My 3 (a) above, stated as an assumption, should for our purposes be stated as a hypothesis or theory. I call 3 (a) the Core Theory and my preprint concludes this Core Theory is false.

      So, where do we disagree?

      First, I conclude, according to the scientific method, that no amount of data can prove a theory is right but it takes only one contradiction to prove a theory is wrong. You show data that suggest the Core Theory is right. My data suggest the Core Theory is wrong. If both of our data references are correct, and I believe they are, then my conclusion must prevail.

      Second, your data compares two different kinds of measurements of CO2 level: ice core proxy and in situ measurements. These measurements produce different CO2 levels. The in situ levels are greater than the ice core levels. (My preprint discusses these data.)

      There is no proof that our present 415-ppm level would leave a record of its occurrence in ice core samples 100,000 or even 400 years from now, and good data suggests that it will not.

      Therefore, the 8A premise “atmospheric CO2 was 250-285 ppm, until ~1850” is not necessarily true and likely is false (according to my preprint).

      Finally, the 8A conclusion that “man’s emissions are the main driver of this post-1850 rise in CO2” is not proven because, even if the premise were true, there is no independent proof that the natural CO2 level has remained constant since 1750.

      In conclusion, I believe my preprint proves human CO2 is not the main driver of the post-1850 rise in CO2.

      Thanks again for your comment.

    2. What the alarmist ignore is this truth. The sun makes up 99.86% of the mass of the solar system. Carbon dioxide is .03% of the earth’s atmosphere. Of the two, the sun or CO₂, which should they believe has the most influence on the earth’s climate? The people associated with the essential for the survival of modern civilization, the fossil fuel industries, know the correct answer and will continue to supply the resources that are in demand.

      What is the atmosphere of Earth made of? Earth’s atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.9% argon, and 0.03% carbon dioxide with very small percentages of other elements. Our atmosphere also contains water vapor. In addition, Earth’s atmosphere contains traces of dust particles, pollen, plant grains and other solid particles. http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/64-What-is-the-atmosphere-of-Earth-made-of-

      How large is the Sun compared to Earth?
      Compared to Earth, the Sun is enormous! It contains 99.86% of all of the mass of the entire Solar System. The Sun is 864,400 miles (1,391,000 kilometers) across. This is about 109 times the diameter of Earth. The Sun weighs about 333,000 times as much as Earth. It is so large that about 1,300,000 planet Earths can fit inside of it. Earth is about the size of an average sunspot! http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/5-How-large-is-the-Sun-compared-to-Earth-

    3. Roger wrote—“Since then, atmospheric CO2 has climbed steeply. Proving that man’s emissions are the main driver of this post-1850 rise in CO2, ”
      That is called a correlation. It is necessary to show cause and effect, but by itself PROVES NOTHING.

  4. Cees says: “J Doug Swallow, I don’t think it is relevant how much or how little CO2 there is in the atmosphere”.

    Why don’t you think that it is NOT relevant how much or how little CO₂ there is in the atmosphere? That is, it seems, the most relevant thing about CO₂ that the alarmist cry about all of the time; that the CO₂ that humans are supposedly putting into the Earth’s atmosphere is going to cause some kind of catastrophic run away warming of the planet. Then you say: “It is important what a variation of a amount of a certain substance does to environment or to humans and animals.”, which contradicts what you tell me that you don’t think it is relevant how much or how little CO₂ there is in the atmosphere. “Variation, The extent or degree to which something varies: a variation of ten pounds in weight”.

    Read this from a well-researched scientific paper to discover why you are so wrong when you say; “I don’t think it is relevant how much or how little CO2 there is in the atmosphere”.
     “The “Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” dogma is based on the hypothesis that Man’s release of CO2 from fossil fuel burning will cause this extra atmospheric CO2 to increase the temperature of the lower atmosphere. It is important to note that due to the atmosphere’s extremely low heat capacity, the heat energy accumulated in the atmosphere from this process will be minute and unable to change the Earth’s climate. This compared to the enormous heat energy stored in the oceans, and the enormous heat energy required to melt the cryosphere (ice sheets, sea ice, permafrost, and glaciers). Hence it will be impossible to melt the Earth’s ice caps and thereby increase the sea level just by increasing the heat energy of the atmosphere through a few percent of added heat absorbing anthropogenic CO2 in the lower atmosphere (Segalstad, 1996). Further, there exists no proof of a constantly rising trend for the temperature of the world’s lower atmosphere since the industrial revolution (e.g., Jaworowski et al., 1992 a; Michaels & Knappenberger, 1996).
         A dogma is, according to dictionaries, considered an arrogant and authoritative declaration of opinion based on a priori principles, not on induction, and often as a sacrament or commandment for religious belief. Review of the basis for the “Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” doom makes its components appear neither supported by reality nor the scientific method of natural sciences, making it rather a preconceived idea or tenet sharing most features of a dogma”.

    1. In regards to warming it doesn’t matter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, in regards to life in general, very important.

  5. A detail to make it more generic…

    “…apply climate truth to Montana’s economy, education,…”

    “…apply climate truth to [Your Government Entity’s] economy, education,…”

  6. I also fully agree with Ed (and hence disagree with Roger) on Point 8A. Natural oceanic CO2 emissions (in a warming environment) and terrestrial / aquatic plant respiratory emissions (and photosynthetic uptake) depending on the season dominate and the approx 6% anthropogenic sources are robust. Sadly I cant paste an updated picture of a chart I have compiled from Ernst Becks 2007 paper. So I will try and describe it. I have compiled all the CO2 analyses on one chart, including the data that Callender accepted and rejected. I have also plotted all South Pole data from the global CO2 station network, plus the WAIS Divide Ice Core CO2 data + updated monthly AMT CO2 analyses from the SURFRAD data base. It clearly shows that the high seasonal fluctuations of AMT CO2 analyses (ie natural fluctuations between 340-560 ppm) are in line with analyses conducted in the mid 1800s to 1940s that were rejected by Callender. It also shows that South Pole CO2 data and ice core data in no way represent global CO2 values. Hence the application of ice core data to represent preindustrial global CO2 is not robust.

    1. LD
      That sounds like a very interesting and relevant bit of work. I hope you are able to get it into circulation so others can study and use it.

  7. Ocean floor volcanic and venting activity is getting some coverage recently. The main point seems that there is massive, but unquantified and largely ignored release of co2 among other gases and heat that has a significant impact on co2 levels. My question is do the IPCC models take this into account.

  8. The writing of ‘A Climate Resolution for your group’ is a terrific initiative and a most needed ‘next step’ from debunking the scientific falsifications of establishment Climate Science.
    As a foundation stone for future explanations and persuasive literature it will be of great value. I do note that you have called it a ‘Draft’ and state that it is a ‘foundation of their group’s political actions related to climate change.’ As such it is assumed that the Resolution will be polished in the coming weeks rethinking layout defining objectives and using input from others. The final draft must be bullet proof as the real war will not be the debunking of the myth scientifically, but the turning of minds that have been frightened, lied to, and saddled with a guilt that has created an irrational phobia of fossil fuels and CO2.
    Your work will provide a storeroom of ammunition for that war against the ideologists and their global agenda. We really need our arguments which are based in Common Sense to also be backed by science.

  9. J Doug Swallow, can you tell and proof to me the difference for the environment, and in particular for the global temperature, between little ( 200 ppm ) and much (500 ppm ) CO2. If you can, great, you’ll be the first one. If you can’t, that is the reason why it is not relevant to me. The fact that alarmist cry about it all the time does not mean anything. They have always done that and always will.
    I live 1000 meter above sea level and 1000 KM from the closest ocean. For me it is irrelevant if the sea level will rise 1 or 2 meters, but the alarmist keep crying about it. Do you see what I mean?
    So, if you tell me that below 150 ppm CO2 nothing will grow anymore, there comes the importance of the variation in the amount from. It should not get that low. What the upper level is, I don’t know.
    But it would be important to know before we can say what is to much.
    “The Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” is not based on anything. No proof, no facts, no numbers. Of course you will say, you never said low is 200 ppm and high is 500 ppm, but that is just in the context of the measured quantities on earth. Layman’s thinking.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.