I am getting more and more concerned about the speeches from – and attention given to – Greta Thunberg, the young climate activist. Most recently she was made ‘Person of the Year’ by Time Magazine, and it seems she and her ‘Extinction Rebellion’ group is getting more and more financial support from the world’s richest people, e.g. see here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nuvkPLkWGk
I have looked at some of her speeches – and it seems they are mostly the same. But, at the end, there is always a clear veiled threat…..like this one at COP 24:
“We have not come here to beg world leaders to care. You have ignored us in the past and you will ignore us again. We have run out of excuses and we are running out of time. We have come here to let you know that change is coming whether you like it or not. The real power belongs to the people.”
Here is the last section of her speech at the UN meeting in New York (23/09/2019):
“How dare you pretend that this can be solved with just ‘business as usual’ and some technical solutions? With today’s emissions levels, that remaining CO2 budget will be entirely gone within less than 8 1/2 years.
“There will not be any solutions or plans presented in line with these figures here today, because these numbers are too uncomfortable. And you are still not mature enough to tell it like it is. You are failing us. But the young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us, I say: We will never forgive you. “We will not let you get away with this. Right here, right now is where we draw the line. The world is waking up. And change is coming, whether you like it or not.”
You see what I mean? Unfortunately, as far as the science is concerned, clearly, Greta is being trained to say what ‘they’ , – whoever ‘they’ may be – want her to say, and she obviously has absolutely no idea of the intricacies involved in climate science. Long ago, I studied the reports from the IPPC [The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], especially those from 2004 and 2007. I found the science showing that carbon dioxide (CO2) is making the earth warmer not supported by convincing evidence. It was still the same science as proposed by Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius, ca. 100 years ago. They both performed closed box experiments to show that an increase in CO2 causes warming. However, by looking at a closed box, on earth, you are simply not seeing the whole picture. Let me try to show you what I think is wrong with the theory of manmade warming (AGW), allegedly caused by CO2.
People who have studied chemistry, know that to make a standard solution you need neutral water, free of any dissolved carbonates. Hence, the first instruction is to boil the de-ionized or distilled water for 10 minutes followed by neutralization to pH=7. The reaction can be summarized as follows:
HCO3- + heat = > CO2 (g) + OH- (1)
Understand that there is a lot of CO2 dissolved in the oceans plus thousands of gigatons of carbonates and bicarbonates as well, due to earlier and on-going volcanic emissions. In fact, according to Ian Plimer, the volcanic eruption in Iceland not so long ago, emitted in 4 days as much carbonates as was ‘saved’ by all our own attempts at reductions in emissions.
When the UV and IR from the sun strikes on top of the ocean’s surface, not only water vapor is formed (H2O g), but also CO2 (g) as per the reaction (1). Hence, we get clouds and rain and the CO2 is getting into our atmosphere. All of this is responsible for life! Remember that everything we eat and drink depends on rain and the sugars formed during photo-synthesis of which CO2 is the principal ingredient.
At the poles and there where it gets very cold, the reaction in the water of the oceans reverses, and CO2 dissolves back into the water. The summary of this reaction is as follows:
CO2 (g) + 2H2O (l) + cold = > HCO3- + H3O+ (2)
Now, imagine earth as a big vessel with liquid on the bottom and gasses on top. I am not showing all the reactions that take place in the seawater, but clearly, as per Henry’s Law, [that is not me!], all the dissolved CO2 and all the bi-carbonates and carbonates in the water of the oceans are at an equilibrium with the amount of CO2 in the air. The net reaction that I propose for that, is here:
CO2 (l, in the oceans) + Heat => <= CO2 (g, in the atmosphere ) + Cold (3)
What it means is that the more heat goes into the oceans, the more CO2 comes gassing out into the atmosphere. If the solubility of CO2, & the atmospheric pressure and the pH of the water stays unchanged, then it follows that there must be a correlation between heat and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
You understand what I am saying? Simply put, the IPCC has put the cart before the horse…The correlation is in reverse. More heat into the oceans causes more CO2 in the atmosphere… It is a natural relationship. They never ever actually proved that more CO2 in the air causes more heat on earth. They simply looked at the observed warming, excluded a few factors, like the variation of the sunlight, and then coupled the remainder of the global warming to the CO2 increase. Here is a more detailed version of my dispute with the IPCC
Now, I know that there are those who have said that not all of the increase observed in CO2 in the atmosphere is due to the natural balance, e.g. ‘Henry’s Law’ . They developed some signature test to prove that a substantial portion of the observed 0.01% increase since 1960 is man made. To this I say: Fine. Let it be so. Even if this is true, it does not change anything. All it means is that maybe we are running a little ahead of schedule on the eventual balance that will set in again as soon as the oceans get cooler……What could possibly be wrong with that… It helps the greening of earth? There is no real change in the natural laws that govern the CO2 content of the atmosphere and the weather?
But true enough, the other relevant question here is: does more CO2 in the air indeed also cause more warmth, due to a greenhouse effect? Unfortunately, what Tyndall and Arrhenius could not see [from a closed box experiment] is that both CO2 and H2O not only have extinction in the part of the spectrum where earth emits, but they also have extinctions in the part of the spectrum where the sun emits. To see the proof of this, carefully look at this report here: http://astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/disksite/library/turnbull06a.pdf
Look at Fig. 6 (bottom), e.g. the green line (CO2) and the blue line (H2O). Clearly you can see that IR radiation from the sun is deflected off from earth by the CO2 and H2O. So, radiation bounced on CO2 and caused it to go back to the sun [space]….Note that the radiation (i.e. the peaks between 1 and 2 um) went from the sun => earth (CO2) => moon (i.e. space) => earth. That raises the question: what is more: the amount of heat deflected off from earth by the CO2 due to extinctions of the CO2 in the spectrum of the sun 0-5 um [5500K)], namely those in the UV, and those between 1-2 um and 4-5um, or the amount of heat trapped on earth due to the extinction of CO2 in the 14-15 um region of earth’s spectrum[288K]? Sadly, there is no report on this…at least none that I could find. Nobody has investigated this problem and made an exact balance sheet of all the pluses and minuses in the correct SI dimensions of how much heat is deflected off from earth and how much heat is trapped by the CO2 on earth. Also, in my own empirical tests I did not find any increase in temperature. See report here:
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2018/05/04/which-way-will-the-wind-be-blowing-genesis-41-vs-27/
Notwithstanding all of that, there is yet another compelling argument to make that it cannot be the extra CO2 in the atmosphere that caused the warming of the earth. Carefully look again at the plot here:
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to:2021/trend/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2021/trend
You see that the extra heat from the atmosphere is really coming from the extra heat that came in the oceans? The increase in CO2 over the past 60 years was 0.01% by volume and this represents ca. 8 x 10^13 kg. Compare this to the total of the mass of the oceans of 1.4 x 10^21 kg + the mass of the atmosphere of 5.1 x 10 ^18 kg. Do you see that it is simply physically impossible for such an amount of CO2 to ‘heat’ the oceans and the atmosphere to the extent that they did warm up? This all brought me to finding that the warming caused by the increase in CO2 is negligible.
The oceans have been the driver of the warming of the atmosphere. It cannot be the other way around? Now, the tougher question. What has been warming the oceans? That is a whole different subject.
But now back to Greta. She and her leaders are misguided at best or otherwise willfully engaged in misleading the public. Obviously, she might get more and more support, as in time to come natural climate change will definitely take its toll:
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2019/09/22/revisiting-the-87-year-gleissberg-solar-cycle/
Surely, this will get more and more people, not having faith in God, nor in the hand of God on climate, to ‘accept’ AGW, and be further exploited on their feelings of guilt. Eventually, that might give her and her friends the absolute power that they are after. Do you trust her? Let us look at what a girl of similar age as Greta said more than 2000 years ago:
“And Mary said: My soul glorifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on, all generations will call me blessed……His mercy extends to those who fear him, from generation to generation….He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted the humble (Luke 1:46-52).
Well, Henry (who is Lawless ; ) this is a very good question you raise, it seems to me (who often observes WUWT but cannot let you know what I think there ; )
“… what is more: the amount of heat deflected off from earth by the CO2 due to extinctions of the CO2 in the spectrum of the sun 0-5 um, [namely those in the UV, and those between 1-2 um and 4-5um] or the amount of heat trapped on earth due to the extinction of CO2 in the 14-15 um region of earth’s spectrum? ”
I suggest you pose it more directly there (on that Willis article thread posted today) where it can be noticed and perhaps discussed . . It seems extremely relevant to the topic/inquiry the author is exploring there, and I want to hear his and other’s responses to it . .
On another front, which is not something I suggest you attempt to discuss too seriously there (if you wish to remain more than an observer ; )
“Surely, this will get more and more people, not having faith in God, nor in the hand of God on climate, to ‘accept’ AGW, and be further exploited on their feelings of guilt. Eventually, that might give her and her friends the absolute power that they are after.”
It seems to me that this whole double-talk laden realm of “climate change” is only possible to exploit for power because virtually everyone has been indoctrinated to accept a similarly laden realm as “settled science”.
That being the realm of Evolution (in the Grand Origin Story sense, not mere “natural selection” which no one “denies”) wherein there is a very similar use of a noncontroversial and well evidenced potential involving change, to name something vastly less well supported, which makes it very easy to shift meanings and force those who might challenge the low evidence concepts to do a whole lot of explaining (like I am doing right here ; ) just to get past the (easily anticipatable) confusion caused by the adoption of terms virtually all accept for processes/concepts that are predominantly observable, as the labels/names of processes that are predominantly imaginary . .
In short; It is almost insane to think the God of the Book would leave vast amounts of extremely convenient fuels all over the world, but, if we make use of the seeming great blessings, we trigger a virtual climate hell . . And this “paradox” problem, for he who wishes to get hold of that absolute power stuff you mentioned, would arise in many realms, it seems to me “except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.”
In shorter ; ) It sure seems likely to me that (GOS) Evolution is the “strong delusion” spoken of in second Thessalonians . .
Take care, Henry (who is Lawless ; )
John.
Your message is somewhat cryptic…I think I have to study it carefully…
Ja. They say that if hunger is at the front door, civilization is out with the back door….
http://breadonthewater.co.za/2019/09/22/revisiting-the-87-year-gleissberg-solar-cycle/
one wonders what will be at the end of the next decade? Revelations speaks about inflation of +6000%, then [again] the call for a strong man [this time a woman?]
the connection of the last anti-Christ with the false prophet and then the big persecution
Matthew 24: 21-22
Then the question about the days getting shorter….must be some celestial interference….I am busy looking into that…..
I know I am being a bit cryptical – just like you….
Henry, thanks for the thoughtful response . . I’ll study and ponder the Gleissberg solar cycle matter you raise, I am unfamiliar with it . . I’m just a “civilian” in this climate war, and though I’ve learned a lot over the last dozen years or so, it’s mostly related to the shenanigans the “alarmists” have been up to, and responses by those challenging their “settled science” claims . .
As for the “strong man’ allusion I made, I was playing off your mention of people who lack faith in “the hand of God on climate” being vulnerable to alarmist propaganda. I can see now why that might be confusing . . I meant that belief in God and His “hand” being supremely powerful, makes it far more difficult to convince people that WE are in control, and have messed things up by making use of what is on the Earth. I didn’t mean to invoke the specific context where that statement by Jesus appears, but the statement itself, which is essentially a universal one, as I read it;
“No man can enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.”
Indoctrinating virtually everyone into believing that (Grand Origin Story) Evolution is “settled science”, was a way of “binding” the Strongest Man, I meant, in terms of our general resistance to being guilted into going along with this scary story about plant food gas boiling the oceans or whatever . .
I can be plenty cryptic, mind you ; ) but in that particular case I was actually just reflecting your metaphorical use of God’s “hand”, back at you, in an attempt to be more understandable . . (fool that I am ; )
Yes, I think I do understand you now. If there is no ‘Creation’, then everything you see around you is just due to Murphy’s Law; so there is also no God….
About 2 Hale cycles ago, I arrived in this country when it was in the middle – or just at the end of a big drought- , or just like about now.
I remember everyone asking you on radio and TV etc. to pray for rain for the farmers. Coming from Holland, where it is raining almost everyday, I had found this somewhat strange.
Today, the situation is again much the same here; many farmers are having a tough time. Yet no-one is asking you to pray for rain anymore. Speaking of God is not in fashion anymore? So, God is not in control [although you and I know that He is].
One is simply told that this [the droughts] is due to man made climate change. Hence, the drought time is your fault……You get it? It is you who is guilty!
Now, listening carefully to those in the Extinction Rebellion, they have already mentioned that ‘overpopulation’ is the problem [for the warming of the planet]. From there it is a small step to propose some sort of ‘final’ solution when the big scarcity of food comes.
Remember that Jesus mentions that the last persecution will be the worst ever, but apparently it will also be just before the end of the world [i.e. when the days will become shorter]
She will be back in school shortly I’m sure…
(Hmm, I left another comment, Henry, but it’s not here?)
Yes, you got my main thrust . .
On your last paragraph ~ It does seem to me we are nearing the End, so to speak, but it does not appear that the Social Justice/outrage culture uprising is more than a prelude, (including the Climate Crisis pretense). I believe it might very well be what is spoken of in 2nd Timothy 3.
” This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good…”
But, there is a “fail to launch” aspect to that warning (vs.7-8);
“Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their’s also was.”
As to the days being “shortened”, I believe that is referring to the number of days (of the Tribulation) being reduced . . As it seems clear to me the same allusion is used in Psalms;
“The days of his youth hast thou shortened: thou hast covered him with shame. Selah.” And again~
“He weakened my strength in the way; he shortened my days.”
As I read the texts, the use of that phrasing you are referring to involves the final week (7 years) in the prophecy of Daniel involving seventy weeks (of years).
It seems to me that must mean the actual Tribulation time has been shortened to just the last half of that last seven year period . . since the whole period of seventy weeks is not spoken of as shortened, and I can’t believe there would be a few years of relative peace/amicability, after the Tribulation time, before the Boss returns . . ; )
Anyway, it’s a good thing, if true, that the time is near . .
Henry, don’t know if saw it, but Willis posted an article recently on WUWT which seems to me to be relevant to your question here . .
This comment came from Michael Hammer
Henry, I read your comments at WUWT, thought I would comment here since the WUWT site is already overloaded with comments.
I think you misunderstand the action of GHG in the atmosphere. GHG’s absorb at certain wavelengths which means they absorb some surface emissions which would otherwise escape to space. The concentration in PPM does not give a good indication as to how strong this absorption is because it depends on how potent an absorber the molecule in question is. For this reason spectroscopists talk in terms of absorbance. 1 absorbance is an amount of material that will absorb 90% of the incident light at the wavelength of interest. If we use 2* the amount of material (either double the concentration or double the path length) the first half absorbs 90% and the second half absorbs 90% of what remains ie 99% in total and the absorbance will be 2 abs. Thus absorbance is proportional to the total amount of material which for Earth’s atmosphere means absorbance is proportional to concentration.
So what is the total absorbance of atmospheric CO2 over the distance from surface to space at the line center? At 400 ppm its about 3000 abs. That’s about as transparent at the line center as a brick. so CO2 is saturated and further increase in concentration has no further impact? Yes but No, CO2 is saturated but further increase does have an impact and that impact is logarithmic as I hope to explain below.
Any gas that absorbs at certain wavelengths must also emit at those wavelengths and the emissivity must exactly equal the absorptivity. It is easy to show that otherwise net heat could be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body. However whereas absorbance depends only on absorptivity emission depends both on emissivity AND on temperature and this is where it gets interesting.
Right throughout the atmospheric column CO2 is absorbing 14.7 micron radiation and also emitting 14.7 micron radiation. For any 1abs layer (1/3000 of the total atmosphere) 90% of the 14.7 micron radiation incident on that layer is absorbed but the gas emits at a level given by its temperature. The surface emission is all absorbed in the first 10 meters or less. Thereafter the level of 14.7 micron radiation is simply dependent on the temperature at that altitude. It is only the last 1 abs layer that can emit to space which for our atmosphere is at the tropopause or lower stratosphere. But the surface is significantly warmer than the topopause thus the 14.7 micron emission from the surface is greater than the 14.7 micron emission from the tropopause and thus the 14.7 micron radiation escaping to space is reduced so Earth loses less energy.
OK but why does increasing CO2 have any further impact? Simple, the absorption lines are not boxcars but rather profiles very close to gaussians and gaussians have a very interesting property. Convolving a gaussian with itself creates new gaussian with a larger standard deviation. In spectroscopic terms, convolving a gaussian with itself is effectively what happens when one doubles the concentration of a GHG which is saturated at the line center. Thus as the concentration increases the apparent line width increases in a logarithmic fashion (same amount of widening for each doubling). Thus the GHG absorbs over an increasing range of wavelengths as the concentration increases so the difference between surface emission and tropopause emission applies over a greater range of wavelengths – each doubling giving about he same increase in range of wavelengths.
CO2 currently reduces Earth’s energy loss to space by about 30 watts/sqM and we are around 10-11 doublings beyond saturation (depending on exactly what abs you consider saturation) so doubling CO2 will increase the energy retained by around 3 watts/sqM which would translate to around 1C of warming (both sides of the debate roughly agree on this number). However 1C of warming by the time we get to 560 ppm CO2 is not an issue. The warmists claim massive +ve feedback from other GHG’s especially water vapour and that is a FAR more contentious issue (and one I very seriously question).
I hope this makes sense. You have my email address from this post. Please don’t publish it but feel free to contact me if you desire further discussion.
Michael
We have a completely different understanding.
Indeed, as far as I understand it, the atmosphere only contains about 0.8% GH gasses which includes clouds – I would think. The other 99.2% lets all types of radiation through, even the back-radiation of GH gases.
CO2 has absorption in the 15um region causing back radiation to earth. That is the warming effect. As I discovered, read my recent comment here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/04/08/march-2020-co2-levels-at-mauna-loa-show-no-obvious-effect-from-global-economic-downturn/#comment-2961167
there also cooling effects as CO2 also has absorption in the sun’s spectrum, namely from 1.4 to 5 um.
Study the Turnbull report that is mentioned in my post and you will figure out the physics.