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:
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.
As it happened in the past 40 years, due to the extra heat coming from the sun and /or the inside of earth, we have indeed seen that the temperature of the oceans is going up (red line). Note that the temperature of the atmosphere (green line) has gone up by exactly the same rate :
We only have good reliable data on CO2 in the atmosphere since about ca. 1964, and indeed, as expected, as per Henry’s Law, we note that CO2 in the atmosphere went up from about 0.03% to 0.04%, see here:
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.
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. I did my best doing some calculations myself. Indeed, I could not find any substantial warming caused by the CO2:
(Did I make a mistake somewhere?)
Never mind 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 I showed earlier:
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 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:
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).