The ‘problem’

The media tell us almost every day now that we have a global warming problem due to our emission of more carbon-dioxide (CO₂). Let us just look at the extent of the ‘problem’. Since 1979 we have satellites doing the global infra-red temperature measurements (UAH). See here ‘The linear warming trend since January 1979 stands at +0.13 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land)’. Before the satellite time, we had people looking at thermometers in a number of places on earth. In Fig.1 below I show the global results from Hadcrut4 as measured and reported.

 Fig.1

The trendline is down. In other words, there was no warming from 1935 to 1979. The 1935 date was chosen because the oil industry really only started to take off around that time and because of the length of the Gleissberg solar cycle which is ca. 87 years. I would expect that over the length of the period 1935-2022, dT should be 0. Assuming that our temperature on earth is dominated by this weather cycle, we note that the extra warming from 1935 until now other than from solar forcing is in fact not more than 0.5C, in total.  This is really the maximum extent of the ‘problem’, as anyone will find it. We must place this amount of warming in context with the fact that the accuracy and recording of temperature in the past was not as good as it is now. Also, that the extra 0.5C warming of earth is not unprecedented in the history of earth, e.g. see here In addition the HadCRUT4 dataset, now updated to the end of 2021, shows no global warming for almost eight years: There is no ‘climate crisis’. But the question that comes to all our minds: What could be the causes for this global warming? Below, I discuss some of the possible causes. Note that there could be more factors that influence the weather. I will try to keep it as brief and simple as possible so everyone can understand. I am willing to engage in scientific debates, questions and – problems in the comments section.

• Is it coming from more CO₂ (Greenhouse gasses)?
• Is it coming from a warmer sun?
• Is it coming from a warmer earth?
• Is it coming from more pollutants in water and/or air, other than greenhouse gasses?
• Is it coming from the greening of earth?

Greenhouse gasses

The classic theory is that the extra CO₂ that is coming into the atmosphere is causing a retardation of heat that is being lost to space. This process is supposed to take place everywhere near to the top of the atmosphere (TOA). For example: see here

Several people have done measurements and calculations to check the theory. It appears that the practical results do not agree with the theory. They found that the effect on global temperature of the extra 0.01% v/v CO₂ that was added to the atmosphere since 1960 is extremely small or even zero,  e.g. see here1 and here2  I also did some calculations myself on the infra-red spectrum of CO₂. See here3 . (The result is reported in the first 3 rows of the K,L and M columns). The fact is that CO2 concentration follows temperature on all timescales, see here4 and here5 (you have to watch the first 30 minutes of the video, at least)

Even if we suppose that these people and their investigations must simply all be wrong, there is another rather inconvenient truth for the climate activists. The Gas Law (PV=nRT) implies that due to the diffusion and equal dissipation of the extra CO₂ into our atmosphere, especially TOA, the rate of warming of earth must be the more or less the same wherever you measure. Unfortunately, as shown in Fig. 2, that is not at all what is being observed.

Fig. 2

Most of the warming takes place in the northern hemisphere (NH)! One could argue that in that case the warming noted in the southern hemisphere (SH) could at least be due solely to GH gasses and use the ratio to calculate a global result for the extra CO2. We would then have found about 50-60% of the ‘problem’. Unfortunately, if we must believe in the principle of the retardation of radiation by the GH gas or CO₂ to space TOA, which is global, it must affect minimum temperatures. One must then see minima in the night rising, pushing up the average temperature. Whilst this is happening in the NH, it is not at all happening like that in the SH. See my results of a statistical analysis of 54 weather stations (ws) in Table 1 below. I also discuss this anomaly of more warming in the NH in greater detail here

Table 1

It is the sun, stupid!

Somebody once said: ‘It is simple, really. It is warmer during the day than during the night because of the sun. It is warmer in summer than it is in winter because of the sun. So, following simple logic, would you not say that if it is warmer now on earth than it was 100 years ago, it must also be because of the sun?’

Normally I would agree with the sentiment that was expressed. I am sure there are certain long term solar cycles that may greatly affect the temperature on earth, such as the Gleissberg  and Eddy cycles. But if we look at the solar activity (Fig. 3) over the last 30 years, one must agree that the overall trend is downwards. This does not mean that the sun is getting ‘cooler’. But the ‘big’ heat that we get from the sun, is linked with UV. 

Fig.3

Lower solar activity is associated with a lower amount of UV coming through the atmosphere, i.e., less heat going into the oceans. According to my own statistical work, maximum temperature started to drop ca. 17 or 18 years ago, counted from 2014, i.e., ca. 1996. In Fig. 4 below I show the derivatives of the applicable least square linear equations from right to left.  

Fig.4

Myself and others have also looked at the future in some more detail. Taking into account various factors, we think that incoming heat from the sun will probably continue to fall somewhat until ca. 2037 or 2038; for example, see Ibanga et al

How about earth?

I was stunned not so long ago when I discovered that earth itself has nuclear reactions going on deep down in its core. In effect, that means that earth itself is also like a small sun.

March, 2021. My wife and I watched in awe when the volcano on the outskirts of Mount Fagradalsfjall, about 40km south-west of the capital Reykjavik, erupted. Lava had not flowed for eight centuries on the Reykjanes peninsula, and not for nearly 6,000 years where the eruption occurred, according to volcanologists. See picture at the beginning of this report. We recalled that in 2010, an eruption of the Eyjafjallajokull volcano in Iceland sent clouds of ash and dust into the atmosphere, interrupting air travel between Europe and North America because of concerns the material could damage jet engines. Naturally, we began to wonder: are volcanic eruptions increasing and could this be the cause of earth getting warmer?  A quick search on Google suggests: No! There were 3 or 4 reports that quickly showed up; I show one:

Is Worldwide Volcanic Activity Increasing? / Volcanoes and Volcanism FAQ (volcanodiscovery.com)

But can we trust Google? One of the reports I saw even went as far as to say that the warming of earth by mankind (remember the ‘problem’: +0.5C) is the cause of more volcanic activity. Absolutely ridiculous. But it does raise the question about more volcanic eruptions, even if they have it the wrong way around. The last sentence of the quoted report on the increase of volcanic activity seems a bit odd: ‘So we should not be worried about global volcanic activity’. One wonders why anyone should not be worried about this. You begin to think that maybe the whole article was deliberately placed on the internet to put people off from a search for a cause of global warming other than CO₂? Is it pure co-incidence that in the past decade we have seen many more volcanic eruptions?  I remember seeing various reports on Iceland, Italy, Las Palmas, Indonesia, Tonga, and off-coast Japan. I think there were many more tsunamis reported as well. Note that D’Andrea et al (2011) found clear proof of a 1000 year cyclicity and he concluded: ‘Our results indicate that the ice-free region of West Greenland experienced much greater temperature variability during the Holocene than the top of the Greenland ice sheet, probably because of interactions among oceanic, atmospheric, solar, and volcanic forcing, and that climatic changes were important in influencing cultural transitions and human settlement patterns in West Greenland.’

My Table 1 showed that modern warming is not evenly distributed globally. This applies especially to the oceans. Carefully observe the results in Table 2  (Click on the blue figure if you want to see its origin).

Table 2

In my opinion it is only volcanic activity noted in the Arctic seas that could help explain the remarkable results that we are seeing in Table 2. For example, see: here1 And this report: here2 says specifically: ‘New evidence deep beneath the Arctic ice suggests a series of underwater volcanoes have erupted in violent explosions in the past decade’. In 1999 eruptions apparently also occurred on the Gakkel Ridge deep beneath the ocean. See here3

In Addendum 1 is the abstract of a report that actually witnessed the amazing temperature increase and increase in salinity in the Greenland Sea. It says: ‘In the last three decades ……..temperature and salinity in the deep Greenland Sea have increased at mean rates without precedent in the last 100 years, and these trends are among the highest in the global deep ocean’. Note that the Greenland Sea is between Norway and Greenland. The last eruption of the Beerenberg was in 1980, which is also not so long ago.

In addition, earth’s magnetic north is shifting at an unprecedented rate of 30 miles a year – throwing satellite positioning data and navigation systems off course. See here. It makes sense to me to think that the inside of earth must always re-align itself with the magnetic field of the sun, like a magnetic stirrer does. I imagine that this could also affect volcanic activity. All these observations together with my own observations on the 1000-year-eddy-cycle/ support the argument that some more heat is coming or has come from earth itself, as it probably has done every 1000 years or so, for a short period of time.

Pollution

1. Wastewater

During my career as a chemist, I ended up in most plants also overseeing the control over the discharge of wastewater. I am sure that you will understand that not everyone appreciated my work when it ended up me calling a halt to production if too much acid or caustic went down the drain somewhere. We must consider the total amount wastewater of all factories and the waste of 7 billion people and even more cattle and animals that are being kept. I know that the pH of all that wastewater is mostly slightly acidic, ca. pH= 6 to 7. The norm is pH>6 but my concern is that countries in the east are not that much worried about the norm. The extra hydronium ion from the waste water could then be a cause for more CO2 in the air, given that the oceans have an enormous buffering action with regard to carbonate. However, clearly, even more worrying is that the net result of all our wastewater will also cause an increase in the salinity, especially there where the polluted rivers end up in the seas. The effect of more salinity is a reduction in the specific heat capacity. See Table 3 below.

Table 3

The relationship between the Specific Heat Capacity (Q) and salt concentration (C) in g/l is:

Q= -11,5 [C] + 4163 (R² = 0.9985). This means that for every increase in the salt concentration by 1g/l, you need ca. 11.5 J less energy to raise the temperature of 1 kg water by 1 degree K.

The report here ends with a statement: ‘The concentration of salt and its specific heat capacity will also impact on our climate”. However, it would appear from my calculations (see Addendum 2) that the increase in salinity of the oceans, either by man or by nature (volcanic activity), is most probably not a significant contributing factor in the observed global warming.

 2. Soot

Let me just quote from the relevant NASA report: NASA – Black and White: Soot on Ice 

‘Black carbon has already been implicated as playing a role in melting ice and snow. Basically, when soot falls on ice, it darkens the surface and accelerates melting by absorbing more sunlight than ice would, just as wearing a black shirt in the summertime makes you feel hotter than if you wore a lighter color. Dark colors absorb heat and light, and lighter colors reflect it keeping surfaces cooler.

By exploring processes in the Earth’s atmosphere, NASA scientists are seeking answers to how pollutants like soot are changing the climate of the world around us.’

So, we don’t know the exact extent of this effect, as far yet, but it could be significant.

3. Contamination of the oceans by oil

There is no shortage of information on the internet about the effects of oil spills, especially concerning all life forms depending on clean water. None of them will tell you if the contamination has a direct warming or cooling effect. I therefore decided to do my own experiment. Two equally sized open plastic containers with the same diameter were filled with water of 27C at 7pm. In one container I added three drops of pure engine oil, 15W40. To determine if the oil has an influence on temperature, I checked the temperature again after 12 hours exposure in the open air, i.e. at 7am. I found that the temperature in both vessels had dropped to 20C. I subsequently allowed them to stand outside and measured again at 7pm. I found the temperature in both vessels was 28C. I have tentatively drawn the conclusion that oil spills are probably not a factor in global warming. 

The greening of Earth

Fig.5

It appears from several investigations that due to the increase in CO2, earth has been greening, e.g.,

Deserts ‘greening’ from rising CO2 – CSIROpedia

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows/

Obviously, we know from simple observations that there is no greening there where it is too cold. The extra warming of earth itself could therefore also be a contributing factor in the greening of earth. The extent of the extra greening is shown in Fig. 5 above. The question arises: what does all this extra greening do to local temperature? A first indication came to me from reading a report from John Christy, published in 2006. I show from the abstract of the report:  

‘The debiased segments are then merged, forming a complete regional time series. Time series of daily maximum and minimum temperatures for stations in the irrigated San Joaquin Valley (Valley) and nearby non-irrigated Sierra Nevada (Sierra) were generated for 1910–2003. Results show that twentieth-century Valley minimum temperatures are warming at a highly significant rate in all seasons, being greatest in summer and fall (> +0.25°C decade−1). The Valley trend of annual mean temperatures is +0.07° ± 0.07°C decade−1. Sierra summer and fall minimum temperatures appear to be cooling, but at a less significant rate, while the trend of annual mean Sierra temperatures is an unremarkable −0.02° ± 0.10°C decade−1. A working hypothesis is that the relative positive trends in Valley minus Sierra minima (>0.4°C decade−1 for summer and fall) are related to the altered surface environment brought about by the growth of irrigated agriculture, essentially changing a high-albedo desert into a darker, moister, vegetated plain.’

Source: Methodology and Results of Calculating Central California Surface Temperature Trends: Evidence of Human-Induced Climate Change? in: Journal of Climate Volume 19 Issue 4 (2006) (ametsoc.org)

They measured warming of 0.07 C/decade, but in neighboring Sierra Nevada the temperature went down by 0.02C/ decade, probably due to natural causes. The corrected result is therefore 0.09K/decade. Now look at my own result for Las Vegas, here  This used to be a desert: they just brought water from afar. The average temperature went up by 0.65K per decade! That is more than +3K over de last 50 years. Johannesburg is one of the few places in South Africa where I observed some significant warming. Note that Johannesburg, like Las Vegas, also did not have any natural flowing water. This used to be savannah. But there was gold. So, they brought the water. Here I measure warming of +0.18K per decade. I also looked in Bursa, Turkey, which shows strong greening if I go by Fig.5. I find that temperatures have gone up here, by a staggering 0.80K/decade from 1973, i.e., 3.8C warmer. What about the Arctic? If you look carefully at Fig.4 you can see that the leaf area increased by more than 50% in the areas around the arctic ocean. It appears from various measurements that it is warming there at a rate of 0.5K per decade.

In contrast, in South America many forest trees were chopped for logging or to make way for agricultural – and housing developments. A loss of about 10-15% in leaf area is apparent (see picture, area is orange). In Lapaz (Bolivia) I notice that the trend for minima is already negative and in Tandil (ARG) the temperature went down by as much as 0.43K/decade, i.e. 2K cooler. See here  

In a recent report on climate change in Alabama, John Christy wrote: ‘Every trend calculation starting from 1895 through 2010 and ending in 2020 produces more warming in the lows than the highs’. In other words: minima are going up. Which is exactly what we would expect if the trend of greening in Alabama is increasing. Indeed: It is up about 10% from 1982 (Fig.5).

In my opinion, the mechanism for the extra warming due to greening is partly as explained earlier in the quoted report i.e., a change in albedo. But I think there is also another reason. I do remember from my biology class that there are two important reactions concerning plant life. The one takes place during the day, with the chlorophyll under the influence of UV. Apparently, this reaction is endotherm. So, it consumes the energy from the warmth of the day. The other reaction (with CO₂) takes place during the night – this is when the sugars are made, and growth takes place. Basically, this is where all our food and drinks come from. This reaction is exotherm: It produces heat! I think it is the latter reaction that is also an important factor as it explains the trapping of the heat during the night and in the growth seasons, as reported by Christy et al. 2006.

Altogether, looking randomly at the 5 places that had become a lot greener, as per Fig.5, you remember the results, respectively: (0.09 + 0.65 + 0.18 + 0.80 + 0.50) / 5 = 0.41K/decade, on average. This is more than 200% of the 0.18K/decade warming reported by UAH, overland, from 1979. The influence of the extra greening of earth due to the extra warming and due to extra increase in CO₂ appears to be significant.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The results of my investigations revealed that one of the most probable causes for the extra warming of earth could be more volcanic activity, especially in and around the Arctic. It seems that this could be related to the 1000-year Eddy cycle. It is considered that the warming of earth is not a ‘problem’ as such. It is a benefit as it aids in the greening of earth. Due to various factors, including man wanting more crops and greenery and putting more dung up in the air for this (i.e., CO₂), earth is putting on an extra green jacket which appears to help a lot in keeping herself warmer at night….

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Note that the (slight) reduction of heat coming from the sun is likely to continue for some time. More carbon dioxide stimulates more growth on earth. If we want a greener world, it is not necessary to reduce our emissions.
• To stop the melting of more arctic ice, we must prevent getting more soot on ice. For this, the amount of shipping in the NH must be reduced. This can be achieved by stopping the shipments of wood for fuel from north America and eastern Europe to western Europe.
• Coal, wood and oil contain poisons and combustion often produces or leaves unacceptable soot, and poisonous ash- and dust levels. Oil spills cause serious problems for sea life. Therefore, for the time being, gas is still the cleanest source for energy giving also the biggest amount of calories. Be aware of the problems with green energy, see: the Green Illusion North, east, south, west: gas best!

Addendum 1

 Increasing amount of Arctic Ocean deep waters in the Greenland Sea – Somavilla – 2013 – Geophysical Research Letters – Wiley Online Library

Abstract

[1] In the last three decades, deep convection has come to a halt in the Greenland Sea. Hydrographic data reveal that during this period, temperature and salinity in the deep Greenland Sea have increased at mean rates without precedent in the last 100 years, and these trends are among the highest in the global deep ocean. The origin of these changes is identified as the advection of Arctic Ocean deep waters and the necessary transports to explain them are calculated (0.44±0.09 Sv). Despite the fact that the deep Greenland Sea hardly covers 0.05% of the global surface, the resulting trends constitute 0.3% of the World Ocean heat content increase per unit area of earth’s surface and 0.1% of the global sea level rise. These results suggest that changes of the deep Arctic Mediterranean and their contribution to the global budgets need to be addressed.

Addendum 2

Reminder of the relationship Specific Heat Capacity with salt concentration:

Q= -11,5 [C] + 4163 (E1)

We consider the total surface area of the oceans of earth

It is 361 million square kilometers

=361 x 10¹² m²

We consider a column of 1 meter deep. (HadSST measures at the depth of 0.2 meter)

=361 x 10¹² x 1 m³

=361 x 10¹² x 1025 kg 

We want to raise the temperature of this amount of water by 0.5K (the ‘problem’, + 0.12 K/decade measured above the oceans since 1979)

=370 x 10¹⁵ x 0.5 kgK

=185 x 10¹⁵ kgK

As per Table 2 in the report we need 3850J per kgK (25g/l)

=185 x 10¹⁵ x 3850

= 71,2 x 10¹⁹ J

Let us now consider the doubling of the salt concentration of the waters of the seas and oceans on average, due to the influence of man and/or other natural factors. This represents a worst-case scenario. According to E1, this 25g/l increase would cause a decrease of ca. 25 x 11,5=287.5J per kgK in the specific heat capacity.

Now let:

71,2 x 10¹⁹ J = K x 370 x 10¹⁵ x (3850 – 287.5) = K x 3.7 x 10¹⁷ x 3562.5

By solving the equation, we find the extra increase in temperature of the oceans and seas due to the increase in salinity by 25g/l:

K = 0.54

0.54-0.5=0.04K 

The doubling of the salt concentration brought an additional warmth of only 0.04K.