I originally wrote this letter to the members of parliament of the Netherlands:

Zeer geacht Kamerlid – Climategate Klimaat

I will soon also send it to all the members of parliament in South-Africa as soon as I have all their email addresses.

Henry Pool

Dear  Member of Parliament,

(Name + surname)

(Party XXX)

After my previous correspondence,

https://www.dropbox.com/s/tps2cd4kuds8o6g/SUBMISSION%20by%20Henry%20Pool.docx?dl=0

I certainly don’t need to tell you how disappointed I am with the new climate law. I am deeply offended. Because yes, it is throwing money down the drain with that climate law. The carbon dioxide (CO2) itself cannot be the cause of climate change. I know that you think that 97% of scientists think differently about that, but I am going to explain to you why that theory is wrong. I even want to dare to say (and think) that you will understand my reasoning. I try to keep it simple so that all the laymen among you will understand me.

1. I can provide dozens of proofs that climate change is of all times. I will just dwell on the analysis of ice samples at different depths in Greenland. Will you read with me?

2. Did you know that at a concentration of just 150 ppmv of carbon dioxide (CO2) carbon based life as we know it becomes much worse? I will also show you from fairly simple empirical science that a level of 600 to 800 ppmv CO2 is ideal for the greatest possible crop yield.

3. The so-called greenhouse effect has mostly to do with the energy released by the condensation of water vapor. Carbon dioxide (CO2) does not condense in the atmosphere.

4. I am reporting the results of studies that I and others have done that show that the effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is nothing.

Let’s start (1) with the fact that climate change is of all times:

Here we see an analysis of ice samples from Greenland that were taken and evaluated at different depths. The depths correspond to time and the measured parameters could be correlated with surface temperature. We see with a regularity of about 1000 years that it is warmer at the surface where the sample was taken. Source: https://foresight.org/some-historical-perspective/ (if you have time: read this report!)

Note that this analysis only goes up to 1950, because younger ice apparently doesn’t work. But anyway, if we were to extend this graph, it is logical to see that by 2024 we could theoretically easily be up to -29, which is +2.0 to +2.5 from 1950, exactly what we are now measuring in the northern hemisphere – and also in the Netherlands! From other observations, the scientist named Eddy had also seen this regularity of about 1000 years. More about this here: The thousand-year Eddy cycle – Climategate Climate.

My question to you is: why could the climate change we are seeing now NOT be natural, just like it used to be?

My next question to you is: (2) do you know what the atmospheric part of CO2 is now, at this moment, in ppmv and in % v/v (= volume per volume)? I will give you the answer because if you still have to look it up yourself with google then you have already failed my exam. It is now 410 ppmv or 0.04 %v/v of the entire atmosphere. I remember from my own books what it was 50 years ago. It was then 310 ppmv or 0.03% v/v. The increase is therefore only 0.01% v/v. This compares with approx. 1.0% v/v water vapor in the first 3 km of the atmosphere where the greenhouse effect is relevant. We know that at a concentration of 150 ppm CO2 (0.015%) plant life has a very hard time.

[There is experimental work available that plants require at least 150 ppm CO2 to grow. Ref: Dippery et al. (1995). “Effects of low and elevated CO2 on C3 and C4.”. Oecologia, 101, 13-20, (1995), Springer-Verlag.]

At 150 ppmv photosynthesis becomes so inefficient that it stops working properly. In greenhouses the optimal CO2 level is 600 to 800 ppmv. That is the best concentration of CO2 for plants to grow. See for example here .

[I seem to remember that in greenhouses for tomatoes, the optimal concentration for CO2 is even 1000 ppmv (0.1%). Maybe you can check that for me? That report I read about it from growers in the Westland in the Netherlands has strangely enough disappeared…]

My question is, can someone tell me what the ‘right’ concentration of CO2 is where the well-being of the biosphere and the atmosphere and thus the benefit for humanity is optimal? In all the climate and geophysical literature, in all those thousands of publications, millions of sentences and billions of words, the answer to that simple question is not to be found. It is not even known whether there is such a thing as the best concentration of carbon dioxide in the air.

This was just something about the philosophy of ‘consensus’. You understand that there is no such thing. Really not.

(3) I am now going to explain in simple language how the greenhouse effect (gh-effect) works. It is important that everyone who has anything to do with this effect at least understands what is happening. I found this definition on the internet:

“it is the trapping of the sun’s heat in the lower part of a planet’s atmosphere, because of the greater transparency of the atmosphere to visible radiation from the sun than to infrared radiation returned from the planet’s surface”.

This definition is misleading because it only focuses on a small aspect of the gh effect. This is not the main reason why a planet with water like Earth is 33K warmer in the lower regions than a planet without water. It works like this:

Sunlight (UV/IR) falls on water => water vapour => water vapour accumulates (sticks together due to strong VanderWaals forces) => clouds => this moist air and clouds start to move due to pressure and temperature differences => clouds and water vapour move to cooler areas => condensation takes place => condensation heat is released in the air => this is equal to 2260 kJ per kg water vapour. A ‘cold front’ with many clouds is actually Mother Earth’s way of making the temperature the same everywhere, so that the average is approx. 14-15 C instead of -18C for a planet (at this distance from the sun) without water. It seems to me that everyone has simply forgotten this. The definitions in the textbooks want you to believe that the main reason for the gh effect is that the gas slows down or holds the outgoing long-wave radiation from the earth, like a ‘blanket’ around the earth. There is some truth in that, but that is indeed only a very small aspect of the GH effect….and then there are also greenhouse gases that protect us against the most energetic radiation from the sun by sending it back into space.

Most people don’t understand that the majority of the energy of that extra 33C of the gh effect comes from the interaction between the sun and the ocean. They think that that entire 33C is provided by that ‘blanket’ of that 1% water vapour and that 0.04% CO2 around us. Taking this (wrong) route you could easily calculate that the increase of 0.01% CO2 over the past 50 years provides between 0.3 and 0.4 degrees C extra heat. Then some climate scientists believe that there are certain multiplication effects that could bring all of this to +1C or even +1.5 C. You will understand that if the premise is already wrong, that all of that is nonsense. CO2 (carbon dioxide) does nothing to the global temperature in terms of condensation because there is no condensation of CO2 in the atmosphere, so there is no heat that is repeatedly released like with water vapour. There is also no VanderWaals accumulation (as with water vapour) of CO2 because the gas behaves like an ideal gas. By diffusion it expands equally in all directions. Consequently there is also no mass that can retain and release heat, as in the case of water vapour – except that of a single molecule. But each molecule is surrounded by 10,000 other gas molecules that simply let all back-radiation of CO2 through. We can therefore consider the molecule by itself by looking only at the spectrum of CO2 and see what happens when light (radiation) from the sun and from the earth falls on the molecule.

Here (4) it may get a bit technical. It turns out from my own calculations that the amount of energy of the radiation that goes through the CO2 back to the sun and space is about the same as the energy of the back radiation of CO2 that goes to the earth. Here are my results reported.

At the end of my report I mention the work of 4 other scientists who arrived at the same result using different methods. The most recent research is by a number of Polish researchers who concluded:

The presented material shows that despite the fact that the majority of publications attempt to depict a catastrophic future for our planet due to the anthropogenic increase in CO2 and its impact on Earth’s climate, the shown facts raise serious doubts about this influence. See here .

The net effect of more CO2 on the temperature in the atmosphere is nothing. More CO2 is better because it is our fertilizer in the air for plants. That the extra CO2 does provide better harvests and a greener world and that this may influence the global temperature a little is another subject. Cause and effect … you know.

I would be happy to hear from you if you have any questions.

Henry Pool

henrypool7@gmail.com