This article also appeared in Dutch, namely on Climategate.nl. Click on:

https://www.climategate.nl/2021/01/ben-ik-dan-wel-een-klimaatontkenner/

Roy Spencer is an influential climate scientist. I am responding to the article on his blog, here

https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/01/no-roy-spencer-is-not-a-climate-denier/

Hi Roy,

I checked the theory of manmade warming due to increasing greenhouse gasses.

I am sorry to say that I could not find any empirical evidence for it. I first looked at all daily data over the last 40 years of 10 weather stations in my immediate vicinity. Here is my report from 2018 on that: No climate change in South Africa 

I subsequently looked randomly at 27 stations on the southern hemisphere (SH) and 27 stations on the northern hemisphere (NH). To summarize: I find that (on the ground) for all these stations that had daily data going back 40 years, there was warming of 0.002K/annum on average in the SH compared to 0.023K/annum on average in the NH. My global result of 0.012K/annum is in fact very much the same as your own result (UAH) in 2015, when I did this investigation (I can show you my results). Looking at minima, my results are even more surprising. I find that in the SH minima have dropped by -0.0138K/year en in the NH it went up by +0.0237K/year 

It seemed obvious to me that the earth is warming, but the theory of more CO2 causing it, made no sense to me. As a chemist I know that CO2 diffuses equally into all areas of the atmosphere. Therefore, if the warming of earth were caused by more CO2, the rate of warming should be the same wherever I measure (on the ground). Subsequently I looked at the temperatures of the oceans. I am sure you might be interested in looking at this: graph

If we compare the difference of the warming of the oceans in the SH with that of the NH, (in the above graph) I get ca. 0.01K/annum for the SH and ca. 0.02K/annum for the NH (over the past 40 years). Again, we see that this result flies in the face of the theory of warming caused by CO2 as the increase in CO2 is always evenly spread above all the oceans. In addition to this, we find that the arctic ocean is warming at a rate that is even much more than that of the average of the NH oceans….On the other hand, it appears that in Antarctica, there is no warming whatsoever, e.g see 

and also : here

In contrast, apparently the arctic area is warming at a rate of 0.0511 K/annum over the past 40 years.

I can therefore also not agree to the theory of ‘polar’ amplification, i.e., the relative increase in warming due to CO2 in the polar regions.   

Fact is that I could not find any warming caused by more CO2. The theory is not supported by simple observations. Looking at it from the 4 corners of the world, by latitude, it is clear to me that the extra warming of earth is coming from the north and spreading slowly to the south. 

Inter alia, I think that the area in the arctic oceans where the CO2 should sink:

2H2O + CO2 + cold  =>  <=  HCO3- + H3O+ (1)

is becoming smaller. That explains the zigzag measured in Hawaii, and perhaps also the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, mostly, since the area where the CO2 sinks in Antarctica has stayed constant over the past 40 years or so.

In my opinion, some of the reasons for the warming of earth could be:

• A natural cause e.g., the Eddy cycle (every ca. 1000-1100 years), possibly due to a re-alignment of earth’s inner core with that of the sun (magnetic stirrer effect). Why would one of my country men, Willem Barentz, risk his live and that of his crew 500 years ago, unless he was sure that the passage to the east via the north MUST have existed? One of the commenters on the Dutch blog clearly remembers from history lessons more than 50 years ago that Willem had documented evidence of a passage to the east via the north, both from Roman times and from the time of the Vikings. The difference in time between the two periods is amazing. Willem was just 4 or 5 hundred  years too late, or too early, whichever. Pity that most people now do not even want to find same passage, even if they get it for free…
• More volcanism, especially around Greenland, Iceland and the Arctic. Who says that the cooling of earth since Genesis is on a smooth downward curve? I am sure there might be a few hick-ups here and there, especially because of the interactions between the sun and earth.
• Soot on ice caused by shipping causes melting of ice – this phenomenon is well known. In this respect I should perhaps mention the (silly) increase in traffic due to the shipping of ‘biomass’ (wooden chips) from north America and eastern Europe to western Europe. These ships probably use the cheapest oil fuel they can get…
• Increased vegetation on land e.g. see this report from Christy et al. Just take a minute to at least read the conclusion. My own results found at certain places with increased vegetation confirm the results of Christy et al.
• The waste of 7 billon people and even more animals and many factories is mostly acidic. This pushes the equilibrium of the reaction (1) back, causing more CO2 in the atmosphere. But clearly, as argued before, it is probably not the increase in CO2 causing the warming. It is much more plausible that the warming is due to the increase in salinity, trapping more heat in the oceans. We also know that organic contamination accumulating on top of the water, traps heat.

So tell me now, do you think that I am a climate denier/ denialist?

Blessings to you all!

Henry Pool

Pretoria, South Africa