I am sure most of you are well aware that there must be strong relationship between the carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere and the warmth of the water in the oceans, summarized by the chemical reactions (1) and (2):

HCO3- + UV/heat = CO2 (g) + OH- (1)

Carbon dioxide is the gas on which all carbon life depends. Every year ca. 100 billion tons of CO2 is gassing out from the oceans into the atmosphere due to the heat from the sun (Roemps Chemie Lexicon). For nature to keep the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere, a similar amount must dissolve again there where the water is very cold, for example in the polar regions, deep sea, etc.

CO2 (g) + 2H2O + cold = HCO3- + H3O+ (2)

Someone recently pointed me to the work done on this relationship by the late prof. Lance Endersbee. To quote from his 2008 report: see Endersbee – Carbon dioxide and the oceans.pdf

‘In the past, sea temperatures were obtained from measurements by passing ships in the sea lanes of the world. It is only in the past three decades that more accurate data on sea surface temperatures has become available. The analysis of this recent data by the author shows that: a) the oceans regulate the composition of the atmosphere; b) the influence on climate of human-generated carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is negligible; and c) global climate change has natural causes.

The oceans and the atmosphere are quite shallow in relation to the vast surface area of the oceans. The interaction of the atmosphere and the oceans is essentially a phenomenon of the ocean surface. It would be expected that there would be almost a direct correlation between levels of CO2 in the air and the global mean sea surface temperatures, and, indeed, that is the case. It is possible to plot an experience curve of the relationship between ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels. To do so it is necessary to recognize that the oceans have a vast storage capacity for heat and dissolved gases, and that changes are slow. On the other hand, the atmosphere has a much more rapid response time. If we use a 12-month moving average of the atmospheric CO2 concentration and a 21-year moving average of the more accurate recent data on global average sea surface temperatures, a remarkably clear experience curve is obtained. The 12-month moving average of CO2 levels filters out the variations of the annual cycle and, in related analyses, provides a view of the influence of other natural events. The 21-year moving average of sea surface temperature covers the complete solar cycle, including the change in magnetic polarity of the sun, the El Niño and La Niña influences on global climate, and recognizing the vast storage capacity of the oceans for CO2 and the slow response time of the oceans. The chart (graph) shows that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere and global average sea surface temperatures are locked together. The correlation (R²=0.996) is so firm it is reasonable to include it as a condition in the computer simulations used to study climate change.’ End quote.

The professor’s graph shows that the relationship between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the warming anomaly of the oceans is given by: y=143.6x+334.1 where y = ppm CO2 in the atmosphere (as measured in Mauna Loa, Hawaii) and x = the globally evaluated warming anomaly (delta T, in degrees C) of the sea surface temperature (SST).

As stated earlier, unfortunately Prof. Endersbee passed away in 2009, so we have no further data from him to see how his relationship would hold up to today. I was curious to see this and decided to look at two simple wft plots, one just to check his own graph (1985-2009) and another one to see where we stand today (1980-2025):

Here we see from the trendline that the delta T from 1985 to 2009 is indeed about 0.35C, as he already had determined in a more accurate way. We calculate the atmospheric CO2 concentration: 143.6 x 0.35 +334.1 = 384 ppm, which is of course exactly what it was in 2009.

Here we see from the trendline that the delta T from 1980 to 2025 is about 0.6C. We calculate the atmospheric CO2 concentration from Enderbee’s formula: 143.6 x 0.6 +334.1 = 420 ppm, which is of course almost exactly what it is today….

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Note that the way I determined delta T is of course much more inaccurate than Prof. Endersbee would have done it, working with the original data, as he had explained; but clearly, the results of the investigation suggest that it is the warming of the oceans that determines the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is exactly as professor Endersbee proposed, namely, ‘that the oceans regulate the composition of CO2 in the atmosphere’. It appears that all our human-generated carbon dioxide has little or no influence on the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere….

 At the Rehoboth Children’s Village, from left to right: Yvonne & Alfons van Galien, Henry & Annette Pool. The meaning of Rehoboth: place of water and space (Gen. 26:22)

I am so proud to report that all the work for the project that we set out to do to make the Rehoboth Children’s Village less dependent on Eskom power, has now been finalized. All 17 homes in the village now have gas cooking! The homes already had been fitted with solar geysers and to this we added the lightbulbs with batteries in every room that keep on shining for hours if the power goes off. Further, we supplied full solar power to the activity center which includes the cooling- and food distribution center. Finally, we also replaced the faulty inverter of the existing solar power installation of the school.

Message from the Rehoboth Children’s Village (on behalf of ca. 80 children): Thanking you all so much for this amazing support. Both Gas and Solar. What a blessing. Bless you guys and BIG hugs from us. Alfons & Yvonne van Galien. 

Click on the link below to see some pictures that we want to share with you:

https://heartforchildren.co.za/2024/07/20/finished/

Contrary to popular belief, there are now many scientific papers showing that the influence of more Carbon Dioxide (CO2) on the climate is nothing – or next to nothing. I had thought about compiling a blog putting all these papers skeptical of significant warming by CO2 together until I recently found that someone already had the same idea as I had. Look here:

Scientific papers showing negligible influence of carbon dioxide on temperature and climate

To carry on with this work, I am just going to add links of skeptical reports in this blog that I am finding along the way from now on. I start with my own studies, namely:

An evaluation of the greenhouse effect by carbon dioxide | Bread on the water

An evaluation of the green-house effect by carbon-dioxide (3) | Bread on the water

I have tried to keep it straight and simple so that it should be easy to understand for anyone with basic knowledge of physics. At the end of my reports I mentioned 5 reports of other people who investigated same problem in different ways but arrived at the same conclusion, namely that there is little or no influence on the temperature by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere. Not so long ago I also came across this report:

Climatic consequences of the process of saturation of radiation absorption in gases – ScienceDirect

In the conclusion it says: “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.

Most recently I came across this paper:

https://www.scirp.org/pdf/ijg_2024032514494686.pdf

In the abstract it says:  “It showed that the curves and trends were too dissimilar to establish a connection. Observations from CO2/temp ratios showed that the CO2 and the temperature moved in opposite directions 42% of the time. Many ratios displayed zero or near zero values, reflecting a lack of response. As much as 87% of the ratios revealed negative or near zero values, which strongly negate a correlation. The infrared spectra showed the Greenhouse Gases had an exceptionally low absorption band between 11.67 µm to 9.1 µm, which is a zone called the infrared atmospheric window. Most of the Greenhouse Gases absorb little infrared inside that zone. And that zone is where the Earth’s surface emits almost all infrared radiation. Even with minimal absorbance, water vapor captures the most infrared radiation. It absorbs 84 times more than CO2, 407 thousand times more than methane, 452 thousand times more than ozone and 2.3 million times more than nitrous oxide. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the United States EPA excluded water vapor because it was not associated with man-made activities. They reported that water vapor and clouds were simply feedback mechanisms from CO2. Clouds reflect radiation from the sun. The Northern Hemisphere is 2.7˚F warmer than the Southern Hemisphere because of clouds. The world cloud cover has gone down 4.1% from 1982 to 2018. Calculations show that this could be responsible for 2.4˚F of the 2.7˚F. The research shows that most of the recent increase in temperature (89.9%) is because of fewer clouds.”