+27 83 629-7690
168 scientific papers showing that the effect of more carbon dioxide in the air is nothing or next to nothing…

168 scientific papers showing that the effect of more carbon dioxide in the air is nothing or next to nothing…

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.”
 

No change in temperature in South Africa for more than 45 years!

As a result of all this unnecessary mass media attention, there are genuinely many people now who fear that climate change will cause havoc in their lifetime. For what it is worth, I will keep on doing my bit to show and tell you that there really is nothing to worry about. My results are showing that there has hardly been any climate change at all in South Africa. A statistical analysis of 11 weather stations with good daily data showed that, on average since 1977, the temperature has only changed by 0.007K per decade; that is only 0.032 degrees C in total from 1977 up until 2024. (Note that the particularly warm summer that we recently had here is not included in this data set). My results are reported below:

 

DISCUSSION

Some discernable warming is evident in Johannesburg, Cape Town and East-London. Obviously, these are the cities showing the biggest growth since 1977 and we would expect to see some warming here, especially due to the so-called urban heat effect (UHE) – i.e. more buildings, more tar and more paving, all trapping more heat. I also found that more greening, i.e. people planting more lawns, more trees, more forests and bringing more agriculture, also traps some heat, especially in the night. See footnote e). Also: greener = blacker = less reflectivity (looking from space) = changed albedo = earth traps more heat.

That poses a question: do we want our world to be greener (trapping more heat) or not?

As a control sample, I included Marion Island which lies in the middle of the Indian ocean. Evidence seems to support the argument that Marion Island warms/warmed as much as does the Indian ocean. See footnote d). I therefore sort of expected the average for the whole of South Africa to be the same or similar as that of Marion Island…

Seems to me, factors other than ocean also play a role. Never mind that, let us say that that is the maximum error in my statistical evaluation of SA temperatures. In other words, if you do not trust my average at the end of my results table, look at the result for Marion Island. It is hardly even a quarter of a degree C in total since 1977. You cannot feel and hardly measure such a small change. Please don’t lose any sleep over it.

 

CONCLUSION

If carbon dioxide (CO2) were the reason for any extra warming, or even any global warming, the results city to city should have been more similar, as the CO2 spreads evenly in the air. The variation in the results again prove that it is not the extra carbon dioxide in the air that is posing a problem. Pointing to carbon dioxide as the source of (extra) warming is therefore incorrect.

See footnotes b) and f).

RECOMMENDATION

It is time to read that book that I helped getting translated…. See footnote g)

Feedback: Heart for Children

Feedback: Heart for Children

Feedback: Heart for Children

It has been a while since I gave you some feedback. First, before I forget again: Alfons and Yvonne van Galien of the Rehoboth Children’s Village would like to personally thank each donor and sponsor who contributed to the R200000 that we collected for the children of the village. I am so glad to be able to report that, so far,

  • All 17 children’s homes in the village now have a full gas stove!

  • All the stoves have been installed and certified by an approved supplier. Unfortunately, this turned out to be a rather large cost factor.

  • 20 x 9kg gas bottles were purchased as well.

  • All lights in the homes were replaced with 56 LED back-up lights. These will keep on giving light for a few hours after the power goes off.

The cost for the above was almost R115000. We are all satisfied that this would enable the children’s homes to still function well in case of a power failure or load shedding.

The intention is that the remainder of the money be spent on adding pure solar power to the children’s village. Note that in the office, solar had already been installed. The solar of the school and education center had also been installed already but did not function due to a faulty inverter.

  • The faulty inverter at the school/education center has now been replaced for a little more than R10000 which included installation and certification costs.

This means that, so far, the office and the school & education center in the children’s village are now covered with power, especially in case of load shedding. What remains is the activity center of the village which also includes the clinic and the cooling/freezer room. There is a quote for a complete 3kW solar system servicing this building for R80750. We want to approve this expenditure but if you did the sums: yes, indeed, this is just ca. R5750 above our budget. However, considering such a large project, this is not at all that much. I am sure we all wish to bring our help to the Rehoboth Children’s Village to a successful end. I just realized that we are really doing miracles, right here! We can do this. I am sure of it. I will also donate an extra R500 for this. May I once more ask for your assistance as well, please? Just click here, and maybe you can give as reference: your name + Rehoboth.

DONATE | Heart for Children

(Please remember that we also still need your regular monthly contributions to keep up with our monthly assistance to the safe houses that we have committed to!)

Note that we have sent all donors of Heart for Children the certificate for the tax year ending 29/2/2024. Please let us know if you have not received it. Just send us an e-mail or SMS (for our addresses and numbers: see at the end of this letter).

Feedback: CCMSA/ Bread on the Water.

Have you seen those old sermons by dr. Schuller yet? They are really inspiring to see again. Please check in before they are removed. Click here:

CCMSA | Bread on the water

I helped with the translation of a book, namely ‘The Chronicles of the Climate Hysteria’. If you are interested in a copy, please let me know a.s.a.p. More information here:

The Chronicles of the Climate Hysteria | Bread on the water

By ordering books from us, either for yourself or as gifts for family or friends, you help CCMSA / Bread on the Water with some income! Just click here:

Books | Bread on the water

Thanking you for any contribution and wishing you God’s richest blessings!

Annette Pool

annette.pool@gmail.com

0834696875

Henry Pool

henrypool7@gmail.com

0836297690

Surface Air Temperature (SAT) versus Sea Surface Temperature (SST)

Surface Air Temperature (SAT) versus Sea Surface Temperature (SST)

I am sure you are all well aware of the UAH satellite data set from Spencer and Christy. Every month they report on the global warming of earth. They also give the long-term warming trend each month; e.g. the results for April 2024 included the statement: ‘The linear warming trend since January,1979 remains at +0.15 C/decade (+0.13 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.20 C/decade over global-averaged land).’ To the casual observer this would suggest that the warming on land (SAT) is in a ratio of 3:2 to the warming of the seas and oceans (SST), thereby creating an impression that it is the change in atmosphere causing the extra warming of the earth.

I decided to check this by looking at a number of studies where SST was measured and evaluated manually, and then comparing the results with the nearest SAT results of adjacent land for which I found good data. The results of my investigations are reported below. 

It appears from my results that the idea of land always warming more than the seas holds reasonably well up until where we arrive in the NH subtropics. In the southern hemisphere (SH) the ratio appears to be going the other way around. I knew this already from previous investigations (See Footnote j). Note that I am not blaming Spencer and Christy for giving a wrong impression. What they are doing is completely correct, if you look at it linearly. They are simply averaging and averaging of what is inherently a very unequal warming of the earth going by same UAH data:

So, now what? By my results, there is definitely a significant correlation between SAT and SST: 

DISCUSSION

The highest rate of warming is observed in the Arctic, above the 70 degree latitude. Strangely enough, the warming rate in Barrow (Alaska) of 0.83K/decade compares to a warming rate of only 0.20K/decade in Nome (Alaska) over the same period 1982-2017 (See sheet 10, footnote a). Nome lies just south of Barrow, at 65 degrees, also on the coast of Alaska. The only explanation I can find for these results is that the Arctic is or was strongly affected by underground volcanic eruptions, as reported in a previous study: It is the earth itself, stupid!? | Bread on the water

especially on the Gakkel Ridge,

Volcanoes Erupt Beneath Arctic Ice | Live Science

Looking at the results, it would appear that the extra heat following these eruptions, is – or has been – flowing more towards the south via the corridor between Greenland and Norway. See also: Increasing amount of Arctic Ocean deep waters in the Greenland Sea – Somavilla – 2013 – Geophysical Research Letters – Wiley Online Library

There is also considerably more volcanic activity in Iceland…

A similar argument as the one above can be made for the extra volcanic activity noted in the Black Sea,

Black Sea mud volcanoes and their relation to the search for methane gas hydrates and environmental security – NASA/ADS (harvard.edu)

seemingly causing much warming and greening in northern Turkey.

As far as the Netherlands are concerned, I rely on the investigation done by Ap Cloosterman. See footnote e). He determined that the water of the major European rivers that end up in the North Sea, have warmed considerably due to the water being extensively used for cooling by many factories and energy companies nestled along the way from London, Holland, France, Germany and Switzerland. Warmer water has a higher vapor pressure obviously also bringing more warm water vapor in the atmosphere.

That brings me back to the correlation noted between SAT and SST. Which is causing what? If it were the extra CO2 from man in the air causing the extra warming of all the water and land, there are three points to make. (1) The extra CO2 is distributing itself equally into all directions of the atmosphere by diffusion, so the rate of increase is more or less the same wherever we measure it. So how come is there a complete unequal distribution of the warming of earth? (2) The mass of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the past 50 years compares to next to nothing with the mass of all the seas and oceans of 1.4 x 10^21 kg. The increase in volume of CO2 in the atmosphere over the past 50 years is about 0,01% which compares to about 1% water vapour for the first 3 km of the atmosphere where the greenhouse effect is relevant. (3) A number of people, including myself, have carefully looked at the chemistry and optics and according to their evaluations they concluded that there is no or only a negligible net warming effect caused by more CO2 in the air (See footnote k) and subsequent footnotes in that report).

Assuming the extra heat comes from the oceans and the seas rather than from the atmosphere, how can it be that at some places there is more warming in the air than inside the adjacent sea?  The answer is simple, really. When the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcano erupted on Jan. 15, it sent a tsunami racing around the world and set off a sonic boom that circled the globe twice. The underwater eruption in the South Pacific Ocean also blasted an enormous plume of water vapor into Earth’s stratosphere – enough to fill more than 58,000 Olympic-size swimming pools. The sheer amount of water vapor was enough to temporarily affect Earth’s global average temperature. 

Tonga Eruption Sent Ripples Through Earth’s Ionosphere (nasa.gov)

What do you think was the temperature of all that water vapor? Think of all those eruptions that we saw in Iceland. Suppose they were taking place underneath hundreds of meters of water. What do you think would happen? Large amounts of very warm water vapor would enter the atmosphere.

CONCLUSION

In my opinion, the extra ‘global’ warming of earth in the last 50 years, is coming from a change in sea surface temperature (SST). SST appears to be affected by combination of factors, including, amongst others,

1) UV/IR from the sun

2) Volcanic activity from the earth

3) Activities by man using the water from oceans, seas and rivers for irrigation and cooling

RECOMMENDATION

To avoid confusion, it would be better to rather look at reporting on the warming of the northern- and southern hemispheres separately instead of reporting on the warming of land and water separately.