Suppose for a moment that you are a politician, and thanks to advancing insight, you come to the realization that the policy you are implementing is a lie and a fraud. Will you opt for a different policy, or, out of convenience, will you continue to choose the easiest way out: carry on with the same policy, deceiving the people you serve?
The devil called CO2
For many who get their information from the media, CO2 is a deadly devil that threatens the “survival of the earth”. The earth is overheating, and CO2 is the cause. There must be an energy transition to renewables, because solar and wind are ‘free’ whilst nuclear and fossil fuels are out of the question. The western world foresees “Net Zero” by 2050. Meanwhile, the average citizen sees their energy bills continually rising due to the exorbitant investment needed for sun and wind and due to the extra CO2 taxes on fossil fuel. This is exacerbated by the energy shortage, which is the result of bans and the lack of co-operation from banks in tapping new fossil resources, under pressure from the United Nations. The protagonists claim to “follow science”. Let’s take a closer look at this one.
The nature of science
Religion and science are two different ways of finding truth. The pursuit of science is the search for truth. As the knowledge is built up, however, one notices that new unknowns keep appearing. Scientists can therefore not guarantee that the statements that are correct under current knowledge are also correct in the future. For example, the absolute speed of light in femto-lasers has been replaced by the “group speed” and doubts have also recently arisen about the “Big Bang ” theory due to the images provided by the new James Webb telescope.
On that timeline, there are scientists who are more advanced than others and a field of tension has arisen with regard to the question of who supports the highest level of truth. Dialogue among scientists is therefore essential and offers the best guarantee for optimal further development.
Polarization
Unfortunately, this is certainly no longer the case for climate science. We are dealing with a polarization that is being advanced by media and politicians. This is extremely harmful to future scientific development and to the energy supply. The polarization focuses on abandoning reality testing. Remember, “to measure is to know” is the basis of all science, which is now in sharp contrast to the non-validated modeling supported by the IPCC. A disastrous future for the Western world beckons on the horizon and hopefully the developing countries will not adopt this green technology. Correlation has been allowed to take precedence over causality and that is fake science.
Correlation and Causality
Correlation is a statistical concept that indicates what factors may be related, but as such is insufficient as proof of a certain claim. The latter must be provided by causality and science is essential here. An example. There is a correlation between doctor visits and deaths, everyone would agree. To conclude from this that doctors are the cause of deaths is not correct because there is no causal relationship. We need causation, just as a judge insists on causation to convict someone.
CO2 and life
Is there a causal link between CO2, global warming and the disasters that would result?
To start with: CO2 is not a pollutant but, on the contrary, is essential for the survival of humanity. The combination of sunlight, CO2 and water results in photosynthesis. As a result, with more CO2 plant growth is stimulated, and our energy sources are created to be able to live. No CO2 means no food and therefore death. CO2 is essential for life on earth and is therefore not a polluter.
Numbers
Currently, 150 ppm (parts per million) is stated as the minimum for life on Earth. Measurement data over millions of years show that the earth can handle CO2 very well, in fact maybe even too good for the requirements of the survival of life on earth. Millions of years ago, 7,000 ppm of CO2 (0.7%) was no exception. During the last ice age, about 15,000 years ago, it had been reduced to about 170-180 ppm, close to the 150 ppm lower limit.
How come?
The sea surface covers 70% of the earth’s surface and is therefore the dominant intermediate link. On the one hand, gases and therefore also CO2 can dissolve well in water. In physics this phenomenon is known to be linked to Henry’s law for low concentrations. On the other hand, chemical processes take place in the water, resulting in reactions with, for example, dissolved lime, which is then deposited as limestone. Coral is also an example. As a result, CO2 disappears from the air and is stored in rock which causes the concentrations in the air to fall. The question is therefore: will CO2 fall below 150 ppm during the next ice age in 70,000 years or will we make it to another ice age?
Anthropogenic increase?
The increase in CO2 in the air is therefore in a way essential for the longer survival of life on earth. The anthropogenic CO2 increase is therefore not really a problem. It may even be welcome from that point of view. The plans for the very expensive CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) that the EU even subsidizes are therefore completely pointless and are a waste of time and money.
The current concentration of about 420 ppm (0.04%) is not only the result of the biological processes on earth and of the anthropogenic 4% due to the burning of fossils, but mainly due to the emissions from seawater according to Henry’s law. This is as a result of the increasing seawater temperature. Accordingly, the solubility of the water decreases and the seas contribute to the rising CO2 concentration in the air. This explains the low CO2 concentration in the air during the last ice age – when the water was colder.
No toxic substance
Also note that people and plants still function well at 6000 ppm CO2 (0.6%) concentrations such as those maintained in closed spaces like submarines, satellites and vegetable greenhouses. CO2 is not a poison even at those concentrations. Tests with rabbits have been done at 65% CO2 and the rabbits did not die, as long as there was enough oxygen. Satellite observations show increasing greening of the earth and resistance by plants to drought conditions increases with increasing CO2. Our food production is increasing and more secure.
Greenhouse gas and urgency
But what about global warming due to the increase in CO2 as a greenhouse gas? Greenhouse gases have thermal properties similar to those of other gases, with the additional property that they can absorb heat energy with a specific vibrational frequency (which then appears as a vibration of the gas molecule) and emit it again a short time later in an arbitrary direction. We call this radiation emission. This is only effective for the earth if it is no longer absorbed by other CO2 molecules. This takes place in the upper air layer TOA (Top of Atmosphere).
An increase in CO2 causes a saturation phenomenon whereby the emission potential decreases with increasing concentrations according to a logarithmic law called saturation. The current concentration of 420 ppm therefore contributes much less to global warming in contrast to the low concentrations at the end of the ice age. Ad Huijser calculated that by 2100 CO2 concentration would only reach 625 ppm:
https://www.climategate.nl/2022/09/pfff-gelukkig-nog-maar-about-06-graden-c-te-gaan/)
provided the current state is continued, and Esschenbach gives a figure of 610-620 ppm (0.06%) but that is a situation that is difficult to achieve due to the accompanying air pollution. This lets him put forward a more realistic figure of 540 ppm. This includes the increase in methane and the consequences of the population pressure of 10 billion people. That would give an extra temperature rise of 0.6°C. This is a worst case scenario that brings us close to the goal of Paris and all of this without intervention. There is no climate urgency.
There’s more to it
The temperature of the earth is determined by several factors, both positive and negative. For example, cloud coverage has decreased by 2% since WWII. That would entail a temperature increase of 1°C (the same as allocated to CO2) and yet the temperature increase was not the sum of both. It is therefore impossible to demonstrate where the current measured rise in temperature comes from. My own measurements show that even the assumption that CO2 is the main cause of the current warming may in fact be wrong:
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2021/11/25/an-inconvenient-truth/
If CO2 (and methane) is the devil incarnate, then there is at least more going on.
The “ Green Energy ” high-voltage grids will continue to grow explosively to reach the “net zero” target by 2050. These networks operate under very high voltage. To control the size of the switching and transmission stations (and windmills) sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is used as an electrically insulating medium.
This is the worst greenhouse gas on Earth ! It is 22,800 times stronger than CO2 and with an atmospheric lifetime of 3,200 years, 50 to 100 times more than CO2, it is up to almost a quarter of a million times stronger than CO2!
The BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49567197 writes that already in 2017 the leakage of this greenhouse gas was the equivalent of 1.3 million cars on the road. At that time, solar and wind did not even provide 2% of the total energy consumption. For a “net zero” this means equivalent emissions of more than 65 million cars by 2050. Is it any wonder that the legislator is thinking of banning this gas?
Models are not science: striking mistakes
Climate models have now become the scientific reference for the media and IPCC. But the reality as it appears in observation and measurements is hereby ignored. Models are now becoming the standard and that is a negation of science. Models are used in science to analyze effects. Models are currently impossible to comprehend reality, because the factors affecting weather are far too complex. Yet these are now incorrectly presented by the IPCC as reality. Nothing could be further from the truth because even the assumptions of these models are in conflict with the laws of physics and thermodynamics.
For example, the models assume CO2 as the cause and the temperature change as a consequence. But that is contrary to Henry’s law mentioned above and, moreover, the CO2 concentrations are too low to have any effect. The greenhouse gas water vapor is introduced as an amplifying factor for CO2 in the models. Water vapor is about 100 times more present. But water vapor is not regarded as a greenhouse gas in itself. The result of all this is that the models predict exaggerated future values for temperature. Gavin Schmidt, a NASA director and modeling veteran, called the models “overheated.” It turned out that the models contradicted reality. The models are in fact unreliable. The measurements show periods of constant temperature for more than 5 years – rather than a sustained increase according to the models. This was initially ignored by modelers. Then they called it a pause or a hiatus. This is how they wanted to take the contradiction out of their models. Too bad for them, but those gaps are repeating. For example, in 2016 the last El Ninjo (warm) peak belonging to ENSO ( El Niño Southern Oscillation ) showed a rather declining temperature and this for 6 years. Very exceptionally there were even 3 (cold) la Ninja’s in a row that upset the rain pattern in the Northern Hemisphere. The IPCC models, however, predicted a warm El Ninjo.
There is more. The actual measurements deviate significantly from the predicted temperatures. The deviations even increase up to five times and more with increasing CO2 input. This leads to the conclusion that the CO2 input in the models is counterproductive. Not so surprising because the models use CO2 as the driving force, and this goes against the laws of physics.
And the “disasters”?
Weather and climate are lumped together here and in the media. Actual recordings over 100 years show no connection whatsoever: forest fires, heat waves, floods, etc. are of all ages and times.
However, there are two other important elements that we should not forget.
First, the number of people in the world is increasing exponentially. People prefer to live in “dangerous areas”, because these areas offer them the greatest life opportunities (food, water, transport, energy…). Calamities can therefore affect more people. At the same time, people are taking more risks (e.g. avoiding expense on making levies, etc.). Rising insurance payouts are therefore not proof of rising calamities.
Second: the media. They have become lightning fast and they span the entire earth. But their message is one-sided and supports a culture of fear. Here’s the most recent example: At the end of August 2022, there was a heat wave in Europe- the “highest in the last 40 years”. A few weeks later, in mid-September, some countries were experiencing the coldest period in the northern hemisphere, also for 40 years: e.g. Finland -7.5 °C. It is very quiet in MSM about this because it does not fit into their narrative.
So, do not panic!
Earth’s most reliable temperature measurement is the UAH (University of Alabama Huntsville ) satellite measurement.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
The highest temperature was for the El Niño year 2016. After that, the temperature seems to be declining. This is consistent with Arctic ice increase and the current Atlantic hurricane season has had its slowest start in 30 years. The UAH chart shows a measured trend of +0,13°C/decade and is in stark contrast to the IPCC forecasts with extremes reaching 6.5°C in 2100.
There is no climate emergency.
Do you know, that over 1,100 scientists and scholars agree that there is NO climate emergency – The Rio Times (riotimesonline.com)
Please take the time to read the above article. Neither a political or scientific “consensus” nor legislation can overturn the laws of nature, despite all the climate protests.
Conclusion:
Don’t believe the model builders who see disasters coming on all of us due to the increase in CO2. CO2 is not the devil incarnate. Bad science is. But don’t make a mistake. Bad science was also in play when Verwoerd did his studies in nazi Germany. Look at what chaos that bad science (the devil) caused in the world.
Recent Comments