A little while back I read an online article about CO₂ by Jessice Taylor who is Chief of Staff at Climatecosmos.com and I have reproduced some of it here. I have my views on this which I will put up later but I am interested to hear what you think.
“The Real Inconvenient Truth – Why CO₂ May Not Be the Villain
“Carbon dioxide is not just an industrial byproduct; it is a natural component of Earth’s atmosphere. Plants, for example, rely on CO₂ for photosynthesis. This makes CO₂ an essential ingredient for life on Earth. Without it, the lush forests and vibrant ecosystems would cease to exist.
“When discussing greenhouse gases, CO₂ often overshadows other gases like methane (CH₄) and nitrous oxide (N₂O), which are far more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere. Methane, for example, is over 25 times more potent than CO₂ at trapping heat over a 100-year period. Nitrous oxide is even more alarming, being nearly 300 times more effective. Yet, it is CO₂ that gets the most attention because it is more prevalent due to industrial activities. While CO₂ is indeed a significant player, focusing solely on it might mean we’re missing the bigger picture.
“Volcanoes, wildfires, and even the respiration of living organisms contribute to natural CO₂ emissions. These natural sources have been releasing CO₂ long before humans started burning fossil fuels. For instance, volcanic eruptions can spew out millions of tons of CO₂ in a single event. Wildfires, too, release substantial amounts of carbon dioxide as forests and grasslands burn.
“Throughout Earth’s history, CO₂ levels have fluctuated naturally. There have been periods of higher CO₂ concentrations, often corresponding with warmer global temperatures. For example, during the Mesozoic era, CO₂ levels were significantly higher than today, yet life thrived, and dinosaurs ruled the Earth. This doesn’t mean we should dismiss current CO₂ levels, but it does provide context.
“Modern technology is offering solutions that can mitigate CO₂ emissions without entirely eliminating them. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies aim to capture CO₂ emissions from industrial sources and store them underground, preventing them from entering the atmosphere.
“Additionally, renewable energy sources like solar and wind power are reducing reliance on carbon-intensive fossil fuels. Think of these innovations as a way to tune the volume of a radio rather than turning it off completely.
“They offer a way to manage CO₂ levels while still enjoying the benefits of industrial progress. In the fight against climate change, it’s essential to adopt a balanced perspective. While CO₂ is a major player in global warming, it is not the sole contributor.
“Other factors, including different greenhouse gases, deforestation, and land-use changes, also play significant roles. Addressing climate change requires a multifaceted approach that considers all contributing elements.
“As we navigate the intricacies of climate change, it’s important to recognize that CO₂ is not inherently a villain. It plays crucial roles in both nature and industry.
“However, the key lies in managing its levels and understanding the broader context of greenhouse gases. By looking at the bigger picture, we can work towards solutions that are both effective and sustainable.”
What do you think about this topic?
A bit of old fashioned common sense.
Yes, I felt it was a little light on. Clearly written for a lay audience, especially given that the few bits I removed to keep it shorter without changing context were simplistic analogies. Nothing new in it at all.
The point being, as it appears, to make the notion that climate science is really simply another branch of the science we have always thought science was about, more entrenched and, indeed, ultimately respectable. It is a trend which is not accidental or incidental or new, and could be the subject of a new branch of political science (if the powers-that-be were to allow it), but is part and parcel of the method and the means to pull the wool over people’s eyes and ratchet up the efficiency by which the extractive exploitative economy is honed to perfection until it threatens to break down, in which case a more urgent emergency yet is instituted to exert yet more control over the economy. and, of course, people and peoples. Some day this game will backfire with spectacular effect, for the West, anyway- The rest is already well-acquainted with socio-economic emergencies.
The above is not meant to be cynical, but is as it works, as I see it. It’s philosophical and also politics. It could easily be categorised as political science. As for the actual proper science in the article, it is, as already mentioned, common sense and not overly critical of the “science” behind the climate caper.
And a caper it is. Politically, financially and scientifically it is a scam.
Is that good or bad? Some good will come out of it, but considering the situation we are in, environmentally, sociopolitically and economically, it is bound to hasten the collapse of the current paradigm running, and ruining western society.
Maybe just as well. The longer this paradigm holds, the more of western (European?) civilisation will be destroyed in the process of adjustment.
As you can see, I am not expecting the near future to be plain sailing for European society.
The bible on the effects of the 5 major greeenhouse gases (ranked from most influential to least: H2O, CO2, O3, N2O, CH4, ) is “Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases”
W. A. van Wijngaarden1 and W. Happer, 2020. https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.03098
See their Table 2.
All 5 gases are nearly saturated. See their Figure 9.
N2O and CH4 scares are furphies.
I opened the article you cite Colin. Way beyond me mathematically. My only comment is that work like that contrasts with the simplicity of the Jessice Taylor material. In my opinion one tries to bamboozle with complexity and the other by simplicity, a form of whitewashing or gaslighting (in the middle of those two). It does go to show how complex analysing the real situation is though.
See also https://blackjay.net.au/climate/
Hi John, yes, you have done this over and over. It was just interesting to me because it was supposedly a strong scientific organisation, but there was no science in the article, just a view point.
It is a giant hoax.
Contrary to what you have probably read, heard or been taught, the addition of human-produced CO2 to the atmosphere by burning natural gas, oil and coal does not increase the global CO2 concentration of the atmosphere. Nor will sequestration of CO2 reduce CO2 concentration in atmosphere. The CO2 concentration in air today is the same as it would be if humans never existed.
Henry’s Law controls the concentration of all trace gases in air. When humans add CO2 to air, it is a disturbance to a natural dynamic equilibrium ratio. When humans remove CO2 from air, it is a disturbance to the natural dynamic equilibrium ratio and that CO2 will be replaced into air by emissions from the environment, dominantly from ocean surface.
According to a study published by consultants McKinsey & Company and supported by the UN IPCC, world banks, WEF, WHO, EPA, U.S. Democrats and the governments of more than 100 nations including the current U.S. administration, $9.2 trillion would be needed annually between now and 2050 to reduce CO2 emissions to net zero CO2 emissions and thereby avoid their acclaimed existential catastrophe. I and many others have been working for the last several years toward repeal of the U.S. EPA’s Final Endangerment Finding (EF) issued during the Obama administration. This EF claims without validated evidence that CO2 is an endangerment to the public. Scientific evidence and theory invalidates this EF.
CO2 concentration in air is not controlled by human CO2 emissions, nor are global temperatures controlled by CO2 concentration. Disturbances to natural equilibrium are restored in proportion to the amount and the time frame of the disturbance. We demonstrated this in a data science experiment using NOAA Scripps-measured CO2 data following the 1991 eruption of the Pinatubo volcano in the Philippine Island (Bromley & Tamarkin, 2022), https://pinatubostudy.com/pinatuboreport.html
Henry’s Law applies to the solubility of all trace gases and all liquids, not only CO2 and seawater. There is a specific, known Henry’s Law constant (aka a partition ratio or coefficient) for each gas and liquid combination. These constants are typically looked up in online tables, in reference books, and they can be measured in the laboratory. There are very many references, for example: https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/4399/2015/acp-15-4399-2015.pdf
Henry’s Law is the fundamental science underlying the multibillion dollar per year scientific instruments industry of gas chromatography mass spectrometry, aka GC or GC/MS. This is the preferred method for separating chemical mixtures into individual chemicals so they can be identified, and quantified. Today, it is the preferred method for process and quality control of most chemical mixtures, for example gasoline, wine, flavors, fragrances, and medicines, etc.
Henry’s Law is an observational result based on thousands of experiments. The initial experiments were done by Dr. William Henry in 1803 and published by the Royal Society of London. As famous physicist Richard Feynman said, if a theory disagrees with experiment, then the theory is wrong; the theory of human-produced CO2 from burning natural gas, petroleum and coal is wrong, dangerously and nefariously wrong. Henry’s Law is neither theory nor hypothesis, it is a Law based on countless experiments and confirmed by multiple theories.
Henry’s Law defines an equilibrium that is established naturally between a trace gas (like CO2) dissolved in a liquid phase (such as seawater or water in lung or plant tissue) and the same trace gas above the liquid surface. Henry’s Law applies to all trace gases (such as CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone) within the mixed gas phase (such as air) above the liquid surface.
Henry’s Law mathematically defines a ratio of the amount (or partial pressure or concentration) of a trace gas dissolved in a liquid surface versus the amount of the same gas within the mixed gas matrix above the surface of the liquid. For example, the ratio of the molecules of non-ionized CO2 gas in seawater surface versus the molecules of CO2 gas in the air above that sea water surface. At a given temperature, the ratio is a constant for any specified trace gas and liquid combination, the Henry’s Law constant.
All gases in air are continuously colliding with the surface of the ocean and being absorbed. Simultaneously, all gases dissolved in ocean surface are being emitted (or evaporated) into air above the liquid. The ratio of absorption versus emission is the Henry’s Law constant for that gas and liquid combination at a given surface temperature. The ratio is Henry’s Law constant. The ratio changes with temperature because the solubility of all gases in all liquids increases as temperature of the liquid decreases, and vice versa, solubility of trace gases decreases as surface temperature increases. Warmer ocean surface (ocean is about 70% of earth’s surface) results in an increasing trend in atmospheric CO2 concentration (or partial pressure.)
The trend in global CO2 concentration in air has been slowly increasing because recently the average surface area of earth has been slowly increasing. But solar radiation reaching and warming the surface of the earth changes due to various cloud, planetary, solar and cosmic factors. Ultimately, the amount of solar radiation reaching earth’s surface controls the temperature of earth’s surface. CO2 concentration does not control surface temperatures; surface temperatures control CO2 concentration.
Dominance of Natural CO2 Fluxes
Professor Murry Salby emphasizes the overwhelming scale of natural CO2 emissions and sinks compared to human emissions. He notes that natural transfers of carbon into and out of the ocean (100 GtC/year) and land (50 GtC/year) total approximately 150 GtC/year—two orders of magnitude greater than human emissions from fossil fuel combustion (~10 GtC/year). Natural sinks roughly balance these emissions, but even a slight imbalance in these massive fluxes could dwarf the human contribution.
• Example: Salby (2012) explains that at an absorption rate of 100 GtC/year, the ocean could absorb the entire atmospheric CO2 store (~1000 GtC) in about a decade. This absorption is concentrated in cold sea surface temperatures (SST) at polar latitudes, while emission occurs from warm SST in tropical regions.
* No Statistical Correlation Between Fossil Fuel Emissions and Atmospheric CO2 Trends
Jamal Munshi, an Emeritus Professor of Business and statistician, argues in multiple papers, including Munshi (2017), that there is no detectable statistical signal linking the trend in estimated fossil fuel CO2 emissions (FFCO2) to the trend in MLO-measured net global CO2 concentrations. The AGW theory rests on the premise that fossil fuel emissions increase atmospheric CO2, thereby causing warming, and that reducing these emissions can mitigate the warming effect. This idea is supported by numerous studies (e.g., Hansen, 1981; IPCC, 2014). However, Munshi’s analysis suggests that this causal chain is “spurious and without merit” because the expected correlation between FFCO2 and MLO CO2 trends does not exist.
• Implication: If fossil fuel emissions were a dominant driver, their trend should align with the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 at MLO. The absence of this correlation implies that other factors—likely natural ones—are primarily responsible for the observed CO2 increase.
* Rapid Absorption of Human Emissions
Munshi, supported by Bromley & Tamarkin (2022), posits that human CO2 emissions are rapidly absorbed by the environment, such as the oceans and biosphere. This rapid uptake suggests that human emissions do not accumulate significantly in the atmosphere over time, further weakening their role as the main driver of atmospheric CO2 increases.
• Evidence: In 2020, net human CO2 emissions were less than 0.6% of the total global CO2 flux (natural plus human). Meanwhile, the annual increase in atmospheric CO2, as measured at MLO, was only 2.58 ppm—or 0.000258% of the atmosphere—reflecting contributions from all sources and sinks. This small increment supports the idea that human emissions are a minor component quickly offset by natural processes.
________________________________________
There are some exceptional situations to Henry’s Law, which are important in certain cases.
(1) Henry’s Law does not apply to concentrated gases or gases under high pressure. For example, nitrogen in air at ~78% is not easily quantified by Henry’s Law, but trace gases CO2, CO, N2O, O3, CH4, etc are easily quantifiable in local conditions.
A corollary to that, gases at very low temperature or at very high temperature are also not easily quantified by Henry’s Law.
(2) In practice, the most important exception is that Henry’s Law only applies to the unreacted, non-ionized gas in the liquid phase. Henry’s Law does not apply to any of the reaction products of the gas with the liquid. For example, when CO2 gas is absorbed into sea water about 99% of it readily ionizes/breaks apart into carbonic acid, bicarbonate ion and carbonate ion. The Henry’s Law ratio only applies to ratio of unreacted ~1% of CO2 gas in the liquid and the CO2 gas above the liquid. The percentage varies with the local temperature of the surface area.
(3) Although not clearly an exception, but rather the frequently misunderstood rule, the rate of change of the Henry’s Law constant is determined by the surface area interface between the gas and the liquid at a given temperature. Net flux (i.e., absorption minus emission) of the trace gas is a function of the surface area, surface thickness and gradient across that thickness, at a given surface temperature, and the diffusion constant. Fick’s 1st Law provides the formula for net flux. Units are, for example, moles of CO2 emitted per square mile per hour at a given surface temperature. The diffusion constant is Graham’s Law: diffusion rate of all gases into all liquids is inversely proportional to the square root of the molecular weight of the gas. Agitation of the surface by winds, waves, currents etc increases the surface area at a given temperature, slightly increases the temperature of the surface, and reduces the additional activation energy required by a gas molecule like CO2 or water vapor to evaporate and escape from the surface. The rate of change (or slope) of net flux with respect to time is a function of the rate of change of surface area at a given temperature with respect to time.
(4) pH and salinity also change the Henry’s Law partition ratio of CO2 between ocean surface and air. In the natural environment, ocean pH and salinity in general have relatively low variability on average. But, local changes can be significant, for example ocean pH can become more alkaline as plankton blooms, and ocean at an estuary or river mouth can become highly mineralized and saline due to runoff after rain. These conditions alter the ratio of CO2 absorption versus CO2 emission at ocean surface, but when these localized conditions return to normal then the CO2 Henry’s Law constant (aka the Henry’s partition ratio or coefficient) is restored for the local surface temperature.
That statement Bud that “The CO2 concentration in air today is the same as it would be if humans never existed,” is the crux of it isn’t it? I cannot believe that we make no impact. The amount of CO2 in the air is small and the change needed to alter climate is tiny.
N.B. Common sense is not consensus, or vice versa. Now, to think that the burning of fossil fuels by mankind to date would not have made a difference to CO2 levels in the atmosphere is counterintuitive, but as difficult to disprove as the opposite. However, proper science cannot, I gather, prove any correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and the burning of fossil fuels, whatsoever, when historical records are taken into account. The word correlation is often misused innocently or abused for non-scientific purposes. Even if it is true that everything in the universe is connected, it is a stretch to point to a correlation between two very different and maybe quite irrelevant phenomena to prove something.
In this case, correlation is deemed appropriate, but only validated by taking just those parameters, say a time frame, which suit a particular argument. Even if a correlation is valid and based on scientific principles, however, correlation is not, as most of us accept, causation.
Allan, “The amount of CO2 in the air is small and the change needed to alter climate is tiny.” There is simply no proof, or even a hint scientifically, that a small increase in the atmospheric CO2 level changes the world’s climate, but if we allow for the fact that, obviously, the earth and its atmospheric surrounds are a self-regulating living organism, which it has proven by the records and can be observed scientifically every day,, it stands to reason that the atmosphere is a major component of the many elements brought to bear on the maintenance of the equilibrium that nature prefers. We should not exclude the various influences from outside the earth and its atmosphere, of space, of which we know and understand a lot, but not nearly everything.
When people or a website wish to advance proper science, it is important to prevent the abuse of proper science. That’s why a discussion exposing pseudoscience, scientism and the political, financial-economic and egoic drivers behind so-called proven science needs to keep pace with the really overwhelming mass of false argumentation present in public discourse nowadays.
Personally, I think that the obsession with climate change is driven entirely by political, geopolitical, international high finance and, at all levels, economic considerations, and is so influential on public opinion because people know full-well their personal lifestyles are, if not wasteful and extravagant, a considerable burden on the the environment. Big business doesn’t want the consumerist mindset to be attenuated, quite the contrary.. Besides, fooling the peoples of the world is highly profitable. The natural environment is thereby largely ignored, and the influence on the weather by the enormous increase in the amount of concrete and glas structures and asphalt surfaces covering the earth minimised or ignored altogether. Now…
We need to separate proper scientific philosophy from the dross and the scum of political machinations in order to save ourselves.
One thing I like about your posts Jacob is that you are not dictatorial. You clearly have strong feelings and opinions, but you allow for others. I totally agree with you that common sense is not consensus. So often good scientific experiment has changed our view of common sense. The work to show ulcers are caused by heliobacteria and not rich food is one. The ultimate example of course is quantum mechanics, where there is no common sense! And I agree with you about correlations. A correlation is not a cause. At least not necessarily. And that is where the debate lies in climate science, because almost any correlation can be made, for instance as you point out by taking a limited time frame. That is the ubiquitous trap that people fall into when examining what is really chaotic or random data. In any long string of random data there will be interesting periods of seeming order. Gamblers fall into that deep trap all the time. Yet the scientific process works. It works because true science relies on controls. In a perfect experiment, which is impossible by the way, nothing changes between the two trials except the one thing being tested. The earth and its atmosphere and its weather (and its experimenters) are so complex, that there can be no controlled experiments. So the default is look first for correlations, then to extrapolate from there. Not the scientific process at all. Opinion comes into it. Most scientists start with a hypothesis which is based on some intuition or suspicion. My suspicion, and that is all it is, is that human activity is contributing to climate warming.
Well, Allan, yes, “The ultimate example of course is quantum mechanics, where there is no common sense!”. Not as a consensus.
As for the rest of your comment; I generally agree.
Now: Whereas common sense and consensus are not necessarily mutually exclusive, in quantum mechanics/metaphysics, the modern scientific consensus has not yet arrived at common sense, or, if it has, has not been open about it.
To me, quantum mechanics/metaphysics makes sense. For people who do quantum philosophy, common sense arrives well before any scientifically correct consensus is possible- they do not specialise.
Modern science lags behind in philosophical terms, or the general public is kept in the dark about its philosophical developments.
Take for instance the Tiller-Einstein model of Explanation. It confirms what Eastern philosophers and esotericists in the West have known all along. Not only does the observer make things happen quantum mechanically, the intent is influential metaphysically and as a matter of course directly and subsequently at all levels of manifestation. This, modern scientists must be well-acquainted with by now, but it is not something made clear to the general public- not that I know of. Yet, in political science the knowledge is far advanced and increasingly and obviously applied in practice. The most glaring examples being global warming aka climate change and the ovine Covid-19 exercise.
Modern science, and its practitioners and advocates, willy-nilly, will sooner or later come to terms with the fact that scientific knowledge in the broader and deeper sense is like a genie that is escaped from the bottle of establishment privilege. A bottle that mainstream scientists, possibly, believe they can still, keep it in.
The debate about the relevance and validity of modern science is growing and indicative of a shift in the public perception of it.
What comes next? Chaos theory?