The other statement comes from Wikipedia: “Burning fossil fuels is the primary cause of increased CO2concentrations and also the primary cause of climate change.”
Wikipedia are saying the 4% CO2 emitted by humans is the primary cause of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, while the other 96% emitted from natural causes does nothing. Then I say there is no proof that Carbon Dioxide is causing climate change. There is more and more evidence coming that the warming comes first followed by CO2 emissions.
Properties of Carbon Dioxide
Carbon Dioxide is a colourless gas with no odour at low concentrations. It has a sour taste. Joseph Black (1728-1799) is credited with discovering it, but Carbon Dioxide was recognised as a gas different from others in 1630 by Jan Baptista van Helmont, who observed it as a product of both fermentation and combustion. Each molecule of Carbon Dioxide has two atoms of Oxygen and one of Carbon joined by covalent bonds.
Carbon Dioxide freezes at -78 deg C into a solid called dry ice. It has the property that it does not change to a liquid first before the gas, it goes straight from a solid to a gas – it sublimes. At 420 parts per million (ppm), in the atmosphere it is regarded as a trace gas, being 0.04% of the atmosphere. It is not poisonous nor is it a pollutant. People do die from CO2 if the concentration is very high and it excludes oxygen. CO2 is soluble in water to form a weak acid – carbonic.
H2O + CO2 = H2CO3 ( carbonic acid)
Climate alarmists try to tell you that all that Carbon Dioxide dissolving in the oceans make them more acidic. It is only slightly soluble in water, so very little Carbon Dioxide is converted to acid in water. Most stays as the gas. So the oceans fill up with the gas NOT the acid, and the pH is hardly affected. The correct term anyway is less alkaline, not more acidic, as the oceans are alkaline and have been for most of geological history.
Carbon Dioxide is 53% more dense than air, so in an enclosed space will sink to the bottom of the space. Small animals have suffocated in this situation.
At ordinary temperatures Carbon Dioxide is quite unreactive. It does not support the combustion of most materials.
The usefulness and importance of Carbon Dioxide
Carbon Dioxide is the second most important gas on the planet. Without it we would not exist. The amount in the atmosphere is very low at present compared with past geological history. What is worrying is the downward trend which started about 140 million years ago.
It’s worrying because if the level of CO2 falls below about 150ppm then most plants die and so do we. The climate alarmists are trying to help this downward trend.
Photosynthesis
While humans eat a variety of foods to survive, plant food is Carbon Dioxide. CO2 enters the leaves of plants through oval shaped openings on the underside of the leaf called stomata. Inside the plant, in the presence of green chlorophyll, Carbon Dioxide combines with water by a process called photosynthesis in which light is necessary, to form sugars from which other organic compounds can be constructed. Importantly, Oxygen is formed as a by product.
6CO2 + 6H2O = C6H12O6 + 6O2 (glucose plus oxygen)
The photosynthesis equation. This needs light - usually sunlight, to make it happen.
So plants produce the oxygen which supports all life on earth. As the concentration of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere has increased so also has plant growth. In fact, the whole world is greening. Of particular note is the increase in vegetation in the Sahel, a semi arid region bordering the Sahara desert. With further increases in CO2 it is hoped the Sahara itself may also green up as it was once.
Green house owners often pump CO2 into their greenhouses to enhance growth. Usually, they try and get the concentration up to between 800ppm and 1000ppm. Here is a typical example.
CO2 concentrations are given under each photo. Huge growth with 835ppm.
We actually need more CO2 not less because of the growing world population. Because of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, crop yields all over the world have increased considerably.
Plants and animals convert the food compounds (glucose etc) by combining with oxygen to release energy for growth and other life activities. This process is respiration.
C6 H12O6 + 6 O2 = 6CO2 + 6H2O
So humans expel Carbon Dioxide. The concentration of CO2 at the instant of exhaling is an incredible 38,000 ppm. This is quickly diluted, but shows it is not poisonous. Over a year a human may put out about 255kg of CO2.
Other uses
· Industrial and Chemical applications. CO2 is used to make acids , polymers, carbonates and syntheses for adhesives, bonding agents, pharmaceuticals and the production of plastics.
· Food and beverage applications. CO2 is the dominating gas of the beverage industry, creating effervescent beverages , and slowing fermentation in winemaking and beer brewing. It is used to transport food while preventing oxidation which causes unhealthy compounds unpleasant tastes, and odours
· Enhanced oil recovery. Carbon Dioxide is administered under high pressure to push oil up from reserves through subterranean pipes.
· Dry cleaning. Liquid CO2 is the greenest alternative in place of harsh chemicals like perchloroethelene and is energy saving since it doesn’t require heating. Many customers are requesting Carbon Dioxide cleaning over chlorine based methods.
· Electronic applications. CO2 in the form a of a dry spray offers cleaning for control boards, wire assemblies, sensors, generators, and motors
· Fire protection. When used for fire protection it excludes oxygen and so the fire cannot burn.
· As dry ice, it keeps food cold.
· CO2 is used in the shredding of old tyres.
· CO2 is used in stripping insulation from old wires.
· Being non combustible it is introduced into grain silos to prevent grain dust explosions.
· Food preservation. CO2 can be used to preserve or freeze foods. Dry ice is used to quickly freeze foods. This preserves the colour and texture by limiting the formation of ice particles.
· Medical applications. Quick freezing biological samples, removing growths, and providing refrigeration for vaccines etc during transportation.
· Pure CO2 provides very deep weld penetration which is useful for welding thick material A mixture of CO2 and Argon produces superior results on thin materials using a MIG welder.
· Carbon Dioxide vapour is used to freeze home furnishings. This process removes allergy-causing substances and kills dust mites reducing asthma symptoms.
· Very large quantities are used in the production of methanol and urea.
This is only a sample of the uses of this very valuable gas. There are many more uses.
What concentration can we stand?
Greenhouse workers work in concentrations of 800 to 1000ppm without any ill effects. In a school classroom in winter, when commonly the windows are closed, concentrations of CO2 reach 2000ppm, again with no ill effects. In fact, research in Texas in 2002 showed that concentrations of CO2 exceeded 3,000ppm with no ill effects on pupils. During World War 2, submariners often had to go about their duties in concentrations of 8,000 ppm. They all survived this but may not have survived the war.
Alberto Boretti, dean of Research at Prince Mohammmed Bin Fahd University in Saudi Arabia published in Inderscience, found people showed no reduction in cognitive abilities at indoor CO2 concentrations exceeding 1,000 ppm.
A second study from 2021 published in the peer reviewed journal Indoor Air, examined the effects of greatly elevated indoor CO2 levels on a broad array of health indicators, such as blood chemistry, heart rate, respiratory rate, flexibility, and short term measurements of cognitive ability. The level of CO2 was increased to 22, 000. Blood pH decreased slightly but generally no significant changes were noted.
How much is Carbon Dioxide increasing each year?
In the last 70 years CO2 has increased at the rate of approximately 1.3ppm per year. At this rate by the year 2100 a further 760ppm would be added to the existing amount giving about 1180ppm. This will give no problem as far as human health is concerned. However, we have no idea what will happen in the next 75 years. If we do indeed go into a mini ice age in that time levels of Carbon Dioxide will drop.
So far, trillions of dollars have been spent on the fruitless exercise of trying to prevent the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Remember, the aim is to cut down on the minimal 4% emissions from humans. The oceans are warming from the slowdown of the Gulf Stream, and the undersea volcanic activity. 96% of all CO2 comes from natural sources and the oceans contain about 70% of the natural sources. As the oceans warm, more CO2 is released into the atmosphere. This appears to be what is causing the increased CO2 in the atmosphere, not human emissions.
You cannot change the natural process of climate change. If climate is changing, we simply need to adapt.
12 comments:
Another piece of climate fiction from the “science graduate”. Not unexpected from someone who hasn’t yet got his head around some pretty basic aspects of climate science, such as the carbon cycle. So his harping on again about the 4%/96% CO2 emissions – which isn’t factually wrong per se, it just doesn’t tell the whole, important story. (And he is still ignoring another important point, the isotopic signature of human-emitted CO2 in the atmosphere).
As for water vapour – yet again the “science graduate” gets the wrong end of the stick, all the while castigating the authors of a peer-reviewed article. After all, scientific experts with PhDs and expensive labs, etc., must be morons (or worse) compared to our “science graduate”!
Anyway, for a summary of actual science rather than climate fiction, I recommend the summary on Climate Feedback that can be found with a web search "Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but it is not a major driver of global warming".
LFC
This is an interesting article that, as far as I know, accurately covers a lot of material about carbon dioxide. But, with trepidation, because Ian's background knowledge appears far greater than mine, I ask why there is no coverage of the effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide on global atmospheric temperature, which appears to be affecting the melting of polar ice. As far as the Antarctic is concerned, this will affect sea levels and render many large cities uninhabitable. Isn't that the real issue in the near future?
Sure, increased carbon dioxide will have many positive effects, but the downside is the unaffordable flooding of cities.
Please tell me where I'm wrong.
When world leading atmospheric physicists clearly state that there is no climate emergency and that man has no control over Climate Change, why do we waste billions of dollars to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
Valuable arable farmland is being sacrificed and turned into pine forests that are never felled to take advantage of this carbon trading nonsense dreamed up by people who should be locked away in a padded cells.
We know that the our political opposition is determined to make this their nuclear moment but pray that our new govt of many facets, finds the courage to call this madness out.
Replying to John. Despite rises in CO2 levels the Antarctic region ha recorded NO average rise in temperature in the last 70 years, and in 2021 saw its coldest 6 month winter since records began in the 1960's. It is possible this lack of warming extended back much longer. This lack of warming over a significant part of the earth undermines the unproven hypothesis that Carbon Dioxide humans add to the atmosphere is the main determinant of climate change. In 2021 the Antarctic had the coldest winter since records began in 1957, a fact largely ignored by the mainstream media. Two climate scientists Singh and Polvani, have noted that Antarctica sea ice has modestly expanded and warming has been nearly non existent over much of the ice sheet.
A NASA study ahs found that the mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet are greater than the losses. This contrasts with IPCC reports which say that overall Antarctica is losing ice. The extra snowfall that began 10,000 years ago has been slowly accumulating on the ice sheet compacting into ice over millennia, thickening the ice in East Antarctica, and the interior of West Antarctica by an average of 1.7cm per year. This small thickening sustained over thousands of years and spread over vast areas corresponds to a very large gain in ice, enough to outweigh the losses from fast flowing glaciers in other parts of the continent. and thus reduce sea level rise. The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise but is taking 0.23mm away each year. Contrast this to what the IPCC say: Antarctica is contributing 0.27mm a year to sea level rise.
Thing is John it's a question of who you trust. I do not trust the IPCC.
RB: I have no idea who your “world leading atmospheric scientists” are. But as I commented in one of IB’s previous posts, there are a number of peer-reviewed journal articles that show that almost all currently research-active climate scientists are convinced by the overwhelming evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
There are a number of non-peer-reviewed “open letters” of “scientists” disputing AGW. But analyses of the signatories show few are actual scientists and even fewer or none currently research-active climate scientists. See for example the analysis at Climate Feedback with a web search "Letter signed by “500 scientists” relies on inaccurate claims about climate science"
Also an interesting point made in that Climate Feedback analysis: AGW is so well-established and non-controversial in climate science that it is now treated as accepted common knowledge in the discipline. Consequently, peer-reviewed articles in climate science often do not explicitly endorse AGW. This reminded me of the peer-reviewed article https://doi.org/10.3390/cli11110215 that disputed the assertion that “99% of climate scientists support AGW”. Its contestation that many articles are “neutral” regarding AGW I suspect may be a misunderstanding of the established nature of AGW in the scientific literature.
To draw an analogy: if someone analysed the last 10 years of solar system astronomy, there’s a high chance that a large majority would be “neutral” about the fact that the earth orbits the sun rather than that the sun orbits the earth. But this would be a misinterpretation, because the sun at the centre of the solar system is accepted common knowledge in astronomy, so most of the time there is no need to state this in current astronomical literature.
IB: I’m unsurprised you don’t trust the IPCC. It’s reports are written by thousands of scientists who are expert in atmospheric physics, climate science, oceanographers and so on, have an actual understanding of their research fields and are currently active in research. As their reports seek consensus among the authors on the current best scientific understanding, the reports if anything tend to be overly conservative about the likely effects of AGW.
LFC
I would remain anonymous too when rating the UN’s IPCC as a credible entity. No self respecting atmospheric scientist would ever wish to be associated with those politically charged propagandists. You have been had. I guess you go along with the NIWA scientists as well. A bigger pack of lying buggers would be hard to find. They are being excessively paid to lie. You just have to read Ian Wishart’s work.
I suggest that you follow world leading experts. Prof William Happer, Ian Plimer, Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry just to name a few. Stop following King Charles, Greta Thunberg and Leonardo D’Caprio and certainly stop following MSM.
RB: Thanks for your brief response. It gives me a bit of an idea of how you have gone down the rabbit hole of AGW denialism.
Almost all advances in modern scientific research are made by research groups comprising highly qualified and experienced scientists working together collaboratively and in contact with other research groups across the world. Scientific advances in modern times are hardly ever made by individual scientists outside these sort of research groups.
With this in mind, I looked briefly into the individuals you mention:
Prof William Happer: expert in atomic physics, optics, spectrography; no climate science expertise; AGW denialist.
Ian Plimer: Emeritus Professor – I checked Google Scholar and he seems fairly research-inactive recently; expert in geology (so some relevant expertise), but no recent research on climate science; has been criticised for misinterpreting climate data, etc., and his views are refuted widely by climate scientists; AGW denialist.
Richard Lindzen: atmospheric scientist, so relevant expertise; has received funding from the coal company Peabody Energy; a AGW contrarian rather than outright denialist; acknowledges CO2 as a GHG emitted by human activity.
Judith Curry: atmospheric scientist; has criticised IPCC over uncertainty of its modelling; most climate scientists regard her as a maverick and AGW contrarian.
Ian Wishart: journalist; involved in so-called “Climategate” whose supposed scandal has long been discredited; no expertise in climate science. Also a proponent of intelligent design, a form of pseudoscience.
Of these, Judith Curry was the most interesting to me, as earlier in her career she was a non-controversial climate scientist. I checked for evaluations of her work on the Climate Feedback website: a few articles there explaining how her assertions about Antarctic sea ice, for instance, are inaccurate with cherry-picking of data.
Re IPCC: I am aware that dubious accusations of corruption have been made over the years about the scientists involved in its work. In reality the contributors to IPCC reports are world-class, research-active scientists from all parts of the world, working collaboratively with the aim of helping governments understand the current scientific consensus on climate change. Despite some criticisms from outside the IPCC and even from a few IPCC contributors themselves, the IPCC has continued its valuable work and it is widely supported by the scientific community and by scientific bodies worldwide. See the historical summary at doi:10.1007/978-3-030-51701-4_12 (open access), which even-handedly acknowledges the controversies of the IPCC over the years and that it hasn’t always got everything 100% right. Hardly surprising given its widely encompassing work and goal of consensus. There’s also a 2023 edited book from Cambridge UP that reviews the work of the IPCC in more detail; you can get a PDF copy with a Google Scholar search "A critical assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change". I intend to read this in greater depth soon.
Re King Charles, Thunberg and D’Caprio: No, I hardly take any notice of them as I’m mainly interested in the scientific literature rather than in political activism.
Re MSM: I agree it can be of variable quality; social media is typically worse and more extremist. I check the Climate Feedback website as it critiques both MSM and viral social media posts looking for underplaying or exaggeration of the effects of AGW and for misinterpretation or misrepresentation of climate science, and so on. For specific questions that intrigue me, I look to peer-reviewed academic articles in reputable scientific journals.
LFC
It is most obvious that LFC is both naive and gullible. He/she should look at the science not the ideology. IPCC reports do not state the number of scientists who peer-reviewed the reports but disagreed with the findings and conclusions of such reports. Those scientists are ignored by the politically slanted IPCC. Also, LFC, I find attempts to belittle IB as childish. The old adage of attack the ball not the man is still very appropriate.
The trouble is that the IPCC scientists, who follow what their masters at the UN want them to say, and others who espouse ideas of climate change doom, do not understand how the Earth's climate actually works, and in particular the effect which the sun has on the system as a whole.
People talk about the carbon cycle, the Coriolis effect, the ocean currents, convection and conduction, gravity, and various atmospheric gases, without understanding how each plays a part in the climate puzzle.
We focus on CO2, and methane because we have been told that these Green House Gases need to be reduced if the earth is to remain a fit place for humans to inhabit, but nobody understands what effect these gases actually have on the climate.
The earth has been coping with all sorts of climatic events over its history, times when temperatures increased while CO2 levels remained constant, times when a rise in CO2 levels coincided with a drop in temperatures, and the coming and going of the ice ages, and it continues to cope.
I suggest that we need to stop blindly following the politically slanted reports of the IPCC, we need to repudiate the Paris accord, drop the Emissions Trading scheme, repeal the Climate Change Act, and its Commission, and then put establish a truely independent body to review all the evidence, for and against the issue of man made climate change, and provide a reasoned logical report for the Government and the New Zealand people.
You may think this is what the UN has done in establishing the IPCC, but the evidence points to its reports being biased towards what the politicians want to hear, including many facts which are wrong or imagined, and conclusions which could be said to unrelated to real science.
We all have our opinions, and our own biases, let's be the first Country to actually find the facts!
establish a
Those above who have written off well-respected scientists who disagree with the ideological agenda of climate change do seem determined to continue promoting climate alarmists hysteria.
Perhaps you would deign to give full credit to the response of a Nobel Prize winner in physics as follows:
OHN CLAUSER, WINNER OF THE NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSICS 2022: “I can state with great confidence that there is NO climate emergency.”
“… As much as this may upset many people, my message is that the planet is NOT in danger. … Atmospheric CO2 and methane have a minor effect on the climate.
‘So far, we have totally poorly identified what the dominant process in climate control is, and all various models are based on incomplete and incorrect physics.
‘The dominant process is “the mechanism of the reflectivity thermostat of the solar light cloud.
‘Clouds are all bright and white and reflect 90% of sunlight back into space, making them the most crucial, yet neglected, aspect of the climate system.
‘Two thirds of the Earth is oceans The Pacific Ocean alone makes up half the Earth.
‘The average cloud coverage on Earth is 67%; about 50% over Earth and 75% over the oceans.
‘I’d say that the conspiracy properties of clouds are the missing piece of the puzzle.
‘I can confidently say that there is no climate emergency.”
Watch the slides of his talk on Twitter here.
LTC. It is notable that you only acknowledge the work of those who agree with you. All others are labelled by you as "AGW denialists". Of course they are because they disagree with you.
It is not scientific to write off the work of people who disagree with you. That is really very presumptuous.
Thanks, Rob, Fred H, and Richard for your comments. A little while ago an expert in cults was asked to look at climate alarmists and their actions. He had ten check points. He went through them one by one and ticked them all. He concluded that climate alarmists were indeed members of a cult. Oh, and one checkpoint was attacking the person, not the science. So it's probably a waste of time trying to discuss anything with a cult member like LFC. Give us your name LFC and let's us know your qualifications.
Post a Comment