Keywords: IPCC, Climate changes, greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, infrared, ocean acidification, AGW, Vostok ice-core, hurricanes Harvey Irma and Jose, Cyclone Pam, El Nino, tectonic plates [04Mar2015. This website launched, but a continuing process. It works with IE 11, Google's Chrome and Apple's Safari. ]
That most divisive climate issue, “Climate Change”, depends on whether the temperature change since about 1950 is caused by Man burning carbon-containing “fossil” fuels such as oil and coal; this produces high levels of carbon dioxide, CO2 in the air. This proposition is known as AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming).
The issue should turn on the quantitative physico – chemical properties of CO2
1. as a gas in the atmosphere, to explain global warming
(Chapter 1), and
2. on its solutions in seawater, to explain “Ocean Acidification” (Chapter 5).
However, what has actually happened is that people point to changes in the climate – that global temperatures have risen since about 1950, during which time carbon dioxide levels have been rising sharply – as confirmation that increasing carbon dioxide levels are the cause of the temperature rise. Yet, in the absence of other information, there is a 50% chance of a change being a rise or a fall. That’s scarcely a confirmation of any theory!
Most published papers are indeed written by experts – but ignorant in this most fundamental, critical aspect of this topic. Instead faith is placed with “someone else’s” opinion – and so on. This has become something of a domino effect.
This site seeks to correct that ignorance.
(My PhD is in physical chemistry, particularly in the properties of gases.)
The words “Greenhouse Gas”, particularly applying to carbon dioxide, have become prominent in this discussion. It has become assumed that because CO2, and many other trace atmospheric gases but not the main gases, can absorb Earth’s infrared (ie heat) radiation, this property has a determining warming effect on Earth’s temperature. However, ALL gases, like all substances, can absorb heat by conduction and convection – and are therefore ALL Greenhouse Gases. (See Chapter 1b.)
A more in-depth refutation of AGW follows in Chapters 1, 1A and 1B – and to some extent, in the Commentary.
SITE STRUCTURE [Changed 07Sep16]
Firstly, the First Section publishes my research as a series of chapters, although the order is changeable. By way of warning, the Chapters are quantitative and scientific, but understandable by most – hopefully .
Secondly, by simply scrolling down further to the Second Section, the Commentary, one gets a synopsis of each chapter. (However, I suggest that one at least skim reads the 4 page Chapter 1 as it has temperature graphs to which I refer continually.) The Commentary has observations/opinions arising from the facts.
Others’ sensible opinions are welcome.
First Section. Evidence
Chapter 1. The role that changes in concentration of the Greenhouse Gas, carbon dioxide, has on Earth’s climate changes. It’s negligible.
Click CCPt1U to view 4 page (.pdf)
Chapter 1a. Addendum. Answers AGW contentions.
Click Addendum_2 to view 4 page (.pdf)
Chapter 1b. Greenhouse revisited.
(Because it uses simple but irrefutable high school science, this easy Chapter renders Chapter 1 and 1a largely redundant.) I believe there has been no previous thermodynamic explanation, as here. That’s unusual in that thermodynamics is the gold-standard, being simple, unequivocal, quantitative and independent of any proposed mechanism such as the IR arguments AGW attempts.
Click Chap1b_second to view 3 page (.pdf) file
Chapter 1C. An even simpler version, requiring only a sequence of logical steps – and no discussion of Greenhouse or IR.
Click Chap1bM to view 1 page (.pdf) file
Chapter 1D. The original and obvious AGW IR error that’s caused the world-wide “climate change” anguish. [12Feb21]
Click AGWgaffe to view 2 page (.doc) file
Chapter 2. What is causing climate changes?
Click Chapter2 to view 11 page (.pdf) file
Chapter 2A: The Greenhouse Effects on Venus, Earth and Mars …. Game, Set and Match! Confirmation of Chapter 2.
Click RockyP to view 3-page (.pdf) file.
Chapter 4. The cause of some extreme weather events.
Click Cyclone Pam:. to view 5 page (.pdf)
Chapter 4A. 2010 and 2017 Atlantic Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Jose and Ophelia.
Also 2016 South Australian “hurricane”. Confirms the significant effect of geothermal heat on climate.
Click hurricanes_2: to view 12 page .pdf
Chapter 5. Ocean pH.
Click Seawater pH . to view 5 page (.pdf)
Coming – if I have time….
Chapter 3. El Nino’s cause follows from this.
Chapter 6. (Work in progress). Timing of climate changes and some otherwise exceptional weather events – not simply explanation; that bit’s easy – if one is not constrained by AGW.
Second Section. Commentary
Chapter 1. Climate Change: The Role of Carbon Dioxide
[04Mar15, 05Jun15]: The only point I investigate in this first Chapter is the quantitative properties of the “Greenhouse Gas” CO2 as that is the only issue by which AGW stands or falls.
The currently accepted AGW view has been a serious impediment to the scientific community to getting answers to climate topics. The answers follow naturally from knowing the correct cause, but AGW gives a severely blinkered view. Once the blinkers are removed, a goldmine of explanations of natural phenomena becomes available.
I have yet to see any scientific backing for AGW’s that show that CO2 is able to cause such temperature changes.
(One can deduce that there is no such evidence when one hears “We must err on the safe side.”)
[14Apr15]: Corrected error on page 3, 60% to 40%. (Thanks Richard Seymour). Added reference to Gebbie.
1. Chapter One. Click CCPt1U to view 4 page (.pdf)
Conclusion: Carbon dioxide’s greenhouse contribution to global warming is far too small to measure.
Chapter 1A: [07Mar15]: The Addendum to Chapter One answers AGW queries that I’ve come across. (Please post if you have others – but only if you have given thought to them.)
1. ALL satellite spectra will need to be adjusted with regard to their measured magnitudes .
2. AGW’s one attempt to quantify carbon dioxide’s greenhouse effect uses satellite rather than surface-based IR measurements. It fails to do the final simple but exact calculation which brings the 2 types into agreement – thus proving that AGW cannot occur.
[Admittedly, I think my calculation has not been done elsewhere.]
Chapter 1B: [02Apr16, 28Mar17, 28May17]:
Chapter 1B can be condensed even further as follows: One can check the validity or otherwise of the AGW proposition by simple step-by-step logic as follows.
- Greenhouse Effect (G): The original & correct definition is that incoming solar energy into a container, such as a greenhouse, and heats the contained air. The air is trapped inside and so the greenhouse’s air temperature rises more than that outside of the greenhouse.
- A planet’s greenhouse is its container, the atmosphere, which in turn, is held put by gravity.
- G is a temperature, reckoned to be about 33K, and results from the heat held by the gases of the atmosphere. The amount of heat needed to raise a unit quantity of a substance by a degree is known as the specific heat, C. ALL substances, including all gases, have a specific heat; they are listed in standard tables.
- CO2, whether natural or Man-made, is a greenhouse gas, but then so are ALL gases. Like all substances, all gases absorb heat in one way or another eg by radiation, conduction, convection and/or diffusion.
- Therefore, the greater an atmosphere’s quantity of gas ie, its total pressure, the greater the amount of heat able to be absorbed.
- …and the heat absorbed by each component of any gas mixture such as the atmosphere is roughly* proportional to its percentage in the mixture.
* This proportionality becomes exact if the specific heat of each separate gas is included.
- Therefore, as carbon dioxide represents about 0.04% of Earth’s atmosphere, that’s about its contribution to the greenhouse effect – immeasurably small. Methane, etc, have an even tinier effect, and so none can change climate.
cf AGW assertions:
Even though it is known to be incorrect, AGW re-defines the Greenhouse Effect as being due to heat absorption by certain gases only – the IR gases. Compare to #2.
[This re-definition implies that only the IR gases can be warmed or cooled, never stated openly unsurprisingly. Clearly that’s daft.]
And so, Man’s burning of carbon fuels is defined to be causing global warming!
This false redefinition is the source of all the AGW prognostications!
Further to Chapter 1B: [19Dec18]
Substantiation of specific heats scheme.
The following 2010 YouTube video of an experiment by a then 9-year old Linda shows that CO2 is heated more by sunshine than is air, by simply comparing the temperatures within two clear plastic bags, one containing air, the other carbon dioxide. The 100% CO2 bag was warmer by 2°C. She seems happy to have proven her hypothesis. https://youtu.be/HdH_G1-5YSo
However, because they are real, her crude experimental results are far more valuable than all the different answers from many models used by the IPCC. The IPCC and the Paris, Katowice, etc, etc, talk-fests are screaming that levels of maybe 0·1% will lead to at least a 2°C rise – although they are a bit vague about these model numbers. The video shows that’s far from possible, and that CO2 cannot achieve warming as its level is far too low, as
even 100% CO2 produces only a 2°C rise!!
This video has been around for a few years. One does wonder why researchers have not done this obvious experiment. I suspect they didn’t like the negative result.
The reason CO2 raises the temperature, and by only 2°C
is that specific heat of CO2 is about 20% less than air’s so that its temperature is raised by 20% more than air for an amount of heat added.
The final temperatures reached were
°C 41.9 39.9 Difference = 2°C and
Rise 11.9 9.9
The initial shade temperature was not stated, but there’s exact correspondence of 20% rise if it was the realistic summer 30°C; the shade temperature was not recorded but Linda was barefoot. The experiment’s results are verified.
[IR and Greenhouse do not enter the discussion.]
A further illustration of Greenhouse Effect: [02Oct19]
The air composition inside a horticultural greenhouse is the same inside as out yet it is degrees warmer within. Therefore, the extra warming cannot be due to the air composition. It’s actually due to the Sun heating the air within but this heated inside air is trapped by the walls and roof and so cannot float away as the outside gas does, and so the extra heat – held by all the inside air’s gases – builds up. This used to be taught in high school Science. [Further, carbon dioxide is commonly pumped into horticultural greenhouses as a fertiliser – with no measurable heating.]
Therefore, as all gases hold heat, ALL gases are greenhouse gases – and the amount of heat each holds is roughly in proportion to their extent in the air.
Therefore, carbon dioxide at 0.04%, is a very minor greenhouse gas and consequently, very minor effect upon Earth’s temperature. Methane has an even lesser effect.
A planet’s greenhouse effect is determined largely by its atmosphere’s total pressure – ie it is constant – rather than by its composition.
[To illustrate, from Chapter 2A:
The greenhouse effects of Venus, Earth and Mars decrease in accord with each planet’s total pressure – as opposed to its carbon dioxide pressure.]
AGW ANTIDOTES: Opinions from evidence.
This section refutes various statements put forward to support AGW, in a manner that does not require the definitive scientific calculations already shown. This may be sufficient for those with shaky science knowledge. Unfortunately, they also seem to be the most fanatical about this topic – and from both sides!
The basic question at issue is
Q: “Can increasing levels of the greenhouse gas CO2 cause global temperatures to rise?”
From Chapter One,
- Many people rely on such statements as:
97% of scientists feel that Man is causing Global Warming because the carbon fuels Man burns produce increasing levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.
(97%: sounds like a Russian election result!) One would think that with this great number of scientists, they’d be able to prove their proposition, yet they are still unable to prove their belief after decades of trying to do just that. For example, the IR effect on climate was a minor curiosity until the IPCC was formed in 1988 to push such an effort … without success. If this search had been successful, there would not now be a debate.
After so many scientists failing for so many years to validate AGW, you’d think they’d give at least some consideration that their proposition might be wrong!
And note also,
“97% of scientists” believed in the Piltdown Man for decades; it proved to be a hoax.
“97% of scientists” ridiculed Alfred Wegener’s Continental Drift theory for decades; it is now mainstream.
Somehow this “97% of scientists” figure neglects the fact that neither of the two largest populations, India and China, accept AGW in any practical manner.
- Greenhouse Gas:
Most people have now heard of Greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, and have an inkling of what that means, but as they say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing!Real (Horticultural) greenhouses raise the temperature less than 10°C, and are well confined by solid walls, yet it is conjectured Earth’s Greenhouse Effect is 33°C! Greenhouses often have CO2 pumped into them – as a “fertiliser” – with no noticed temperature effect.
- The magical 2ºC limit.
Whenever record hot spells strike anywhere in the world, the cry arises that Man must reduce carbon fuel use to prevent global warming above 2ºC. What they fail to mention is that Earth’s temperature is expected to rise from natural causes – by that magical, unexplained figure of 2ºC.
This is because it has done so four times cyclically – now approaching the fifth – over the past 420,000 years (Figure 1) – and with CO2 levels of only 290ppm maximum! Clearly, as CO2 levels are now 400ppm but the temperature is 2ºC less than previous temperature maxima, warming does not follow CO2 levels, so they must be irrelevant.
Do you reckon we are being hoodwinked?
Chapter 2: What is causing climate changes?
….. Planet Earth.
Conclusions: 1. Global warming is distributed irregularly in both time and around the globe – matching tectonic activity qualitatively and quantitatively.
2. Continuing high levels of seismic activity will occur if global temperatures are to reach previous Vostok maxima.
Chapter 2A: Venus, Earth and Mars …. Game, Set and Match! [16Aug16]
1. The greenhouse effect, G is proportional to a planet’s atmosphere’s total pressure.
2. G for each planet is therefore constant.
3. Vostok shows a planet’s geologically released internal heat, IntT varies with time.
4. G is unrelated to an atmosphere’s carbon dioxide density. AGW is wrong.
Thus validating Chapters 1B and 2.
Conclusions from Chapters 1 & 2:
The faulty AGW theory results from the faulty definition of Greenhouse Effect. Classic GIGO.
Further Observation: [30June17]
Planet Earth’s Climate Future.
Ice-core data provide a record of Earth’s past climates. A physical theory, eg as outlined in Chapter 2, is needed to reliably extrapolate these past data to predict future climates.
Figure 1 shows that natural carbon dioxide levels reached about 280ppm in the 1800s, similar to the maxima of the previous four Vostok maxima. (Burning carbonaceous fuels, such as coal, oil and gas, that have produced an extra 120ppm of carbon dioxide of the current 400ppm, have now masked natural changes.)
Figure 1 should be recognised to be not simply a record of past events, but a predictor of future events. As shown in Chapters 1, carbon dioxide levels do not influence global warmth but they do act as a marker of where Earth is in its cycle. Although the size of natural levels of carbon dioxide have been swamped by Man-made, it is now about its past maxima, and temperatures are similar to past maxima. Therefore, (Chapter 2) one expects this present Interglacial Period to end geologically soon – hard to predict when yet, but maybe within hundreds of years – and the temperature to drop.
The climate over the past 12,000 years, known as the Holocene Epoch, has been more in the nature of climate fluctuations rather than the drastic temperature drop with the coming climate change ending this current Interglacial period. Although earlier humans survived such glacial periods, they did not thrive. Man will need a great deal more energy than currently to maintain itself. Renewables provide too little energy, especially as wind and hydro energy will probably drop considerably in a glacial world. Renewables have a limited future, and other than hydro are not even really a present-day solution as they are not generally cost-competitive without subsidy support.
A more substantial energy source will be required; even now would be useful. The bogeyman, coal, is being spurned largely on ideological grounds. However, coal will come to an end within hundreds of years. Nuclear is the way of the future but probably not fission because of its unwanted radioactive waste. Fusion has far less problems with radioactivity and appears to be the likely option.
Of course, sustainable and useful energy production from nuclear fusion has not yet been achieved, despite decades of trying. Past efforts have been directed along a path that has so far proven too difficult, ie trying to reproduce the fusion reactions taking place in the Sun’s interior, ie extremely high temperatures and pressures to produce extremely large and difficult to contain energy. Possibly more modest targets may be achievable with more modest methods.
[Chapters 4 & 4A have the bonus of being non-mathematical.]
Chapter 4. Pam & severe storms. [26Mar15, 31Mar15]: Cyclones such as Pam develop from the same mechanism causing climate changes. Weather events do NOT occur randomly; they all have a physical basis – it’s just that sometimes we have not been able to identify them yet.
Chapter 4A: Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Jose (2017) [19Sep17, 27Jan18]
Further evidence that substantiates Chapter 2’s inference that geological heat is the substantive driver of climate changes.
Two quick updates to further illustrate Chapter 4A. [02Oct19]
(1) Dorian 2019 devastated Bermuda.
Dorian intensified from a Tropical Storm after passing (westwards) over the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, which was active weeks before, plus that from twin quakes from what appears to be an as yet uncharted Hot Spot (15.5N 50.1W) explaining Dorian’s intensity.
That location is similar to, but measurably north of the twin quakes which set off Irma & Jose (2017). [See Chapter 4A.]
No Date Mag Depth, km Latitude Longitude
Irma & Jose 2017 Hot Spot
1. 02Aug2017 5.3 10 13.5°N 49.3°W
2 31Aug2017 4.4 10 13.3°N 49.3°W
Dorian 2019 Hot Spot
1. 07Sep2019 5.1 10 15.6°N 50°W
2. 07Sep2019 4.3 10 15.5°N 50.1°W
(2) Humberto 2019
[The following was a prediction put into Comments (06Sep19), about 10 days before even the Tropical Storm that became Cyclone Humberto – well in advance of forecasters. It is copied here for better accessibility.]
Expect to see a major hurricane evolve 24N and west of 46W within a week or two.
There were two significant seismics on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge
30Aug19 Mag 5.3 (23.8N 45.4W) and
02Sep19 Mag 5.9 (23.8N 45.2W).
These are both substantial for an undersea diverging boundary. The heat released will intensify any passing tropical storm or depression; they will be drawn into it. That location is very similar to that which set off Igor (2010), but its quakes were much smaller 4.8 & 4.4.
The following is added detail.
No Date Mag Depth, km Latitude Longitude
Igor (2010) Ridge
1 04Aug10 4.8 10 22.7°N 44.9°W
2 04Aug10 4.4 10 19.1°N 46.1°W
What was to become Humberto (2019) Ridge
30Aug19 5.3 10 23.8°N 45.4°W
02Sep19 5.9 10 23.8°N 45.2°W
1. At least many severe storms have identifiable geological beginnings.
Chapters 4 & 4A thus show that heat from undersea volcanic activity is large enough to affect climate. It is not insignificant as has previously been thought.
2. The two natural phenomena previously considered random, volcanic activity (90% of which is undersea) and weather/climate
… are actually connected
… and therefore not random
… and therefore probably predictable.
Chapter 5: Ocean pH [15Sep15, 29Sep15]
Calculates the extent that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels change ocean pH (ie acidity/alkalinity).
Conclusion: Carbon dioxide’s effect on pH is calculated to be measurable, but like AGW, is too small to be significant.
Currently there is anxiety about coral bleaching, affecting particularly the northern Great Barrier Reef. Valerie Taylor had a short informal interview in The Weekend Australian’s Magazine, May 14. You may recall she made many documentaries with her husband Ron about sharks. She’s now 80, and still dives. [Current researchers would/should have been aware of their well known documentaries.] She says of the GBR,
“In 1965 we went from one end of the reef to the other, over six months, and we found bleaching then. In the ‘70s we went back and you’d never know it happened. The coral had recovered; nature had taken care of it. I’ve seen reefs in PNG that were as white as snow and I’ve just come back from there and they’re terrific.”
She thus observes that bleaching is reversible. (Presumably spores from unaffected corals can flow in again to re-colonise affected areas once the cause has departed.) Coral bleaching and repair occur independently of atmospheric CO2 levels.
As it is mainly the relatively untouched northern areas of the GBR affected, it is unlikely that run-off is the cause. The current bleaching decreases towards the south, flowing on the north-to-south counter-clockwise current from Vanuatu, along southern PNG, then south along the Queensland coast, and becoming depleted in the process. Upstream undersea volcanic activity around Vanuatu produces toxic H2S (Chapter 4a, Cyclone Pam), in time oxidising to sulphuric acid, lowering pH, but less toxic at that level. Chapter 5 shows the small acidity produced by CO2 is not a concern.
Other coral bleaching areas around the globe, eg Seychelles, Caribbean, Maldives, etc are downstream from undersea volcanic areas. However, Persian Gulf corals are not influenced by undersea volcanic areas and are not bleached, despite being 36°C – much higher than the GBR’s 32°C encountered preceding bleaching events.
What is AGW’s agenda given that both Anthropogenic GW and “Ocean Acidity” can so easily be dismissed by real scientific investigation? Is it a hoax?
AGW is the Millennium Bug, Mark II
[01March 2016: This step of self-publishing has been necessary as I have found personally that journals seem to have an aversion to publishing articles contrary to the current AGW dogma.
For example, I sent what is now Chapter One and its Addendum to Nature Climate Change (email receipt of submission1023 PM, 11Dec2014). EIGHT minutes later (1031 PM) I received a written rejection by a sub-editor! That’s not even enough time to have read past the first page’s title. Nor enough time to solve the geometric problem inherent in #2a of the Addendum.)
Blogs such as The Conversation (Australia) funded by many universities, allows its excessively pro-AGW moderator, Cory Zanoni but now Misha Ketchell, to remove most non-AGW comments. This can be noticed by the absence of past non-AGW contributors – presumably blocked like me for putting such views. Even the publicly funded CSIRO declined my request for comment.
This site will allow airing of my work. Sensible comments welcome. Abuse is not. ]
Continue reading Planet Earth Climate Topics