Keywords: Climate changes, 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 change since about 1950 is caused by Man burning carbon-containing “fossil” fuels such as oil and coal, producing 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).
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 Chapter One
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, one gets a synopsis of each chapter. It has opinion 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.
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.)
Click Greenhouse re-examined to view 3 page (.pdf)
Chapter 2. What is causing climate changes?
Click Chap2Updated to view 11 page (.pdf) file
Chapter 2A: Venus, Earth and Mars …. Game, Set and Match!
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. Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Jose (2017)
Click Hurricanes: to view 7 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, is trapped inside causing its air temperature to rise.
- A planet’s greenhouse is its container, the atmosphere, which in turn, is held put by gravity.
- G is a temperature, that results from the heat held by the gases of the atmosphere. It is usually reckoned to be about 33K (but that is shown here to be seriously in error).
- 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 close proportionality becomes exact if the specific heat of each separate gas is included.
[Ironically, because CO2 has a 20% smaller specific heat than the average air molecule, it is actually a 20% lesser greenhouse gas than the average air molecule.]
- Therefore, as carbon dioxide represents about 0.04% of Earth’s atmosphere, that’s about its contribution to the greenhouse effect; immeasurably small. Methane et al 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!
A planet’s greenhouse effect is determined largely by its atmosphere’s total pressure – ie it is constant – rather than by its composition.
[Illustration, 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 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.
- 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.) Therefore, according to Chapter 2, one expects this present Interglacial Period to end soon – maybe within hundreds of years.
The climate over the past 12,000 years 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.
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]
Chapters 4 & 4A have the bonus of being non-mathematical. They substantiate Chapter 2’s inference that geological heat is the substantive driver of climate changes.
Conclusion: At least some severe storms have identifiable geological beginnings.
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, 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 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, 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. ]