October 25, 2020
The American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AICHE)
Climate Change Policy Statement says:
Scientific analysis finds that
non-natural climate change is occurring and has been strongly influenced
by human-caused releases of greenhouse gases. Using an open, moderated
process in 2017-18, AIChE members were provided an opportunity to
critique the current consensus climate science as captured in the US
EPAís Endangerment Findings. After listening to all points of view and
challenges, assessing the climate science based on documented evidence,
their analysis supported the credibility of this science.
is proven incorrect in the AICHE Engage / Discussion Central
"Sustainability and CO2".
Disproofs of the CO2 Emissions Global Warming Theory that are discussed
are irrefutable. None can give any substantiated disagreement in the
longest technical discussion in AICHE history. The representation of
co2 and ch4 and ... ir absorption in our atmosphere by "climate scientists"
and "atmospheric scientists" is obviously fraudulent as it does not properly
scale measured component ir absorbance curves by the ratio of Ca/Cs before
comparing them, where Ca is the atmospheric concentration and Cs is the
sample concentration (in binary mixtures with nitrogen) (disproof 12).
That is completely obvious from the stated sample compositions given by NIST
beneath the measured ir absorption curves, and from Beer's law, which states that the absorbance of a solution is proportional to
solute concentration (and to path length and to their product). Other
obvious evidence that no competent engineer can deny is our disproof 1 -
adding any ir-absorbing components to our atmosphere only increases
insulation of the surface and further mitigates daily high and low
temperatures, to the benefit of all life, and actually results in a net
cooling effect at the surface. The 'scientific analysis' resulting in
the AICHE policy was completely non-scientific as it was not based on any
substantiated evidence that co2 emissions are causing global warming, and it
was made by those with business interests representing severe conflicts of
interest that they fail to disclose, even when asked. Those who defend
what they claim to be accepted "climate science" and "environmental science"
in these discussions are proven to be incapable of substantiating
any of their claims or the position of AICHE on this issue.
The AICHE Code of Ethics states:
Members of the American Institute of Chemical
Engineers shall uphold and advance the integrity, honor and dignity of the
engineering profession by: being honest and impartial and serving with
fidelity their employers, their clients, and the public; striving to
increase the competence and prestige of the engineering profession; and
using their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human welfare. To
achieve these goals, members shall:
paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and protect the
environment in performance of their professional duties.
advise their employers or clients (and consider further disclosure, if
warranted) if they perceive that a consequence of their duties will
adversely affect the present or future health or safety of their
colleagues or the public.
responsibility for their actions, seek and heed critical review of their
work and offer objective criticism of the work of others.
statements or present information only in an objective and truthful
professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or
trustees, avoiding conflicts of interest and never breaching
colleagues and co-workers fairly and respectfully, recognizing their
unique contributions and capabilities by fostering an environment of
equity, diversity and inclusion.
professional services only in areas of their competence.
professional reputations on the merits of their services.
their professional development throughout their careers, and provide
opportunities for the professional development of those under their
themselves in a fair, honorable and respectful manner.
AIChE Engage Code of Conduct,
the right to remove any content we deem inappropriate for use in the
community, and/or to revoke any member's access to the community at any time
and for any reason.
We support that
right, and believe that it should be exercised ethically and without
is an important and learned profession. As members of this profession,
engineers are expected to exhibit the highest standards of honesty and
integrity. Engineering has a direct and vital impact on the quality of
life for all people. Accordingly, the services provided by engineers
require honesty, impartiality, fairness, and equity, and must be
dedicated to the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.
Engineers must perform under a standard of professional behavior that
requires adherence to the highest principles of ethical conduct.
placed Brian Coats under moderation on October 15, 2020, and the AICHE CEO suspended Brian Coats
on October 22, 2020 from discussions for 3 months for violating discussion rules.
comments below in AICHE Engage / Discussion Central discussion of
"Sustainability and CO2"
were determined by AICHE to violate discussion rules and have been disallowed.
Submitted November 20, 2020 by Gregory Rankin
Monica - What happened to Brian Coats? I see that his
profile is now inactive. Has he been censored? Spirited debate is beneficial
to the engineering process, and I would hate to think that AIChE has gotten
to the point where people that make comments deemed to be "politically
incorrect" are removed or censored.
If ideas presented here can't stand scrutiny or serious inquiry, then they
are not viable ideas. Freedom of speech also includes the freedom to be
heard/read. This is America - a land of freedom (at least it used to be).
Regardless of AIChE's viewpoint of this topic, Brian Coats contributed
greatly to this thread, helped precipitate much discussion, and should be
allowed to participate. Could you please check into this? Thank you.
Submitted November 20, 2020 by Paul Stobble
Monica, I would like
to second Mr. Gregory Rankinís inquiry and position on free and open
discussions. The subject of climate change encompasses both science and
politics and is one of the most active discussions within AIChEís Engage
forum, to that end all discussion must be encouraged.
Submitted October 22, 2020
by Brian Coats
David Cummins is the engineer whom I said I would
reference. He sent me the following and gave me permission to share it.
Climate Change, the Real Explanation.
It's not talked about, but all evidence to date of "
Climate Change " is that it's particularly a N. Hemisphere phenomenon. The
N. Hemisphere is warming and Arctic ice is rapidly melting. However, this is
in stark contrast to the S. Hemisphere where there is little evidence of
warming nor Antarctic ice melt. This has puzzled climate scientists, since
there is just as much "Greenhouse Gas" in both Hemispheres! Unfortunately
for all of us, this puzzlement is because they are overlooking the real
explanation for climate change. One that's logical, readily understood,
undeniable and importantly quantifiable. Yes, you have a choice, and here's
the 2 minute explanation of what the other one, the real explanation, is.
For almost two hundred years it has been known that
there is an atmospheric phenomenon described as an Urban Heat Island, or "
UHI" . It describes the fact that urban areas are warmer than their
surrounding rural areas. It simply means that the creation of any urban
area results in atmospheric warming. Its cause is the replacement of all
vegetation, which through evaporative cooling are natural air conditioners,
with stone, brick concrete and asphalt, which are simply man-made, natural
radiators. For the atmosphere, it has the identical result of you turning
off your home air conditioner and switching on its furnace. The air gets
And for the last 130 years we have been creating and
growing UHI's all over the globe. Today, if you put them all together it
would be at least a 1.5 million square mile city, the World Bank actually
estimates it as 2.1 million square mile city. A UHI so large it would take
almost three hours to fly over it. An artificial desert half the size of
the Sahara. In the process, we've eliminated at least 1.5 million square
miles of natural air conditioning. And unfortunately replaced it with 1.5
million square miles of small, large and sometimes enormous brick, stone,
glass and concrete monoliths surrounded by more concrete and asphalt. All
man-made radiators. It's a recipe for a thermal disaster and we're seeing
it. It's an accepted fact that New York has its own climate, so too does
London, Paris, Tokyo, Delhi, Manila, Mexico City, Seoul, and Sao Paolo. They
all have their own climate. The list is endless. And, unfortunately we can
now add Beijing, Shanghai, Guanghzou, Wuhan and other enormous Chinese
cities to that list. Brand new cities that didn't show up on the radar 20-30
years ago. All cities are UHI's, it's an indisputable fact. And the more we
build and expand them, the warmer the atmosphere will get. That's the
definition of UHI. As a result, today, we are evaporating less water and
capturing more solar energy than any time in human history.
And if we apply process engineering 101 fundamentals,
we can quantify the consequences. Less vegetation, equates to less
evaporation. Compared to 130 years ago, we're evaporating at least 2.9
billion acre/ft less water annually. Consequently there's 2.9 billion
acre/ft less rainfall annually. Since 2010, enough water to fill the 5 Great
Lakes. It has resulted in historic N. Hemisphere summer droughts and has
Less evaporation equates to less evaporative cooling,
and its enormous cooling. The loss of 2.9 billion acre/ft evaporative
cooling annually means the atmosphere circulating today, compared to 1890,
has the potential to melt a 1.5 million square mile block of ice 21 ft tall,
annually. And, that's not all. Add to that the sensible heat gain resulting
from the replacement of the vegetation with man-made radiators, the
horizontal concrete and asphalt ones, together with the massive vertical
ones. And that's conservatively another 3 ft of annual ice melt. In total it
means that, compared to 1890, the global UHI we've created results in the
atmosphere circulating today with enough retained heat to potentially melt a
1.5 million square mile block of ice 24 ft tall, annually!
What happens next? Letís combine that with another
atmospheric phenomenon described as the Coriolis effect. In each hemisphere,
the atmosphere is essentially contained, it circulates within it. The
atmosphere in the N. Hemisphere circulates in the N. Hemisphere, and the
atmosphere in the S. Hemisphere circulates in the S. Hemisphere. The
circulation pattern in both hemispheres is from the equator to the poles.
Since 90% of that enormous, global, 1.5 million square UHI is in the
N.Hemisphere, 90% of the potential ice melt is in the Arctic. And it means
that just in the last 10 years, enough heat has been circulating in the N.
Hemisphere compared to 1890, to potentially melt a mountain of ice 430 ft
tall the size of Greenland!! In the S. Hemisphere the story is much
different. With only 10% of the global urban development, there is little
warming and little evidence of Antarctic ice melt. There is less rainfall
too, but it's only one tenth as much as the N. Hemisphere. However in
Australia, which has little rainfall anyway, any less rainfall has serious
That's it. The 2 minute summary. In 2 minutes I've
explained not only why nearly all the disappearing ice is in the Arctic,
I've quantified it. I've also explained why some parts of Europe are
experiencing historic droughts. Finally I should add that from 1940 through
1974, we were not building new cities, but destroying old ones and then
rebuilding them. Which is why atmospheric temperatures didn't rise in that
period. Another fact which has puzzled the climate scientists.
That's it. No smoke, no mirrors, just indisputable
facts. The undeniable, irrefutable, UHI, explanation for "Climate Change"
And the remedy. Evaporate more water, plant trees.
Billions and billions of them. Within 30-40 years, the temperatures will
fall, the droughts will end Arctic ice will return, and forest fires will
diminish. It may have taken 130 years to get here. But it takes a lot less
time to rectify it, because we have the knowledge and tools to fix it
So now you have a choice, one explanation that no one
can understand and is refuted by the evidence. Or one that everyone can
understand and is supported by the evidence. Your call. If you're a
competent Chemical Engineer it should be a no-brainer.
Submitted October 21, 2020
by Brian Coats in reply to John Waycuilis (paraphrased from memory, with a
Yes John, there is extreme
confusion regarding ir absorption here! In your example, you keep
composition constant and vary path length, and then claim that absorbance is
not proportional to concentration! Beer's Law says that Absorbance of
a given wavelength is A = e*p*c, where e is the extinction coefficient, p is
the path length, and c is concentration in moles/volume. A = log
(Io/I) where Io is intensity of the light source and I is measured intensity
after passing through the sample. A and e for each component are
functions of wavelength, P, and T. Transmittance = I/Io is the
fraction of light transmitted through the sample as a function of wavelength
So, obviously, all references
comparing measured component ir absorbance (or transmittance) curves that
are not properly scaled to their true atmospheric concentrations are
fraudulent, as I originally stated here. Absorbance curves must be
scaled by Ca/Cs before comparison, where Ca and Cs are atmospheric and
sample concentrations, respectively.
Note that extinction coefficients
are supposedly measured by plotting Absorbance vs. concentration, for
multiple measurements in the same instrument at the same conditions of
multiple sample concentrations (in binary mixtures with nitrogen). e*p
is the slope at a given P,T. Note that this extinction coefficient
data is required in order to apply Beer's law to absorption in our
atmosphere, and that it is not available anywhere, as far as I can tell.
It's required for all atmospheric components as functions of P, T, and
wavelength in order to make any analysis of atmospheric absorption,
emission, and transmission! Where is it?
Also, Beer's law only applies to
unidirectional radiation, and not to the chaos of light existing in our
atmosphere due to incoming, reflected, absorbed, and transmitted amounts
that vary constantly as functions of space and time!
Also note that John Braccili's
claimed satellite-measured "earth ir emission spectrum" (that constantly
varies with space and time) is EXACTLY identical to the spectrum shown by
Paul Stobbe as coming from MODTRAN simulation at 400 ppm co2! So Johns
claim of that being a satellite-measured spectrum from space is obviously
false, as is his ridiculous claim (and example that he says shows) that ir
absorbance is not proportional to concentration!
Submitted October 20, 2020 by Brian Coats (in
discussion of "Future
Energy Sources" claimed discovery of dark matter):
All such claims in the past have been proven fraudulent. When the system is
demonstrated to produce power at the claimed efficiency, it can be believed,
and not before that. Does Brilliant light give any substantiation of their
claims whatsoever? I would like to know how the de-energized hydrogen atom "Hydrino"
is claimed to be "dark matter". That has never been shown to exist. Have
they actually produced this molecule? Do they explain how it is undetectable
by astrophysicists? I've said in many discussions of the subject that I
think that "dark matter" exists only in the minds of those who misperceive
it. It is essentially a fudge factor used by astrophysicists to explain what
they can't. I believe that their misperceptions are simply due to the fact
that light is bent by electromagnetic fields that are absolutely impossible
to characterize, all along its path from the source to the earth, making it
impossible to accurately determine large distances in space.
Submitted October 20, 2020 by Brian Coats:
"I think that we now must go
back to hypothesis that Brian Coats presented. That is, that CO2 acts as
insulation and traps (insulates) the heat on the Earth." <John>
"That wasn't his theory. His
theory was the greenhouse gases insulate the earth from solar radiation and
the net effect cooled the earth. Photosynthesis was the source of global
That is wrong John. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. That
is a fallacy. All gases insulate the planet from solar radiation, and slow
the rate of heat transfer to the surface during the day and from the surface
during the night. I did not say that photosynthesis was the source of
global warming, I said that because of it, increasing co2 is the key to
sustainability by greatly increasing the endothermic production of food and
oxygen. I said that killing plant life and development are the causes of
global warming, which include reduced photosynthesis, reduced transpiration
(and rainfall), and greatly increased heat absorption and release by all
development and cities (look up 'urban heat island'). Our cities and
especially our megacities are solar-powered thermal furnaces. A secondary
factor is waste heat from fuel and power consumption.
Co2 does not trap any
heat on earth. It insulates the surface and mitigates daily high and low
temperatures. If we increase co2, the surface will warm slower during the
day and cool slower during the night, with lower high temperatures and
higher low temperatures. It simply reduces the rate of heat transfer by
radiation either in or out. IR absorption/emission/transmission by any
given component is completely irrelevant. If we add more ir-absorbing
components it will only increase the insulating effect and decrease daily
highs and increase nightly lows, to the benefit of all life. I claim that
it actually causes cooling, because the intensity of ir out at night is
virtually insignificant compared to the intensity of the solar radiation in
during the day. Adding any ir-absorbing component will result in much more
energy being blocked from reaching the surface during the day than the
amount that is blocked from leaving the surface at night. That is obviously
true from the simple observation of the problem of shielding astronauts from
solar radiation in space. Longwave ir radiation penetrates hulls and bodies
and mutates cells to cause cancer in animals and humans. There is certainly
no concern in orbit in the shade of the planet!
I have not claimed that reduced photosynthesis is
causing global warming! I've only noted that it is endothermic and
kinetics requires that co2 be increased for true sustainability to feed the
Any component that absorbs any electromagnetic radiation, either incoming or
outgoing, immediately exchanges it (achieves local thermodynamic
equilibrium) with all other components locally present. Each component
absorbs an amount of heat (energy) equal to its heat capacity times the
local change in temperature. (the heat capacity of ideal gases is a function
of number of atoms, monoatomic Cv = 3R/2, diatomic = 5R/2, ... and their
internal energy is a function only of heat total heat capacity and
temperature, equal to integral of Cv dT, where Cv is the molar average).
This is a basic assumption in modeling of physical systems, as I've already
explained in detail. The finely-gridded system gives the correct model
result because the errors in the numerical approximations of the partial
derivatives appearing in the species mass and energy conservation equations
go to zero and our assumptions become correct as block size approaches 0.
Upscaling is the process of determining the coarsest possible grid and
gridblock properties that sufficiently match the correct fine-scale
It's very obvious that ir emission isn't even the main mechanism of heat
loss from the surface at night! It is obviously conduction (with some
evaporation), and convection from there on! All process engineers know
Submitted October 14, 2020 by Brian Coats
I just got an email from David Cummins, a brilliant retired Chevron chemical
engineer. He has written a paper on the global warming issue that completely
agrees with me that loss of plant life due to deforestation and development
is the cause of global warming. But he pointed out that the heat of
vaporization for transpiration absorbs much more energy than photosynthesis.
I think you also mentioned this but it escaped me. I'm trying to quantify
the ratio and I'll report when done. A single oak tree can vaporize 40,000
gallons of water a year. It additionally explains the melting of the arctic
and not the antarctic and is related to every other observation that I've
attributed only to reduced photosynthesis. Remember my comment about the
difference between the temperature on a forest floor and at the middle of an
adjacent asphalt parking lot? I now think most of that cooling is due to
transpiration. That obviously doesn't happen underwater, and although I
still think the same thing about pollution killing almost half the plant
life in our waters as indicated by many Nature and Scientific American
articles before the co2 scam took off, your tree planting solution may be
the most effective and easiest part of the solution. Recycling and
elimination of plastic bags non-recyclables and cleanup up are still
critical. And we can end all undesired unemployment by using the money being
wasted on green energy projects and mandates and incentives and targets and
research and decarbonization, and all that being stolen by carbon taxes to
achieve it. David estimates about 50 years to correct the environmental
damage occurring over the last century or so.
October 13, 2020 by Brian Coats:
I've asked about your qualifications and your business
interests in these issues several times. You haven't responded so I looked
at your website at http://www.processprofiles.com. I hope you don't mind
the free advertising! It says:
Kirsten Rosselot, the owner of Process Profiles, helps
organizations understand and improve their environmental performance. She
systematically helps her customers identify the products, processes or
substances that are likely to be the most appropriate focus for improvement
efforts. She uses research, models, process simulation tools, and the
fundamentals of chemistry and thermodynamics to explain observations and
assess expectations for alternative processes and materials. Her proactive,
data-driven solutions are guided by an understanding of environmental
regulations and green metrics. The results of her projects are robust and
provide perspective that can be effectively communicated to a diverse
audience. She often uses information from large databases (including census
product, life cycle inventory, chemical property, hazard assignment,
facility environmental release and transfer, and environmental permit record
databases) to inform and contextualize her technical findings.
Kirsten Rosselot is a licensed professional chemical
engineer whose clients include industry, government, and environmental
What work have you been doing for government? And what
environmental non-profits do you work for or have you worked for? You
suggest that we defer to the expertise of climate scientists, but you insist
that their unsubstantiated theories are correct. You haven't given your
qualifications on any of these issues. What are they?
John, I think you must have missed my explanation of
reservoir simulation and the very similar requirements of climate modeling,
to which no climate model even comes close. Please search for my post (Oct.
10) starting with "The reservoir simulator" for a detailed explanation.
Also see our disproofs page given in my first post here. Nobody has been
able to substantiate any argument against them here.
You and John already lost this debate a week ago when
you gave no response to my questions. But I'll respond to your further
unsubstantiated claims and misperceptions anyway.
"One of the flaws in your photosynthesis theory of
global warming is that when the plant matter that is created during
photosynthesis dies, it decays, and decay is exothermic."
I don't believe that decay occurring on the surface is
significant compared to the energy consumed by photosynthesis over the life
of the plant. You seem to think there's some kind of energy balance going
on there that dictates a release of energy equal to that consumed by
photosynthesis (as indicated by your statement "any planetary warming would
be balanced ..."). That is a ridiculous statement and indicates no
understanding of energy conservation. And, that decomposition generally
occurs following burial of organic material over geologic time, which forms
and is forming oil and gas. Most of that occurs under our waters. To prove
your claim, you would have to compare the energy created by any
decomposition occurring at the surface to that consumed by photosynthesis
over the life of the plant, and show that the former is significant in
comparison. I don't think it is. Can you prove it, or is this just another
of your many unsubstantiated claims?
"If an increase in sensible heat radiating outward from
the earth (from reduced photosynthesis or undersea volcanoes or heat form
the earth's core, etc.) was causing global warming, more heat would be
escaping into space. Instead, as the surface heats up, less heat is escaping
You are ignoring accumulation, and assuming
steady-state instantaneous equilibrium. These are not good assumptions. If
the surroundings are heated and stay heated, then obviously that energy is
retained in them and is not radiated! Any release of radiant energy
obviously results in temperature decrease (that is not explained by
Stefan-Boltzmann). And I don't think you can substantiate the claim that
less heat is escaping into space for any reason. The incoming and outgoing
radiant energy varies strongly as a function of time and space and pressure
and temperature and composition distributions that vary widely over both the
earth's surface and at any level in or above the atmosphere. How is it
possible that measurements made years apart from space are made under the
exact same atmospheric and radiant conditions using the same instruments? I
don't think that it is. The randomness of clouds and storms for example is
very simple proof of that, which very significantly affects composition
distribution. There's no possible way to make any valid conclusions from
separate measurements of ir emissions from space.
There is no significant outgoing ir radiation at night
in the bands absorbed by co2 at the top of the atmosphere simply because all
that very weak radiation has been attenuated by co2 far below that in the
atmosphere. According to the censored work of Heinz Hug, that occurs at
about 100 m above the surface. That very slightly increased ir absorption
there at night is beneficial to all life by preventing plant freezing. The
opposite occurs during the day since less solar radiation reaches the
surface due to its increased absorption in the atmosphere. That simple
observation disproves the claim that any increased energy absorption in the
atmosphere, by any mean, causes global warming. The claim 'less heat is
escaping to space at night therefore global warming is occurring' is
"An increase in sensible heat radiating outward from
the earth does not explain the increase in heat radiating towards the earth
from the atmosphere or the cooling of the stratosphere, but the increased
concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere does."
How does increased co2 explain either of those?
I didn't say that there was any increase in heat
radiating outward due to reduction of plant life and photosynthesis Ė you
did, because you apparently don't understand the energy balance and
completely ignore accumulation and the heat capacity of the earth and
everything on it. Steady-state is not a valid assumption.
Can you substantiate your claim that incoming energy
flux at the surface is increasing either at night or during the day? At
what point on earth or in the atmosphere, or area on earth or volume of
atmosphere, and on what dates and times do you claim that it is measured, by
Obviously, if atmospheric and earth surface temperature
are increasing for any reason, that increases emitted radiation from
everything including the earth's surface and everything on it and the
atmosphere. Can you please answer my questions about gas ir emission?
Please show your calculation of the energy flux emitted from a spherical
volume of gas containing 1m3 of air at standard conditions.
What identical measurements over time do you believe
indicates cooling of the stratosphere? And how do you believe that
increasing co2 concentration causes it? If it is cooling, then it proves
that increased co2 in the stratosphere can't possibly cause global warming.
The theory is that increased co2 blocks more ir radiation from escaping to
space at night. Increased absorption obviously means either increased
temperature, or retransmission. The fact that no co2 ir bands are observed
leaving indicates that retransmission is not occurring in the bands
absorbed/transmitted by co2. Therefore any increased ir absorption of co2
in the stratosphere should cause its warming.
There are no flaws in my arguments, because I strictly
obey our ethics and don't ever make any public claims that I can't
substantiate. You have not yet provided any substantiated argument against
any of my proofs, observations, or logic. None of your references here are
substantiated. The one about forcing is absolutely ridiculous. See if you
can find the details of the dates and times and points of measurement!
There certainly are none given in the article. One should make sure that a
claim is substantiated before repeating or referencing it.