about sensor
why sensor?
who's fastest?
p10 p50 p90
bayes and markov
drainage radius
frac conductivity
tight & fractured
capillary pressure
artificial intelligence
fd vs fe
third party tools
q & a
contact us
Dr. K. H. Coats



AICHE Censorship

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.

That statement is proven incorrect in the AICHE Engage / Discussion Central discussion of "Sustainability and CO2".  The 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:

  • Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and protect the environment in performance of their professional duties.

  • Formally 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.

  • Accept responsibility for their actions, seek and heed critical review of their work and offer objective criticism of the work of others.

  • Issue statements or present information only in an objective and truthful manner.

  • Act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees, avoiding conflicts of interest and never breaching confidentiality.

  • Treat all colleagues and co-workers fairly and respectfully, recognizing their unique contributions and capabilities by fostering an environment of equity, diversity and inclusion.

  • Perform professional services only in areas of their competence.

  • Build their professional reputations on the merits of their services.

  • Continue their professional development throughout their careers, and provide opportunities for the professional development of those under their supervision.

  • Never tolerate harassment.

  • Conduct themselves in a fair, honorable and respectful manner.

From the AIChE Engage Code of Conduct,

AIChE reserves 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 discrimination.

From NSPE:

Engineering 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.

AICHE moderators 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.

  See AICHE emails 

Brian's and other's 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 warmer.  

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 devastated forests.

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 consequences

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 relatively quickly.

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.

Dave Cummins

Moraga, Ca


Submitted October 21, 2020 by Brian Coats in reply to John Waycuilis (paraphrased from memory, with a small addition)

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 (and P,T).

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 warming." <Paul>

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 growing population.

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 solution.

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 that.



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.



Submitted 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 non-profits.

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 into space."

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 completely unsubstantiated.

"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 what instruments?

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.



© 2000 - 2022 Coats Engineering, Inc.