Disproofs of the CO2 Emissions Global Warming Theory*
Many believe that the theory of
global warming due to increased levels of co2 in our atmosphere from
hydrocarbon combustion is "accepted science", including most scientific and
academic organizations and governments. However, the opposite is true.
Increasing co2 levels and replanting to increase plant growth (food production) by
endothermic photosynthesis (and thus rainfall by transpiraton) is actually the key to sustainability of our
environment and our economies and to all life on earth, and it has a net global cooling effect.
On land, the surface evaporative cooling effect of transpiration is much
greater (>97% of total) and it provides almost all water evaporation from
land surfaces (See UHI's and
Droughts, by David Cummins).
CO2 is the basis of all life, and is currently near a historic minimum.
Destruction of plant life generally causes warming. Many estimate that
more than half of plant life on earth has been destroyed in the last 120
years, mostly that in our waters as a result of dumping and pollution that
is unrelated to energy production. See
Sustainability and CO2, which correctly redefines
'sustainability' and 'sustainable development'. The following proofs
not only disprove the co2 emissions global warming theory but they also
provide the solutions to the problems of real sustainability of all industry,
our economies, our environment, and all life on earth: 1.
"The Greenhouse Effect" is false (adding insulation does not cause warming)
The entire 'greenhouse effect' (as postulated by
Tyndall 150 years ago) is false. Before the definition was deceptively
changed by alarmists to imply heating due to increasing co2 concentrations, it was defined correctly as the warming in an enclosed structure
exposed to solar radiation that is caused by elimination of convection,
which has absolutely nothing to do with gas composition. It is clear
from the effects of water that when cloudy, nights are warmer as the
alarmists claim, but they neglect the fact that the daytime surface
temperatures are cooler (to a greater degree than nighttime warming) because
of the same insulating effect, and because the incoming solar radiation is
orders of magnitude more intense than the outgoing blackbody ir radiation at
night. The overall effect of adding any insulating gases (or any gases
that absorb infrared radiation) to the atmosphere is net cooling at the
surface. A simpler analogy
is that wrapping a rock with insulation will not change its average
temperature when exposed to an oscillating energy source. CO2 absorbs no
significant infrared radiation wrt water (all have been fooled by authors
ignoring compositional effects in published work - see proof 12). And even
if it did it would benefit the environment by preventing plant freezing! No
effect in dry areas proves it has none. If anyone wishes to send us any
publication claiming that ch4 or co2 are causing warming, please send it and
we (I) will show how the authors have fooled the world by ignoring
compositional effects (by not reporting the concentrations of gas samples,
and by not using samples having nearly the correct atmospheric
concentrations, in spectrographic analysis - see proof 12) , including Tyndall! That
is not only incredibly incompetent, but is completely fraudulent. It
is not possible for any real scientist to be that ignorant. Real
scientists and engineers do not make or believe claims that cannot be
substantiated or proven.
Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is real, but not
related to co2. It happens when we build a house. It happens when we cover
vegetation with solar panels. It happens when plant life dies in the ocean
or on land. It happens when we create a farm, because the rates of
photosynthesis and transpiration are reduced compared to the natural forest or vegetation. It
happens when we dump toxic waste into our waters. It happens when toxic
waste degradation in our garbage dumps cause slow toxic contamination of
large surrounding areas.
It happens when we pollute, except that CO2 is not
pollution, it's the source of all life on earth, and it has no significant
ir absorption compared to water, and increasing it is good for all life on
earth! All the climate alarmists ignore photosynthesis, which was at the
bottom of the food chain chart when we went to elementary school.
2. Photosynthesis and Transpiraton and the
Coriolis effect
The reaction rate of photosynthesis is proportional to
a rate constant K that is actually a function of temperature and increases
with increasing temperature, and to the products of the concentrations of
the reacting components divided by those of the produced components raised to the power of their stoichiometric coefficients
(in ideal reactions), as
in the reaction:
Na x A + Nb x B > Nc x C + Nd x D
or
Nco2 CO2 + Nw H2O + solar energy > Nch (CH2O)z +No2
O2
Where the (CH2O)z are carbohydrates, or plant (food)
growth. The reaction rate is different for different species but is
proportional to plant mass and is given by
R (moles co2/d/lb) = K(T) * [co2]**Nco2 * [h2o]**Nh2o /
{[CH2O]z**Nch * [o2]**No2}
where ** means raised to the power, and [] indicate
concentration of components. Nco2 is very large because (Nch x z) is very
large, in order to balance the reaction by their stoichiometric
coefficients, which for ideal reactions are also the Powers applied to the
concentrations in the reaction rate expression. Photosynthesis is a
very complex reaction, involving (several secondary reactions and ) solid,
liquid, and gas phases and so the actual reaction rate exponents will be
smaller than the ideal values. They and the rate constant are measured
in the lab. The ideal value of the co2 reaction rate
exponent is the stoichiometric coefficient of 6, but the co2 reaction rate exponent is still a high number.
If we assume that it is equal to 3, then a 10% reduciton in co2
concentration will result in a 28% reduction in food (plant) and oxygen
produciton and probably eliminate a significant fraction of the human race.
The heat of reaction is negative (it absorbs heat).
So, if we could double co2 to benefit all plant and animal life, the benefit
would be an order of magnitude or better improvement in rate of plant and
food growth, co2 consumption, oxygen production, and natural cooling.
So does anyone disagree about the greenhouse effect
being false? Does anyone think that climate scientists know more than
engineers about heat flow and reaction kinetics? Can anyone provide any
reference that they think proves that co2 emissions cause warming? It is not possible for any educated person to not understand the above,
therefore all who claim to be engineers and scientists making the false
claim must be fraudulent (they are not scientists or engineers at all, by
definition). The real problems and solutions are what competent ecologists
were saying 10-50 years ago and are given at
Sustainability and CO2.
While some warming results from lost photosynthesis, the majority results
from less evaporation of water ;by plants, or transpiration. And less
evaporation translates to less rainfall.. According to USGS an acre of
corn transpires 3 to 4 thousand gallons of water per day. Climates in
the hemispheres are separated by the Coriolis effect, which moves heat in
circulation patterns from the equator towards each pole. World Bank
estimates about 1.5 (1.4 in 2010) million square miles of "urban heat
islands" have been created by development. About 90% of the
development and warming is in the North, along with much reduced rainfall,
previously unexplained by climate scientists. See
Climate Change, The Real
Explanation by David Cummins for a detailed explanation and references.
3. The historic plot of co2 that shows we are near a
historic minimum and that increasing it by a large factor (as it was
historically, during the cretaceous and much higher before that) can't
possibly damage the environment.
4. We've known for decades from ice core data
interpretations that co2 and temperature are clearly correlated in the ice
age (Milankovich) cycles but that temperature changes are the driver of co2
change, by centuries.
The following questions (5-9) could not be answered by
any members of the SPE Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage technical
discussion group in our (highly censored) discussions, disproving the co2
emissions global warming theory years ago. See
https://www.coatsengineering.com/ccus.htm
5. Where are the
results of the simplest possible experiment demonstrating (or allowing
calculation of) the greenhouse temperature increase due to increasing CO2
concentration from .03 to .04%?
6. Why is there
any concern over a 1 degree temperature change in a century? (given the
interpreted ice core temperature oscillations of 3-5 degrees F on the order
of a century or two for the last 15000 years).
7. Why does
anyone believe in anthropogenic global warming, or in the need or benefit of
CO2 storage?
8 Why would
anyone want to waste CO2 by storing it (significantly increasing the cost of
energy) rather than use it for (primary or EOR) miscible or near-miscible
recovery (potentially giving an order-of-magnitude increase in recovery
efficiency, not counting capture and transportation costs)?
9.
Can anyone point to the published formulation of any [VALID] global climate
model (or the user’s manual)? I could be wrong but I can’t find any that are
publicly available for examination or use, which would indicate that no
robust global climate model exists. I don't think that there is any
such model capable of calculating an accurate global average temperature
change over the last century, or for any given time period. If using
surface temperature measurements, that would minimally require continuous
input temperature data over 200 years, integrated over time using the same
methods for each of the same weather stations on a fine grid over the entire
earth, which I don't think we have. Examination of any model's
formulation or user’s manual should easily tell us whether or not any robust
global climate models exist.
10. It
is impossible to measure the global average surface temperature of the earth
over any time period by any means. Reference to any 'average surface
temperature' in any publication is proof of absolute incompetence and
fraudulence. Measuring average surface temperature over any time period
(i.e. annually) would require a fine grid of sensors evenly spaced over the
entire land and water surfaces, monitored continuously and integrated to
obtain daily averages at each point, which can then all be averaged to
determine average annual temperature at each point, and average all those to
determine annual mean surface temperature. That obviously is impossible. Any
claims of differences over centuries are ridiculous. The same grid of
stations would be required to be monitored continuously over that entire
period.
11. The
censored discussion of
"Reservoir Role in Climate Change"
terminated by SPE censors and the SPE Technical Director for
"sustainability", in which the co2 emissions global warming theory was
proven false.
12. CO2
absorbs no significant infrared energy compared to water. Virtually
the entire field of infrared spectrography as applied to atmospheric science,
beginning with the work of John Tyndall in the 1800's,
is fraudulent. The gas co2 ir absorption curve in our national
database at NIST is clearly measured at 33%, as stated (at a co2 partial
pressure of 200 mm mercury with total pressure (CO2 plus N2) of 600 mm
mercury. Look at all references claiming that co2 absorbs a significant
amount of ir radiation compared to water and you will see the same co2 ir
absorption curve (33% co2) compared to the water curve at some average water
composition (around 2%). Since the measured ir absorption (or
Absorbance, defined as log(I0/I) for a
given path length, concentration and wavelength) of a gas is
proportional to its concentration, the co2 curves in all such publications
should be scaled down by a factor of about 800 before comparing to water.
This is the ‘trusted
reference’ given by a member in a recent SPE Reservoir group
discussion on the subject. Online access was removed some time after
we referred to it:
Fleagle, R.G., and J.A.
Businger, 1980: An introduction to Atmospheric Physics. Academic Press, San
Diego. (ISBN 0-12-260355-9), p 232
The NIST co2 ir absorption curve is given at
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Units=SI&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC
“Additional Data
…
State
GAS (200 mmHg DILUTED TO A TOTAL PRESSURE OF 600 mmHg WITH N2)”
Compare that NIST curve to all others claiming that co2 increase causes warming,
including the reference given above. They are all the same and fraudulently
represent atmospheric co2 ir absorption at a concentration of 33.3%, rather
than at its actual value around 0.04%. This proves that almost the the
entire technical area of ir spectrography applied to the atmosphere in
"atmospheric science" (and the
mainstream media and most scientific and academic organizations and
governments) is (are)
completely fraudulent as are the hundreds or thousands of publications
claiming that increased co2 is causing global warming.
Unfortunately nobody seems to have studied John Tyndall’s work sufficiently
in the last 150 years to find and prove that he was fraudulent (I
seem to be the first, how can that be?). He measured co2
absorption of ‘air’ at the time (having 0.03% co2) and found no significant ir absorption. He then measured co2 ir absorption at a concentration of
about 7% (or 100%!) and concluded that its absorptivity is less than most other gases
that he measured, but postulated that increasing co2 concentration from its
then current level of .03% would cause a ‘greenhouse’ effect, or in his
words1
“The bearing of this
experiment upon the action of planetary atmospheres is obvious. The
solar heat possesses, in a far higher degree than that of the lime
light, the power of crossing an atmosphere; but, and when the heat is
absorbed by the planet, it is so changed in quality that the rays
emanating from the planet cannot get with the same freedom back into
space. Thus the atmosphere admits of the entrance of the solar heat, but
checks its exit; and the result is a tendency to accumulate heat at the
surface of the planet."
that would
result in a net atmospheric and surface temperature increase. Tyndall was
either incompetent beyond reason, by modern standards, or a fraud. Telling the truth would not have made him famous or given him all
his honorary doctoral degrees.
* proofs 1, 2,
and 12 are taken from comments by Brian
Coats in the SPE Reservoir Technical Community group discussion '
"Climate Solutions Community" formation (SPE and AICHE)' (SPE and group
memberships are required). Others are taken from other Reservoir and
CCUS group discussions.
The following comment giving proofs
3-11 is one of many somehow deleted from the discussion:
Re: "Climate Solutions
Community" Formation (AICHE and SPE)
Jan 20, 2020 9:42 AM
Brian Coats
***,
If you will google 'heinz hug' you'll find his paper at
www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm. You will also
find much discussion by 'climate scientists' trying to debunk it and
much discussion of the debunking of the debunkals! I think there may be
some confusion about the definition of the 'greenhouse' effect, caused
by Tyndall's deceptive renaming of a known effect, namely definition no.
1 below as definition no. 2, which I have no disagreement with other
than the deceiving renaming that implies false definition no. 3, which
is the incorrect and unproven alarmist's claim that at co2 increase of
(approx) .0001 from .0003 to .0004 is causing global warming.
The 3 definitions of the greenhouse effect are
(pre-Tyndall, Tyndall, and alarmist):
1. The heating observed within an enclosed structure exposed to solar
radiation due to the elimination of convection.
2. "greenhouse gases" are defined by Tyndall as those atmospheric gases
that aborb infrared radiation, which is radiation having wavelength
above 700 nm. The energy of a given band is inversely proportional to
its wavelength.
Our atmosphere mostly attenuates the intensity of solar radiation before
it reaches the surface, during the
day. So how is it possible for backradiation ir that is nearly
insignificant in intensity (posing absolutely no risk to animal or plant life) to
penetrate the atmosphere, compared to the very intense incoming ir
during the day that is completely attenuated? It obviously is not
possible, since the less intense radiation would be completely absorbed
in a much shorter distance. I agree that co2 and h2o absorb ir energy
and have not disagreed. But the following definition 3 completely
ignores attenuation as proven by Hug's censored work, and by common
sense, if anyone has ever noticed that a light is always brightest at
its source (that is called attenuation and occurs even in space but to a
huge degree in our atmosphere). The fact that backradiated ir is
confined close to the surface and keeps it warmer at night is nature's
way of maximizing efficiency of the food chain by preventing freezing.
The fact that it does the opposite and keeps the surface much cooler
during the day is one of the obvious facts that proves that definition
number 3 is wrong.
3. The climate alarmists have renamed the 'greenhouse effect' from ir
absorption to the most commonly accepted theory that global warming is
being caused by increased co2 emissions, causing change over 100 yrs in
co2 molar concentrations of approx. 0.0003 to .0004. This is a very much
different claim and definition than no. 2. This claim I disagree with,
and I claim that it has never been proven. It did not appear until the
1990's and was made up by Al Gore and some single 'scientist' that he
admits consulting on the theory. It requires the proof that the
increased co2 is coming from emissions and not from killing off half the
plant life since 1950, as is claimed in very many Nature articles that
can't be found on the internet any more (you have to go to the library),
but the one I gave 3 yrs ago when I also proved the co2 warming theory
false by unanswered questions is
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/phytoplankton-population/
I completely agree with you "That greenhouse gases
absorb IR (longwave) radiation is clearly demonstrated by their
signature on an infrared spectrometer", which is definition 2.
If you believe that your reference proves that definition no. 3 is
correct, then please present that proof. I don't think that is possible,
since the claim was initially made by Al Gore and the single 'scientist'
that he admits consulting on definition 3 which is what most of the
world thinks is correct and is what my simple proof shows is wrong, and
that claim along with that measurement were not made until many years
after your reference was written! My proof [proof 2] is completely independent of
the definition of the 'greenhouse effect', as it involves only
photosynthesis, the food chain, and light intensity as observed when
operating a dimmer or observing a sunset or sunrise, and light
attenuation as observed by any light source passed through space or any
medium, like a flashlight. None of my proof involves anything more
complex than the elementary school level.
If something is demonstrated to be correct by the
simplest possible proof, then any more complex proof of the opposite is
obviously incorrect. So if you believe definition 3, or the climate
alarmist change then please quote the proof from your reference and any
data or experimental results given that demonstrate it. I don't have the
reference and can't find it online except for purchase. Although it is
completely independent of my proof, the additional evidence that I asked
for is specifically "All authors claiming warming due to co2 or ch4 have
fooled you by ignoring compositional effects. Send me any such paper
that you believe proves it and I will show you how you and the rest of
the world have been fooled".
Referencing a book is not a valid response, and I can't find it on the
internet other than buying it.
I can prove that claim without you sending me anything. Look at the co2
vapor ir absorption spectrum given at
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Units=SI&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC.
Note that the 'composition' given by the co2 spectrum is given as 200
mm hg co2 with total co2/n2 P=600 mm hg, which is a molar concentration
of 33.33%! Now, note that almost all references giving co2 vapor ir
spectra and claiming that it absorbs any significant ir compared to
water show this exact same spectrum, but they don't note that the sample
concentration is 33.33% when the actual atmospheric concentration is
0.04%. Since 'absorptivity' values (1 - 'transmissivity') are obviously
proportional to the number of moles of co2 in the sample, then the ir
absorption curve for co2 at actual atmospheric compositon should be
scaled down in the figure by a factor of .04/33.3 = 0.0012. So if you
apply that factor to the given co2 spectrum it makes the entire spectrum
invisible on the given scale (corresponding to a 33.3% solution). If we
assume the water spectrum was made at saturated lab conditions in
nitrogen, then the given curve corresponds to actual atmospheric
concentrations at the surface, and should be compared (if they were made
on the same instrument, but they are not) to the scaled co2 curve which
obviously graphically shows zero relative aborption! I think that it's
safe to assume that the qualitative conclusion that co2 is significant
is correct. All papers and books showing the co2 distribution given by
NIST that do not give the measured co2 concentration as 33.3% are
fraudulent, as are any showing ch4 or co2 or h2o spectra on the same
plot!
If you will look at the guidelines for measurement
and acceptance in the NIST database, it specifically warns against
comparing results taken from different instruments (determining path
length, sample size, light intensity adjustment range and setting),
since those factors make them not comparable. If you read the guidelines
for absorption measurement, you'll find that the stated requirements are
specification of the fluid phase and composition, the instrument, and
the light intensity. But it also says that those acceptance requirements
are up to the discretion of the reviewer, so guess what? Many of the
sample concentrations are not given, so no comparisons of relative
effects can be made from the NIST national database. The concentrations
of the samples and the light intensity are simply adjusted in order to
capture the shape of the absorption spectra of different components for
purposes of their identification but not for their comparison! The water
vapor ir absorption spectrum is given at
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/inchi?ID=C7732185&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=0.
It does not give the water vapor concentration as
it should, but I think that we can assume that it would or should be the
saturated water vapor composition in nitrogen at lab conditions. It
would be very difficult to prepare a non-water-saturatated sample
accurately since saturation with water is obviously the most logical and
simple and accurate method, in which the sample saturated water mole
fraction in the vapor phase is given by Raoult's law as VPW(T)/P, which
at 75 F and 1 atm, from any online water vapor pressure calculator such
as the one at
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-vapor-saturation-pressure-d_599.html,
is equal to 0.0293 atm/1
atm = 0.0293.
Much proof of this is found simply by googling the
common false claim that '20% of the 'greenhouse' warming effect is due
to co2'. The first hit from Wikipedia ridiculously claims that co2 is
responsible for somewhere between 9 and 26% of the total greenhouse
warming effect! You will see many other false claims of the same thing.
Tyndall played the same trick. He measure [dry] 'air' ir
absorption and reported no measurable absorption. He then measured co2
absorption at a concentration of 7%! He actually noted that co2 absorbed
significantly less than the other components tested. He falsely
speculated that increasing co2 concentration would lead to a
'greenhouse' warming effect. If he had tested it by doubling it as would
have been competent (instead of measuring it at a concentration that is
approx. 832.5 times higher than was then in the atmosphere), his testing would have
shown zero absorption as did his 'air' sample having about .0003 co2. So
I believe that proves that his speculation of the increasing ir aborption causing
any net warming is incorrect, if that is what he claimed. I think he
only claimed that 'gh' gases aborb ir, but ignored composition. He
certainly knew that co2 is a trace gas and water is not, but pretended
not to. He would not have had a career otherwise, or received all those
honorary doctorates.
Your argument is "The greenhouse effect in the earth's atmosphere refers
to the reduction of the radiative heat transfer rate from the ground to
the upper atmosphere due to absorption of IR heat in the lower
atmosphere. Some of this absorbed IR heat is transferred to the upper
atmosphere and some is reflected to the surface raising the temperature
until convection currents redistribute it to other parts of the planet."
The first sentence is correct and is consistent with definition 2. All
of the backradiated IR at night is attenuated close to the surface and
keeps the surface warm. You are ignoring the opposite effect as I've
said I think more than once that causes the surface to remain cooler
during the day as all or most of the incoming ir is absorbed in the upper
atmosphere before it reaches the planet. So much less intense outgoing
backradiation ir cannot possible pass through the atmosphere without
being fully attenuated, within 10m according to Hug! So if your
reference proves definition no. 3, please present it.
I have many more disproofs of definition 3 which
is the co2 emissions global warming theory, if anyone can counter the
first obvious one that requires no technical education whatsoever.
Another one of them (proof 3) is the historic plot of co2 that
shows we are near a historic minimum and that increasing it by a large
factor (as it was historically, during the cretaceous and much higher
before that) can't possibly damage the environment! Proof 4 is
that we've known for decades from ice core data interpretations that co2
and temperature are clearly correlated in the ice age (Milankovich)
cycles but that temperature changes are the driver of co2 change, by
centuries. Proofs 5-9 are the unanswered questions in my CCUS
section discussions from 3 years ago when I first proved that the co2
emissions global warming claim was false, simply by the inability of
anyone to give any valid answers to very simple questions. See
discussions of
Does anthropogenic global warming exist?
and
CO2 utilization vs. storage: why store it?
along with our censored
comments that are documented on our CCUS
page.
The Nasa GIST model has been examined and found to be completely
incompetent. A minimum requirement for a valid climate model is a
fully compositional thermal model. The only such model ever
invented is the VIP-THERM reservoir simulator, developed at J.S. Nolen
and associates by Jim Nolen, John Wallis, Brian Coats, Yihbor Chang, and
Rod Grisham beginning in the 1980's (now owned by Halliburton / Landmark
Graphics).
Proof 10
is the impossibility of modeling or measuring a global average surface
temperature over any time period by any means.
Also see proof 11, the discussion of this
topic from 1 year ago,
"Reservoir Role in Climate Change" in which I
also proved my claims by the same simple method asking of asking obvious
simple questions that nobody would answer. The Technical
Director of the SPE Sustainability Technical Section then ignored my
proof of the true definition of 'sustainability' and SPE moderators
closed the discussion. The discussion shows that about 100 of the 56
comments were censored before the discussion was terminated.
Many falsely claim that increasing acidity in the
oceans are causing it to die, when the true cause is simply pollution
and dumping and is unrelated to CO2, except that the obvious solution is
to increase it as has so far been proven.
Regards,
Brian
Other comments in that discussion:
Original Message:
Sent: 01-14-2020 02:55 PM
From: Brian Coats
Subject: "Climate Solutions Community" Formation (AICHE and SPE)
*, I can prove that wrong too. The greenhouse effect is false. It was
fraudulently and recently redefined by <climate alarmists to fool the gullible
(it was first described by Tyndall)>. Insulation does not
cause warming! Have you ever had a course in heat transfer? Water does not
cause a greenhouse effect even though it is hundreds of times stronger in ir
absorption than co2. Water only causes an insulation effect! When cloudy,
nights are warmer because the rate of heat loss is lowered by the insulating
effect of water. Days are cooler because of the same insulating effect, with
no net change in temperature, just like the rock wrapped with insulation.
This is obvious. And it's obvious that co2 has no such effect because it is
absent over dry areas like the deserts and the poles.
Climate alarmists not only ignore effects of insulation, the energy balance,
composition, photosynthesis, and the food chain but they also completely
ignore light intensity and attenuation. Nasa scientists understand this but
their climate scientists don't understand any of it at all. So my conclusion
is that there are no Nasa climate scientists. Solar radiation in space has
an extremely high intensity and a full spectrum. Astronauts cannot stay in
space for longer than a couple months or they risk cancer due to high levels
of ir radiation even with the best shielding possible. Our atmosphere not
only significantly reduces the intensity of the entire spectrum, it also
absorbs virtually all of the ir radiation before it gets to the surface of
the planet, or in other words the ir bands are attenuated well before they
reach the surface. If it didn't animal life would be very different and
nocturnal. The alarmist claim is that at night, increased co2 in the
atmosphere absorbs radiation that otherwise would be sent out to space,
which causes warming. That is proven false by the following: backradiation
ir intensity is insignificant compared to solar ir intensity during the day.
Therefore, backradiation ir is entirely absorbed by co2 well before it gets
to the upper atmosphere (the light leaving has no light band in the ir
spectrum!). So far my arguments have been nothing but simple logic requiring
minimal education. The following requires an understanding of basic physics
and light:
The work of Heinz Hug has been censored by alarmists but proves that
absorbable ir bands of co2 are attenuated (or the light is 'saturated' wrt
co2 in the terminology of Hug) within 10 meters of the surface!!! The fact
that we see no feedback effect or tipping point for water along with
intensity and attenuation considerations proves that it is impossible for
any such thing to occur with co2.
All authors claiming warming due to co2 or ch4 have fooled you by ignoring
compositional effects. Send me any such paper that you believe proves it and
I will show you how you and the rest of the world have been fooled. I
already said that, responding without any substantiation is ignoring the
scientific method.
Regards,
Brian
------------------------------
Brian Coats
Coats Engineering
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 01-10-2020 11:21 PM
From: Brian Coats
Subject: "Climate Solutions Community" Formation (AICHE and SPE)
Ok so here is my first simple proof that co2 does not cause warming. If
there remains any disagreement I will continue with increasingly complex
proofs. This one requires only a high school education so it should be clear
even to those who have no technical training. Please do not be offended by
my explanation of what everyone should already know:
Does anyone disagree that insulation doesn't cause warming??? The entire
greenhouse effect is false. Before Tyndall very deceptively changed the
definition (to a gas that absorbs infrared radiation) to fool the gullible,
it was defined correctly as the warming in a greenhouse that is caused by
elimination of convection and exposure to solar radiation, which has
absolutely nothing to do with gas composition. It is clear from the effects
of water that when cloudy, nights are warmer as the alarmists claim, but
they neglect the fact that the days are cooler, because of the same
insulating effect and there is no net temperature change. An analogy is that
wrapping a rock with insulation will not change its average temperature when
exposed to an oscillating energy source. CO2 absorbs no significant ir wrt
water (all have been fooled by authors ignoring compositional effects in
published work). And even if it did it would benefit the environment by
preventing plant freezing! No effect in dry areas proves it has none. If
anyone wishes to send me any publication claiming that ch4 or co2 are
causing warming, please send it and I will show how the authors have fooled
the world by ignoring compositional effects, including Tyndall!
AGW is real, but not related to co2. It happens when we build a house. It
happens when we cover vegetation with solar panels. It happens when plant
life dies in the ocean or on land. It happens when we create a farm, because
the rate of photosynthesis is reduced compared to the natural forest or
vegetation. It happens when we dump toxic waste into our waters. It happens
when toxic waste degradation in our garbage dumps cause slow toxic
contamination of large surrounding areas.
It happens when we pollute, except that CO2 is not pollution, it's the
source of all life on earth, and it has no significant ir absorption
compared to water, and increasing it is good for all life on earth! All the
climate alarmists ignore photosynthesis, which was at the bottom of the food
chain chart when we went to elementary school.
The reaction rate of photosynthesis is proportional to a rate constant K
that is actually a function of temperature and increases with increasing
temperature, and to the products of the concentrations of the reacting
components divided by those of the produced components (in ideal reactions)
raised to the power of their stoichiometric coefficients as in the reaction:
Na x A + Nb x B > Nc x C + Nd x D
or
Nco2 CO2 + Nw H2O + solar energy > Nch (CH2O)z +No2 O2
Where the (CH2O)z are carbohydrates, or plant (food) growth. The reaction
rate is different for different species but is proportional to plant mass
and is given by
R (moles/co2/d) = K(T) * [co2]**Nco2 * [h2o]**Nh2o / {[CH2O]z**Nch *
[o2]**No2}
where ** means raised to the power, and [] indicate concentration of
components. Nco2 is very large because (Nch x z) is very large, in order to
balance the reaction by their stoichiometric coefficients, which for ideal
reactions are also the Powers applied to the concentrations in the reaction
rate expression. Photosynthesis is a very complex reaction, involving solid,
liquid, and gas phases and so the actual reaction rate exponents will be
smaller than the ideal values. They and the rate constant are measured in
the lab. But the co2 reaction rate exponent is still a very high number.
The heat of reaction is negative (it absorbs heat). So, if we could double
co2 to benefit all plant and animal life, the benefit would be an order of
magnitude or better improvement in rate of plant and food growth, co2
consumption, oxygen production, and natural cooling.
So does anyone disagree about the greenhouse effect being false? Does anyone
think that climate scientists know more than engineers about heat flow and
reaction kinetics? Can anyone provide any reference that they think proves
that co2 emissions cause warming? I don't think it's possible for any
educated person to not understand the above, therefore all who claim to be
engineers and scientists making the false claim must be fraudulent (they are
not scientists or engineers at all, by definition). The real problems and
solutions are what competent ecologists were saying 10-50 years ago and are
given at
www.coatsengineering.com/Sustainability_and_CO2.htm
My references are any junior high or high school chemistry texbook, and
conservation of energy. That should be sufficient, if not look them up.
Regards,
Brian
Original Message:
Sent: 01-07-2020
From: David Merchant
Subject: "Climate Solutions Community" Formation (AICHE and SPE)
"Climate Solutions Community" Formation (AICHE and SPE)
On Thursday, January 23rd, the 3rd Meeting of the Climate Solutions
Community" Group will meet after being created in March, 2019. The Dinner
meeting will be held in Houston at the "Trini Mendenhall Community Center",
at 1414 Wirt Road in Houston. The Dinner will start at 6:00 pm and conclude
round 7:00 pm. Additional Information about the "Climate Solutions
Community" will be found at www.aiche.org/community/sites/... regarding
future direction efforts.
AIChE Dinner Meeting
Merchant Consulting
As a pre-curser to the Climate Solutions Community meeting, I will be
presenting this Thursday, January 9th. The Dinner Presentation is titled:
The next Evolution in the Shale Oil Revolution – The Good The Bad The Ugly –
The Carbon Storage Solution
On Thursday, January 9th, I'll be making a Dinner time presentation to
AIChE's South Texas Chapter. The Dinner meeting will be held in Houston at
the "Bougainvillea's Event Center", 12126 Westheimer Rd, Houston, Tx 77070.
The Dinner will start at 7:00 pm and conclude round 9:00 pm. Dinner
registration is $40 for non-members; www.aiche.org/community/sites/local-sections/sts/events/...
. There's no limit on numbers who can register. The deadline for online
registration is 4pm on the day of the dinner.
The presentation will focus on my "Vison" of attacking Climate Change one
project area at a time. This time, it's the "Flare in the Permian Basin". My
goal is to "Put out the Flare" while "Recovering 2X or even 3X today's
Un-conventional Primary Shale Oil Recovery in the Permian Basin", while
sequestering 4.5 TCF of CO2.
More Information Phone or Email me.
David
Merchant Consulting
Magnolia, Texas
------------------------------
David Merchant
Merchant Consulting
------------------------------
Posted 01-18-2020 06:15 PM
From: Brian Coats
Subject: "Climate Solutions Community" Formation (AICHE and SPE)
Johana,
I believe that most organizations promoting the co2 emissions warming theory
censor dissenting opinions, claiming that global warming due to co2
emissions is 'proven science'. I know that it is generally true with the
mainstream media, with few exceptions. I'm a member of a group of scientists
and engineers who have been trying to prove our point at many of these
organizations, including the London Geological Society and the UN, we have
not been allowed. I think I've proven the theory wrong with little more than
simple logic in the "Climate Solutions" discussion here. Do you think that
any of your references substantiate your assumption that is implicit in many
of your statements? If so I'll read study them and disprove any that Paul
hasn't already. I've redefined sustainability on our website and it requires
that we increase co2 concentrations to greatly increase the rate of food and
o2 production and natural cooling, and we've given the solutions which are
mostly what competent ecologists were saying 10-50 years ago about
deforestation and poisoning the oceans and toxic waste and garbage. The
worst environmental issue related to our industry is plastic. We are not
responsible for cleaning up the world's trash, but a bounty on it by
governments more profitable than fishing certainly makes sense. Do you
disagree? If so please present your response to my claimed proof. If not, do
you plan on redefining sustainability, sustainable development, and
correcting the 'SPE Climate Strategy' to maximize co2 emissions and educate
the public? If you agree with me, don't you think that this proof is news
worthy in JPT perhaps? JPT instead seems to be promoting the 'proven
science' and the end of our industry, and Dr. Meehans article is a great
example. Do I have to write a JPT conference paper for anyone to believe or
understand or accept my proof? Our worst 'social' issue is convincing the
public that they have been fooled by 'climate scientists' that I don't think
exist, by definition anyway. Their claims are very easily disproven by many
different proofs, most of which are fairly obvious. Gore obviously didn't
use a real scientist when they made up their theory.
Regards,
Brian
------------------------------
Brian Coats
Coats Engineering
------------------------------
< No response >
Posted 01-17-2020 10:25 AM
From: Brian Coats
Subject: "Climate Solutions Community" Formation (AICHE and SPE)
David,
Since it's been proven that increasing co2 is the key to sustainability and
decreasing it is extremely harmful, are you going to "Deform" the "Climate
Solutions Community", or are you going to change it to figure out ways to
benefit the environment and our industry and economies? Are you going to
release all of the CO2 that you've stored? Or are you still going to present
your "vision"?
Regards,
Brian
------------------------------
Brian Coats
Coats Engineering
------------------------------
< No response >
|
