THE FACTS OF LIFE [FOR POLITICIANS] Thorpe Watson, PhD, Warfield, British Columbia, Canada Russ Babcock, BSc, Genelle, British Columbia, Canada Warren Watson, MASc, Warfield , British Columbia, Canada September 2020 Like everything that is alive on earth, we humans are a carbon life form! Without an adequate store of bioavailable carbon ("carbon dioxide", "CO2"), all carbon life forms (plants and animals) would perish. The primary store of bioavailable carbon is the oceans. Any man-made CO2 emissions will cause a redistribution of this non-polluting trace gas in order to restore the ratio of CO2 in the oceans (98%) to that in the atmosphere (2%), all in accordance with a known scientific principle, Henry's Law. Plants acquire the necessary carbon for growth by breathing in CO2 from the atmosphere. In so doing they also produce all of the oxygen necessary for animal life. Animals acquire carbon by eating and digesting plants or other animals. In so doing they exhale CO2 which is the life blood of plants. Carbon's journey from the atmosphere through plants and animals is best described as the carbon cycle of life. The store of bioavailable CO2 has been severely depleted by ongoing natural processes to form carbonate rocks such as limestone. The current CO2 content of the atmosphere (0.04%) is only a fraction of the CO2 content of ancient atmospheres. We live in a CO2starved atmosphere! According to Henry's Law and confirmed by the COVID lockdown, our carbon emissions due to the consumption of hydrocarbons are relatively immaterial in determining the CO2 content of the atmosphere. In fact, the carbon content of the most optimistic estimate of hydrocarbon reserves (aka "fossil fuels") is only 25% of the carbon in our store of bioavailable CO2. Consequently, man-made emissions will increase the atmospheric CO2 content by 25%; that is, from 0.04% to 0.05% (or 4 parts per 10 thousand to 5 parts per 10 thousand) over 1,000 years at current consumption rates. The UN-IPCC reports claim that the climate models are predicting temperature increases as much as 4.5 degrees Celsius for a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 content 1
(worst-case scenario). This claim is based on a belief in the mythical, heat-trapping properties of CO2, something that has never been proven. Try to imagine how much energy that four additional gas molecules (increasing from 4 to 8 per 10,000) would have to trap to cause the temperature of the 9,992 adjacent gas molecules, with no heat-trapping capability, to rise in temperature by 4.5 degrees Celsius. It is an absurd thought actually. Without magic, any temperature rise could scientifically be nothing more than an inconsequential fraction of 4.5 degrees Celsius. Even if the alarmists’ worst-case scenario were true (4.5 degree Celsius rise for an additional four molecules of CO2 for every 10,000 molecules of atmospheric gas), this translates into a 0.001125 degree rise each year that would be attributable to mankind’s consumption of hydrocarbons ............ hardly a climate emergency. Canada produces less than 2% of the world's carbon emissions. The Throne Speech (September 23, 2020) sets a target of "zero emissions", which would bankrupt the economy for a maximum temperature reduction of 0.0225 degrees Celsius. Actually, the temperature decrease would be non-detectable. Furthermore, Canada's net emissions are already less than zero because of our forests. Please tell your children that the Climate-Emergency hobgoblin is just another fairy tale. In their mindful search for reality and their mindful quest for a meaningful life, and now having to deal with a world-wide pandemic, they have enough to worry about today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2
John Shanahan, civil engineer, editor of website: allaboutenergy.net Denver, Colorado, USA October 2, 2020 Please see essay, THE FACTS OF LIFE [FOR POLITICIANS] by Thorpe Watson and co-authors in Canada on the previous pages. What has the U.S. government been doing about catastrophic, man-made global warming since the 1970s? What will the U.S. government be doing about this after the 2020 election? Shutdown coal, gas, and nuclear electric generating plants? Close oil refineries and gas stations? Deliver groceries to supermarkets by horse drawn wagons? Deliver wine and beer to the liquor stores by horse drawn wagons? Force conversion to electric cars? Force conversion to wind and solar energy? Convert commercial shipping to sailing ships? Convert the nuclear Navy to sailing ships of war? Cancel commercial aviation and the Air Force? Start producing millions of horses, oxen and corn and hay to feed them Keep teaching man-made global warming alarmism in schools and universities? The U.S. 2020 November election could lead to all the above. Will these draconian steps of the potential new White House team reverse catastrophic man-made global warming? Did these politicians get the best university education? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
E Calvin Beisner, Founder and National Spokesman, The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation http://www.cornwallalliance.org/ Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA October 2, 2020 I was reading Thorpe Watson and co-authors essay with great appreciation until I came to “the mythical, heat-trapping properties of CO2, something that has never been proven.“ CO2’s infrared-absorption function is, I think, very thoroughly understood and confirmed (as Dr. Will Happer discussed and explained very helpfully on Cornwall Alliance’s Facebook Live program a couple of weeks ago (https://www.facebook.com/CornwallAlliance/videos/338601347385553). CO2’s effect might not properly be termed “heat-trapping,” but it’s certainly infraredabsorbing, which slows radiation of heat from Earth to space, i.e., slows the rate at which Earth cools itself, i.e., warms the lower atmosphere (while cooling the upper atmosphere). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Shanahan, civil engineer, editor of website: allaboutenergy.net Denver, Colorado, USA October 2, 2020 Here is another beautiful, simplified explanation of the role of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by two outstanding scientists/engineers, Jay Lehr and Terigi Ciccone. Here is an important paper by Emeritus Physics Professor Howard Hayden about the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. He also references the work by Emeritus Physics Professor William Happer. The two links to the website efn-usa at the beginning of the paper no longer work. They have been changed to the website allaboutenergy.net. I can give you the new links if you want.
4
Otherwise, just concentrate on Professor Hayden's message. Again, this paper agrees with the conclusions of Thorpe Watson and William Happer. The question remains with the wording of Thorpe's sentence, "This claim is based on a belief in the mythical, heat-trapping properties of CO2, something that has never been proven."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thorpe Watson, PhD, Russ Babcock, BSc, Warren Watson, MASc Warfield and Genelle, British Columbia, Canada October 5, 2020 Hi Calvin, Thanks ever so much for your interest and comments. They are much appreciated as they assist us in our attempt to describe a very complex subject in a manner that can be understood by a large segment of the population, especially our children and maybe some politicians. Yes, CO2 can and does absorb and scatter a narrow range of IR wavelengths and, in so doing, can and does slow the transfer of heat from the earth’s surface to outer space. However, the mythical aspect of it all becomes apparent when 4 molecules (CO2) are somehow deemed capable of transferring sufficient energy to an adjacent ~ 10,000 molecules that are transparent to IR (i.e. N2 and O2) to cause even a discernible rise in temperature of the atmosphere. It’s as preposterous as expecting to measurably warm a 10,000 seat outdoor stadium with a space heater in each of 4 of those otherwise empty (e.g. IR transparent) seats. Whatever the capacity for CO2 to “trap” heat, that impact diminishes on a logarithmic scale because the infrared wavelengths (heat) that CO2 absorbs is essentially at saturation levels already. It is scientifically reasonable then to expect the worst impact should occur at the early stages of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The impact that increasing CO2 has thus far had on global temperatures has at worst been very small, and real-world physics tells us that future impacts will be even smaller. Even the UN-IPCC's "most alarming" numbers confirm that CO2's maximum, immaterial contribution is 0.001125 degrees Celsius per year when one takes into account the redistribution of CO2 between the two phases, atmosphere and oceans. Calling the "heat-trapping properties of CO2" a myth is thought to be less harsh than calling it what it really is, the basis for a scientific fraud or hoax or scam.
5
The whole basis for the anthropogenic, global-warming narrative is seriously flawed. First, it uses the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to calculate the average temperature of the Earth as a moonscape but having the shape of a flat disk. This average temperature is 18C. Then it is assumed that the warming of the Earth from -18C to the Earth's average temperature of 15C is solely attributable to CO2's greenhouse effect while ignoring any role played by water vapour and the remaining bulk (>99%) of the N2/O2 atmosphere. Water vapour is a “greenhouse gas” that is up to 100 times more plentiful than CO2 and has a much wider absorbing bandwidth. More important, the N2/O2 atmosphere can account for most, if not all, of the 33C temperature difference. This is accomplished by transferring heat energy from the Earth's surface to the gas molecules by conduction and then moving the heated molecules to higher altitudes by convection. Adiabatic heating is also a factor. The most egregious part of the climate-emergency narrative is the claim by AOC and other science illiterates that CO2 is capable of bringing us to a fiery end, all without a rational cause & effect explanation.
E Calvin Beisner, Founder and National Spokesman, The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation http://www.cornwallalliance.org/ Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA October 5, 2020 I think we are pretty much in agreement on the substance but not on how to express it. I take “myth” as meaning there is no truth to it at all—which doesn’t fit even your discussion below. “Exaggeration” would be the better term. I do wonder, though, where you get the notion that the IPCC attributes the entire 33C difference between -18 and +15 to CO2. My understanding is that the IPCC, like climate scientists generally, attributes that difference to the entire GHG effect, of which CO2 is a significantly smaller part than water vapor.
6
Thorpe Watson, PhD, Russ Babcock, BSc, Warren Watson, MASc Warfield and Genelle, British Columbia, Canada October 5, 2020 Hi again Calvin, Yes, we seem to be in general agreement on substance. However, I still view the suggestion that CO2 is a primary, climate-control variable as more than an exaggeration, maybe a gross exaggeration, especially when the IPCC's grossly exaggerated figures yield an inconsequential increase of 0.001C per year. Thank you for drawing my attention to the error regarding CO2's role in the 33C difference that has been attributed to all greenhouse gases. About 3C is attributed to CO2 with the remaining 30C attributed primarily to water vapor. Nevertheless, the impact of increasing CO2 diminishes on a logarithmic scale because the infrared wavelengths (heat) that CO2 absorbs is essentially at saturation levels already. Furthermore, why is the bulk of the atmosphere not given some credit for at least a part of the 33C difference? And I have not mentioned the role of "clouds" and "cosmic rays". Thanks again!
7
Here are some photos showing climate around the world.
Bali
Lugano, Switzerland 8
Germany
Prince Edward Island, Canada 9