CO₂ “crisis” is a “tempest in a teapot” or a “storm in a teacup.”

“Excitabat fluctus in simpulo” ~ Cicero, in De Legibus, circa 52 BC

Consider a pot of boiling water.  If more water is added to the pot, the boiling point of the water does not change.  The time required to boil the water changes and/or the amount of heat required to boil the water changes, but the boiling point does not change.  The boiling point does change under certain other conditions, for example if salt or other substances are added to the water or when boiling water at high altitudes or reduced air pressure.  The boiling point of water (212 degrees F or 100 degrees C) at standard pressure (1 atmosphere) and temperature (25 degrees C) (STP) is an intensive property of matter.   Another example of an intensive property of matter is molecular weight.  Addition or subtraction of an amount of material does not change its molecular weight.

Another example of an intensive property of matter is the solubility of a gas in a liquid.  Gas solubility is the ratio of the concentration a gas versus concentration of that gas in a water.  That ratio does not change when more gas is added to the air nor when that gas is subtracted from the air.  The solubility ratio is fixed for a given temperature and combination of gas and liquid, except under certain other conditions as described below. 

The solubility ratio of a gas in contact with a liquid is defined in Henry’s Law, which is described for many different gas – liquid combinations and conditions in the experiments of William Henry in the 1800’s.  Like boiling point, certain conditions apply.

At a specified temperature, in a two-phase system of a gas phase in contact with a liquid phase, and where the gas is a minor component, and when only the gas which has not reacted with the liquid is considered, the Henry’s coefficient is expressed as:  

k_H = c(CO₂ aqueous) divided by c(CO₂ gas)

• where c(CO₂ aqueous) is the concentration in moles of aqueous CO₂ gas per mole of water, and
• c(CO₂ gas) is the concentration in moles of CO₂ gas in atmosphere per mole of atmosphere.

A mole is 6.022 X 10²³ units of anything.  For CO₂ concentration, the units are molecules of CO₂.  A mole of CO₂ is 6.022 X 10²³ molecules of CO₂ whether those CO₂ molecules are in air, water, ocean or beer.  It is known as the Avogadro’s number.  That is 6022 followed by 20 zeros.

To determine the concentration of a gas at a specific temperature, the k_H ratio for that gas-liquid combination is multiplied by the specified temperature in Kelvin at the gas-liquid exchange surface.  At k_H equilibrium for a specified temperature, the number of molecules emitted from the liquid surface equals the number of molecules absorbed in the liquid surface.  Absorption and emission are continuous.  CO₂ gas molecules in air continuously collide with ocean surface, and in response at equilibrium a CO₂ molecule will be emitted into air, thus keeping the k_H ratio constant at that temperature. 

k_H of CO₂ in water is inversely proportional to temperature at the air water exchange surface.  Colder water absorbs and retains more CO₂ gas than warmer water.  We all know this because our soda drink or beer retains its pleasant bubbles when it is kept cold.    

Ocean surface is greater than 70% of Earth’s surface.  The concentration of CO₂ gas in air and in ocean surface is calculated as follows:

k_H(T) = c_aq/c_gas

We can find in reference books and online, the k_H for very many combinations of gases and liquids, under various temperatures and under the few additional conditions that apply.  For example, in local conditions, salinity of the liquid becomes a variable.  Salinity includes all the dissolved and ionized minerals in the liquid, for example phosphates, not only sodium chloride salt.  Also the alkalinity or pH of the liquid, and the partial of pressure of the gas in the air can be important in local conditions.  The conditions other than temperature generally cancel each other in global averages.

The k_H is different for each gas and liquid combination and each varies with temperature of the surface.  For example, Henry’s law also applies to oxygen O₂ and its solubility in ocean and in your blood and in the water in and around tissues in your lungs and gills of fish.   

One implication of Henry’s Law is that human additions or subtractions of CO₂ have no effect on global CO₂ concentration and no effect on global warming.  Total CO₂ in the atmosphere is around 400 molecules of CO₂ per 1,000,000 molecules of air.  Contrary to what most people have been taught, human CO₂ is not accumulating in the atmosphere.  Human CO₂ is absorbed and emitted into ocean continuously along with all other CO₂.  Human CO₂ does cannot increase net global average atmospheric CO₂ concentration, such as measured at Mauna Loa. By analogy, humans adding CO₂ to the air by using fossil fuels is like adding more water to the teapot.  The boiling point of the water does not change.  The ratio of CO₂ in the air versus CO₂ in the water does not change by adding more CO₂. 

Fortunately, more CO₂ is better for the environment, plants, animals, and humans.  But humans cannot claim any responsibility for these benefits nor are humans responsible for any alleged negative consequences of higher or lower CO₂ concentration.   Changes in CO₂ concentration in air are caused by the many different conditions that affect ocean surface temperature and land surface temperature such as clouds, humidity, seasons, solar and planetary cycles, etc.  Fortunately for all life, CO₂ concentration in air is not affected by humans.  Atmospheric CO₂ concentration today is the same as it would be if humans never existed.  The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen, argon and the other gases are beyond our mortal human pay grade. 

Water surface, primarily ocean surface, absorbs any additional atmospheric CO₂ which exceeds the Henry’s partition ratio, returning the equilibrium partition ratio for a specific temperature of the air-water interchange surface. Thus, the rate of change of CO₂ concentration (i.e., its velocity or time derivative) is a function of the area of the air-water interchange surface at the specific temperature; this is CO₂ flux, which is the directional vector quantity of units of mass moving through an amount of surface area per unit of time.  Millions of square kilometers of tropical ocean surface is above 25 degrees C on average year round, day and night.  That ocean surface on average will be emitting CO_{2 gas} into air.  Offsetting that is millions of square kilometers of ocean surface in northernand southern temperate and arctic zones which are below 25 degrees C.  This colder ocean surface will be on average absorbing CO₂ gas.  In both cold water and warm water both emission and absorption are continuous at equilibrium.  It is a dynamic equilibrium mediated by temperature at the air-ocean exchange interface, i.e., ocean surface.   Changes in CO₂ concentration closely follow within months changes in sea surface temperature (SST).

Voters everywhere should be challenging their politicians, bureaucrats, teachers and media about their continuing misrepresentation of facts and science and the attempt to extract, according to the global consulting company McKinsey more than $1 trillion per year, allegedly to reduce human CO₂ emissions.  Human CO₂ emissions can be reduced, but that will not change or reduce atmospheric CO₂ concentration and will not change or reduce any global warming that alleged to be occurring. The climate change agenda is a fool’s errand and they are attempting to make fools of the entire human population, alleging a non-existent crisis, banning truth tellers, needlessly scaring adults and children and in the process enriching themselves and their cronies.

In the U.S., the EPA’s ruling known as a Final Endangerment Finding must be repealed.  In this ruling, EPA’s administrator defined carbon dioxide as an endangerment to U.S. citizens.  The ruling has never been voted on by Congress.  It is not a law.  Two EPA administrators have refused to turn over to Congress the science or other basis by which the ruling was made.  No court has ruled or even heard a case on the merits or demerits of the science alleged to support the EPA’s agency ruling.  But in the U.S. alone, this EPA Final Endangerment Finding is costing taxpayers many millions of dollars per year in increased debt at all levels of government and increasing the cost of all forms of energy which is pushing inflation.   

In all countries, wherever you live, your government, most media, most educators, most entertainers, and many companies especially bankers, along with the United Nations, the European Union, the World Health Organization, the World Economic Forum are attempting to scare you so that they can control you, including taking your money, your private property, your freedom of speech and other rights.  If you do nothing, they will succeed.  This tempest has nothing to do with the environment or climate.

Wherever you are, vote against politicians who support the so-called climate change agenda.  Elect politicians who will stop bureaucrats, government and corporations from robbing you.  This taxation without representation must stop.  It is a global fraud and we must elect politicians who will prosecute the fraudsters. Stop schools from miseducating and scaring children and young people with the global warming dogma; this is child abuse.

There is no climate crisis. There is a human-created false narrative, a tempest, a global fraud.

Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”

Dr Vincent Gray: “The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”

Dr Andrew Lacis: “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”

Dr Richard Lindzen: “The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance.”

Dr Johannes Oerlemans: “The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine.”

Dr David Wojick: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”

Dr Richard Tol: “The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC, and they succeeded in excluding or neutralizing opposite voices.”

Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring.”

Dr Philip Lloyd: “I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”

Dr Eduardo Zorita: “Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed.”

Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”

Dr Miklos Zagoni: “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong.”

Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”

#ClimateChange #IPCC #GlobalWarming #ClimateCrisis #Sustainability #NetZero #EPA #EndangermentFinding #CO2 #ClimatePolicy #EnergyPolicy #FossilFuel #Henry’sLaw

via budbromley

May 11, 2022, by budbromley

The CO2 tempest in a teapot scandal