The Fairy Tale Of The CO2 Paradise Before 1850…A Look At The Real Science

Was the Earth’s biosphere really in a largely stable CO2 balance before 1850? (Almost) all politicians, scientists from all climate disciplines, the media and international big business are telling us in unison that we are destroying the global climate and that the world is on the brink of extinction. By burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas, we are supposedly emitting too much CO2. This gas is blamed to act as a “greenhouse gas” that traps heat in the atmosphere. We supposedly face the threat of runaway global warming if we do not completely stop burning fossil fuels within the next 25 years.

By Fred F. Mueller

Picture 1 South Sea beauty: The beautiful Paua mussels (abalone) are only found in New Zealand waters. They form their shells from limestone (CaCO3), composed of atmospheric CO2 along with a calcium atom and an additional oxygen atom (Photo: Author)

Climate science and the UN claim that the “natural” preindustrial CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has been around 280-300 ppm (parts per million) for at least several hundred thousand years, with minor fluctuations. Since the beginning of industrialization (since around 1850), man-made CO2 emissions have allegedly increased this value to (as of 2023) 419 ppm(1). In order to avert a catastrophe in the form of a global temperature rise of more than 1.5 °C since the beginning of the industrial age, humanity should not release more than 336 additional gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere (one gigaton is one billion tons, also expressed as a petagram (Pg) in some IPCC publications). The departure from the former paradise of complete CO2 harmony between humans and the planet and nature before the fall from grace of industrialization is illustrated in Picture 2a and Picture 2b.

Picture 2a. The claims of Pierre Friedlingstein and his co-authors from Earth System Science Data on the annual development of man-made emissions of CO2 and the absorption of the gas in “natural sinks” from 1850 to the present day. Man-made sources are plotted at the top, the fate of man-made CO2 in the ocean, land and atmosphere reservoirs at the bottom (graphic: Global Carbon Budget 2023(1))

Picture 2b. Illustration of the cumulative quantities of CO2 emissions and the CO2 absorbed in the most important sinks since the beginning of the industrial age. It is assumed that there were no net fluxes of CO2 from the atmosphere to the ocean before 1850. A graphical evaluation of the image shows that the ocean has absorbed a total of 180 Gt of carbon emitted by humans in its depths since 1850, while the land plants would have processed 250 Gt of C into long-lived humus. In contrast, around 290 Gt C supposedly remain in the atmosphere (Graphic: Global Carbon Budget 2023 ) (1)

Are these assumptions really correct?

The basis of the hypothesis of climate scientists, who assume catastrophic climate change caused by humans, is that before industrialization we had largely closed-loop carbon cycles on Earth that were stable for at least several hundred thousand, if not millions of years, Picture 3.

Picture 3: Basic assumptions of the authors of the Global Carbon Budget 2023 regarding the Earth’s natural carbon cycle and the consequences of industrialization. The numbers on the arrows in the top row indicate CO2 fluxes in Gt/year, colored circles indicate reservoirs, thin arrows indicate quantitatively known balanced fluxes, thin circular arrows indicate balanced but quantitatively unrecorded fluxes and the red number indicates an assumed budget deficit of -0.4 Gt/year. The tiny purple material flow above the transition from blue to yellow-green is not mentioned in the caption (graphic from: Global Carbon Budget 2023 (1))

When looking at Picture 3 above, it is firstly noticeable that the authors have assumed that only vegetation has bound a portion of the CO2 emitted by humans as biomass and thus at least temporarily removed it from the atmosphere. The oceans and the atmosphere itself, on the other hand, are assumed to having simply added their respective shares to their existing reservoirs without conversion. In the atmosphere, this increase amounted to around 290 Gt C (from 595 to 885 Gt C) or from approx. 280 to approx. 419 ppm CO2 . In the ocean’s gigantic carbon reservoir of around 37,000 Gt C, however, the increase due to the additional uptake of just 180 Gt C is apparently considered to be so insignificant that it is not accounted for separately.

Largely in line with the IPCC

The assumptions of the authors of the Global Carbon Budget also correspond in principle to those of the IPCC2), as can be seen in Picture 4. Please note that the IPCC uses petagrams (Pg) as the unit of measurement instead of gigatons (1 Pg = 1 Gt).

Picture 4: Simplified diagram of the global carbon cycle (graphic: IPCC Report AR5 WG1 Ch. 5 )2)

The assumptions on which Picture 4 is based are essentially the same as those of the authors of the Global Carbon Budget. However, the graphic is much more detailed and therefore more difficult to understand. The figures also differ from one another. In terms of order of magnitude, however, Picture 3 and Picture 4 correspond quite well. One rather insignificant difference lies in the assumptions regarding the fate of the CO2 absorbed by the ocean: while the IPCC assumes an annual net absorption of 1.6 Pg CO2 in 2018, the authors of the 2023 Global Carbon Budget assume 2.8 Gt/yr. The IPCC also indicates a (presumably annual, even if this is not indicated by the red color of the symbols) release of 0.2 Pg C into the sediments of the deep sea, while the authors of the Global Carbon Budget note an imbalance of -0.4 Gt.

Official climate science claims that there has been a “nearly eternal” CO2 equilibrium

The results published in the “Global Carbon Budget” are based on periodical research that is published as an annual report. The authors belong to the elite of climate science; the author’s list of the 2023 version contains no less than 123 names. Graphics from these annual carbon budgets are used by other climate authorities such as the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration‘s (NOAA 3)) or the online encyclopaedia Wikipedia4) as well as various other climate and CO2 -related publications. One of these can also be found in modified form in the IPCC report AR55). However, the entire work has a crucial flaw: it ignores essential scientific principles and the relevant facts. With regard to the ocean in particular, it is noticeable that the CO2 absorption capacity of the oceans with increasing CO2 gas concentration (and thus partial pressure) of the atmosphere is not addressed at all.

What actually happens to gases in water?

If the CO2 content of the atmosphere increases, its so-called partial pressure, i.e. the proportion of CO2 in the atmospheric pressure, also increases. However, if the pressure of a gas above a water surface increases, more of this gas dissolves in the liquid, Picture 5.

Picture 5: On the left, an equilibrium has been reached between the pressure of the CO2 gas trapped in the cylinder and the concentration of the gas molecules in the water. When the partial pressure increases due to the sinking piston, more CO2 dissolves in the water to compensate (Graphic: Wikimedia, Johannes Schneider, Creative Commons 6))

Everyone knows this from their own experience with cold soft drinks or beer. The “refreshing” effect is achieved by the CO2 that is dissolved in the water under high pressure. As soon the container is opened, you can hear the hiss as the pressurized gas escapes. CO2 bubbles form in the drink and escape upwards out of the liquid. If the glass is left standing for a longer period of time, the gas will continue to escape due to the rising temperature heating until no more bubbles appear. The drink then becomes stale and no longer tastes good. These laws also apply to the solubility of atmospheric CO2 in the sea: higher CO2 pressure causes more gas to be absorbed. Cold polar oceans therefore also absorb more CO2 from the air than warm tropical waters. If sea temperatures rise, the oceans will thus emit more CO2. The corresponding laws of physics (“Henry’s Law” 7)) mean that 96% of any additional CO2 introduced into the atmosphere by humans is ultimately absorbed by the ocean. These facts are not mentioned anywhere in the “Global Carbon Budget”. This raises doubts about the technical qualifications of the authors – and those of NOAA and IPCC.

Ocean: CO2 storage using limestone instead of wood

It is also particularly striking that no significant CO2 capture is said to take place in the ocean, neither in shallow water nor in the deep sea. With plants on land, CO2 is known to be converted into biomass through photosynthesis and stored in the long term in the form of wood and humus deposits. The IPCC and its ilk, on the other hand, give the impression that nothing of the sort takes place in the sea.

Photosynthesis also occurs in the sea through e.g. (micro)-algae, corals and seagrass. However, the resulting biomass is not permanent and decomposes very quickly after the death of the organisms. The CO2 produced during decomposition is returned to the water. However, photosynthesis in the ocean also results in a second build-up mechanism, the biological synthesis of limestone (CaCO3), which has proven to be extremely useful in the construction of protective armor against enemies. This is documented by 3.7 billion year old stromatolites8) in Pilbara (Australia). Even then, colonies of protozoa produced mushroom-shaped calcium deposits. This recipe was so successful that countless oceanic animal and plant species have since mastered the art of forming calcareous shells. From single-celled bacteria and algae to corals, shellfish, sea urchins and crustaceans, they all rely on the protection provided by hard calcium carbonate shells, Picture 6.

Picture 6: The calcareous shell of a belemnite (extinct ancestor of squid) from the Devonian period (ca. 360-420 million years ago) embedded in sedimentary rock. Probably found in Morocco (Photo: Author)

These calcareous remains are preserved after death. Under the conditions prevailing in shallow ocean waters (coastline up to a few 100 m), they are so long-lived that over the course of the eons they have formed essential parts of our landscapes such as the Jurassic, the Bahamas Banks, the chalk cliffs of Dover or the Dolomites. These processes are still taking place today on a huge scale, as coral reefs in tropical seas and mussel shells on the beach prove. This fact is ignored by today’s climate science.

How much CO2 ends up in coral shells alone?

There are very different figures for CO2 storage due to calcification in the sea. However, at least the proportion contributed by corals can be estimated quite well. Tropical corals need shallow and warm water. They grow on the bases of their ancestors. Since the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago, the sea level has risen by around 120 meters. In order to remain on the surface, today’s corals have had to raise their bases. When atolls formed around sinking volcanoes, they also had to compensate for the sinking of the volcanic cone over the course of millions of years. This is exemplified by the study of the Mururoa Atoll in French Polynesia, Picture 7.

Picture 7: The Mururoa Atoll was misused by France for 188 atomic bomb tests. It was extensively examined beforehand to confirm the findings. Here is the colored representation of the “growth rings” over the last 1.8 million years. The last layer (MIS 1) covers the last 10,000 years (diagram: Montaggioni et al. 9))

In his study, Montaggioni determined a maximum coral growth rate of 8 mm/yr. If this is extrapolated to the current total global coral area10) of 423,589 km2, this results in an annual calcium carbonate production of 8.75 Gt CaCO3. This corresponds to a maximum fixation of slightly more than 1 Gt C. In addition, a considerable part of the growth also takes place to the sides. Storms, waves or voracious fish also repeatedly break off pieces of coral from the reef and its flanks. These fragments sink to the seabed and build up a cone of rubble on the flanks of the reef. The mass of this debris cone is built up along the way, so to speak, as the reef grows in height. Therefore, the amount of carbon sequestered annually can confidently be estimated at a total of 2 Gt/yr. At the same time, coral reefs account for only 0.12% of the total area of the oceans. It should be noted that these figures are maximum values: it is hardly possible to seriously estimate average figures.

Calcification: Across all oceans and across all latitudes

In addition to corals, there are countless other organisms that also produce large quantities of durable calcium carbonate shells from CO2 and calcium ions. These include cyanobacteria and unicellular green algae on the carbonate platform of the Bahamas, which thrive several times a year in such masses that their calcareous shells color the water milky white even on satellite photos. Over millions of years, these tiny single-celled organisms have piled up the Bahamas carbonate platform to a thickness of around 4.5 kilometers. The much larger Florida platform even reaches a thickness of up to 12 km.

The total ocean-wide calcium carbonate productivity of tiny organisms with calcareous shells, which occur in shallow waters, but in many cases also in the entire near-surface ocean, is estimated by various authors to range from < 1 Gt C yr-1 11) to 1.6 Gt C yr-1 12) and 2 Gt C yr-1 13) up to 4.7 Gt C yr-1 14) and 5 Gt C yr-1 15). As humanity emits a total of around 12 to 13 Gt C yr-1, 10 to 40 % of these emissions are already permanently bound in the sea as limestone in the same year through natural processes, Picture 8.

Picture 8: The red helmet snail Cassis rufa lives in the Indian Ocean, eats sea urchins and forms a very massive calcareous shell (Photo: Author)

Statements about CO2 retention times in the atmosphere of more than 2-3 decades or even tens of thousands of years16) are therefore not credible. It is true that a certain proportion of the shell production returns to solution as it sinks into deeper ocean areas. However, the enormous range of published figures listed above hints that current measurement methods are far from realistically capturing all the sources and influencing factors of the processes in the ocean.

Interestingly, one of these publications gives a value of 4.7 Gt C yr-1 14) for annual calcium carbonate sequestration in the ocean. One of its authors is the well-known ocean and climate researcher Corinne Le Quéré. It is therefore quite surprising that this same Ms. Le Quéré, who published its work in 2019 already, does not seem to have worked towards at least mentioning the fact of a partial but permanent neutralization of man-made CO2 emissions in the publication during her years of work on the Global Carbon Budget.

The IPCC’s CO2 hypothesis is scientifically untenable

The entire climate catastrophe construct of the IPCC and its representatives stands and falls with the assertion that the “greenhouse gas” CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere for a long time and thus endangers the earth’s thermal balance. This is why those responsible are trying to conceal the fact that considerable quantities of CO2 are permanently stored away as lime in the ocean through natural processes – for many millions of years. They are particularly embarrassed by the fact that these mechanisms have been taking place in the ocean for eons and that large quantities of CO2 are stored in rocks. There must therefore also be correspondingly large sources of CO2 replenishment in nature. This means that the IPCC’s entire CO2 cycle model collapses. This is probably the reason why oceanic calcification is not correctly represented in official and authoritative documents such as the IPCC report on “The Physical Science Base” or the Global Carbon Project. Also, Henry’s Law is not even mentioned in either of the publications cited here. This blatant suppression of essential scientifically proven facts is the Achilles heel of the entire green climate catastrophe ideology. In commercial terms, one could also speak of balance fraud. Anyone who has doubts about the IPCC’s point of view should ask for these facts to be thoroughly questioned.

Sources:

Donate – choose an amount

via NoTricksZone

https://ift.tt/GDBRhiu

December 14, 2024 at 10:23AM

Sunday

0 out of 10 based on 0 rating

via JoNova

https://ift.tt/LmNufp5

December 14, 2024 at 08:26AM

Claim: Climate Change Will Cause Lots of Extinctions, but “we do not know exactly when”

Essay by Eric Worrall

I thought science was supposed to be falsifiable?

December 10, 2024 | Elaina Hancock – UConn Communications

Climate Change Extinction Risk

A global meta-analysis of climate change extinction risk emphasizes that we are at a crucial point and drastic action is needed

The impacts of climate change are intensifying, and according to the most recent United Nations Emissions Gap Report, we need to take dramatic action if we are to remain below 1.5C of warming. The climate crisis significantly threatens global biodiversity, and effective conservation policies and efforts to mitigate disastrous outcomes rely on accurate models and predictions. To increase certainty in available models, UConn Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Professor Mark Urban analyzed 485 studies, comprising over 5 million projections, to create a global assessment of climate change extinctions. The study is published in Science. Urban met with UConn Today to discuss his findings.

…

Read more: https://today.uconn.edu/2024/12/climate-change-extinction-risk/#

What were your findings, and did anything surprise you?

Whereas past assessments indicated high uncertainties, this analysis suggests with increasing certainty that climate change has caused and will cause global extinctions. Climate change results in an accelerating risk of global extinction, rising from 2% currently to 30% under the highest-emission scenario. Current policies and actions place the world on a path to a 2.8 degrees Celsius rise in global temperature, which would still result in 5% of species being at risk. This study presents a choice for decisionmakers: Will we curb emissions now and only need to protect 2% of species at risk, or will we choose another path that will fundamentally alter the nature of our world.

Can you discuss extinction debt and how Earth’s hidden biodiversity impacts extinction risk assessment?

Extinction risk estimates indicate how many species could eventually become extinct at some point in the future. The analogy I like to give is a water jug with a crack in it. We know that the water will eventually flow out, but we do not know exactly when. Extinction debt characterizes all those species that are declining toward extinction (losing water) and will eventually become extinct without interventions. The bad news is that many species might be declining or about to decline due to climate change impacts, but we have not yet recognized these threats. The good news is that we could still mitigate climate change or deploy successful conservation measures to ensure that the debt is not paid.

…

Read more: https://today.uconn.edu/2024/12/climate-change-extinction-risk/#

The referenced study;

Climate change extinctions

MARK C. URBAN

SCIENCE
5 Dec 2024
Vol 386, Issue 6726
pp. 1123-1128

Editor’s summary

Because it is clear that human activities are altering the global climate, researchers have been studying potential effects and predicting declines and extinctions. Understanding the consequences globally requires the synthesis of many studies. Following up on an initial effort nearly 10 years ago, Urban found that we can expect, with increased certainty, that rising temperatures will lead to an increasing number of extinctions, with the highest emission scenario leading to extinction of nearly a third of the Earth’s species, especially those from particular vulnerable taxa or regions. —Sacha Vignieri

Abstract

Climate change is expected to cause irreversible changes to biodiversity, but predicting those risks remains uncertain. I synthesized 485 studies and more than 5 million projections to produce a quantitative global assessment of climate change extinctions. With increased certainty, this meta-analysis suggests that extinctions will accelerate rapidly if global temperatures exceed 1.5°C. The highest-emission scenario would threaten approximately one-third of species, globally. Amphibians; species from mountain, island, and freshwater ecosystems; and species inhabiting South America, Australia, and New Zealand face the greatest threats. In line with predictions, climate change has contributed to an increasing proportion of observed global extinctions since 1970. Besides limiting greenhouse gases, pinpointing which species to protect first will be critical for preserving biodiversity until anthropogenic climate change is halted and reversed.

Read more: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adp4461

The Paleo evidence does not support the hypothesis that warmer temperatures create hostile conditions for life.

Our monkey ancestors also did well in a much hotter world. The Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, 5-8C hotter than today, was the age of monkeys. Our monkey ancestors thrived on the abundance of the hothouse PETM, and colonised much of the world, only retreating when the encroaching cold drove them from their new homes.

There is also abundant evidence that rising CO2 levels in the modern age are good for the biosphere.

Let’s not forget the coral reefs.

Obviously in the face of abundant evidence that the biosphere is doing just fine, that deserts are shrinking, that warm conditions and rising CO2 levels are good for life, it would be unwise to put a timeframe on a prediction of mass extinction. Without a timeframe, a prediction that 30% of species will one day die is about as safe as scientific predictions get.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/XGkqQ0o

December 14, 2024 at 08:00AM

2-Minute Junking: Seed oils cause colon cancer?

Related links: Daily Mail article | Gut study | Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention study

via JunkScience.com

https://ift.tt/1xGr3Sn

December 14, 2024 at 05:53AM