From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

You may recall this BBC report from last summer:

Human-induced climate change made recent extreme heat in the US south-west, Mexico and Central America around 35 times more likely, scientists say.

The World Weather Attribution (WWA) group studied excess heat between May and early June, when the US heatwave was concentrated in south-west states including California, Nevada and Arizona.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czvvqdg8zxno

I complained at the time that the WWA claims were presented as “factual”, rather than output from computer models. Furthermore the actual historical data showed the WWA claims to be false. (See my post here).

I have just received this response from the BBC:

As I understand your email’s complaint it is that the headline presents the findings of the scientists’ study as a fact.

Having reviewed the article, we believe the headline should have included quotation marks around the scientists claim.

The headline has been changed to read: Climate change made US and Mexico heatwave ‘35 times more likely’

We have also added a note at the bottom of the article to acknowledge the change.

This is the correction they refer to:

In its own way this is quite a remarkable admission by the BBC – that they now accept that weather attribution models cannot be regarded as FACTUAL

I intend to pursue this with the ECU on two grounds:

1) That a obscure correction on an article published last June will not be seen by anybody. Instead a full correction needs to be logged on the BBC Complaints website

2) Now the BBC admits weather attribution is not based on facts, data or evidence, all future BBC reports quoting it must carry on warning notice to this effect.

Before climate science became ‘settled science’, there were various theories suggesting that because the amount of carbon dissolved in the Earth’s oceans exceeds that in the atmosphere by about a factor of 60, the atmospheric CO₂ content is dictated by the chemical state of the oceans. (I’m thinking of the work of W.S.Broecker and others.)

I’m working towards a New Theory of Climate Resilience, self funded at the moment. I’ve been reading Broecker’s ‘The Glacial World According to Wally’ which provides some details that fits neatly with Alex Pope’s own theory of glaciation that is often buzzing in the back of my mind.

I know that some consider me to be proceeding at a glacial pace with all of this. (Thanks for your patience, Alex Pope.)

One plank of my new theory, that I have been exploring with Ivan Kennedy, is the Thermal Acid Calcification Hypothesis to explain the seasonal patterns of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration as measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. In proposing this, I have come to realise that many colleagues and friends have very little understand of the five key laws of chemistry that will affect the equilibrium potentially reached between a gas and liquid, think atmosphere and oceans. (Thanks to John Abbot for explaining them to me over the years.)

Others are perplexed that I care at all about atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide. For sure carbon dioxide may not be a driver of climate change, but its varying atmospheric concentrations tend to follow temperate change that is relevant to understanding climate resilience.

I have a zoom webinar coming up with Bud Bromley and while Bud could spend the entire hour explaining ocean chemistry, he doesn’t want to. He wants to talk about more fun things, and I have promised that this webinar will be fun.

So, I am attempting to provide some background information in this blog post, useful background information perhaps to understanding ocean chemistry that will be relevant to my conversation with Bud that may focus more on volcanic eruptions, uncertain carbon budgets, and even misunderstandings about how atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide are measured at Mauna Lao, Hawaii.

Thanks to Grok, created by xAI, for the clear explanations of each of five important laws and one principle, which I’m excited to share below.

These laws, and the one principle, help unpack how CO₂ might move from the ocean to the air (and even back again), if there has been ocean warming from whatever cause since at least the 1950s. Grok has included the formulas as simply as possible for clarity. (Thanks Grok.)

1. Graham’s Law

Graham’s Law tells us how fast gases spread out or diffuse. It says that lighter gases move faster than heavier ones. The formula compares the diffusion rates of two gases based on their molar masses (M1 and M2):

Rate1 / Rate2 = sqrt(M2 / M1)

For CO₂ (molar mass 44 g/mol), this means it diffuses a bit slower than lighter gases like oxygen (32 g/mol). In my hypothesis, this law hints at how CO₂ moves from ocean water into the air, especially in choppy surface waters where gases mix. It’s a small piece of the puzzle, but it sets the stage for gas movement.

2. Ideal Gas Law

The Ideal Gas Law describes how gases behave under different conditions of pressure, volume, and temperature. It’s written as:

PV = nRT

Here, P is pressure, V is volume, n is the number of gas molecules (in moles), R is a constant (0.0821 L·atm/mol·K), and T is temperature (in Kelvin). For CO₂ in the atmosphere, this law helps us understand how its pressure changes as more CO₂ degasses from the ocean. If ocean warming (say, from circulation changes) pushes CO₂ into the air, this law tracks how that affects the atmosphere’s CO₂ levels.

3. Henry’s Law

Henry’s Law is key to understanding how much gas dissolves in a liquid, like CO₂ in seawater. It says the amount of gas dissolved is proportional to the pressure of that gas above the liquid:

C = k * P

C is the concentration of dissolved gas, P is the gas’s pressure in the air, and k is a constant that depends on the gas and temperature. If the ocean warms due to circulation shifts, k gets smaller, meaning less CO₂ stays dissolved, and more escapes to the atmosphere. This is central to my idea that ocean changes could drive CO₂ increases.

4. Fick’s Law

Fick’s Law explains how substances, like CO₂, move from areas of high concentration to low concentration. The formula is:

J = -D * (ΔC / Δx)

J is the flow of the substance, D is a diffusion constant, ΔC is the concentration difference, and Δx is the distance. In the ocean, if deep, CO₂-rich water rises to the surface (maybe from altered circulation), Fick’s Law says CO₂ will flow into the air where its concentration is lower. This could amplify degassing, especially in turbulent waters.

5. Law of Mass Action

The Law of Mass Action deals with chemical reactions that can go forward or backward, like CO₂ reacting with water to form carbonic acid and other compounds in the ocean. For a reaction like aA + bB cC + dD, it’s expressed as:

K = ([C]^c * [D]^d) / ([A]^a * [B]^b)

K is the equilibrium constant, and [X] means the concentration of each chemical. In seawater, CO₂ shifts between gas, acid, and ions (like bicarbonate). If more CO₂ enters surface water, this law shows how the balance tips, possibly pushing CO₂ back into the air. It’s a big part of the ocean’s CO₂ chemistry.

6. Le Chatelier’s Principle

Le Chatelier’s Principle says that if you disturb a balanced system, it adjusts to reduce that disturbance. No formula here, just a rule of thumb. For CO₂ in the ocean, if warming or extra CO₂ from deep water upsets the balance, the system tries to push CO₂ out to the atmosphere to stabilize. This principle ties all the others together, suggesting that ocean changes could naturally lead to more atmospheric CO₂.

According to Grok after my prompting, this matters because:

These laws weave together to explain how CO₂ might leave the ocean if circulation patterns, like the thermohaline system, have changed since the 1950s. Warmer water holds less CO₂ (Henry’s Law), concentration differences drive it to the air (Fick’s Law), chemical balances shift (Mass Action), and the system adjusts (Le Chatelier’s). The Ideal Gas Law tracks the atmospheric side, while Graham’s Law adds detail to gas movement.

The Zoom webinar, my interview with Bud Bromley, is in less than two weeks. Specifically we will be live at 6pm Hawaii time on Thursday, 24th April (2pm Brisbane-time the next day, Friday April 25th). This will be the fourth zoom meeting in my series Towards a New Theory of Climate Change. If you would like to be a part of this Webinar please register at:

https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_QrVa8XEzSPS_GvUWnXkX0Q

You will then be sent a confirmation email with a link that you will need to join the webinar, so please file the confirmation email carefully.

Bud lives in Hawaii and is a chemist by training.

The plan is that after the one hour interview, there will be another whole hour for questions, and comment. So, the plan is that Bud and I will be live for two hours with everyone who has registered unmuted for the second hour.

********
The feature image is a photograph I took just this morning, at Lammermoor Beach, Yeppoon. There is so much bubble and foam at the beach at the moment with relatively acidic freshwater inflows.

From THE DAILY CALLER

Audrey Streb
Contributor

President Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is reportedly eliminating the requirement for industrial plants to collect and report their greenhouse gas emissions, according to multiple reports.

The change would affect roughly 2,300 industrial plants, including oil refineries and coal plants, out of 8,000 applicable facilities according to documents reviewed by ProPublica Thursday, as well as a Friday report by The New York Times. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced a “reconsideration” of the “burdensome” Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program on March 12, arguing that it’s costly and hurts small businesses.

“The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program is another example of a bureaucratic government program that does not improve air quality,” Zeldin said at the time. “Instead, it costs American businesses and manufacturing millions of dollars, hurting small businesses and the ability to achieve the American Dream.”

Launched in 2010 under the Obama administration, the Greenhouse Gas Reporting program requires thousands of industrial facilities to report their emissions annually and make the data public. Currently, the EPA requires select industrial plants to report their annual emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, three of the most common elements labeled as greenhouse gases.

“Reducing this burden is a worthwhile step to take,” Heritage Foundation senior research fellow for energy and environmental policy Jack Spencer told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “It’s the pointless overregulation of American industry that has caused a lot of the issues that we’re dealing with now.”

Spencer argued that the government is “probably the worst institution we want to be doing data collection and scientific analysis, just by virtue” and that “there’s a deep temptation for it to be politicized.” He pointed to the private sector and academic institutions as the correct avenues to shoulder the responsibility of expanding scientific knowledge. (RELATED: Biden Rolls Out New ‘Ambitious’ Climate Goals Weeks Before Trump Returns To White House)

“It just puts an additional burden on industry, and more importantly than that, it gives bureaucrats and politicians additional tools to wreak havoc on the economy,” he continued, though he noted that if the private sector and universities want to prioritize this kind of data collection, they are free to do so. “We just don’t need the government to be doing that,” he also said.

Climate policy experts who spoke with ProPublica claimed that the program made it easier for the government to implement climate policies, such as the Biden administration’s plan to cut the American economy’s net greenhouse gas emissions by 61-66% by 2035 relative to 2005 levels, which was announced after Trump won the 2024 election.

“We will not get to the kinds of temperature stabilization needed to protect Americans against the worst climate impacts unless we get the cooperation of developing countries,” former President Joe Biden’s Assistant Secretary of Energy for International Affairs Andrew Light, told the publication. “If the United States won’t even measure and report our own emissions, how in the world can we expect China, India, Indonesia and other major growing developing countries to do the same?”

The Trump administration, however, has already moved to ax dozens of climate policies implemented by both the Obama and Biden administrations in order to “unleash” domestic energy production and remove stringent regulations.

“We are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion to drive down cost of living for American families, unleash American energy, bring auto jobs back to the U.S. and more,” Zeldin said in a March 12 press release.

Trump declared a national energy emergency on Jan. 20, stating that “the integrity and expansion of our Nation’s energy infrastructure” is “an immediate and pressing priority for the protection of the United States’ national and economic security.” (RELATED: ‘Just Getting Started’: Energy Experts Say Trump Admin Could Fuel ‘Nuclear Renaissance’)

Less than one month after taking office, Trump established the National Energy Dominance Council to advise him on expanding “all forms of reliable and affordable energy production to drive down inflation, grow our economy, create good-paying jobs, reestablish American leadership in manufacturing, lead the world in artificial intelligence, and restore peace through strength by wielding our commercial and diplomatic levers to end wars across the world,” he wrote.”

EPA did not respond to the DCNF’s request for comment or request for a copy of the documents reviewed by ProPublica.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.