Fascinating Data in Notes 4 - 14 e.g it is not possible for the oceans to become acidic

This article is not as long as indicated by the right hand slider on your screen - a lot of other material follows which I couldn't delete

͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏

	Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more Latest Substack from Michael Darby with Special Thanks to Paid Subscribers Eminent NZ Engineer: IPCC is not a scientific organisation. Rather, it is not only incompetent but a blatantly corrupt political operation with zero credibility. Peter J Morgan is the founder of Environomics Global Trust, whose goal is to put evidence-based science at the forefront of discussion for policy development globally. Michael Darby May 5 READ IN APP 4 May 2024 The facts that the IPCC overstates the efficacy of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas by a factor of 6 and the efficacy of methane by a factor of 58 show just how incompetent the IPCC really is These failures by the IPCC show that it is not a scientific organisation. Rather, it is not only incompetent, but is also a blatantly corrupt political organisation that has ZERO CREDIBILITY. Dear readers, ask yourselves, should you believe that the World Health Organisation (WHO), which is currently seeking to remove all nations’ sovereignty regarding their response to future pandemics, is any different? This brief but very informative article contains the URLs for two unrefuted, peer-reviewed physics papers that prove that reducing human-caused carbon dioxide emissions, and livestock methane emissions, are worthless, ideologically-driven pursuits. On 6 August 2020, a peer-reviewed paper by Physicist Professor Emeritus Dieter Schildknecht was published, in which he calculated that the climate sensitivity of carbon dioxide (CO2) is only 0.5 Celsius degrees, which is one-sixth of the IPCC's 'best estimate' (read 'best guess'). (The climate sensitivity of a greenhouse gas is defined as the increase in Earth’s mean temperature caused by every doubling of the atmospheric concentration of that gas.) The next year, without having ever heard of Schildknecht or his paper, three other physicists, David Coe, Dr Walter Fabinski, and Dr Gerhard Wiegleb (Coe et al.), independently calculated from fundamental physics and the HITRAN database of the spectroscopic properties of gases, exactly the same result as Schildknecht for the climate sensitivity of CO2. Further, Coe et al. calculated that the climate sensitivity of methane (CH4) is a miniscule 0.06 Celsius degrees, and that of nitrous oxide (N2O) is an almost-as-miniscule 0.08 Celsius degrees. The Coe et al. paper was published on 23 August 2021. The Coe et al. calculation of the climate sensitivity of methane shows that it is a miniscule 12% of that of CO2. This leads to the conclusion that the IPCC’s current claim that the efficacy of methane is 7 times that of CO2 (having recently reduced its ‘best estimate’ from 28 times to 7 times) is still too high, by a mind-boggling factor of 58 (7 ÷ 0.12 ≈ 58). Physicist David Coe has confirmed to me that my calculation of the factor of 58 is correct.* Unrefuted physics has therefore shown us that carbon dioxide is insignificant as a greenhouse gas, and that methane and nitrous oxide are even more insignificant. The IPCC’s aforementioned ‘best guesses’ are therefore worse than that – they’re wild guesses! Dear readers, do you think that investment decisions that have so far totalled trillions of dollars worldwide, that affect every aspect of your lives, should be made on the basis of wild guesses, or on unrefuted calculations based on the hard science known as physics? In fact, CO2 is essential to all life on Earth. It is not a pollutant, despite the fact that in their ignorance, greenies and the MSM (warmists) persistently claim that it is. Far from being a major problem necessitating that mankind's emissions of CO2 be drastically curtailed, more of it would be beneficial in feeding an increasing global population, whilst also reducing the need for irrigation, fertiliser and pesticides. There is absolutely no need for any action to reduce mankind’s emissions of CO2, nor to reduce farm livestock emissions of methane. Water vapour, which is ever-present naturally, and is absolutely out of the control of mankind, is the overwhelmingly dominant greenhouse gas. Earth’s water cycle is in fact the omnipresent grand air conditioner and cleanser of the atmosphere. The lead author of Coe et al., David Coe, has calculated that it will take about 250 years from now for the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to double from today’s 420 ppm to 840 ppm, by which time Earth’s mean temperature will have increased by only 0.5 Celsius degrees above what it would have been had the atmospheric concentration of CO2 remained constant at 420 ppm. That in no way means that earth’s mean temperature will have increased by 0.5 Celsius degrees over those 250 years – it may actually have decreased due to natural causes overwhelming the tiny warming effect of CO2. Nobody knows enough to make accurate predictions of global temperature very far into the future. Thus there is no climate crisis and there never will be. Thus NET ZERO is an utter waste of resources, for ZERO EFFECT. The URL for the Schildknecht paper is: https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.00708 The URL for the Coe et al. paper is: www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=298&doi=10.11648/j.ijaos.20210502.12 On 2 September 2021, David Coe filed with the IPCC an Error Report, in accordance with the IPCC’s own Error Report Protocol. Despite that protocol requiring an acknowledgement of receipt and a time-limited response from the IPCC, the IPCC failed to respond in any way. The IPCC also failed to respond to three other Error Reports, including one from myself. Before anybody can legitimately claim that Physicists Schildknecht and Coe et al. are wrong, they must follow the long-established norms of physics and provide proper scientific refutations of both the Schildknecht and Coe et al. papers. Numerous other Physicists, notably van Wijngaarden & Happer, also tell us that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is so low as to render Net Zero completely unnecessary, although Wijngaarden & Happer’s value is considerably higher than Schildknecht’s and Coe et al.’s. Note 1: Neither the Schildknecht paper nor the Coe et al. paper has ever been refuted. Note 2: Because there are many simultaneous natural causes for rising or falling global temperatures, it is simply not possible to measure the climate sensitivity of CO2 – hence the IPCC’s use of the term, ‘best estimate’ (read ‘best guess’). IMHO, for the monumental importance of their contribution to physics in calculating the climate sensitivity of CO2, Physicists Schildknecht, Coe, Fabinski, and Wiegleb should be nominated for the joint award of the Nobel Prize for Physics. To make a nomination, one must have a Ph.D. I don’t, but if I did, I would nominate them myself., So, if anyone reading this has a PhD in physics, please consider nominating Physicists Prof. Emeritus Dieter Schildknecht, David Coe, Walter Fabinski and Gerhard Wiegleb for the Nobel Prize in Physics. Note 3: The Legal Profession regards what an expert says as being evidence, whereas the Engineering Profession regards what an expert says as being merely opinion (otherwise known as testimony). To the Engineering Profession, experts’ opinions are not evidence unless they are based on verifiable physical evidence. Many Court judgements have been flawed because of the Legal Profession’s, including the Judiciary’s, failure to grasp these important facts. Note 4: Nobody has ever provided any verifiable physical evidence that carbon dioxide – let alone the tiny fraction of it produced by mankind – causes any significant global warming. Not the IPCC. Not the Royal Society. No government meteorological office. No government. No climate scientist. Even the NZ Government’s Chief Science Adviser, Prof. (now Dame) Juliet Gerrard, could offer me only a URL to a scientific paper, claiming that it contained the evidence I sought. However, I pointed out to her that the paper in question was merely a report on the output of computer models, and gave her another chance to provide actual physical evidence. When no physical evidence was forthcoming from her, I pointed out that her failure to do so was actually a tacit admission that there is no physical evidence. Note 5: China, knowing all this, has ramped up its infrastructure spend and is now building almost 2 GW of coal-fired electricity generating capacity every week. India also knows all this and is striving to outdo China in building coal-fired electricity stations. Note 6: Australasia (i.e., New Zealand and Australia) emits just under 1% of all the world’s GHGs. Cutting Australasia’s emissions to zero would make a barely perceptible difference to global mean temperature, even if that was a worthwhile thing to do – which it isn’t. Note 7: New Zealand is not alone in having laws that stipulate that every director of a company, when exercising powers or performing duties as a director, has a fiduciary duty to act in their company’s best interests and while doing so may rely on reports, statements, and financial data and other information prepared or supplied, and on professional or expert advice given, but only if they have no knowledge that such reliance is unwarranted. Quite obviously, after having been made aware of the contents of this article regarding the unrefuted calculations of Schildknecht and Coe et al., no company director faced with a lawsuit alleging harm from their company’s emissions of CO2, CH4 or N2O can lawfully continue to rely on any expert advice that such emissions cause significant, measurable changes to the climate. This has particular reference to the current case of Smith versus seven major New Zealand companies – Fonterra, Genesis Energy, Dairy Holdings, NZ Steel, Z Energy, NZ Refining and BT Mining. When they read this article, all of the directors of those seven companies will have knowledge that emissions of CO2, and/or CH4 and/or N2O cause no measurable changes to the climate. Note 8: In 2007, Martin Durkin directed a polemical documentary film, The Great Global Warming Swindle. Recently, he has directed a new documentary film, Climate: The Movie. It is available to watch free at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/03/20/climate-the-movie-watch-here/ Note 9: On 22 March 2024 the Global Warming Policy Foundation published a new report by Physicist Dr Ralph Alexander – Weather Extremes in Historical Context – in which he used historical evidence to show that little has changed. The report is freely available to download at: https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2024/03/History-Weather-Extremes.pdf?mc_cid=8f46aa0c76 Note 10: There is much talk in Australia at present that electricity generation using nuclear fission reactors is the only way to ensure a reliable supply of baseload electrical energy that is “CO2 emissions-free”. As explained above, it is absolutely unnecessary to cut CO2 emissions, as they are actually good for the planet, not bad. Therefore, king coal remains by far the cheapest form of baseload electricity generation, and both Australia and New Zealand should be flat-out building coal-fired electricity-generating stations to ensure that our “lights don’t go out”. Let us not forget that the cost of containment of the radioactive waste remaining when a nuclear electricity generating station reaches the end of its working life is NOT included in the selling price of the electricity that the station generated in its working life, but is borne by taxpayers. If it was included, the price of nuclear-generated electricity would be so high that it would be obvious that coal-fired electricity generating stations produce far cheaper electrical energy than nuclear fission stations, of whatever type. In Southland and south Otago, New Zealand has huge deposits of lignite (as is the case in Australia) – sufficient to provide for all of New Zealand’s energy needs, both liquid and gas, including generating electricity for the Tiwai Point aluminium smelter, for at least 2000 years. Neither New Zealand nor Australia has any sensible need for building windfarms or solar farms, which without government subsidies show a negative return on investment and inevitably lead to electricity prices increasing at a much faster rate than consumer prices and wages and salaries do. Note 11: Despite the continuously spreading knowledge that CO2 and CH4 are only minor GHGs of negligible effect, and that water vapour is the overwhelmingly dominant GHG, arrogant climate alarmists continue to refer to those with this knowledge as “climate deniers”. Methinks it’s now time to refer to climate alarmists as physics deniers. Note 12: The Myth of Ocean Acidification Dissolved in our planet’s oceans is approximately 50 times the amount of CO2 that is currently in the atmosphere. Despite this, the oceans are slightly alkaline, not acidic. Yet in recent years, the alarmists have claimed that human CO2 emissions into the atmosphere are acidifying the oceans, which in turn is imperilling marine life, and especially corals. The use of the word acidifying is thus a bastardisation of the English language. Under no possible scenario is it possible for the oceans to become acidic It is simply not possible for the oceans to become acidic, under any credible scenario, for the following reasons: a) It is known that for the last 600 million years, the oceans have never been acidic, despite the prolonged presence of natural atmospheric CO2 concentrations between 2 ½ and 15 times the present concentration of 420 ppm. This is known because if the oceans had been acidic, they would have dissolved all of the limestone and chalk that have been deposited in that time, but that did not happen. b) During this enormously long period when atmospheric CO2 concentrations were far higher than today, marine life thrived. We know this because of the enormous quantities of marine organism skeletons that formed the massive limestone and chalk deposits that we see today. c) Corals evolved and thrived when atmospheric CO2 concentrations were between 1000 ppm and 2000 ppm, far higher than current levels. d) Corals not only flourish in the warmest of tropical waters, they even thrive in sea water that is less alkaline than normal. There is a 900 km long coral reef system off the mouth of the enormous Amazon River, a river whose fresh water is slightly acidic, with a pH of 6.6, as it enters and pushes out into the Atlantic Ocean. e) The majority of the rocks that the oceans are in contact with have a basic, i.e. alkaline, chemistry. f) Crudely speaking, if all of the atmospheric CO2 was to dissolve into the oceans tomorrow, the concentration of CO2 in the oceans would rise by only 2%, a very small change. g) Should all of the CO2 emitted by human activities enter the oceans, there is enough dissolved calcium in the upper 200 m of the oceans to bind all of it as precipitated calcium carbonate, with no net change to the oceans’ pH value. Note 13: Contrary to the warmists’ claim that changes in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 drive temperature changes, the Vostok Ice Core data from Antarctica show that the opposite is true – atmospheric CO2 concentration is driven by temperature change. If all of the CO2 in the atmosphere dissolved into the oceans, all life on earth, including plants, would die, because the survival of plants depends on there being an atmospheric CO2 concentration greater than 150 ppm. Note 14: Section 11 of New Zealand’s Fair Trading Act 1986 spells out that “No person shall, in trade, engage in conduct that is liable to mislead the public as to the nature, characteristics, suitability for a purpose, or quantity of services.” This particularly applies to the directors, and indeed the employees, of some of New Zealand’s biggest consulting firms. It may also apply to the vice chancellors and staff of universities that take in fees from students and enrol them in courses on ‘climate change’ in which the students are taught as fact that which is now proven to be fiction. It could well be that other countries have similar laws. Comment by Michael Darby: Excellent observation by Peter J Morgan! The time has come to hold universities responsible for deliberate promotion of fiction in pursuit of dollars and/or Gramscian pedagogy. Those readers who wish to make tax-deductible donations to the Environomics Global Trust, to help to publicise the real science elucidated in this article, are invited to set up a fortnightly or monthly automatic payment of a modest amount – $5 is suggested for individuals, and for corporate entities, whatever is thought appropriate. Tax-deductible donations may be made to the Environomics Global Trust’s Kiwibank account: 38 9020 0388162 00 After making a one-off donation, please email me at [email protected] so that your receipt can be emailed to you. After setting up an automatic payment stream, please email me to let me know so that your payments can be kept track of and your end-of tax-year receipt emailed to you. All recipients are requested to forward this email to everybody on their email contacts list. This applies especially to members of farm lobby groups, to ensure that their members each receive a copy. * When I emailed the lead author of Coe et al., physicist David Coe, asking him to check my calculation of the IPCC’s over-estimation of the global warming efficacy of CH4 as being by a factor of 58, he responded as follows, or in words to that effect: Your calculation regarding the IPCC’s overestimation of the influence of methane by a factor of 58 is correct. It is worth noting however that the IPCC’s estimation of global warming potential is not a simple error on its part. Rather, it is a disingenuous attempt to mislead. The term Global Warming Potential was first introduced in the 1st IPCC Assessment report about 30 years ago as an idea to be pursued. In the event, it was simply accepted without question. Essentially, it compares the atmosphere’s response to an increase of 1 ppm in CH4 with an increase of 1 ppm in CO2. However, because the atmospheric concentration of CH4 is only 0.3 ppm, compared with the 400 ppm of CO2, that 1 ppm CH4 is a 300% increase in concentration, which is two doublings (0.3 to 0.6 to 1.2 ppm). A 1 ppm increase in CO2 is insignificant, but the IPCC has made the disingenuous – but nevertheless false – claim that CH4 is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. The spectroscopic fact is that if CH4 concentrations were to rise to 400 ppm (which is impossible because CH4 quite quickly oxidises to CO2 and H2O), so achieving absorption band saturation, the impact on temperatures would still be significantly lower than that of CO2. I will do the actual calculations to determine the exact figures so that we are fully prepared for any future responses. Because the spectrographic response is essentially exponential, the rise in global mean temperature, measured in Celsius degrees, in response to a doubling of the atmospheric concentration of a particular GHG, i.e., its Climate Sensitivity, is a much more appropriate term when comparing greenhouse gas responses, and demonstrates clearly the effectiveness of those gases. Readers should now understand that the title of this article – The facts that the IPCC overstates the efficacy of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas by a factor of 6 and the efficacy of methane by a factor of 58 show just how incompetent the IPCC really is – is an accurate statement. It is now up to all readers of this article – wherever on planet Earth they happen to live – to communicate this fact to every one of their friends and acquaintances, and ask them to do the same, and then for everybody to communicate this fact to every one of their politicians, and declare that unless they promote policies to repeal all laws, regulations and subsidies that promote the carbon dioxide and methane nonscience, and drive the nonsensical switch to renewable energy and electric vehicles, etc., they risk losing the next election. Let us rejoice, for there has never been a better time to be alive! Readers’ feedback would be much appreciated. Sincerely Peter J. Morgan B.E. (Mech.), Dip. Teaching Honorary Chairman and Honorary Chief Executive Officer, Environomics Global Trust mobile: +64 21 489 497 email: PJM.forensic.eng ‘at’ gmail.com