CO² and global warming, according to the Kyoto Protocol, and an alternative view

What does the term “Global Warming” means to most people? Probably very little. In reality, this is a basic scientific error, and we should probably be speaking of “The Atmosphere Effect”: a mass of air of 5,101,000 billion tonnes, which has very little in common with a simple greenhouse.

The “ Adherents to the Greenhouse Effect Theory” we shall call them “AGET” in this article, also the IPCC or GIEC in French (an institution created under the authority of the UN in 1988) has based its thinking on the figures below. Numerous scientists and thinkers are opposed to the arguments of the GIEC, but do not have access to the scientific figures to contradict them.

In this article you will find extracts from a study, including arguments which contradict the GIEC’s figures, following on from real observations, as well as the applicable scientific formulae and real measurements.

° AGET: Since 1880, due to global warming the temperature has increased by around 0.6 ˚C.

This is a debateable figure as with a standard mercury thermometer it is difficult to measure the temperature to the nearest tenth of a degree. Weather stations were not widespread and they were badly spread over the globe. Many did not use standardised measurement methods. Let us say that there has been a tendency towards increase.

° AGET: We predict a doubling in CO² levels due to industrial emissions between now and 2100

60 years ago, scientists started to measure CO² levels in a primitive manner. Nothing was really precise. These results show that, as with temperatures, CO² levels are increasing, notably by 285 ppm in 1880 and around 365ppm in 1980. Since then, levels have varied but the increase has stagnated.

In 2000 the measurement network RAMCES was created (Réseau Atmosphérique de Mesure des Composés d’Effet de Serre, or Atmospheric Network for Measures of the Greenhouse Effect) simply to put a measure of order into the figures for measuring CO² levels internationally.

In around 50 years fossil fuel stocks will be exhausted and industrial CO² emissions will stop automatically. The lifespan of a molecule of CO² is on average 120 years, which signifies that each year 19.6 billion tonnes or 3 times the annual industrial emission of CO² dissolve naturally in the atmosphere.

° AGET: Carbon Dioxide (CO²) is opaque to electro-magnetic infra-red rays and it is CO² which will increase the temperature by 2.4 - 5.8 ˚C in the next 100 years: “The Greenhouse Effect”

This is not a reality. It would be better to continue to use the “Atmosphere Effect” as a basis, with a mass of 5.100.000 billion tonnes, composed of, say 6 different gases, and thus being infinitely more complex than a greenhouse, which functions completely differently.

The IPCC compares the glass in a greenhouse with the CO² in the atmosphere, glass where the CO² is, according to them opaque to infrared rays. But in reality the glass and the CO² are only partially opaque to infrared rays.

The formal proof is that in greenhouses**, which are used to cultivate vegetables and flowers, we see exactly the opposite happening. For there to be vegetation and hence photosynthesis, there must be CO² from the light, hence electromagnetic solar rays, energy to heat the air and electromagnetic infrared rays, indispensable for photosynthesis.

(** There are approximately 20,000 hectares of greenhouse in the world, equipped with computer-controls for light, temperature, CO² levels and hygrometry)

In greenhouses, production is very much greater than in open fields, as the climate is controlled; CO² levels are increased at the glass allows infrared rays to pass through and set photosynthesis in motion.

° AGET: The re-emission of solar energy captured at the earth’s surface (390 W/m2) is transformed into infrared energy which is then captured and reflected by the Greenhouse gases, principally CO².

The reemission of 390 W/m2 infrared energy is not a reality: the annual level of reemission by the earth is 0.00 W/m2. Energy captured in summer is retransmitted in winter into the atmosphere. Measurements and observations, which are simple to undertake, confirm this 0.00 W/m² figure. (Explained in the initial study)

° AGET: The received at the entry of the earth’s atmosphere (SO) is 1,370 W/m²

An SO of 1,360 W/m² is not a value invented by the IPCC. The majority of scientists use this value. Probably the principal error in the idea of the “Greenhouse Effect” comes from this SO value of 1,370 W/m². The explanation is as follows: using as a basis an atmospheric pressure of 1kg/cm², the atmospheric pressure on 1m² is 10,000 kg. The sun, as a consequence reheats a mass of air of 10,000 kg/m² from - 18 to 15 ˚C (∆ t. 33 ˚C)

A heat engineer will find by doing this calculation using the abovementioned values and SO of 91,452 W/m2. To the scientists who support the theory of the “Greenhouse Effect”, where does the difference between 91,452-1,370 =90,172 W/m² come from? 90,712 W/m² being the missing energy needed to reheat the 10,000kg of atmospheric air.

To have an idea of what this 1,370 W/m² represents, this would be the energy required to heat a stove from -8 to 20 ˚C. Imagine a radiator of 1,370 W/m² at the edge of the atmosphere, i.e. 80 km. The influence of this at ground level would not be measurable. However, according to the IPCC there would still be 390 W/m² arriving at the earth’s surface having passed through and reheated 10,000kg/m² of atmosphere.

One of the most important problems of our era is energy. The wastage of fossil fuels is in effect extremely disturbing. The best way of saving energy is to raise consumer awareness to the fact that in 40 or 50 years there will be no more fossil fuels and there is currently no viable replacement energy source of sufficient size on a global scale.

Was the “IPCC” created to fight energy waste or to fight global warming? If the latter, and the fight against CO² emissions and global warming, we must accept that the sceptics are correct, amongst them Michael Crishton, Fred S.Singer, Claude Allègre, Marcel Leroux, Aroun Tazief and many others.

By accusing CO² of being the primary culprit in global warming, the AGET, having a not inconsiderable influence on the media, has succeeded little by little in making many ordinary people as well as some scientists (who are supposed to seek out, understand and reveal the reality of things) believe that it is a toxic gas.

However, without CO² “there would be no life on earth”. No vegetation, trees, shade, fossil energy, fish, animals or humans, no energy problems, no pollution, nothing at all.

In short, the earth would be empty, warm on the side closest the sun, a little colder on the other side. So long live CO²! We have it in our atmosphere, but all good things have their limits, and in the case of CO² this limit is at minimum 300-365 ppm (parts per million) the actual level, the maximum limit for vegetation is around 5 times the natural level, i.e. 1,800 ppm. The limit for humans is 4,500 ppm of CO². So, there remains room for manoeuvre!

At 1,800 ppm of CO², vegetation grows rapidly according to scientific studies: up to 35% due to photosynthesis, i.e. the leaves assimilate the CO² present in the atmosphere and transform it into sugars and eventually into carbohydrates, the basis of our diet.

The thermal role played by CO² in the climate is a relatively complex subject but not complicated. By doubling the level to 730 ppm, which the IPCC puts forward, the earth’s surface temperature would increase by only 0.00045 ˚C.

However, the AGET tells us that if the level of CO² doubles in the next hundred years, the earth’s temperature will increase by between 2.4 and 5.8 ˚C. An enormous difference, therefore, between 0.00045 and 5.8 ˚C!!

Reminder of points developed so far:

CO² is only partially opaque to infrared rays
Proportionally, 365ppm of CO² is not enough to reheat the 999,635-ppm of remaining gas, which makes up the atmosphere. Only the sun can produce the quantity of energy required to reheat the mass of atmospheric air of 5,100,000 billion tonnes from –18 to 15 ˚C
The re-emission from earth of 390 W/m² is not a reality
The SO of 1,370 W/m2 is not a valid figure
There is nothing less certain that a doubling of CO² levels in the next 100 years

Concerning the climatic models, which should predict the climate in 2100, even an ultra-powerful, ultra-expensive computer needs accurate input. With an SO of 1,370W/m2, a re-emission from earth of 390 W/m2 an atmospheric mass where only the GEG (greenhouse effect gas) are taken into account i.e. 1.654% (missing >5,000,000 billion tonnes of atmospheric air) it is understandable that climaticians who defend and promote the CO² myth are not unanimous concerning the results obtained from powerful computer simulations.

The Kyoto protocol is principally based on data supplied by the IPCC, thousands of scientists are involved, and politicians (with the exception of the USA and China) have ratified the protocol, and hence the greenhouse effect. The media has built up the idea and the phrase “man is responsible for global warming” is engraved in the memory of modern man.

Taxes have been invented as payment for the right to eject CO² into the atmosphere, an inoffensive gas, indispensable to agricultural production which in turn provides food for 6.5 billion people as well as domestic and farm animals.

And yet, all types of agricultural products used as human foodstuffs, animals as well as the flora and fauna of the ocean (fish, shellfish, algae etc) are products of photosynthesis and extract around 60% of the CO² produced annually through industrial emissions.

It should also be mentioned that CO² is the natural result of combustion. A well-regulated boiler produces more CO² than a badly regulated boiler and the same is true of cars, trucks etc.

CO² levels are and indicator of the quantity of energy burned just as the “˚C” indicates the temperature. The quantity of CO² emitted into the atmosphere may be an indicator of waste of fossil fuel. Imposing a tax on those who exceed a certain limit seems to me to be a reasonable measure.

Money from taxes could be used to develop research into renewable energy sources or to help poorer countries produce electricity instead of spending astronomical sums to extract and store CO², a useless and unrealistic measure.

Published and well-known research gives no clear answer. The conclusions and values cited above are the results of an in-depth study**. Tests and measurements carried out personally confirm that CO² plays a role in global warming which is not measurable.

** A complete and detailed study explaining all these aspects in detail will shortly be available on request.

My theory

Partager cet article