Using Chemistry, New Study Pokes Holes In The CO2-Induced Climate Catastrophe
Fundamental components of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) paradigm fail molecular chemistry. [emphasis, links added]
According to a new study, the notion that we can and must reduce atmospheric CO2 to avoid climate catastrophe (e.g., runaway global warming or ocean acidification) does not withstand probing academic scrutiny.
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a mitigation strategy proposing to sequester CO2 underground to reduce emissions to “net zero” by 2050. The practice [of CCS] is poised to cost tens of trillions of dollars over the coming decades.
New analysis suggests high or ambitious CCS scenarios are presumed to mitigate about half of today’s emissions by 2050.
But these economically draconian CCS scenarios are projected to cost US$30 trillion more than those that only mitigate about one-tenth of today’s emissions.
Either way, the costs of CCS are astronomical.
But can CCS actually do what is intended and reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations? Chemistry says no, CCS “will not reduce the atmospheric concentration of CO2 at all.” From the study:
“The crux of the issue is that, unlike photosynthesis by plants, perfect sequestration of CO2 will no magically release the O2 that has effectively been ‘sequestered’ in the CO2 and H2O molecules produced by combustion.”
“If the fuel was made of pure carbon, then the net result in the composition of the atmosphere would be a slight reduction in the O2 concentration…and a slight concomitant increase in the CO2 concentration due to the slight shrinking of the denominator.”
Regarding the alarmist “ocean acidification” narrative, the modern trend of rising atmospheric CO2 is assumed to be driving changes in pH levels. However, the chemical basis for this narrative is dubious.
Using the stoichiometric combustion equation, we learn that for every one ppm of CO2 increase due to burning fossil fuels, the O2 concentrations decrease by about 2.15 ppm. (For example, over 20 years CO2 increased by 50 ppm as the O2 declined by ~130 ppm.)
But this conceptualization engenders fundamental questions for the paradigm that says humans drive changes in the oceans’ pH levels.
“If the reduction in the atmospheric O2 concentration is directly related to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, then how can there be enough absorption of CO2 by the oceans to cause ocean acidification, especially since the oceans are highly buffered chemically?”
“If the observed reduction in the atmospheric O2 is accounted for by the observed increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration, as expected as a result of combustion, then where does the extra CO2 come from that can cause ocean acidification?”
These are just a few of the many other chemistry-based challenges to the AGW narrative described in the paper. It is well worth a read.
See more here Climate Dispatch
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. [paypal-
Trackback from your site.
VOWG
| #
No studies are needed. We know from observation that CO2 promotes plant growth, we know that too little is not good. We know that CO2 is not a climate driver. The terminally stupid among us have an agenda and we would be stupid to allow or follow any of it.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi VOWG,
As I read your comment your thoughts are very similar to my wife’s who doesn’t believe she needs to do any scholarship to understand what she knows by reading a few simple, general statements written by an authority she respects. You seem to consider the exhaustive and excellent SCHOLARSHIP reported by this two authors as being totally UNIMPORTANT and UNNECESSARY.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
As I read this excellent, excellent exhaustive scholarship by these two engineers I became more and more excited as questioned if they would ever refer to the ocean’s SINK for its absorbed carbon dioxide and they didn’t. First I tell you readers what it is before I try to contact these two engineer so they can research what I know and write an article which completes the scholarship they have done.
In the early 1970s I interviewed with a company, Deep Sea Ventures, which knew there were carbonate mineral nodules lying on some oceans bottom which the company had already devised and tested for bringing the these nodules to the surface. And another company of doing the same was Howard Hughe’s company using a remote controlled tractor implement to scoop up the nodules and lift them to the ship at the surface.
The reason these nodules haven’t yet been mined is it hasn’t yet been determined to whom they belong. BUT IT IS A KNOWN FACT THAT THESE CARBONATE MINERALS ARE STILL DOWN THERE.
Have a good day
Reply
Allan
| #
The ocean is an Alkali it cannot become more acidic it can only become less caustic. Since the pH scale is logarithmic not arithmetic it has a long way to go even to reach pH neutral.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
Take look–(https://principia-scientific.com/darwins-idea-evolution-about-the-origin-of-life-is-a-wrong-scientific-idea/)
Have a good day
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
The Paradox Of CO2 Sequestration…
Paradoxically, sequestration of CO2 will increase atmospheric CO2 concentration, even if humanity emits zero CO2 to the atmosphere.
Let’s say you have a fuel that is 100% carbon, and it burns by chemically interacting with atmospheric O2, to form CO2, then that CO2 is 100% captured and sequestered.
Let’s take an extreme example… let’s say we burn so much of that carbon, converting it to CO2 then sequestering 100% of that CO2, that we totally remove all O2 from the atmosphere.
We have to account for the atoms and molecules which that O2 displaces. We’ll do the calculations for the three most-prevalent atomic or molecular species.
209441.21395198 ppm O2 to start –> 0 ppm O2 to end
Ar | 39.948 g mol-1 | 20.7862 J mol-1 K-1 | 18.846929895790 K km-1
(Ar) 209441.21395198 ppm * 0.00934 = 1956.1809383114 ppm
(Ar) 9340 ppm + 1956.1809383114 ppm = 11296.180938311 ppm
N2 | 28.0134 g mol-1 | 29.12 J mol-1 K-1 | 9.4339738283240 K km-1
(N2) 209441.21395198 ppm * 0.780761158 = 163523.56473807 ppm
(N2) 780761.158 ppm + 163523.56473807 ppm = 944284.72273807 ppm
CO2 | 44.0095 g mol-1 | 36.94 J mol-1 K-1 | 11.683426182319 K km-1
(CO2) 209441.21395198 ppm * 0.00043 = 90.059721999351 ppm
(CO2) 430 ppm + 90.059721999351 ppm = 520.05972199935 ppm
So if we were to burn enough carbon that all O2 was converted to CO2, then all of that CO2 was sequestered, the atmosphere would have a CO2 concentration of 520 ppm.
And that’s with us putting no CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 concentration per parcel of air rises strictly and solely because we’re removing other atmospheric constituents (in this case, O2) which dilute that CO2 already existing in the atmosphere.
Thus, the climate alarmists are yet again diametrically opposite to reality.
Here’s another topic upon which they are diametrically opposite to reality:
https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/1h7aijs/comment/m0l4mju/
… and another:
https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/1gsv82i/corals_and_mollusks_were_being_lied_to/
You can do the calculations to figure out the resultant change in lapse rate (and thus surface temperature) for any given change in concentration of any given atmospheric atomic or molecular species. I’ve calculated the Specific Lapse Rate for 17 common atmospheric gases, and included the equations so you can verify the maths yourself:
https://www.patriotaction.us/showthread.php?tid=2711
The AGW / CAGW hypothesis has been disproved. AGW / CAGW describes a physical process which is physically impossible.
The solution, then, becomes clear… base energy policy upon actual physics, not the flipped-causality junk science of the climatologists and climate alarmists.
The climatologists and climate alarmists invariably wind up being diametrically opposite to reality because the easiest lie to tell is an inversion of reality, a flipping of causality… they needn’t invent new physics to describe and explain their claims, because most people are so scientifically-illiterate that they cannot discern between reality and flipped-causality anyway.
Reply