To whom it
may concern
This is a shock and awe letter to McKinsey executives and
editors.
Is there a
chemist or scientist in your organization?
Did they have any
input to this report?
Is this reported anywhere?
Thousands of chemists
like me, physicists and other scientists and engineers know "net
zero" is not plausible scientifically, nor is it needed...
For example,
"Stop treating it
[i.e. AGW... 'human-caused'
global warming/climate
change] as a worthy opponent. Do not ascribe reasonableness
to the other side.
It is not
reasonable, not true, not even plausible."
Richard Lindzen, Professor Emeritus
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
"More
carbon dioxide will certainly increase the
productivity of agriculture and forestry.
Over the past
century, the earth has already become noticeably greener as
a result of the modest increase of CO2, from
about 0.03 percent to 0.04 percent of atmospheric molecules.
More CO2
has made a significant contribution to the increased crop
yields of the past 50 years, as well. The benefits to
plants of more CO2 are documented in hundreds of
scientific studies."
"There is no climate emergency.
Americans should
not be stampeded into a disastrous climate crusade.
The medieval
crusades did far more harm than good, destroying the lives
of many decent people of all faiths, and leaving a bitter
legacy that complicates international relations and social
harmony to this day.
A climate crusade
that destroys economies and ultimately lives will be as bad,
or worse."
Professor Richard S. Lindzen, PhD., Massachusetts Institute
of Technology
Professor William Happer, PhD. Princeton University
You might find interesting
this short lecture by Professor
William Happer.
$9 trillion spent per year would not reduce warming nor would it
reduce net global average CO2 concentration nor its
growth rate.
There would be no
measurable effect on net global average CO2
concentration.
That is because the
phase-state equilibrium that determines the CO2 gas
partition ratio between ocean surface and the air above that
surface is independent of the source of the CO2.
The source of the CO2 is not a variable in the CO2
concentration.
CO2
concentration and its partition ratio between air and ocean are
variables ONLY of ocean surface temperature primarily, and in
local condition salinity, alkalinity and partial pressure
changes of CO2 gas in air and ocean surface due to
winds, currents, storms, waves, etc.
'Emission of
human-produced CO2 is offset by an equivalent
amount of absorption of CO2 into ocean, soils,
lakes and plants,' referencing atmospheric physicist
Murry Salby, PhD.
Atmospheric CO2
concentration today is the same as it would be if humans never
existed.
The percentage of CO2
in air which is originally emitted from human sources has no
effect on net global atmospheric average CO2
concentration.
Local CO2
partial pressure increases significantly around your face when
you exhale, very localized CO2 concentration
increases from about 0.04 percent to 4 percent.
That is about 100 times increase immediately around you... with
every exhaled breath.
That very localized
partial pressure change is rapidly distributed and remotely
re-balances to
the CO2
partial pressure ratio required for equilibrium according to
Henry's Law at the local conditions, which is dominantly by
ocean surface temperature.
The CO2
molecules do not move to the ocean. The CO2 partial pressure
gradient is distributed not the molecules.
This has been understood by real scientists (as compared to
climate modelers) since about 1830 when William Henry
documented the science known as
Henry's Law.
Today, Henry's Law is
used in chemistry and physics in many multi-billion dollar per
year industries, e.g. scientific instruments (my background)
such as gas chromatography, and also in fermentation beverages,
chemical plants, etc.
This is not arcane or out of date science, though it is clearly
not understood or ignored by politicians,
media, IPCC, etc.
Tables of Henry's Law
coefficients derived for various purpose are found in text
books, online workstations for chemists, and reference handbooks
found in almost all chemistry labs.
No amount of politics
or expense will change atmospheric CO2 concentration.
The area of ocean surface above 25.6º C has been slowly
increasing since about 1918. That is the reason net CO2
concentration has been slowly increasing.
And by the way, that
increasing CO2 trend has brought us many decades of
increasing greening of the earth, increasing crop yields, etc.
Above 25.6º C
(the tropics) ocean surface emits CO2.
Below 25.6º C
(higher latitudes) ocean surface absorbs CO2...
This of course begs
the question:
Why spend any
money on a futile effort to reduce atmospheric CO2?
So, my question
again,
Is there a
chemist or physical scientist in your house who has reviewed
your report?
Is this reported
anywhere?
Sincerely,
Bud Bromley
