Amicus Brief

31 Comments

1. The dam analogy sufficiently illustrates the principle. More widely, climate alarmism has reached such a pitch that it is difficult to see how it might stopped. The herd instinct always dominates as a majority prefers to avoid thinking, and vested interests won’t easily relinquish their gains.

   Reply

2. The website: wiseenergy.org sets it all straight.

   Reply

   1. You should join forces with The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT).
      https://www.cfact.org/

      Reply
3. Pingback: Montana Republican Leaders Support Democrats’ Climate Fraud

4. If C02 raises the temperature, is that bad?

   Where does C02 do most of its warming?

   Water vapor, clouds, the largest greenhouse gas, does most of its warming at night, in the winter, and the far north and far south. Example: at night, when cloudy, it isn’t as cold. that is clouds preventing the heat escaping. C02 works similarly. I would argue if Siberia has nighttime lows in the winter that are not as cold, that is a good thing.

   During the day, when it is hot, the temperature is mostly affected by the sun, not C02.

   proof: when we have glacial and interglacial periods, it is the poles that warm and get colder. around the equator mostly stays the same temperature.

   so yes, C02 as a greenhouse gas warms the world, ie; it makes the statistical worldwide average number higher, but it is warming places, time of year, and time of day in which warm is good not bad, thus C02 warming the world is a net good thing, not a net bad thing.

   Also more people die from cold, not heat.

   Reply

   1. You went wrong with your very first sentence, and then just dug deeper.

      If energy input into the earth system remains a constant, which it does and energy output completely depends on the 1% of radiative gases i.e optically active gases to emit that energy to space , then increasing those gases does not slow system energy losses to space , its speeds the losses of energy to space up, that is the exact opposite of the fantasy Fisher Price physic’s you have just proposed.

      Reply

5. The main thing to accomplish is to defeat the “Our Children’s Trust” lawsuit.

   Two details that can be dragged into the lawsuit are:

   1) Will CO2 concentration above 400 ppmv cause harmful global warming and other climate change events? Everyone except the alarmists agrees – NO!

   2) What is the cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2? Here, we realists disagree. Some say the increase is due to natural causes. Others say it is due to use of fossil fuels.

   No matter who is right on (2), bringing this point into the lawsuit COULD be a problem that the “Our Children’s Trust” lawyers could use to their advantage.

   Best wishes to Ed Berry and his valiant efforts to defeat the man-made global warming alarmists.

   Reply

   1. Thank you, John,
      I think this brief proves human CO2 is insignificant and nature causes all the increase.
      None of the scientists who claim otherwise have proved any of my physics is wrong.
      There is no evidence except emotions that human CO2 causes most of the CO2 increase.
      Figure 10 in this brief is overwhelming evidence that human CO2 is neglibible.
      So, I don’t even consider the opinions of those who think human CO2 dominates the CO2 increase. Their arguments are circular and full of holes. See my debate with David Andrews on this website.
      Thanks,
      Ed

      Reply

6. I am not a scientist, so I am anxious to see how the scientists at Clintel respond to your brief. I am also watching what the CO2 Coalition is doing in Wyoming with the Governor. Here’s a clip.

   Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon has proposed taking the Cowboy State to negative net zero by building vast, industrial-scale wind projects and facilities to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it.

   To date, the Governor has not provided cost estimates of such massive projects. Nor has he projected how much these proposals would add to the price of electricity for the state’s residents.

   Appearing on CBS’s 60 Minutes recently, Gov. Gordon exposed a lack of knowledge about climate change and Wyoming. The governor is apparently unaware of some very important scientific facts that should drive the policy decisions:

   Heat waves peaked in Wyoming in the 1920s and 30s.
   Average maximum annual temperatures have been in decline for more than 80 years.
   Growing seasons are lengthening in the Cowboy State.
   Snowfall totals at six of the eight largest ski resorts in Wyoming are increasing.
   Reducing Wyoming’s CO2 emissions to zero would avert only 0.002 degrees (F) of warming by 2100.
   Increasing atmospheric CO2 is driving huge increases in grassland, forest and crop productivity.
   These and many more climate facts reveal the governor’s notion of CO2 driving harmful and unprecedented warming in Wyoming to be mistaken.

   Attempting to lessen the amount of atmospheric CO2 is not only foolish and wasteful but detrimental to the well-being of ecosystems and citizens of Wyoming.

   All of us need the truth. Thanks for your efforts. Don’t give up!

   Reply

7. I’ve written a 5 page paper summarizing my disproof of AGW, which really should be called CAGW, since the notion is really that there will be a catastrophic warming due to additional [human sourced] CO2 emissions from here forward. In brief the two dispositive arguments are:
   1) AGW has never been experimentally demonstrated (although there are many bogus experiments claiming to do so). What your above misses is that the scientific method REQUIRES experimentation. Your definition is incomplete.
   2) Both in the paleo and in the modern record, the warming comes first, then the rise in CO2 levels. Thus CAGW violates causality itself.

   My paper provides scientific paper references of experiments that show CO2 does not cause material warming (and some show actual cooling with more CO2 in air). I provide 5 citations showing warming first, then rise in CO2 (in the MODERN record).

   Failing to demonstrate AGW experimentally shows AGW to be pseudo-science, especially in light of experimental demonstration of the opposite. Violating causality demonstrates that AGW is risible pseudo-science.

   Reply

   1. I agree completely with what you say and would like to look at your paper.
      I believe that the strongest arguments are the simplest.
      1. The amount of warming displayed on the record for over 100 years is trivial (1.5 C).
      2. The temperature during that period has sometimes gone down, not up, which directly contradicts the theory
      3. There are periods in the recent past when temperatures were much higher without any evidence of catastrophic results.There is plenty of evidence of a Medieval warm period and a Roman warm period.
      4. There was most recently a little ice age from which there has been a gradual recovery over the last 300 years.

      Reply

   2. David, can you kindly provide a link or reference to your 5 page paper.
      Thank you,
      Bud Bromley

      Reply

8. Ed: Good work. It takes courage and hard work to counter the IPCC.
   Here is our paper published a week ago that might give you some ideas: “The Sun and the Troposphere control the Earth’s temperature.” Available at: https://doi.org/10.29169/1927-5129.2023.19.14

   A partial summary is below:
   The basis for this paper is physical measurements and well-known and proven physics and chemistry. An example is shown on the second page. The description of the science can be simple for the reader’s benefit.
   The first point to make is in Section 2. It describes that the increase in temperature per gram of water vapor per kilogram (kg) of dry air is 1,000 to 7,000 times the increase in temperature per gram of carbon dioxide (CO2) per kg of dry air. The range is from the Poles to the Equator. The science leading to the conclusion is sound. People who wish to criticize the decision will find it very difficult to find fault with the science that leads to the conclusion.
   The second point in Section 3 proves the warming by CO2 is linear rather than curvilinear towards an asymptote. In other words, the warming effect of CO2 does not reach an upper limit. This fact is relatively easy to explain to anyone. It is an important finding because it shows the IPCC simplified formula in the Third Assessment Report, ΔRF = 5.35LN(C/Co), is incorrect. The overlap makes it difficult to separate the warming effects of CO2 and water vapor using radiation profiles. If the result is a curved relationship, then the radiation is from water vapor, not CO2. Nobody should have trouble understanding this fact because a NASA graph is available.
   The third point is in Section 4. There is so little CO2 and water vapor in the layers above the Troposphere that energy leaving the Troposphere flows unhindered to space. The warming by CO2 at two meters above the ground level is too small to measure and is the same at the top of the atmosphere. The warming of water vapor at the top of the Troposphere is less than at two meters by a factor of 0.00074. Thus, there is typically nothing to hinder energy flow to space.
   A fourth point is in Section 5. The significant dip at around the 15µm wavelength is where the radiation overlap occurs between CO2 and water vapor. For such a significant dip to be caused by CO2, one molecule of CO2 would have to block 15% to 20% of the radiation to space by water vapor. This action by one molecule of CO2 is likely impossible, a point anyone may understand.
   Section 9 is another proof of the point in Section 5. The Hunga Tonga submarine volcano, 150 meters below the ocean surface in the South Pacific, had a significant explosion in January 2022. It thrust vast quantities of water into the Stratosphere and above. This water is blocking the energy flow from the Troposphere to space and causing the Earth’s temperature to increase. The Earth will continue to be warmer than “normal” until the water dissipates.
   We know that some of what our paper discusses is not well-known. Readers can contact us with questions and we will respond.
   Best Regards,
   H. Douglas Lightfoot and Gerald Ratzer
   December 3, 2023

   Reply

9. Dear Ed:
   As currently written, the Amicus Brief argues that the damages claimed by the plaintiffs are unproven but a stronger argument is available for being made. This is that the argument made by the climate models falsifies all three of Aristotle’s Laws of Thought. I’ll supply details on this argument at your request.
   Cordially,

   Terry Oldberg

   Reply

   1. Dear Terry,
      Thank you for your offer. Please send your details.
      Ed

      Reply

      1. Dear

         See the article at https://judithcurry.com/2011/02/15/the-principles-of-reasoning-part-iii-logic-and-climatology/ for details on my argument. Your questions and comments on this argument would be most welcome.

         Cordially,

         Terry Oldberg

         Reply

10. Let us not forget that CO2 represent only about 0.004 percent (4/1000 of 1%) of the earth’s atmosphere. That is in the order of four grains of rice in a five pound bag of rice. It time to get a grip on reality.

    Reply

11. I look at the basic mechanism of radiation, This I understand is resonance of infrared photons and a CO2 molecule. Unless it is in the spectrum CO2 reacts with there is no resonance, it is this that agitates the molecule transferring energy as heat, only direct photons from the Sun have the energy to resonate. secondary radiation photons are unable tp transfer energy to CO2 the wave length is too long,and so frequency is to low. If as I believe the case CO2 caused warming in the first 100ppm declining on its observed log basis secondary radiation from the moon has virtually no energy Secondary radiation from earth is also to low to react with CO2, water vapour however it can explaining the cloud heat blanket with is nothing like a greenhouse effect. Net zero can have little effect as it is not the cause of warming claimed.

    Reply

12. Ed, excellent draft and identification of the key issues and false assumptions that underly the unsubstantiated claims by the young plaintiffs that are a common MSM false theme and a politically motivated effort by Progressives, Globalists and the disgraced pseudo-scientific UN IPCC that have real and honest scientists prepare their scientific report which is then edited into their Summary Report by “Progressives and Climate Alarmists’ votes and then altering (even reversing) their Scientific Report and conclusions to agree with their presumed (but not proven) narrative.

    Although your material & arguments are quite effective for those with a strong science background, your positions in a Court of Law setting could be strengthen by also presenting some less-technical overview facts and illustrations that show the absurdity of the plaintiff’s claims and the popular “folklore” about an Non-Existent Man-Made Global Warming Crisis due to essential and beneficial increases in our earths very low atmospheric CO2-levels.

    I have included some examples in 4-pages with illustrations from several prominent Meteorologists, Scientists (beside yourself) and Experts/Authors: Climate Science in a Nutshell – PDF – Connecting the “Dots” in support of Natural (Not Man-Made CO2-Driven) Climate Change (Hopefully, this link will not be eliminated):
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ddbpe5DECSYFPUCltHlbs2X9GKyzT1aW/view?usp=sharing

    This PDF makes the following key points:
    1. By: PragerU Climate Truth Initiative — Big Picture Chart showing Temperatures have been constantly changing for the last 600 Million Years & how cold and very small the recent fortunate increases in global temperatures have been compared to most of the climate temperatures that have been much warmer and, during glacial periods extremely cold. The public in general has little or no perspective on the Earth’s long History of fully-natural Climate Change.
    2. By Dr. Roy Spencer & Dr. John Christy: They publish an accurate record of the earth’s temperatures since their NASA extremely accurate temperature-monitoring Satellites since their deployment in 1979 faithfully recording actual temperature measurements two-times-per-day almost fully-globally. This underscores the fact that all this global-warming hype since the very cold “Little Ice Age” (1300 – 1850 AD) has only been about 2-degrees F and that there has been little global warming (i.e., < 3/4 Degree Fahrenheit, just Natural Temperature Variability) for the last 25 years (Quarter Century) since 1998 when the warming after the "Little Ice Age" peaked.
    3. From widely available Science Sources & Dr. William Happer, Dr. Patrick Moore, Wikipedia, etc.: The Greenhouse Gas Warming Effect is provably "Naturally Balanced" preventing CO2 and other GHGs from causing "A Run Away Global Warming Crisis" since it is the Infared-Radiation in certain overlapping frequency bands that causes the GHG-Warming which cease further warming once any or all of these frequency bands "Saturate". Since the GHGs comprise only 1% of our atmosphere with Water Vapor (H2O) as 95% of All GHG with about the same IR-Radiative power as CO2 which is only 4% and all the other GHGs (like Methane (CH4), Nitrous Oxide, etc.) only 1%. Furthermore, reliable estimates of the GHG impact on the Greenhouse Effect are: 60%-85% due to Water Vapor & the important Clouds it supports vs. only about 9%-26% for CO2 — Clearly demonstrates that CO2 warming is grossly overestimated by the Climate Alarmists!
    4. By Dr. Patrick Moore: A Dramatic 300 years of consistent and accurate temperature records from England (1659 – 2009 AD) Graphic compared with a dramatic and fortunate increase in atmospheric CO2-levels — Demonstrates absolutely NO Correlation, Causation or impact of CO2-rise on climate temperatures. (WOW!)
    5. From Dr. Patrick Moore, PragerU and many other reliable scientific sources: A 570-million year chart showing the correlation of atmospheric CO2 levels with the Earth's Climate Temperature levels — Absolutely No Statistically Significant Correlation; Nor Any Causation! It also puts the recent upturn in CO2 due to man into relative perspective (i.e., in support of my point #1 above) underscoring that the upturn in recent temperatures in our current Modern Global Warming period was a coincidence and unrelated.
    5.5. By NASA & Dr. Patrick Moore, PragerU, etc.: The CO2 Increases due to Man have produced more greening and higher crop yields benefiting the planet & man — Also, the prior serious decline in CO2 levels over the last 570 million years came close (e.g., 180 ppm) to reaching the Extinction Point for all Plant and Animal life at 150 ppm and 130 ppm for bacteria-level life.
    6. From Dr. Willie Soon, Wikipedia & others: The UN IPCC emphasis on Energy Budget & Positive (Warming) and Negative (Cooling) Forcings has been biased towards Positive Forcings in its analysis and invalid computerized Climate Models and very incomplete as well as suppressing the well-known long history of our recurring and cyclical natural climate — Since understanding this Natural History undermines and destroys the phony climate narrative.

    In summary, the above points and PDF may give your Brief or subsequent Court Presentations some idea of how to overcome the popular & biased prejudice created by years of empty "Denier" smears used by alarmists to avoid rational discussion or debate when you submit your more technical & science-based arguments which will require the judge and/or jury to rely and believe your science experts over theirs that surely will be forced to lean heavily into the "Popular Climate Prejudices" against "Deniers of Science".

    Ps. Ed feel free to contact me for further input or in case the imbedded link is not allowed in this response.

    Reply

    1. Brilliant and so simple, as you point out sequestration is not even rational.

       Reply

13. Ed, I have copied some info re nuclear subs and CO2:
    Claim: CO2 makes you stupid? Ask a submariner that question
    11 years ago Anthony Watts
    From Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, something that might finally explain Al Gore’s behavior – too much time spent indoors and in auditoriums giving pitches about the dangers of CO2. One wonders though what the Navy submarine service has to say about this new research:

    We try to keep CO2 levels in our U.S. Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels. – Senate testimony of Dr. William Happer, here

    This is backed up by the publication from the National Academies of Science Emergency and Continuous Exposure Guidance Levels for Selected Submarine Contaminants

    which documents effects of CO2 at much much higher levels than the medical study, and shows regular safe exposure at these levels…

    Data collected on nine nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 3,500 ppm with a range of 0-10,600 ppm, and data collected on 10 nuclear-powered attack submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 4,100 ppm with a range of 300-11,300 ppm (Hagar 2003). – page 46

    …but shows no concern at the values of 600-2500 ppm of this medical study from LBNL. I figure if the Navy thinks it is safe for men who have their finger on the nuclear weapons keys, then that is good enough for me.

    Great job, Ed. Unfortunately, many of the people who question climate science data are ignorant idiots – uniformed and refuse to become informed. Howard Lowe (Prof. Engineer/Geologist)

    Reply

    1. Howard,
       Good points about higher CO2 levels in Submarines (also higher in Greenhouses to improve plant yields & growth)!
       * OSHA Standards today recommend that 8-hour shifts typically be limited to 5,000 ppm, but actual limits should be less than 10,000 ppm of CO2 as you observed are in subs, space crafts, etc. when necessary.
       * Many scientists report that in the past natural CO2-levels in both Cold and Warm periods were 10 to 18 times our currently very low atmospheric concentrations of ~420 ppm (e.g., 4,000 to 7,000 ppm) — The dinosaurs & mastodons did just fine and CO2 concentrations had nothing to do with their demise!
       * A great many scientists & experts agree that the optimal level of CO2 concentrations should be 1,000 to 2,000 ppm for optimal greening and crop yields to feed a hungry planet with a population of about 8 billion and that the additional CO2 will NOT create a Global Warming Emergency (which does NOT exist today, despite what the IPCC & alarmists believe).
       * Unfortunately, the climate alarmists believe in their failed Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis that serious warming consequences will result should CO2-levels double from 300 ppm to 600 ppm or even double today at ~400 ppm to 800+ ppm — AGW has never been proven and likely never will since much more CO2 Is Not a Problem; and the fact that less CO2 below 150 ppm will certainly cause widespread plant and, in turn, animal including humans extinction!

       Reply

14. Ed,

    As you know, I do not want to contribute to – nor be associated with – your Amicus Brief (AB) because it attempts to affect policy in the USA (i.e. a country not my own). However, to show my support I write to make a suggestion which I hope you may find helpful.

    I suspect the arguments from your opponents in the legal proceedings will be similar to the assertions obtained from “Copilot Microsoft’s AI chatbot” about evidence for AGW. If so, then you may find it useful to adopt the refutations of those assertions which I provided in the GWR chatroom on Saturday, December 2, 2023 at 11:35 pm and Monday, 4 Dec at 19:27.

    For example, I notice your AB cites Koutsoyiannis et al. (2023) but IMHO using only that citation is misleading and lacks cogency. As I said in the GWR chatroom,
    “A cause cannot follow its effect. Several studies have shown that over short time scales changes to atmospheric CO2 concentration follow changes to global temperature. This was first discovered by Kuo, Linberg and Thomson who published their finding in Nature in 1990; see https://www.nature.com/articles/343709a0 . Several other studies have confirmed this using a variety of data analysis methods: the most recent of these studies is by Koutsoyiannis et al., who used a stochastic method and published their findings in proceedings of the Royal Society in September this year; see https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/5/3/35?fbclid=IwAR2U7ahMzdW0U79yGhgc-iJJoDavJ6xEhyQKG1AuoEvxcH4T_wk4s-HzkmM ”

    I hope this is helpful to your activity without me becoming involved in the activity.

    Richard

    Reply

    1. Dear Richard,
       Thank you for your comment. I don’t know about the chatbot, but AB Section D contains quotes of the Plaintiffs’ best arguments for their positions. Those are the arguments that I try to defeat.

       I may add the references to earlier papers that you suggest, but I need only one argument to show temperature changes precede CO2 changes, and I think Section Q — that uses the Koutsoyiannis et al argument — is a good simple argument. Also, it has the advantage of using more recent data.

       Finally, the AB is limited to 5000 words, so I do not have space to extend my arguments.

       Reply

15. Ed, a great précis of what is underlying the CO2 misunderstandings. Misunderstandings that are to a large extent fuelled by IPCC’s misrepresentations.
    Personally I would not make mention of any magic demons in an otherwise so serious and scientific text. A matter of taste I suppose.
    I have here this very enlightening graph showing CO2’s efficiency as a greenhouse gas as a function of concentration in the atmosphere. (taken from Ian Plimer’s book ‘Heaven and Earth’. His Fig. 50 in Chapter 7). (Sorry, I can’t drop the figure into this comment apparently). Surely you have seen it before. One does not see this graph very often, presumably because it is being kept away from the public by the mass media. It shows that the greatest efficiency lies between 1 and 20-30ppm, which is fortunate as it keeps the planet from freezing up. It also shows that, even if CO2 were to double to 800ppm, there would hardly be a discernable effect on temperature. Such a pity that most people think: more CO2 means more warming.
    Always enjoy reading your writings!

    Reply

16. Ed – I should give you a couple of names of longtime US Navy submarine officers:
    Capt. Mike Grey USN (Ret) – personal friend – 30 years service – Commanded Gold crew on USS Georgia in 1980s. Now resides on Olympic Peninsula, WA.
    RAdm Weldon Koenig USN (Ret) – 30+ years in nuclear subs – now resides in Austin, TX area – think on farm near Round Rock.
    Both are still very very alert. It would be great if you could get a couple of nuclear sub officers to testify.

    Reply

17. Thermodynamics is about the flow of energy from higher to lower levels of energy. The greenhouse effect would involve heat transfer from cooler to warmer. Because each transfer of energy uses a minuscule amount of energy perpetual motion is impossible. Off topic…is it illegal to use falsehoods to influence government policy?

    Reply

    1. Hi Henry,

       How does the greenhouse effect transfer heat from cooler to warmer?

       I ask only so we can clarify what you mean.

       Also, by “lower levels of energy,” you really mean higher levels of entropy.

       Reply

18. Excellent summary of where the so called climate consensus is wrong. That we left the coldest period in the Holocene in the mid 19th century and have been warming since just happens to coincide with the so called anthropogenic warming. However, what these doom mongers choose to ignore that the other warm periods in the Holocene were not instigated by a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide. That glaciers and snow fields wax and wane over the millennia is evidenced clearly by archaeological finds. Furthermore, cooler periods were often associated with the collapse of cultures. I am of the firm belief that the gullible fools and ignorant media are being indoctrinated by a purely profit driven elite including governments, multinationals and academic departments.
    I would remove the kool-aid comment as it does not mesh in such a serious argument. (being Irish I assume it is drink targeted at children)

    Reply

19. https://budbromley.blog/2024/02/09/net-zero-and-the-false-climate-crisis/
    “Net Zero” and the false climate crisis
    There are zero benefits to these so-called “Net Zero” plans because CO2 cannot be sequestered from the atmosphere, except very temporarily.  The environment will rapidly restore the CO2 equilibrium concentration at any temperature.

    Removing CO2 from the environment (or preventing CO2 emission by humans) is a perturbance to the Henry’s Law equilibrium at the location and temperature where the perturbation occurred.  That is a phase-state equilibrium between the unreacted CO2 dissolved gas in liquids, dominantly water in ocean surface, versus CO2 gas in air exposed to that surface.

    An amount of CO2 gas will be removed from the atmosphere by the environment which is equal to any human-produced CO2 gas emitted to the atmosphere.  Thus human-produced CO2 cannot warm the earth.  There is no climate emergency.  Climate-alarmists are the emergency.

    Le Chatelier’s principle and the Law of Mass Action assure us that any perturbance to the Henry’s Law equilibrium will be followed by a rapid response from the environment to restore that equilibrium, the speed and size of that response will be proportionate to the speed and size of the perturbation.  In other words, sequestration or removal of CO2 from the atmosphere or suppression of CO2 emissions, whether by humans, biological activity or inorganic chemical reactions will result in replacement of that CO2 by the environment and restoration of the equilibrium partition for the given temperature.

    Removing CO2 or preventing emissions of CO2 is a futile waste of money, time and resources.  Humans can neither increase atmospheric CO2 nor decrease it by controlling emissions. 

    Ocean and water everywhere will emit an equal or temporarily higher amount of CO2 gas to replace any CO2 gas that has been removed from the environment until the Henry’s Law partition ratio is restored.  The Henry’s Law constant for CO2 and water is a ratio of the molar concentration of CO2 gas in water versus the molar concentration of CO2 gas in air above the water.  The Henry Law constant changes with temperature at the liquid/gas interface, which is dominantly the surface of the ocean. 

    Any increase in CO2 concentration in air (due to any CO2 source, natural and human) will be offset by a proportionate increase in solubility of CO2 in ocean and water everywhere that is in contact with the increase in CO2 partial pressure.  This law applies for all gas and liquid combinations, but the ratio is different for each combination and temperature.

    CO2 gas is not increasing ocean surface temperature.  Additions of human-produced CO2 via fossil fuels etc cannot increase earth’s CO2 and therefore cannot increase earth’ temperature. Instead, increases in ocean surface temperature cause increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration. And vice versa.

    Reply

20. Dear Ed,
    All the best with your brief!
    You ask for “brief” arguments that temperature drives CO2. Would this limerick help?
    A Tripping Point
    More carb in the sky makes it hotter
    The Greenhouse Effect says it’s gotta
    Then by Henry’s Law
    Warmer oceans add more
    And more carb in the sky makes it hotter…
    ©Kevin Benn

    Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.