ClimateCite Corp, 28 July, 2021
Why do so few scientists practicing in the climate field acknowledge Henry’s Law & ocean chemistry as the predominate CO2 control factor?
Most scientists practicing in the “climate field” are not degreed physicists or chemists. They typically have geology, geography, and metrology backgrounds and are not well versed in the areas such as Henry’s Law, Raoult’s law or the Le Chatelier principle.
Most climate scientists pursued a decision branch based on an a priori assumption before consideration of Henry’s Law and other principals of physical chemistry concerning carbon dioxide and its interaction with acquis solutions. Henry’s Law is not the only important science that was ignored as a result of that decision branch or “fork in the road.” That assumption changed the fundamental questions that would be asked and studied in so-called climate research after the fork.
As part and parcel of that fork, climate researchers assumed that humans were responsible for the increasing trend in CO2 coupled with IR radiative emissions for the increasing temperature trend. There is a hole in their model and they plug it with human emission.
So, in addition to Henry’s Law being ignored or incorrectly lumped into other oceanic chemistry, despite the expense of billions of dollars on climate research, there are almost no studies on the correlation between length of day (LOD or earth’s rotational velocity) and its causes with respect to global average temperature, nor LOD versus sea surface temperature (SST), nor SST versus net global average atmospheric CO2 concentration, nor even a math/physics proof as simple as how does the atmosphere heat the ocean in defiance of 2nd law of thermodynamics (not to mention how does the CO2 content of the atmosphere at 0.04% heat the ocean let alone 0.004% or less.)
Shifting the negative LOD curve by 6 years to the right results in almost complete coincidence of the corresponding maxima of the early 1870s, late 1930s, and middle of 1990s (Klyashtorin 1998). Where are the papers falsifying dtemperature caused by dLOD?
The same questions should have been asked about TSI (total solar irradiance) with respect to SST. The same questions should have been asked about AMO (Atlantic multidecadal oscillation) and PDO (Pacific decadal oscillation) with respect to global temperature.
Logically, the global CO2 trend with respect to time versus the global temperature trend with respect to time are diverging. This could not happen if CO2 trend were the cause of global warming trend. However, that would be expected if the global warming trend were the cause of the CO2 trend. How could CO2 be the cause of global warming if changes in global air atmospheric temperature always follow (rather than precede) changes in sea surface temperature?
In the case of the climate alarmist scientists, they are doing advocacy, not science. They are looking for evidence which supports their hypothesis, and avoiding evidence that falsifies their hypothesis. Scientific method is done by designing hypotheses and experiments which refute the hypothesis. They are not only ignoring Henry’s Law, but almost all other possible natural causes and also the straightforward statistical analysis of their own single variable CO2 data (e.g. NOAA Mauna Loa) such as done by Munshi, Endersbee, Salby, and others. Instead, proponents present melting glaciers for example as evidence of AGW without ever having demonstrating or validating a causal connection between human CO2 emissions and warming… the causal connection is their a priori assumption. They are asking the wrong questions, therefore they get wrong answers (i.e. their climate models do not validate and are not predictive of known conditions.) Perhaps…if not apparently…that is their intent.
This is criminal racketeering similar to protection rackets run by mafia and gangs. They stir up fear and then extort money from fearful people to protect them from the fear which they created. One must ask where the RICO prosecutors and class action lawyers are.