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.
Read more at No Tricks Zone
If only we could lose the burden of believing that atmospheric carbon-containing molecules are endangering life we could stop squandering resources on “solutions” to an imaginary problem. Climate activism is a plague which is damaging the ability to think clearly while it also results in damage to the health of humans and ecological systems.
K. Richard is a horrible author promoting junk science
Here he continues his reign of error.
As carbon dioxide (CO2) levels increase in the atmosphere, oxygen levels are generally decreasing, albeit at a very small rate, due to the process of burning fossil fuels which consumes oxygen to produce CO2; meaning that while the increase in CO2 is noticeable, the corresponding decrease in oxygen is relatively small compared to the overall atmospheric oxygen concentration.
Oceans absorbing CO2 do have a change in pH but the claimed 0.1 change is too small to measure. Too smal to measure does not mean no change.
I guess if the pH is too small to measure would say that there is no impact from that too small to measure pH change. The pH is still basic (aka alkaline), something I learned in Chemistry classes both in Nuclear Power School in the Navy and later in two semesters of college chemistry at RPI.
As opposed to Richard Greene of no known science/engineering background who we should listen to?
This whole idea of Carbon Capture is just like the rest of the Ne Age Climate Myth based upon Junk Science and Liberal/Globalists