CO2It’s been quiet about Global Warming.
But i’ve noticed that media covers it during warmer moments and after some disaster. So it’s trendy. And i observe ever growing extreme commerce about the issue.

Both believers and non believers of men made global warming have always had my attention.
I wrote my first article about it in may 2013 and about energy.

You can read it here (Dutch).

This post is a follow up and explains exactly what CO2 is from basic chemical and biological education.

We are then going to work on some numbers I haven’t seen done by anyone yet (!!)
Next is using data from the IPCC, NASA, MIT, National Geophysical Data Center, Aspen Global Change Institute and Berkley University.

I just wanted to explore what’s what and what’s not. If I’m wrong, I am wrong and will adjust my view.

In my earlier article I wrote to have had experiences of very hot summers during the 90s in Northern and Southern Europe. We saw very high temperatures. In the 80s, we had colder winters and less hot summers. However, this all can be explained by the El Nino effect. Basically a cycle of colder and warmer seasons over 7 years.

In that article I also disclosed the entire network of eco-politics-media-commerce closely tied in the highest levels. I’m not going to repeat that here, do read that article first perhaps.

Reading that post myself again, I still stand behind all the text, but I want to share my further knowledge on the subject. And i worked some numbers no one seemed to have done before (!!)

Why media is most always biased and hardly serves public interest is explained in this article: Welcome tot the Real world.

I’m not in the game of proving right or wrong, but I am in the game of constant learning and justification. And I do believe in underlying ratio, math, logic and plausibility since full proof never exists.
All we can do is add up knowledge, data and see for ourselves, instead of the lazy thing of laying on the couch and absorbing what media shows us.

And a good thing is I paid high attention during chemistry and bio college, and statistics as well to understand basics where 1 + 1 is still two.

Chemistry: CO2 and the fundamentals of Earth & Life

Szén_atomCO2 is a simple bond (mix) made from 3 chemical smallest possible parts (atoms) of the 2 elements C and O.
1 part Carbon, 2 parts Oxygen.

Carbon (C) itself is in almost all materials on earth.
No life as we know is possible without it.

C is the central building element of earth and life.
Hydrogen (H), Oxygen (O), Phosphor (P), Sulphur (S)

do the rest, literary. O is what we breath. P is the main element for soil fertilising (farm land).

C is essentially prevalent for life !

C plays the central role, because that chemicals element bonds the easiest and therefore is found in most materials on earth. I’m not claiming C is the most trouble-free chemical element. But it is a prime factor for life. You hardly find any article in your home without C, except perhaps water and drinks without bubbles. Water should be cleaned from C anyway.

So C, H, O, P, S are all prime elements for life but C simply acts as the easiest, compared to most all chemical elements we know of.

Electrons always spin very regular around their core (nucleus) and super fast but not always in a perfect spaced orbit. In this way they more form a cloud around the nucleus.
For Carbon, 4 electrons swirl around as an outer cloud and 2 as an inner cloud.
(The electron cloud around C has two layers).
Elements bond by sharing some electrons.

Hydrogen (H) has 1 electron. It can share it with one C, and another H atom can share its electron with the same C. Now we have CH2, or Methylene.
The C atom can still take more electrons from another H.
Adding can give CH4, or Methane. It’s the natural gas you cook with, also called LNG.
The maximum of bonds between two elements is defined by rules, but that’s for chemistry college.

From carbon it is said, it’s the ‘tramp’ or ‘hooker’ in chemistry.
Carbon can take almost every chemical element easy to bond (mix) with, and super strong.

Consequently C is in almost everything. The strong bonding also means that it’s hard to break it apart.

More examples of bonds:

1 Part H and 2 parts of O make water (H2O).
1 Part C and 1 part O make CO.
1 Part C and 2 parts O make CO2.

CO is not CO2 !!

herpes-confusionPeople easy mix them up.
Media and films don’t help much either.

CO (carbon monoxide) doesn’t occur naturally in the atmosphere.
It’s an odourless and almost invisible gas as a result of oxygen-starving inefficient combustion.
Old technology in the 60s, 70s and 80s produced it in large; the grey-blackened smoke. Think about the old cars, old furnaces, but also house fires and candles.
It swarms wide spread in open air so is almost invisible

CO2 (carbon dioxide) comes from efficient optimised ventilated combustion; still odourless but totally invisible gas. It also occurs naturally in the atmosphere in super abundance.

CO2 is needed for life on earth as we know it; totally impossible to live without that abundance.
So where CO is unhealthy and a pollutant, CO2 is life and very healthy.

All plant life on earth and in the ocean inhale CO2, takes the C and breaths out the 1 remaining part O.
All mammals, reptiles, birds and fish on earth (including us humans) inhale O for combustion of what they ate; so what’s in their cells. Then exhale CO2 for all green life, including for all plants and plankton in the massive ocean volume.
Oceans also create water vapour (H2O) by the sun’s heat, which form the clouds; clouds produce rain (accumulated H2O), and so on. Volcanoes and plate tectonics also release a lot of CO2.
It’s a total complete eco system of life.

Mind you that the total area of ocean + air from top to bottom, is zillions m3 more compared to the area in where we humans live. We cannot even imagine how massively relatively very super little our habitat is. It’s a drop in a billion litre tank.

Crunching numbers not done before

National Geophysical Data Center estimates (rounded numbers):

Ocean water:                        Air / Atmosphere:
~200,000,000 km3               ~500,000,000 km3

Total volume of ocean water + air:
200,000,000 + 500,000,000 = 700,000,000 km3.

1 km3 = 1,000 km2

So, flattened calculated, the total ocean water + air:
700,000,000,000 km2.

Earth’s land mass:
~148,000,000 km2 is total land mass, flattened calculated.
~37,000,000 km2 land mass is habituated by humans.

37,000,000 km2 / 700,000,000,000 km2 = 0.0053%

So in that tiny fraction of 0,0053% is where we live !!
And we do not even use all of that super miniature space.

More about CO & CO2

questionCO2 is healthy and goes up in the atmosphere. CO is unhealthy, stays low and swarms locally.

So keeping the local air clean from CO (carbon monoxide, which isn’t CO2) makes sense.

Too much CO suffocates, is bad for the longues and blocks sun light. This was the smog we had in Europe after WWII, and China still has in cities. (CO could be written as CO1, or C1O1, but 1s are always unwritten in chemistry. )

As CO was the result of old fashion oxygen-starving combustion, catalysers were fitted.
So if emissions by all vehicles and industry are the result of efficient and optimised ventilated combustion with a catalyser, they emit CO2 instead of CO. It’s where we are since the 90s.
And that’s fine.
Old vehicles emitted too much CO (the grey-blackened smoke), and that’s not good. Still the case in China and India on large scale, but that’s gone here, although smog in cities do still occur.

So CO2 is super vital to life (never a pollutant or unhealthy !!).
It’s absolutely essential and in massive abundance needed as a building block of earth and life.
CO2 is super good !!

Carbon is all well? No down sides?
The down side is that chemical bonds with C are super strong, therefore hard to break up.
However, all plants on land and in the ocean (including plankton) need CO2 to live and grow, so they inhale it, break it up to exhale O.
So breaking it up can’t be that hard. But it does take some form of energy, for example electricity, but there are other ways such as synthetic photosynthesis (basically replicating plant leaves).
Using intense concentrated sunlight is another rather easy way.

Black coal is very misunderstood as well.
Coal is majorly made out of Carbon which has bonded with lesser parts of hydrogen (H), Sulfur (S), Oxygen (O) and Nitrogen (N). Coal is a pure organic fuel which contains all elements of life.
Why is that? Because coal is basically decayed (rotten) plants and trees put under pressure for millions of years in the earth. Less decayed is brown coal and even less rotten is turf.

Coal and wood powered steam engines from the 1800s up to the early 1950s. And people heated their buildings with wood, turf and brown coal. All those are oxygen-starving processes.
Today electricity is often still produced by coal. The smoke you see from the towers is however water vapour, perfectly harmless. Water is used too cool down in those modern cooling towers today; so that’s the water vapour you see (H2O).

Coal does however stay in the closed burning energy production furnace in the industry to be exhausted into catalysers; emitting CO2 in the open air, not CO.
Again, the white smoke we see is the water vapour from the cooling towers.
We don’t heat our houses with open furnaces anymore since the 70s, and we don’t burn coal or wood anymore to power trains since the 50s. And cars and industry are fitted with catalysers.

The huge countries India en China, responsible for ~33% of earth’s population, do not heat their houses and buildings at all, or hardly (own experience). China in the North can be cold. People simply dress for it, they do not heat their houses at all. Only some good restaurants and star hotels provide heating.
In Africa they often cook with wood and use old cars which emit CO, but not in large enough that it pollutes, nor does it concentrate in the air.
China however produces a lot of CO in the open air by industry, and by old and simple super cheap vehicles we had 50 years ago. The majority uses those because that´s what they can afford for now.

As we have learned, C can bond easy, so CO can be transformed to CO2 but some energy would be needed. Sun light will transform the CO to CO2, however it takes more time than producing CO in large scale. Africa doesn’t produce CO in large so the sun light can do the work.

But China does and the sun plus the air with oxygen can’t keep up, so accumulating low in the atmosphere, it pollutes locally. It blocks the sun locally, gives a light suffocated feeling, dizziness and is terrible for the lounges. That’s horrific for health indeed.

But again, CO is not CO2.
CO is unhealthy, stays low and swarms locally.
CO2 is an absolute vital life component and rises up in the atmosphere.

All political focus here today seems to be on CO2 since the problem of CO is resolved, which is very odd. It shall be demonstrated in a later graph.

Our Atmosphere

CO2 is not the main component of the atmosphere. It varies between 0.3 and 1.0% (there are different claims). This chart shows 0.38% CO2 of all gases in the atmosphere; Aspen Global Change Institute.


The green house gases regulate earth’s temperature, and these are:

CO2                          0.38%
Methane (CH4)           0.0001% (is the same as the gas from your gas stove, called LNG).
Nitrous Oxide             0.00013%
Hydrogen                   0.00001%
Water vapour (H2O)    2.00% – 3.00% (can never be higher than 4.00%).

Ozone isn’t even mentioned; averages ~0.000004%

Remember that Ozone was a big political issue and for Greenpeace ? Laugh !

High water vapour feels uncomfortable and sweaty but water has the second highest specific heat capacity of all known substances. That means it requires high amounts of heat energy to raise its temperature.
Water also has a high energy/heat requirement for evaporation, and evaporation is directly related to cooling of the ambient temperature.

So whatever politicians now try to make believe… they should go back to school on this matter…

CO2 (and also CH4) are interesting to look at, because as said, C bonds so super strong that it takes years to decay where other gases decompose faster and some even within a few days, some even near immediate. CO2 takes hundreds of years to decompose by itself. However CH4 decays within decades.

As you see, CO isn’t in it. It forms local problems for other reasons such as health which is of high priority concern, but not related to so called men made global warming.
We’ve done away with CO and smog in Western Europe, and in Eastern Europe since the Berlin wall has fallen.


During the 60s, 70s and 80s our western environment had indeed become highly polluted as in the former east bloc. Mainly CO and consumed litter everywhere. But that’s long gone. Plastics are being recycled, etc. Although plastics in ocean seems to be an issue, but that has attention.

Land here is very much cleaned up and we should be happy.

But in the mean time entire big environment business and political careers have been build up… All wanting to keep that to utilise it, as well as students find subsidies or work in that field. Checking internet, shows the total madness around CO2 alone, all profiting from it.

As we say in business… all is green, as long as we can make big bucks from it.

It all has much more to do with making big money, careers, scoring politically and taxing the public. Political green parties have established from early environmentalists and career hunters today, using environment as their unique selling point. But that all has nothing to do with science and reality of today at all.

Mind you, the next political thing just might be Methane (CH4), in other words your natural gas…

Shell and British Gas have just merged forming one of the biggest energy corporations in the world. They deliver many politicians, have politicians and bankers in their board of directors and in non executive boards, are number one in massive pollution scandalous (Africa, Ukraine, Americas, etc) and they drive direct causes of wars, crises and blockades… WWI, WWII, all of the Middle East since WWI, the Caucasus, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Africa…

Methane isn’t exactly going to be reduced whatsoever. In fact it is expanding since wars are going on about it; north Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Donetsk.

What adds up and what doesn’t

156564_mozg-ludzki-use-itDo you really believe, we living in 0.0053% (which we do not use all) can make even the smallest ripple in all air and ocean water of
700,000,000,000 km2 ??

CO2 only forms 0.38% in the total atmosphere on top of that !!

Not only that, there is much more they don’t tell us about CO2, which we shall explain further.


The IPCC is installed by the UN. It doesn’t research or measure anything. It collects data only and reports. Members of the IPCC are chosen by politics. Internal disputes made scientists leave. They saw it was a political and money driven monster and debates were not tolerated. The IPCC is mainly to service the politics which gives subsidies, so it provides some scientists with big careers and to support politics for their case. But that’s not science.

The IPCC keeps all leaving authors on their list. On the leavers own request, the IPCC did not remove them with the argument that they had contributed. The leavers argued they didn’t since they did not agree and court had to come in between. That shows how politically loaded the IPCC is.

So, if it is claimed that many scientists agree, it only means they are on the list of IPCC’s authors.
That doesn’t mean they concur whatsoever. The IPCC is just a harsh stingy beast.

Basically, I’m very familiar with these kind of government scientific institutes as well. Account managers have clear annual targets. That is, get as much subsidies as possible. All outcome of the projects for application are already determined, they are to serve pre-projected goals of commerce and politics.
That has nothing to do with science.

The IPCC isn’t different.

CO2 levels and earth’s Temperature

Ok, so I took a look at earlier and the latest IPCC reports, from NASA, MIT and Berkley university.

Interesting is that CO2 has gone up from 187 ppm over billions of years to ~270 by ~1800 when the industrial revolution began. Then it shoots up. In 2000 CO2 was 400 ppm.


Reports of 2014 shows a climb to 450.

Interesting, but we can also show the growth of donkeys worldwide…
an increase of ~20% since 1966…
Or growth of human population shows exactly the same hockey stick like CO2…

I can also make a graph showing the increase of cows since 1800… Shows exactly the same curve. Laying that over the CO2 curve, there you are, a clear correlation… cows caused more CO2…

The IPCC just picks their stuff for show…

More interesting, from 400 to 450 CO2 isn’t an actual increase of 0.12.
400 stands for… 400 parts per million (ppm)….

So the actual increase is 50 parts per 1,000,000… or 0.00005 (!)

Sure, when I present an increase from 187 to 270 and then suddenly to 450 on a graph, it shows bad… Good for a horror show…

But the actual increase is 0,00002 to 0.00003 and then to 0.00005… Alarming?

I guess, the increasing use of paperclips shows the same graph, or the number of cups of tea we all drink more since 1800… I mean…really…

Oh, then it is over population then…
Is it…

The IPCC shows that the average earth temperature has gone up very steady by 0.51 oC since 1880, not following the CO2 trend at all. NASA, MIT and Berkley show the same graph.
The graph shows it clear: a very steady average increase of 0.51 oC from 1800 to now, 2015.

616910main_gisstemp_2011_graph_lrgThat curve shows no sudden uptrends.

Over 400,000 years to present, the average temperature shows very regular pattern up and down, almost like a heart beat. All ups and downs are within the same bands and no signs of going out of trend at all.

vostokBut wait…how do scientists measure historic temperatures…

In 2003 they took arctic ice and measured the contents of CO2 all down to pre-historic layers.
So they assumed that temperature and CO2 are correlated in the first place.
If you take that as assumed correlation… it automatically calculates a temperature directly related to it, exactly as you wanted.
Who says that this direct relation is correct… It’s an assumption, not proven yet.

The prove does not exist, because the IPCC, NASA, MIT and Berkley university all confirm that earth’s temperature has been stable since 1997. Yet CO2 has gone up from 400 to 450…

We hardly can find graphs about earth’s average temperature all up to 2014 on the internet. Most stop at 2000… very handy to convince people otherwise, but that’s manipulating.
This graph shows 1997 to 2014.

Climate depotMIT and Berkeley also came to the conclusion that, although over a million parameters are measured and collected into data sets, there is no computing power available yet to do all the computations. These kind of powerful computers simply don’t exist yet.

Data is selected by the IPCC, entered and processed with loads of assumptions made in the software models, and then presented in the worst looking way.
It was also concluded that there are more unknowns than knowns

And having seen IPCC’s graphs presented, I must agree… manipulated.

Statistics can be presented in many ways. What I notice is the IPCC blows up Y axes to exaggerate curves and use tiny fractions of integers. And different time scales are presented with inconsistent conclusions in such a way that the case seems confirmed.
Also incomplete correlations are being presented, as well as important info is left out.

And interesting is that the number of measurements devices increased and changed over time. Also locations were added and changed.
Change and increase of devices, methods and locations create a pile of errors and unknown variations, known as ‘error margin’. For example, measuring temperature by UV light or by using mercury can easily give a variation of +/- 1 oC, no matter how fine they are calibrated or adjusted. And measuring more urban makes a big difference too. The devices used… really many are high tech, but also many are not at all.

Anyway, an error margin of at least +/1 oC is to be taken into account most likely.

Since the IPCC does only collect a million of data types, totally does no measuring themselves, is politicised bureaucratic on a political agenda, depending on that subsidy, using loads of assumptions, models and manipulate statistics, I really can’t see how they it ever able to have an actual clue whatsoever. Let alone understanding the more unknowns than knowns or even be credible.

Silence info about CO2

DangerVery interesting is what professors of MIT and Berkley say about CO2 as they wanted to explore effects of CO2.

Contained and raising CO2 levels made plants grow quicker in their botanical environment !!
Temperatures didn’t rise.
Quicker growing plants means they inhale CO2 faster and produce O more rapid.

Mythbusters experimented as well. They showed that temperature goes up by 1oC if CO2 was multiplied by 12,000 in a small space, the size of a home fish tank.
No plant life was in the tank.

Mythbusters concluded… “There is a relation between CO2 and temperature. Confirmed”.
I call that media propaganda because there was no plant life and CO2 was accumulated totally unrealistic overly exaggerated by 12,000x. And plants breath CO2, exhaling O.

Earth’s real rise of CO2 is 0.00005, remember ?

MIT and Berkley continues about CO2.
If there is the slightest increase of temperature, nature will correct it in many ways.
One way is that water will vaporise just a fraction of already a tiny bit more, cooling the environment down. During the small ice age in the middle ages for instance, Europe had grown vast forests in advance due to the warmer era earlier. This was the result of more CO2 available.
Deforestation began naturally as people needed the wood for many purposes.

And there are many ways nature balances. Our super tiny habitat and impact in the total zillion more area of air and water is none other than being part of a cycle. Over population isn’t even a factor in our super tiny space. And even that nature does correct. From 2050 onwards, earth’s population will decrease. But then again, population and its emissions don’t have the tiniest effect on earth’s temperature via a zillion more air + water.

A scam?

i-want-my-money-backPerhaps something has gone out of control as a huge industry derived from it.

Co-founder Patrick Moore of Greenpeace left for that reason. He said in many interviews that he saw it getting highly politicised. A small example. Greenpeace wanted to forbid Chloride totally to 0.0. Moore said… “Hold on, that’s on the periodic table and it’s a natural earth element, nature needs it, we cannot forbid it.” And so he had many fights and left.

By now, a lot of ex Greenpeace members are in the highest ranks of global politics and institutions.

Do you really believe, we living on 0.0053% can make a ripple in all air and ocean water which is a total of 700,000,000,000 km2 ??
And CO2 forms 0.38% in the total atmosphere on top of that !!

And moreover, the correlation between CO2 and temperature rise isn’t proven at all. In the contrary, it is proven that CO2 actually corrects indirectly by growing plants and trees quicker.
Worse of all, all presentations about men made global warming are full of manipulations, hammered on us daily.

Having crunched most crucial matters not done before and having unwrapped the hocus pocus, we can safely come to the conclusion that global warming is far from plausible and far from logic and analyses. It isn’t happening since the middle ages, not since 1800, not since WWII and certainly not in the last 18 years… !!

I’m not saying we shouldn’t care about our planet. I believe we should live very considerate, but I do want to separate propaganda from reality basic stuff.

But I do think it is about time to ask a pile of taxes back !
All the CO2 based taxes… really…