Euro Courts Infringing On Freedom Of Science…Climate Science Being Decided By Courts Instead Of By Proof

Reposted from the NoTricksZone

By P Gosselin on 19. June 2021

An outstanding essay…

An extremely dangerous political development is in full swing in Europe: Legal courts are now taking it upon themselves to decide the questions of science.

Europe‘s climate courts infringing on the freedom of science

While constantly claiming they are “following the science”, climate change partisans are in reality suppressing it.

By Fred F. Mueller

This has been blatantly demonstrated in a decision of the Karlsruhe-based Federal Constitutional Court of Germany on March 24, 2021. For many years, “Climate change Chancellor” Angela Merkel had the opportunity to staff this court with her devoted followers. The recent ruling on the Climate Protection Act of Germany’s government will certainly set a mark in history. Although the word “climate” is nowhere to be found in the current version of the German Basic Law (= Germany’s Constitution), “climate protection” and, moreover, even the “establishment of climate neutrality” have now been virtually elevated to constitutional articles. In the view of Germany’s highest court, compliance with the “2-degree target” and, if possible, even the “1.5 -degree target” of the Paris Climate Agreement even justifies considerable state interference with the civil liberties enshrined in the Basic Law.

The first right of freedom now to be marginalized is the freedom of research and teaching, as is documented in the written opinion of court President Stephan Harbarth and his seven fellow judges in the first chamber: The Federal Constitutional Court considers itself authorized to decide on scientific questions by judgement instead of by scientific proof, as is usually the case. This might be regarded as a kind of reversion to the Middle Ages, when people who relied on their own intellect were considered as a thorn in the side of the religious and political rulers of that era. Such independent spirits dared to put into doubt everything that was put before the people by princes and priests.

In the centuries of conflict between the natural sciences on the one hand and the religious and secular elites on the other, the verdict of the Catholic Inquisition against Galileo Galilei – an outstanding founder of modern science – marked a turning point in some ways. His trial was basically about whether a subject was allowed to clarify the processes in nature through experiment and logic or whether the rulers – at that time the Catholic Church with the help of inquisition courts, which also exercised secular power up to burning at the stake or incarceration – also had the final say in this matter. After the scandalous verdict against Galileo, the church lost more and more of its prestige.

The natural sciences, on the other hand, were able to gradually assert themselves in a long, tough struggle, even though it took the Catholic Church until 1992 before Galileo Galilei was officially rehabilitated. Secular courts, on the other hand, had been much more reluctant to trying to legally “clarify” scientific questions. Customarily, it was accepted that in physics, chemistry or mathematics, neither majority opinions nor court rulings apply, but only logic, experiment and evidence.

Figure 1. Henry’s law in action: CO2 dissolved under pressure in sparkling water outgases when poured, forming bubbles (Photo: Author)

It is all the more surprising, therefore, when a secular court nowadays sets out to elevate the views of just two academic bodies to quasi-binding constitutional requirements. The first of these is the IPCC (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), which for years has been presented as the world authority on climate issues. The second source of justifications for this epochal ruling is the German Advisory Council on the Environment (SRU). This body was staffed by the government with hand-picked specialists, all of whom hold professorial titles. They have expertise in numerous fields such as medicine, biology, waste and recycling, environmental law and research, and political science. Just one member – a physicist and geographer – has the background required to assess climate science issues. The deputy chair of the SRU is Prof. Kemfert. This telegenic economist and staunch supporter of the “climate change” narrative has been hyped up to become a media and talkshow star. Although she is presented there as highly competent in energy issues, she is de facto just a steadfast lobbyist of the solar and wind energy industry. She also occasionally attracts attention by using terms from the vocabulary of an obscure neo-Marxist sect.

Henry’s Law Declared irrelevant

The scientific victim of the Karlsruhe ruling is Henry’s Law, which hardly anyone would be able to describe if asked about it on the street. Yet its effects are well known, since it has a visible and audible effect every time one opens a bottle of sparkling water or a can of soft drinks: Gas bubbles form in the beverage over a longer period of time with an intense hissing sound. This gas is CO2, which the bottler had previously added to the beverage under high pressure, causing it to dissolve in the liquid. When the bottle is opened, this pressure drops and the CO2 is forced out of the liquid again in the form of gas bubbles.

Figure 2. This statement by the Federal Constitutional Court contradicts Henry’s Law

Henry’s law also explains why fish suffocate in midsummer because the oxygen content of warming water drops below the minimum threshold, or why divers can suffer severe health damage from nitrogen bubbles in their blood when they surface too quickly.

Figure 3. Henry recognized that there is a constant exchange of gas molecules at the interface of water with the air, resulting in an equilibrium between the “internal pressure” of the gas in the liquid and its partial pressure in the atmosphere (Graphic: Author)

The basics of Henry’s law are easy to grasp: The interface between water and air is well permeable for gas molecules, who constantly migrate from the atmosphere into the water and vice versa from the water into the atmosphere. After some time, an equilibrium is established where the number of molecules migrating in each direction per unit of time becomes equal. One can imagine the whole thing in such a way that the gas in the liquid is under an “internal pressure” which brings about a balance of its pressure share (partial pressure) in the atmosphere. If for example, the nitrogen content of the atmosphere were suddenly increased, additional nitrogen would dissolve in the water until a new equilibrium is restored. This law also applies to all other gases in the atmosphere. The results can be calculated quite simply with the help of the so-called Henry constant.

These relationships were recognized and scientifically investigated as early as 1802/03 by the English physician and chemist William Henry (1774 to 1836). Henry’s law describes the influence of pressures and temperatures on the quantity of gases dissolved in water. He probably never imagined that his findings would be challenged by top courts in faraway Europe more than 200 years later. But exactly that happened in Karlsruhe.

Figure 4. This court statement too contradicts the findings of William Henry.

Key statements of the Karlsruhe ruling

Crucial statements in the Karlsruhe ruling are:

– Only small portions of anthropogenic emissions are absorbed by the oceans and the terrestrial biosphere…

– The large remainder of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, however, remains in the atmosphere over the long term, accumulates, contributes to the increase of the CO2 concentration and thus has an effect on the temperature of the earth.

– Unlike other greenhouse gases, CO2 does not leave the Earth’s atmosphere naturally over a period of time that is relevant to humanity. Every additional quantity of CO2 that enters the Earth’s atmosphere and is not artificially removed from it….therefore permanently increases its CO2 concentration and leads to a further rise in temperature.

The more water there is, the more gas it can hold

The ratio of the total amounts of a particular gas in the atmosphere and in the ocean depends on the total amounts of it in the water and in the atmosphere. This is easy to understand: If you increase the amount of water, you also increase the amount of gas it must absorb to restore pressure equilibrium, given the same pressure and temperature conditions. Since our oceans are huge in relation to the atmosphere, they contain many times more gas than the atmosphere itself.

Figure 5. The more water there is, the greater the amount of gas that must dissolve into the oceans until equilibrium is restored (Graphics: Author)

Figure 6. With its statement, the Karlsruhe court is in contradiction not only to Henry’s law, but also to findings e.g. made by the NOAA (US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Organization)

Since it is known what quantities of CO2 are contained in the atmosphere and in the ocean, respectively, it is quite easy to calculate, assuming constant temperature and air pressure conditions, what fractions of an additional amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere by humans will remain in the atmosphere and how much of it will dissolve in the ocean. In 2008, the Earth’s atmosphere contained an approximate 3,000 gigatons of CO2 (1 gigaton = 1 billion tons). The equilibrium amount of CO2 dissolved in the oceans is about 140,000 gigatons, about a factor of 50 higher. This results in a ratio of 98 to 2. According to Henry’ Law, therefore, of each additional ton of CO2 introduced into the atmosphere, about 98% or 980 kg will be permanently dissolved in the oceans. Claims about a climate catastrophe due to humans “littering of the atmosphere with CO2” resulting in a “self-immolation” of humanity as well as any calculations of “CO2 residual budgets” based on this false claim contradict elementary scientific findings. This misjudgement is also at the base of the recent judgement of a Dutch court against Shell. And more lawsuits of this caliber are underway thought Europe.

Figure 7: The exchange of CO2 between the ocean and the atmosphere is evaluated quite differently by scientists such as Prof. Andrew Watson than by the German Federal Constitutional Court, which, however, has given its interpretation quasi-constitutional status.


4.8 22 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 20, 2021 2:29 am

Nick will be along shortly to tell us the German Court is correct.

Reply to  lee
June 20, 2021 3:23 am

Yes. The stuff in the article about Henry’s Law is wrong. That law refers to an equilibrium between just CO2 and water, but the vast majority is present as carbonate and bicarbonate. CO2 still is transported down an activity (partial pressure) gradient, but other equilibria come in as well.

But the main thing is it has the idea of equilibrium (with all ocean) which is never going to happen. Exchange is basically between the air and surface layer, with much slower transport to depth.

In fact the airborne fraction, the amount that stays in the air, has been quite steady at about 44%.That isn’t a Henry’s Law equilibrium factor; as explained here, it is a result of the exponential increase in pCO2, and the transfer function, which works out as linear. It is a dynamic relation.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2021 4:54 am

The link on airborne fraction is very well written thanks.

It always amazes me number of the morons here who go: Boo! Nick Stokes , boo! and down vote whatever he says without having the slightest criticism or counter argument to raise.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Greg
June 20, 2021 9:37 am

Because Nick tends to use argument to obfuscate larger truths. Here, it is a court making non-scientific claims to bolster ideology.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2021 5:43 am

But are you happy with legal bigwigs making scientific assertions rather than scientists, Nick?
I know it may sound daft, but I always thought science was decided in the lab, not the courtroom.

Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
June 20, 2021 9:51 am

Legal bigwigs have to make decisions. And to do that, they sometimes have to figure out what science has to say. Would you rather they ignored science?

They aren’t telling people they can’t have an alternative belief about the science. They are just making a determination about what is to be done subject to a certain set of facts, which is their job.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2021 10:53 am

Would you rather they ignored science?

Absolutely they should. In fact they should recuse themselves of such matters as there is no legal basis to determine science.

They are just making a determination about what is to be done subject to a certain set of facts, which is their job.

Wrong. The court’s job is to rule on law, not science. Often a judge will rule that the matter before the court cannot be adjudicated for lack of legal merit.

You appear to be confused about both science and law.

Reply to  Rory Forbes
June 20, 2021 1:17 pm

Courts very frequently have to decide on matters of fact.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2021 2:22 pm

They don’t “have” to do any such thing. In civil courts the standard of proof is, ‘the preponderance of evidence’. The judiciary is not qualified to determine scientific fact. Belief has no more to do with science than consensus does. Scientific fact can only be judged by accuracy of measurement not judicial capriciousness.

Yes, many courts do support the politicians who try to legislate from the bench (they love the power). That doesn’t make it right.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2021 8:09 pm

And yet CO2 hypothesis on any warming is not proven fact. Also I didn’t see where the German court decided anything on Henry’s Law.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 21, 2021 9:53 am

If figuring out what science has to say involves listening to that litigious charlatan Mike Mann, then any legal decision they make will be hopelessly wrong.

Eric Vieira
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 21, 2021 11:49 pm

“A certain set of facts”: that is the problem! Ideology tends to consider only the “facts” that confirm the party line. Even if these facts are contradicted by “unwanted facts”: published experimental evidence and data… Then it would clearly be better that they ignore science and leave this to more qualified personnel…

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2021 6:06 am

So we’re all gonna die?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2021 6:23 am

You talk about the “exponential increase in pCO2” and imply that the large increases in anthropogenic CO2 deposited in the atmosphere are driving dangerous man made global warming.
If you read the post here, “New NASA Study Claim: Earth has been trapping heat at an alarming rate,” reposted from Dr.Roy Spencer, you will see it is pointed out that the 0.5 to 1.0 W/m2 increased energy imbalance there discussed in the new paper ( against an estimated natural energy flows of 235-245 W/m2 in and out of the climate system on an annual basis) is much smaller than our knowledge of that flow and is approximately 1 part in 300.
In their amicus Curiae brief to Judge Alsup in the Cal.v. BP litigation, in March 2018,Professors Lindzen, Happer and Koonin state,
”Human influences on the Climate are a small (1%) perturbation to natural energy flows”.
They back it up with CSSR figures and a chart showing Radiative Forcing between 1750 and 2011.
As they state,
“Isolating and predicting the effects of such a physically small influence in a chaotic,noisy system where we have limited observations is not an easy task.Not only must we have the large parts of the system understood to high precision but we also have to be sure we’ve accounted for all of the other phenomena operating at the 1% level.”
Dr.Tim Ball has also made the same point.
Despite your repeated efforts, the science is not settled, and the UNIPCC position is looking increasingly flawed.
Indeed as Steve Koonin points out in his recent book, it is most “Unsettled”.

Reply to  Herbert
June 20, 2021 9:58 am

“You talk about the “exponential increase in pCO2” and imply that the large increases in anthropogenic CO2 deposited in the atmosphere are driving dangerous man made global warming.”

No, I’m not implying that (here). I’m just talking about gas concentrations, per the discussion on Henry’s Law and the airborne fraction which the judges rightly referred to. Strictly, it is an exponential change over time in the excess over the previous 280ppm level. And that is what we have had, and it produces an exponential change in dissolved CO2, which keeps the airborne fraction constant. That makes it look like Henry’s Law, but it isn’t. It is dynamic,

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2021 3:29 pm

Hey Nick, what exactly is the optimal CO2 level? 280ppm seems a bit low for my liking.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2021 7:10 am

“result of the exponential increase”

Like so many others, you are fooled by the emotional triggers that alarmist rhetoric invokes. Lets review some of the words and phrases used to reinforce fear among the scientifically ignorant. Whenever you hear these, you need to take a step back and consider what they really mean.

runaway warming – We don’t really know how much it will warm as the result of CO2, but if it we scare people enough, we can justify using climate reparations to hamstring the developed world to the benefit of China and the rest of the developing world.

existential threat – We don’t really know how much it will warm as the result of CO2, but if we scare people enough, we can justify using climate reparations to hamstring the developed world to the benefit of China and the rest of the developing world.

exponential increase – We don’t really know how much it will warm as the result of CO2, but if we scare people enough, we can justify using climate reparations to hamstring the developed world to the benefit of China and the rest of the developing world.

tipping point – We don’t really know how much it will warm as the result of CO2, but if we scare people enough, we can justify using climate reparations to hamstring the developed world to the benefit of China and the rest of the developing world.

I can go on and on, but I rally don’t want to sound like Lori Lightfoot …

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2021 7:59 am

Your explanation is made up junk, you throw around a couple of junk equations show a correlation and that is the extent of your proof.

We are left with some half arse statement about a transfer function (one big hand wave) and a dynamic relation (another big hand wave).

Please stick to statistics you suck at science.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2021 9:35 am

But the court ruled that the vast majority of it remains in the atmosphere. Who ya gonna believe? The court or your lying eyes?

Reply to  lee
June 20, 2021 4:07 am

People talk a lot about Henry’s Law without giving a statement of it. They attribute more than it says (eg temperature dependence) and ignore caveats.

Here is a version from an online textbook

Henry’s law is one of the gas laws formulated by William Henry in 1803 and states: “At a constant temperature, the amount of a given gas that dissolves in a given type and volume of liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in equilibrium with that liquid.”

That’s all. And the caveats:

  • Henry’s law only works if the molecules are at equilibrium.
  • Henry’s law does not work for gases at high pressures (e.g., N2(g) at high pressure becomes very soluble and harmful when in the blood supply).
  • Henry’s law does not work if there is a chemical reaction between the solute and solvent (e.g., HCl(g) reacts with water by a dissociation reaction to generate H3O+ and Cl− ions).
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2021 4:43 am

The direct proportionality “only works” at equilibrium, the sense of the relationship of quantity disolved and pressure is still there.

However, I agree that whole discussion of Henry’s law here is pretty much a red herring and the fact he gave so much time to discussing it probably means the author does not understand it.

Last edited 1 year ago by Greg
Barnes Moore
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2021 4:47 am

The larger question is, why is it that climate alarmism is based solely on the belief that a single variable controls climate? Climate alarmism belief can be summed up in one simple statement – if we can control Co2, we can control the climate. As Richard Lindzen noted “In punching away at the clear shortcomings of the narrative of climate alarm, we have, perhaps, missed the most serious shortcoming: namely, that the whole narrative is pretty absurd.” The Imaginary Climate Crisis: How can we Change the Message? A talk by Richard Lindzen – Watts Up With That?

Reply to  Barnes Moore
June 20, 2021 7:50 am

” … why is it that climate alarmism is based solely on the belief that a single variable controls climate?”

The reason they do this is because simple lies are how you can push an agenda that’s contrary to a complex truth.

Few understand how physics, including the most basic first principles like Conservation of Energy, applies to the climate system. If they were truthful and said that the climate system is driven by the Sun as a slave to an atmosphere self organized by clouds whose steady state is dependent on nearly every factor you can think of, CO2 becomes relegated to the minor influence it is, which is not what they need to justify their Marxist agendas.

Tombstone Gabby
Reply to  Barnes Moore
June 20, 2021 8:29 pm

G’day Barnes et al,

“…solely on the belief that a single variable controls climate?”

[Quote] Principles Governing IPCC Work, “…to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. [End quote] (bolding added)

So, the Intergovernmental on Panel Climate Change (IPCC) was tasked with finding a human cause for global warming. Natural variations were to be ignored. The question was, what are humans doing now that they didn’t do earlier? “Well, there’s more carbon dioxide in the air.” “Fair enough, let’s go with that.” And so they did…..

Rich Davis
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2021 5:08 am

Quite a lot of obfuscation Nick. The real world is always more complex than the abstractions that we use to model it. That does not mean that the Bundesverfassungsgericht is correct in their absurd ruling.

By your own account, they are dramatically wrong, unless 56% be considered “only a small portion”.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2021 5:38 am

“Henry’s law only works if the molecules are at equilibrium.”. Sorry, Nick, but that’s incorrect. The molecules seek equilibrium, and Henry’s law tells you which way they will move in order to achieve it.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
June 20, 2021 6:07 am

Yes. Thermodynamics set the equilibrium state, kinetics determine whether it will get there.

Reply to  Scissor
June 20, 2021 9:39 am

Well, kinetics determines how fast it will approach.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2021 3:53 pm

There is never equilibrium in nature, and all systems are building themselves to a critical state.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
June 20, 2021 9:38 am

Sorry, Nick, but that’s incorrect.”
That is a direct quote from the textbook. And it’s true. Henry’s law only says that if you have equilibrium at a certain p_gas, and then p_gas changes, when the new equilibrium is reached, the concentration in solution will have changed proportionally to p_gas. Subject to the caveats.

It’s true that if you are out of equilibrium, , there will be a flux tending to achieve it. But Henry’s Law didn’t say that.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2021 1:53 pm

This is just more of your usual sophistry, Nick. The implication of Henry’s Law clearly supports the conclusions that the author made. It’s as if someone had $999,999,999.99 and you dispute that they have a billion dollars. You’re nitpicking about precise language when the distinctions you demand do not change any conclusions. So technically you are correct, but your attempt to imply that the argument is wrong constitutes deception.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2021 6:01 am

Reactions drive the distribution ratio of a gas and are very much the driver for partition coefficients of Henry’s law.

Reply to  Scissor
June 20, 2021 9:46 am

Yes, but the reactions are not subject to the linear dependence on pressure that Henry’s Law states.

For example, if CO2 is dissolving in a dilute carbonate solution, it will appear very soluble as long as unreacted carbonate remains. But when it has all been converted to bicarbonate, then further solubility will be much less.

Phil Rae
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 21, 2021 7:25 am

“But when it has all been converted to bicarbonate, then further solubility will be much less”

That’s a bogus comment, Nick! The species (carbonate, bicarbonate and dissolved CO2) are in a dynamic equilibrium so there is never any situation at realistic worldly concentrations where all the carbonate will be converted to bicarbonate.

That buffering system is robust thankfully…….and is one of the most important equilibria for life on planet Earth.

Reply to  Phil Rae
June 21, 2021 8:07 am

It is presented as an extreme example of failure of linearity. But in fact any significant proportional change in carbonate concentration will produce a response that is nonlinear in pCO2. And the sea is at the acid end of the carbonate/bicarb buffer, so that can certainly happen.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2021 8:15 pm

As I wrote above the German court did not rule on Henry’s Law. That is a straw man.

Equilibrium is a human construct. If we had equilibrium there would be no glacial/interglacial periods.

Last edited 1 year ago by leefor
Reply to  lee
June 20, 2021 8:39 pm

the German court did not rule on Henry’s Law”
I agree. But Gosselin says
The scientific victim of the Karlsruhe ruling is Henry’s Law”

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2021 9:30 pm

But I said the German court in my first post. Not Gosselin.

William Capron
Reply to  lee
June 20, 2021 4:48 pm

You mean Nick Stokes and Griff, tag-team trolls? Right on queue, there Nick was.

Reply to  William Capron
June 20, 2021 5:05 pm

Right on queue, there Nick was.”
No, tag teams work in parallel.

John Endicott
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 21, 2021 8:49 am

Wrong again Nick, Tag teams work in sequence, one member of the team can not enter the ring until tagged in by the other member (who then leaves the ring). working in parallel indicates they’re working at the same time rather than alternating.

June 20, 2021 2:45 am

Why do lawyers always think they know everything. Typical Germans however, their history is riddled with political will overuling common sense.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Sparko
June 20, 2021 3:30 am

Since they rightfully feel extremely guilty over what they did in WWII, they now feel a need to be more “progressive” than any other country.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 20, 2021 6:25 am

Why should anyone who was born after WWII feel any guilt over what happened during the war?

This is like liberals telling all whites that they have to suffer to make up for things that other whites did 200 years ago. Even if your ancestors weren’t even in this country at the time.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  MarkW
June 20, 2021 6:54 am

They shouldn’t but they do, apparently, why else is Germany so politically correct?

Abolition Man
Reply to  MarkW
June 20, 2021 7:12 am

Why I, coming from a long line of Abolitionsits and freedom fighters, should feel guilty over past injustices is beyond me! I know that the neo-Marxists want to label anyone they fear and don’t like as evil oppressors; but the truth is that the barracoons of Africa were manned almost entirely by Africans of other tribes and nations, and Muslims from Moorish Africa and the Middle East!
Why anyone would propose reparations for the US, which received less than 3% of the African slave trade, and ignore Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and the many other nations involved in the slavery; only highlights the disingenuousness of their claims! It’s all about the Benjamins!
For those that claim that the Islamic Slave Trade was more humane than the Atlantic, please point out the enclaves of African ancestry still living in the Middle East!

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 20, 2021 6:59 am

German totalitarian ruling of today is in the same spirit as German totalitarian ruling of the 1940s. If you call it progressive today, the “Fuehrer” was also a progressive ruler, and so was the Stalinist Ulbricht. After all it is not the National component that made Nazism so dangerous and devastating, but the Socialist/Collectivist/Totalitarian part. And that is alive and well in Germany today, with four of six parties (Linke, Grüne, SPD, AfD) openly embracing Socialist ideas, and the larger of the remaining two (i.e. Merkel’s CDU) also being very sympathetic to Socialism. The only staunchly capitalist and bourgeois party (FDP) has a support of maybe 6% of the voters and serves mostly to keep up an illusion of plurality.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 21, 2021 11:03 pm

In which case they should also feel guilty about what their courts did to Martin Luther, 500 yrs ago, but I doubt they would understand their fanaticism extends historically so far back in time.

Even some of their greatest cultural figures of the 19th century fell foul of the German courts and state.
Richard Wagner was exiled.

TBH, nothing quite comes close to the Russian emulation of the Germanic state lunacy, – internally exiling Andrei Sakharov…

Having courts decide or interprete anything rational is a very dangerous precedent.

“The law is an ass!” Charles Dickens.

Reply to  Sparko
June 20, 2021 6:18 am

Legal systems seek a resolution to an issue that is usually decided on a relatively short timescale. Legal answers are often wrong, heavily weighted toward the side that is better funded.In the end, lawyers get paid whether they will or lose, are right or wrong, and they will use whatever tactic or argument suits their client’s case.

Common sense and truth are convenient but not necessary. Confidence can be a great tool of persuasion.

June 20, 2021 2:57 am

Nowadays, when a politician has no scientific argument to rely on, he imposes his beliefs through law, censorship and repression.

Exactly like in the days of Staline and A. H.

We are living in an extremely sad and dangerous time for humanity.

June 20, 2021 3:04 am

It is so because I say that it is so.
Yet another example of narrative first, followed by supporting data adjusted to fit the narrative.

Last edited 1 year ago by Philip Mulholland
Ferdinand Engelbeen
June 20, 2021 3:21 am

One problem here: the exchange of CO2 between atmosphere and ocean surface is fast (indeed less than a year), but with the deeper oceans it is much slower: about 50 years e-fold decay rate.

The total amount of CO2 in the ocean surface is about 1,000 PgC, in the atmosphere about 800 PgC. But the buffer capacity of the ocean waters is limited to about 10% change in the surface water vs. a 100% change in the atmosphere…

A 100% change in the atmosphere gives a 100% change of dissolved CO2 in the surface waters, but dissolved CO2 is only 1% of all inorganic carbon species (DIC) in the surface. The rest are bicarbonates (90%) and carbonates (9%), which are not involved in Henry’s law…

The judgement is based on a long residence time of any extra CO2 in the atmosphere, which is based on the Bern model, but that model is completely wrong for the main sink places where CO2 sinks into the deep oceans, which are largely undersaturated for CO2, but still limited in their uptake…

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
June 20, 2021 4:24 am

The rest are bicarbonates (90%) and carbonates (9%), which are not involved in Henry’s law…”
In fact they negate Henry’s Law. They enter into reaction with CO2 in a way that is not linear with partial pressure.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2021 6:28 am

No. CO2 reacts with water and that impacts its distribution factor between gaseous and aqueous phases. There are just different coefficients that apply to different conditions, e.g. different temperatures. The law still applies.

Reply to  Scissor
June 20, 2021 8:05 am

The funny part is in his own webpage he talked about integrals so he knows what they are but clearly not when to use them 🙂

Reply to  Scissor
June 20, 2021 10:08 am

If it is just reacting with water, that is true. The mass action expression would be
and it is linear because [H2O] is constant, water being greatly in excess. But if entities like [CO₃⁻⁻] and [HCO₃⁻] enter into the mass action, they are no longer constant, and the linearity is lost.

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
June 26, 2021 6:16 am

“dissolved CO2 is only 1% (…) in the surface. The rest are bicarbonates (90%) and carbonates (9%), which are not involved in Henry’s law…”

The 1% being H2CO3 and CO2 which are in a VERY delicate equilibrium with each others, the other carbonate species and the temperature. They are VERY much involved in Henry as all four species are a result of atmosphere-ocean flux based on temperature (salinity).

As you increase temperature in our oceans, you increase pCO2. The CO2 is released to balance pressures.

(Hence it might “look” like bicarbonate and carbonate are being reduced i.e. giving a lower pH-buffer as they convert to CO2 to and H2CO3 to maintain carbonate species balance. This happens simulaneously as CO2 and H2CO3 are increased -aka “acidification”-. Alas the logic here is utterly and completely turned on it’s head as compared to the warming release action.)

Bicarbonate and carbonate along with CO2 and carbonic acid DO NOT MOVE from their respective delicate fractions 90%, 9%. 0.9% and 0.09% (or approximations thereoff based on temperature and for a minor part, salinity)

A sustained attempt of increasing one of the species (oversaturation) would be met with “clouding out” the CO3– to allow HCO3- to convert to CO3–, for H2CO3 to convert to HCO3-. A sustained attempt of decreasing one of the species (undersaturation) would be met with the opposite reaction.


Ron Long
June 20, 2021 3:22 am

Hey, Giordano, what’s that I smell burning? CAGW is the New Religion, and we have to wonder if they will reach the level of the Inquisition, on deniers and skeptics, because it looks like they are heading in that direction.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Ron Long
June 20, 2021 3:33 am

It’s a new kind of Inquisition where skeptics are ignored, not getting funding, not getting promoted and tenure. Burning them won’t happen as that’ll release too much “carbon pollution”. 🙂

June 20, 2021 3:25 am

Henrys Law states only 16 ppm CO2 outgassing of per degree C.
Equilibrium CO2 level in the atmosphere (per Henry) is now 296 ppm. See Dietze.

Reply to  Hans Erren
June 20, 2021 3:35 am

That is equilibrium with pre-industrial air. But if you add CO2 to the air, that changes that.

In fact Henry’s Law does not say anything about outgassing per degree. It just says there is a partition coefficient, at any temperature. It doesn’t say anything about how that varies.

Last edited 1 year ago by Nick Stokes
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 21, 2021 11:20 pm

so how do explain that the same Jurassic,Permian and other prehistoric periods had Co2 concentrations in the 1000s of ppm which of course got fixed in the ocean covered rocks, but the earth is still here, and prospers at 400ppm+, while not so long ago, Eifel & upper rhineland was a giant volcano.

Do German courts do anything but ignore science or don’t they even look at the basic rocks Germany is built on?

Fred F. Mueller
June 20, 2021 5:31 am

1, the first issue here is that jurists arrogate to themselves powers that amount to a breach of virtually all modern constitutions.
2, the reference to carbonate and bicarbonate ions is correct in principle, but does not change the overall argumentation at all. The entire reaction chain is interconnected via physicochemical equilibria, any change at a seam leads to balancing reactions along the chain until the equilibria are re-established. And that happens pretty quickly.
3, The 98 to 2 ratio between ocean and atmosphere is an IPCC finding. Numerous published statements about the rate of extensive uptake range from a year (see NOAA quote) to a few decades. There are numerous publications on this subject. This alone makes the court’s assertions absurd.
4, The oceans are constantly mixed by complex three-dimensional currents. The uptake of CO2 is therefore not controlled by diffusion alone, but by convection. And these convection processes are chaotic in nature and defy description by simple mathematical formulas. This is true both for the near-surface regions and for the entire body of water. The conditions are much more complex than implied by your publication Stokes.
5, What is completely missing from your considerations is the binding of CO2 to calcium carbonate (mussels, plankton, corals, etc.). Ever thought about how much calcium carbonate rock there is on earth? And why this rock is of biological origin, as the fossils hidden in it prove? These mechanisms are still at work today. Enormous amounts of CO2 are still constantly being converted to carbonate rock in the oceans and thus permanently sequestered. The IPCC claim of the 44% is not proven by any law of nature, it is simply an admission that one has no scientifically valid explanation for these measurement results.

And finally, here´s a quote I deem significant: It is important to note the silliness in measuring CO2 levels around the globe and assuming that the average has some statistical meaning. Look at the data in Table 3. Simply based on ocean temperature around the equator, CO2 levels are well over 400 ppm, while levels in Antarctica are similar to those found during ice ages. This, obviously, has to be the case to get an average somewhere between these two extremes. This really puts into question the validity of ice-core data as a proxy for “global” CO2 levels. It is difficult to understand how samples of ice taken from Antarctica could represent global CO2 levels in violation of Henry’s Law.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Fred F. Mueller
June 20, 2021 8:02 am

Fred, about:

  1. Agreed.
  2. Agreed, but the response of total C of the ocean surface is only 10% of the change in the atmosphere, not 100%. That is the Revelle/buffer factor. The deep oceans are highly understurated, but these are only connected with the surface over a small area.
  3. The IPCC assumes a saturation of the sinks for the CO2 uptake, that is what the Court says, which is true for the ocean surface, but not even in sight for the deep oceans (but limited in transfer rate) and certainly not true for vegetation for the long future. The IPCC uses the Bern and similar models, which are wrong.
  4. Despite the chaotic nature of all CO2 fluxes, the average net CO2 uptake by oceans + vegetation is highly linear over the past 60+ years: about 2%/year of the pCO2 difference between atmosphere and equilibrium pCO2 of the oceans (currently about 290 μatm). See graph for the theoretical increase in the atmosphere, based on a linear sink rate.
  5. The carbonate formation and dissolving (by CO2 containing rain/rivers over carbonate rocks) is app. in equilibrium and much too small to play any role in the main CO2 fluxes.
  6. The IPCC doesn’t claim anything about the 44%, that figure only is what is measured and may be zero or negative tomorrow or twice human emissions. That figure only depends of human emissions and the net sink rate. The latter only depends of the total extra CO2 pressure in the atmosphere above equilibrium (whatever the source), not human emissions of one year.
Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Fred F. Mueller
June 20, 2021 8:27 am

About global CO2:

There is little difference in CO2 levels in the atmosphere between near the North Pole (Barrow) and the South Pole. That is a mistake you made.

There is a lot of difference between the pCO2 (equilibrium partial pressure) in the hot waters of the equator and the cold waters near the poles.
That makes that a lot of CO2 sinks with the polar waters into the deep oceans, to return some 1000 years later near the equator. In total some 40 PgC/year.

That doesn’t change the CO2 content of the atmosphere much as only the difference between sinks and upwelling changes the amounts in the atmosphere. That difference is directly in ratio to the extra CO2 in the atmosphere…

Doug Huffman
June 20, 2021 5:55 am

Read James Franklin’s The Science of Conjecture: Evidence and Probability Before Pascal (to which I would add Proof – Evidence, Probability and Proof)

June 20, 2021 6:05 am

I guess ocean “acidification” something we don’t have to worry about anymore. One less thing.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Gretl
June 20, 2021 8:09 am

Never did have to worry about it

Reply to  Pat from kerbob
June 20, 2021 12:45 pm


CO2 is magic. Some portion of “excess” atmospheric CO2 is taken up by the ocean, and it kills fish and coral when we need that to be the case. Can’t you understand that simple scientific fact?

June 20, 2021 7:08 am

More evidence that Climate Change is politics —an official state religion—more than science. When the alarmists can’t make a case with their flawed models and unproven theories about an average temperature that no human being in history has ever experienced, they go to court for a decree. Probably before a judge that has been indoctrinated by warmists (as recently reported by this site). Real scientists should be appalled.

Albert Ellul
June 20, 2021 7:16 am

Some years ago I carried out the following simple math calculation. Each time I presented it to climate doomsayers all I had as a reply from them was crickets. SO here we go:

Note: The folowing numbers are in Gt of Carbon (not CO2) or fractions of.

Total Carbon in atmosphere ~800 Gt
Total Carbon in oceans and water bodies (hydrosphere) ~37,000 Gt
Total Carbon emitted by by human activity 10Gt per year.

According to Henry’s Law, the atmosphere (gas) and the hydrosphere (liquid) are in a constant state of equilibrium with regards to gases dissolved into them, CO2 included.

Hence the total quantity of Carbon dissolved into the combined system (Hydro- and Atmo-spheres combined interacting according to Henry’s Law)) is ~38,000 Gt.
Man’s contribution is 10 Gt every year, emitted continuously along the year every second, hour day of the year.

This anthropogenic emission works out at being just 10/38,000 which results in a ratio of 0.000263:1, or 0.0263% in a span of time of ONE YEAR.

But those 10 Gt of annual C are not emitted every new year at midnight while everyone is singing Auld Lang Syne, but are emitted continuously at a rate of 10/365 Gt every day, or at 0.0274Gt of C into a sink of 38,000 Gt. The insignificance of this value is tantamount to adding a pound of fodder to the daily feed of a herd of 1000 buffaloes foraging on an infinitely large fertile prairie.

The irrelevancy of of this value of anthropogenic carbon emissions compared to the massive value of C dissolved as CO2 in the carbon sink is so astounding that once one realises the great significance of the insignificance, one will go into shock, mumbles a few words and walks away, unless one starts asking questions like: Wow, this is so simple an explanation, how come nobody told me about it?

Reply to  Albert Ellul
June 20, 2021 10:13 am

According to Henry’s Law, the atmosphere (gas) and the hydrosphere (liquid) are in a constant state of equilibrium with regards to gases dissolved into them, CO2 included.”
No, Henry’s Law doesn’t say anything like that. And it obviously just isn’t true. It takes a very long time for CO to be transported to depth to establish a new equilibrium when surface pCO is raised.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Albert Ellul
June 20, 2021 10:21 am

Albert, one small problem: the deep oceans where most of the C is flowing around is near completely isolated from the atmosphere, with only a small area where the cold waters sink near the poles and water from the deep is upwelling near the equator.
Only the “mixed layer” the few hundred meters ocean surface is in direct contact with the atmosphere.
Thus while your calculation of relative quantities is right it takes a lot of time to get the extra CO2 from the atmosphere in the deep oceans. The e-fold decay rate is about 50 years, or a half life time of around 37 years. Too slow to absorb all human emissions in the same year as emitted…

Henry’s law works only for the surface, not for the deep oceans, except for the sink places and upwelling places…

Fred F. Mueller
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
June 20, 2021 12:13 pm

do you think the NOAA statement cited in the article is a baseless speculation of laymen?

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Fred F. Mueller
June 20, 2021 3:27 pm

Fred, have you read that statement?

It takes about one year to equilibrate CO2 in the surface ocean with atmospheric CO2

You probably missed the word “surface”, which is way smaller than the whole oceans…

App. carbon in:
atmosphere: 800 PgC
ocean surface: 1,000 PgC
deep oceans: 38,000 PgC

Fred F. Mueller
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
June 21, 2021 12:37 am

in the surface ocean, you have an enormous CO2 absorption by photosynthesis in addition to any physico-chemical reactions. This is even recognised by the IPCC in its diagram “The carbon cycle”, where they show an annual biota-related uptake of 50 PgC, of which 11 PgC/a are transferred into the deeper water layers. Compare these 11 PgC/a to the 8-9 PgC/a of human fossil fuel burning and cement production. It’s not all or exclusively about Henry’s law, the oceans are a very complex system. And the European courts are thus all the more on a very wrong trajectory.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Fred F. Mueller
June 21, 2021 6:04 am

Fred, I do agree that courts have no insight in technical matters.
That doesn’t change the fact that humans are responsible for the CO2 increase in the atmosphere…

What is observed is that the total inorganic content of the ocean surface increased, while the pH decreased in the last decennia. That is only possible if the net CO2 flux is from atmosphere into the ocean surface, not reverse…
See the graphs in:

What the organic cycle does is of zero interest, because that is a cycle and as long as the inputs are equal to the outputs, there is no change anywhere.
As the oxygen balance shows, the total biological cycle (land + oceans) is more uptake than release, thus the biosphere as a whole is not responsible for the increase of CO2 and derivatives in atmosphere and oceans.

Reply to  Albert Ellul
June 21, 2021 12:42 pm

Good. Now figure out how much carbon is sequestered every day by ocean critters making shells.

Abolition Man
June 20, 2021 7:31 am

The biggest mistake the author makes is to assume that this court was secular!
The fact that they are taking up matters of scientific inquiry shows that they have donned their ecclesiastical robes, and become a de facto religious tribunal!
Nick and his little buddies can prance and preen all they want about what they believe, but the science is unequivocal! We are in a low CO2 era with temperatures fluctuating between glacial and interglacial due to processes NO ONE fully understands! The decrease of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 500 million years indicates that anyone with intelligence and concern for the survival of life on Earth should be ecstatic that humanity has inadvertently released the fundamental building block of Life back into the atmosphere and caused our planet to start greening at a level not seen in tens of thousands of years!
I suspect that part of the reaction of GangGreen to the skeptical nature of much of the science of geology will be to call for the burning of the heretical texts! Can’t have the little kiddies finding out that they have been lied to for decades, and that there is no climate emergency!

Reply to  Abolition Man
June 20, 2021 7:43 am

Now that is real Just-In-Time in action, something industry repeatedly bungles.
The biosphere sudden O2 Event just as the old version was dying, then we appear.
This is of course excluded by the Limits to Growth crowd who do describe a dead economy.

Lance Wallace
June 20, 2021 7:31 am

Ice core results show 8 Glacial periods of about 100,000 years and intervening interglacials, such as the current Holocene, of 10-15 thousand years. In all 16 switches from one (possibly chaotic attractor) to the other, the temperature rises or falls FIRST, followed about 600 (+_ 400) years later by the CO2. This alone is sufficient to bely the idea that CO2 is the cause of temperature change, since an effect cannot precede the cause

So, what is happening here? Perhaps this is Henry’s law in action, because if it takes a while (600 years?) for the oceans to warm up then the release of CO2 to the atmosphere due to Henry’s Law would be expected to follow the same time schedule.

Comments from Ferdinand and NIck are welcome.

Reply to  Lance Wallace
June 20, 2021 10:21 am

I comment endlessly on this. Yes, glacials are the result of orbital drivers to temperature, and pCO₂ changes in response.

If you eat arsenic, you will die. Lots of people who die have not eaten arsenic. That doesn’t change the fact that if you eat arsenic, you will die.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2021 1:15 pm

Arsenic – the “Poison of Kings” and the “Saviour of Syphilis” (
No idea what you mean by that syphilitic- sorry silly, comment.

Reply to  bonbon
June 20, 2021 5:08 pm

Putting CO2 in the air will cause warming.
Warming has in the past, happened for other reasons.
That doesn’t change the fact that putting CO2 in the air will cause warming

Rich Davis
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2021 3:23 pm

It is the dose that makes the poison, Nick. We have all ingested arsenic without meeting our demise. It is, after all, a stable natural element present in the environment and thus in our food and drinking water to some extent. In the US, the EPA sets a standard of <10ppb As in drinking water, even though the average arsenic content of wine is 23ppb. source:

The LD50 for arsenic is 13mg/kg, so a 75kg man will need to eat almost a gram to have a 50% chance of dying. Your arguments are similar to declaring that if someone opts to drink wine rather than water, that they would likely die. To ingest 975mg As from 10ppb As drinking water, we would need to drink an impossible 97,500 liters all at once. But the deadly wine would only take 42,391 liters. I don’t recall ever getting past 2 liters, though.

This is actually an apt analogy that you have raised. It is just as likely that going from pre-industrial 0.028% CO2 to a doubled 0.056% CO2 will be fatal to the climate as going from 10ppb drinking water to 23ppb wine would be fatal to us. (And egads! there are apparently some wines with up to 76ppb As!)

The fact that increased CO2 results in some increased warming, while true, must be evaluated as to its significance. (I say “while true, nevertheless not significant”. The fallacy that you promote is “if true, therefore necessarily significant”).

What this comes down to is that you think that 0.05% or 0.06% CO2 in the atmosphere is a “dose” that will be fatal to the climate, based on an unfounded faith that ECS is two or three times higher than it is in reality, and at the same time, that CO2 emissions will be much higher than in all likelihood are physically possible.

That, in the face of the evidence that much higher CO2 concentrations have not been harmful in the long record of the paleoclimate. I say that if we entered the Ordovician glaciation with 0.4% CO2, we are not going to burn up with 0.06% CO2. It is the same as saying that if wine with 76ppb arsenic has not k!lled people, then going from 10 to 20ppb in our drinking water will not k!ll them either.

Last edited 1 year ago by Rich Davis
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 21, 2021 12:46 pm

We all eat and drink arsenic. The issue is “how much, how fast”.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Lance Wallace
June 20, 2021 10:32 am

Lance: according to Henry’s law, the current CO2 level in the atmosphere would be around 290 μatm (~ppmv) for the current average ocean surface temperature.
The real CO2 pressure is 415 μatm, which is a lot higher than in the ocean surface, thus the CO2 flux is from the atmosphere into the oceans and since about 1850 CO2 levels in the atmosphere precede temperature…

Which doesn’t imply that CO2 has a high influence on temperature…

James Donald Bailey
June 20, 2021 7:44 am

in a related vein, in the US the courts are considered as finders of facts. This means that they are ruling on things like medical, scientific, and ecologic issues all the time. these aren’t studied reviews, but argumentative ones with the two sides being responsible for witnesses. often, the best bullshitter wins.

Whether its politics, courts, or even some business trying to make a decision, very few people want to hear all the caveats and uncertainties that are present. Bold assertions win over, everything else is viewed as waffling and being unsure.

Pat from kerbob
June 20, 2021 8:06 am

We saw the same here in canada this year with the SC ruling on the constitutionality of the carbon tax.
The court agreed it’s ok to trash the constitutional separation of powers due to the “climate emergency”, meaning they made it all up.

Albert Ellul
June 20, 2021 8:42 am

The climate religionists have also found a godess whom to adore and offer sacrifices to. Her name is Greta the Truant. She is convincing children not to attended classes, especially science classes, which serves so well the globalist nihilists who prefer ignorance of the crowd rather than knowledge. Knowledge is the enemy of religionists while knowledge is the mother of progress.

Clyde Spencer
June 20, 2021 9:20 am

The scientific victim of the Karlsruhe ruling is Henry’s Law, …

A frequent commenter here, Ferdinand Engelbeen, claims that increasing atmospheric CO2 can’t be coming from the oceans because of a relatively small outgassing resulting from temperature increases. As is often the case, it is the unexamined assumptions that lead to problems.

To whit, Ferdinand relies on average tropospheric air temperature increases to make such a claim. However, it is the thin film of water at the surface that is the critical temperature determinant. If there has been a change in cloudiness, then the surface water may well be warming more than the average sea surface temperature below the thin film. That same thin film is cooled by evaporation. Has anybody looked?

Alarmists contend that we can expect more violent and more frequent storms. That means greater windiness. When the surface of a water body is whipped up, the agitation tends to drive off dissolved gases more quickly, if they are out of equilibrium with the partial pressure difference, such as occurs with warmed surface water or deep water that upwells. Has anybody looked for evidence of increased windiness?

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 20, 2021 10:46 am

Clyde, if over 3 million samples of seawater all over the oceans show a change of about 16 ppmv/K, then it makes little difference if the wind blows harder or not (that increases the exchange speed, but doesn’t change the equilibrium). It is the local ocean water temperature that dictates the local pCO2 of the waters, not the atmospheric temperature or pCO2, which latter difference is very small from near the North Pole to the South Pole. The local pCO2 in the surface waters is extremely different between the cold polar waters and the hot equatorial waters…

There is no recorded huge change in thin film heating or cooling over the years or cloudiness or solar strength that would have a huge impact on the CO2 equilibrium between ocean surface and atmosphere, compared to 115 ppmv extra CO2 pressure above the average equilibrium over the whole surface…

Albert Ellul
June 20, 2021 9:20 am

In 2013, Scientist Robin Wylie, who was then a doctoral candidate in volcanology at University College London wrote an Op-Ed in the scientific journal Live Science, titled: Long Invisible: Research Shows Volcanic CO2 Levels Are Staggering. He was reporting on his discoveries and about how much we don’t know about volcanoes and their CO2 emissions. His conclusion was that
“If these additional ‘carbon-active’ volcanoes are included, the number of degassing peaks skyrockets to more than 500. Of which we’ve measured a grand total of nine percent. 

Ocean volcanoes are the elephant in the room, and nobody has told climythology godess Greta the Truant yet.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Albert Ellul
June 20, 2021 10:51 am

Albert, measuring near one of the most active and largest CO2 emitting volcanoes in the world, the mount Etna in Italy, shows that all land based volcanoes together emit less than 1% per year of what humans emit.

Undersea volcano emissions are completely dissolved into the deep ocean waters, due to the high static pressure there and the undersaturated waters for CO2 at that temperature.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
June 20, 2021 3:33 pm

A sample of one? Are you aware that the extinct volcano that created the Long Valley Caldera in California is releasing enough CO2 that it was killing trees in a forest service campground, and consequently the campground was closed before the CO2 killed some people? A thermal imaging study that I did showed that there were many hot springs in the caldera; most were not documented. It wouldn’t surprise me to discover that there are similarly many unknown CO2 sources.

Even if all the underwater CO2 sources are completely dissolved in the deep water, it isn’t going to stay there. Eventually, it will make its way to the surface. So, episodic events from the past may well create episodic outgassing that can easily be missed. The timing has to be right, the location has to be right, and the researcher has to realize that an anomalously high value isn’t an outlier to be discarded as bad data.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 21, 2021 12:08 am

Clyde, if during 10,000 years the CO2 levels remained the same +/- 10 ppmv and since 1850 they started to increase exponentially at about half the rate of human emissions, it seems quite unlikely that it is caused by increasing volcanic activity, completely synchronous with human emissions.

Moreover, the 13C/12C ratio of volcanic CO2 is higher than of the atmosphere, while we see an unprecedented drop in ratio in the past 170 years compared to the previous 800,000 years…

And the deep oceans “recycle” a lot of CO2 by carbonate deposits at one side and CO2 emissions from subduction volcanoes on the other side. Hardly a change in carbon balance…

Rich Davis
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 21, 2021 3:23 am

What do we see from satellite evidence? (Not a rhetorical question, I don’t know if there’s any evidence of CO2 hot spots near potential volcanic sources)

I’m persuaded by Ferdinand Engelbeen’s arguments (subject to revision if satellite data contradicts). There’s his argument from Henry’s Law that net flux is from the atmosphere, there’s isotopic evidence showing a shift in carbon isotopes correlated to fossil fuel use, there’s also the argument from mass balance which I have presented here several times in the past.

The claim that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration is due primarily to natural ocean outgassing rather than our emissions is not supported by any evidence, but is contradicted by several lines of evidence.

It is not necessary to prove that CO2 concentration rises are mostly natural in order to argue that the increase is not dangerous. Indeed it could have been dangerous even if mostly natural, and if so, it would clearly be inadvisable to add to the problem with further fossil fuel emissions.

So I don’t understand the dogged interest in asserting that anthropogenic sources are not responsible for the rise, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

The only argument that justifies continued fossil fuel emissions is the reality that the observed transient climate response to increased CO2 of whatever origin is too small to be of concern. That is the line of argument that I pursue.

Fred F. Mueller
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
June 21, 2021 12:12 am

ANY CO2 added into the deep sea will affect the balance within the system ocean/atmosphere within the same time span as any CO2 added into the system by land-based human or natural sources. Claims that underwater CO2 sort of “disappears” in the deep ocean waters do not reflect reality

Rich Davis
Reply to  Fred F. Mueller
June 21, 2021 3:50 am

It “disappears” into the cold undersaturated deep water in the same way that water “disappears” off your body in a bone dry desert.

Now obviously that is not a permanent “disappearance”. Eventually there is upwelling and outgassing, just as water evaporated in the desert eventually rains out. It will take centuries perhaps, depending on the location of the volcanic sources relative to the upwelling sites and deep currents.

If FE is correct, and those sources are very small, it won’t matter at all. If CS is right, it still won’t matter, if volcanic emissions are consistent over long time periods—the same amount outgasses each year and thus cannot explain a sudden sustained increase as we have seen.

To be plausible, there would have to have been heavier than normal undersea volcanic outgassing in the period from around 1100-1400 AD, following a period of low volcanic activity. I’m not aware of an evidence to support such a hypothesis.

That would still run up against all the other lines of evidence.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 21, 2021 9:02 am

… if volcanic emissions are consistent over long time periods

I don’t think that is a safe assumption. Even Kīlauea is episodic over long time periods. It is well accepted that, throughout Earth’s history, there have been periods during which volcanic activity has been much greater than in historic times. Some geologists have gone so far as to suggest that civilization as we know it exists only because of lower than average volcanic activity.

We know very little about undersea activities along the globe-circling mid-ocean spreading centers. Occasionally, seafarers will come across patches of floating, volcanic pumice rafts, with no record of the undersea eruption that caused them.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 21, 2021 2:20 pm

I didn’t assume that. My point was that you need to assume a sudden increase in activity centuries ago that ended up synchronizing with the timing of anthropogenic fossil fuel burning after the lag due to slow deep currents. That is, the 600-900 year lag has to have serendipitously lined up with the start of our fossil fuel use, and then the volcanic activity also has to have ramped up in the same way that fossil fuel emissions ramped up (only centuries earlier by pure coincidence).

Then if we grant you that extensive series of deus ex machina events, you still need to explain the shift in carbon isotope ratios. Not to mention the mass balance problem.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Fred F. Mueller
June 21, 2021 7:07 am

Of course there will be an increase of the deep ocean C content by a lot of CO2 emissions from undersea volcanoes. But even if that is 10 times the quantity that land volcanoes doe, that are small quantities and more or less in equilibrium with what the oceans loose as carbonate deposits.
As long as there is zero proof that all volcanoes in the world suddenly started in 1850 with linear increasing CO2 emissions up to now, that is just an assumption…

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
June 21, 2021 9:09 am

… all volcanoes in the world suddenly started in 1850 with linear increasing CO2 emissions up to now …

Or, 1,000 years earlier. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In the spirit of Chamberlain’s Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses, all plausible hypotheses should be considered, and then individually eliminated by showing their improbability or impossibility. We know so little about the ocean bottoms that I’m not sure that is even currently possible.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 21, 2021 11:57 am

Clyde, let me show the improbability of an increase in undersea volcanic activity…

Let’s assume that the current inorganic C content of the oceans is around 38,000 PgC as the IPCC estimates.
CO2 in the atmosphere increased about 40% between 1850 and 2020 and still is increasing.
The only way that undersea volcanoes can have caused that is by increasing the ocean carbon content with 40% between 1850 and 2020 and still are increasing its C content.

That is a lot of CO2 from deep magma to release: about 10,800 PgC in 170 years time into the oceans (from where?), while there is zero evidence for such an increase in the deep oceans: A German research ship did take samples of the deep oceans even in the 1930’s…

Gordon A. Dressler
June 20, 2021 9:26 am

This, coming from the same part of the world that was able to justify The Inquisition and burning witches at the stake.

Should we be waiting for the proverbial other shoe to drop?

Fred F. Mueller
June 20, 2021 10:28 am

2 + 3, I have a different notion of the oceans. The bulk of the oceans is circulated slowly but constantly by deep currents that move enormous volumes. These currents are driven by gravity: warm surface water is driven towards the poles, cools down there, becomes denser and finally sinks into the depths. While cooling, it absorbs more and more CO2 (thanks to Henry’s law) in a layer thickness of presumably more than 100 m before it starts its journey into the deep sea. Additional factor is the melt water from glaciers and sea ice in the summer months. This is “pristine” at the moment of melting, i.e. contains no CO2, and therefore greedily sucks it up from the atmosphere to transport it into the depth as well. These currents pass through the deep sea toward the equator, eventually coming back up somewhere in warmer regions. When they arrive at the surface, their CO2 content is altered (increased) by 1: metabolic processes in the deep sea in which living organisms have converted oxygen with organic matter to CO2, 2: CaCO3 has returned to solution at great depth (lysocline), which also raises the CO2 content, and 3: volcanoes and black smokers have released unknown but probably significant amounts of CO2 into the water. When these water masses resurface in milder latitudes and warm, they release CO2 into the atmosphere in large quantities. These mechanisms are virtually unexplored and not even approximately quantifiable.
The Revelle factor is a pure correction factor to bridge significant differences between expected and measured values. There is no proven scientific mechanism for it. The IPCC models for the CO2 cycles in the ocean are mostly highly inaccurate.

4, The steadiness of the CO2 increase recorded so far at Mauna Loa can only be explained by a mechanism of extremely large inertial mass. I cannot imagine that this is due to anything other than a steady, slow warming process of significant portions of the near-surface ocean waters. This warming water releases CO2 into the atmosphere. Seasonal variations can be easily explained by the difference in the amount of water that the sun shines on in summer and winter over the southern and northern hemispheres, respectively. Oceans absorb much more solar energy than land masses, and land masses dominate the northern hemisphere; the reverse is true in the south. Of course, if the political backers of science only can think of CO2, such obvious avenues will never be investigated.

5, here I think that you are correct.

6, The 44% is, as correctly noted, of no scientific relevance. Nobody has a realistic explanation for it, especially in light of the fact that what really goes on in the ocean is not even marginally known. Instead, gigantic amounts of money are spent on models, all based on the assumption that 1: CO2 increases are man-made and 2: there is a greenhouse effect of any significant magnitude caused by them at all. So no wonder they deliver only one result: garbage in, garbage out

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Fred F. Mueller
June 20, 2021 11:59 am

Fred, about:

2+3: More is known about the quantities of CO2 that ocean waters transport into the deep oceans than you think.
The amount of CO2 releases from human use of fossil fuels is rather accurately known, including its 13C/12C ratio, which is much lower than in the atmosphere.
If all human CO2 would remain in the atmosphere, that would give a certain drop in 13C/12C ratio. But that is diluted by the deep ocean CO2 circulation which removes the current isotopic mix out of the atmosphere and returns the isotopic mix of ~1000 years ago at a much higher 13C/12C ratio.
By looking at the observed drop in 13C/12C ratio, one can see what the real CO2 circulation over the deep oceans was: around 40 PgC/year:
That was independently confirmed by the speed of which 14C from the atomic bomb tests is removed out of the atmosphere.

Fresh water (from glacier melting, or rain water) contains little CO2 compared to seawater.

The Revelle factor is not a “fudge factor”, it can be calculated for any set of observations like (bi)carbonates, pH, salt content,…

4+6: There simply is no natural cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, as both the oceans and the biosphere are proven net sinks for CO2 and humans emit twice the amount of CO2 as found as increase in the atmosphere (or you violate the mass balance!):
or plotted together:

In fact just the result of the near monotonic linear increase of human emissions per year, which makes a small exponential increase in emissions, together with a small exponential increase in the atmosphere and thus a small exponential increase in sink rate. That gives a rather fixed ratio between increase in the atmosphere and emissions…

That humans are certainly the cause of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is supported by all known evidence:

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
June 20, 2021 3:38 pm

What can you tell us about the isotopic fractionation of carbon as it outgasses from the oceans?

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 21, 2021 12:26 am

Clyde, that is known:

Transfer oceans – atmosphere -10 per mil
Transfer atmosphere – oceans – 2 per mil
Ocean – atmosphere cycle (if in equilibrium) – 8 per mil

Ocean surface: 1-5 per mil
Deep oceans: 0 per mil
Average pre-industrial atmosphere: -6.4 +/-0.2 per mil over the Holocene
Change since 1850: -1.8 per mil

Fred F. Mueller
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
June 20, 2021 8:14 pm

I fear that despite your undoubted knowledge of certain details of the CO2 cycles on Earth and in the oceans, we will not find common ground. What strikes me is that you seem to ignore the influence of volcanism. It’s hardly a scientific approach when you cite further above the results of CO2 measurements from a single volcano to support your point. CO2 is released by most volcanoes even when they are “extinct”. Do you have a realistic idea of the quantity of CO2 outgassing in the giant Yellowstone area? From a volcano whose last eruption was more than half a million years ago? Or in the Phlegraean Fields near Naples, where there are about 40 other “hidden” volcanoes besides Vesuvius. Or look at New Zealand
In the Eifel there are crater lakes of volcanoes that have been “extinct” for 15000 years. Even today, CO2 gas bubbles are constantly popping up there. Thousands of terrestrial volcanoes are constantly outgassing CO2. The number of submarine volcanic outgassing sites literally dwarfs these, because it is here, at the seams of the continents like the mid-Atlantic ridge, that the earth’s crust continues to crack over tens of thousands of kilometers, releasing giant volumes of magma and volcanic gases. There aren’t any realistic assessments about this, there are no measurements, and it is grossly unscientific to ignore this in considerations of the ocean CO2 cycle, as the IPCC or USGS constantly do. They should at least admit that their considerations are falsified by a significant but unquantified influence. But such admissions would put their monthly pay checks in jeopardy…
Second point is your stubborn silence about the biological activity of the oceans by sequestration of CO2 through calcification. This is also a significant factor, but not mentioned by the IPCC, let alone quantified, in any consideration of the CO2 cycle in the oceans. As a Belgian, you don’t have far to go to the huge lime deposits in the region around Wülfrath. Look at the hundreds of meters thick limestone deposits there. All this was once atmospheric CO2, removed from the atmosphere by living creatures and sequestered over millions of years. And there are limestones all over the Earth. Do you have data on the C13/C12 ratios in them? You present yourself as a skeptical scientist. But with your statements, you are too close to what the IPCC produces in unclean “science”. That really disappoints me.  

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Fred F. Mueller
June 21, 2021 1:30 am


As I already responded to Clyde, simply said: there was a rather flat CO2 level 285 +/- 10 ppmv and a flat 13C/12C ratio, -6.4 +/- 0.2 per mil δ13C, in the atmosphere over the past 10,000 years (the Holocene).

Since about 1850. Humans emitted over 200 ppmv of CO2 at average -24 per mil δ13C.
Since about 1850 we observe an increase of 115 ppmv CO2 and a change of -1.8 per mil δ13C.

Most of the time it is easier to eliminate the impossibilities than search for the possibilities:

If the oceans were the cause, that would decrease the total C levels in the ocean surface and increase the pH, but we see the reverse: C levels do increase, while the pH decreases, thus the net flux is into the oceans not the other way out.

If the biosphere (land + oceans) were the cause, that would imply that a huge part of all vegetation was burned/decayed/eaten, while all indications show that the earth is greening (and the O2 balance proves that), thus the total biomass (land + oceans) is increasing.

Volcanoes? Again, δ13C level higher than in the atmosphere, thus not the cause of the δ13C drop. And volcanic activity which suddenly increased since 1850, exact at the same rate as human emissions?

BTW, that single volcano is one of the five most active volcanoes of the world. Subduction volcanoes like mount Etna spew at least 10 times more CO2 in the atmosphere (from the carbonate rocks driven under the volcano) than deep magma (Iceland, Hawaii) volcanoes. They have measured the emissions on far more grounds, including Yellowstone and then extrapolated for other volcanoes and calderas…
And I know, the Eifel is spewing stinking SO2 and H2S too, have been there several times…

The carbonates dropped everywhere by coccoliths have a δ13C ratio of around zero per mil. PDB Pee Dee Belemnite carbonate rock was used as the standard for the δ13C scale, later a fixed value of 13/12C ratio in the Vienna conference, now called the VPDB standard when the rock got exhausted…
Thus both rock weathering and subduction volcanic CO2 is around zero per mil δ13C. Deep magma volcanic CO2 is between -4 and -7 per mil δ13C, thus also mostly above historical δ13C levels.

There is no need at all to know anything of any natural CO2 cycle in the oceans or atmosphere. All what you need to know is in the simple formula of the mass balance: as long as the increase in the atmosphere is smaller than human emissions, nature is a net sink for CO2, not a source. No matter if any individual CO2 flow changed or not, even doubled or reversed: that doesn’t matter at all…

I have looked at all aspects of what the IPCC and others, including a lot of skeptics said and have weighted the evidence.
The IPCC and climate science is wrong on many things (including the Bern model for the long residence of CO2 in the atmosphere), but they are completely right on one point: the recent CO2 increase in the atmosphere is caused by humans, besides a small (10-20 ppmv) increase due to a warming ocean surface.
Every single observation supports that.
Every alternative explanation violates one or more observations.

Last edited 1 year ago by Ferdinand Engelbeen
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
June 21, 2021 9:33 am

If the oceans were the cause, that would decrease the total C levels in the ocean surface and increase the pH, but we see the reverse: C levels do increase, while the pH decreases, thus the net flux is into the oceans not the other way out.

The claim is suspect because all the historical measurements have been ignored in favor of a model used to estimate historical pH.

… as long as the increase in the atmosphere is smaller than human emissions, nature is a net sink for CO2, not a source.

Even though the NET result is for nature to be a sink, because flows go both ways, that doesn’t mean that natural emissions can’t influence such things as the carbon isotope ratio. I think a more detailed analysis than averages or net results is warranted. Because sinks can ‘compete’ for the available CO2, if the anthropogenic emissions were reduced, or eliminated entirely, I don’t think the evidence is compelling that the there would be a 1:1 correspondence in the decline in atmospheric CO2 concentration. I suspect that is why NASA has been able to document declines in surface ozone and NOx levels, but not CO2 during the pandemic.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 21, 2021 12:42 pm


The historical pH measurements where based on glass bulb pH meters with an accuracy of more or less 0.1 pH unit
Impossible to see a change of 0.1 pH unit in 170 years.
Modern colorimetric (fully automated on commercial sea ships) have a resolution better than 0.001 pH unit.

Fortunately, any variable in seawater can be calculated from two other known variables, that includes the pH. As other variables (like total alkalinity, DIC,…) were measured with much better accuracy, the ancient pH levels could be calculated with much better accuracy…

To be sure, one has the values for different ocean monitoring stations with overlapping periods for both methods, here for Hawaii, see Fig. 1:

There is even an online calculator for the pH if you know the other variables from a regular commentator here (Nick Stokes):

The natural CO2 fluxes do influence the isotopic ratios, that is the reason that the drop in 13C/12C ratio is only 1/3 of what would be the case of all human emissions remained in the atmosphere. 2/3 is already exchanged with CO2 from other reservoirs, but that doesn’t change the quantities, only the composition.

As the sink rate only depends of the extra CO2 pressure in the atmosphere above equilibrium, that doesn’t stop if we stop all human emissions. At that moment, the same amount would sink in oceans and vegetation as the year before at about half human emissions. Slowly going to zero when the equilibrium is reached again (if ever). The e-fold decay rate is about 50 years or a half life time of about 37 years.

Again, the detection limit of the NDIR method for CO2 is 0.2 ppmv, to course to detect a smaller change in one month…

Last edited 1 year ago by Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
June 21, 2021 11:58 pm

except 2 fatal flaws in your arguments:-

You don’t have any valid measurements for atmospheric Co2 over the last 10 000 years.

2 periods approx 1000 yrs apart were considerably warmer than today – up to 2C. The MWP and the 1st century AD. Neither of them caused a “climate emergency”, indeed it meant parts of the arctic were green, with no ice cover which it follows were being fed with atmospheric Co2…

Being as Co2 follows temperature, it follows you should be attempting to correlate why global temperatures rose out of the “mini ice age” and that global temp has become very much an optimum over the last 60-80yrs, –
not attempting to claim that humans rather than natural cycles have caused the Co2 rise (which is still just about adequate to support life).

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  pigs_in_space
June 22, 2021 8:28 am

No valid measurements of CO2?

Come on, we have ice cores, where ancient air is preserved with all its traces of CO2, CH4, N2O,… including all isotopic changes and in the latest decades new man made chemicals like CFC’s.
Except if you have any proof that these measurements are wrong.
BTW, the objections of the late Dr, Jaworowski from 1992 were already rejected in 1996 by the work of Etheridge e.a. on three ice cores at Law Dome.

Of course there was no “climate urgency” from a warmer climate, warmer is better, colder is bad for flora and fauna. I am not a “warmist”…
But it is clear from the ice core measurements and from direct measurements, that the influence of temperature on CO2 levels is small: about 16 ppmv/K. The MWP-LIA dip in temperature caused a dip of about 8 ppmv in the high resolution Law Dome DSS core.
Thus temperature is NOT the cause of the current CO2 increase, humans are. All evidence points in the same direction…
Since about 1850, the CO2 levels precede the temperature increase, but that doesn’t imply that CO2 is the main cause of the temperature increase, that is an entirely different discussion…

June 20, 2021 1:03 pm

comment image

June 20, 2021 1:12 pm

The Courts rule by politics and force and science is supposed to rule by fact and reason. When politics and force rule over science it is no longer science. Science can only be called science when it conforms to scientific method.

Reply to  Greeboz6
June 20, 2021 1:51 pm

There is no ‘scientific method’ – Feynman came close with the belief in ignorance of experts.
See Edgar Poe – Melonta Tauta :

Poe: Mellonta Tauta (
To choose between the swine Bacon, and Aries Tottle is for the birds.

June 20, 2021 1:41 pm

Has anyone here ever heard of Carl Schmitt? All jurists today are trained in this stuff. Remember Ashcroft?
Textualism being the key word.
Does anyone realize what his guy Carl Schmitt made ‘legal’ in the 1930’s?
Just wondering who they will declare the ‘leader’- Greta or prince Charles? Maybe Mark Carney likely looking for Trudeau’s job?

Geoff Sherrington
June 20, 2021 6:14 pm

Henry’s law is named after the English chemist William Henry, who studied the topic in the early 19th century. In his publication about the quantity of gases absorbed by water (Henry, 1803), he described the results of his experiments: “[. . . ] water takes up, of gas condensed by one, two, or more additional atmo15 spheres, a quantity which, ordinarily compressed, would be equal to twice, thrice, &c. the volume absorbed under the common pressure of the atmosphere.”
That is all from the original William Henry research. Nothing about equilibrium, nothing about temperatures (apart from constancy to aid laboratory research).
Equilibrium can be many things in this discussion. As a chemist, I take ‘equilibrium’ to be a condition sought by chemical systems during reorganisation. Regarding Henry’s Law (so-called) one meaning of equilibrium takes in the mind to a pocket of air above some water in a flask, waiting for appearances of change to disappear before taking measurements. That is a far different scenario to the atmosphere interacting with the sea surface as both of these are in many stages of temperature, pressure, motion, evaporation, spray, chemistry and so on.
It is not axiomatic that a “Henry’s Law constant” for a gas like CO2, determined in a laboratory setting, can be extended to the wild environment. For an example, in the laboratory case the respective volumes of air and water are often held constant, so that there is a fixed quantity of CO2 to be partitioned. In the ocean setting, this constraint does not apply. There is a very large pool of oceanic CO2 available to meet the air. The rate that it is absorbed or outgassed becomes is a dynamic consideration that has not been adequately quantified and which almost certainly will vary in magnitude and direction from one place in the ocean to another. There can be further considerations such as the difference between sea water and purified lab water, particularly with the chemical species such as bicarbonate that enter the equations.
The current take on the rate of uptake of CO2 from air to ocean might be broadly correct, by accident or design, but that remains far from established. It is poor science to assume that all is known well enough to be involved in political decisions of significant global consequence.
Current estimations that a 1 degree C change in ocean temperature will affect about 15 ppm of CO2 in the air are not firmly based. They have the capacity to distort proper understanding, be that by an activist, a chemist – or a judge, before whom this matter should never have been taken. Geoff S

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
June 21, 2021 11:31 am


It makes little difference if you take a lab sample of seawater waiting for equilibrium or – as happens today – measure continuously either by bubbling air trough a stream of seawater from the ship’s inlet and measuring the pCO2 in the air or reverse, spraying inlet water in a stream of air…

If the waters are warmer (near the equator), that leads to a higher equilibrium pCO2 in the water and thus a flux from water to air. Is it colder, the flux is reverse. When fluxes are in equilibrium, you will find the same pCO2 in the atmosphere as for a single sample at the same average temperature.

Indeed all what Henry’s law says is that for a fixed temperature, the ratio between the partial pressure of a gas in the atmosphere and in solution is fixed.
If the temperature changes, of course the solubility also changes, but that too is known. Here for different gases at 1 bar in the atmosphere:
For 0.0004 bar pCO2 it is a lot smaller.

Of course, that is for fresh water, but for seawater that is known too, at about ten times what fresh water can have. That is called the Revelle or buffer factor, thanks to the reversible reactions with (bi)carbonates and H+.

The oceans were explored over the decennia and all measurements put together in a nice report by Feely e.a. in 2001 with over a millions samples. Here the results:
The average difference between pCO2 in air and pCO2 in surface waters is about 7 μatm, that is good for about 2 PgC entering the ocean surface from the above atmosphere.

Current estimations that a 1 degree C change in ocean temperature will affect about 15[16] ppm of CO2 in the air are [not] firmly based. [corrected by me]…
They are based on meanwhile over 3 million direct seawater samples and that delivered a correction factor to correct for the temperature difference between the ship’s inlet (“Tin-situ”) and the equilibrator (Teq) somewhere in the engine room:
(pCO2)sw @ Tin situ = (pCO2)sw @ Teq x EXP[0.0423 x (Tin-situ – Teq)]

Moreover, even the very long time ratio between temperature and CO2 levels shows the same difference between glacial and interglacial periods over the past 420,000 years in the Vostok ice core, recently confirmed by the 800,000 years long Dome C ice core…
The ratio is about 8 ppmv/K, but for Antarctic temperatures, for global temperatures that gets about 16 ppmv/K…
The discrepancies (mostly during cooling periods) are mainly form the (long) lags of CO2 changes after T changes…

Where we do agree, is that a court has not the knowledge, nor the institutional power to judge over such questions. Or they put themselves on the chair of the law makers…

June 20, 2021 6:39 pm

One aspect that’s not been communicated by the leftist climate alarmists. None of them tells anyone just how much of the anthropagenic warming, if there is any, is caused by the concentration of atmospheric CO2.

One of the statements made by this court is that, since CO2 concentration has been increasing, it is causing warming.

Paul Johnson
June 20, 2021 9:05 pm

Why not go a step further and declare the value of pi to be an even 3.0? That would make many volume and area calculations much simpler.

Snidely Whiplash
June 21, 2021 6:10 am

Other than being fundamentally wrong about Galileo it’s a good and interesting article.

Joe Dun
June 21, 2021 1:05 pm

It is worth noting that Galileo had rejected the elliptical paths of the planets promoted by Kepler, in favor of the perfectly circular paths that Copernicus promoted. Consequently, his ability to predict the paths of the planets was not accurate. And in fact, the crystal spheres around the earth, as promoted by Ptolomy, were more accurate and favored by the educational institutions.

Galileo was certainly not simply a man promoting his own inaccurate view of science. He also played politics, and made the effort to publish a book, using a very thinly veiled analogy, to call the pope a fool. So, he played politics with powerful men, and ended up losing in that battle. Of course, the Roman Catholic church was wrong to prosecute him as they did. But, people often use the case of Galileo to vilify the RC church, without really delving into the details.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights