CLINTEL message for all Climate Realist scientists and advocates

CLINTEL message for all Climate Realist scientists and advocates June 8, 2022 For many years there has been a most instructive debate on the contribution of the natural system (continents, oceans) to the increasing CO2-concentration in the atmosphere. I followed the discussion with great interest and want to share with you the following observations and conclusions.

To start with, CLINTEL is a science-based organisation with a large network of experts on climate change and energy transition. All of us are aware that the climate system (with its many interrelated subsystems) is extremely complex and nobody has yet a good understanding of what is really going on (see the World Climate Declaration).

We see that during the past 30 years two topics are most often discussed in climate science and policy circles: I. What is the influence of the increased CO2 concentration on the temperature in the atmosphere, particularly the lower troposphere?

II. What is the cause of the increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?

The mainstream climate theory states that (1) the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of global warming ánd (2) that the increasing CO2 is caused by human activities. This explains the passionate 'War on CO2' in Western climate policies and the firm belief in climate emergency.

In CLINTEL however, we argue that there is NO question of climate emergency. In the past 160 years humanity has experienced an unbelievable boom. For the first time in history, a large portion of the world's (growing) population has an economically dignified existence. Poverty is decreasing worldwide, mortality from diseases like malaria and tuberculosis is decreasing, literacy is increasing etc. More and more children worldwide can attend school. All driven by the spectacular progress in science and technology.

In CLINTEL we also argue that there is NOT enough scientific knowledge and, therefore, there is NO scientific proof to declare that CO2 is the dominant factor in global warming. Here, it is relevant to point at the research of Will Happer and William

1

van Wijngaarden. They show that the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the smaller the increase in global warming ('increased warming returns'). In CLINTEL we argue that, apart from greenhouse gases, changes in the solar irradiation, changes in the cloud cover and changes in the big ocean circulations must be included in the research on climate change. The claim that climate change is primarily a single-factor phenomenon is most unscientific.

On the other hand, in CLINTEL we DO think that there is enough evidence to state that human activities are the main cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere (today on average 420 ppm). CLINTEL's position is not based on a specific theory, but it is fully based on measurements in the past 60 years. Here, it is relevant to point at the research of a.o. Kees le Pair and Ad Huijser. Summarising, let us look at the figure on the next page: 1. Yearly human emission (red) is large and increases fast (based on measurements in the past 60 years) 2. Yearly atmospheric accumulation (blue) is much smaller (about a factor 2) and increases less fast (also based on measurements in the past 60 years) 3. Yearly natural absorption (green) is computed by obeying the mass balance equation, i.e., human emission – atmospheric accumulation = absorption of the total natural system.

If we look at the trend data (b) we see that the total natural system is a big absorber of CO2. The amount of absorption is almost half the amount of human emission. We also see that in the past 60 years the ratio absorption/emission even did increase (c). Bear in mind that in the CO2-cycle the amount of CO2 that moves between the atmosphere and the natural system is about 20 times larger than the human emission.

2

It is scientifically a commendable and also desirable step to split the natural system in continents and oceans. However, we should realise that if we split the natural system into subsystems the problem becomes significantly more complex, because of the dynamic interrelationships between the subsystems (physical interaction). In addition, when we would look at one local situation as well, we must also include the interaction with its surroundings (spatial interaction). Altogether, a major task and, therefore, hats off for the research of Bud Bromley and his colleagues.

Anyway, whatever the decomposition, the condition must be that the combined behavior of all (local) subsystems must obey the behavior of the total system at all times.

And this means (a): 'human emission (red) – atmospheric accumulation (blue) = absorption of the total natural system (green)'. Measurements do tell us that the total natural system behaves as a big CO2-absorber that increases its relative capacity (c). The latter is due to the rising partial pressure in the atmosphere.

As a geophysicist I also look at the rich history of the Earth’s climate million years ago, hidden in the huge geological archive. If our observation window is in the order of a few hundred years only, we look through a keyhole to the climate. To understand the present, we must know what happened in the past. Therefore, let us include critical geological scientists in our research teams to inform us about the causes of the many immense climate changes that occurred far before mankind inhabited our planet.

3

The overall message of CLINTEL to the world is that there is no scientific argument to spend billions of dollars to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in order to stop the global warming. This means that the answer of question II is actually not relevant for global warming policies if the answer of question I is that the CO2 contribution is most likely to be (very) small. If we also look at the fact that more CO2 is beneficial for nature and mankind, any CO2-reduction policy should be out of the question. By the way, for those who still are worried about the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, if we would move to nuclear power plants, that problem is solved as well.

A final remark. History shows again and again that scientific research must occur without any interference of political ideologies. Free science was the source of progress in the past and will be the source of progress in the future.

Guus Berkhout President of CLINTEL www.CLINTEL.org

4