Climate Change : When Facts Change ? Sun Shine + CO2 + H2O Latent Heat = ?

After the summer of 2017AD, confused about all the climate change deniers and all the climate change believers, i said : "potverdekke" and felt a real strong urge for suddenly starting to study the reality of climate change as a simple country boy from Belgium but : potverdekke it's great to be a Belgian

Global warming believers and deniers could agree to disagree on the future of climate but at least agree on the present climate and the climate of the past and basicly the pole-ice is the only reliable thermometer of global climate change with a nice red stable behaviour although ice melts a little in summer and grows back in winter as you see on the bleu curve in the graph above.

Soon as climatology starts measuring the total square kilometers of the pole-ice-water-circle with fractional latent heat at melting temperature, around the pole-ice-circle then we will be able to see the real trend toward the real future of climate.

But about the sea-level-rise :

How large were the pole-ice-caps 20 millennia ago ?

From the pole down to half of Belgium i was told and that is about half the total surfance of the globe with 6685km radius.

Globe Surface Area = 4 times 3.14 times radius squared = 561.581.363,8184853 square km.

Half of that is : 280.790.681,9092427 square km.

Today the average arctic ice surface is 10 000 000 square km.

5 000 000 square km after the summer

15 000 000 square km after the winter

280 790 681 - 10 000 000 = 270 790 681 square km less ice today compared to 20 millennia ago.

10 000 000 divide by 280 790 681 = 0,03 = 3% of the pole-ice is still there now.

3% of 120 meters = 4 meter maximum sea level rise if the average thickness has not changed ...

But then between winter and summer the sea level should go 4 meter up and down now ??

We have not seen that yet ...

Also on the poles, the ice-cap must have been thicker than in Belgium for sure and much thicker than today, i suppose ...

Too difficult for me to calculated as we do not have the numbers for the thickness of the ice from pole to Belgium at the end of last ice age.

IPCC says 6 meter sea level rise, but my 4 meter is only 33% off ...

But 4 or 6 meter all around the globe equal sea level rise will not happen because 1000 liter water are 1000kgf at the pole and only 995kgf at the equator so the melt water will go preferably down to the equator where the centrifugal force of the earth rotation is the strongest. So Belgium will not see a lot of sea level rise, i guess potverdekke it's great to be a Belgian

Not to deny global warming nor the CO2 peak because both are real today.

But : is "more global warming" creating "more CO2" or is "more CO2" creating "more global warming" ? Like in the riddle of the chicken and the egg, who came first ?

Chicken came first out of the egg or the egg came first out of the chicken ?

But CO2 can only absorb a heat photon and then send a heat photon away like a chicken would first eat an egg and then lay an egg in the nest to replace the egg after eating one ...

Famers are smart enough to put the "egg eating chicken" in the soup for souper like temperature puts CO2 back in the ocean as you will see further down in this story of my climate study.

Climate is potverdekke complicated stuff but we do the best we can and try to explain it as simple as possible but not simpler than that in the group : CCR="Climate Change Revival"

Before exploring the solar cycles, first i looked in detail at the CO2 greenhouse global warming and the IPCC numbers for the positive feedback loop sending 67% of the sun energy back up in the atmosphere with 33% loss of energy going away in the universe. Climatology says that this 67% is the positive greenhouse feedback loop but this feedback loop is a 33% positive feedback loop loss instead of a 67% feedback loop gain as gain is the fraction of the output above the 100% of the input from the sun ...

IPCC may be right on a lot of things but not on the greenhouse to be a positive feedback loop with positive loop gain because the greenhouse loop has 33% loss bottom line ...

The start of my 2 year climate study was around the same time when Greta started here sit strike at the door of Swedish parliament instead of going to school. 

School seems not important for Greta.

She will probably sit in parliament soon as a political party in Sweden puts her on an election list and then smart Greta will be richer than her schoolfriends for the rest of her political life ...

But :

Would Greta be stronger than Neanderthal & Java-men ?

Neanderthal & Java-men did not survive the previous ice-age and found extinction 50 millennia ago ...

Homo sapiens came on earth 200 millennia ago.

Over the present warm period surviving humans procreated up to more than 8 billion now.

Discovering fire to burn wood and other fossil carbon made this survival and succesfull procreation possible ...

Result : 11% of the 115ppm=0,0115% modern CO2 since 1950 in the atmosphere on top of the 0,03%=300ppm Neanderthal-CO2 makes 0,0415%=415ppm CO2 in the atmosphere now.

• Neanderthal CO2 :            100% of 0,03%=300ppm.
• Modern human CO2 : 11% of 115ppm=0,0115% CO2 => 12,65ppm=0,001265%.

So Neanderthals 20 millennia ago left for us the inheritance of 300ppm/12,65ppm=24x more CO2 in the atmosphere than modern humans could add since 1950 ?

Greta can not CO2-hunt the Neanderthal-people nor Java-men without a tele-time-machine to go 20 millennia or 50 millennia far back in time ...

So she here and now CO2-hunts us all 8 billion modern-humans for 24x less CO2 than the old prehistoric enheritance we got from Neanderthal-times ...

So Neanderthal-people and Java-men are certainly safe in time and will really not suffer the curse of Greta nor Tutanchamon ...

But since ancient Egypt global temperature is still cooling down and what will happen next ?

.Let us first see what is happening today while global warming is not yet finished.

Today we need electricity for your washing machine and your TV and your laptop and your mobile phone and your i-watch and your air-cooler at home and at work and all other applications to run a world of more than 8 billion fellow humans.

We burn oil and coal and gas, less wood than in the past although biomass powerplants could modify this trend in the future.

Hydro, wind, solar and nuclear are the little ones but facts can change over time in the future just like in the past.

Today :

• 85% fossil power plants.
• 15% Other power plants.
• Without fossil powerplants : 85% less Power to the People !

So Greta : without fossil powerplants : 85% less power for your washing machine and your TV and your laptop and your mobile phone and your i-watch and your air-cooler at home and at work and all other applications to run a world of more than 8 billion fellow humans.

But what happens today with the modern 11% fossil CO2 and the modern 89% ocean evaporated CO2 ?

Since 1963AD scientists know that CO2 goes up in the atmosphere from the ocean water as long as the water temperature is above 5°C and below 25°C.

So Greta, we have here on your mother earth, only 3 CO2 absorbing water-circles : 1 equator water circle and 2 pole-ice-water circles because 2+1=3 Greta.

But if the ocean absorbes less CO2 in those 3 well known very little CO2 absorbing water-circles than the ocean evaporates in the huge water surface between 5°C and 25°C and so Greta we get your 89% of the modern CO2 peak.

The other 11% of your CO2-peak Greta serves your washing machine and your TV and your laptop and your mobile phone and your i-watch and your air-cooler at home and at work and all other applications to run a world of more than 8 billion fellow humans.

The poles have been melting since the last ice-age Greta and our present warm period since at least 10 millennia now is so nicely stable and long lasting that our both 2 pole-ice-circles and the related both 2 CO2 absorbing pole-ice-water-circles are now smaller than in the past half a million years they ever were.

That is why we never before in history had 415ppm=0,0415% CO2 in your atmosphere Greta, you see ?

But maybe soon Greta, our both 2 pole-ice-circles and the related both 2 CO2 absorbing pole-ice-water-circles ... will start growing big again when you become 47 : 31 years from now according to : Professor Valentina Zharkova Breaks Her Silence and CONFIRMS “Super” Grand Solar Minimum and then the both 2 CO2 absorbing pole-ice-water-circles can cope again with this 115ppm=0,015% modern CO2 in your atmosphere and turn all excessive CO2 back into the ocean where 89% of the modern CO2 peak came from Greta ...

But in 2017 i was puzzled by this cooling glitch triggered in 1991.

How could we suddenly get a complete world wide global cooling glitch in 1991 ?

I was realy puzzled back in 2017 and then i was suddenly focussed on climate change like in an obsession almost ...

First i figured that Sadam caused it with all the CO2 from all the burning oil wells in golf war 1.

But that would be a contradiction with the hypothesis that CO2 would cause global warming and not a cooling glitch ...

Next i figured that it would have been the eruption of the Pinatubo volcano, also happening in 1991 ...

But how could only just 1 volcano eruption cause such a huge global cooling glitch ?

Then i learned about the solar cycles Greta : since 1977 the sun is trying to cool all of us down by sending us less heat ...

But how can we contnue to see global warming when our wonderful sun-cental-heating is turning down to half the heating power Greta ?

The heat for global warming must come from another source of energy when the sun goes down to half intencity or less ...

In 1991 our atmosphere has switched from GHGW="Green House Global Warming" to LHGW="Latent Heat Global Warming".

Your friends in school have learned by now about water latent heat and how water gives latent heat to our atmosphere when water goes from vapor to water in rain or snow and from water to ice Greta and for an ice-age in 2050AD we need a lot of ice to grow on the poles and give us latent heat for your global warming until our both 2 pole-ice-circles and the related both 2 CO2 absorbing pole-ice-water-circles run out of latent heat and then our both 2 pole-ice-circles and the related both 2 CO2 absorbing pole-ice-water-circles start rapidly crystallizating suddenly from ice-water to ice 31 years from now ...

And then Greta the ocean water with temperature between 25°C and 5°C evaporating CO2 will suddenly get small enough and the 2 CO2 absorbing pole-ice-water-circles large enough so CO2 concentration in the atmosphere goes back down to the 0,03%=300ppm Neanderthal CO2 level just like back to the future Greta, you know that movie ?

Without fossil energy, for the human generation in your afterlife Greta, we go 50 millennia back to the Neanderthal extinction past ...

But before all of that became clear to me, i was looking at the greenhouse positive loopgain of the greenhouse positive loop gain feed back loop ...

For a positive feed back loop gain to do something, you need the positive feed back loop gain to be bigger than 1=100%.

But the greenhouse positive feedback is only 0,67=67%.

No mathematical chance that this positive feedback can make anything happen.

Positive feedback below 100% loop gain is going to a dead end street in no time.

Positive feedback below 100% loop gain is a positive loop loss, not a loop gain.

But the ocean does not care about mathematics as long as too much of the ocean surface temperature is between 5°C and 25°C, the ocean will keep on the evaporation of more CO2 into the atmosphere until both the 2 CO2 absorbing pole-ice-water-circles are large enough to make CO2 concentration in the atmosphere go back down to the 0,03%=300ppm Neanderthal CO2.

But to create social panic for our adult 8 billion fellow humans Greta, is easier than to explain at school the basics of science to 1 pupil at the age of 16 who is prefering to skip school ...

Article in progress ...

It will take time to make this summary of my 2 year climate study ...

But your comments are always welcome ....

Climate is complicated stuff but we do the best we can and try to explain it as simple as possible but not simpler than that !

Over the past months most of my preliminary conclusions were already posted in bits and pieces in the group : CCR="Climate Change Revival"

.