THE CO2 DEBATE
The discussion and analysis here should be readily understood by most readers, but some of the theory and interpretation behind the discussion might require some understanding of relatively low-level chemistry.
The stable forms of carbon at the Earth’s surface are:
Carbon dioxide CO2, bicarbonate ions in solution HCO3-, carbonates (calcite, limestone etc).
These three are the most oxidised and therefor the most stable forms of carbon at the Earth's surface.
Other forms of unstable carbon are more reduced and include methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO), elemental carbon its self, and living matter. All of these will ultimately oxidise to one of the more oxidised variants in the presence of an oxygenated atmosphere.
CO2 is the most oxidised form of carbon, forming a stable relatively inert gas in the atmosphere (less than 400 ppm). Bicarbonate (HCO3-), is the stable form dissolved in water, which contains 60 times more abundant CO2 than does the atmosphere. Carbonates are the stable solid form, mainly as calcite (CaCO3 or limestone) and dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2 another form of limestone). Limestones are 44% CO2 by weight and form a major rock type, often entire mountain ranges. More than 99% of all the CO2 component formerly in the Earth’s early atmosphere is now locked up in carbonate rock.
Certain trace gases in the atmosphere are thought to maintain the Earth’s temperature at a fairly constant level. These gases are called greenhouse gases & have the effect of preventing incoming visible radiation escaping as infrared radiation. The trapped radiation wave lengths heat up the atmosphere at the surface, but only to a limited extent, dropping off dramatically as their abundance increases (see later comments).
The mean global temperature of the Earth is a warm 15 degrees C . Without these greenhouse gases, all infrared radiation would be lost to space and the global Earth temperature would be considerably lower overall with hot days and very cold nights. Without the atmosphere the Earth’s mean surface temperature would be -18 degrees, rather than the present average of 15 degress. Variations in greenhouse gases are thought to influence climate, & in the present climate debate CO2 is the greenhouse gas of principal concern.
The main greenhouse gases, their abundance, their thermal influences & the contribution by man are presented in the following table.
Ranking of greenhouse gases vs CO2 in terms of global heat generation capacity:
GREEN HOUSE GAS Heat retention potential (multiple)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 1
Chloroflourocarbons (CFC’s) 1,300 TO 9,300
Methane (CH4) 21
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 310
Water vapour (this does not include water droplets as in clouds) is a powerful greenhouse gas comprising about 95% of the greenhouse gas inventory & is by far the dominant influence, but does not contribute to what is called the enhanced greenhouse effect because it is not increasing in abundance.
A runnaway greenshouse effect is said to occur when increasing greenshouse temperatures are enhanced by positive feedbacks in the environment that also generate more greenhouse components or other forms of atmospheric temperature increase, (eg increasing water vapour) thus accelerating and exacerbating the climatic effect. Positive feedbacks are however more than compensated by buffering effects which act to minimise any change in systems at equilibrium.
Pre industrial revolution levels 1750-1800 1990 levels
CO2 280 ppm 353 ppm
Methane 0.8 ppm 1.72 ppm
CO2 dissolved in the ocean is some 60 times that in the atmosphere with more than 85% as bicarbonate ions (HCO3-).
Human activity (fossil fuels & burning biomass), has caused much of the increase. Volcanic gases also produce large amounts of CO2. Burning all the fossil fuels in existence would produce an atmospheric CO2 level of around 2000 ppm. To halve the present levels would probably annihilate all terrestrial vegetation & animal life. Decreasing atmospheric CO2 would be far more disadvantageous than increasing it. Methane is sourced through rice cultivation, ruminating animals, coal mining, natural gas venting, & inefficient biomass oxidation.
95% of warming due to greenhouse gases comes from water vapour in the atmosphere (not water droplets as in clouds), and only 0.28% from human additions. Human activity accounts for about 6% of the non-water vapour component.
Atmospheric CO2 levels over time
The chart below displays the cyclical variations in atmospheric CO2 determined from ice core samples over the last 400,000 years, showing the ”hockey stick effect”, & the remarkable regularity of CO2 increases & reductions following 100, 000 year cycles. If CO2 causes temperature increases, what caused these regular cycles of increasing CO2 lasting about 100,000 years? If however the temperatures where cyclical (due to Milankovitch-cycle style planetary orbit, tilt and wobble variations), and the CO2 variations followed temperature changes (not driving them), this would account for this phenomena.
This zig-zag pattern suggests we are about to descend into a 100,000 year global cooling event.
Far more significant CO2 and temperature versus time charts across all of geological time are presented and discussed in much more detail elsewhere.
FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE
Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.
At 382 parts per million, CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere—less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2 impoverished. During the Ordovician-Silurian glaciation (450-420 million years ago), atmospheric CO2 was more than 4000 ppm, but did not contribute to any warming. During the Jurassic-Cretaceous glaciation (151-132 million years ago), atmospheric CO2 was more than 2000 ppm and again did not contribute to any warming. If CO2 drives climate, why were there glaciations and not a runaway greenhouse effects during these events?
The effect of increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 on plant growth and animal health.
The photo below shows a comparison of plant growth achieved in atmospheres of differing CO2 levels. This readily displays the fertilizer effect of increased levels of atmospheric CO2. The numbers in the photo's indicate the amount of additional CO2 that has been introduced into the atmosphere, and the numbers below the total atmospheric CO2 cotent in parts per million.
The table and chart below display the dramatically decreasing greenhouse warming effect of increasing CO2 levels in an atmosphere, a point that is often lost when increasing CO2 levels are being discussed in the media. The data suggests that plants are seriously starved for adequate CO2 for healthy development and optimum growth in the present atmosphere and that significant agricultural productivity may be gained in this area if atmospheric CO2 levels can be substantially increased. Optimal levels of atmospheric CO2 may be around 1000 ppm for many plant species.
Plants exposed to higher levels of CO2, not only grow more vigorously , they require less water (less evapo-transpiration from smaller stomata required to get adequate CO2). They can grow in drier climates and produce higher yields on smaller acreages. Limiting growth factors such as higher usage of nutrients such as nitrogen, zinc, iron etc (as exist for today''s plants) can be accommodated, as they are today, with fertilizers, supplements and management practices. There are likely to be pros and cons, with increased CO2 levels, but plants thrived under these conditions in the past, they don't need to adapt to new conditions, and they manage on less water and in drier conditions. Even the small man-made CO2 contributions (about 140 ppm), over the last 50 years or so have dramatically greened the earth (see CSIRO global map below).
CO2 & Human Health.
CO2 is odorless, colorless, tasteless and slightly heavier than air. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and for all life, plants and animals alike it is an essential requirement. Atmospheric CO2 is an essential plant fertilizer not a toxin. All animals get their carbon from eating plants, or eating other animals that eat plants. The effect of increased atmospheric CO2 on humans appears minimal at any likely concentrations, even up to 1% (10,000 ppm). Human exhale CO2 at levels of around 38,000 ppm from their lungs, suggesting that even at these levels there is no serious toxicity as long as here is adequate oxygen available for normal respiration.
Coral reefs and CO2
CO2 gets into the atmosphere originally through volcanic eruptions. Once in the atmosphere it is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life (through the process of photosynthesis), animal life, the earth's oceans (in the form of the bicarbonate ion, HCO3-), and eventually into calcite (limestones, coral reef structures, marine shells & skeletons), and carbon energy reservoirs of coal, petroleum & gas. The oceans contain more than 60 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere and are in equilibrium with marine limestone deposits.
The great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide is in limestones (44% CO2 by weight), and they make up a considerable proportion of surface and subsurface rock sequences, including all the worlds coral reefs and entire mountain ranges in many parts of the world. Coral reefs are made of CO2 and would not exist without CO2. The coral organisms themselves derive all their cellular carbon from CO2 sourced from bicarbonate ions extracted from the oceans, but ultimately derived from he atmosphere.
The carbonate forming chemical reactions depend on the two equilibrium reactions involved:
(1) CO2 + H2O <----> HCO3- + H+ (acid) at the atmosphere-ocean interface
(2) HCO3- + Ca2+ <----> CaCO3 + H+ (acid) occurring in shallow warm oceans
The overall combined reaction is:
(3) CO2 + H2O + Ca2+ <------> CaCO3 + 2H+ (acid)
Note that although these reactions are equilibrium reactions, the equilibrium strongly favors the reactions moving the the right in each case and downward in the sequence through 1), to 2), and the ultimate removal of all CO2 from the atmosphere, and all HCO3- from the seas, to from voluminous limestone. Eventually all the world''s carbon and all the world's CO2 will end up in limestones, (see later section), and none will be available to maintain or form any life on Earth.
Note also that for each molecule of calcite (CACO3) produced (or molecle of CO2 consumed), two hydrogen ions (H+, read acid) are produced, contributing to ocean acidification. Coral reefs themselves are responsible for much of the worlds oceans acidification, although no one is suggesting that we should eliminate coral reefs in order to reduce ocean acidification. Atmospheric CO2 when dissolving in the oceans to produce bicarbonate ions (HCO3- reaction 1 above), does increase ocean acidification, but the removal of bicarbonate ions to form coral reefs and other limestones (reaction 2 above) produces even more acid.
CO2 in the oceans and ocean acidification
There is about fifty to sixty times as much carbon dissolved in the oceans as exists in the atmosphere. The oceans act as an enormous carbon sink, and have taken up about a third of CO2 emitted by human activity. It has been estimated that the uptake of anthropogenic carbon since 1750 has led to the ocean becoming more acidic with an average decrease in pH of 0.1 units.
No mention that coral reef formation as a major cause of ocean acidification, or that hundreds of millions of years when atmospheric CO2/acidification was much higher yet did not cause a problem.
The pH of the ocean is around 8.0 (mildly alkaline). The introduction of hydrogen ions in the above reactions causes the ocean pH to lower and become less alkaline. It does not become more acid as the H+ ions immediately react with excess OH- ions and neutralize. Only when the pH is lowered below 7.0 will the ocean become acid and have an excess of H+ ions. Introducing H+ ions at pH 8.00 will make the ocean less corrosive (less caustic) and increasingly more neutral until pH 7.0 is reached. The use of the term ocean acidification is a misnomer until the pH drops below 7.0, which is unlikely in the present circumstances because there are enormous pH buffering reactions with geology (rocks), countering the lowering of pH to anywhere near pH 7.
Another contributor to lowering the oceans pH is rainwater. Pure condensed water has a pH of 7.0, but rainwater has a pH between 5-6. Even compared to sea water, pure water is more acid, and rain water far more acid again. Every time fresh rainwater enters the Coal Sea from Queensland flood events it contributes substantially to ocean acidification of the reef environment. We never hear this being stated in ocean acidification discussions, or the fact that coral reef growth itself increases acidification.
Many of the low-lying island nations concerned about rising oceans may not realize it but it is the continued growth of coral limestone and its essential CO2 component that formed their island nation in the first place and is keeping their island nations above sea level now and has been for centuries. The reactions above are ultimately responsible for all the worlds coral reefs, all the worlds limestones, dolomites and marble rock sequences including entire mountain ranges and landscapes, all the worlds carbonate shellfish, and all the worlds calcareous soils.
Atmospheric CO2 and climate change
Global warming began 18,000 years ago, accompanied by a steady rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The correlation of CO2 with temperature appears clearly demonstrated. But correlation does not always mean causation.
What caused this phenomena is a matter of ongoing debate for some. Clearly, though, global warming and rising CO2 levels in Earth's atmosphere started long before the industrial revolution.
In detail there are some surprising contradictions. Time lines (in the red ellipses in the diagram below), reveal that the relationships are not always synchronous or positive.
In the highlighted red ellipses there are both positive and negative correlations between temperatures and CO2 levels which should not happen if CO2 is driving temperature.
In the Vostok ice core data, if gain and loss of CO2 is the cause of warming and cooling, it is difficult to understand where the CO2 is coming from, and going to, in this period in the past on such regular cycles unless the cooling and warming episode came first and are followed by CO2 changes. The rapid warming rate versus the much lower cooling rate also is telling us something.
In this instance it appears that if temperature increases first (due to orbital forcing), followed by a delayed change in atmospheric CO2, as CO2 is released (on warming), or reabsorbed (on cooling), in the ocean. This causes an additional feedback affect on temperature with two separate pulses of temperature resulting with a recognizable delay. The temperature should be seen to increase first, followed by an increase in CO2 and further temperature feedback. .
However if CO2 levels increased first, temperatures should rise appropriate to the atmospheric CO2 concentration, (with some internal feedback) and a new equilibrium temperature would be eventually reached. There would not be two distinct pulses separated by a delay period. In this case the CO2 should be seen to increase first followed by temperature. Both this and the previous scenario can occur but should be distinguishable.
It appears more likely that increasing temperature in the oceans causes increased levels of CO2 to form and to be released into the atmosphere. It is well known that increasing ocean temperatures decreases bicarbonate levels in the ocean (closer to the equator), favouring more CO2 in the atmosphere and more limestone production, while at the same time lower temperature towards the poles favour increasing CO2 solubility in the oceans as bicarbonate ions (HCO3-). This means that there is an atmospheric flow of CO2 from the equator to the poles, and a counter flow of bicarbonate ions in the ocean towards the equator. On approaching the equator, as the oceans warm, some bicarbonate converts to CO2 and escapes into the atmosphere to be recirculated, and some reacts with abundant soluble Ca2+ to be permanently removed from the system in the form of limestones, including coral reefs, according to the following chemical reactions.
The chart below displays what appears to be a delayed response between an initial temperature increase and a responding atmospheric CO2 increase, possibly of the order of hundreds of years. This delay, if long enough, could then cause the crossover effect of the two trends displayed. This should not otherwise be possible.
Global CO2 Versus Temperature Across the Geological Time Scale
The extremely revealing but rather busy chart below displays the relationship of both temperature (as seen on other charts) shown in red, and also atmospheric CO2 levels (in blue), across geological time. The relationship between CO2 levels and the temperature can be seen to be totally inconsistent, varying from being a positive association, to periods where it was entirely antipathetic.
During the massive decrease in CO2 over time the mean global temperature has not changed significantly, largely remaining at about 20 degrees (a few degrees warmer than at present). This is yet another demonstration (if one was necessary) that atmospheric CO2 (man-made or otherwise) has not consistently influenced global temperature at any stage in Earth history despite a massive decrease (95% reduction) and did not pose and existential threat during that period.
This chart in particular and the other global temperature versus geological time charts displayed in this web site, completely contradict the popular climate change models advanced by climate alarmists where CO2 is purported to dive temperature.
The man-induced atmospheric CO2 model appears to have arisen solely as there seemed no other possible explanation for observed warming. No one it seems amongst the cream of world climate science considered the possibility that it might be normal and reflected in the longer term climate history. A history that seems to have been entirely ignored . It appears that IPCC scientists and other climate catastrophists were either entirely ignorant of this information, that has been around for more than 40 years, or chose to ignore it and not reveal it. Either way it displays an appalling lack of quality science by some of the world's leading scientists who have claimed scientific purity and superiority on this issue, howling down those with contrary views for many years.
Why has this crucial data been missed, or ignored in this debate by the proponents of catastrophic warming. How do the climate alarmists explain this damming data and their lack of knowledge of it?
DRAMATIC DECREASING ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER GEOLOGICAL TIME
A variation of the above temperature and CO2 chart above depicted below, displays the dramatic decrease in atmospheric CO2 levels over geological time (sloping bright blue dashed line), down from over 2000 ppm around a billion years ago. This suggests that atmospheric CO2 is greatly under saturated in the oceans, and is actively drawn from the atmosphere into the ocean where it is converted into limestone and removed from the system.
Overall reaction: CO2 + H2O + Ca2+ <------> CaCO3 + 2H+ (acid)
It seems that the natural rate of atmospheric CO2 loss from the atmosphere is fairly constant at around 4 ppm per million years, and that the present atmospheric CO2 level of around 400 ppm will be entirely eliminated within 100 million years. This further means that all life on Earth will disappear from the face of the Earth through lack of the essential ingredient, carbon derived from atmospheric CO2. The loss will be first from the atmosphere and then from the oceans. The oceans contain about 60 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere.
The ultimate fate of all CO2 in the Earth system is to end up as limestone precipitated in warm shallow equatorial regions. This is not an imminent threat or of any immediate concern. It is interesting to note however that it is not CO2 that is threatening coral reefs, it is coral reefs and other limestones that are threatening CO2, and through severe reduction in atmospheric CO2, are threatening life.
The introduction into the atmosphere of man-made CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution is slowing down this natural CO2 loss and may be contributing to the substantial greening of the planet seen in recent years. In fact it may be necessary to introduce more CO2 into the atmosphere to counter this overall long-term natural decline which is doing more harm than good and poses a danger for life as we know it. At the present time CO2 of 400 ppm, is seriously below optimum CO2 for plants at around 1000 ppm, which would be effectively starved of CO2. Doubling atmospheric CO2 would double plant size, but other plant nutrients and essential elements derived from the soil, such as nitrogen, zinc and iron, may be proportionally reduced. Careful horticultural management, fertilizers, and nutrient monitoring should help. There will be some winners and some losers, but careful management offers another major beneficial manipulation process that may greatly increase plant productivity providing another global agricultural boom.
Further CO2 mitigation processes are likely to quickly make the plant CO2 starvation problem significantly worse. We need more atmospheric CO2 not less. We need studies to optimize the CO2 versus nutrient levels, for maximum plant productivity.
BURNING COAL, CO2, OTHER EXHAUST GASES, & CLEAN COAL
It has been estimated that if we burned all the Earth’s remaining hydrocarbons we would increase the atmosphere CO2 level by an additional 2000 ppm (making a total of around 2400 ppm CO2. Over time most of this would end up in the oceans as HCO3-, and eventually add a minuscule amount to the Earth’s limestone inventory. It would have virtually no impact on global temperatures, which we have already seen are entirely controlled by the sun through a powerful dynamic thermal equilibrium process..
Every one kilogram of pure carbon in coal, if efficiently burned (oxidised), would produce 4.4 kg of CO2. As this is a non-poisonous, non-toxic, non-reactive inert gas (we could breath and live successfully in an atmosphere composed of at least a few percent inert CO2, and 20% oxygen}. We currently live in an atmosphere of 80% inert nitrogen and 20% oxygen. As long as the oxygen is there we could survive.
When coal is burned inefficiently, other noxious and hazardous gases are generated: methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO), sulphur dioxide (SO2), and some others. Other solid hazardous exhaust components include particulate carbon, many noxious metals (including heavy metals), and non-organic silicates and other mineral components that may be loosely categorized as ash.
In order to produce clean coal, we would not now have to remove CO2, as atmospheric CO2 from exhaust gases is not a problem (see earlier arguments), and can be allowed to escape into the atmosphere where it is effectively dealt with in the wider environment in atmosphere-ocean-limestone reactions already discussed.
We would need to more efficiently oxidize methane and carbon monoxide. Converting them to CO2 in more efficient, higher temperature, more oxidizing furnace environments, or develop more efficient scrubbers (water-based extraction of soluble gases and components, or chemical filters), which would also help remove any other physical and chemical components. Because we no longer need the most complicated step, the extracting the voluminous CO2 exhaust components and there secretion underground, this cleaning up of the exhaust products of coal burning might be really quite efficient and economically manageable and clean coal a reality.
Efficient burning technology, improved ventilation and improved living standards in poorer economies should also limit health issues in domestic homes through inefficient burning of coal. We can solve or avoid most problems with improvements in technology. We have not abandoned the massive benefits of electricity, or motor vehicles because of associated high mortalities among some users. We can minimize these adverse effects by other means.
Nor should we abandon coal, which contributes some $60 billion to the Australian economy every year. This $60 billion is responsible for keeping well over one million Australians out of poverty every year and has done so for the last 30 years at least. These one million people are not just a few thousand directly involved in coal mining, but are scattered throughout the entire economy where that $60 billion gets spent. The export of coal to places like India has the potential to lift tens of millions of other people out of poverty world-wide. Coal is an incredible gift, contributing to global prosperity, and as explained elsewhere in this web site, is not contributing to global warming.
There are eight countries excluding the United States that have 3722 coal-fired power plants operating and who are planning another 1892 plants. A total of 5614 coal-fired power plants. Australia has or is planning to close six plants for climate reasons.
Coal as a renewable energy source
Coal is a form of stored solar energy, in that its energy content originally comes from the sun and stored by plant photosynthesis as plant tissue, as a form of solar battery. The stored energy is released on burning, and the carbon re-released as atmospheric CO2 , and is recycled in back through plant photosynthesis and regenerated as new available stored energy in new plant matter and possibly new future coal deposits. Coal is therefore just another example of a renewable solar energy resource in operation.
The well-meaning individuals, eco-warriors, corporate and institutional investors, and political opportunists, need to seriously rethink their attitudes to carbon-based energy resources and investments, for they do not understand the science behind CO2 and the global economic harm they are doing.
Atmospheric CO2 as an essential fertilizer & not a pollutant
Earlier in this segment dramatic pictorial evidence was presented of the miraculous growth achievable in only mildly increased atmospheric CO2 environments. If we reduced the present atmospheric CO2 level from near 400 ppm, to only 200 ppm, then virtually all plant growth on earth would cease and life as we know it would disappear. Atmospheric CO2 acts as an airborne fertilizer, that is delivered everywhere, to all vegetation everyday directly from the atmosphere at no cost and is absolutely necessary for all plant and ultimately our own survival. In fact, one of the most efficient ways of increasing agricultural production worldwide would be to pump an extra 100-200 ppm CO2 into the atmosphere. Man’s three best friends in this world are all essential atmosphere-derived chemicals, water, oxygen and CO2. Every single atom of carbon in every plant, animal, and human ultimately came for atmospheric CO2, and will ultimately return there when we die, for recycling.
Atmospheric CO2 is an essential component of coral reefs and all life
There is a bizarre twist in the CO2 - Coral Reef argument. As mentioned several times already, 44 weight percent of coral is derived from atmospheric CO2, which in turn is derived from the oxidation (including burning) of organic carbon (including coal). So in effect burning coal and other hydrocarbons promotes coral reef growth and reef development, and conversely decreasing atmospheric CO2, eliminating coal and hydrocarbon burning, stunts coral growth and reef development.
This may be a difficult argument for most environmental activists and even coral reef scientists to accept, but it is no less true and is really very basic science. An extension of this argument is that increasing atmospheric CO2 from all sources not only promotes coral reefs, but in fact all life on land and in the oceans.
The fact that global warming is occurring, but is due to a natural re-equilibration to longer-term warmer conditions following a recent cooling event, all driven by the sun, means that it is not due to atmospheric CO2 or any other man-made influence. Therefore atmospheric CO2 plays absolutely no role in global warming. Even if it was contributing, its contribution would be completely over-ridden by the power of the sun''s heat input.
IT NEEDS TO BE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT ATMOSPHERIC CO2 PLAYS NO ROLE WHATS-SO-EVER IN GLOBAL WARMING.
CO2 IS A HUGELY BENEFICIAL ATMOSPHERIC GAS THAT NEEDS MUCH FURTHER STUDY. IT OFFERS CONSIDERABLE POTENTIAL FOR A GREAT MANY UNRECOGNIZED BENEFITS FOR MANKIND IN THE FUTURE, PARTICULARLY IN GREATLY INCREASING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION.
The most attention-grabbing, powerful and motivating influence is fear. Make someone fearful and offer a solution (real or otherwise), and you have their immediate undivided attention and likely support. Control freaks (some of them well meaning), use fear and uncertainty for mass manipulation purposes, some for political power or personal gain. We have seen plenty of this in the present climate debate. Our worst enemies are our individual and collective gullibility, ignorance and stupidity.
Remember that all the many myriad of catastrophic world disaster and end-of-the-world scenarios throughout all of man’s long history, all had one thing in common – not one of them ever came true.
The Earth, as a living habitable environment, has remained remarkably stable for most of its 4.5 billion year history, because change is held solidly in check by the Sun’s remarkably constant energy output and a myriad of very powerful physical and chemical equilibria and buffers, strongly resisting change.
The Earth is not a fragile environment. 4.5 billion years of survival and evolutionary adaption, progress and success have shown it to be a very robust place with a highly developed, a self-regulating system, that can give as good as it gets, and can more than adequately continue to do so indefinitely, provided we keep out of its way, stop interfering in what we patently do not understand, and let it get on with a job it has managed brilliantly by its self without any human interference for 4.5 billion years.
Some of the concepts discussed in this web site are so compelling and the implications so profound that they need to be more widely circulated, promoted and discussed, particularly within the scientific community and at the top decision making levels of government.