I’d like to address the incorrect allegations about the human causes of “climate change,” from a more scientific perspective. This represents over five years of research into published papers and articles, as well as years of informal scientific investigation, comprised of taking water samples for observation from many oceanic bodies of water from around the world.
In a conversation with a friend of mine, astrophysicist Dr. Laurance Doyle—participating researcher for the Kepler Space Telescope and principal investigator at the SETI Institute—we both agree that the Milankovitch cycles of the earth’s tilt and certain solar activities of our sun have the largest influences on the earth’s atmospheric conditions, and hence in the longterm, the climate of the earth. Of those atmospheric conditions, cloud cover is the largest regulator of the energy from the sun that reflects back into space. The physics of entropy tells us that all of the energy coming from the sun is reflected back into space, except for the energy stored.
There is growing evidence that emissions from tail pipes and smokestacks, in other words the burning of fossil fuels, may not be a problem after all in the quest to control climate change. It turns out that these emissions have little to no effect on global warming. How is this so? In order to answer this question, we must first examine how we have been misled.
We can start with Al Gore in his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.” The film makes the assertion that the current global climate change has an anthropological element that is increasing the rate of the rise in average global temperature. His claim is that through the burning of fossil fuels, CO2 is being added to the atmosphere, acting as a greenhouse gas, trapping heat energy that would otherwise escape into space. His premise is that by stopping this man-made addition of CO2, climate change will cease. Then the polar ice caps would stop melting and hence the rising level of the oceans would stop, the severity and frequency of weather events, such as droughts and hurricanes would lessen, and all the other ills his film points out would be rectified. His principle argument is that increasing levels of CO2, which correlate closely with increases in temperature, is causing the change.
If one does the math, the quantity of CO2 produced by man is minuscule compared to the total amount that exists in the atmosphere and oceans, and which is necessary for the continued growth of plants, both aquatic and terrestrial. The sources of CO2 globally, are from: respiration of animal and other biological organisms which metabolize using oxygen; from the release of geologically sequestered sources such as carbonate rock; burning of forests and jungles, and from volcanic activity. Mr. Gore’s documentary seems to discount or ignore other factors that affect global warming, such as methane gas (a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2), variations in the amount of radiation from the sun, water vapor in the atmosphere in the form of clouds, aerosols in the air, and so on. While it is true that CO2 is classified as a greenhouse gas, the notion that the presence of more or less of this gas must therefore be the cause of this change, is at best misleading.
Climate change is happening, has always happened and will continue to happen. We are probably still emerging from the last ice age. There is no doubt that glaciers are retreating and the ice cover is shrinking, at least in the northern hemisphere. The acidity of the oceans may be increasing, as well as other indicators of the rate of change of average global temperature. As for ocean sea-levels rising, the frequency and severity of meteorological events, and whether or not there is an increase or decrease of average global temperatures, the jury is still out.
For the sake of argument, let’s concede to Mr. Gore all his assertions, except one. Let us agree that there is a measurable anthropomorphic influence on the climate change of the earth, and that fossil fuels are at the center of this debate. However, our claim is that burning of fossil fuels is not the cause. If not, then what is? The answer is synthetic plastic polymers. Continuing, we shall explain.
As recently as 30 years ago, the discovery was made of a micro-organism that lives in the oceans that conducts photosynthesis. This organism contains chlorophyll and converts CO2 into glucose and oxygen using sunlight as the source of energy. This organism is a bacteria called Prochlorococcus. This organism along with plankton and alga may be the largest biomass that regulates the amount of CO2 in the oceans, and then indirectly the amount in the atmosphere. The oceans comprise 71 percent of the earth surface and 99 percent of the living space on the planet. Photosynthesis in the sea occurs within the first 300 meters or so from the surface, as far as sunlight can penetrate.
The Atlantic Ocean is home to some of the largest geologic and volcanic activity on Earth, called the mid-Atlantic rift. In fact, most of the volcanism on the planet occurs beneath the surface of the sea. This activity releases CO2. That, combined with other sources such as animals and atmospheric air absorption, supplies the CO2 needed for photosynthesis in the ocean. Therefore the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is largely regulated by this oceanic activity, which in turn is controlled by the amount of available sunlight. Now the oceans have giant surface currents called gyres, which keep the distribution of the sea water and its contents fairly consistent. So what could be inhibiting the uptake of CO2?
If one takes a sample of seawater, from most anywhere on the planet’s surface, it looks fairly pristine and clean. However, if one holds it up to the sunlight, there is a fine particulate observed. One can filter this water easily using a paper coffee filter. Upon examination of this particulate, which is on average about 0.02 inches, or 1/2 mm, much of it turns out to be plastic. According to the documentary “A Plastic Ocean,” 1/3 of this particulate is plastic, and in certain bodies of water such as the Mediterranean, it may be as much as 2/3rds. This plastic suspended in the sea water can reduce the amount of sunlight available for conducting photosynthesis. [1]
In addition, the sunlight blocked from photosynthesis by the plastic is absorbed and turned into heat. As surface water temperature is increased, this tends to drive off gases dissolved in the water, such as CO2. So this plastic could well be the cause of prolonged temperature increases along equatorial regions that has been killing reefs (the reef corals are symbiotic organisms that require CO2 in order to exist). Now the temperature rise of surface water, which has an affect on overall global temperature, then has a corresponding rise in the levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Please note, this rise in CO2 is an effect but not the cause of the temperature change. To quote Dr. Patrick Moore, cofounder and former president of the Green Peace Foundation, “Correlation is not causation.”
It turns out then, that the conversion of fossil fuels into plastic, which then eventually gets dumped into the ocean, could be the primary cause of the man-made influence (albeit small) on the rate of climate change and possible increases in the acidity of the oceans, and not the burning of these fossil fuels.