Many of us are currently following everything related to the theory of global warming, the influence of CO2 gas, electromobility, zero-emission energy, and other related issues. Many feel that some assertions and their logical reasoning are somewhat lame.

I work in the engineering industry, and I am not a climate expert. However, I successfully passed all the physics and mathematics exams at the Czech Technical University (CVUT) in Prague.

I decided to present my modest research related to this issue and try to formulate brief logical conclusions based on available information. These will be private conclusions and opinions derived from accessible information. I welcome any feedback or criticism.

I believe that discussion on this topic is necessary at this time. Some friends who read my observations advise me to avoid politico-economic considerations and focus solely on physical evaluations. Given that everything around the Green Deal is primarily a political stance, it is impossible to completely avoid political comments. Self-censorship would hinder the search for causes and possible solutions.

All numerical and factual data I will mention come from various commonly available sources. Since the data often differ, I will sometimes provide approximate average and rounded values obtained from multiple sources.

My articles will definitely not be scientific papers, and I generally will not cite the sources I drew from. Given the breadth of the issue and the number of sources, a detailed list would greatly exceed the scope of the article itself. In case of doubts, readers can try to find the necessary data themselves. They will learn many other pieces of information and details from their own research, which I do not mention.

It is crucial to correctly define what the main cause of the problem of global warming is. Without proper diagnosis, it is impossible to find possible solutions. I am aware that there are many influences and theories, about which much has already been written. The influence of varying solar radiation, geothermal heat, and many others. These influences we probably cannot affect much. Experts warn especially about changes caused by human activity in the 20th and 21st centuries. The probability that humans are involved in climate changes in some way is relatively high. The issue of the greenhouse effect’s influence is quite complex. The influence of gases in the atmosphere, the effect of different and changing reflectivity of the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface, and many other influences.

Currently, the main culprit of warming is identified as the gas CO2, and secondary culprits are other gases like methane and, to a lesser extent, dust, aerosols, and others. They supposedly cause a higher greenhouse effect in the atmosphere. This means they increase the absorption of solar radiation energy. The details of the absorption of different radiation spectra by various gases are very extensive, and according to sources, the details of the greenhouse effect explanation also differ. CO2 supposedly absorbs infrared radiation coming from the Sun as well as the radiation emitted by the Earth into space.

The theory of global warming due to the greenhouse effect of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, works with the basic information that an increase in CO2 content by 10 ppm (parts per million) will increase the average temperature on Earth by approximately 0.1°C, and this is supposedly a calculated, scientifically proven fact. This theory considers other influences to be marginal and does not work with them. The principles of the greenhouse effect and the influence of CO2 were first formulated by John Tyndall in 1859.

As proof of the correctness of this theory, its proponents cite the comparison of the increase in CO2 content in the atmosphere with the increase in the average temperature on Earth.

This proof did not personally convince me much. Among other things, I can correlate the increase in average temperature and the increase in CO2 content with the rise in energy released by human activity, which is also related to the increasing number of people on the planet.

Another reason for my doubts is the fact that I clearly remember the 1970s and the scientific claims that humanity would trigger global cooling due to smog that prevents sunlight from reaching the Earth. I do not understand why scientists claimed this when the greenhouse effect and the influence of CO2 were formulated as early as 1859. Trust in scientific claims is also undermined by recent theories about the future of the universe. First, scientists claimed that the universe would stop expanding and start contracting until it collapsed into a single point and the big bang would repeat. Then they reversed this theory and claimed that the universe’s expansion would not stop, and eventually, everything would cool down and go dark. Today, the wiser ones admit that they do not actually know what the future of the universe holds, and they do not understand many influences, dark matter, etc. I mention these theories so that we approach scientific theories and dogmas, which often change over time, with caution. Therefore, we should think about current theories and subject them to criticism.

An interesting fact about today’s information society is that few have an idea of how much CO2 is actually in the atmosphere. None of the people I asked gave me the correct answer. One colleague stated that there is very little of it and that it is not even one percent of the atmosphere. He was the closest to the truth. If he had said it is not even one per mille, his answer could be considered correct. Thus, he was only off by one order of magnitude, and even so, his precision far exceeded that of the others I asked.

This gas is present in the atmosphere in trace amounts, 0.00038 to 0.0004 of the total number of air molecules. Around 1900, it was supposedly 0.0003. Expressed in percentages, the CO2 content in the atmosphere today is approximately 0.04%. So that’s four hundredths of a percent or four-tenths of a per mille. Climate experts use the units ppm (parts per million), which slightly obscure the actual proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere for laypeople. It refers to the number of molecules of the given gas in 1 million air molecules. The information that the CO2 content increased from 300 ppm to 380-400 ppm over more than 100 years looks alarming. This means that its amount increased relatively by about 30%. However, since its amount is trace in the atmosphere, the absolute increase in CO2 content in the atmosphere is +0.01%. In words, the CO2 content in the atmosphere has increased by one-tenth of a per mille over 100 years. Even a layperson understands that this is not much.

Most of the CO2 gas that gets into the atmosphere during the year comes from natural sources. Regarding the annual cycle of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere, there are many information sources. There are different estimates and data, but they vary greatly. The total annual amount of CO2 exchanged between the atmosphere and the biosphere together with the hydrosphere, according to available sources, is around 220 Gt. Human activity is estimated to contribute 10 to 36 Gt of that. This means that human activity contributes roughly 15% to the global annual CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. Europe contributes less than one-tenth to CO2 emissions caused by human activity.

Human activity in Europe thus accounts for about 1.5% of the total annual CO2 cycle that gets into the atmosphere. From the perspective of a European, there is therefore no realistic way to significantly influence the CO2 cycle.

The greenhouse effect is a phenomenon that makes life on Earth possible because, without its influence, the oceans would freeze, and life would be impossible. We owe the greenhouse effect mainly to water vapor and to a lesser extent to other greenhouse gases, which include carbon dioxide (CO2). CO2 gas is 1.5 times heavier than air and occurs in the lower atmosphere. Its concentration is significantly dependent on air currents and other influences. It is difficult to measure its average concentration. It is a gas necessary for photosynthesis and is essential for life on the planet.

The most interesting information is that water vapor is responsible for 60 to 70% of the greenhouse effect, with its average atmospheric content being around 2%. This is about 50 times more than CO2. However, climate activists say we cannot influence its content in the atmosphere because its atmospheric content is determined by atmospheric temperature. Warming caused by CO2 increases the temperature of the atmosphere, which then results in an increase in water vapor content.

Here, I believe, lies a fundamental flaw in the theory of the influence of greenhouse gases on global warming. In my opinion, human activity significantly influences the water vapor content in the atmosphere. This also significantly influences the greenhouse effect caused by water vapor, which, due to the importance and amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, likely completely outweighs other influences of greenhouse gases. According to available sources, paradoxically, no one scientifically addresses this issue. The very existence of human civilization and all its activities are associated with the emission of thermal energy into the atmosphere, which directly affects the amount of vapor in the atmosphere.

Climate activists state that CO2 content has increased by about 30% over 100 years. This may be true, but as we have already mentioned, it represents a real increase in the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere from 0.0003 to approximately 0.0004. This corresponds to an absolute increase in the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere by one-tenth of a per mille. The number of people has increased from 1.6 billion in 1900 to 8 billion today. This is a fivefold increase. The increase is thus +400%. The existence of humans is associated with the release of energy. The body heat emitted by these billions of additional people represents the power of about 400 of nuclear power plants running at 2000MW. And of course, this is only a fraction of the energy released by civilization. For example, I am attaching a satellite image of the North American continent at night. Luminous cities can be seen where people heat, light, and drive cars. Even at night, we generate heat, even without the influence of the sun. This heating also increases the water vapor content in the atmosphere, which in turn increases the greenhouse effect when illuminated by the sun. In my opinion, even the mere existence and activity of humans, without the influence of the sun, significantly increases the average temperature of the atmosphere.

Now a bit more detail on the aforementioned critique. I also see an error in the current theory of global warming due to the influence of CO2 in that it attributes the influence on the climate almost exclusively to solar radiation. It works with the idea that so-called greenhouse gases retain more energy on Earth, and therefore the atmospheric temperature rises. This theory completely ignores the influence of energy released by humanity through its activities, modern life, and mere existence.

The current theory of the greenhouse effect proves its truth by correlating the increasing content of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, in the atmosphere with the increasing temperature of the atmosphere. It completely ignores the fact that the increasing content of CO2 is also directly dependent on the release of energy in thermal sources on Earth, which is also tied to the number of people living on Earth. If I want to study a thermal system, I must take into account the heat added to and removed from this system. The current theory of the greenhouse effect and global warming completely ignores the release of energy in power plants, engines, and fireplaces, and works only with harmful gas emissions. In the end, even all the electrical energy we produce in these sources is entirely converted into thermal energy during consumption, which heats the atmosphere. If we understand this fact, we will realize that even nuclear energy cannot solve the problem of global warming. Nuclear energy, like fossil fuels, releases energy stored in matter for millions or even billions of years. I will now take a somewhat absurd example, but only at first glance. The celestial body Sun has no atmosphere, no greenhouse gases, and all the energy it generates is ecological thermonuclear fusion. Yet, the temperature on its surface is not favorable for life. Thermonuclear reactors will be small suns on Earth. This will certainly not lower the Earth’s atmospheric temperature. One cannot help but notice the water vapor rising from the cooling towers of nuclear power plants.

Therefore, I personally believe that the energy emissions produced by human civilization are the most probable and significant cause of current climate changes. I may be wrong. Influences independent of humanity may also have a more significant contribution to warming. A brief evaluation of the previous information and considerations is that the cause of current global warming is the significant growth of the human population on Earth. It is a fairly simple concept. There are ten guests in a two-bed room, the heating cannot be turned down, and the windows cannot be opened…

I will now diverge a bit from physics to politics. Climate activists themselves state that the theory of global warming and the influence of CO2 was discovered during research commissioned by large insurance companies and banks, who supposedly wanted to determine the risks to the sustainability of their profits and investments. We can surmise that the commission could also have been as follows: develop a theory that creates fear, guilt for the fate of the planet, leads to the debt of residents and states, and brings us more profits. This is, of course, an inappropriate conspiracy from me. No banker or politician would surely do that to us. It is always good to follow the money trail if I want to find out who is financing what and why they are doing it.

Another baseless politico-economic consideration concerns the fact that no one is actually worried about population growth, and no one correlates warming with the number of people on Earth. On the contrary, I often hear that this Earth can feed several billion more people. After all, just in my lifetime since 1964, the number of people in the world has increased by 2.45 times, which is an increase of +145%. If I used another inappropriate conspiracy, I might be able to explain it. I see a connection between money printing, economic growth, and the number of people. It could be explained that if I have the ability to print money without consequences, the volume of the economy must continually grow, for which it is good if the population continues to increase. Such a certain Ponzi scheme. But woe when these growths stop, and the money printing continues or accelerates. The result is usually hyperinflation and world war. History confirms this.

That concludes this somewhat controversial part of my article. I may be wrong in my politico-economic considerations. To err is human. However, I see justification for these opinions and feel the need to publish them.

I am now preparing a continuation that will cover 2) History and Current State of Energy Sources. In my reflections, I will try to explain my view on the issue of contemporary energy. Today, I consider this crucial for our lives.

July 21, 2024 Václav Knob