Climate Video Summary

 

I realise it may be a bold statement in stating that climate change and all its interlinked dynamics can only be solved by Christian John. I have been called egotistical, I personally do not care. I suggest people take their personnel opinions to the side and realise that the only solution is someone like myself, and I will speak over the next 10 minutes on why that is the case, ego or not. 

 

Firstly, the way we have looked at the climate over the past few decades has been totally politically and socially driven without any real scientific or data driven analysis. We claim to be in a climate disaster yet there is nothing today that even closely resembles an attempt to provide any real analysis or understanding. Let me explain what again is merely a fragment of all but how I look on this. 

 

Christian John is possibly the only person who has both the skill base in terms of the analysis that is required but also the outside the box thinking in the approach that needs to be made and is second to none or very few in that regard. 

 

Let us begin with the atmosphere. It is approximately 80% nitrogen and 19% Oxygen, and has been so stable in its composition over decades that you can calibrate a gas chromatogram with it. The atmosphere is that exact composition based around the properties of nitrogen and oxygen as in the atmosphere is saturated with both to a level of equilibrium and have to be those percentages. There are many aspects to this but the key aspect being that the oxygen content remains constant and does not and has not change since records began. It has remained constant even with 7 billion people breathing it in and exhaling carbon dioxide. The fact that 80-90% of all energy today still uses oil and gas with every molecule of that requiring oxygen also to burn. Yet the global atmospheric content remains the same in its oxygen content? Therefore it can be stated with confidence that the planet has and continues to produce more oxygen than it needs and always saturates the atmosphere to its 19% equilibrium. The excess oxygen obviously falls onto the land and sea. Therefore a key understanding here as a minimum is what excess is produced, how much that may have changed and what levels are required? What volume of oxygen is produced as apposed to being used? Obviously the planet needs an excess, what excess? How much oxygen production is there compared with use and how much has that changed and the impact? Also, the atmosphere as stated hits an equilibrium with all gaseous releases. Therefore any other molecules released into the atmosphere can only build up to an equilibrium themselves. Nitrogen has a molecular weight of 14, oxygen 16 hence the atmospheres composition so when you talk in respect to carbon dioxide that has a molecular weight of 44 then obviously it can only build up in the atmosphere to a certain level until it reaches equilibrium as does nitrogen and oxygen. Due to the substantial difference in molecular weight it could be a case that this equilibrium is just a few hundred parts per million with the rest falling to land and water. 

 

Understanding what the equilibrium level of carbon dioxide that can be reached in the atmosphere is obviously vital in understanding its potential impact as any and all means of it being removed be that nature or innovation will and can only have a certain impact based around that figure. Yet, not only do we not know what that figure is but no one has mentioned it, no one has talked about it, and decades of the climate issue has never been discussed yet is so vital. 

 

Therefore, and this is still just a fragment of what is required but what is the maximum absorbance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? 300ppm? 400ppm? Do we know what that figure is and how much excess carbon dioxide is produced that ends up falling back to the land and sea? the biggest issue has to be heavier emissions could barely stay in the atmosphere long enough to even be measured which actually could mean any atmospheric analysis could be limited in its value and not representative whatsoever to emission release. Carbon dioxide could actually be a small percentage and single figures in the overall carbon emissions. These still are only a few of many of the questions that are required to fix climate yet are never part of any discussions be that politically, corporately or socially. No one. Which is why I stated it, not from ego but fact that Christian John is possibly one of the only individuals, that needs to be an individual, that needs to be single minded in the understanding of what is required here?

 

In regard to these carbon emissions the biggest area of talk and dispute over the past few decades that include the Paris agreement, ESG’s, sector targets and objectives yet there is zero actual breakdown of those emissions as in the type. The difference between carbon emissions cannot be overstated especially in their polluting impact. Think of wine, you have very good wine, very bad wine, and thousands of bottles in-between the two. Carbon emission are no different and to lump them altogether in the same category especially in the carbon trading business where companies can purchase their carbon off set there is zero differentiation between them. Bear in mind the whole carbon emission debate is only there to achieve climate control yet is so broad it fails to meet its prime directive at least. Most still talk in carbon dioxide terms as in their corporate or sector release yet it is far from carbon dioxide. It could actually be the scientific fact that when you look at all carbon emissions that the amount that is carbon dioxide is in single percentage figures.

 

Think of it this way, CO2 is in every single cell in our body, is a by-product of all energy production and we exhale it in a high percentage. It is totally harmless outside of asphyxiation, is colourless and odourless. Totally harmless. Whenever you can smell fuel, in a city, at an airport, or you see some smoke, fumes, dark clouds or a smog, that is not CO2. They are emissions that have not broken down to CO2 but end products that contain double and triple bonds, cyanide groups, are toxic, poisonous and carcinogenic that you cannot do much with similar to single use plastic. In the last few decades of climate control that is all about emission release, has anyone mentioned what is key here as in the type of emissions instead of putting all carbon emissions into the same bracket. No, not at all. I have never seen it mentioned once in any conference, in any political arena or measurable dynamic.

 

To a non-scientist think of this, you can cook in a kitchen using gas for hours with all the fumes that are being emitted because it is CO2, and can only be CO2,  gas being methane, CH4, and has to break down that way. It cannot break down to anything else. You never cough, smell or feel as if there is any issue, simply because there is not. CO2 is in every cell of your body due to a by-product of the cells energy production and you exhale huge quantities.

 

What if you burnt butane in your kitchen instead of methane? Like camping? Possibly also not much of an issue as due to its low carbon length and alkane chemistry, apologies for the science there but is simply a slightly longer chain length than methane, but it possibly also breaks down to CO2.

 

What if you burnt gasoline in your kitchen? How long do you think you could cook without an issue? You would start to smell the fumes, possibly start to feel unwell after a while? 

 

What if you burnt aviation fuel or diesel in your kitchen? Heavier more dense fuel? How long do you think you could then tolerate it burning in your kitchen without having to leave?

 

And finally think about black tar that is used for roads, how long do you think you could stay in the kitchen with that black toxic smoke being produced? Probably seconds and with potential medical problems. You may think that this is irrelevant as the tar is not burnt and ends up in roads, but this type of fuel is burnt at sea by the haulage industry, black thick fuel that contains x3000 the level of sulphur compared with petrol or diesel and fumes extremely toxic that will turn the clouds above it black? 

 

When talking about emission release by burning gasoline, aviation fuel, diesel and fuel oil etc, what percentage of these emissions are CO2 and are other harmful emissions, and to what degree are those emissions harmful? When you talk about emission control for climate protection, to not discuss this or try and evaluate this, you can never come to any real conclusions that have value? Yet, every single discussion over emissions fails to even talk about this, address this, as if it is all CO2 or all carbon emission and yet they are not the same or even close to.

 

It is not just how we produce fuel, but also how we burn and use that fuel.

 

When I talk about process mapping the planet with millions of scientific and data measurements that is one of the dimensions I am talking about, to that sort of detail and level because that is what it is going to take. 

 

So that is barely a fragment of what I believe is required to do what needs to be done. 

 

How it is to be done is again, something that Christian-John is capable of doing like very few others.

 

Christian-John has spent his life in the scientific measurement arena in how to take measurements that can represent and provide the required analysis and conclusions here. A BSc in organic and analytical chemistry but that is a small part as we are talking about over 30yrs with an Aspergers behaviour and mentality type focus in the field resulting in him probably purchasing, commissioning, calibrating, training and operating virtually every scientific technique that is used today in the field. The technical adviser to 3 multi-billion dollar projects in the energy sector in regard to its scientific measurement where the extensive lab containing 100-150 different scientific tests and types, a third of them are dedicated to the measurement, determination and control of its environmental release as in its gases, liquids and solids. 

 

The fuels chemistry specialist to airbus looking at the production of synthetic fuels to working extensively in the fuel supply chain dealing with more quality issues than most people see spending their career in the business due to the challenging roles taken and you have an individual that, and said without ego but fact, is probably one of if not the leading specialists in this area.

 

When you put all of that together, along with an ability to continually both focus and adjust based on the data that is produced, with a tenacity and will to ensure that what needs to be done, will be done, that is why stated without ego, Christian-John is the only option here to do what needs to be done in the way that is needs to be done.

 

Not an IT specialist but someone who can do a fiendish sudoku in less than 15 minutes, but ensuring that all the above can be put into the most comprehensive IT system that can both fully represent what needs to be represented but to also be worthy of such. As stated in the previous video, a possible combination of Facebook and Google earth, but as always, will be a WIP and it may well require and deserve something even better and in its own right and unique interface between the information and the end user.

 

So, to be clear here, If the world does not want this, if it wants to carry on the next few decades as it has the last few decades, allowing people to dictate and set up policies based around politics and social dynamics then carry on, I will leave you all to it and you deserve what you get.

 

Provide Christian-john with the means, with the $100M starting capital, and we finally start to do what is needed here. That is the choice for everyone, but as stated, I will not play this game any longer by anyone else’s rules or dictation, and I will not jump onto anyones political, social or even to a degree corporate rollercoaster that you have built, designed and set up from the stated perspective and objectives.

 

Whoever is getting in the way here and preventing the people who can write that cheque from supporting this, I ask you politely to move to the side and get out of the way. This is bigger than your dislike for me, you dislike for who I am, your dislike for the way I speak, talk, or behave. To the people who are able to write that cheque, I am as politely as I can, waiting.