Greenhouse Gas Theory is Dead: Carbon Dioxide Innocent All Along

Comments (26)

• 

  sunsettommy

  January 31, 2026 at 5:30 pm | #

  Before John Kehr was forced out as a skeptic, he pointed out the observation in his now deleted blog that postulated warm forcing increase of CO2 is easily defeated by the much-increased outgoing flow of energy into space far more than what was supposedly “trapped” by CO2 thus global warming by CO2 is impossible!

  Reply

• 

  John V

  January 31, 2026 at 7:13 pm | #

  I chatted with a gentleman years ago about AGW and he was your typical, hard headed person that said the science is settled. In reality, nothing or almost nothing in science is settled, much less climate. Humans have been studying the cosmos, the human body, and who knows what for millenia and it’s far from settled. He was also a person that, when incorrect about something, never admitted it. He’d just walk away.

  Reply

• 

  richard

  January 31, 2026 at 8:37 pm | #

  Nothing quicker than the Sahara desert plunging from 100 degrees to zero in a few hrs.

  Reply

• 

  crackpot

  January 31, 2026 at 11:14 pm | #

  If the greenhouse gas effect were real, you could burn your face with your own reflection in the mirror.
  Alan Siddons

  Reply

• 

  LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

  February 1, 2026 at 6:56 am | #

  AGW / CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, due to CO2) is nothing more than a provable hoax… a complex mathematical scam predicated upon misattribution of cause to effect, and upon mathematical fraudery to conjure “backradiation” out of thin air.

  With the AGW / CAGW hypothesis disproved, that leaves only the Adiabatic Lapse Rate (ALR)… a long-known and well-corroborated physical phenomenon… the blue-shifting of temperature as one descends a gravity well in an atmosphere due to gravitational auto-compression. The “ECS” (ie: change in adiabatic lapse rate) of CO2 is only 0.00000190472202445 K km-1 ppm-1 (when accounting for the atoms and molecules which CO2 displaces). And even that doesn’t take into account the radiative cooling effect of having a higher concentration of radiative polyatomics, which can’t be mathematically modeled at this time. CO2 is the most-predominant net atmospheric coolant above the tropopause, and the second most-predominant net atmospheric radiative coolant (behind water vapor) below the tropopause, this we know. We haven’t figured out how to put that to numbers yet, and likely won’t until we figure out how to reformulate the Adiabatic Lapse Rate equation to account for the ability of polyatomics to easily radiatively emit IR, for homonuclear diatomics’ ability to radiatively emit IR exponentially decreasing with altitude (because their net-zero electric dipole must be perturbed to radiatively emit (usually via collision, but collisions occur exponentially less frequently with altitude due to air density decreasing exponentially with altitude)), and for the inability of monatomics to radiatively emit IR (they have no vibrational mode quantum states).

  You will note that the climatologists have conflated their wholly-fictive “AGW / CAGW (due to greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)))” (a radiative energy phenomenon that does not and cannot exist) with the gravitational auto-compression of the ALR (a kinetic energy phenomenon).

  We can prove that AGW / CAGW is nothing more than a complex mathematical scam… utilizing bog-standard radiative theory, cavity theory, entropy theory, quantum field theory, thermodynamics, electrical theory, dimensional analysis and the fundamental physical laws… all taken straight from physics tomes and all hewing completely to the fundamental physical laws.

  AGW / CAGW describes a physical process which is physically impossible.

  https://www.patriotaction.us/showthread.php?tid=2711

  It starts with the climatologists clinging to the long-debunked Prevost Principle from 1791, which postulates that an object’s radiant exitance is determined solely by that object’s absolute temperature, therefore that all objects > 0 K emit, therefore that energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to the energy density gradient, therefore that “backradiation” exists, therefore that the “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)” exists, therefore that “greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation))” exist, therefore that “AGW / CAGW (due to greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)))” is possible, therefore that all of the offshoots of AGW / CAGW (carbon footprint, carbon credit trading, carbon capture and sequestration, net zero, degrowth, total electrification, banning ICE vehicles, replacing reliable grid-inertia-contributing baseload electrical generation with intermittent renewables, etc.) are justified.

  Because of this, they misuse the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation in their Energy Balance Climate Models (EBCMs) (which I prove using the Kiehl-Trenberth ‘Earth Energy Balance’ graphic, which is a graphical representation of the mathematical results in their EBCM), which conjures “backradiation” out of thin air.

  There are two primary forms of the S-B equation:
  https://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif

  [1] Idealized Blackbody Object form (assumes emission to 0 K and ε = 1 by definition):
  q_bb = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
  = 1 σ (T_h^4 – 0 K)
  = σ T^4

  [2] Graybody Object form (assumes emission to > 0 K and ε < 1):
  q_gb = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)

  This is how climatologists conjure “backradiation” out of thin air by misusing the S-B equation in their Energy Balance Climate Models, and how they “measure” it via pyrgeometers and similar such equipment:
  https://i.imgur.com/V2lWC3f.png

  Climatologists misuse the S-B equation, using the idealized blackbody form of the equation upon real-world graybody objects. This essentially isolates each object into its own system so objects cannot interact via the ambient EM field. It assumes emission to 0 K, and it thus artificially inflates radiant exitance of all calculated-upon objects. Thus the climatologists must carry these incorrect values through their calculations and cancel them on the back end to get their equation to balance, subtracting a (wholly-fictive due to the assumption of emission to 0 K) ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the (real but too high because it was calculated for emission to 0 K) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow.

  That wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow is otherwise known as ‘backradiation’. It is nothing more than a mathematical artifact due to the misuse of the S-B equation. It does not and cannot exist. Its existence would imply rampant violations of the fundamental physical laws (energy spontaneously flowing up an energy density gradient in violation of 2LoT).

  The S-B equation for graybody objects isn’t meant to be used by subtracting a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but too high because it was calculated for emission to 0 K) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow, it’s meant to be used by subtracting cooler object energy density from warmer object energy density to arrive at the energy density gradient, which determines radiant exitance of the warmer object. This is true even for the traditional graybody form of the S-B equation, because Temperature (T) is equal to the fourth root of radiation energy density (e) divided by Stefan’s Constant (a) (ie: the radiation energy density constant (J m-3 K-4)), per Stefan’s Law.

  Note that Stefan’s Law is different than the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

  e = T^4 a
  a = 4σ/c
  e = T^4 4σ/c
  T^4 = e/(4σ/c)
  T^4 = e/a
  T = 4^√(e/(4σ/c))
  T = 4^√(e/a)

  We can plug Stefan’s Law:
  T = 4^√(e/a)
  …into the traditional Stefan-Boltzmann equation for graybody objects:
  q = ε_h σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
  … which reduces to the energy density form of the S-B equation:
  q = ε_h * (σ / a) * Δe

  Canceling units, we get W m-2.
  W m-2 = (W m-2 K-4 / J m-3 K-4) * ΔJ m-3

  NOTE: (σ / a) = W m-2 K-4 / J m-3 K-4 = W m-2 / J m-3.

  That is the conversion factor for radiant exitance (W m-2) and energy density (J m-3).

  The radiant exitance of the warmer graybody object is determined by the energy density gradient and by the object’s emissivity.

  Energy can’t even spontaneously flow when there is zero energy density gradient (ie: at thermodynamic equilibrium):
  σ [W m-2 K-4] / a [J m-3 K-4] * Δe [J m-3] * ε_h = [W m-2]
  σ [W m-2 K-4] / a [J m-3 K-4] * 0 [J m-3] * ε_h = 0 [W m-2]

  Or, in the traditional form of the S-B equation:
  q = ε_h σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
  q = ε_h σ (0) = 0 W m-2

  … it is certainly not going to spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient.

  Note 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense:

  “Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”

  ‘Heat’ [ M1 L2 T-2 ] is definitionally an energy [ M1 L2 T-2 ] flux (note the identical dimensionality), thus equivalently:

  “Energy can never flow from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”

  That “some other change” typically being external energy doing work upon the system energy to pump it up the energy density gradient, which is what occurs in, for example, AC units and refrigerators.

  Remember that temperature is a measure of energy density, equal to the fourth root of radiation energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant, per Stefan’s Law, thus equivalently:

  “Energy can never flow from a lower to a higher energy density without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”

  Or, as I put it:

  “Energy cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient.”

  My statement is merely a restatement of 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense, but you’ll note my statement takes all forms of energy into account… because all forms of energy follow the same rules, the same fundamental physical laws.

  Do remember that a warmer object will have higher energy density at all wavelengths than a cooler object:

  https://web.archive.org/web/20240422125305if_/https://i.stack.imgur.com/qPJ94.png

  … so there is no physical way possible by which energy can spontaneously flow from cooler (lower energy density) to warmer (higher energy density). ‘Backradiation’ is nothing more than a mathematical artifact conjured out of thin air due to the climatologists misusing the S-B equation.

  “But they’ve measured backradiation!”, some may claim. Yeah, no.

  https://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/08/how-to-fool-yourself-with-pyrgeometer.html

  As Professor Claes Johnson shows in that article on his website, pyrgeometers (the instrument typically used to ‘measure’ backradiation) utilize the same sort of misuse of the S-B equation as the climatologists use. The bastardized form of the S-B equation used by pyrgeometers [ usually some form of q = (σ T_h^4 – σ T_c^4) or equivalently L_d = U_emf/S + σT_b, as outlined in the documentation for the instrument, with U_emf/S being negative in sign ] apriori assumes a subtraction of a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but far too high because it was calculated for emission to 0 K) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow, which as is shown, is fallacious.

  This is why energy cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient…

  As Δe → 0, ΔT → 0, q → 0. As q → 0, the ratio of graybody object total emissive power to idealized blackbody object total emissive power → 0. In other words, apparent emissivity → 0. At thermodynamic equilibrium for a graybody object, there is no radiation energy density gradient and thus no impetus for photon generation.

  Remember that all action requires an impetus, that impetus will always be in the form of a gradient of some sort, spontaneous action is always down the slope of that gradient, with the highest probability of spontaneous action being down the steepest of that slope.

  As Δe → 0, ΔT → 0, photon chemical potential → 0, photon Free Energy → 0. At zero chemical potential, zero Free Energy, the photon can do no work, so there is no impetus for the photon to be absorbed. The ratio of the absorbed to the incident radiant power → 0. In other words, apparent absorptivity → 0.

  α = absorptivity = absorbed / incident radiant power
  ρ = reflectivity = reflected / incident radiant power
  τ = transmissivity = transmitted / incident radiant power

  α + ρ + τ = 100%

  For opaque surfaces τ = 0% ∴ α + ρ = 100%

  If α = 0%, 0% + ρ = 100% ∴ ρ = 100% … all incident photons are reflected at thermodynamic equilibrium for graybody objects, which is why entropy does not change at thermodynamic equilibrium… because no energy flows (see below).

  This coincides with standard cavity theory… applying cavity theory outside a cavity, for two graybody objects at thermodynamic equilibrium, no energy flows, no absorption nor emission takes place. The system reaches a state of quiescence (which is the definition of thermodynamic equilibrium). The photons remaining in the intervening space set up a standing wave, with the wavemode nodes at the object surfaces by dint of the boundary constraints. Nodes being a zero-crossing point (and anti-nodes being the positive and negative peaks), no energy can be transferred into or out of the objects. Photon chemical potential is zero, they can do no work, photon Free Energy is zero, they can do no work… there is no impetus for the photons to be absorbed. Should one object change temperature, the standing wave becomes a traveling wave with the group velocity proportional to the radiation energy density gradient and in the direction of the cooler object.

  Now, obviously, if energy cannot spontaneously flow when there is zero energy density gradient (ie: at thermodynamic equilibrium), it certainly cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient.

  Let’s look at Gibbs Free Energy:
  ΔG = ΔH_system – TΔS

  The system change in Gibbs Free Energy (ΔG) is equal to the change in system enthalpy (ΔH_system) minus the product of temperature (T) and the change in entropy (ΔS).

  At thermodynamic equilibrium:
  ΔG = 0.

  At thermodynamic equilibrium for a real-world thermodynamically-irreversible system not experiencing pressure nor volume change, ΔH_system = 0. A system releasing heat to its surroundings is exothermic and has a negative ΔH because the system loses energy over time. A system gaining heat from its surroundings is endothermic and has a positive ΔH because the system gains energy over time. At thermodynamic equilibrium, there is no energy gain nor loss, therefore:
  ΔH_system = 0.

  Therefore, at thermodynamic equilibrium for a real-world thermodynamically-irreversible system not experiencing pressure nor volume change:
  ΔH_system = TΔS

  If 0 (ΔG) = 0 (ΔH_system) – TΔS, TΔS must equal 0. And since T very likely doesn’t equal 0 K, that means that ΔS must equal zero, and T * 0 = 0.

  If 0 (ΔH_system) = TΔS, TΔS must equal 0. And since T very likely doesn’t equal 0 K, that means that ΔS must equal zero, and T * 0 = 0.

  IOW, entropy does not change at thermodynamic equilibrium, for real-world systems.

  The warmists have conflated idealized reversible processes and real-world irreversible processes, from which springs their AGW / CAGW scam. Idealized reversible processes don’t actually exist… they’re idealizations.

  The problem, however, for the climate alarmists is that their take on radiative energy exchange necessitates that at thermodynamic equilibrium, objects are furiously emitting and absorbing radiation (this is brought about because they claim that objects emit only according to their temperature (rather than according to the radiation energy density gradient), thus for objects at the same temperature in an environment at the same temperature, all would be furiously emitting and absorbing radiation… in other words, they claim that graybody objects emit > 0 K), and they’ve forgotten about entropy… if the objects (and the environment) are furiously emitting and absorbing radiation at thermodynamic equilibrium as their incorrect take on reality must claim, why does entropy not change?

  The second law states that there exists a state variable called entropy S. The change in entropy (ΔS) is equal to the energy transferred (ΔQ) divided by the temperature (T).

  ΔS = ΔQ / T

  Only for reversible processes does entropy remain constant. Reversible processes are idealizations. They don’t actually exist. All real-world processes are irreversible.

  The climatologists claim that energy can flow from cooler to warmer because they cling to the long-debunked Prevost Principle from 1791, which states that an object’s radiant exitance is dependent only upon that object’s absolute temperature, and thus they treat real-world graybody objects as though they’re idealized blackbody objects via: q = σ T^4. Sometimes they slap emissivity onto that, often not.

  … thus the climate alarmists claim that all objects emit radiation if they are above 0 K. In reality, idealized blackbody objects emit radiation if they are above 0 K, whereas graybody objects emit radiation if their temperature is greater than 0 K above whatever is within that object’s view factor.

  But their claim means that in an environment at thermodynamic equilibrium, all objects (and the ambient) would be furiously emitting and absorbing radiation, but since entropy doesn’t change at thermodynamic equilibrium, the climatologists must claim that radiative energy transfer is an idealized reversible process. Except radiative energy transfer is an irreversible process, which destroys their claim.

  In reality, at thermodynamic equilibrium, no energy flows, the system reaches a quiescent state (the definition of thermodynamic equilibrium), which is why entropy doesn’t change. A standing wave is set up by the photons remaining in the intervening space between two objects at thermodynamic equilibrium, with the standing wave nodes at the surface of the objects by dint of the boundary constraints (and being wave nodes (nodes being the zero crossing points, anti-nodes being the positive and negative peaks), no energy can be transferred into or out of the objects). Should one object change temperature, the standing wave becomes a traveling wave, with the group velocity proportional to the radiation energy density differential (the energy flux is the energy density differential times the group velocity), and in the direction toward the cooler object. This is standard cavity theory, applied to objects.

  All idealized blackbody objects above absolute zero emit radiation, assume emission to 0 K and don’t actually exist, they’re idealizations.

  Real-world graybody objects with a temperature greater than zero degrees above whatever is within their view factor emit radiation. Graybody objects emit (and absorb) according to the radiation energy density gradient.

  It’s right there in the S-B equation, which the climate alarmists fundamentally misunderstand:

  https://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif

  All real-world processes are irreversible processes, including radiative energy transfer, because radiative energy transfer is an entropic temporal process.

  Their mathematical fraudery is what led to their ‘energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to radiation energy density gradient‘ narrative (in their keeping with the long-debunked Prevost Principle), which led to their ‘backradiation‘ narrative, which led to their ‘CAGW‘ narrative, all of it definitively, mathematically, scientifically proven to be fallacious.

  Now, they use that wholly-fictive “backradiation” to claim that this causes the “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)”, which they use to designate polyatomics as “greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation))”.

  You will note that it’s always polyatomics… they had to use radiative molecules to get their “backradiation” scam to work… monoatomics have no vibrational mode quantum states and thus cannot emit (nor absorb) IR in any case; and homonuclear diatomics have a net-zero electric dipole which must be perturbed via collision in order to emit (or absorb) IR, except collisions occur exponentially less frequently as altitude increases due to air density exponentially decreasing with altitude.

  They then use that to claim certain of those polyatomics cause AGW / CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, due to CO2), from which springs all the offshoots of AGW / CAGW: net zero, carbon footprint, carbon credit trading, carbon capture and sequestration, degrowth, total electrification, banning ICE vehicles, replacing reliable baseload generation with intermittent renewables, etc.

  Except “backradiation” is physically impossible. Energy does not and cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient.

  Thus the “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)” is physically impossible.

  Thus “greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation))” are physically impossible.

  Thus “AGW / CAGW (due to greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)))” is physically impossible.

  Thus all of the offshoots of AGW / CAGW are based upon a physical impossibility.

  The climatologists know that “backradiation” is physically impossible, thus their “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)” is physically impossible… but they had to show it was having an effect, so they hijacked the Average Humid Adiabatic Lapse Rate.

  We know the planet’s emission curve is roughly analogous to that of an idealized blackbody object emitting at 255 K. And we know the ‘effective emission height’ at that temperature is ~5.105 km.

  6.5 K km-1 * 5.105 km = 33.1815 K temperature gradient + 255 K = 288.1815 K surface temperature

  That 6.5 K km-1 is the Average Humid Adiabatic Lapse Rate. That 33.1815 K temperature gradient and 288.1815 K surface temperature is what the climatologists try to claim is caused by their “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)”… except it’s not. It’s caused by the Average Humid Adiabatic Lapse Rate, and that has nothing to do with any “backradiation”, nor any “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)”, nor any “greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation))”.

  The Adiabatic Lapse Rate is caused by the atmosphere converting z-axis DOF (Degree of Freedom) translational mode (kinetic) energy to gravitational potential energy with altitude (and vice versa), that change in z-axis kinetic energy equipartitioning with the other 2 linearly-independent DOF upon subsequent collisions, per the Equipartition Theorem. This is why temperature falls as altitude increases (and vice versa).

  In short, the climatologists have misattributed their completely-fake “backradiation” as the cause of the atmospheric temperature gradient which is actually caused by the Adiabatic Lapse Rate and its associated gravitational auto-compression (the blue-shifting of temperature as one descends a gravity well in an atmosphere).

  We cannot have two simultaneous but completely different causes for the same effect (one radiative energy… the wholly-fictive “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)”; and one kinetic energy… the Adiabatic Lapse Rate). If we did, we’d have double the effect. One must go. And the one which must go is the mathematically-fraudulent “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)”.

  That leaves only the Adiabatic Lapse Rate. And we can calculate the exact change in temperature gradient (and thus surface temperature) for any given change in concentration of any given atmospheric gas.

  For instance, the “ECS” (ie: the change in Adiabatic Lapse Rate) of CO2 is only 0.00000190472202445 K km-1 ppm-1 (when accounting for the atoms and molecules which CO2 displaces). And even that doesn’t take into account the radiative cooling effect of having a higher concentration of polyatomic emitters in the atmosphere… we can’t really mathematically model that at this time.

  So as one can see, it’s all nothing more than a complex mathematical scam. I’ve unwound that scam above.

  If you’re curious about the temperature change for any given change in concentration of any given constituent atmospheric atomic or molecular species, see the PatriotAction URL above. I’ve reverse-engineered the adiabatic lapse rate (ALR), deriving each gas’s contribution to the ALR from the concentration of each constituent gas. I’ve included the equations, so you can confirm the maths yourself.

  But wait! There’s more! Once the climate loons started lying to sustain their narrative, they found they had to lie about everything. They typically do this by inverting reality, by flipping causality… because the easiest lie to tell is an inversion of reality. They needn’t invent entirely new physics to explain and describe their claims, and most people are too scientifically-illiterate to discern between reality and flipped-causality inverted-reality anyway.

  This is why you will typically find their claims to be diametrically opposite to reality.

  Here’s just a few things they’re lying about:

  https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/1gsv82i/corals_and_mollusks_were_being_lied_to/?rdt=62203&sort=new

  https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/1h93i15/the_paradox_of_co2_sequestration/?rdt=57057&sort=new

  https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/1mxngtn/the_sane_approach/

  Reply

  • 

    david russell

    February 2, 2026 at 1:30 pm | #

    Kudos for all the work you put in, but I believe you defeated a straw man, namely the “back-radiation” theory of AGW. That’s not the current theory. I’d appreciate if you would comment on my below, which lays out the current thesis which makes most of your above miss the point.

    Reply

    • 

      LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

      February 2, 2026 at 10:52 pm | #

      Not so. Take a look at any ‘Earth Energy Balance’ graphic… you’ll see “backradiation”.

      Those ‘Earth Energy Balance’ graphics are a graphical representation of the mathematical results of an Energy Balance Climate Model. They’re still using “backradiation” as the basis of their claims… but reality has forced them to move the goalposts to “effective emission height” because “backradiation” has been proved to be physically impossible (see my prior comment).

      As to the claim that an increasing CO2 concentration pushes the ‘effective emission height’ into a cooler region, thus lowering radiant exitance of CO2, thus increasing surface temperature, that’s predicated upon a couple (intentional) misconceptions.

      1) The ‘effective emission height’ of CO2 is already into the stratosphere, where temperature increases with altitude.

      2) The climate alarmists claim that the extinction depth for 14.98352 μm radiation is far longer than it actually is. At present atmospheric CO2 concentration, it’s ~10.4 m. For a doubling of CO2, it would be ~9.7 m. One can ascertain this by one of two means… by going line-by-line through the emission profile for that waveband, calculating the cross-section of absorption of CO2 at that wavelength, then integrating the whole into a mean… or by treating 14.98352 μm radiation as though it were a radio signal and using the well-known radio signal atmospheric attenuation equation… both give similar results.

      That the climate alarmists claim that an increasing CO2 atmospheric concentration will push the ‘effective emission height’ into a cooler region is also predicated upon a misconception… think about it… they are ADMITTING that CO2 radiatively cools the atmosphere, as all radiative polyatomics do.

      As temperature increases [decreases], (t-v) (translational mode -to- vibrational mode) collisional energy transfer processes increase [decrease] and thus spectral emission increases [decreases] only because CO2 IS A NET ATMOSPHERIC RADIATIVE COOLANT (transferring translational mode energy to vibrational mode energy, then radiatively emitting it). So they are attempting to claim that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation))” and simultaneously a net atmospheric radiative coolant, a contradiction… which is why their claims make no sense upon close examination.

      https://i.imgur.com/b87xKMk.png
      The image above is from a presentation given by Dr. Maria Z. Hakuba, an atmospheric research scientist at NASA JPL.

      https://i.imgur.com/gIjHlCU.png
      The image above is adapted from the Clough and Iacono study, Journal Of Geophysical Research, Vol. 100, No. D8, Pages 16,519-16,535, August 20, 1995.

      Note that the Clough & Iacono study is for the atmospheric radiative cooling effect, so positive numbers at right are cooling, negative numbers are warming.

      You will note that CO2 is the MOST-PREDOMINANT net atmospheric radiative coolant above the tropopause; and the SECOND MOST-PREDOMINANT net atmospheric radiative coolant (behind water vapor) below the tropopause.

      You’ll note the climate alarmists also claim that water is a “greenhouse gas (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation))”… except it’s not.

      Water is such an effective atmospheric radiative coolant that it drastically reduces the Adiabatic Lapse Rate and acts as a literal REFRIGERANT (in the strict ‘refrigeration cycle’ sense) below the tropopause:

      The refrigeration cycle (Earth) [AC system]:

      A liquid evaporates at the heat source (the surface) [in the evaporator], it is transported (convected) [via an AC compressor], it gives up its energy to the heat sink and undergoes phase change (emits radiation in the upper atmosphere, the majority of which is upwelling owing to the energy density gradient and the mean free path length / altitude / air density relation) [in the condenser], it is transported (falls as rain or snow) [via that AC compressor], and the cycle repeats.

      That’s kind of why, after all, the humid Adiabatic Lapse Rate (~3.5 to ~6.5 K km-1) is lower than the dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate (~9.81 K km-1).

      So one can see right away that the claim of the climatologists doesn’t even make sense, and is in fact diametrically opposite to reality… because the easiest lie to tell is an inversion of reality… the climatologists needn’t invent new physics to explain and describe their blather, and most people cannot tell the difference between reality and flipped-causality anyway because they’re scientifically-illiterate.

      Reply

      • 

        david Russell

        February 3, 2026 at 7:32 pm | #

        The ERA is not in the stratosphere. Furthermore the stratosphere moves higher with warming. Note the troposphere is 8km high at the poles and 20 km high in the tropics, expressed just that fact.

        Nor have I challenged that GHGs act as coolants at altitude. But that is not the GHE.

        Reply

• 

  David Russell

  February 1, 2026 at 4:09 pm | #

  I find this article not compelling. Arrhenius’s views are not the current bases for CO2-caused AGW. The current basis is that more CO2 in the air raises the effective radiating altitude (EEA) of CO2 emissions and since the troposphere cools with altitude and higher EEA will result in less IR emission to space UNLESS the temperature below heats up. In brief, a higher EEA requires a higher surface temperature to maintain the global energy balance (energy in = energy out).

  This seems irrefutable, leaving only the question: by how much for say a doubling of atmospheric CO2? That’s where the science is focused.

  Reply

  • 

    Herb Rose

    February 2, 2026 at 10:28 am | #

    Hi David,
    Here is what’s irrefutable; 1 All matter absorbs radiated energy. This includes the O2 and N2 in the atmosphere which absorbs 95/100ths of the UV coming from the sun and converts it into IR.
    2 When unconfined gas molecule gain energy the gas expands. When a gas expands fewer molecule strike a thermometer and transfer energy to it. The thermometer is not measuring the ke of the molecules but the amount of energy being transferred to it.
    3 If you ever go out on the ocean in summer or skiing in spring, the atmosphere will get warmer than the surface of the Earth, so the surface cannot possibly be heating the atmosphere.
    Herb

    Reply

    • 

      david russell

      February 2, 2026 at 1:26 pm | #

      Thank you for a polite reply. It is just not true that the non-GHGs absorb any material radiation from the sun, much less 95%. Essentially all of incoming insolation by-passes the non-GHGs. Non-GHGs get their energy from collisions (conduction at the molecular level in a sense) with the GHGs, which mostly energized by the IR radiated by the surface. True enough some IR is absorbed by incoming insolation (about 75W/M2) but much of that is by ozone in the stratosphere which actually cools the surface, acting as a sunscreen.
      I cannot but notice you did not engage with my point, namely that the modern AGW theory has nothing to do with Arrhenius’s ideas, but rather has to do with more CO2 in the air raising the Effective Radiating Altitude (ERA), which because higher = cooler in the troposphere requires the surface temp to increase in order to keep the energy budget in balance (energy-in = energy-out). The only scientific question then is “by how much?” Expressed in climate sensitivity terms, “How much does doubling CO2 ppms raise the ERA and what surface temperature is required with the new ERA to ‘push’ radiation to space as with the old ERA?”

      Reply

      • 

        Herb Rose

        February 2, 2026 at 5:59 pm | #

        Hi David,
        You confuse temperature with ke and objects only radiate energy. not mass. The Exchange of energy by convection follows the Law of Conservation of Momentum (M1V1 + M2V2 = M1V3 +M2V4) and energy flows from the molecule with greater ke to the molecule with less ke no matter what their difference in mass is (The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is wrong). In order to create ozone an O2 molecule must be split into oxygen atoms. It is not possible for the surface of the Earth to provide the energy to the O2 molecules in the stratosphere without first adding energy to the molecules in the troposphere first. The ke energy of molecules increases with increasing altitude. The temperature decreases due to fewer molecules are transferring energy. (See my article WHY METEOROLOGY IS NOT A SCIENCE using the search function)
        Energy does not flow in the zigzag pattern depicted by the thermometer. To get the proper graph you must divide the temperature at an altitude by the density to get the ke of a constant number of molecules instead of a constant volume of molecules. This graph shows the ke of molecules increases in a straight line in the troposphere where water moderates energy change and in an exponential curve at higher altitudes. This is confirmed by the chemical com[position of the molecules N2,O2, H2O, CO2 to N2, O2. O3 to N2O, N2O2, to N2, O. (There’s another article on this but I don’t remember the name.)
        The reading of a thermometer will increase when you burn more fuel even though all the fuel burns at the same temperature.
        The GHGT was disproven in 1906 by experiments by R. W. Wood and was withdrawn by Arrhenius only to be resurrected by politicians to create a crisis.
        Herb

        Reply

        • 

          LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

          February 3, 2026 at 2:45 am | #

          Herb Rose wrote:
          “energy flows from the molecule with greater ke to the molecule with less ke no matter what their difference in mass is (The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is wrong)”

          How does energy only spontaneously flowing down an energy density gradient disprove 2LoT, Herb?

          In statistical mechanics the following molecular equation is derived from first principles: P = N k_B T for a given volume.

          Therefore T = (P / (N k_B)) for a given volume.

          Where:
          k_B = Boltzmann Constant (1.380649e−23 J·K−1);
          T = absolute temperature (K);
          P = absolute pressure (Pa);
          N = number of particles

          If N = 1, then T = P / k_B in units of K / m³ for a given volume.

          “Temperature does not have units of K / m³ !!!”, you’ll find yourself thinking… note the ‘for a given volume’ blurb. We will cancel volume in a bit.

          We can relate velocity to kinetic energy via the equation:
          v = √(v_x² + v_y² + v_z²) = √((DOF k_B T) / m) = √(2 KE / m)
          As velocity increases, kinetic energy increases.

          Kinetic theory gives the static pressure P for an ideal gas as:
          P = ((1 / 3) (N / V)) m v² = (N k_B T) / V

          Combining the above with the ideal gas law gives:
          (1 / 3)(m v²) = k_B T

          ∴ T = mv² / 3 k_B for 3 DOF

          ∴ T = 2 KE / k_B for 1 DOF

          ∴ T = 2 KE / DOF k_B

          See what I did there? I equated kinetic energy to pressure over that volume, thus canceling that volume, then solved for T.

          Note the partitioning of kinetic energy into the 3 linearly-independent Degrees of Freedom (DOF). Now ponder Bernoulli’s Principle, and you’ll see why pressure (and thus temperature) decreases in 2 DOF when velocity (and thus stagnation pressure, and thus temperature) increases in the 3rd DOF. This is why engineers designing high-pressure-gas pressure-relief systems must account for a temperature that can be as much as 3x the static temperature.

          Now, energy density is defined as the magnitude of energy per unit volume. For a system consisting of a gas comprising N particles in volume V, the total translational energy E_total is N times the average energy per particle.

          E_total = N 3/2 k_B T

          The translational mode energy density (ρ_E) is thus expressed as:
          ρ_E = E_total / V = 2N / 2V k_B T = n 3/2 k_B T
          where:
          n = N / V

          IOW, for two systems with a given N and a given V, the system with higher T will have higher KE and thus higher ρ_E.

          IOW, all spontaneous action requires an impetus, that impetus will always be in the form of a gradient of some sort, spontaneous action is always down the slope of that gradient, with the highest probability of spontaneous action being down the steepest of that slope.

          IOW, 2LoT holds.

        • 

          LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

          February 3, 2026 at 2:51 am | #

          Correction:
          “ρ_E = E_total / V = 2N / 2V k_B T = n 3/2 k_B T”

          — should be —

          “ρ_E = E_total / V = 3N / 2V k_B T = n 3/2 k_B T”

        • 

          David Russell

          February 3, 2026 at 2:37 pm | #

          With respect, Herb: Any credibility in your position that involves the 2nd Law being wrong will not be taken seriously.
          Ozone is created for the most part in the stratosphere by sunlight creating it from O2. It is a GHG but it cannot participate in the AGW story for 2 reasons: 1) it prevents incoming insolation from making it to the surface, acting thusly as a sunscreen; and 2) the ERA argument doesn’t work in the stratosphere because temps rise with altitude, not decline as in the troposphere. Let me be clear: the GHE is a phenomenon confined to the troposphere in the AGW debate.
          I ignore you discussion about temperature as I don’t see its relevance. Speaking of relevance, the Wood experiment refutes Arrhenius but my point was that Arrhenius is not the basis of the current GHE so both their work is obsolete.

        • 

          Herb Rose

          February 3, 2026 at 7:02 pm | #

          i David,
          I see you doubt my claim that the 2nd LoT is wrong.(The entire comment has not been posted yet.)
          I’ve had this discussion with many experts including LoL and always get the same results. It’s as Upton Sinclair said: It is impossible to make someone understand something if understanding it means a loss of income. LoL even gave me a scenario where a 100 kg car rearended a 20,000 kg slower truck. I showed him that the car with less ke transferred energy to the truck, so even though the total ke remained the same the car with less ke lost ke (slowed), while the truck gained ke (sped up). Since in a convection energy equalizes with all the mass the correct 2nd Law should read: Energy flows from an object with higher energy per unit mass to an object with less energy per unit mass regardless of the total energy of that object.
          Some people cannot believe that their beliefs could be wrong but those people are experts, not scientists, who are never sure that their beliefs are right.
          Herb

        • 

          Herb Rose

          February 3, 2026 at 7:14 pm | #

          Hi Again David,
          The concentration of O3 in the ozone layer is 10 ppm, not enough to affect anything. See if you can block visible light coming through a window by using black tape to cover i cm of window for every 100,000 square cm of area.
          Please enlighten me on the source of energy at the top of stratosphere that is heating up the molecules in the troposphere and mesosphere.
          Herb

        • 

          david russell

          February 3, 2026 at 8:00 pm | #

          This is in response to your 2ndL and O3 comments below.
          Your 2nd Law point doesn’t even involve the 2nd Law, which is about radiation, not momentum as your “example” does.

          As for O3 10ppm just happens to be enough to block out a huge percentage of the high energy incoming insolation. Blocking it out means it doesn’t make it to the surface to warm it. As for why does the stratosphere warm with altitude, that’s easy peasy: no convection + heat rises.

        • 

          Herb Rose

          February 3, 2026 at 11:21 pm | #

          Hi David,
          The 2nd LoT deals with the transfer of energy between objects, regardless of means of transmission. As to radiation transfer of energy, energy decreases as a function of distance from the source so energy cannot be transferred to another object unless the level of energy reaching that object is greater than the level of energy being emitted by that object. Energy flows rom higher to lower if the energy reaching the object is less than the energy being emitted by the object, the flow of energy will be blocked by the energy being radiated from the object. With radiation there can never be equalization of the energy of the objects. The reason the energy of objects do equalize is because both objects equalize with the energy field they are in not because the energy is being transferred to another object.
          As to your explanation of the increase in temperature in the stratosphere there needs to be something that is blocking the heat from rising into the mesosphere. If there is an apex of temperature there must be a source of energy there that is a source that creates the temperature gradient or something slowing the flow of energy.
          In the atmosphere as the energy of the molecules transferring energy increases the number of molecules transferring energy decreases. There are 2 variables creating the reading.
          The bottom of the Grand Canyon is always 10 degrees hotter than the top of the canyon. It is not because the air molecule have more ke but because there are more of them transferring energy.
          Herb.

        • 

          Herb Rose

          February 4, 2026 at 3:02 pm | #

          Hi LOL and David,
          LO: The universal gas law is not an equation. It is a statement of how the macro properties of a gas are a function of the molecules it contains. If the value of the gases change the macro properties change. If the macro properties change, the other macro property changes, not the components properties. An example; You have a container separated into 2 sections by a ball valve. Both chambers have thermometers. One chamber is pressurized while the other is a vacuum. The two chambers equalize with the surrounding energy. If you open the valve between them you will not change the ke energy of the gas molecules but the temperature of the pressurized compartment will drop as fewer molecules strike the thermometer while the temperature of the vacuum chamber will increase as more molecule transfer energy to its thermometer.
          This is demonstrated when Scuba tanks are filled. The tanks must be cooled to fill them. Do you think a small car rear ending a large truck will result in energy flowing to the car increasing its velocity or will the car slow and the truck increase in velocity.
          David: Heat does not rise, energy flows from higher to lower. Hot air expands and if the air above it is hotter, it will expand beneath that air. This is what happens in the atmosphere where the energy from the sun flows downhill from the tropic towards the poles. When the energy of the air molecules above decreases below that of the air below, it will then rise creating the jet streams.
          Explain how the surface of the Earth can cool by radiating energy into space when it is surrounded by the hotter shell of the thermosphere.
          The molecules in the atmosphere prove the energy of matter is greater with increased altitude.
          Herb

      • 

        LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

        February 2, 2026 at 11:11 pm | #

        You are correct as regards monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics.

        Monoatomics (for example: Ar) have no vibrational mode quantum states and thus cannot absorb nor emit IR under any circumstances.

        Homonuclear diatomics (for example: N2, O2) have a net-zero electric dipole which must be perturbed (usually via collision) in order to absorb or emit IR. You will note that collisions occur exponentially less frequently with altitude due to air density decreasing exponentially with altitude. So their ability to radiatively emit drops exponentially with altitude.

        Thus, given that the only way our planet can cool is via radiative emission to space, and give that the radiative polyatomics are the only molecules which can easily radiatively emit; and given that the atmosphere carries away ~76.2% of all solar insolation incident upon the surface via convection, advection and latent heat of vaporization, then radiatively emits it down the energy density gradient and out to space from higher in the atmosphere… it is the radiative polyatomics doing the brunt of that ~76.2% radiative cooling.

        And in fact, it is the monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics which are diluting the radiative polyatomics, reducing the ability of the atmosphere to radiatively cool the planet.

        IOW, the monoatomics and (to a lesser extent) homonuclear diatomics are the true ‘greenhouse gases’ (in the strict ‘actual greenhouse’ sense, not in the fake “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)” sense of the climate loons).

        In an atmosphere consisting of solely monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics (ie: no polyatomic radiative molecules), the atoms / molecules could pick up energy via conduction by contacting the surface, just as the polyatomics do; they could convect just as the polyatomics do… but once in the upper atmosphere, they could not as effectively radiatively emit that energy, the upper atmosphere would warm, lending less buoyancy to convecting air, thus hindering convection… and that’s how an actual greenhouse works, by hindering convection.

        For homonuclear diatomics, there would be some collisional perturbation of their net-zero electric dipole and thus some emission in the atmosphere, but by and large the atmosphere could not effectively emit (especially at higher altitudes, because the chance of collision decreases exponentially with altitude, so homonuclear diatomics become ineffectual at emitting with increasing altitude).

        That increased upper atmospheric temperature would then translate down through the Adiabatic Lapse Rate to a warmer surface.

        The surface would also have to warm because it would have to radiatively emit that ~76.2% of all surface energy which is currently removed from the surface via convection, advection and evaporation… and A HIGHER SURFACE RADIANT EXITANCE IMPLIES A HIGHER SURFACE TEMPERATURE, per the S-B equation.

        Reply

        • 

          LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

          February 3, 2026 at 2:09 am | #

          Correction:
          “and given that the atmosphere carries away ~76.2% of all solar insolation incident upon the surface”

          — should be —

          “and given that the atmosphere carries away ~76.2% of all energy from solar insolation incident upon the surface”

        • 

          Herb Rose

          February 3, 2026 at 11:53 am | #

          Hi LoL and David,
          All matter absorbs radiated energy. That matter will emit radiated energy in a longer wavelength.
          Even the neutron absorbs energy splitting into a proton, an electron, and emitting energy as both gamma rays and motion of the electron.
          Atoms absorb energy creating the ionosphere emitting radiation in the x=ray spectrum.
          O2 and N2 absorb uv energy breaking covalent bonds and creating O3 and N2O molecules. They do not emit energy in the visible light spectrum (except in the violet wavelength creating the blue sky) and so radiated energy in the longer IR spectrum.
          The structure of atoms gives them a larger negatively charged surface than the positive charge radiated from the nucleus. As they move this creates electromagnetic waves in the IR spectrum. Any moving matter (Matter with energy) will emit energy in the IR or longer radio wave spectrum. The more complex a molecule the more wavelengths it will radiate. The atoms of different elements radiate different spectrums of energy from their nucleuses which are created by the orbiting electrons.
          Your contentions that certain molecule do not absorb radiated energy is not supported by reality. Energy is attracted to mass which means the nucleus of atoms and radiates energy from the nuclei of atoms.
          Herb

        • 

          david russell

          February 3, 2026 at 2:28 pm | #

          I intuit that we agree. I must be having a brain fog because I find your text difficult to follow, so you’ll have to forgive me. The way I understand the physics is that almost immediately at all altitudes local thermal equilibrium (LTE) is in effect and thus any IR energy absorbed by GHGs is thermalized — distributed to the non-GHGs — and the whole mass is convected upward. At the same time at every altitude for a give mix of GHGs the temperature sets the amount of IR. At various altitudes as the air thins, LTE breaks down, the non-GHGs start transferring energy back to the GHGs, which can start radiating to space.
          I don’t see in any of this how N2, O2, Argon are “the real GHGs” as you suggest. But aside from that I believe we are in agreement.

• 

  very old white guy

  February 2, 2026 at 10:51 am | #

  Don’t need equations to understand that CO2 is not a climate driver. This old fart has known this since childhood.

  Reply

  • 

    Lloyd

    February 4, 2026 at 6:15 am | #

    YEP!!!! IN SPADES! TREES LOVE IT!

    Reply