Why CO₂ Cannot Explain Current Warming
For decades, the dominant climate narrative has been that rising carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels are the primary driver of global warming.
We are told that because CO₂ levels are higher than at any point in human history, we should expect catastrophic warming.
But a fundamental contradiction in this narrative is hiding in plain sight: The last interglacial period, the Eemian, was significantly warmer than today, despite CO₂ levels being much lower.
This glaring inconsistency should give pause to anyone who accepts the idea that CO₂ is the sole or even primary climate control knob.
If CO₂ is truly the driving force behind global temperature, why was it hotter 120,000 years ago when CO₂ was only 275-280 ppm? Why have climate models consistently failed to accurately recreate past climate conditions?
If climate models cannot reliably reproduce known historical warm periods like the Eemian, how can we trust their projections for the future?
These discrepancies highlight fundamental flaws in the assumptions underpinning climate modeling, raising serious doubts about their ability to predict long-term climate trends with precision.
The evidence is clear: CO₂ is not the dominant driver of Earth’s temperature.
Natural factors such as orbital shifts, solar insolation, ocean circulation, and long-term feedback mechanisms, played a much greater role in shaping past climate changes than CO₂. Ignoring these factors in today’s climate debate is not just bad science; it’s deliberate deception.
Glacial and Interglacial Periods: A Natural Climate Cycle
Over hundreds of thousands of years, Earth’s climate has oscillated between colder glacial periods and warmer interglacial periods. These shifts are largely driven by Milankovitch cycles, which involve variations in Earth’s orbit, axial tilt, and precession. These changes alter the distribution and intensity of solar radiation, initiating warming or cooling periods.
For example, during glacial periods, massive ice sheets cover large portions of the continents, and global temperatures are significantly lower. In contrast, interglacial periods are marked by retreating ice and warmer global temperatures.
These cycles are part of Earth’s natural rhythm, independent of human influence. To better understand these mechanisms, refer to my article on Milankovitch Cycles.
The Eemian Interglacial: A Climate Puzzle
The Eemian interglacial period, which occurred approximately 120,000 years ago, provides a fascinating case study.
See more here Substack
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Mathew,
You ask “If CO₂ is truly the driving force behind global temperature, why was it hotter 120,000 years ago when CO₂ was only 275-280 ppm?”. I ask: HOW DO YOU KNOW HOW ANYTHING WAS 120,000 YEARS AGO?
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb, ,James, and other Readers,
Newton wrote (The Principia) extensively about rare comets and the possible formation of our solar system. Except it seems comets still are not so rare; they are just hard to see (discover). (Great Comets by Robert Burnham 2000)
Have a good day
Reply
Alan
| #
Basic thermodynamics tells us why CO2 cannot have any effect on the earth’s surface temperatures. The energy content of a mass of anything is mass x specific heat x temperature. Any warming is due to heat transfer and that means the energy involved. The temperatures only determine the direction of the heat transfer. There is so little CO2 in the atmosphere and the energy is therefore so low that it would struggle to warm a bucket of water. Try a a simple example of air and water in contact with air at a higher temperature. The thermal capacity of water is about 3500 times that of air so air is going to have little effect on the temperature of the water. CO2 can be ignored because there is so little of it.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
HI Alan,
To prove a scientific idea (theory) you must have a reproducible observation that needs no reasoning. Commonly the atmosphere’s air temperature and its dew point temperature are measured, side-by-side at the same distance above the earth’s surface at the same time. If possible experimental errors are ignored, the AIR TEMPERATURE has never been measured to be less than the DEW POINY TEMPERATURE. The claim of greenhouse theory is that if the atmosphere contained no carbon dioxide (or other greenhouse gases) the temperature of the atmosphere would be less. So since the atmospheric temperature cannot be less than the atmosphere’s dew point temperature (which has no relationship to carbon dioxide) the greenhouse effect theory, as commonly stated, is absolutely
wrong.
Have a good day
Reply
VOWG
| #
Without adequate CO2 in the atmosphere we all die it really is that simple for all you science minded folks out there. Stop the foolishness about CO2.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi VOWG,
Yes, without atmospheric carbon dioxide we all die. It has been stated many time before that without “atmospheric carbon dioxide” there can be NO ORGANIC FOOD PRODUCTION!
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Why is that water molecule pretending to be CO2?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You are right atmospheric water molecules are the actual atmospheric greenhouse gas molecules and the vapor pressure of solid water (ice) becomes zero below neg 40C or F, which temperature is the same on both temperature scales. Isn’t this a coincident that these two temperature scales, defined by two different men at two different times, have this observed (measured) property in common?
Have a good day
Reply