The Essential Science that Proves CO2 Innocent of Causing Warming
The alarm recently reached an extreme level with the Secretary-General of the UN claiming that “we are now in the era of global boiling”.
This is in spite of data showing that changes in CO2 concentration have always followed changes in temperature, not caused them as shown in the monthly Climate4you.com publication from Ole Humlum, Arctic Historical Evaluation and Research Organisation, Longyearbyen, Svalbard, in the graph “The phase relation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature”.
The Royal Society, long a bastion of climate alarmism in the UK, has just published the results of a study showing temperature changes before a change in CO2. This caused uproar from alarmists, and has gone unmentioned in the mainstream media.
It is therefore impossible for the later CO2 change to be the cause of the earlier temperature change. That is putting the cart before the horse.
A change in the level of atmospheric CO2 is the result of a temperature change, NOT the cause of it.
The reason for the lag is revealed in an analysis of the monthly time series for CO2 concentration at the Mauna Loa Observatory and the monthly lower tropospheric temperature for the Equatorial zone from satellite measurements by the University of Alabama described in: https://climateauditor.com/mauna-loa-observatory/.
This study concludes that CO2 does not affect temperature but the temperature level determines the rate of generation of atmospheric CO2.
The UN IPCC initially emphasised the idea of the atmosphere acting as a ‘blanket’ over the Earth with CO2 causing ‘back-radiation’ of heat that was warming the Earth’s surface. These notions originated in the work of John Tindal published in 1869, that is, the UN chose to rely on 19th Century physics instead of that current in the 21st Century.
The statement that “Tyndall recognized that greenhouse gases warm Earth’s surface.” is contrary to the facts. While Tyndall was meticulous in his brilliant experimental work he was not aware of the vibrational modes of the radiative gases and the associated discrete frequencies of their radiation absorption and later release.
He assumed that the heat absorbed by gases inside a long thin pipe during his experiments was returned to its source. We now know that re-radiation of the heat is in every direction of three dimensional space so there is no “back-radiation” to heat the source and thus no “greenhouse effect”.
The paper Wijngaarden and Happer, 2022, gave a detailed account of ‘greenhouse gases’ in the Earth’s atmosphere with an emphasis on CO2. The absorption and release of radiation for CO2 is stated as mainly taking place in its vibrational bending mode with a frequence of 667.4 cm^-1, i.e. a wavelength of 14.98 microns.
From Wein’s law that is the peak of radiation from a black body at -79.75 °C. Such a temperature only occurs occasionally in the Antarctic so any warming could only happen there when the temperature is less than -79.75 °C.
Hence the properties of CO2 gas are such that it cannot warm the whole Earth.
This is supported by the fact that the Earth is estimated to be 4.5 billion years old. The earliest geological era is named the Hadean era after Hades as the surface was covered in molten lava due to the heat generated by the influx of meteorites that coalesced to form the planet.
Consequently the atmosphere contained CO2 but no oxygen. By the following Pre-Cambrian era, the surface had cooled sufficiently to have shallow saline seas rich in dissolved CO2 within which the first life forms evolved as cyanobacteria, blue-green algae.
Their photosynthetic effect absorbed CO2 from the saline water, emitted oxygen and deposited calcium carbonate to form stromatolites about 3.5 billion years ago. This lead to the evolution of the multitude of Oxygen-based life forms that proliferate the Earth without the catastrophic climate events that are being predicted today.
In the transition from a CO2 rich atmosphere to an Oxygen rich atmosphere the temperature of the hot surface has fallen to the present-day comfortable level so the ever-present atmospheric CO2 has not been continuously warming the Earth.
The reason that there has been no measurable warming is revealed in the analysis of real-world data whereby the time series for the annual rate of change of CO2 concentration contains multiples of the 24 hour daily change in temperature and the monthly cycle of the Moon from New Moon, the Moon passing between the Sun and the Earth, to Full Moon when the Moon is on the opposite side from the Sun so the Earth receives its full irradiance.
However the most significant cycle is the 1330 day El Niño event. The atmospheric CO2 can not be the cause these events, it is the temperature change associated with the events that causes the change in the rate of generation of CO2.
The detail may be seen in the web page article at: https://climateauditor.com/mauna-loa-weekly-co2-concentration-data/CO2 is a simple molecule consisting of two oxygen atoms in line and either side of a central carbon atom.
It is a colourless, odourless stable gas that does not generate heat in any way so it cannot cause a rise in temperature of the environment.
Furthermore, it has vibrational modes set in motion when it absorbs a photon of a discrete radiation frequency appropriate to energy involved in that motion. The centre of gravity of the molecule is at its geometric centre so its orientation is independent of the gravity field.
Also it does not have a magnetic moment that would cause it to align with the magnetic field. Thus its orientation in 3D space is completely random so the direction of absorption and re-radiation of photons is also random and there is no back radiation as a molecule has no knowledge of that direction.
Hence there is no “greenhouse” effect, the CO2 molecules pass on heat already in the environment, in any direction with no added energy that would cause warming.
The alarm over using ‘fossil fuels’ is a complete sham.
Bold emphasis added
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.
MattH
| #
And the absorption and emission of energy by the CO2 molecule in any random direction occurs in atmospheric convection currents with the same consequential result as if there was no absorption and release of energy by CO2 at all.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
There is NO science in the GHGT. It is and always has been a scam with idiots posing as scientists promoting it to steal government funds. The atmosphere does absorb radiated energy (1st LOT, the Earth is not flat, there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas, water evaporation cools the Earth not keep it hot, the surface of the Earth does not cool by radiation but from convection, the kinetic energy of gas molecules increase with increasing altitude, the temperature of the oceans control amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. You can’t fix this nonsense with science, only long jail terms for those profiting from the fraud.
Reply
Ricard
| #
The test was flawed from the start –
A few years back the BBC televised an experiment in a test tube to illustrate that CO2 causes warming – a few years later the experiment was repeated by scientists using Argon- not a greenhouse gas- the results with Argon were the same as CO2-
In fact there was more warning from Argon –
https://rtobin.phy.tufts.edu/Wagoner%20AJP%202010.pdf
Reply
Lit
| #
The problem with that experiment is that it doesn´t show that co2 can warm anything, it shows that co2 can get warmed by an external heat source. Any gas can. What the GHE claims is that a heat source(Earth) submerged in cold co2 gets warmer than without co2(or any GHE). The GHE says that a heat source can warm itself to higher temperature via a cold gas. Ridiculous!
According to the GHE the heat lamp in your link should get warmer from back radiation, but they didn´t even measure that. And of course it won´t get warmer.
I´m amazed at how difficult it is for people to actually understand what the claims of the GHE is, and how stupid the experiment designs are when they try to test it.
Look at Geraint Hughes experiments, he´s the only one I´ve seen that understands how it should be done. And his experiments show cooling from co2, which anyone with a brain should already understand is the only possible outcome.
https://principia-scientific.com/another-experiment-proving-co2-is-innocent-of-climate-change/
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Readers,
Note the fact that MattH and Herb do not support their comments with any reference to any experiment and its results while Ricard provides a link to an actual experiment and its results.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
An experiment is an attempt to isolate one factor to test in order to see its effect. Climate and weather are the result of many factors and their interaction. Many of these factors cannot be isolated or tested experimentally so a disproof of in these cases depends on a preponderance of contrary evidence, not a single experiment. In my opinion the Penati gauge does disprove the GHGT by showing the using radiation as the factor of energy loss is invalid but this is just my opinion and the experiments on other factors as being just as conclusive.
Since your comment contains no biblical references, quotes from Einstein, Feynman, or the translator of Galileo’s book your criticism is unsubstantiated and invalid.
Reply
Richard
| #
The whole climate scam was based on Tindal’s experiment –
The Tufts university experiment with Argon debunked it in one go .
Reply
herb
| #
As soon as I saw a test was done by the BBC I stopped reading .
The U.N and government’s around the world and all sources affiliated with todays governments are 100% in on the global warming scam .
Reply
Richard
| #
You missed the payoff !
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
The rise in sea surface temperature and atmospheric CO2 was studied by EP Lance Endersbee in June 2008, and found to straight line correlate with a R2=0.996 accuracy. Ref. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Focus_0808_endersbee.pdf
This matches Henry’ Law first discovered in 1803.
See https://bosmin.com/HenrysLaw.pdf
Yes, AGW is, and always was, political.
Reply
David
| #
Given that the warmists – some of them, at least – acknowledge that CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere is variable, why do some claim that without human interference there is balance in the carbon cycle. Is it not yet another example of their self contradiction.
Reply
James
| #
Our history is full of powerful groups who in their own interests, as high priests, impose the rule of false gods. But gods or not, we cannot disobey the basic rules of the Universe: thermodynamics, physics, arithmetic, chemistry, gravity. If there is a real God and creator, where else could he show his face. Not by chance the climate high priests either ignore or are ignorant of them all.
Reply
VOWG
| #
It takes a special level of stupid to think and believe that CO2 is a climate driver. We all die if CO2 drops too low, maybe 150 ppm could be low enough to kill us all. The so called elites and scientists pushing the CO2 lie will die as well. I am not sure just what their tiny minds think about the demise of all life on the planet.
Reply
Joseph
| #
Thermalization and saturation of CO2.
[email protected]
In reference [1] the long wave (LW) heat transport through a stack of gauge of
chicken wire of 30 km high in a vacuum is analyzed.
A gauge(i) is characterized by the position z(i) and an absorption coefficient f(i),
much smaller than 1.The coefficient f(i) represents the ratio of the surface area of the wires of the mesh to the total surface. The layers have a measured temperature T(i) in degree Kelvin ºK. We define ftot = Σf(i).
With σ = 5.67e -8 W/m²/ºK^4 the heat flux φ(i → j) in W/m² becomes:
φ(i → j) = σf(i)window(i , j)f(j)(T(i)^4 -T(j)^4) for T(i) > T(j ) and φ(j → i) = 0
This is the classic Stefan Boltzmann relationship.
In a stack with N layers, there are N(N-1)/2 pairs (i , j). For N = 90 layers in a stack,
the Stefan Boltzmann relation is therefore applied 4005 times.
It now appears according to [1]:
– when the variable density of traces water vapor H2O in the air, as a function of the height z(i), is used for f(i) and for the temperature the measured values T(i) ºK, the LW heat transport in a stack with a height of 11.5 km agrees with the results of fundamental physics for an atmosphere with only traces of water vapor H2O.
when the variable density of traces of coal dioxide gas CO2 is used for f(i) in a
stack of 30 km high, one finds a heat transport consistent with that of fundamental physics with only traces of the infrared-active gas CO2.
What has been called the saturation of CO2 since 2015 — for ftotCO2 > 1 i.e. >
400 ppm for a stack 30 km high in a gravitational field g = 9.81 m/sec² — can be
demonstrated transparently with a to zero going “window” for overlapping pairs of
gauge elements.
The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) silences the phenomenon of
saturation under the motto “science is settled”.
In the stack model of LW radiation, the phenomenon of thermalization of CO2 can
be introduced, whereby the LW radiation at CO2 frequencies from the surface at
lower heights is converted into heat which is then sent towards the universe with the broad band of H2O frequencies as LW radiation [2].
The phenomenon thermalization of CO2 is also kept silent by the IPCC under the
motto “science is settled”.
The analysis of heat transfer with the Stefan-Boltzmann relation for 4005 pairs of
mesh is based on the finite element method. Lay persons in that field can skip that
part of the paper [1] and start with Figures 3 and 4 regarding temperature
distribution and the standardized concentrations of the infrared-active gases, water vapor H2O and carbon dioxide gas CO2.
Figures 5 and 8 show results for an atmosphere with only traces of H2O vapor and
only CO2 gas, respectively.
Figure 8a shows temperature increases for ftotCO2 = 0 to 1 — or 400 ppm for an air column 30 km high in a gravitational field g = 9.81 m/sec² — without thermalization.
These results parallel those of Hansen’s of June 23, 1988 Congressional
hearing in Washington DC, hosted by then-Senator Gore, with “defective” air
conditioning and open windows.
Figure 8a for ftotCO2 = 0 to 1 represents the so-called greenhouse theory of IPCC.
By extrapolating to higher ppm values, IPCC has continued to give the alarming fake messages.
Figure 8b for ftotCO2 from 0 to 4, or 1600 ppm, shows the effect of saturation, but
without thermalization. These results correspond to those of Happer, also with
saturation and without thermalization of the infra-red active traces of CO2 gas [3].
Figure 9 shows the results like in figure 8a for ftotCO2 = 0 to 1, but now with
thermalization of the infra-red active traces of CO2 gas.
Figure 10 and Table 1 in [1] show the final results with temperature increases due to ftotCO2 from 0 to 4 — or 1600 ppm for an air column of 30 km high in a
gravitational field g = 9.81 m/sec² — including thermalization and saturation.
Conclusion of [1]:
thanks to the phenomena thermalization and saturation of the
infra-red active CO2 gas there is hardly any further temperature increase since
the 400 ppm CO2 concentration of the year 2015.
Appendix
The phenomenon of thermalization was analyzed in [1] by Pangburn [2] in 2016.
Pangburn’s work was in 2023 the reference to thermalization for the author of [1].
It now appears that the renowned German institute EILKE has already provided a
detailed description of the phenomena of saturation (Hug, 1998) and thermalization (Nelson, 2012) [4].
References
[1] Reynen,
https://principia-scientific.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/SaturationIVnew.pdf.
[2] Pangburn,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316885439_Climate_Change_Drivers.
[3] Happer,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA1zUW4uOSw.
[4] EILKE,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbNNhLqhWPg
Reply
clients1.google.kz
| #
Howdy! Do you know if they make any plugins to
protect against hackers? I’m kinda paranoid about losing
everything I’ve worked hard on. Any recommendations?
Reply
Howdy
| #
Hi clients,
While I get the gist of your query, I think you’re in the wrong article.
Who is they, and plugins for what?
Reply
Howdy
| #
Within your security software there is a ‘trusted vendor list’, thus any vendor on that list is allowed access to the machine unchallenged. There is no such thing as a trusted vendor (certificate). I allways disable that.
Here’s something for people to get their teeth into:
https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2022/03/stolen-nvidia-certificates-used-to-sign-malware-heres-what-to-do
Of course, as Microsoft does: “The two leaked Nvidia certificates have expired, being valid from 2011 to 2014 and 2015 to 2018. But, Windows will accept expired certificates for drivers, which makes the leaked certificates very useful to cybercriminals.”
“So useful, in fact, that the first malware samples signed with these certificates started to show up only one day after they were leaked.”
Good feature eh? As far as the comically named windows defender goes…
https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/manufacturer/microsoft/
Plugins and other adjuncts are little use without the knowledge to use them properly. Get yourself that knowledge by becoming acquainted.
Reply