Understanding The Great CO2 Climate Scam
Retired Australian geophysicist and long-term follower of the climate debate; Bevan Dockery, explains in his concise essay why the ‘science’ behind climate alarm is premised on little more than unproven assumptions about how ‘greenhouse gases’ operate in our open atmosphere
He writes:
The UN IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, AR6, states that:
A.1 It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred.
After describing changes in numerous climate phenomena, the report recommends:
From a physical science perspective, limiting human-induced global warming to a specific level requires limiting cumulative CO2 emissions, reaching at least net zero CO2 emissions, along with strong reductions in other greenhouse gas emissions.
Strong, rapid and sustained reductions in CH4 emissions would also limit the warming effect resulting from declining aerosol pollution and would improve air quality.
However, the link between ‘net zero CO2 emissions’ and climate is only by implication with no proven direct causal link to the climate.
Why? Because there is none.
CO2 is a simple molecule with a carbon atom central and in-line between two oxygen atoms. Excluding those containing radioactive isotopes, molecules do not generate heat so CO2 cannot raise the temperature of anything.
Our environment consists of molecules in the form of solid, liquid or gas, depending on the temperature. In isolation, they do not generate heat. They are composed of atoms, have mass and are a form of matter.
Heat is a form of energy, an entirely different entity which passes continuously from energy sources to energy sinks either as radiation or via molecules as conduction, convection or change of state thereby causing temperature levels dependent on the energy involved.
As well as the usual convective mode, atmospheric CO2 gas has a radiative mode. Its dominant absorption is for the bending mode where the central carbon atom vibrates back and forth at right angles to the line of the molecule on absorbing photon energy within a narrow band centred at a wave number of 2361.5 per cm, that is, wavelength 4.23 microns, frequency 70.8 Tera Hertz.
Practically everywhere on Earth radiates with a spectral peak wavelength less than 4.23 microns, that is, everywhere is hotter than the subsequent 4.23 micron re-radiation emitted by CO2 so it cannot be warmed by that radiation, which is equivalent to the spectral peak wavelength from a source at -80°C.
These conditions only occur occasionally over parts of the Antarctic, where the record minimum was – 89.2°C at Vostok Station, Antarctica, on July 21,1983.
In describing events related to the Earth’s climate changes, AR6 repeatedly uses the un-physical metric “radiative forcing”.
Their definition is:
“Radiative forcing The change in the net, downward minus upward, radiative flux (expressed in W m–2) due to a change in an external driver of climate change, such as a change in the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2).”
This was given in more detail in the Fourth Assessment Report AR4:
“‘Radiative forcing’ is a measure of the influence a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system and is an index of the importance of the factor as a potential climate change mechanism. Positive forcing tends to warm the surface while negative forcing tends to cool it.”
These statements are incorrect.
There is no ‘external driver’ or ‘altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy’ because the radiative forcing measure only applies to in and out in a single direction and ignores the fact that the radiative gases re-radiate in all directions with equally probability.
Satellite measurements give the vertical inward radiation from the Sun and the Earth’s outward radiation after being absorbed and re-radiated on the way in and on the way out. The radiative forcing is actually an estimate of the outward radiation emitted in directions other than that of the inward radiation.
The methods of the IPCC imply the continuation of the concepts made during the 19th Century by Fourier, Tindal and Arrhenius of a “Greenhouse Effect” and “back radiation”.
The assumption by the IPCC that these are still relevant is not supported by modern evidence.
For example the existence of “back radiation” implies that there is some force, unknown to modern science that determines the direction of release of radiationabsorbed by the radiative gases.
In reality, radiation is released at randomin any direction in 3D space.
Nor is it ‘trapped’ as energy always moves tomatter at a lower energy level, that is, colder. The standard household thermos flask proves that matter cannot heat itself by absorbing its own radiation.
It does not make its contents hotter.
If there was such an event as the ‘Greenhouse Effect’, closed volumes would continually warm as the opposing surfaces radiated their heat back and forth between each other. The interior of the tombs of the pharaohs in the Nile Valley would have been charred remnants by the time that they were discovered by the archaeologists.
Changes in the concentration and pressure of atmospheric radiative gases may change their radiative parameters but do not cause the gases to suddenly start generating heat.
The fact is that radiation is travelling in all directions within the Earth’s atmosphere. At the Poles and at sunrise and sunset every day the Sun’s rays are at or near horizontal to the Earth’s surface. On the night side of the Earth there is no inward radiation from the Sun so the radiative forcing is negative and the Earth cools.
Each morning the Earth’s surface temperature rises until the Sun reaches its zenith at which point the surface immediately below is receiving maximum radiation before falling to zero at sunset yet the UN IPCC uses a single value for the incoming radiation.
It is not possible to measure the total outward radiation resulting from a single ray of Sunlight striking the Earth surface at a specific time due to multiple scattering within the atmosphere. This is the reason why we see everything in 3D in such detail, surfaces radiate in all outward directions.
The reason that we see hills on the horizon is that they emit radiation that travels horizontally to our eye. The reason that we see the underside of a bird or an aircraft as they flew overhead is that the underside radiates down to our eye.
Yet this radiation is totally ignored by the IPCC.
The Sixth Assessment Report of the UN IPCC is of no scientific merit, being written for a purely political purpose.
Bold emphasis added
Header image: Facebook
About the author: Bevan Dockery enjoyed a long and successful career working throughout Australia, South-East Asia and Southern Africa as a Geophysicist since graduating from University of Western Australia. After postgraduate training at the Australian School of Nuclear Technology and Western Australian Institute of Technology his professional appointments included, among others, positions in the Experimental Office, Royal Australian Navy Experimental Laboratory and Western Australian Main Roads Department. Latterly, he served as Geophysicist for the Australian Government Bureau of Mineral Resources. Now retired Bevan is pursuing personal research into climate-related matters applying his considerable data processing and analyzing skills.
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.
Alan
| #
An outstanding article that destroys the case for human cause warming which I hope is easy to understand by people with little science background. I especially liked the thermos flask example which is one that I use. Trapped heat as a concept in the natural world is nonsense. But surprisingly few people will see this because they have been so utterly brainwashed.
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Note the calculated Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate in my prior post: -9.7330377706482238008458858152373 K km-1
The negative sign means temperature decreases with altitude. Usually we leave the negative sign off, with the knowledge that temperature decreases with altitude.
Let’s corroborate that to the Specific Lapse Rate and the adjusted concentration of each gas…
(N2) 9.433973828324 K km-1 * 0.780761158 +
(O2) 10.680770320623 K km-1 * 0.20944121395198 +
(Ar) 18.84692989579 K km-1 * 0.00934 +
(CO2) 11.683426182319 K km-1 * 0.00043 +
(CH4) 4.4080355942551 K km-1 * 0.0000018 +
(Xe) 61.282460659191 K km-1 * 0.0000000869565217391 +
(SF6) 30.187357269247 K km-1 * 0.0000000000115 +
(CO) 9.4393555726775 K km-1 * 0.00000008 +
(I2) 45.728742264382 K km-1 * 0.00000000009 +
(Kr) 39.225663804284 K km-1 * 0.000001 +
(SO2) 15.757493460485 K km-1 * 0.000000015 +
(NO2) 12.127952596066 K km-1 * 0.00000033698 +
(O3) 12.001569302138 K km-1 * 0.0000000003 +
(N2O) 11.18181671295 K km-1 * 0.00000033671 +
(Ne) 9.5205114453312 K km-1 * 0.0000182 +
(He) 1.8883738683977 K km-1 * 0.000005222 +
(H2) 0.6859482857817 K km-1 * 0.00000055 =
(N2) 7.36568033074394 +
(O2) 2.23699350189356 +
(Ar) 0.176030325226679 +
(CO2) 0.00502387325839717 +
(CH4) 0.00000793446406965918 +
(Xe) 0.00000532890962253648 +
(SF6) 0.000000000347154608596341 +
(CO) 0.0000007551484458142 +
(I2) 0.00000000411558680379438 +
(Kr) 0.000039225663804284 +
(SO2) 0.000000236362401907275 +
(NO2) 0.00000408687746582232 +
(O3) 0.0000000036004707906414 +
(N2O) 0.00000376502950541739 +
(Ne) 0.000173273308305028 +
(He) 0.00000986108834077279 +
(H2) 0.000000377271557179935 = 9.78397288330931 K km-1
Above, I’ve adjusted relative concentrations to arrive at 1,000,000 ppm. You’ll note the model atmospheres you find online exceed 1,000,000 ppm, which is impossible and which skews results.
That’s pretty close, only off by 0.050935112661 K km-1.
That corroborates the calculation in my prior post that a 10x increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration would only increase the lapse rate by 0.0063309044731 K.
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
There is no “greenhouse effect due to backradiation”, because “backradiation” is physically impossible. The entirety of CAGW is nothing more than a complex mathematical scam.
Here’s the mathematical proof:
https://www.patriotaction.us/showthread.php?tid=2711
How does increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration affect surface temperature?
Well, we have to know the Specific Lapse Rate of each gas first. This is what the Adiabatic Lapse Rate would be if the atmosphere consisted of only that gas.
Let’s calculate the Specific Lapse Rate due to each constituent atomic or molecular species of the atmosphere.
Idealized dry gas molar heat capacity lapse rate:
If we take ϒ = 1.404, g = 9.80665 m s-2, R = 8.31446261815324 J mol-1 K-1 and M = 28.9647 g mol-1, then:
dT / dh = -0.4/1.404 * (((28.9647 g mol-1) * 9.80665 m s-2) / 8.31446261815324 J mol-1 K-1) = -9.7330377706482238008458858152373 K km-1
The stated molar isobaric heat capacity for dry air is Cp = 7/2 R
7 / 2 * 8.31446261815324 J mol-1 K-1 = 29.10061916353634 J mol-1 K-1
∴ Molar Heat Capacity / 7 * 2 = Specific Gas Constant
dT / dh = -0.4/1.404 * (((Molar Mass) * 9.80665 m s-2) / Specific Gas Constant) = Specific Lapse Rate
The below data is taken from the model atmosphere I constructed in my paper at:
https://www.patriotaction.us/showthread.php?tid=2711
… to calculate the Specific Lapse Rate below:
Symbol: Molar Mass: Molar Heat Capacity: Specific Lapse Rate (SLR):
H2 | 2.01588 g mol-1 | 28.82 J mol-1 K-1 | 0.6859482857817 K km-1
He | 4.002602 g mol-1 | 20.7862 J mol-1 K-1 | 1.8883738683977 K km-1
H2O | 18.01528 g mol-1 | 75.327 J mol-1 K-1 | 2.3453681364178 K km-1
CH4 | 16.04246 g mol-1 | 35.69 J mol-1 K-1 | 4.4080355942551 K km-1
N2 | 28.0134 g mol-1 | 29.12 J mol-1 K-1 | 9.4339738283240 K km-1
CO | 28.0101 g mol-1 | 29.1 J mol-1 K-1 | 9.4393555726775 K km-1
Ne | 20.1797 g mol-1 | 20.7862 J mol-1 K-1 | 9.5205114453312 K km-1
O2 | 31.9988 g mol-1 | 29.38 J mol-1 K-1 | 10.680770320623 K km-1
N2O | 44.0128 g mol-1 | 38.6 J mol-1 K-1 | 11.181816712950 K km-1
CO2 | 44.0095 g mol-1 | 36.94 J mol-1 K-1 | 11.683426182319 K km-1
O3 | 47.9982 g mol-1 | 39.22 J mol-1 K-1 | 12.001569302138 K km-1
NO2 | 46.0055 g mol-1 | 37.2 J mol-1 K-1 | 12.127952596066 K km-1
SO2 | 64.0638 g mol-1 | 39.87 J mol-1 K-1 | 15.757493460485 K km-1
Ar | 39.948 g mol-1 | 20.7862 J mol-1 K-1 | 18.846929895790 K km-1
SF6 | 146.06 g mol-1 | 93 J mol-1 K-1 | 30.187357269247 K km-1
Kr | 83.798 g mol-1 | 20.95 J mol-1 K-1 | 39.225663804284 K km-1
I2 | 253.80894 g mol-1 | 54.43 J mol-1 K-1 | 45.728742264382 K km-1
Xe | 131.293 g mol-1 | 21.01 J mol-1 K-1 | 61.282460659191 K km-1
Now, knowing the above, we can, for instance, increase CO2 concentration by 10x, from 430 ppm to 4300 ppm.
(CO2): 11.683426182319 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.000001 = 0.0000596438906607 K ppm-1
If we went from 430 ppm to 4300 ppm (10x), CO2 alone would increase the lapse rate by:
11.683426182319 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.00043 = 0.0256468729841 K
11.683426182319 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.0043 = 0.2564687298411 K
0.2564687298411 K – 0.0256468729841 K = 0.230821856857 K
But wait! We also have to account for the atoms and molecules which that CO2 is displacing. We’ll only do the calculations for the three most-prevalent gases, which comprise ~99.957% of the dry atmosphere.
4300 ppm – 430 ppm = 3870 ppm
Argon
Ar | 39.948 g mol-1 | 20.7862 J mol-1 K-1 | 18.846929895790 K km-1
(Ar) 3870 ppm * 0.00934 = 36.1458 ppm
(Ar) 934 ppm – 36.1458 ppm = 897.8542 ppm
(Ar) 18.84692989579 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.00934 = 0.8986348102821 K
(Ar) 18.84692989579 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.008978542 = 0.8638576431242 K
(Ar) 0.8986348102821 K – 0.8638576431242 K = 0.0347771671579 K cooling
0.230821856857 K – 0.0347771671579 K = 0.196044689699 K increase in lapse rate.
N2
N2 | 28.0134 g mol-1 | 29.12 J mol-1 K-1 | 9.4339738283240 K km-1
(N2) 3870 ppm * 0.780761158 = 3021.54568146 ppm
(N2) 780761.158 ppm – 3021.54568146 ppm = 777739.61231854 ppm
(N2) 9.433973828324 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.780761158 = 37.601798088447 K
(N2) 9.433973828324 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.77773961231854 = 37.456279129845 K
(N2) 37.601798088447 K – 37.456279129845 K = 0.145518958601 K cooling
0.230821856857 K – 0.0347771671579 K – 0.145518958601 K = 0.0505257310981 K increase in lapse rate.
O2
O2 | 31.9988 g mol-1 | 29.38 J mol-1 K-1 | 10.680770320623 K km-1
(O2) 3870 ppm * 0.20944121395198 = 810.53749899416 ppm
(O2) 209441.21395198 ppm – 810.53749899416 ppm = 208630.67645298 ppm
(O2) 10.680770320623 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.20944121395198 = 11.419851827166 K
(O2) 10.680770320623 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.20863067645298 = 11.37565700054 K
(O2) 11.419851827166 K – 11.37565700054 K = 0.044194826625 K cooling
0.230821856857 K – 0.0347771671579 K – 0.145518958601 K – 0.044194826625 K = 0.0063309044731 K increase in lapse rate.
Well look at that, increasing CO2 concentration by 10x causes only 0.0063309044731 K increase in the lapse rate!
And that doesn’t even take into account the radiative cooling at the top of the atmosphere, where the lapse rate is ‘anchored’, due to more radiative polyatomics per parcel of air (remember, that radiative polyatomic (CO2) is primarily displacing a nonradiative monoatomic (Ar) and effectively-nonradiative homonuclear diatomics (N2, O2)), which translates down through the lapse rate to a cooler surface. The lapse rate starts at a lower temperature (in the upper atmosphere), so it ends at a lower temperature (at the surface).
IOW, increasing CO2 atmospheric concentration causes cooling, not warming. The climastrologists have flipped thermodynamics on its head via their misuse of the S-B equation, as explained here:
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/maines_mysterious_floating_wind_research/#comment-6537003020
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/maines_mysterious_floating_wind_research/#comment-6537008622
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Now, knowing the above, who can tell me what the lapse rate would be if we removed Argon, the one atmospheric gas we absolutely do not need?
We obviously cannot remove O2 (at least, and not live). We obviously cannot remove N2 (plants need it in the soil). We obviously cannot remove CO2 (plants need it).
But we can remove every single molecule of Ar and it would have no effect upon flora or fauna.
And that, folks… that would have a profound effect upon surface temperature. Far more than removing CO2, by orders of magnitude.
Who can do that calculation? You’ve got an example above for the increase of CO2, just reverse it for removing Ar (and include CO2 as one of the gases being considered… so you’d use N2, O2 and CO2, which would then be the three most prevalent gases).
Reply
Shawn Marshall
| #
You cannot convince people with logical or technical arguments. People are not educated to think critically. They could be convinced by a very simple experiment, Construct a building in which the top is open to the atmosphere to allow the escape of gases, install a large plastic transparent cloud within the building, which can contain carbon dioxide. Install a thermal ground grid to maintain temperature precisely at 90°F. Induce pure carbon dioxide into the cloud that has been built into the building and measure the amount of energy required to heat the ground grid. Do the same thing with the cloud filled with natural air. These vaulted physics should be able to calculate the difference in energy by the reflected heat from the carbon dioxide cloud. The purpose of the building is to insulate the experiment from other radiation.
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Bevan Dochery wrote:
“and ignores the fact that the radiative gases re-radiate in all directions with equally probability.”
No. A radiative molecule can only emit when that energy can spontaneously flow down an energy density gradient. It cannot emit if that energy is required to climb up an energy density gradient.
The surface is warmer than the atmosphere (usually), so except under temperature inversion conditions, the highest probability of emission is upwelling.
https://www.patriotaction.us/showthread.php?tid=2711
Reply
Bevan Dockery
| #
LOL for your information, the centre of gravity of a CO2 molecule is at its geometric centre and it has no magnetic moment so its orientation in space is purely random, hence the emission of absorbed radiative energy must also be in any direction at random.
Your statement that “a radiative molecule can only emit when that energy can spontaneously flow down an energy density gradient” seems to imply that the Earth’s surface does not emit radiation in accordance with its temperature when it is receiving the higher frequency incoming Sun’s radiation ?
How does a single energized CO2 molecule detect your proposed energy gradient?
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Better to stick to an accepted science LAW. I recommend Henry’s Law.
See https://bosmin.com/HenrysLaw.pdf as first postulated by a British chemist in 1893.
HL shows us that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is solely determined by the sea temperature. So regardless of the ‘green house’ calculations – nothing will change that concentration, other than the average sea temperature reading. We can confidently conclude that anthropogenic global warming does not exist, and that human produced CO2 is all absorbed by the sea as an integral part of the ongoing carbon cycle.
Reply
David Hamilton Russell
| #
Too much in the weeds. Just read J.E. Solheim (2016) which filled small greenhouses with IR-transparent roofs with differing mixes of air and CO2 (from 700ppm to 40,000ppm). And then heated them for 101 minutes. Result: The higher the CO2 content, the less warming after 101 minutes. This disproves that CO2 traps heat. It disproves Tyndall. It disproves the GHE. To the retort that “That was one experiment” the reply is “Eight years have passed since 2016 and no one has shown different results (or even tried to).”
Reply
David
| #
Atmospheric temperature has two main determinants with a very clear correlation to evidence: distance from the sun and atmospheric pressure/density. CO2 is irrelevant.
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Three main determinants: Distance from the sun, solar power output, and atmospheric pressure / density.
Reply
Henry Pool
| #
Thanks for that comment. But I think it is not only Henry’s Law. There also 3 chemical reactions, each with their own Kc and each strongly dependent on pH and temperature. Otherwise, we are thinking along the same lines.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/08/30/new-study-co2s-atmospheric-residence-time-4-yearsnatural-sources-drive-co2-concentration-changes/#comment-3963588
My own report is here:
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2024/07/28/the-mystery-of-the-missing-human-generated-carbon-dioxide/
Reply