HomeClimate Change BullshitCO2 Is Not A Greenhouse Gas

CO2 Is Not A Greenhouse Gas

Author

Date

Category

The Evidence Proves That CO2 Is Not A Greenhouse Gas

Written by Dr. Tim Ball

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claim of human-caused global warming is built on the assumption that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in global temperature.

The IPCC claim is what science calls a theory, a hypothesis, or in simple English, a speculation.

I call it bullshit

Every theory is based on a set of assumptions. The standard scientific method is to challenge the theory by trying to disprove it.

Karl Popper wrote about this approach in a 1963 article, Science as Falsification. Douglas Yates said:

“No scientific theory achieves public acceptance until it has been thoroughly discredited.”

Thomas Huxley made a similar observation:

“The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”

In other words, all scientists must be skeptics, which makes a mockery out of the charge that those who questioned AGW, were global warming skeptics.

Michael Shermer provides a likely explanation for the effectiveness of the charge:

“Scientists are skeptics. It’s unfortunate that the word ‘skeptic’ has taken on other connotations in the culture involving nihilism and cynicism. Really, in its pure and original meaning, it’s just thoughtful inquiry.”

The scientific method was not used with the AGW theory. In fact, the exact opposite occurred, they tried to prove the theory.

It is a treadmill guaranteed to make you misread, misrepresent, misuse and selectively choose data and evidence. This is precisely what the IPCC did and continued to do.

A theory is used to produce results. The results are not wrong, they are only as right as the assumptions on which they are based. For example, Einstein used his theory of relativity to produce the most famous formula in the world; e = mc2.

You cannot prove it wrong mathematically because it is the end product of the assumptions he made. To test it and disprove it, you challenge one or all of the assumptions. One of these is represented by the letter “c” in the formula, which assumes nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

Scientists challenging the theory are looking for something moving faster than the speed of light.

The most important assumption behind the AGW theory is that an increase in global atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase in the average annual global temperature.

The problem is that in every record of temperature and CO2, the temperature changes first.

Think about what I am saying. The basic assumption on which the entire theory that human activity is causing global warming or climate change is wrong.

The questions are how did the false assumption develop and persist?

The answer is the IPCC needed the assumption as the basis for their claim that humans were causing catastrophic global warming for a political agenda.

They did what all academics do and found a person who gave historical precedence to their theory. In this case, it was the work of Svante Arrhenius.

The problem is he didn’t say what they claim.

This 2009 article identified many of the difficulties with relying on Arrhenius. The Friends of Science added confirmation when they translated a more obscure 1906 Arrhenius work. They wrote:

Much discussion took place over the following years between colleagues, with one of the main points being the similar effect of water vapour in the atmosphere which was part of the total figure. Some rejected any effect of CO2 at all.

There was no effective way to determine this split precisely, but in 1906 Arrhenius amended his view of how increased carbon dioxide would affect climate.

The issue of Arrhenius mistaking a water vapor effect for a CO2 effect is not new. What is new is that the growing level of empirical evidence that the warming effect of CO2, known as climate sensitivity, is zero.

This means Arrhenius colleagues who “rejected any effect of CO2 at all” are correct. In short, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

The IPCC through the definition of climate change given them by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) were able to predetermine their results:

a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods.

This allowed them to only examine human-causes, thus eliminating almost all other variables of climate and climate change.

You cannot identify the human portion if you don’t know or understand natural, that is without human, climate or climate change. IPCC acknowledged this in 2007 as people started to ask questions about the narrowness of their work.

They offered the one that many people thought they were using and should have been using. Deceptively, it only appeared as a footnote in the 2007 Summary for Policymakers (SPM), so it was aimed at the politicians. It said:

“Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity.

This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”

Few at the time challenged the IPCC assumption that an increase in CO2 caused an increase in global temperature. The IPCC claimed it was true because when they increased CO2 in their computer models, the result was a temperature increase.

Of course, because the computer was programmed for that to happen.

These computer models are the only place in the world where a CO2 increase precedes and causes a temperature change.

This probably explains why their predictions are always wrong.

An example of how the definition allowed the IPCC to focus on CO2 is to consider the major ‘greenhouse gases’ by name and percentage of the total. They are:

water vapour (H20) 95 percent

carbon dioxide (CO2) four percent

and methane (CH4) 0.036 percent

The IPCC was able to overlook water vapor (95 percent) by admitting humans produce some, but the amount is insignificant relative to the total atmospheric volume of water vapour.

The human portion of the CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 3.4 percent of the total CO2 (Figure 1)

water vapour completely overwhelms the human portion of CO2. This is entirely possible because water vapour is the most variable gas in the atmosphere, from region to region and over time.

In 1999, after two IPCC Reports were produced in 1990 and 1995 assuming a CO2 increase caused a temperature increase, the first significant long term Antarctic ice core record appeared. Petit, Raynaud, and Lorius were presented as the best representation of levels of temperature, CO2, and deuterium over 420,000-years.

It appeared the temperature and CO2 were rising and falling in concert, so the IPCC and others assumed this proved that CO2 was causing temperature variation.

I recall Lorius warning against rushing to judgment and saying there was no indication of such a connection.

Euan Mearns noted in his robust assessment that the authors believed that temperature increase preceded CO2 increase:

In their seminal paper on the Vostok Ice Core, Petit et al (1999) [1] note that CO2 lags temperature during the onset of glaciations by several thousand years but offer no explanation.

They also observe that CH4 and CO2 are not perfectly aligned with each other but offer no explanation. The significance of these observations are therefore ignored.

At the onset of glaciations temperature drops to glacial values before CO2 begins to fall suggesting that CO2 has little influence on temperature modulation at these times.

Lorius reconfirmed his position in a 2007 article:

“our [East Antarctica, Dome C] ice core shows no indication that greenhouse gases have played a key role in such a coupling [with radiative forcing]”

Despite this, those promoting the IPCC claims ignored the empirical evidence. They managed to ignore the facts and have done so to this day.

Joanne Nova explains part of the reason they were able to fool the majority in her article, “The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed.” when she wrote confirming the Lorius concern:

“It’s impossible to see a lag of centuries on a graph that covers half a million years, so I have regraphed the data from the original sources…”

Nova concluded after expanding and more closely examining the data that:

The bottom line is that rising temperatures cause carbon levels to rise. Carbon may still influence temperatures, but these ice cores are neutral on that. If both factors caused each other to rise significantly, positive feedback would become exponential.

We’d see a runaway greenhouse effect. It hasn’t happened. Some other factor is more important than carbon dioxide, or carbon’s role is minor.

Al Gore knew the ice core data showed temperature changing first. In his propaganda movie, An Inconvenient Truth he separated the graph of temperature and CO2 enough to make a comparison of the two graphs more difficult. He then distracted with Hollywood histrionics by riding up on a forklift to the distorted 20th century reading.

Thomas Huxley said:

“The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a lovely hypothesis by an ugly fact.”

The most recent ugly fact was that after 1998 CO2 levels continued to increase but global temperatures stopped increasing. Other ugly facts included the return of cold, snowy winters creating a PR problem by 2004. Cartoons appeared (Figure 2.)

The people controlling the AGW deception were aware of what was happening. Emails from 2004 leaked from the University of East Anglia revealed the concern. Nick at the Minns/Tyndall Centre that handled publicity for the climate story said:

“In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public relations problem with the media.”

Swedish climate expert on the IPCC Bo Kjellen replied:

“I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global warming.”

The disconnect between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures continued after 1998. The level of deliberate blindness of what became known as the “pause” or the hiatus became ridiculous (Figure 3).

The assumption that an increase in CO2 causes an increase in temperature was incorrectly claimed in the original science by Arrhenius.

He mistakenly attributed the warming caused by water vapour (H2O) to CO2. All the evidence since confirms the error.

This means CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

There is a greenhouse effect, and it is due to the water vapour.

The entire claim that CO and especially human CO2 is absolutely wrong, yet these so-called scientists convinced the world to waste trillions on reducing CO2.

If you want to talk about collusion, consider the cartoon in Figure 4.

Previous article
Next article

17 COMMENTS

  1. Water vapour traps heat, Heat (or cold) is worse when when there is high humidity (water vapour).

    Water vapour is a heat sink, It takes a lot more energy to heat (or cool) a building (or planet) by convection (air flow) or conductance (transfer by contact) when there is high humidity.

    All solar energy comes to the earth via electromagnetic radiation, principally by Infra Red. There is no air in space so conductance and convection cannot occur. Electromagnetic radiation transfers directly cutting through all the barriers of the upper atmosphere layers that are a barrier to convection or conductance, along with nitrogen in the lower atmosphere. Once trapped in the water vapour heat sink, it is unable to escape via convection or conductance, so the heat remains.

    Without this water vapour, the temperature on the surface of the earth would vary by hundreds of degrees between night and day. And nitrogen, which comprises the bulk of the atmosphere is an heat insulator while CO2 is a conductor.

    Solar radiation (electromagnetic radiation) is what brings the heat, water vapour holds it, and nitrogen prevents its easy escape. CO2 as a trace gas, has 3/4 of 5/8 of fuck all effect, except for one aspect, It is plant food, without which we would all perish.

    And all of the above is high school science. It’s not rocket science, it doesn’t require 1422 pages of equations to understand. If humidity / water vapour was not the driving force, sales of home ventilation systems, dehumidifiers, and even the bulk of heat pumps, would disappear, It would not be unbearable in hot humid countries.

    There is nothing to fear from Cow farts, or carbon producing animals or farming. They provide food (CO2) for the plants to feed the animals and growing human population.

    Anyone that thinks climate change is an issue has been brainwashed. The only thing green about the Climate Change Movement is the quantity of greenbacks flowing into the bank accounts of the elite who are packaging up Climate Change snake oil and selling it. The elite who are or who are best buddies of the peddlers that packaged up unknown chemicals and sold it as a snake oil vaccine for a pandemic that didn’t exist, save for pandemic created by the snake oil vaccines.

    History will record this time period as mankind’s darkest period, where war mongers, snake oil peddlers and eugenics advocates conned the gullible into slavery, and experimented on them.

    7

    0

    • Thanks DylanHunt:—-
      You put and articulate these points very well. !

      We have all the many institutions, departments, academia, media, with the politicians, cheer-leading the techno-bureaucrats to be all aligned to place further controls on the ordinary citizens to a tyrannical tyranny.

      That last sentence, and that time of reckoning that was sorted over 70 years ago, yet they systemically do not want anyone to allude to the lessons & concepts learnt, that sorted much of that out at great sacrifice.

      4

      0

    • And to add further to the data and links in the article above. The earth gets all energy from the sun in the form of electromagnetic energy. The earth is a giant electromagnetic receiver. Without the energy from the sun, the earth would slow down and become a frozen blob drifting slowly through space.

      As the solar energy changes either through orbital cycles or solar flares, so the temperature of the earth fluctuates. Increased temperatures increase the rate of chemical and biological reactions / interactions. Volcano’s stimulated by the increased activity in the magnetic core, will spew more. And of course with the increased warmth, animals and bipeds will reproduce more, but the trace amount of CO2 increase due to animals and bipeds is negligible. CO2 is a critical gas for plant life, fish, and to feed animals. It is however a consequence, and a welcome one at that, as a result of temperature increase, not a driver.

      Charlatans that wish to hijack the Earth’s natural cycles and profit from it are exactly that, Charlatans.

      A: “Klingons are going to arrive and attack earth in 7 days and kill everyone. Pay me $67 Trillion and I’ll stop them.”
      B: “OK, here’s the $67 Trillion.”

      7 days later……….
      B: “I didn’t see any Klingons or Klingon ships.”
      A: “Your $67 Trillion was well spent then.”

      2

      0

  2. CO2 does have a contribution to the temperature of the atmosphere. But it is probably completely saturated in this respect. Happer has argued that a doubling of CO2 will result in about a 1deg rise in temp. However, the increase in CO2 will probably lead to other effects, some which will result in cooling, so its very hard try and predict what the increases will actually do. Bottom line is its nothing to worry about, and we actually need to look for the real causes of temperature change which is much more complicated. The data from Heller suggests the overall trend in temperature change since the 1900s is “no change” The trend line is flat.

    3

    0

  3. Great to see Dr Ball coming out again emphasizing the absolute basic fact in all this —CO2 increases follow temperature increases.

    My round the barbecue explanation of why all Shaw’s BS is wrong is say school boy science can explain it. If the bottle of beer you are drinking has been in the fridge all day and the bottle I am drinking has been sitting on the back seat of the car all afternoon , on this great summer day, so I’m drinking warm “pommie” beer what is likely to have happened when we took to the tops off? Even the dumbest beer drinker would know my beer frothed all over the place while their beer did nothing. If they cannot join the dots I tell them my beer had to heat up before the CO2 was released —ie. CO2 release needed the temperature rise first and given most of the CO2, by a very large margin, is held within the oceans, that is fundamentally how the levels change.
    Nothing to do with cars or coal fired power stations.

    3

    0

  4. So in NZ we are going to ‘fix global warming’ by planting forests. Forests create humidity, and put more moisture into the air. More forests equals more atmospheric water vapour and more potential to trap greenhouse warmth. This would be a dumb idea if it was not for the fact a warmer more humid climate with increased CO2 is a far easier place to live in than a cold desert.

    2

    0

    • and when the forests die or get burn, they release all that CO2 straight back into the atmosphere. At least grass gets eaten by cows which get eaten by humans so the CO2 is sequestered and not just re -released. Veganism is bad for climate change…. Go figure.

      1

      0

  5. Propaganda does not require proof, just like the mask mandate, the point is to show subservice to pronouncement’s from on high, CO2 climate change is the same thing as masking up to protect others, its a political statement, a virtue signal not a science fact.
    Bye their actions shall you know them

    3

    0

Recent posts

Recent comments

Sooty on Have Your Say
Viking on Have Your Say
howitis on Have Your Say
howitis on Have Your Say
Viking on Have Your Say
howitis on Have Your Say
Simpleton1 on Have Your Say
howitis on Have Your Say

Pike is our weekly review of the most popular posts and comments seen on YSB in the past week.
Hamilton
overcast clouds
19 ° C
19 °
17.8 °
92 %
0.5kmh
99 %
Sun
19 °
Mon
20 °
Tue
18 °
Wed
18 °
Thu
19 °
NZD - New Zealand Dollar
USD
1.6827
EUR
1.7955
AUD
1.0917
CAD
1.2215
GBP
2.0961
JPY
0.0110
CNY
0.2325
INR
0.0201