Archives par mot-clé : CO2 theory

climate-debate

Climate change computer projections are manifestly false and dangerously misleading

by W. Kininmonth, Feb 19, 2026 in Clintel.org

…

…

 

6. Carbon dioxide has little influence on Earth’s surface temperature. Earth’s surface temperature is elevated because the radiation emissions from the greenhouse gases, clouds, and aerosols reaching the surface reduce the net longwave radiation loss from the surface. Additional carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has little impact on surface temperature because there is little change in longwave radiation reaching the tropical surface as carbon dioxide concentration increases. The calculations below are made using the MODTRAN radiation transfer model and are for the tropical atmosphere with no clouds and constant temperature. Since industrialisation, for each 100ppm increase in carbon dioxide concentration the increase in radiation emitted by the greenhouse gases and reaching the surface was about 0.6W/m2. That is an increase of 0.3 percent of the radiation emitted by water vapour. Note that from the last glacial maximum 20,000 years ago to preindustrial times the carbon dioxide concentration increased from near 200ppm to near 300ppm (an increase of only 100ppm). During this period the polar ice sheets covering much of North America and northern Europe melted and sea level rose about 130 metres. Since industrialisation the carbon dioxide has increased by more than 100ppm, but sea level rise has been insignificant. The evidence does not suggest carbon dioxide concentration is influential in changing Earth’s climate.

…

climate-debate

Physicists: CO2 Only Affects 10% Of IR In 3% Of The Troposphere

by K. Richard, Oct 19, 2023 in NoTricksZone

…

There are many scientifically invalid assumptions in the “greenhouse gas hypothesis” that the editors of a journal, Earth System Dynamics (ESD), now insist they will never again allow to be subjected to critical analysis in future publications, as the editors of this journal are committed to only publishing studies agreeing with the “consensus.”

In a editorial comment published in the MDPI journal Entropy responding to an editorial written by the editors of ESD, two Portuguese scientists (Khmelinskii and Woodcock, 2023) identify at least 8 assumptions in the “greenhouse gas hypothesis” that lack scientific validation. Despite the lack of observational evidence supporting their viewpoints, proponents of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis prefer to dismiss and ignore challenges to what they believe is the “consensus” – the opposite of what the scientific method requires.

For brevity’s sake, only a few of the challenges are summarized below.

• CO2 can only absorb 10% of all radiation in the specific IR bands CO2 affects. CO2 “absorbs absolutely nothing at all other IR wavelengths.” Thus, CO2 has no effect on IR in 90% of absorption bands.

• CO2 can only absorb IR in the top 300 m, or 0.3 km, of the surface-troposphere, which is 10 km thick. Thus, CO2 can only affect 10% of the IR in 3% of the surface-troposphere, where climate change occurs.

• Because of its vanishingly small effects, doubling CO2 concentrations could only lead to a 0.015°C surface temperature change, at most. Understatedly, “this effect would not even be measurable.”

• Uncertainty in the Earth’s radiation balance is ±17 W/m². The estimated radiation imbalance is 0.6 W/m², which is “orders of magnitude” smaller than the uncertainty in its derivation. Thus, the “global balance of energy fluxes…cannot be derived from measured fluxes“… and this “profoundly affects our ability to understand how Earth’s climate responds to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases.”

The editors at ESD do not view observational uncertainty – or questions regarding the magnitude of CO2’s effects – as worthy of critical analysis.

 

…

unclassified

Tim Ball: The Evidence Proves That CO2 is Not a Greenhouse Gas

by T. Ball, Sept 13, 2018 in Technocracy

 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claim of human-caused global warming (AGW) 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.  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.

…

…