Nobody's Fuel
- an engineer's guide
to saving the planet
Produce electricity with nuclear energy. It's clean and inexpensive. Reserve liquid fossil fuels for transportation.
Books to Read
"Climate Change: The Facts 2017"
Many authors
Edited by Jennifer Marohasy
A collection of articles by scientists explaining climate and whats wrong with blaming climate change and global warming on human activities.
"The Inconvenient Skeptic,
The Comprehensive Guide To The Earth's Climate"
John Kehr 2011
Want to understand the climate? Read this one.
"The Climate Change Hoax Argumment"
C. Paul Smith
The history and science that expose a major international deception.
"Slaying the Sky Dragon, Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory" for a good education on global warming and climate change and how the scam got started.
"Heaven and Earth" by Geologist Ian Plimer for a rather complete history of earths climate and an explanation thereof.
Available on Amazon.com
Updated: December 6, 2024
The causes of climate change are changes in solar output and in planetary positions relative to the sun and each other.
The Earth's atmosphere is never in thermodynamic equilibrium. It is turbulent and chaotic.
****
Carbon dioxide has not caused the coming grand solar minimum, nor the recent warming we have enjoyed.
The latest report from The Lightfoot Institute on the effect of solar activity on the temperature.
"The IPCC concept that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes global warming is three decades out-of-date. Recent information proves it is obsolete and incorrect."
"A solar minimum appears to have started around the beginning of sunspot cycle 25[ in 2020]. During this current minimum, the Earth’s average temperature can fall as low as 1°C to 1.2°C below the current 1991 to 2020 average. Because of significant crop failures, governments must now provide sufficient food and warmth for their citizens as the solar minimum progresses. Between 2030 and 2050 is expected to be the time of deepest cooling."
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a404/e4ef94179d6059440b71bf1db8a10237938d.pdf
****
There is agreement on the coming solar minimum.
NOAA confirms a 'full-blown' Grand Solar Minimum
Cap Allon - Electroverse - Wed, 02 Sep 2020 16:40 UTC
"Their press releases surely won't admit it, but NOAA's PREDICTED SUNSPOT NUMBER AND RADIO FLUX data appears to show a 'full-blown' Grand Solar Minimum running from the late-2020s to at least the 2040s."
https://www.sott.net/article/440781-NOAA-confirms-a-full-blown-Grand-Solar-Minimum
See NOAA's up-to-date data on their site: https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/predicted-sunspot-number-and-radio-flux
The coming Grand Solar Minimum will bring about temperatures similar to those of the Maunder and Dalton minimums of the "Little Ice Age".
From NIH.gov: "The reduction of a terrestrial temperature during the next 30 years can have important implications for different parts of the planet on growing vegetation, agriculture, food supplies, and heating needs in both Northern and Southern hemispheres. This global cooling during the upcoming grand solar minimum 1 (2020–2053) can offset for three decades any signs of global warming and would require inter-government efforts to tackle problems with heat and food supplies for the whole population of the Earth." - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7575229/
See also https://electroverse.co/11-scientific-predictions-for-the-upcoming-grand-solar-minimum/
****
Modern Grand Solar Minimum will lead to terrestrial cooling
Valentina Zharkova
In this editorial I will demonstrate with newly discovered solar activity proxy-magnetic field that the Sun has entered into the modern Grand Solar Minimum (2020–2053) that will lead to a significant reduction of solar magnetic field and activity like during Maunder minimum leading to noticeable reduction of terrestrial temperature.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7575229/
****
What to expect in a Grand Solar Minimum. How does an increase in galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth’s climate and also tectonic activity?
https://abruptearthchanges.com/2018/01/14/climate-change-grand-solar-minimum-and-cosmic-rays/
****
CO2 is a colorless, tasteless and harmless gas that facilitates photosynthesis so we can live on this planet.
Don't take my word for it! Read the science for yourself.
Scroll down. There is a lot here, all the way to the end.
If you are looking for something specific, use your browsers page search function(ctl-F) to find it; ie. clouds, solar, sun, origins, ...
Note: Browsing the excerpts prior to each link will tell you a lot about the linked document. When reading some documents, you may want to jump to the conclusions at the end due to complexity of explanations or math throughout.
****
Cycles, not Carbon Dioxide, Control Climate
June 12, 2019
Written by Viv Forbes
The war on hydro-carbon fuels will have no measurable effect on
global temperatures. Nor will carbon taxes, carbon offsets or
subsidies for wind turbines or solar panels. There are climate
controllers far bigger than human CO2 at work.
https://principia-scientific.com/cycles-not-carbon-dioxide-control-climate/
****
NASA Has Known Since 1971 That CO2 Is Not Dangerous, Yet Lied To The Public Continuously
Posted on November 8, 2015 by Tony Heller
New York State is investigating Exxon for telling the truth about CO2 in 1976, but the big story is that NASA and NCAR have known since 1971 that CO2 is not dangerous – yet have lied to the public about this for over 30 years.
In 1971, the top climatologists at NCAR and NASA reported that a runaway greenhouse effect is not possible, because the CO2 absorption spectra is nearly saturated already.
https://realclimatescience.com/2015/11/nasa-has-known-since-1971-that-co2-is-not-dangerous-yet-lied-to-the-public-continuously/#gsc.tab=0
****
The Greenhouse Effect is ZERO
Carl Allen 2015
"Let’s remember what spawned the “greenhouse effect” in the first place. The “greenhouse effect” hypothesis presumes to explain why the Earth’s “mean global surface temperature” is some 33 °C higher than the Earth’s “effective radiating temperature”. By this definition if the Earth’s “mean global surface temperature” were equal to the Earth’s “effective radiating temperature” then the “greenhouse effect” would = 0.000.
If you consider that the “surface” of the Earth is an atmosphere (85% of which is contained within the troposphere) and you recall that the mean temperature of tropospheric air (based on the International Standard Atmosphere) is about -18 °C, then the “surface” temperature of the Earth does, in fact, equal its “effective radiating temperature”. Thus by their own definition the “greenhouse effect” = 0.000. In other words, the Earth’s “surface”, i.e., its atmosphere, cannot be shown to be retaining any excess thermal energy."
The earth emits as much energy as it absorbs from the sun. CO2 nor any other atmospheric gas can be causing heat retention, i.e.; Global Warming.
https://climateofsophistry.com/2015/05/16/ontological-mathematics-is-the-answer-to-ghe-based-climate-alarm/#comment-23106
****
The Real News about Climate: CO2 Is No Threat
Climate alarmism does not exemplify the honest pursuit of science. Pseudo-scientific evidence or arguments, undisclosed or falsified data, are lodged within an enveloping political narrative and best understood in this fuller context. The surest way to understand climate alarmism is as self-interested politics.
https://carlineconomics.com/2019/08/17/the-real-news-about-climate-co2-is-no-threat/
****
If you don't read anything else, read "The Shattered Greenhouse" by Tim Casey, also linked below. Casey explains what is wrong with the original analysis by Svante Arrhenius of the effect of CO2 on the atmosphere that is still used today by the U.N. IPCC.
http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/
****
Water vapor controls the Earth's atmosphere - a one page summary
Lightfoot and Ratzer Sept 25 2024
"The warming effect of each greenhouse gas was identified by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [4], and their sum was shown to be so small that it is undetectable. Included are carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide."
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BOsksKQY0WX0bO5pw5LuRlz8Cd06Y4EI/view?usp=sharing
****
Evidence of the Deceit of the UN IPCC
According to Dr John Abbot and Dr John Nicol in chapter 19, "The Contribution of Carbon Dioxide to Global Warming", of the book "Climate Change - The Facts 2017".
120 years ago, a Swedish chemist, Professor Svante Arrhenius, made calculations not based on any observed data as he said he did not have the instrumentation to make the measurements and so was forced to use theoretical calculations in trying to quantify the effect on the atmosphere of doubling CO2. He published a paper in 1896 that said the result of doubling CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 5 to 6॰ C. His crude calculations and results thereof are embedded in all of the IPCC climate models thus predicting this large amount of warming.
Professor Alfred Laubereau and his coauthor Hristo Iglev in 2013 using modern spectroscopy to measure the absorptivity of IR radiation by CO2 deriving a direct temperature rise attributable to CO2 of about 0.26॰C for the period between 1880 and 2010 with a rise of CO2 from 290 to 385 ppm.
Later, in 2014, Dr Douglas Lightfoot and Dr Orval Mamer undertook detailed experiments to calculate atmospheric radiative forcing for doubling of CO2 from 275 to 550 ppm. They arrived at an increase of .33॰C for the doubling of CO2.
The values found by Lightfoot and Laubereau for temperature rise are similar "and an order of magnitude less that the values currently inserted into the General Circulation Models that are used [by the IPCC] to influence global energy policy and emissions limits."
Instead of considering the results by the aforementioned scientists with expertise in spectroscopy, the IPCC ignores them and extrapolates from the crude calculations of speculative theory by Svante Arrhenius made over 120 years ago in 1896.
****
Why Carbon Dioxide Does Not Warm The Atmosphere
Douglas Lightfoot points out in his educational presentation at "http://thelightfootinstitute.ca/documents/A new look Handout for a new look at current climate science Rev 2 Sept 12 2019.pdf" that as temperature rises, water vapor rises and CO2 falls. At the equator there is low CO2 and high water vapor and visa versa at the poles.
Nasif Nahle points out at https://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/03/total-emissivity-of-the-earth-and-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/, that Hoyt Hottel 1954, Bo Leckner 1972 and his own research in 2011 that below 33°C, the ability of CO2 to absorb and emit IR radiation is virtually zero. Considering the low emissivity of CO2 combined with lower levels of CO2 in warmer latitudes and that most of earth temperature is less than 33°C/92°F, it is hard to see that CO2 does much of anything to warm the atmosphere.
Also pointed out by Nahle is that Carbon Dioxide really acts as a coolant in the gas mix of the atmosphere, that when combined with the other IR active gases in the atmosphere, CO2 reduces the ability of the atmosphere to absorb IR radiation. Because of the reduction in absorptivity , more radiation escapes to space thus cooling the atmosphere and the earth. It does not cause heating as the AGW alarmists say.
See https://www-f9.ijs.si/~margan/CO2/Refs/Mean_Free_Path.pdf
****
The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the "Greenhouse Effect".
Timothy Casey B.Sc. (Hons.)
Consulting Geologist
First Uploaded ISO: 2009-Oct-13
Revision 5 ISO: 2011-Dec-07
Timothy Casey B.Sc (Hons.) documents the errors in the hypothesis of the “Greenhouse Effect” starting with mistakes of Arrhenius in 1896 and through physics shows that CO2 effectively does nothing to warm the atmosphere. When the backradiation "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis of Arrhenius is put to a real, physical, material test, such as the Wood Experiment, there is no sign of it because the "Greenhouse Effect" simply does not exist.
http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/
****
Laws of Physics Define the Insignificant Warming of Earth by CO2
H. Douglas Lightfoot and Gerald Ratzer 2023
The Lightfoot Institute, Canada
"This study provides temperature estimates about the effect of carbon dioxide (CO2) in warming the Earth’s atmosphere using readily available information. It compares the grams of water vapor per kilogram (kg) of dry air with the number of grams of CO2 per kg of dry air. This comparison is over a year for 20 representative areas of the Earth. It shows the grams of water vapor range from 0.1 to 44.0 times that of CO2. The increased heat content (enthalpy) of the atmosphere by CO2 causes a maximum temperature increase of 0.006° C from the Poles to the Equator.This amount is too small to measure. These quantitative results indicate that the Tropics, representing 39.8% of the Earth’s surface, contain almost three-quarters of the atmosphere’s water vapor. In contrast, the Arctic and Antarctic areas at the Poles have an estimated 0.9% of the atmosphere’s water vapor. Water vapor is the significant greenhouse gas that keeps the Earth from being a frozen planet."
Even if CO2 is warmed by IR radiation from the earth, it won't increase the air temperature enough to be measurable.
https://setpublisher.com/index.php/jbas/article/view/2456/2228
****
A new look at current climate science and carbon dioxide.
H. Douglas Lightfoot, 2019
Current claims about CO2 and atmospheric temperature are incorrect.
Fossil fuels are so beneficial to mankind the question arises: Why is there so much demonization of fossil fuels, and especially the carbon dioxide that is produced when they are burned to release energy?
See the Power Point display explaining the above with the supporting evidence.
****
The Atmosphere Has Changed From Very High CO2 To Very Low CO2
“During the time of life on Earth, the atmosphere has changed from at least 5% (and perhaps 20%) CO2 to the present atmosphere with 0.04%, yet life evolved, ice ages came and went and the continents moved, pulling apart, and stitching back together. There was no irreversible catastrophic warming in the geological past, despite the Earth's CO2-rich atmosphere.
If a high atmospheric CO2 in the past did not drive global warming, then a far lower atmospheric CO2 in the modern atmosphere cannot drive global warming.” -Ian Plimer, Geologist, 2017, Pg 301-302 "Climate Change: The Facts 2017"
****
Earth’s Temperature: The Effect of the Sun, Water Vapor, and CO2
H. Douglas Lightfoot and Gerald Ratzer
1The Lightfoot Institute, Canada
Professor Emeritus, McGill University, Canada
When the level of CO2 was about 4,000 ppm about 600 million years ago, the temperature would have been 0.00487°C above that of today. This amount is too small to measure. However, with its natural variability, the Sun controlled the Earth's temperature at this time and beyond.
https://setpublisher.com/index.php/jbas/article/view/2425
****
Read the following comprehensive analysis of global warming/climate change. You may not need to read further.
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
"The "human-caused global warming" hypothesis and the computer calculations that support it are in error. They have no empirical support and are invalidated by numerous observations."
"A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge."
"There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor greenhouse gases as has been proposed."
http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.php
****
No reading of science papers needed. Just watch the movie.
CLIMATE THE MOVIE
The Cold Truth
written and directed by MARTIN DURKIN
produced by TOM NELSON
Listen to the real science and why so many scientists promote the lie that humans cause global warming and climate change. 1hr 20min
https://climatethemovie.net/
****
Climate Change: The Real Story
Finally! A video that talks about what no one talks about. How climate science invents the greenhouse effect. This video says a lot in just 3 1/2 minutes. A must watch! Pay attention. Its short and to the point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkSx2Tf6sDM
****
Geologists: Going Quietly Into the Night?
By Lee Gerhard 8/19/2024
"Global society is absolutely dependent upon cheap and plentiful energy for its survival. Why would some demand that society retreat from useful energy sources to bring back mass starvation, poverty and horse-drawn buggies?"
https://co2coalition.org/2024/08/19/geologists-going-quietly-into-the-night/
****
The State of the Climate 2023
Ole Humlum
Report 61, The Global Warming Policy Foundation
The global climate system is multifaceted, involving sun, planets, atmosphere, oceans, land, geological processes, biological life, and complex interactions between them. Many components and their mutual coupling are still not fully understood or perhaps not even recognized. Believing that one minor constituent of the atmosphere (CO2) controls nearly all aspects of climate is naïve and entirely unrealistic. The global climate has never been in a fully stable state without change. Modern observations show that this behaviour continues today; there is no evidence of a global climate crisis.
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2024/04/Humlum-State-Climate-2023.pdf
****
180 YEARS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GAS ANALYSIS BY CHEMICAL METHODS
by Ernst-Georg Beck 2/2007
Interesting study on CO2 levels done in 2007 shows that CO2 levels in ~1822 were over 500 parts per million, fell to a low of ~300 ppm about ~1884, rose to over 400 by ~1944 and fell again to ~320 by 1955. The measurements published by AGW promoters don't show this variation shown by historic measurements and correlation with solar cycles. See, especially, the chart on p16 of the pdf.
https://www.ddponline.org/beck.pdf
****
No one gets paid for saying there is no problem and even gets suppressed.
A story of Dr. Miskolczi's research and findings that CO2 does not cause climate change or global warming and how he lost his job.
"DailyTech: Has there been global warming?
Dr. Miskolczi: No one is denying that global warming has taken place, but it has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect or the burning of fossil fuels.
NASA refused to release the results. Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple. “Money”, he tells DailyTech. Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research."
https://rclutz.com/2017/05/17/the-curious-case-of-dr-miskolczi/
See also Dr Miskolczi's 2014 paper below.
****
"Carbon dioxide does not cause warming or climate change
- James T. Moodey 2023
No gas causes warming
The green movement’s climate-change scheme is based upon the false notion that carbon dioxide and other gases cause global warming. They do not.
We don’t have to guess about this. We have empirical and scientific proof.
It proves that no gas — not carbon dioxide, methane, or even humid atmospheric air — retains temperature from day to day."
This is a true scientific test because it observes actual measurements of the atmosphere. Any high school class can repeat these observations over a school year."
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/10/carbion_dioxide_does_not_cause_warming.html
****
Listen to Rob Schilling's interview with James T Moodey on the economy and the climate.28 minutes.
https://www.patreon.com/posts/james-t-moodey-110252854
****
Climate Stupidity
James T. Moodey May 24, 2024
"Photosynthesis (CO2 + Sunlight + H2O) cannot exist without carbon dioxide."
“[An] increase in carbon dioxide directly increases plant photosynthesis. ... If photosynthesis ceased, there would soon be little food or other organic matter on Earth. Most organisms would disappear, and in time Earth’s atmosphere would become nearly devoid of gaseous oxygen” (Britannica, ref. Plant Physiology, Salisbury, and Ross).
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/05/climate_stupidity.html
****
Read more of James T. Moodey's essays at https://www.americanthinker.com/author/jamestmoodey/
Read his book "The Ladder Out Of Poverty"
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1949267415?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details
****
Ontological Mathematics is the Answer to GHE-Based Climate Alarm
"the colder atmosphere must heat the warmer surface. Of course, this defies all common sense and heat transfer mathematics and thermodynamics, but alas, it is what they say"
****
Derivation of the entire 33°C greenhouse effect without radiative forcing from greenhouse gases
November 23, 2014
Global Warming alarmists say that according to calculations that the surface temperature of Earth should be only -18°C but that it averages 15°C by measurements. That's a 33°C difference. that they say is due to the Greenhouse effect of Greenhouse gases.
We will derive the entire 33°C greenhouse effect using the 1st law of thermodynamics and ideal gas law without use of radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, nor the concentrations of greenhouse gases, nor the emission/absorption spectra of greenhouse gases at any point in this derivation, thus demonstrating that the entire 33°C greenhouse effect is dependent upon atmospheric mass/pressure/gravity, rather than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. Secondly, we will show why multiple observations perfectly confirm the mass/gravity/pressure theory of the greenhouse effect, and disprove the radiative forcing theory of the greenhouse effect.
https://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/derivation-of-entire-33c-greenhouse.html
****
See the following two articles for the origins of the Antropogenic Global Warming(AGW) Scare tactic. See the video following on Maurice Strong, the godfather of AGW.
Man made Global Warming: The Story & the Reality
By Tom Tamarkin - March 24, 2021
"One of the early purposes of climate alarmism was to stimulate the reduction of the worldwide population over an extended period, under the ultimate control of a single worldwide government.
It is predicated on the fictitious notion of man-produced climate change...
The plan was and perhaps still is to use climate change as a socially accepted reason to force the abandonment of the cheap, abundant energy produced by fossil fuel and nuclear generation.
To maintain a population of over 7.5 billion human beings requires massive amounts of food and energy.
o Energy is the key.
o It takes energy to raise, harvest, produce and transport food.
o And it takes still more energy to provide for man's comfort and mobility.
Reducing the amount of available energy by a significant factor assures that sustainable conditions are only available for a similarly reduced population.
Such conditions are ripe for tyrannical socialistic control through a unified worldwide government..."
https://bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia3/ciencia_globalwarmingpseudo257.htm
And
The Club of Rome and Rise of “Predictive Modelling” Mafia
By Matthew Ehret on November 28, 2022.
"While much propaganda has gone into convincing the world that eugenics disappeared with the defeat of Hitler in 1945, the reality, as I discussed in my previous article The Revenge of the Malthusians and the Science of Limits, is far removed from this popular fantasy.
In that piece, I reviewed the origins of cybernetics as a new “science of control” created during World War II by a nest of followers of Lord Bertrand Russell who had one mission in mind.This mission was to shape the thinking of both the public as well as a new managerial elite class who would serve as instruments for a power they were incapable of understanding."
https://principia-scientific.com/the-club-of-rome-and-rise-of-predictive-modelling-mafia/
****
Maurice Strong - The Godfather of Climate Change
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7x_Y3fjIqRs
Maurice Strong's wiki says it all IMO. Got rich from oil, and started the Climate Change Scam for the UN.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Strong
****
GREENHOUSE CONFUSION RESOLVED
The oceans control planetary atmospheric temperatures not CO2
The atmospheric Greenhouse Effect merely sets a theoretical background atmospheric temperature level that is continually overridden as a result of the size of the constant interlinked changes in both the solar and oceanic heat inputs. It is wholly swamped by the far more powerful oceanic Hot Water Bottle Effect.
The atmospheric greenhouse effect is a flea on the back of an oceanic elephant and the influence of CO2 but a microbe on the back of the flea and the influence of anthropogenic CO2 but a molecule on the back of the microbe.
Published by Stephen Wilde July 16, 2008
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/greenhouse-confusion-resolved/
****
Could CO2 Be Convicted Of Overheating The Planet In A Criminal Court?
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another … Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so … global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.”
****
The Elusive Greenhouse Effect
Dan Fauth, BS Civil Engineering, University of Colorado 2015
"Again, the theory of the Atmospheric Radiative Greenhouse Effect is proven to be false and impossible. ScienceBlogs refutation to the claim that the Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd LOT[Law Of Thermodynamics] is thus shown to be nothing but deception or sophistry more commonly known as BS. In conclusion, the Atmospheric Radiative Greenhouse Effect is purely BS."
https://climateofsophistry.com/2015/05/19/the-ground-is-not-the-surface/#comment-23276
****
The Greenhouse Effect and the Infrared Radiative Structure of the Earth’s Atmosphere - Ferenc Mark Miskolczi - November 2014
Miskolczi's work is based on observed measurements of the atmosphere.
He concludes:
“Unfortunately the Nobel Laureate IPCC is not a scientific authority, and their claim of the consensus and the settled greenhouse science is meaningless. The quantitative results of this paper massively contradict the CO2 greenhouse effect based AGW hypothesis of IPCC.”
"AGW estimates based on the classic greenhouse effect explanations of Fourier, Arrhenius, Tyndall, or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are misleading."
“In our view the greenhouse phenomenon, as it was postulated by J. Fourier (1824), estimated by S. Arrhenius (1906), first quantified by S. Manabe and R. Wetherald (1967), explained by R. Lindzen (2007), and endorsed by the National Academy of Science and the Royal Society (2014), simply does not exist.”
****
Canadian Astrophysicist Joseph Postma explains for a better understanding of what's going on with the promotion of fraudulent stories of humans causing global warming and climate change. He covers the subject in depth from the errors in alarmist pseudoscience to consequences and reasons for the politics of the big lie. No fancy production, just the facts.
1 hour and 10 minutes.
****
Global Warming Natural, May End Within 20 Years, Says Ohio State University Researcher
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Global warming is a natural geological process that could begin to reverse itself within 10 to 20 years, predicts an Ohio State University researcher.
Robert Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conservation in Ohio State's Department of Mechanical Engineering
"It is the rising global temperatures that are naturally increasing the levels of carbon dioxide, not the other way around"
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/06/010615071248.htm
****
A Tale of Two Versions
There are two versions of the greenhouse effect. One works and the other does not. One is real and one is fallacy. The greenhouse effect is a basis for the human caused global warming and climate change myth.
https://climateofsophistry.com/2013/12/04/a-tale-of-two-versions/
****
"the Sun’s activity in screening cosmic rays affects clouds and, ultimately, the Earth’s energy budget with concomitant climatic effects."
A solar maximum with a stronger magnetic field blocks more cosmic particles that help in low warm cloud formation, thus reducing those clouds that block the sun allowing more sunlight through to heat the oceans. The reverse happens during a solar minimum creating more low warm clouds that block sunlight cooling the oceans. Because it takes a long time to heat or cool the oceans due to their massive volume, there is a lag of some time period after more or fewer clouds are forming for the atmosphere to warm up or cool down.
Combine solar minimums with Milankovich cycles and you may have the conditions to kick off another glacial period. Glaciers are formed of lots of un-melted snow. To get that snow, the oceans had to be warm enough for evaporation to create clouds that precipitate as snow.
As the oceans cover 71% of the earth, they are the main factor in heating or cooling the atmosphere.
A warm ocean heats the atmosphere via evaporation and conduction, a cool ocean just doesn't heat it as much. There is a lag between heating the oceans and heating the atmosphere.
At the same time the warmer tropical ocean emits CO2, very possibly, more than is absorbed by cooler oceans during a warm period like our modern one.
So CO2 concentration rises with warmer ocean comprising a larger area than cooler oceans.
https://climatechangedispatch.com/new-study-confirms-sun-cosmic-ray-climate-connection/
Download the paper from researchgate.net:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369602495_Overview_of_the_Spectral_Coherence_between_Planetary_Resonances_and_Solar_and_Climate_Oscillations
https://www.ceres-science.com/post/has-the-sun-s-true-role-in-global-warming-been-miscalculated
https://notrickszone.com/2017/01/12/scientists-find-climates-cause-of-causes-highest-solar-activity-in-4000-years-just-ended-cooling-begins-in-2025/
https://phys.org/news/2016-08-solar-impact-earth-cloud.html
https://clintel.org/solar-activity-cycle-25-surpasses-cycle-24/
****
"Solar cycle and the cold periods were linked
One inescapable conclusion, from the evidence presented, is that solar variability is an important cause of climate change in the centennial to millennial time frame. Therefore, it must have contributed more to recent warming since the last Bray low ended at the end of the Little Ice Age than the IPCC suggests."
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/the-bray-hallstatt-cycle/
https://www.almanac.com/what-are-solar-cycles-and-how-do-they-affect-weather
****
Deglobalization Will Fix Climate Change
"Because it is the sun, whirling like a dervish through its many cycles, and responding to the dance of the gas giants, that is warming the earth by the 0.5 C per hundred years that the IPCC is so afraid of. That specific 2,100 to about 2,600 year-long periodic cycle is called the Hallstatt/Bray cycle. The sun warms the earth by a little less than half a degree centigrade every hundred years for 1,050-1,300 years; then, the earth cools at about the same rate for the next 1,050-1,300 years.
It’s a cycle. It happens naturally. It’s normal. Our just noticing it now doesn’t mean it’s new or that it has anything to do with us. We’ve survived the Hallstatt/Bray cycle before and we’ll survive it again. Right now, we’re about 400 years into the warming phase of the current cycle. Around 2600 it will peak and then the cooling phase of this cycle will get underway."
https://conservativenewsbriefing.com/uncategorized/demographics-deglobalization-will-fix-climate-change/
****
CO2 cannot do what the IPCC says it does.
One very important property of CO2 that everyone must understand is that it is a very poor absorber and emitter of infrared(IR) radiation. A little terminology here, “a black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence”-Wikipedia. The IPCC says that CO2 acts as a black body with the highest absorbancy rating of 1. That is not true as pointed out by Hoyt Hottel in 1954, Bo Leckner in 1972 and Nasif Nahle in 2011. Nahle calculated the absorbancy of CO2 to be 0.002, relative to a black body. That is that it absorbs only 2/1000 of the IR striking it. This is far too little for it to do anything to the atmosphere.
Nasif S Nahle - Fluid Dynamics, Theoretical Physics, Cosmology, Quantum Physics and Mathematical Physics, states as much in his conclusion: “Accepting that carbon dioxide is not a black body and that the potential of the carbon dioxide to absorb and emit radiant energy is negligible, I conclude that the AGW hypothesis is based on unreal magnitudes, unreal processes and unreal physics.”
See his short essay at
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/03/total-emissivity-of-the-earth-and-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/
****
Anthropogenic Global Warming, proposed by the IPCC, simply does not exist. The hypothesized greenhouse gas effect does not exist. CO2 does nothing to warm the atmosphere or cause climate change. CO2 is not a source of heat.
CO2/Carbon Dioxide really acts as a coolant in the gas mix of the atmosphere.
Nasif S. Nahle explains experiments demonstrating that when combined with the other IR active gases in the atmosphere, CO2 reduces the ability of the atmosphere to absorb IR radiation. He also points out Hoyt Hottel discovered that below 33C/92F the emissivity of CO2 was almost zero. Because of the reduction in absorptivity , more radiation escapes to space thus cooling the atmosphere and the earth. It does not cause heating as the AGW alarmists say.
https://www-f9.ijs.si/~margan/CO2/Refs/Mean_Free_Path.pdf
****
February 25, 2010
The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory By Alan Siddons
"An idea has been drummed into our heads for decades: that roughly 1% of the atmosphere's content is responsible for shifting the earth's surface temperature from inimical to benign. This conjecture has mistakenly focused on specifically light-absorbing gases, however, ignoring heat-absorbing gases altogether. Any heated atmospheric gas radiates infrared energy back toward the earth, meaning that the dreadful power we've attributed to light-absorbing molecules up to now has been wildly exaggerated and must be radically adjusted -- indeed, pared down perhaps a hundred times. Because all gases radiate the heat they acquire, trace-gas heating theory is an untenable concept, a long-held illusion we'd be wise to abandon."
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html
****
No “Greenhouse Effect” is possible from the way IPCC define it.
By John Elliston, AM, FAusIMM(CP)
"The IPCC definition of “Greenhouse Effect” in Report No. 4, 2007, is wrong and no “Greenhouse Effect” is possible from the way IPCC define it. Radiant energy reaching the Earth from the Sun is the only source of heat to maintain or vary global climate."
****
"In these papers, we show that carbon dioxide does not influence the atmospheric temperatures. This directly contradicts the greenhouse effect theory, which predicts that carbon dioxide should increase the temperature in the lower atmosphere (the “troposphere”), and decrease the temperature in the middle atmosphere (the “stratosphere”).
It also contradicts the man-made global warming theory, since the the basis for man-made global warming theory is that increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause global warming by increasing the greenhouse effect. If the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist, then man-made global warming theory doesn’t work." - Connolly
https://globalwarmingsolved.com/2013/11/19/summary-the-physics-of-the-earths-atmosphere-papers-1-3/#Summary
****
New Study: The Rising-CO2-Causes-Warming Perception Not Supported By Real-World Observation
Article by Kenneth Richard on 18. September 2023
Change in temperature causes change in CO2, not the other way.
"Clearly, the results […] suggest a (mono-directional) potentially causal system with T as the cause and [CO2] as the effect. Hence the common perception that increasing [CO2] causes increased T can be excluded as it violates the necessary condition for this causality direction."
https://notrickszone.com/2023/09/18/new-study-the-rising-co2-causes-warming-perception-not-supported-by-real-world-observation/
Read the study here: https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/5/3/35
****
A “Simple Experiment on Global Warming” to debunk the Radiative Greenhouse Effect, Climate Science, and Peer
ReviewPosted on 2021/11/22
by Joseph E Postma
"it has never been demonstrated that a backradiation mechanism exists which should have caused observed temperatures to exceed that at which they were generated by the Sun. The mechanism of climate science’s “greenhouse effect” should function in any greenhouse, yet the results are never observed, which therefore proves that the mechanism does not exist"
A response to Yiannis A. Levendis and Gregory Kowalski’s:
A Simple Experiment on Global Warming
K. Pritchett
"To date, no one has been able to demonstrate the IPCC’s mechanism as real. However, several experiments have been done which demonstrate that radiative forcing does not exist and that carbon dioxide concentrations cannot possibly affect the average temperature of the planet."
https://climateofsophistry.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/kp-a-simple-experiment.pdf
****
See Astrophysicist Willie Soon interviewed by Tucker Carlson on climate and fossil fuels. CO2 does nothing to the atmosphere and fossil fuels are not from fossils as previously believed. Hydrocarbons are found on Saturn and other planetary bodies. Were there dinosaurs on Saturn?
48 minutes.
https://www.ceres-science.com/post/dr-willie-soon-s-interview-by-tucker-carlson-december-2023
****
"About greenhouse gases
The IPCC back-radiation mechanism cannot have an influence on the temperature of the Earth’s surface
Already in 2018, in an article in two parts (here et here), Georges Geuskens declared that the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere could have no influence on the temperature of the Earth’s surface. Based on experimental data, he explained that due to inelastic collisions between the molecules of the atmosphere, the back-radiation mechanism imagined by certain climatologists did not have time to take place in the lower layers of the atmosphere and could therefore have no influence on the climate." - August 11, 2023 Roland Van den Broek - Civil Engineer
https://qblog-rcli.netlify.app/posts/gaz-effet-serre-en/
Note: The web site at the 2 links above,(here et here), are in French. Your browser should be able to translate them to your language.
****
The following paper shows that CO2 has no effect on the atmosphere.
Time Dependent Climate Energy Transfer: The Forgotten Legacy of Joseph Fourier
December 2023
Roy Clark, Ventura Photonics, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA
Abstract
Joseph Fourier discussed the temperature of the earth in two similar memoires (reviews) in 1824 and 1827. An important and long neglected part of this work is his description of the time dependence of the surface energy transfer. In particular, he was able to explain the seasonal time delays or phase shifts between the peak solar flux and the subsurface temperature response using his theory of heat published in 1822. This is clear evidence for a non-equilibrium thermal response to the solar flux. Diurnal and seasonal phase shifts occur in both the ocean and land temperature records. These phase shifts provide important additional information about the time dependent energy transfer processes that determine the surface temperature. Unfortunately, starting with the work of Pouillet in 1836, this time dependence was neglected and replaced by an equilibrium average climate. It was assumed, incorrectly, that the surface temperature could be determined using average values for just the solar and IR flux terms. This approach created CO2 induced global warming as a mathematical artifact in the simplistic equilibrium air column model used by Arrhenius in 1896. Physical reality was abandoned in favor of mathematical simplicity. The equilibrium assumption is still the foundation of the fraudulent climate models in use today. In order to move beyond the pseudoscience of radiative forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity to CO2 it is necessary to follow Fourier and restore the time dependence to the surface energy transfer. A change in flux produces a change in the rate of cooling (or heating) of a thermal reservoir, not a change in temperature.
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Clark-2023-Time-Dependent-Climate-Energy-Transfer.pdf
****
"Back radiation" Cannot heat the earth as the IPCC says.
"Matter can only be heated by absorbing radiation from a hotter body
containing higher frequencies of oscillation, with higher amplitudes of oscillation at each and every frequency of oscillation. This is why Earth cannot be heated in any way by its own radiation."
Peter L Ward, U.S. Geological Survey retired
See paragraph 2 in the Conclusions ...
https://whyclimatechanges.com/wp-content/uploads/InconvenientJGR180528.pdf
*****
Backradiation cannot warm the surface of the earth as the IPCC claims.
Through a series of real time measurements of thermal radiation from the atmosphere and surface materials during nighttime and daytime, I demonstrate that warming backradiation emitted from Earth’s atmosphere back toward the earth’s surface and the idea that a cooler system can warm a warmer system are unphysical concepts. - Nasif S Nahle
https://principia-scientific.org/publications/New_Concise_Experiment_on_Backradiation.pdf
****
Physicist Richard Feynman Discredits Greenhouse Gas Theory
Written by hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk on April 3, 2017.
Physicist Richard Feynman proved the Maxwell gravito-thermal greenhouse theory is correct & does not depend upon greenhouse gas concentrations.
The great physicist Richard Feynman adds to three other giants of physics, Maxwell, Clausius, and Carnot, who have explained the “greenhouse effect” is solely a consequence of gravity, atmospheric mass, pressure, density, and heat capacities, and is not due to “trapped radiation” from IR-active or ‘greenhouse’ gas concentrations.
https://principia-scientific.com/physicist-richard-feynman-discredits-greenhouse-gas-theory/
****
A little history from 2009 . . .
https://www.dailysignal.com/2009/06/29/an-inconvenient-voice-dr-alan-carlin/
An Inconvenient Voice: Dr. Alan Carlin Dr. Carlin is an Environmental Protection Agency veteran who recently wrote a damaging report, warning that the science behind climate change was questionable at best, and that we shouldn’t pass laws that will hurt American families and hobble the nation’s economy based on incomplete information. See also Dr Carlin's website https://carlineconomics.com/
****
They don't want to save the planet, they want to control it.
UN’s Top Climate Official: Goal Is To ‘Intentionally Transform the Economic Development Model’
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
****
Here's the history of how the U.N. IPCC and their science became corrupted:
https://saltbushclub.com/2020/03/06/michael-mann-erases-climate-history/
****
Climate Change Reality Review for City State and National Leaders
Updated on May 11, 2019 by Robert Kernodle, Independent Researcher
A pragmatic view on climate change that all should read.
https://hubpages.com/politics/Climate-Change-Reality-Review-for-City-State-and-National-Leaders
****
Joseph E Postma, M.Sc. Astrophysics, explains what's wrong with the IPCC assessment of the climate. You could just read his latest book "The Layman's Guide to the Greatest Scientific Fraud in History" on Amazon.com.
See his website https://climateofsophistry.com/2012/11/06/on-the-absence-of-a-measurable-greenhouse-effect-part-1-the-failure-of-ipcc-energy-budgets/
Be sure to read parts 1 through 5. Get to the next post at the top of the page
and a real explanation of how solar radiation impacts earth
https://climateofsophistry.com/2020/02/10/earths-thermodynamic-energy-budget/
*****
Doug Cotton explains what's wrong with the IPCC science and what really causes atmospheric warming and cooling. Hint: It's the yellow ball in the sky. Read all the linked pages for a complete understanding.
http://www.whyitsnotco2.com/index.html
http://www.whyitsnotco2.com/evidence.html
https://climatescience.homesteadcloud.com/
*****
CONNOLLY & CONNOLLY, SEP 2019: "If this simple extrapolation is applied, then the models will no longer imply that the atmospheric temperature profiles are driven by the greenhouse gas concentrations. This is because they will be using Einstein’s laws (or Kirchoff’s law) for thermodynamic equilibrium conditions instead of Schwarzchild’s equation for non-thermodynamic equilibrium."
*****
There is no climate emergency, say over 1600 scientists.
https://clintel.org/
See their message to the public.
https://clintel.org/there-is-no-climate-emergency-a-message-to-the-people/
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf
*****
"The Greenhouse Theory argument should have ended the minute the emissivity of carbon dioxide was determined. It indicates clearly that C02's ability to absorb and transmit infrared heat waves is so negligible that it can be considered to be a big zero."
Clifford A. Dunlop BScAg., MSc.
https://www.whatwarming.com/l/forget-c02-warming-ii-c02-doesnt-emit-ir/
*****
"it is shown that no one gas has an anomalous effect on atmospheric temperatures that is significantly more than any other gas"
Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law Points to a Very Low Climate Sensitivity
Robert Ian Holmes, Science & Engineering Faculty, Federation University, Mt Helen, Ballarat, Australia
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323106609_Molar_Mass_Version_of_the_Ideal_Gas_Law_Points_to_a_Very_Low_Climate_Sensitivity
*****
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
"A statistical analysis, no matter how sophisticated it is, heavily relies on underlying models and if the latter are plainly wrong then the analysis leads to nothing. One cannot detect and attribute something that does not exist for reason of principle like the CO2 greenhouse effect. There are so many unsolved and unsolvable problems in non-linearity and the climatologists believe to beat them all by working with crude approximations leading to unphysical results that have been corrected afterwards by mystic methods, flux control in the past, obscure ensemble averages over different climate institutes today, by excluding accidental global cooling results by hand, continuing the greenhouse inspired global climatologic tradition of physically meaningless averages and physically meaningless applications of mathematical statistics. In conclusion, the derivation of statements on the CO2 induced anthropogenic global warming out of the computer simulations lies outside any science." --Gerhard Gerlich & Ralf D. Tscheuschner 2009
https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
*****
A Compilation of the Arguments that Irrefutably Prove that Climate Change is
driven by Solar Activity and not by CO2 Emission
The length of day changes over a period of about 40-50 years as a effect of galactic vacuum density waves affecting the core of the sun.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Lobert_on_CO2.pdf
*****
See the following two articles for the origins and original reason for the start of Anthropogenic Global Warming propaganda scare.
Man made Global Warming: The Story & the Reality
By Tom Tamarkin - March 24, 2021
https://shalemag.com/manmade-global-warming-the-story-the-reality/
And
https://principia-scientific.com/the-club-of-rome-and-rise-of-predictive-modelling-mafia/
*****
This kind of analyses shows a strange “multiplication” of the heat transferred from the surface to the atmosphere and from the atmosphere to the surface which is unexplainable from a scientific viewpoint. The authors of those diagrams adduce that such increase of energy in the atmosphere obeys to a “recycling” of the heat coming from the surface by the atmosphere as if the atmosphere-surface were a furnace or a thermos and the heat was a substance.Such “recycling” of heat by the atmosphere does not occur ..."
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/03/recycling-of-heat-in-the-atmosphere-is-impossible/
****
Absorption and re-emission process
When a CO2 molecule absorbs a photon it changes to a vibrational mode for the three atoms making up the molecule. This mode depends on the energy of the photon absorbed which must be in one of a limited number of energy levels due to there being a limited number of geometrical vibrational modes available.
On return of an energised molecule to its ground state, it may emit a photon of the original absorbed wavelength (energy) in an arbitrary direction. Otherwise the energised molecule may collide with another atmospheric molecule causing it to emit radiation at a longer wavelength, lesser energy, than that absorbed with the balance of the energy becoming kinetic energy of motion of the pair of colliding molecules or no radiation, merely a transfer of state to kinetic energy.
In every case the total energy involved does not change. There is no additional energy created by the action so there is no heating generated by the CO2 molecule. Any change of kinetic energy becomes part of the normal convective process of cooling the Earth’s surface.
The laws of thermodynamics mandate that heat cannot flow from cold to hot so the return of some radiation back towards the Earth cannot cause surface heating as it is only a fraction of the energy being emitted from the surface. It is not heat from a hotter source so there is no surface heating as proposed by the Greenhouse Effect."
See https://climateauditor.com/co2-infrared-absorption/
****
"All glacial periods start with high levels(300ppmv) of CO2. If CO2 causes warming, why did the temperatures drop so as to cause glaciers to cover the northern continents? CO2 took 5 or 6 thousand years to drop after each glacial period started. It almost dropped to a level too low to sustain photosynthesis, which would have ended all life on earth."
Listen to Dr Ian Plimer, Geologist, speak on the earths climate. He is one of the smartest guys I've read on the topic. Geology cannot be ignored in discussion of the climate. Sun cycles and earth orbit cycles cause climate change and water regulates the maximum and minimum temperature.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bpt2QtxLjc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK4LNIvlcCY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sn_5v0kBkcg
He gives several talks on the subject. Search for Ian Plimer on youtube.com
****
A well thought out hypothesis based on observation as to why CO2 cannot affect equilibrium temperature of the atmosphere
-- Stephen Wilde
"Instead of transferring more energy from Solar Diabatic Loop (SDL) to Atmospheric Adiabatic Loop (AAL) the effect of changes in the proportion of radiatively active gases would simply be to adjust the speed of the AAL by changing the height within the vertical column at which Kinetic Energy = Potential Energy.
So, on those grounds, more GHGs could not affect equilibrium temperature because they provoke an equal and opposite system response to any effect they might have on the transfer of energy through the planetary system.
That is why established science does not list the radiative features of constituent gases as one of the factors that influence the equilibrium temperature of planets with atmospheres."
Stephen Wilde explains in laymens terms on his website ...
https://www.newclimatemodel.com/the-ignoring-of-adiabatic-processes-big-mistake/
****
CO2 cannot do what the IPCC says it does. This research shows that CO2 has virtually no affect on the climate temperature. Climate change is driving CO2, not the other way around.
The following chart shows lack of correlation of temperature with CO2.
https://carbon-sense.com/2013/10/14/co2-vs-temperature/
****
"At these present CO2 levels, even substantial CO2 mitigation at enormous cost will also have minimal cooling impact & not worth even contemplating. These very important facts are little known in the wider community and the fear and panic being generated is completely unfounded. " --Dr Robert Fagan
****
"This analysis has shown that the greenhouse effect arising from the dominant long wavelength CO2 absorption band emanating from the Earth’s surface at 288.5 degrees K cannot cause warming of the surface."
https://climateauditor.com/co2-infrared-absorption/
****
Wim J. Witteman
Department of Applied Analysis and Mathematical Physics
University of Twente, Enschede, Overijssel, Netherlands
... absorption of thermal emission from the earth surface by CO2 ... it is
found that practically about 90% of the frequency space between the rotational lines of the absorbing vibrational bands around 15-, 5- and 4.3- micron wavelength contributes relatively little to the thermal absorption. Roughly, only 10% of its spectrum is active and the thermal radiation that falls within these regions is fully absorbed.
The greenhouse effect connected to global warming depends on the thermal emission or temperature of the earth surface and it is practically not affected by the change of the CO2 concentration. The observed increase of global warming cannot be related to the present increase of CO2.
https://www.clepair.net/witteman-CO2+IR.html
https://www.clepair.net/witteman-CO2+IR.pdf
****
Davis, W.J. 2017. The relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and global temperature for the last 425 million years. Climate 5: 76; doi: 10.3390/cli5040076.
Writing by way of introduction to his work, Davis (2017) notes that "a central question for contemporary climate policy is how much of the observed global warming is attributable to the accumulation of atmospheric CO2 and other trace greenhouse gases emitted by human activities."
"the most accurate quantitative empirical evaluation to date of the relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature."
As noted by the author, the most striking observation from the visual comparison is the "apparent dissociation and even an antiphasic relationship" among the two variables.
500 Million Years of Unrelatedness between Atmospheric CO2 and Temperature
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V21/sep/a13.php
Get the Unrelatedness research paper
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/76
****
"The CO2 hypothesis forecasts the global temperature to increase whenever the atmospheric CO2 concentration goes up, if not counteracted by any other known climatic phenomena, such as, e.g., volcanic eruptions. Whenever a situation like the present occurs, with increasing atmospheric CO2 and essentially stable (or decreasing) global temperatures over several years without known counter effect, the hypothesis is falsified." -
http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateReflections.htm
****
Then, there's outright fraud
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA) may have a boring name, but it has a very important job: It measures U.S. temperatures. Unfortunately, it seems to be a captive of the global warming religion. Its data are fraudulent.
The stunning statistical fraud behind the global warming scare
****
Faking US Temperature Data
Fabricated US temperature data from NOAA appears to have a change in their algorithm after the 1998 El Nino. The fake temperatures were shifted upwards by about three degrees.
https://realclimate.science/2024/08/23/faking-us-temperature-data/#gsc.tab=0
****
What about ocean acidification?
"In conclusion, claims of impending marine species extinctions driven by increases in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration do not appear to be founded in empirical reality, based on the experimental findings we have analyzed above."
http://www.co2science.org/data/acidification/results.php
****
Facts about Climate from the Heartland Institute
https://www.heartland.org/Center-Climate-Environment/index.html
The Climate Crisis is Over
https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/the-global-warming-crisis-is-over
****
When the oceans warm they release CO2 into the atmosphere. That's where it's been coming from. The warming is from solar radiation, that's all.
NASA data in a 1992 report on earth's IR radiation showed no radiation in the frequency that CO2 can absorb, 14-16 micron wave length, being emitted from the earth. That indicates that there is no more to be absorbed making it impossible for more CO2 to cause warming.
See the NASA report by Steven D. Lord 1992, 194 pages on the NASA website.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19930010877
Scroll down and click on the link titled 19930010877.pdf to get the report file.
See the graphs on pages 114-115 of the pdf file, also to the left.
Notice the flat line at the bottom. No emission in that wave length.
****
Humans did not create all the additional CO2 since 1780. Most is natural.
"Far too many people, including scientists, incorrectly assume the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is correct about climate change. They incorrectly think undesirable climate events prove our CO2 caused these events, which is not only nonsense but also logically invalid because events do not prove their cause."
https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-co2-temp/dont-buy-climate-alarmism/
https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/the-impact-of-human-co2-on-atmospheric-co2-summary/
****
Vostok ice core data show that temperature rises before CO2, so CO2 cannot be causing rising temperature.
According to Barnola et al. (1991) and Petit et al. (1999) these measurements indicate that, at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations.
https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html
****
By the Numbers: CO2 Mostly Natural
This post compiles several independent proofs which refute those reasserting the “consensus” view attributing all additional atmospheric CO2 to humans burning fossil fuels.
https://rclutz.com/2022/07/07/by-the-numbers-co2-mostly-natural/
****
World Atmospheric CO2, Its 14C Specific Activity, Non-fossil Component, Anthropogenic Fossil Component, and Emissions (1750–2018)
Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.
https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Abstract/2022/02000/World_Atmospheric_CO2,_Its_14C_Specific_Activity,.2.aspx
****
CO2 Is Not Causing Global Warming
"CO2, water, and CH4 (methane) and some other minor gases are so-called “greenhouse gases” because they absorb infrared energy. However, be careful to avoid the common misunderstanding that the earth and its atmosphere behave like a garden greenhouse; that is not true.
... the sun heats the earth, then the earth heats the atmosphere. The atmosphere is not heating the earth. According to the laws of thermodynamics, energy only flows from higher energy earth to the lower energy atmosphere. Earth (oceans and land) heat the air, not the reverse.
This is NOT to say that humans do not affect temperature and climate in other ways, such as building cities, roads, planting or cutting forests and fields, etc. This IS to say that AGW, the hypothesis of human-caused global warming by the contribution of a mere 0.004% of the total CO2 emissions, is scientifically wrong. The human contribution to global warming is statistically insignificant, so tiny it is unmeasurable in the real world; the hypothesis of human-caused global warming/climate change has been falsified by real world observations and experiments."
https://budbromley.blog/2019/01/15/co2-is-not-causing-global-warming/
****
Physicist: CO2 Molecules Retain Heat Just 0.0001 Of A Second, Thus CO2-Driven Warming ‘Not Possible’
Mainstream climate science claims CO2 molecules “slow down the rate of heat-loss from the surface” like a blanket does. And yet the rate at which a CO2 molecule retains or slows down heat loss is, at most, a negligible 0.0001 of a second. A CO2 concentration of 300 ppm versus 400 ppm will therefore have no detectable impact.
****
Climate change is caused by solar cycles and planetary positional cycles that warm or cool the oceans and land surface which in turn govern our local and global temperatures.
See the graphs in the next article.
A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge.
http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.php
****
Plate Tectonics: a history of a changing climate through geologic forcing
"The resulting mantle displacement is central to this model and explains how this mechanism is responsible for the planet's variable climate change history ..."
"The evidence shown in this model suggests that the observed increase in ocean warming that has been widely attributed to anthropological atmospheric CO2, is actually due to a strain energy response from the slow and periodic displacement of the mantle which began with a gradual increase in activity just prior to the generally accepted end of the Little Ice Age around 1850. These sporadic pulses of thermal content moved gradually from the crust/mantle boundary into the deep ocean where it was then transported through PDO, ENSO and AMOC circulations to the surface where it then warmed the atmosphere. "
https://electroplatetectonics.blogspot.com/
****
Variations in solar irradiance are widely believed to explain climatic change on 20,000- to 100,000-year time-scales in accordance with the Milankovitch theory of the ice ages, but there is no conclusive evidence that variable irradiance can be the cause of abrupt fluctuations in climate on time-scales as short as 1,000 years. We propose that such abrupt millennial changes, seen in ice and sedimentary core records, were produced in part by well characterized, almost periodic variations in the strength of the global oceanic tide-raising forces caused by resonances in the periodic motions of the earth and moon.
The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.070047197
****
The physics of the Earth’s atmosphere
"Our experimental results show that the temperature distribution in the atmosphere is completely independent of greenhouse gas concentrations. This directly contradicts the greenhouse effect theory, which predicts that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations should cause the lower atmosphere to heat up (“global warming”)."
https://globalwarmingsolved.com/2013/11/19/summary-the-physics-of-the-earths-atmosphere-papers-1-3/
****
Water Vapor vs CO2 for Planet Warming
During at least the time period when water vapor (WV) and carbon dioxide (CO2) have been accurately measured worldwide, 1988-now, and apparently for centuries, WV increase has been responsible for the human contribution to Global Warming with no significant net contribution from CO2 or any other greenhouse gases.
https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com/2019/11/abstract-during-time-periodwhen-water.html
****
Why I Don't Fear Climate Change And You Shouldn't Either
It seems like every day, reports of climate change become more apocalyptic. Few politicians express any doubt in the notion that human activity is causing the Earth’s temperature to rise. Indeed, quite the opposite is the norm.
A new paper has been published recently in the journal “Environment Pollution and Climate Change,” was written by Ned Nikolov, a Ph.D. in physical science, and Karl Zeller, retired Ph.D. research meteorologist. The paper argues that the basic science behind Global Warming is incorrect.
https://co2coalition.org/news/why-i-dont-fear-climate-change-and-you-shouldnt-either/
****
Many people mistakenly assume that 90-95% of scientists agree that recent climate change is “mostly human-caused”. The reality is that there is a wide range of views among the scientific community about the causes of recent climate change.
“Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is responsible for that warming.This website https://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/ describes evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.
- Dr. Roy W. Spencer
****
Lots of facts about CO2 and the climate
"Explore our extensive library of facts and detailed data to empower yourself with knowledge, educate friends and family, and join us in our love for CO2."
https://co2coalition.org/facts/
****
The climatic effects of water vapour – Physics World
"Extreme variations in local weather and the seasons make it easy for people to mutter “greenhouse effect”, and blame everything on carbon dioxide. Along with other man-made gases, such as methane, carbon dioxide has received a bad press for many years and is uniformly cited as the major cause of the greenhouse effect. This is simply not correct."
https://physicsworld.com/a/the-climatic-effects-of-water-vapour/
****
"Scientists are increasingly tuning out the claims that the Earth’s temperatures are predominantly shaped by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, or that future climate is destined to be alarmingly warm primarily due to the rise in trace atmospheric gases. Instead, solar scientists are continuing to advance our understanding of solar activity and its effect on the Earth system, and their results are progressively suggestive of robust correlations between solar variability and climate changes."
It was a money making scheme first:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/collapse-of-chicago-climate-exchange-means-a-strategy-shift-on-global-warming-curbs
https://canadafreepress.com/article/obamas-involvement-in-chicago-climate-exchange-the-rest-of-the-story
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/02/putins-best-friend-in-the-west-environmentalists.php
****
CO2 heats the atmosphere…a counter view
"The main point is that every time you hear or read that “CO2 heats the atmosphere” , that “energy is trapped by CO2” , that “energy is stored by green house gases” and similar statements , you may be sure that this source is not to be trusted for information about radiation questions ."
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/co2-heats-the-atmosphere-a-counter-view/
More CO2 Will Have Little To No Impact On Global Warming
https://climatechangedispatch.com/study-more-co2-will-have-little-to-no-impact-on-global-warming/
****
Gary Novak, Evolution Physiologist, Independent Scientist
On Science and the Climate
Complete refutation of AGW.
"What this website is about is the methodology of science, not the opinions of scientists. All real science is a methodology, not an opinion. The most significant methodology of science is mathematics. So the starting point of this criticism is mathematics which proves errors in physics."
"One molecule in 2,500 in the atmosphere is never going to have the slightest influence over climate."
****
'A new CO2 climate sensitivity study suggests that beyond the 300 ppm threshold, “any further increase of (anthropogenic) CO2 cannot lead to an appreciably stronger absorption of radiation, and consequently cannot affect the earth’s climate.”'
News article: https://climatechangedispatch.com/physics-prof-concludes-doubling-co2-adds-just-0-5c-cannot-affect-climate/
The paper from the above news article: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.00708.pdf
****
"SATURATION OF THE INFRARED ABSORPTION BY CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE ATMOSPHERE"
"Saturation of infrared radiation by the realistic CO2 content of the atmosphere of 0.03 % being reached within approximately 1% according to Table 1, any further increase of the CO2 content does not substantially increase the absorption of radiation, and accordingly does not affect the climate on earth."
Articles referenced by the above article:
Challenging the Greenhouse Effect Specification
and the Climate Sensitivity of the IPCC
https://www.journalpsij.com/index.php/PSIJ/article/view/30127/56520
The Real 'Inconvenient Truth'
Some facts about greenhouse and global warming
Unfortunately there's a lot of rubbish available on the 'net giving rather misleading descriptions of Earth's natural 'greenhouse effect' and of the probable consequences of human-generated emissions adding to this effect.
http://junksciencearchive.com/Greenhouse/
****
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide And Climate
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341932879_Atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_and_climate
****
The slight warming is no crisis ...
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/
****
What your congressional representatives need to know before authorizing hundreds of billions of tax dollars to be spent on the myth of Anthropogenic Climate Change ...
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Summary-for-Policymakers-Final.pdf
****
Dissenting voices are important in the debate ...
https://co2coalition.org/news/are-skeptical-science-reports-good-for-science/
****
William Happer, Professor of Physics Emeritus, Princeton University on CO2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA1zUW4uOSw
****
"There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period(500 mya), nearly 7000 ppm; about 18 times higher than today. "
"The Carboniferous Period(300 mya) and the Ordovician Period(450 mya) were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming."
- https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
****
Academia is filled with scientific literature that contradicts the position of those who believe climate change is unprecedented. In 2020 alone, over 400 peer-reviewed scientific papers took up a skeptical position on climate alarmism. These papers—and hundreds from previous years—address various issues related to climate change, including problems with climate change observation, climate reconstructions, lack of anthropogenic/CO2 signal in sea-level rise, natural mechanisms that drive climate change (solar influence on climate, ocean circulations, cloud climate influence, ice sheet melting in high geothermal heat flux areas), hydrological trends that do not follow modeled expectations, the fact that corals thrive in warm, high-CO2 environments, elevated CO2 and higher crop yields, no increasing trends in intense hurricanes and drought frequency, the myth of mass extinctions due to global cooling, etc.
https://cornwallalliance.org/2021/03/why-i-am-a-climate-realist/?fbclid=IwAR2zWWj--4h3nJ8qVYK61ipyL1yA0PE_UvoZ5HvEbFf1KNU6LGVe94lCXRc
****
The combustion of fossil fuels for energy to power human civilization has reversed the downward trend in CO2 and promises to bring it back to levels that are likely to foster a considerable increase in the growth rate and biomass of plants, including food crops and trees.
Human emissions of CO2 have restored a balance to the global carbon cycle, thereby ensuring the long-term continuation of life on Earth.
This extremely positive aspect of human CO2 emissions must be weighed against the unproven hypothesis that human CO2 emissions will cause a catastrophic warming of the climate in coming years.
The one-sided political treatment of CO2 as a pollutant that should be radically reduced must be corrected in light of the indisputable scientific evidence that it is essential to life on Earth.
Without CO2, we die.
https://fcpp.org/2016/06/07/the-positive-impact-of-human-co%e2%82%82-emissions-on-the-survival-of-life-on-earth/
****
There is no consensus on climate change, but that it does change. The problem with the research is that to get government grants to support themselves, researchers find the politically popular result. They tune their climate models to show that result. "Consensus for GHGT is very small, limited to UN IPCC and a few governments."
https://principia-scientific.com/greenhouse-gas-theory-is-false/
****
9,000+ PHD credentialed scientists signed a petition stating that Anthropogenic Global Warming was false. "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php
****
"The anthropogenic responsibility for climate change observed in the last century is therefore UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED and catastrophic predictions ARE NOT REALISTIC." Read the petition ...
https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/04/90-leading-italian-scientists-sign-petition-co2-impact-on-climate-unjustifiably-exaggerated-catastrophic-predictions-not-realistic/
****
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/845901/climate-change-natural-global-warming-evidence-jennifer-marohasy
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2017/08/recent-warming-natural/
https://jennifermarohasy.com/temperatures/response-to-criticism-of-abbot-marohasy-2017-georesj/
****
Historic average temperatures have ranged from 85º F to 50º F over the past 600 million years. Presently 59º F. We are coming out of a cold period, so it is natural for temperatures to rise. 175M years ago when CO2 was about 2000 ppm, it was a nice 77ºF, 10ºC warmer than today, where it had been for most of the past 600M years with CO2 as high as 7000 ppm.
- C.R. Scotese
https://climateilluminated.com/history/climate_history.html
https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.html
****
CO2 levels follow temperature change. CO2 has been up when Temperatures were down, but charts of Vostok ice core data show that it follows temperature change for the last 450k years. Temperature goes up then CO2 follows. Temperature goes down then CO2 follows. Question: If high levels of CO2 in the past were not able to prevent the cooling going into a glacial period, how could it be responsible for warming the atmosphere?
The more CO2 there is the less the warming impact it has(IPCC formula courtesy Monckton 2017). It could be doubled with very little effect on temperature. In the past, CO2 has been as much as 20 times today's level. Plants will grow much faster (more food for everyone). The optimal amount of CO2 for plants is 1500 ppm. Note that if CO2 levels drop below 150ppm, plants will cease to grow and so will all animal life on earth.
https://climateilluminated.com/history/climate_history.html
****
"AGW hypothesis: Carbon dioxide, a weak greenhouse gas, begins warming the planet. This warming evaporates water and so puts water vapor into the atmosphere which amplifies the warming effect. This is called a positive feedback."
"At first look, this proposition seems logical and reasonable. But other properties of water vapor reduce temperatures and the net effect is a strong negative feedback. A positive feedback tends to destabilize a system, whereas, a negative feedback tends to keep a system in check. Just think for a minute, if water vapor had a net positive feedback effect, this planet would have had run-away global warming long ago. That alone should falsify the positive feedback hypothesis."
https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2018/07/21/water-vapor-and-the-climate-why-carbon-dioxide-is-a-very-minor-player/
****
When the surface warms, the water cycle cools it. The water cycle cools the surface much like an air conditioner cools your house. Water absorbs heat from the surface and is then converted to vapor which rises to an elevation where it condenses in to droplets forming clouds and releasing that heat to the upper atmosphere. Most of this heat is radiated out to space, not back to Earth. Rain then begins the cycle again. The more water vapor in the air, the more cooling occurs with the water cycle, so there is no runaway heating. According to Greenhouse Gas Theory, the tropics should be burning up because of the high amounts of water vapor, but they're not. The temperatures there are no worse than Washington DC in the summer, about 90º F. That's because of the cooling effect of water vapor.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/30580
https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC7202867
https://sciencing.com/evaporation-cause-cooling-5315235.html
****
The warmer it is, the more plants and animals thrive. Cold kills far more than heat. Crops fail and life dies during cold periods. See "little ice age of the middle ages". Climatologists call warm periods "climate optimums" because life thrives during them.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150520193831.htm
****
2021 report from The Global Warming Policy Foundation:
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2021/02/Goklany-EmpiricalTrends.pdf
From the report, page 32:
"10. Conclusion
While climate may have changed for the warmer:
• Most extreme weather phenomena have not become more extreme, more deadly, or more destructive.
• Empirical evidence directly contradicts claims that increased carbon dioxide has reduced human wellbeing. In fact, human wellbeing has never been higher.
• Whatever detrimental effects warming and higher carbon dioxide may have had on terrestrial species and ecosystems, they have been swamped by the contribution of fossil fuels to increased biological productivity. This has halted, and turned around, reductions in habitat loss."
The Truth About Global Warming Can Be Found If You Look
Ourwoods.org