Enclosed You Will Find A Corrected Form W-2 For 2009. The Only: Fill & Download for Free

Look up in the sky, and you will see either clouds or bright sunlight. You will feel the cooling effect of the clouds or the warming effect of the sunlight. You will not see or feel the greenhouse climate effect. Why?The Errors of Arrhenius“The Swedish physical chemist, Svante Arrhenius, is credited with establishing the scientific basis of global warming due to carbon dioxide created by human activities. Arrhenius published his work in English in the Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science in 1896. The scientific world considered this work for about ten years but by 1905 rejected it on the basis that the amount of carbon dioxide in the air was so small compared to the amount of water vapor that even a doubling of it would have an insignificant effect on global temperature.”The Errors of ArrheniusSan José State University applet-magic.com Thayer Watkins Silicon Valley & Tornado Alley USA The Swedish physical chemist, Svante Arrhenius, is credited with establishing the scientific basis of global warming due to carbon dioxide created by human activities. Arrhenius published his work in English in the Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science in 1896. The scientific world considered this work for about ten years but by 1905 rejected it on the basis that the amount of carbon dioxide in the air was so small compared to the amount of water vapor that even a doubling of it would have an insignificant effect on global temperature. This was a consensus of opinion in the scientific world that lasted until about 1950. Around 1950 new, more detailed measurement of the absorption spectra of water vapor and carbon dioxide revealed that there were some wavelengths of infrared radiation that carbon dioxide absorbed that water vapor did not. This meant that theoretically carbon dioxide could have an effect on global temperatures even though its concentration is small compared to water vapor. The concentration in the overall atmosphere of water vapor is about 0.4 of 1 percent. Adding carbon dioxide at a concentration of 0.03 of 1 percent increases the greenhouse gas concentration from 0.4 of 1 percent to 0.43 of 1 percent, an increase of 7.5 percent. A further increase in the carbon dioxide content to 0.06 of 1 percent is an increase in greenhouse gas concentration of only 7 percent for the wavelengths of radiation for which the absorption spectra of water vapor and carbon dioxide overlap. But for the wavelengths which water vapor does not absorb but carbon dioxide does the increase is 100 percent. Thus carbon dioxide was not just a greenhouse gas duplicating the effect of water vapor; it was a greenhouse gas with a difference . For more on the absorption spectra of greenhouse gases see Absorption Spectra . There were articles then published arguing that not only could anthropogenic carbon dioxide affect global temperatures but that it had already done so. One of these articles, by Gilbert N. Plass of Johns Hopkins University, is solid scientific analysis. Another was by Guy S. Callendar of London which is usually credited with establishing global warming. The Callendar article however is not science. See Early history of the role of CO2 in climate analysis. The Callendar article is basically fakery. Callendar purported to show that temperatures around the world had increased by ½°C over the period 1885 to 1950. Callendar gives the temperature record for five areas; the British Isles, Japan, Turkestan, New Zealand and Chile. Somehow the temperature records for all other areas, including the United States, Canada and Australia, were not suitable for inclusion. Of the five he showed, two, Japan and Chile, did not show a temperature increase. Turkestan showed an increase of about ½°C; wherehttp://www.applet-magic.com/arrhenius.htmThe greenhouse effect is a fiction because the genesis, credited to old Svante Arrhenius, is from an experiment by John Tyndall that has never be reproduced to prove the validity of the results.John Tyndall’s laboratory equipment for the greenhouse effect is a false representation of the earth and reality because it is enclosed in a tube unlike the earth.Kurt Angstrom W.“Did you know, for example, that in 1900, the leading atmospheric physicist of the day, Knut Ångström, disproved the theory of greenhouse warming with a series of careful experiments, and despite the loud protestations of its principal exponent, Svante Arrhenius, that theory was dismissed by the scientific climate community for 38 years?”See - Doomed PlanetRoll Over, ArrheniusRoll Over, ArrheniusNot so long ago, Australia’s latest Chief Scientist, Dr. Alan Finkel, appeared before the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, during the course of which deliberations he was questioned by the One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts. I was fascinated, to put it at its kindest, to hear Finkel rehashing all the tired clichés of his global warming co-religionists, even invoking the old stalking horse of that fraternity, Svante Arrhenius, to whom I will return. Finkel informed Roberts and the committee that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing because of  fossil fuels; world temperature is increasing as a result of the increasing carbon dioxide content from those fuels’ combustion; the greenhouse effect (described by Arrhenius) proved this ; plus, the models are telling us that this will be catastrophic for civilization etc, etc.  Naturally, he also pointed out that this was, as usual, the hottest year ever!  When Senator Roberts politely pointed out some of the doubtful material in Finkel’s assertions and asked for specific data, he was slapped with that universal conversation stopper of the global warming fraternity “97% of scientists say so.” Readers can re-visit the encounter via the clip below. VIDEO All of this reminded me of Finkel’s predecessor and fellow catastropharian, one Ian Chubb , a neurologist , whose first pronouncement ex cathedra insisted the greatest danger facing mankind was anthropogenic global warming! As Australian Chief Scientist, Finkel is ex officio a member of the Climate Change Authority, where he joins, among others, such luminaries as Dr. Wendy Craik , a zoologist, who opined in 2008 that the drought then gripping Australia had to be regarded as the new normal ; Kate Carnell , a pharmacist, whose tenure as Chief Minister of the ACT seldom rose above the lacklustre ; Clive Hamilton BA (History), BEc, PhD (Development Studies), a so-called “public intellectual” and strident green who is none to sure about the place of democracy on a dying planet ; David Karoly , who has made a career in climatology, a very nice career, albeit with the embarrassment of a co-authored paper that no sooner appeared than had to be withdrawn ; To quote sceptic and sometime Quadrant contributor Professor Emeritus Garth Paltdridge (author’s emphasis) …virtually all climate research in Australia is funded from one source – namely, the government department which has the specific task of selling to the public the idea that something drastic and expensive has to be done to mitigate climate change….  Over the last two years more than 100 million dollars was distributed … for exactly that purpose. So there can be no doubt that climate-research grant recipients know perfectly well that scepticism concerning the climate-change story does very little for their careers .  One therefore wonders a bit about the much-vaunted consensus of the global warming establishment regarding climatic doom. The average climate scientist is extremely reluchttps://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2017/09/roll-arrhenius/#This is where I return to Arrhenius, so lovingly cited in the video clip above, for it was he who first introduced the erroneous notion of the “greenhouse effect.” He attributed the idea to Joseph Fourier who, on the contrary, did not even mention a greenhouse and actually went out of his way to contrast the mechanism of the greenhouse, as examined by Ferdinand de Saussure, with that of the atmosphere. (Fourier JBJ, 1827, Memoire sur les temperatures du globe terrestre et des espaces planetaires).Arrhenius clearly misunderstood the greenhouse mechanism and failed to grasp the constraints that Kirchhoff’s law places on the application of the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation. He went on to propose a complex energy recycling mechanism to explain an atmospheric thermal gradient already explained by convective heat transfer and the gas laws. In short, and at a risk of oversimplification, while understanding the effect of reflectivity, he calculated temperature variations on the basis of radiative transfer of heat, not on the basis of conductive transfer. On top of this he assigned black body emissivity to the lithosphere of the earth.It would seem Finkel, while quoting Arrhenius, did not go to the primary sources. Had he done so it would have become immediately apparent that Arrhenius, in his 1906 work “The possible cause of climate variability“, while asserting, correctly that the presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere contributed to the increase of temperature at the earth’s surface, failed to give any empirical evidence. More than that, he was quite wrong in his theorizing, in particular his invocation of the greenhouse!It must also be borne in mind that, despite the work of James Clark Maxwell and the definitive experiment of Mitchelson and Morley in 1887, Arrhenius still believed that space was not, in effect, a vacuum (as we now know*); but contained a material medium -“aether“. This concept, with its roots in Cartesian thinking, was first put in the form of an hypothesis by Newton (e.g. in his De Aere et Aethere and Query 31 of the Opticks); but who also questioned it, or at least showed the difficulty of detecting it (the Principia Book 2, General Scholium).Knut Ångström, in 1900 showed by experiment that CO2 is transparent to 90% of infrared radiation applicable to temperature variation; and that those infrared bands which CO2 readily obstructs are already almost totally blocked by atmospheric CO2. This finding, that the relationship between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and its effect on back radiation is logarithmic, has been replicated by many subsequent experimenters; all of whom show that doubling of the present carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere would only increase the back radiation by about 3.6 W/m ², which would, in the absence of other factors, give rise to an increase in temperature of between 0.6 and 0.8 C°. (Ångström, 1900 “Über die Bedeutung des Wasserdampfes“). It is worth pointing out that a multiplicity of other factors affect climate, all natural. This is not the place in which to rehearse them, but to whet your appetite here are a few for starters:The Milankovitch effect, which is the slow, 41,000-year cycle of what might be called the central position of the axis of the earth in the Newton/Croll precession. Milankovitch showed this to vary from between about 22° and 24°. The Croll effect acts in opposite ways in the northern and southern hemispheres, whereas the Milankovitch effect is the same in both hemispheres. Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the combined effect of the two to be that, in the present epoch, the northern hemisphere would be 1% cooler than average and the southern hemisphere 3% warmer than average.The theory of general relativity shows that the energy output (irradiance) of the sun has increased by the order of 30% since the Lower Archean (i.e. over the last 3.8 billion years), recent studies have shown that solar irradiance has increased by approximately 0.4% over the last 200-300 years, causing an increase in temperature of about 0.4C°; other studies have shown that the increase in solar irradiance over the last 30 years has been responsible for 40% of the observed global warming. (see Soon W. H., Posmentier E. S. & Baliunas S. L. Inference of solar irradiance variability from terrestrial temperature changes, 1880-1993: an astrophysical application of the sun-climate connection).It has been established that there is a significant correlation between sunspot activity and earth’s average temperature. Late 20th-century work by Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, Lassen and others has shown this in some detail. However records are available comparing central English temperatures with sunspot activity going as far back as 1750. Other data go back as far as 1550. (Svensmark H. and Friis-Christensen E. Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage-a missing link in solar- climate relationships).Roll Over, ArrheniusWater vapor is the giant gas not CO2 for the greenhouse effect and it is invisible representing 95% of the total gases and less than 1% of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide natural is only 3.6% of the GHG and it is invisible. There is no pollution to observe as there is no carbon in GHG.The purpose of this post is raise doubt about whether there is such a phenomenon as the greenhouse effect. I submit there are well researched valid peer reviewed studies that debunk views of the old scientists like Svante Arrhenius and surely prove the science of the greenhouse effect is not settled.Leading scientists say the greenhouse effect is a false metaphor and is only a delusion,’ a phantasm to be neglected, ‘a fictitious mechanism.’ and ‘pseudo science.’Alarmists say otherwise, but are hard pressed to reference any observational studies relying only on outdated thought experiment in the 1800s usually most credit to old Svante Arrhenius who got is wrong.“Arrhenius completely failed to accept that Tyndall had found that water vapour was far more important than carbon dioxide.He assumed that the ratio of carbon dioxide (K) to water vapour (W) in the earth’s atmosphere was K/W where K is 1.5 and W is 0.88, a ratio of 1.7.The concentration of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere is now thought to be 0.039%. The average concentration of water vapour is not known, since it varies from place to place from 0 to 4%. If you take 2% as typical, the ratio of water vapour to carbon dioxide is about 50 to 1.So, about 98% of Arrhenius’ figures and calculations, even if soundly based, still apply to water vapour and not to carbon dioxide.”The Global Warming Scam and the Climate Change SuperscamFurther, Fournier, Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius debunked in 2009 by a famous American scientist, Dr. RW Wood.RW Wood1868 – 1955) was an American physicist and inventor. He wrote a standard textbook on Physical Optics50.He presented a theory of the operation of a greenhouse in the Philosophical Magazine in 1909 (Vol. 17, pp. 319-320)51XXIV. Note on the Theory of the GreenhouseBy Professor R. W. Wood (Communicated by the Author)There appears to be a widespread belief that the comparatively high temperature produced within a closed space covered with glass, and exposed to solar radiation, results from a transformation of wave-length, that is, that the heat waves from the sun, which are able to penetrate the glass, fall upon the walls of the enclosure and raise its temperature: the heat energy is re-emitted by the walls in the form of much longer waves, which are unable to penetrate the glass, the greenhouse acting as a radiation trap.I have always felt some doubt as to whether this action played any very large part in the elevation of temperature. It appeared much more probable that the part played by the glass was the prevention of the escape of the warm air heated by the ground within the enclosure. If we open the doors of a greenhouse on a cold and windy day, the trapping of radiation appears to lose much of its efficacy.As a matter of fact I am of the opinion that a greenhouse made of a glass transparent to waves of every possible length would show a temperature nearly, if not quite, as high as that observed in a glass house. The transparent screen allows the solar radiation to warm the ground, and the ground in turn warms the air, but only the limited amount within the enclosure. In the "open," the ground is continually brought into contact with cold air by convection currents.To test the matter I constructed two enclosures of dead black cardboard, one covered with a glass plate, the other with a plate of rock-salt of equal thickness. The bulb of a thermometer was inserted in each enclosure and the whole packed in cotton, with the exception of the transparent plates which were exposed. When exposed to sunlight the temperature rose gradually to 65 o C., the enclosure covered with the salt plate keeping a little ahead of the other, owing to the fact that it transmitted the longer waves from the sun, which were stopped by the glass. In order to eliminate this action the sunlight was first passed through a glass plate.There was now scarcely a difference of one degree between the temperatures of the two enclosures. The maximum temperature reached was about 55 oC. From what we know about the distribution of energy in the spectrum of the radiation emitted by a body at 55 oC., it is clear that the rock-salt plate is capable of transmitting practically all of it, while the glass plate stops it entirely. This shows us that the loss of temperature of the ground by radiation is very small in comparison to the loss by convection, in other words that we gain very little from the circumstance that the radiation is trapped.Is it therefore necessary to pay attention to trapped radiation in deducing the temperature of a planet as affected by its atmosphere? The solar rays penetrate the atmosphere, warm the ground which in turn warms the atmosphere by contact and by convection currents. The heat received is thus stored up in the atmosphere, remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas. It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions.I do not pretend to have gone very deeply into the matter, and publish this note merely to draw attention to the fact that trapped radiation appears to play but a very small part in the actual cases with which we are familiar.Wood showed that internal convection warms the air which cannot escape to be cooled by the outside climate. He does not mention evaporation of water which also cools the surface. In common with Fourier and the others he does not mention what happens at night or when the sun is not present: when the whole frame cools by external convection combined with deposition of dew internally..Meteorologists use cloud cover photos from satellites to predict the weather because they are real not an imaginary fable. Meteorologists do not depend on greenhouse gases because they are invisible and may not exist.The term climate change has been badly distorted to embrace the politics of alarmism and the unfounded climate crisis from human emissions of non polluting carbon dioxide. The real science meaning of climate change is best illustrated by the change of seasons, for example from Spring to Summer as the photo shows.Satellite image of cloud cover.Photo Credit: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Image by Reto StöckliDescriptionSatellite image of world cloud coverUnknown to your naked eyes in the same sky are so called unseen greenhouse gases that supposedly affect temperatures. These gases work together but they are not green and whether they exist or not is much disputed.No one has every seen these sky dragons capable of spewing heat that could destroy civilization with a climate crisis of runaway global warming.Many leading scientists especially physicists debunk the existence of invisible greenhouse gases calling them a ‘delusion,’ a phantasm to be neglected, ‘a fictitious mechanism.’ and ‘pseudo science.’Dr Vincent Gray has written a lengthy master piece of skepticism about these greenhouse gases beginning with details of the history that reaches back into long ago primitive level of climate research.CHAPTER 5 :THE GREENHOUSE EFFECTFOURIERThe greenhouse effect is claimed1,2 to have been suggested in 1824 by Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier (1768 – 1830)3.In France in 1801 he did experiments on the propagation of heat. In his 1822 book Théorie Analytique de chaleur4,5 he postulated that heat transfer in solids varied according to a constant which became known as the thermal conductivity. He described convection in the following terms.When the heated body is placed in air which is maintained at a sensible constant temperature, the heat communicated to the air makes the layer of the fluid nearest to the surface of the body lighter; this layer rises more quickly the more intensely it is heated, and is replaced by another mass of cool air. A current is thus established in the air whose direction is vertical and whose velocity is greater as the temperature of the body is higher.He does not mention heat transfer by evaporation of water and the release of latent heat in a cooler region.Fourier attempted to calculate the temperature of the earth in two publications6,7. Casey8 has published the English translation of the 1824 paper by Burgess9 and an edited version of the paper based on it10. He has also provided an edited English translation of the 1827 paper11 and useful discussion of the errors and misconceptions which have arisen12, from which much of the following discussion has been derived.Fourier was led to his theory from the experiments of his friend de Saussure with his solar heated hot box, which was a miniature greenhouse13.HORACE-BÉNÉDICT DE SAUSSURE14 (1740-, 1799)was a Swiss, physicist who built a solar oven. The increased use of glass during the eighteenth century made many people aware of its ability to trap solar heat.De Saussure gave a roundabout opinion of how the sun heats a hotbox as follows15:Figure 5.1. De Saussure’s HotboxPhysicists are not unanimous as to the nature of sunlight. Some regard it as the same element as fire, but in the state of its greatest purity. Others envisage it as an entity with a nature completely different from fire, and which, incapable of itself heating, has only the power to give an igneous fluid the movement which produces heat.This statement shows how far away from the concepts of modern science was the current understanding of the atmosphere and climate at the time.Fourier in his 1824 paper10 (page 154) explained the hot box as follows:The theory of the instrument is easily understood. It is sufficient to remark, 1st, that the acquired heat is concentrated, because it is not dissipated immediately by renewing the air; 2nd, that the heat of the sun, has properties different from those of heat without light. The rays of that body are transmitted in considerable quantity through the glass plates into all the intervals, even to the bottom of the vessel. They heat the air and the partitions which contain it. Their heat thus communicated ceases to be luminous, and preserves only the properties of non-luminous radiating heat. In this state it cannot pass through the plates of glass covering the vessel. It is accumulated more and more in the interval which is surrounded by substances of small conducting power, and the temperature rises till the heat flowing in, shall exactly equal that which is dissipatedThis statement amounts to the following propositions.The heated air cannot get out (1st proposition).Most of the sun’s rays (a considerable quantity) is transmitted through the glass.They go to all parts of the vessel.The luminous quality of the sun's rays become non luminous heat (infra red).Non luminous heat cannot pass through plates of glass.It accumulates until the system is in equilibrium.He would not have been aware of the discovery in 1850 by Melloni15 that glass absorbs most low temperature infrared radiation.Fourier applied this behaviour to the atmosphere as follows (page 165).The solar heat has accumulated in the interior of the globe, the state of which has become unchangeable. That which penetrates in the equatorial regions is exactly balanced by that which escapes at the parts around the poles. Thus the earth gives out to celestial space all the heat which it receives from the sun, and adds a part of what is peculiar to itself.So he thought that there was no net transfer of heat from the sun to the earth, just a bit more in the tropics, that was balanced by loss at the poles. The temperature of the earth was caused by heat received from outer space. This led him to the view that the temperature of space was only just below that of the poles.He considered that the extra heat needed was supplied from inside the earth which has accumulated in the interior and is peculiar to itself.However, when he added this in, it was not enough, so he had to find some extra heat.Fourier10 (page 154) reads”In short, if all the strata of air of which the atmosphere is formed, preserved their density with their transparency, and lost only the mobility which is peculiar to them, this mass of air, thus become solid, on being exposed to the rays of the sun, would produce an effect the same in kind with that we have just described. The heat, coming in the state of light to the solid earth, would lose all at once, and almost entirely, its power of passing through transparent solids: it would accumulate in the lower strata of the atmosphere, which would thus acquire very high temperatures. We should observe at the same time a diminution of the degree of acquired heat.So infra red could cause a layer which traps heat just like the glass of de Saussure’s hotbox.Then he says:All the terrestrial effects of solar heat are modified by the interposition of the atmosphere and the presence of water. The great motions of these fluids render the distribution more uniform. The transparency of the waters appears to concur with that of the air in augmenting the degree of heat already acquired, because luminous heat flowing in, penetrates, with little difficulty, the interior of the mass, and non-luminous heat has more difficulty in finding a way out in a contrary direction.So water vapour is responsible for augmenting the degree of heat already acquired.This view was supported by Claude Pouillet and John Tyndall, both of whom believed in a warm ether.CLAUDE POUILLETClaude Servais Mathias Pouillet15 (February 16, 1791–June 14, 1868) was a French physicist who developed a pyrheliometer and made, between 1837 and 1838, the first quantitative measurements of the Solar constant.His publication in 183816 has been translated into English by Taylor17Pouillet accepted the view of Fourier that the earth was warmed above the temperature of the æther by the absorption of the sun’s rays by the atmosphere. However, by this time, his friend Poisson (the famous statistical mathematician) had calculated that the upper regions of the atmosphere were much cooler than the aether. He carried out experiments at night with an actinometer, an instrument for measuring radiation and from the results calculated that the temperature of space was -142JOHN TYNDALLJohn Tyndall (1820 – 1893)18 was an Irish-born physicist and mathematician who studied in Germany and from 1853 to 1887 was Director of the Royal Institution in London as the immediate successor of Michael Faraday.For 12 years from 1859 he carried out a series of studies on the passage of low temperature radiation through a number of gases and vapours.19Casey has reproduced Tyndall’s Bakerian lecture of 1861 which gives details20. It is also part of his book “Heat as a Mode of Motion.21Tyndall was inspired by the recent experiments of Melloni22 who had studied the infrared behaviour of various gases using a thermomultiplier, a combination of a thermopile and a galvanometer.Tyndall21,22 said:Melloni found that a glass plate one-tenth of an inch in thickness intercepted all the rays emanating from a source of the temperature of boiling water, and fully 94 percent. of rays from a source of400º Centigrade Hence a tube closed with glass plates would be scarcely more suitable for the purpose now under consideration, than if its ends were stopped by plates of metal.De Saussure and Fourier could not have known that glass absorbed most low temperature radiation.Tyndall’s equipment is illustrated in Figure 5.2.[This very antiquated Tyndall experiment relied on by alarmists but never repeatedA copper cubic container at the right is full of water kept boiling by a flame underneath. The front is coated with lampblack and the radiation passes though a rock salt window and through a brass tube cooled with water. The radiation passes out through another rock salt window and to a double conical device with a thermopile inside it connected to a galvanometer. The tube can be evacuated to give a zero reading for the galvanometer and filled with a gas or vapour to different pressures. Water is circulated around the rock salt to keep it cool. A compensating radiation source is at the far end to enable setting the zero on the galvanometer. He measured the loss of radiation from putting the various gases in the tube.It has been pointed out by Casey12,21 that this arrangement does not measure absorption, a term repeatedly used by Tyndall. It measures relative opacity which is the proportion of radiation passing through the gas. He did not understand that the gas would re-radiate part of the heat as radiation in all directions, some being absorbed by the sides of the tube and some radiating backwards. He seemed to have a rudimentary knowledge of spectroscopy, but his belief in the ether led him to believe in a linear relationship between absorption and concentration. The actual relationship is close to logarithmic.Tyndall’s biographical memoir23 has the following passage:he was able to determine the position of aqueous vapour, which, on account of condensation, could not be experimented on directly. Experiments made with dry and humid air corroborated the inference that, as water transcends all other liquids, so aqueous vapour is powerful above all other vapours as a radiator and absorber.”Air sent through the system of drying-tubes and through the caustic-potash tube produced an absorption of about 1.Air direct from the laboratory, containing therefore its carbonic acid and aqueous vapour, produced an absorption of about 15.Deducting the effect of the gaseous acids, it was found that the quantity of aqueous vapour diffused through the atmosphere on the day in question, produced an absorption at least equal to thirteen times that of the atmosphere itself.Tyndall wrote20,21It is exceedingly probable that the absorption of the solar rays by the atmosphere, as established by M. Pouillet, is mainly due to the watery vapour contained in the air. The vast difference between the temperature of the sun at midday and in the evening is also probably due in the main to that comparatively shallow stratum of aqueous vapour which lies close to the earth. At noon the depth of it pierced by the sunbeams is very small; in the evening very great in comparison.The intense heat of the sun's direct rays on high mountains is not, I believe, due to his beams having to penetrate only a small depth of air, but to the comparative absence of aqueous vapour at those great elevations.But this aqueous vapour, which exercises such a destructive action on the obscure rays, is comparatively transparent to the rays of light. Hence the differential action, as regards the heat coming from the sun to the earth and that radiated from the earth into space, is vastly augmented by the aqueous vapour of the atmosphere.He believed that solar rays are absorbed mainly by water vapour in the atmosphere and it is far more important than that radiated from earth into space. So he is also not responsible for the current concept of the greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide and he did not consider carbon dioxide as important at all.He also wrote20,21 ( page 277 paragraph 1):De Saussure, Fourier, M. Pouillet, and Mr. Hopkins regard this interception of terrestrial rays as exercising the most important influence on climate.Tyndall does appear to be the first person to point out that trace gases in the atmosphere are capable of influencing climate. He studied carbon dioxide and methane but he thought water vapour was far more important.SVANTE ARRHENIUSSvante August Arrhenius (1859--1927)24 was one of the founders of the science of physical chemistry. He received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1903 for his discovery of ions in aqueous salt solutions. He published several articles on the effects of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere. That published in English in 1896 was the most influential25He made very few measurements himself and the paper depended entirely on his calculations from the measurements by Langley and Very26.SAMUEL PIERPONT LANGLEY(August 22, 1834, - February 27, 1906)26was an American astronomer, physicist, and pioneer of aviation.He is probably best known from the fiasco of his two attempts to launch a man-carrying flying machine across the Potomac river in October and December 1903, both of which failed when the machine plunged directly into the river. He refused to recognise the December 1903 success of the Wright brothers and as Director of the Smithsonian Institution he claimed priority in his museum. The original Wright brothers’ flyer was therefore donated to the Science Museum in London where I used to visit as a boy. The Smithsonian claimed priority for Langley when I visited the museum as recently as the 1960s, but then a deal was done and the Wright machine is now in the Smithsonian and the Science Museum has a replica.Langley invented an instrument, the bolometer which could measure the intensity of infra red radiation, which could be used to measure narrow absorption bands of a spectrum supplied by a rock salt prism.Langley made a series of measurements of the full moon’s radiation with this instrument at the Alleghany observatory in 199727. He made measurements at different angles with the moon.Arrhenius had the idea that by finding out the difference he got from different angles he could calculate the absorption of the moon’s radiation by the earth’s atmosphere. By assuming that the radiation from the moon was approximately the same as that of the earth he could calculate the absorption of the earth’s atmosphere by the trace absorbent gases water vapour and carbon dioxide.Erren28 has shown that Langley’s measurements used by Arrhenius were preliminary and had serious errors. They became less accurate as they approached the region used by Arrhenius, and they did not reach far enough to include the major absorption frequency of carbon dioxide. He concluded that Langley’s observations measured water vapour and not carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.Arrhenius published many subsequent publications29-33, parts of which are available from Erren28,34-38, who also provides modern information on the moon spectrum34,35, which show that Arrhenius’ values were exaggerated36,37 and that he did not subsequently amend them.Erren38 disagrees with Weart2 who claimed that the 1901 and 1908 Arrhenius papers lowered his original numbers.He also gives an account of the paper by K Angstrom39 which wrongly criticized Arrhenius.On his first page25 Arrhenius states:6Fourier maintained that the atmosphere acts like the glass of a hothouse because it lets through the light rays from the sun but retains the dark rays from the ground and Langley was by some of his researches led to the view that ‘the temperature of the earth under direct sunshine would probably fall to -200ºC, if that atmosphere did not possess the quality of selective absorption.'It should be pointed out that although infra red rays do not pass through the glass of a hot house, they are also not reflected from it, but are absorbed as heat.Arrhenius26 saysThis view…must be abandoned, as Langley himself in a later memoir, showed that the full moon, which certainly does not possess any sensible heat-absorbing atmosphere, has a ‘mean effective temperature’ of 45ºC.”Langley’s figure for the temperature of the moon was wrong. Today’s figure is an average of 107ºC. Langley’s figures must therefore be treated as completely unreliable, and so are the results calculated from them by Arrhenius.Arrhenius completely failed to accept that Tyndall had found that water vapour was far more important than carbon dioxide.He assumed that the ratio of carbon dioxide (K) to water vapour (W) in the earth’s atmosphere was K/W where K is 1.5 and W is 0.88, a ratio of 1.7.The concentration of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere is now thought to be 0.039%. The average concentration of water vapour is not known, since it varies from place to place from 0 to 4%. If you take 2% as typical, the ratio of water vapour to carbon dioxide is about 50 to 1.So, about 98% of Arrhenius’ figures and calculations, even if soundly based, still apply to water vapour and not to carbon dioxide.Arrhenius no longer believed in the ether when he says:Empty space may be regarded as having a temperature of absolute zero.He included this basic model of the climate:All authors agree in the view that there prevails an equilibrium in the temperature of the earth and of its atmosphere. The atmosphere must, therefore, radiate as much heat to space as it gains, partly from absorption of the sun’s rays, partly through the radiation from the hotter surface of the earth and by means of the ascending currents of air heated by contact with the ground. On the other hand the earth loses just as much heat by radiation into space and to the atmosphere as it gains by absorption of the sun’s rays. If we consider a given place in the atmosphere or on the ground, we must also take into consideration the quantities of heat that are carried to this place by means of oceanic or atmospheric currents.It may be noticed that Arrhenius regards as important “ascending currents of air heated by contact with the ground” and “the quantities of heat that are carried to this place by means of oceanic or atmospheric currents”. In other words convection and circulation.He considered the warming effects of increased carbon dioxide as entirely beneficial.CALLENDARGuy Stewart Callendar40 (1898 -1964) was a steam engineer and inventor who published many studies and articles which revived the claim by Arrhenius that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide heated the earth.He measured the absorption spectrum of water vapour and carbon dioxide and that of the sky. He ignored water vapour and even believed that radiation was the only form of energy transfer.In his 1938 paper41 he stated“If the whole surface of the earth is considered as a unit upon which a certain amount of heat falls every day, it is obvious that the mean temperature will depend upon the rate at which heat can escape by radiation, because no other type of heat exchange is possible.”He seemed to be unaware of the existence of conduction convection and evaporation as possibleFigure 5.3 Choice of CO2 measurements by Callendarmechanisms of heat transfer.Jarowowski43 has claimed that he chose only those figures for carbon dioxide that suited his theory.SIR GEORGE SIMPSON(1878-1965) the eminent meteorologist, who was, at that time, Director of the UK Meteorological Office, in commenting on this paper41 saidIt is not sufficiently realised by non-meteorologists who come for the first time to help the Society in its study that it was impossible to solve the temperature distribution in the atmosphere by working out the radiation. The atmosphere was not in a state of radiative equilibrium, and it also received heat by transfer from one part to another. In the second place, one had to remember that the temperature distribution in the atmosphere was determined almost entirely by the movement of air up and down. This forced the atmosphere into a temperature distribution which was quite out of balance with the radiation. One could not, therefore, calculate the effect of changing any one factor in the atmosphere, and he felt that the actual numerical results which Mr Callendar had obtained could not be used to give a definite indication of the order of magnitude of the effect.These remarks continue to be true today.CHAMBERLINThomas Chrowder Chamberlin (1843-1928)43 was a respected and influential American geologist and science educator. Chamberlin developed a theory of climate change and was one of the first to emphasize carbon dioxide as a major regulator of Earth's temperature, thus anticipating modern global warming.Chamberlin's graduate seminar at the University of Chicago in 1896 contained all the themes that informed his research programme over the next three decades. These included the carbon dioxide theory of climate change in its relationship to diastrophism and oceanic circulation, the role of water vapour feedbacks in the climate system, and the relationship between multiple glaciations, the climate system, and the formation of the planet.HUBERT LAMB1919-1997 Distinguished British climatologist; Founder of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.45He helped launch climatology as an honest personal assessment of properties of local, global and ancient climates based on exhaustive scholarship.Lewin46 showed that in contrast to current research directions at CRU, its founding director was an early and vocal climate sceptic.Against the idea that greenhouse gas emissions were (or would soon be) noticeably warming the planet, Lamb raised objections on many levels. His greatest concern was not so much the lack of science behind the theory, it was how the growing preoccupation with man-made warming was distorting the science46.His successor, an Australian physicist, Tom Wigley, assisted by Phil Jones, have been prominent advocates of the carbon dioxide climate theory.PLASS(1929- 2004) Gilbert Norman Plass 1920-2004, was a Canadian physicist who in 1956 published a paper with predictions that the increase in global atmospheric CO2 levels in the 20th century would affect the average temperature of the earth.47ROGER REVELLE(1909-1991) Roger Revelle was an American oceanographer who was Director of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego from 1950 to 1964. He served as Science Advisor to Interior Secretary during the Kennedy Administration in the early 1960s.He helped to launch the International Geophysical Year (IGY) in 1958 and was founding chairman of the first Committee on Climate Change and the Ocean (CCCO) under the Scientific Committee on Ocean Research (SCOR) and the International Oceanic Commission (IOC). In July 1956, Charles David Keeling joined the SIO staff, and began measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide at the Mauna Loa Observatory on Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and in Antarctica.In 1957 Revelle co-authored a paper with Hans Suess47 that suggested that human gas emissions might cause global warming and that bicarbonate chemistry caused a resistance to absorption of atmospheric carbon dioxide by the ocean. (the Revelle effect)Revelle eventually regretted his advocacy of the greenhouse effect49One of his students Al Gore became a propagandist for The Greenhouse Scam with his books and his film An Inconvenient Truth.R W WOOD(1868 – 1955) was an American physicist and inventor. He wrote a standard textbook on Physical Optics50.He presented a theory of the operation of a greenhouse in the Philosophical Magazine in 1909 (Vol. 17, pp. 319-320)51XXIV. Note on the Theory of the GreenhouseBy Professor R. W. Wood (Communicated by the Author)There appears to be a widespread belief that the comparatively high temperature produced within a closed space covered with glass, and exposed to solar radiation, results from a transformation of wave-length, that is, that the heat waves from the sun, which are able to penetrate the glass, fall upon the walls of the enclosure and raise its temperature: the heat energy is re-emitted by the walls in the form of much longer waves, which are unable to penetrate the glass, the greenhouse acting as a radiation trap.I have always felt some doubt as to whether this action played any very large part in the elevation of temperature. It appeared much more probable that the part played by the glass was the prevention of the escape of the warm air heated by the ground within the enclosure. If we open the doors of a greenhouse on a cold and windy day, the trapping of radiation appears to lose much of its efficacy.As a matter of fact I am of the opinion that a greenhouse made of a glass transparent to waves of every possible length would show a temperature nearly, if not quite, as high as that observed in a glass house. The transparent screen allows the solar radiation to warm the ground, and the ground in turn warms the air, but only the limited amount within the enclosure. In the "open," the ground is continually brought into contact with cold air by convection currents.To test the matter I constructed two enclosures of dead black cardboard, one covered with a glass plate, the other with a plate of rock-salt of equal thickness. The bulb of a thermometer was inserted in each enclosure and the whole packed in cotton, with the exception of the transparent plates which were exposed. When exposed to sunlight the temperature rose gradually to 65 o C., the enclosure covered with the salt plate keeping a little ahead of the other, owing to the fact that it transmitted the longer waves from the sun, which were stopped by the glass. In order to eliminate this action the sunlight was first passed through a glass plate.There was now scarcely a difference of one degree between the temperatures of the two enclosures. The maximum temperature reached was about 55 oC. From what we know about the distribution of energy in the spectrum of the radiation emitted by a body at 55 oC., it is clear that the rock-salt plate is capable of transmitting practically all of it, while the glass plate stops it entirely. This shows us that the loss of temperature of the ground by radiation is very small in comparison to the loss by convection, in other words that we gain very little from the circumstance that the radiation is trapped.Is it therefore necessary to pay attention to trapped radiation in deducing the temperature of a planet as affected by its atmosphere? The solar rays penetrate the atmosphere, warm the ground which in turn warms the atmosphere by contact and by convection currents. The heat received is thus stored up in the atmosphere, remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas. It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions.I do not pretend to have gone very deeply into the matter, and publish this note merely to draw attention to the fact that trapped radiation appears to play but a very small part in the actual cases with which we are familiar.Wood showed that internal convection warms the air which cannot escape to be cooled by the outside climate. He does not mention evaporation of water which also cools the surface. In common with Fourier and the others he does not mention what happens at night or when the sun is not present: when the whole frame cools by external convection combined with deposition of dew internally.THE REAL GREENHOUSEA real greenhouse is a confined sector of the real climate described in Chapter 1. It receives sunlight through glass panels but it protects from atmospheric circulation and from precipitation and thus is able to maintain a higher temperature than the outside climate which is cooled by these effects.Otherwise it behaves in exactly the same way as outside. The sun`s rays are absorbed at the base and the frame and so raise its temperature. It is cooled when the air above is warmed and rises by convection. It is also cooled when water is evaporated and the air becomes more humid. Eventually all the air in the greenhouse has a higher temperature than the outside, where it would be cooled if escaped. The infrared radiation from the ground and from the atmosphere cannot pass through the glass. But they are not reflected as Fourier and others have surmised. They are absorbed and so heat the surface, then cooled by outside convection and outwards radiation.As greenhouses are not insulated the frame is warmed and is cooled by the outside air circulation and precipitation. At night or when the sun does not shine the frame cools by convection and radiation. The air inside also cools but some heat is transferred to the base by deposition of dew when the humidity falls. Internal radiation plays a small but negligible part. Infra red from the base is merely absorbed by the frame and the glass but it is not reflected as Fourier surmised, but the absorbed heat is mainly lost by external convection of the frame.SUMMARYThe replacement of the accumulated discoveries of meteorology described in Chapter 1 by global climate models based on atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide was motivated by an environmentalist delusion that human activity was exclusively responsible for the climate.The presumed pioneers, Fourier and Pouillet, were only concerned with water vapour. Tyndall showed that water vapour was far more important than carbon dioxide. Yet the wrong greenhouse gas has been chosen, purely because its concentration can be blamed on human activity.Arrhenius ignored the advice of these pioneers and failed to realise that Langley’s measurements which he used did not include carbon dioxide absorption; so his results were for water vapour instead. All subsequent advocates for an important role for carbon dioxide have failed to realise this.REFERENCESWeart S 1997, The Discovery of the Risk of Global Warming. Physics Today January 34-43.Weart S 2014, The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect. The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect. The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse EffectJoseph Fourier 2014, Joseph Fourier - WikipediaFourier J.1822 Théorie Analytique de Chaleur. Chez Firmin Didot, père et fils. Théorie analytique de la chaleur : Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet ArchiveFreeman A 1952, Theory of Heat. Translation of “Fourier J B 1822, “Théorie Analytique de Chaleur” in Great Books of the Western World, Vol. 45. Encyclopedia Britannica.Fourier J B J 1824, "Remarques Générales Sur Les Températures Du Globe Terrestre Et Des Espaces Planétaires.", Annales de Chimie et de Physique, Vol. 27, pp. 136–167. Annales de chimie et de physiqueFourier J B J 1827, "Memoire sur les temperatures du globe terrestre et des espaces planetaires", Memoires de l'Académie Royale des Sciences, Vol. 7, pp. 569-604, Mémoires de l'Académie des sciences de l'Institut de France. 6.Casey T 2014, Text of E. Burgess' 1837 Translation of Fourier (1824)’ Burgess' (1837) Translation of Fourier (1824)Burgess E 1837, "General Remarks on the Temperature of the Terrestrial Globe and the Planetary Spaces; by Baron Fourier", American Journal of Science, Vol 32, pp. 1-20. Translation from the French, of Fourier J B J 1824, "Remarques Générales Sur Les Températures Du Globe Terrestre Et Des Espaces Planétaires", Annales de Chimie et de Physique, Vol. 27, pp. 136–167. http://nsdl.org/archives/onramp/classic_articles/issue1_global_warming/n1-Fourier_1824corrected.pdfCasey T 2014, Fourier (1824) Repaginated with Corrections from Burgess (1837). Fourier (1824) Translated by Burgess (1837)Casey T 2014, English Translation of Fourier (1827). Fourier (1827)Casey T 2014, The Most Misquoted and Most Misunderstood Science Papers in the Public Domain. Most Misquoted and Most Misunderstood Science Papers in the Public Domain.Horace De Saussure and his hot boxes 2014, horace de saussure and his hot boxes of the 1700's.Horace de Saussure 2014, Horace Bénédict de Saussure - WikipediaClaude Pouillet 2011, Claude Pouillet - WikipediaPouillet C 1838, Mémoire sur la chaleur solaire, sur les pouvoirs rayonnants et absorbants de l'air atmosphérique et sur la température de l'espace. Comptes Rendus des Scéances de l’Academie des Sciences July 9th.Pouillet C 1838, translated by F W Taylor. http://nsdl.org/archives/onramp/classic_articles/issue1_global_warming/n2-Poulliet_1837corrected.pdfTyndall J 2014, John TyndallTyndall J 1861, "On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, Conduction.-The Bakerian Lecture", The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, Series 4, Vol. 22, pp. 169-194, 273-285. http://nsdl.org/archives/onramp/classic_articles/issue1_global_warming/n3.Tyndall_1861corrected.pdf.Casey T 2014, Tyndall (1861) ;Tyndall J 1868, “ Heat as a Mode of Motion” Heat a Mode of Motion : John Tyndall : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet ArchiveMelloni M 1850, La Thermochrose, Part 1: Ou La Coloration Calorifique. The London and Edinburgh Philosophical Magazine and Journal of ScienceTyndall J 1903, Biographical Memoir in Lectures and Essays. Watts and CoSvante Arrhenius 2014, Svante ArrheniusArrhenius S 1896, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science (fifth series), April 1896. vol 41, pages 237–275.Langley S P (and Frank W. Very)1890 , The Temperature of the Moon, Memoir of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. iv. 9th mem. 193pp .Langley S P 2014, Samuel Langley - WikipediaErren H 2011, Langley Revisited. http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/langleyrevdraft2.htmArrhenius S 1901a, Ueber die Wärmeabsorption durch Kohlensäure, Annalen der Physik, Vol 4, 1901, pages 690–705.Arrhenius S 1901b, Über Die Wärmeabsorption Durch Kohlensäure Und Ihren Einfluss Auf Die Temperatur Der Erdoberfläche. Abstract of the proceedings of the Royal Academy of Science, 58, 25–58.Arrhenius 1903, Lehrbuch der Kosmischen Physik, Vol I and II, S. Hirschel publishing house, Leipzig, 1026 pages.Arrhenius S 1906, Die vermutliche Ursache der Klimaschwankungen, Meddelanden från K. Vetenskapsakademiens Nobelinstitut, Vol 1 No 2, pages 1–10.Arrhenius S 1908, Das Werden der Welten, Academic Publishing House, Leipzig, 208 pages.Erren H 2014, Scanned pages from Arrhenius 1901 http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/arrhenius1901/index.htmlErren H 2014, Scanned pages from Arrrhenius Textbook of Cosmic Physics 1903 and Arrhenius 1908 “Becoming the Worlds” http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/arrhenius0308/index.htmlErren H 2014, Arrhenius was wrong. http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/arrhrev.htmErren H 2014 Summary graphs of Arrhenius’ errors http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/arrhenius.htmlErren H 2014, Reply to Weart2 http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/arrhweart.htmErren H 2014, Knut Angstrom’s measurements. http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/angstrom1900/index.htmlCallendar G S Guy Stewart Callendar - WikipediaCallendar G S 1938, The Artificial Production of Carbon Dioxide and Its Influence on Climate, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorology Society, 64, pps. 223-240. http://www.rmets.org/pdf/qjcallender38.pdfJaworowski Z 1997, Ice Core Data show no Carbon Dioxide Increase 21st Century Spring 1997 44-52. http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdfFleming J R 1998 Historical Perspectives on Climate Change Oxrord University PressLamb H H Hubert LambLewin B Enthusiasm and Sceptical Science H H Lamb The Scepticism of Hubert Horace Lamb Part IIGlobal Warming Policy Foundation Hubert Lamb And The Transformation Of Climate Science http://us4.campaignarchive1.com/?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=f3a198d64b&e=199b7f065fGilbert N Plass 1956. The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change. Tellus 8, 140–154.Revelle, R & Seuss, H .E 1987. Carbon Dioxide Exchange Between Atmosphere and Ocean and the Question of an increase of Atmospheric CO2 diring the Past Decades http://www.odlt.org/dcd/docs/Revelle-Suess1957.pdfUncensored http://uncensored.co.nz/tag/global-warming-scam/Wood R W 1934, Physical Optics. Dover publications New York 1967Wood R W 1909, Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse. Philosophical magazine vol 17, p319-320. R. W. Wood: Note on the Theory of the GreenhousePosted 9th April 2015 by GeoffWhile these alleged greenhouse gases are invisible water vapor is one gas we have all felt as it is ‘humidity.’“Humidity is the concentration of water vapor present in the air. Water vapor, the gaseous state of water, is generally invisible to the human eye. Humidity indicates the likelihood for precipitation, dew, or fog to be present. Humidity depends on the temperature and pressure of the system of interest.” WikipediaWhile alarmist think increasing amounts of water vapor are heating the earth this is false. It depends where the water vapor respiration originates - the tropics or the poles.Is humidity higher or lower in winter?Since cold air holds substantially less moisture than warm air, it is easier to saturate a parcel of cold air. Consequently, relative humidity is actually higher in winter than in summer (76% vs. 66%, according to climatology).Oct. 26, 1998Why worry about humidity in the winter?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8rHLOhVepAThe great fear of invisible greenhouse gases has motivated the world’s governments to join together in the Paris Accord in 2015 with a plan to reduce fossil fuels because they emit carbon dioxide said to be a greenhouse gas.Yes, in the middle of the Quaternary Ice Age government leaders using UN science tell us we should worry about the earth getting too hot?CO2 is also invisible but its effects are everywhere that there is plant and animal life because it is a key agent making photosynthesis possible.What is all this fuss yet they are claimed to be so dangerous all governments committed to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide a big confernece in Paris in 2015. Why? Do an internet search for the meaning of the ‘greenhouse effect’ and this is the result -What are so called greenhouse gases? Tip off that this vital question is much fudged by alarmists because they do not like the answer. MANY CHARTS IGNORE WATER VAPOR AMAZING SINCE IT IS THE MAJOR GHG.THE BROKEN GREENHOUSE – WHY CO2 IS A MINOR PLAYER IN GLOBAL CLIMATEClimate has been changing for about four billion years in cycles large and small. Climate will continue to change no matter what humans do or don’t do.Carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the major bogeyman of our time. As H.L. Mencken wrote: “the whole point of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” As we will see below, neither increasing carbon dioxide emissions nor reducing such emissions will have a significant effect on global warming.Even the UN IPCC admits that the climate change bogeyman is about money and power, not the environment. The real goal of UN climate propaganda: “We require deep transformations of our economies and societies.” – UN climate chief Patricia Espinosa. “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth” — Ottmar Edenhofer, International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The real goal is one-world government.Let’s review the “greenhouse effect” to see if carbon dioxide is really a major factor in controlling global climate.We begin with a very simplified review of what the greenhouse effect is. Solar radiation, mostly short-wave radiation, passes through the atmosphere and warms the surface. In turn, the heated surface re-radiates energy as long-wave infrared radiation back to the atmosphere and eventually, back to space.Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere intercept some of the long-wave infrared radiation and transfer some of the energy to excite (warm) other molecules in the atmosphere, some of the radiation goes back to the surface, and some of the radiation is radiated into space.The major greenhouse gas is water vapor which absorbs almost all wavelengths of infrared radiation. Carbon dioxide absorbs four specific wavelengths of infrared radiation, three of which are also absorbed by water vapor. Other minor greenhouse gases are oxygen and ozone, methane, and nitrous oxide.Once a particular wavelength becomes saturated, i.e., almost completely absorbed, additional quantities of greenhouse gases have no effect.Even the IPCC agrees that the hypothetical capacity of carbon dioxide to change temperature is given by the formula: △Tc= αln(C2/C1), where △Tcis the change in temperature in degrees Centigrade and the term ln(C2/C1) is the natural logarithm of the CO2 concentration at time two divided by the concentration at time one. The constant α (alpha) is sometimes called the sensitivity and its value is subject to debate. This relationship was proposed by Svante August Arrhenius, a physicist and chemist, around 1896. This logarithmic formula produces a graph in the form shown below. This shows that as the concentration of carbon dioxide increases, it has less and less influence. This graph is the pure theoretical capacity of carbon dioxide to warm the atmosphere in absence of any confounding feedbacks. The different curves represent different values of sensitivity.Carbon dioxide is currently about 400 parts per million (0.04%) of the atmosphere. Yet this nearly negligible amount is touted as the main driver of global temperature. Notice that even at the highest sensitivity on the chart, doubling carbon dioxide from 400ppm to 800ppm results in a theoretical rise in temperature of only slightly more than 1°C – nothing to worry about.The climate system consists of two turbulent fluids (the atmosphere and the oceans) interacting with each other. As the IPCC rightly says in its Third Assessment Report: “In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled, non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate state is not possible.” The claim that one minor variable acts as the major control knob is absurd.In the graph, the numbers shown in parentheses are the estimated temperature increase from quadrupling carbon dioxide concentration. Many climate models use much higher values for the sensitivity. That’s why most climate models run much hotter than measured temperatures. Recent research suggests that sensitivity could be as low as -0.03°C, i.e., cooling. (Source)The term “greenhouse effect” with respect to the atmosphere is an unfortunate analogy because it is misleading. The interior of a real greenhouse (or your automobile parked with windows closed and left in the sun) heats up because there is a physical barrier to convective heat loss. There is no such physical barrier in the atmosphere. The greenhouse hypothesis deals only with heat transfer by radiation and completely ignores convective heat transfer. Convective heat transfer (weather) puts many holes in the “blanket” of carbon dioxide. The “greenhouse” is effectively broken.I have often heard it claimed that without the “greenhouse effect” Earth would be an iceball. Well, it ain’t necessarily so. There is an alternate hypothesis of what warms the atmosphere and this alternative is supported by physical evidence.Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell proposed in his 1871 book “Theory of Heat” that the temperature of a planet depends only on gravity, mass of the atmosphere, and heat capacity of the atmosphere. This happens regardless of atmosphere composition. Greenhouse gases have nothing to do with it. Physical evidence supports this hypothesis. See more of this story here: What keeps Earth warm – the greenhouse effect or something else?The “greenhouse” hypothesis of global warming is not supported by physical evidence, see:A simple question for climate alarmists – where is the evidence.On the other hand, there are several lines of physical evidence showing that carbon dioxide emissions do not intensify the “greenhouse effect” see: Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effectThe global push for renewable energy generation of electricity is based on the false premise that we need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to forestall dangerous warming. How much warming is dangerous? The IPCC says 2°C is dangerous. They are ignoring the Cretaceous Period when global temperature was at least10°C warmer and the Paleocene-Eocene when temperatures were up to 19°C warmer. (link) The IPCC’s arbitrary 2ºC (3.6ºF) “tipping point” has no basis in science. In fact, during the last 10,000 years, the temperature has cycled several times through warm and cool periods of 2ºC or more.See also:Analysis of US and State-by-State Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Potential “Savings” in Future Global Temperature and Global Sea Level Rise(link)This paper shows that if Arizona stops all carbon dioxide emissions it could possibly prevent a rise in temperature of 0.0029°C by 2100. If the entire U.S. stopped all carbon dioxide emissions it could prevent a temperature rise of 0.172°C by 2100.More Evidence Water Vapor Is Dominant Influence on Temperatures (link)This article by meteorologist Joe Bastardi explains how water vapor moderates temperature.Much of the climate scaremongering is based on climate models. Climate models are complex mathematical constructs, not physical evidence. But the atmosphere is even more complex, so modelers must ignore many variables such as Sun-Earth relationships and clouds, in favor of a few basic parameters. The fundamental assumption of climate models is that changes in CO2 concentration drives temperature change, but evidence from geology and astronomy show that the relationship is just the opposite. Temperature drives atmospheric CO2 concentration because temperature controls CO2 solubility in the oceans.CO2 is Not a Greenhouse GasArticle by Dr. Tim Ball: 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? (Water vapor comprises 95% of greenhouse gas.)The Broken Greenhouse – why CO2 is a minor player in global climateThe earth is not a greenhouse subject to a special warming climate effect, as the earth has an open atmosphere without anything like glass panels or a blanket that would trap heat from escaping or gases that would cause back radiation.The original experiment used by John Tyndall in the 1800s to demonstrate the CO2 greenhouse effect are flawed and unreliable.Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse SystemJust how much of the"Greenhouse Effect"is caused by human activity?It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect(4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.As illustrated in this chart of the data in Table 3, the combined greenhouse contributions ofCO2, methane, N2O and misc. gasesare small compared to water vapor!Total atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) -- both man-made and natural-- is only about 3.62% of the overallgreenhouse effect-- a big difference from the 72.37% figure in Table 2, which ignored water!Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect(4). Among climatologists this is common knowledge but among special interests, certain governmental groups, and news reporters this fact is under-emphasized or just ignored altogether.Conceding that it might be "a little misleading" to leave water vapor out, they nonetheless defend the practice by stating that it is "customary" to do so!Comparing natural vs man-madeconcentrationsof greenhouse gases4.Of course, even among the remaining 5% of non-water vapor greenhouse gases, humans contribute only a very small part (and human contributions to water vapor are negligible).Constructed from data in Table 1, the charts (below) illustrate graphically how much of each greenhouse gas is natural vs how much is man-made. These allocations are used for the next and final step in this analysis-- total man-made contributions to the greenhouse effect. Units are expressed to 3 significant digits in order to reduce rounding errors for those who wish to walk through the calculations, not to imply numerical precision as there is some variation among various researchers.Putting it all together: total human greenhouse gas contributions add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect.5.To finish with the math, by calculating the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution to greenhouse gases (3.618%) and % of CO2 concentration from anthropogenic (man-made) sources (3.225%), we see that only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. The other greenhouse gases are similarly calculated and are summarized below.TABLE 4a.Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "GreenhouseEffect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED)Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics% of All Greenhouse Gases% Natural% Man-madeWater vapor95.000%94.999%0.001%Carbon Dioxide (CO2)3.618%3.502%0.117%Methane (CH4)0.360%0.294%0.066%Nitrous Oxide (N2O)0.950%0.903%0.047%Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.)0.072%0.025%0.047%Total100.00%99.720.28%This is the statistically correct way to represent relative human contributions to the greenhouse effect.From Table 4a, both natural and man-made greenhouse contributions are illustrated in this chart, in gray and green, respectively. For clarity only the man-made (anthropogenic) contributions are labeled on the chart.Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect, is 99.999% natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to we can do nothing to change this.Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2contributionscause only about 0.117% of Earth'sgreenhouse effect, (factoring inwater vapor). This is insignificant!Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28%(factoring inwater vapor).The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later.Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%.This is much less than the natural variability of Earth's climate system!While the greenhouse reductions would exact a high human price, in terms of sacrifices to our standard of living, they would yield statistically negligible results in terms of measurable impacts to climate change. There is no expectation that any statistically significant global warming reductions would come from the Kyoto Protocol." There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicistProfessor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor,Wall Street JournalResearch to WatchScientists are increasingly recognizing the importance of water vapor in the climate system. Some, like Wallace Broecker, a geochemist at Columbia's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, suggest that it is such an important factor that much of the global warming in the last 10,000 years may be due to the increasing water vapor concentrations in Earth's atmosphere.His research indicates that air reaching glaciers during the last Ice Age had less than half the water vapor content of today. Such increases in atmospheric moisture during our current interglacial period would have played a far greater role in global warming than carbon dioxide or other minor gases.Known causes of global climate change, like cyclical eccentricities in Earth's rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun's energy output, are the primary causes of climate cycles measured over the last half million years. However, secondary greenhouse effects stemming from changes in the ability of a warming atmosphere to support greater concentrations of gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide also appear to play a significant role. As demonstrated in the data above, of all Earth's greenhouse gases, water vapor is by far the dominant player.The ability of humans to influence greenhouse water vapor is negligible. As such, individuals and groups whose agenda it is to require that human beings are the cause of global warming must discount or ignore the effects of water vapor to preserve their arguments, citing numbers similar to those in Table 4b . If political correctness and staying out of trouble aren't high priorities for you, go ahead and ask them how water vapor was handled in their models or statistics. Chances are, it wasn't!|| Global Warming || Table of Contents ||References:1) Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations (updated October, 2000)Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center(the primary global-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy)Oak Ridge, TennesseeGreenhouse Gases and Climate Change (data now available only to "members")IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme,Stoke Orchard, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL52 7RZ, United Kingdom.2) Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Potentials (updated April, 2002)U.S. Environmental Protection Agency3) Warming Potentials of Halocarbons and Greenhouses GasesChemical formulae and global warming potentials from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 119 and 121. Production and sales of CFC's and other chemicals from International Trade Commission, Synthetic Organic Chemicals: United States Production and Sales, 1994 (Washington, DC, 1995). TRI emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994 Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data Release, EPA-745-R-94-001 (Washington, DC, June 1996), p. 73. Estimated 1994 U.S. emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-1994, EPA-230-R-96-006 (Washington, DC, November 1995), pp. 37-40.4) References to 95% contribution of water vapor:a. S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264b. Global Deception: The Exaggeration of the Global Warming Threatby Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, June 1998Virginia State Climatologist and Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginiac. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Appendix D, Greenhouse Gas Spectral Overlaps and Their SignificanceEnergy Information Administration; Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Governmentd. Personal Communication-- Dr. Richard S. LindzenAlfred P. Slone Professor of Meteorology, MITe. The Geologic Record and Climate Changeby Dr. Tim Patterson, January 2005Professor of Geology-- Carleton UniversityOttawa, CanadaAlternate link:f. EPA Seeks To Have Water Vapor Classified As A Pollutantby the ecoEnquirer, 2006Alternate link:g. Air and Water Issuesby Freedom 21.org, 2005Citation: Bjorn Lomborg, p. 259. Also: Patrick Michaels and Robert Balling, Jr. The Satanic Gases, Clearing the Air About Global Warming (Washington, DC: CATO Institute, 2000), p. 25.h. Does CO2 Really Drive Global Warming?by Dr. Robert Essenhigh, May 2001Alternate link:i. Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climateby Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., Look, Feel, & Smell your best., 21st Century Science and Technology, Winter 2003-2004, pp. 52-65Link:5) Global Climate Change Student GuideDepartment of Environmental and Geographical SciencesManchester Metropolitan UniversityChester StreetManchesterM1 5GDUnited Kingdom6) Global Budgets for Atmospheric Nitrous Oxide - Anthropogenic ContributionsWilliam C. Trogler, Eric Bruner, Glenn Westwood, Barbara Sawrey, and Patrick NeillDepartment of Chemistry and BiochemistryUniversity of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California7) Methane record and budgetRobert GrumbineUseful conversions:1 Gt = 1 billion tons = 1 cu. km. H201 Gt Carbon(C) = ~3.67 Gt Carbon Dioxide(CO2)2.12 Gt C = ~7.8 Gt CO2 = 1ppmv CO2This page by:Monte HiebLast revised: January 10, 2003Ph.D. Physicist Uses Empirical Data To Assert CO2 Greenhouse Theory A ‘Phantasm’ To Be ‘Neglected’New Paper: Experiment Reveals No Detectable ‘Greenhouse’ Difference Between CO2 And Air Below is a very abridged quoted summary of a new scientific paper published by Dr. Thomas Allmendinger , a physicist (chemistry, quantum mechanics) who uses a real-world experiment to document a glaring lack of empirical support for the position that CO2 is a dominant agent of atmospheric warming. One-sentence summary: Shortwave radiation heats both CO2 and air only up to a limited temperature threshold, and there is no observed difference between the heat absorption/emission of  air vs. CO2. Original Greenhouse Theory Not Backed By Experimental Data The starting point of the here referenced research was the generally accepted greenhouse thesis which assumes that the present climate change is mainly due to the observed growing amount of the so-called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, particularly of carbon-dioxide in spite of the fact that, unlike a greenhouse, the Earth atmosphere doesn’t exhibit a transparent roof … This [ greenhouse effect ] idea takes its source in Fourier’s treatise made in 1827, exhibiting no empirical data or physical calculations and experimental data . The first results were delivered by Tyndall in the sixties of the 19th century, using artificial IR (= infrared) radiation. His photometric [light-measuring] apparatus consisted of metallic tubes as gas vessels and Leslie cubes as heat radiation sources, entailing comparatively low temperatures, namely 100°C and lower. In the [eighteen] nineties, Arrhenius continued such measurements. He established the greenhouse thesis claiming that, unlike air, carbon-dioxide considerably absorbs infrared-radiation . Thereby we distinguish between near IR (λ = 0.8 – 3μm), emitted at high temperatures (> 1000 K), and medium IR (λ = 3 – 50μm) occurring at lower temperatures as usual thermal radiation, while IR-radiation with larger wavelengths (λ = 50 – 1000μm) is defined as far IR. [O]verall, the greenhouse thesis has been commonly settled even if […] its empiric basis appears poor while several theoretical presumptions are speculative .  … there is reason enough to examine the current climate theory, and in particular the greenhouse thesis, regarding fundamental scientific principles and possibly to question the usual assumptions. The analytic methods applied in climatology were exclusively photometric [light-measuring] ones. … Thermal measurements have never been made, except those by pyranometers comprising the whole spectrum, so that direct coherences between light absorption and warming-up effects at matter have not been detected yet . The natural laws which were used for constructing the theory were confined to the temperature law of Stefan-Boltzmann (1), Planck’s distribution law (2), both being solely valid for black bodies, and BeerLambert’s absorption law (3), being unequivocally valid solely for visible light, and not compellingly for IR radiation (see below). These laws were often impermhttps://notrickszone.com/2017/09/04/ph-d-physicist-uses-empirical-data-to-assert-co2-greenhouse-theory-a-phantasm-to-be-neglected/By Kenneth Richard on4. September 2017New Paper: Experiment Reveals No Detectable‘Greenhouse’ Difference Between CO2 And AirBelow is a very abridged quoted summary of a new scientific paper published by Dr. Thomas Allmendinger, a physicist (chemistry, quantum mechanics) who uses a real-world experiment to document a glaring lack of empirical support for the position that CO2 is a dominant agent of atmospheric warming.One-sentence summary: Shortwave radiation heats both CO2 and air only up to a limited temperature threshold, and there is no observed difference between the heat absorption/emission of air vs. CO2.https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/a-novel-investigation-about-the-thermal-behaviour-of-gases-under-theinfluence-of-irradiation-a-further-argument-against-the-greenh-2157-7617-1000393.pdfOriginal Greenhouse Theory Not Backed By Experimental DataThe starting point of the here referenced research was the generally accepted greenhouse thesis which assumes that the present climate change is mainly due to the observed growing amount of the so-called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, particularly of carbon-dioxide in spite of the fact that, unlike a greenhouse, the Earth atmosphere doesn’t exhibit a transparent roof … This [greenhouse effect] idea takes its source in Fourier’s treatise made in 1827, exhibiting no empirical data or physical calculations and experimental data.The first results were delivered by Tyndall in the sixties of the 19th century, using artificial IR (= infrared) radiation. His photometric [light-measuring] apparatus consisted of metallic tubes as gas vessels and Leslie cubes as heat radiation sources, entailing comparatively low temperatures, namely 100°C and lower. In the [eighteen] nineties, Arrhenius continued such measurements. He established the greenhouse thesis claiming that, unlike air, carbon-dioxide considerably absorbs infrared-radiation. Thereby we distinguish between near IR (λ = 0.8 – 3μm), emitted at high temperatures (> 1000 K), and medium IR (λ = 3 – 50μm) occurring at lower temperatures as usual thermal radiation, while IR-radiation with larger wavelengths (λ = 50 – 1000μm) is defined as far IR.[O]verall, the greenhouse thesis has been commonly settled even if […] its empiric basis appears poor while several theoretical presumptions are speculative. … there is reason enough to examine the current climate theory, and in particular the greenhouse thesis, regarding fundamental scientific principles and possibly to question the usual assumptions.The analytic methods applied in climatology were exclusively photometric [light-measuring] ones. … Thermal measurements have never been made, except those by pyranometers comprising the whole spectrum, so that direct coherences between light absorption and warming-up effects at matter have not been detected yet.The natural laws which were used for constructing the theory were confined to the temperature law of Stefan-Boltzmann (1), Planck’s distribution law (2), both being solely valid for black bodies, and BeerLambert’s absorption law (3), being unequivocally valid solely for visible light, and not compellingly for IR radiation (see below). These laws were often impermissibly generalized and used in an incorrect way leading to wrong conclusions.Questioning The CO2-IR-Warms-The-Atmosphere Assumption[A]ccording to this [greenhouse theory] model the assumption is made that any warming-up of the atmosphere is exclusively due to a partial absorption of medium-wave IR-radiation while any short-wave IR-absorption can be excluded since it has never been detected spectrometrically.Against this, at least the following [5] arguments may be alleged [just the 1st , 4th, and 5th arguments are included here in very condensed form]:1. As already found within a previous investigation [12], the greater part – namely at least 60% – of the energy being emitted from a warmed plate to the surrounding atmosphere is transferred by heat conduction, and not by heat radiation [i.e., via the greenhouse effect] obeying Stefan-Boltzmann’s law which is only valid in the vacuum. That part is even enhanced when the air convection is enhanced. Moreover, near the ground the molar concentration of water vapour is much higher than that one of carbon dioxide letting assume that its absorbance of heat radiation is much stronger. (e.g. at 20°C and 60% rel. humidity, the molar concentration of water vapour is 36 times larger than that one of carbon-dioxide being 0.038 volume%). Hence it can be assumed that the major part of the heat transfer between Earth surface and atmosphere occurs near the ground while the greenhouse theory neglects that part solely regarding the radiative absorption by CO2 passing the whole atmosphere.4. Between the energetic absorption of electromagnetic radiation by gases and their resulting warming-up no empirical – and also notheoretical – coherence is known which would be needed to carry spectroscopic results onto thermodynamic properties. There is no good reason to assume that absorbed IR-radiation will be entirely transformed into heat. Rather it is conceivable that a part of it is re-emitted, to wit in all directions. But the link between the two phenomena is not known.5. The question of radiation emission by hot gases is related with it since it is obvious that any gas, also air, begins to radiate to such an extent as it is warmed-up. This question arises when the so-called radiative energy transfer is studied. But instead of empiric measurements, complicated theories were developed [15-17] starting from the abstruse assumption that the atmosphere behaves like a black body obeying Stefan-Boltzmann’s emission law, and disregarding the kinetic gas theory.Overall it must be assessed that the atmospheric theory is on a shaky ground. widely missing empiric key methods to check the principles and their consequences.Air Vs. CO2 Experiment: ‘The Final Proof That The Climate Theory Cannot Be True’Beyond, there is an aspect which hitherto has been overlooked, and which delivers the final proof that the climate theory cannot be true. It is the topic of the here reported author’s work [Allmendinger, 2016] concerning thermal measurements instead of spectroscopic ones, and delivering the evidence that any gas absorbs IR-radiation – but in the short wavelength range -, with the consequence that air is warmed up by direct solar insolation – as well as by artificial IR-light – up to a limiting temperature due to radiative emission, and leading to an equilibrium state.Preliminary tests for the present investigation were made with solar light using square twin-tubes from Styrofoam (3 cm thick, 1 m long, outer diameter 25 cm), each equipped with three thermometers at different positions, and covered above and below by a thin transparent foil (preferably a 0.01 mm thick Saran-wrap). The tubes were pivoted on a frame in such a way that they could be oriented in the direction of the solar light (Figure 3). One tube was filled with air, the other with carbon-dioxide. Incipiently, the tubes were covered on the tops with aluminium-foils being removed at the start of the experiment.The primary experimental result was quite astonishing in many respects.Firstly: The content gases warmed within a few minutes by approximately 10°C up to a constant limiting temperature. This was surprising – at least in the case of air – for no warming-up was anticipated since sunlight is colourless and allegedly not able to absorb any IR-radiation. However, the existence of a limiting temperature is conceivable since a growing radiative emission has to be expected as far as the temperature rises.Secondly: The limiting temperatures were more or less equal at any measuring point. This means that the intensity of the sun beam was virtually not affected by the heat absorption in the gas tube since the latter one was comparatively weak.And thirdly: Between the two tubes [one filled with air, the other with CO2] no significant difference could be detected. Therefore, thanks to this simple experiment a special effect of carbon dioxide on the direct sunlight absorption could already be excluded.As evident from Figure 8, any gas absorbs IR-light – even the noble [non-greenhouse] gases argon, neon and helium do so – while there is no significant difference between argon and carbon dioxide, but only a small difference between carbon-dioxide and air.Conclusion/SummaryBesides a critical discussion of the convenient atmosphere theory profoundly questioning the greenhouse thesis by disclosing several basic errors, the here reported investigation reveals the discovery of direct absorption of shortwave IR-radiation by air. It is part of the incident solar light, but also of artificial light which enables a more exact detection. It is caused by another effect than the one which is responsible for the longer-wave absorption being observed at carbon dioxide, and it is not detectable by IR-spectroscopy since its absorption coefficient is too low. However, it is clearly detectable by means of the here applied apparatus leading to a distinct temperature elevation up to a limiting temperature which depends on the radiative emission. The limiting temperature depends on the gas kind, whereby practically no difference between air and carbon-dioxide could be found.Nevertheless, that direct absorption effect [shortwave] which was discovered thanks to this method probably contributes significantly to the warming up of the atmosphere while the warming-up due to carbon-dioxide can be neglected.But since the direct absorption cannot be influenced, the surface albedo must be focused as the governing factor providing the only [anthropogenic] opportunity to mitigate the climate, or at least the microclimate, by changing colour and structure of the surface, particularly in urban areas. However, a prediction seems not feasible since the global climate is too complex. But the greenhouse theory turns out to be a phantasm delivering the wrong diagnosis for the climate change, and a wrong diagnosis cannot enable a healing.A closer look at the numbersA closer look at the numbers17 New Scientific Papers Dispute CO2 Greenhouse Effect As Primary Explanation For Climate Change“ [T]he absorption of incident solar-light by the atmosphere as well as its absorption capability of thermal radiation, cannot be influenced by human acts .”  – Allmendinger, 2017 “ [G]lobal warming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory .  The varying solar irradiation constitutes the sole input driving the changes in the system’s energy transfers.”  – Blaauw, 2017 “ The down-welling LW radiation is not a global driver of surface warming as hypothesized for over 100 years but a product of the near-surface air temperature controlled by solar heating and atmospheric pressure.”  -Nikolov and Zeller, 2017 The Refutation of the Climate Greenhouse Theory “ The cardinal error in the usual greenhouse theory consists in the assumption that photometric or spectroscopic IR-measurements allow conclusions about the thermal behaviour of gases, i.e., of the atmosphere . They trace back to John Tyndall who developed such a photometric method already in the 19th century. However, direct thermal measurement methods have never been applied so far. Apart from this, at least twenty crucial errors are revealed which suggest abandoning the theory as a whole . In spite of its obvious deficiencies, this theory has so far been an obstacle to take promising precautions for mitigating the climate change. They would consist in a general brightening of the Earth surface, and in additional measures being related to this. However, the novel effects which were found by the author, particularly the absorption of incident solar-light by the atmosphere as well as its absorption capability of thermal radiation, cannot be influenced by human acts .” “This paper demonstrates that global warming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory . This explanation is based on a simple model of the Earth’s climate system consisting of three layers: the surface, a lower and an upper atmospheric layer. The distinction between the atmospheric layers rests on the assumption that the latent heat from the surface is set free in the lower atmospheric layer only. The varying solar irradiation constitutes the sole input driving the changes in the system’s energy transfers. All variations in the energy exchanges can be expressed in terms of the temperature variations of the layers by means of an energy transfer matrix. It turns out that the latent heat transfer as a function of the temperatures of the surface and the lower layer makes this matrix next to singular. The near singularity reveals a considerable negative feedback in the model which can be identified as the ‘Klimaversta¨rker’ presumed by Vahrenholt and Lu¨ning. By a suitable, yet realistic choice of the parameters appearing in the energy transfer matrix and of the effective heat capacities of the layers, the model reproduces the global warming: the calculated trend in the surface temperature agrees well with the observational data from AD 1750 up to AD 2000 .” “ Our analysis revealed that GMATs [global meanhttps://notrickszone.com/2017/06/08/17-new-scientific-papers-dispute-co2-greenhouse-effect-as-primary-explanation-for-climate-change/By Kenneth Richard on8. June 2017Share this...“[T]he absorption of incident solar-light by the atmosphere as well as its absorption capability of thermal radiation, cannot be influenced by human acts.” – Allmendinger, 2017“[G]lobal warming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory. The varying solar irradiation constitutes the sole input driving the changes in the system’s energy transfers.” – Blaauw, 2017“The down-welling LW radiation is not a global driver of surface warming as hypothesized for over 100 years but a product of the near-surface air temperature controlled by solar heating and atmospheric pressure.” -Nikolov and Zeller, 2017https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-refutation-of-the-climate-greenhouse-theory-and-a-proposal-for-ahopeful-alternative.pdfThe Refutation of the Climate Greenhouse Theory“The cardinal error in the usual greenhouse theory consists in the assumption that photometric or spectroscopic IR-measurements allow conclusions about the thermal behaviour of gases, i.e., of the atmosphere. They trace back to John Tyndall who developed such a photometric method already in the 19th century. However, direct thermal measurement methods have never been applied so far. Apart from this, at least twenty crucial errors are revealed which suggest abandoning the theory as a whole. In spite of its obvious deficiencies, this theory has so far been an obstacle to take promising precautions for mitigating the climate change. They would consist in a general brightening of the Earth surface, and in additional measures being related to this. However, the novel effects which were found by the author, particularly the absorption of incident solar-light by the atmosphere as well as its absorption capability of thermal radiation, cannot be influenced by human acts.”Global warming: Sun and water - Harold J Blaauw, 2017This paper demonstrates that global warming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory. This explanation is based on a simple model of the Earth...http://journals.sagepub.com./doi/full/10.1177/0958305X17695276“This paper demonstrates that global warming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory. This explanation is based on a simple model of the Earth’s climate system consisting of three layers: the surface, a lower and an upper atmospheric layer. The distinction between the atmospheric layers rests on the assumption that the latent heat from the surface is set free in the lower atmospheric layer only. The varying solar irradiation constitutes the sole input driving the changes in the system’s energy transfers. All variations in the energy exchanges can be expressed in terms of the temperature variations of the layers by means of an energy transfer matrix. It turns out that the latent heat transfer as a function of the temperatures of the surface and the lower layer makes this matrix next to singular. The near singularity reveals a considerable negative feedback in the model which can be identified as the ‘Klimaversta¨rker’ presumed by Vahrenholt and Lu¨ning. By a suitable, yet realistic choice of the parameters appearing in the energy transfer matrix and of the effective heat capacities of the layers, the model reproduces the global warming: the calculated trend in the surface temperature agrees well with the observational data from AD 1750 up to AD 2000.”https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/new-insights-on-the-physical-nature-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-deduced-from-an-empirical-planetary-temperature-model.pdf“Our analysis revealed that GMATs [global mean annual temperatures] of rocky planets with tangible atmospheres and a negligible geothermal surface heating can accurately be predicted over a broad range of conditions using only two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance and total surface atmospheric pressure. The hereto discovered interplanetary pressure-temperature relationship is shown to be statistically robust while describing a smooth physical continuum without climatic tipping points. This continuum fully explains the recently discovered 90 K thermal effect of Earth’s atmosphere. The new model displays characteristics of an emergent macro-level thermodynamic relationship heretofore unbeknown to science that has important theoretical implications. A key entailment from the model is that the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ currently viewed as a radiative phenomenon is in fact an adiabatic (pressure-induced) thermal enhancement analogous to compression heating and independent of atmospheric composition. Consequently, the global down-welling long-wave flux presently assumed to drive Earth’s surface warming appears to be a product of the air temperature set by solar heating and atmospheric pressure. In other words, the so-called ‘greenhouse back radiation’ is globally a result of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it. … The down-welling LW radiation is not a global driver of surface warming as hypothesized for over 100 years but a product of the near-surface air temperature controlled by solar heating and atmospheric pressure … The hypothesis that a freely convective atmosphere could retain (trap) radiant heat due its opacity has remained undisputed since its introduction in the early 1800s even though it was based on a theoretical conjecture that has never been proven experimentally.”http://www.up.ac.za/media/shared/61/WP/wp_2016_60.zp95634.pdf“Various scientific studies have investigated the causal link between solar activity (SS) and the earth’s temperature (GT). [T]he corresponding CCM [Convergent Cross Mapping] results indicate increasing significance of causal effect from SS [solar activity] to GT [global temperature] since 1880 to recent years, which provide solid evidences that may contribute on explaining the escalating global tendency of warming up recent decades. … The connection between solar activity and global warming has been well established in the scientific literature. For example, see references [1–10]. … Among which, the SSA [Singular Spectrum Analysis] trend extraction is identified as the most reliable method for data preprocessing, while CCM [Convergent Cross Mapping] shows outstanding performance among all causality tests adopted. The emerging causal effects from SS [solar activity] to GT [global temperatures], especially for recent decades, are overwhelmingly proved, which reflects the better understanding of the tendency of global warming.”https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-correlation-of-seismic-activity-and-recent-global-warming-2016update.pdf“The Correlation of Seismic Activity and Recent Global Warming (CSARGW) demonstrated that increasing seismic activity in the globe’s high geothermal flux areas (HGFA) is strongly correlated with global temperatures (r=0.785) from 1979-2015. The mechanism driving this correlation is amply documented and well understood by oceanographers and seismologists. Namely, increased seismic activity in the HGFA (i.e., the mid-ocean’s spreading zones) serves as a proxy indicator of higher geothermal flux in these regions. The HGFA include the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, the East Pacific Rise, the West Chile Rise, the Ridges of the Indian Ocean, and the Ridges of the Antarctic/Southern Ocean. This additional mid-ocean heating causes an acceleration of oceanic overturning and thermobaric convection, resulting in higher ocean temperatures and greater heat transport into the Arctic. This manifests itself as an anomaly known as the “Arctic Amplification,” where the Arctic warms to a much greater degree than the rest of the globe. Applying the same methodology employed in CSARGW, an updated analysis through 2016 adds new knowledge of this important relationship while strengthening support for that study’s conclusions. The correlation between HGFA seismic frequency and global temperatures moved higher with the addition of the 2016 data: the revised correlation now reads 0.814, up from 0.785 for the analysis through 2015. This yields a coefficient of determination of .662, indicating that HGFA [high geothermal flux area] seismicity accounts for roughly two-thirds of the variation in global temperatures since 1979.”http://principia-scientific.org/publications/Role_of_GHE-EaE.pdf“This study examines the concept of ‘greenhouse gases’ and various definitions of the phenomenon known as the ‘Atmospheric Radiative Greenhouse Effect’. The six most quoted descriptions are as follows: (a) radiation trapped between the Earth’s surface and its atmosphere; (b) the insulating blanket of the atmosphere that keeps the Earth warm; (c) back radiation from the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface; (d) Infra Red absorbing gases that hinder radiative cooling and keep the surface warmer than it would otherwise be – known as ‘otherwise radiation’; (e) differences between actual surface temperatures of the Earth (as also observed on Venus) and those based on calculations; (f) any gas that absorbs infrared radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface towards free space. It is shown that none of the above descriptions can withstand the rigours of scientific scrutiny when the fundamental laws of physics and thermodynamics are applied to them.”A Hiatus of the Greenhouse EffectFyfe, J. et al. Making sense of the early 2000 s warming slowdown. Nature Climate Change 6, 224–228 (2016). Article ADS Google Scholar Hawkins, E., T. Edwards & D. McNeall . Pause for thought. Nature Climate Change, 4, 154–156 (2014). Article ADS Google Scholar Cowtan, K. & R. Way . Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 140, 1935–1944 (2014). Article ADS Google Scholar Lewandowsky, S., J. Risbey & N. Oreskes . On the definition and identifiability of the alleged “hiatus” in global warming. Sci. Rep. 5, 16784 (2015). CAS Article ADS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar Karl, T. et al. Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus. Science 348, 1469–1472 (2015). CAS Article ADS PubMed Google Scholar Cahill, N., S. Rahmstorf & A. Parnell . Change points of global temperature. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 084002 (2015). Article ADS Google Scholar Trenberth, K. Has there been a hiatus? Science 349, 691–692 (2015). CAS Article ADS PubMed Google Scholar Huber, M. & R. Knutti . Natural variability, radiative forcing and climate response in the recent hiatus reconciled. Nature Geoscience 7, 651–656 (2014). CAS Article ADS Google Scholar Kaufmann, R., H. Kauppi, M. Mann & J. Stock . Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 11790–11793 (2011). CAS Article ADS PubMed Google Scholar Solomon, S. et al. Contributions of stratospheric water vapor to decadal changes in the rate of global warming. Science 327, 1219–1223 (2010). CAS Article ADS PubMed Google Scholar Santer, B. et al. Volcanic contribution to decadal changes in tropospheric temperature. Nature Geoscience 7, 185–189 (2014). CAS Article ADS Google Scholar Liu, W. et al. Tracking ocean heat uptake during the surface warming hiatus. Nature Communications 7, 10926 (2016). CAS Article ADS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar Meehl, G. et al. Externally forced and internally generated decadal climate variability associated with the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation. J. Climate 26, 7298–7310 (2013). Article ADS Google Scholar Kosaka, Y. & S. Xie . Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling. Nature 501, 403–407 (2013). CAS Article ADS PubMed Google Scholar Watanabe, M. et al. Strengthening of ocean heat uptake efficiency associated with the recent climate hiatus. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 3175–3179 (2013). Article ADS Google Scholar Trenberth, K. & J. Fasullo . An apparent hiatus in global warming? Earth’s Future 1, 19–32 (2013). Article ADS Google Scholar England, M. et al. Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus. Nature Climate Change 4, 222–227 (2014). Article ADS Google Scholar Trenberth, K., J. Fasullo, G. Branstator & A. Phillips . Seasonal aspects of the recent pause in surface warming. Nature Climate Change 4, 911–916 (2014). Article ADS Google Scholahttp://www.nature.com/articles/srep33315A Hiatus of the Greenhouse Effect“In the last subperiod [2003-2014], the global averaged SULR [surface upwelling longwave radiation/greenhouse effect] anomaly remains trendless (0.02 W m−2 yr−1) because Ts [global temperatures] stop rising. Meanwhile, the long-term change of the global averaged OLR anomaly (−0.01 W m−2 yr−1) is also not statistically significant. Thus, these two phenomena result in a trendless Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect]. … [A]remarkably decreasing Gaa trend (−0.27 W m−2 yr−1) exists over the central tropical Pacific, indicating a weakened atmospheric greenhouse effect in this area, which largely offsets the warming effect in the aforementioned surrounding regions. As a result, a trendless global averaged Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect] is displayed between 1991 and 2002 (Fig. 2). … Again, no significant trend of the global averaged Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect] is found from 2003 to 2014 (Fig. 2) because the enhanced warming effect over the western tropical Pacific is largely counteracted by the weakened warming influence on the central tropical Pacific.”http://www.ralphmoir.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Energy-Environment-2016-Manheimer-0958305X16674636.pdf“[T]he actual data show that up to now fears of imminent climate catastrophe are not supported by data, or else involve processes occurring since long before excess CO2 in the atmosphere became a concern. Based on actual measurements and reasonable extrapolation of them, there is no reason why the responsible use of fossil fuel cannot continue to support worldwide civilisation. The argument to greatly restrict fossil fuel rests entirely on the theoretical assertion that at some point in the near future there will be a sudden and dramatic change in the very nature of the data presented here. If implemented, these would be sufficient to greatly upset the lifestyle of billions of people, and to further impoverish the already most impoverished parts of the world. … [N]othing in the past suggests that future climate will be significantly different before mid century because of rising levels of CO2.”Role of atmospheric carbon dioxide in climate change - Martin Hertzberg, Hans Schreuder, 2016“The authors evaluate the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) consensus that the increase of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere is of anthropogenic origin and is causing dangerous global warming, climate change and climate disruption. The totality of the data available on which that theory is based is evaluated. The data include: (a) Vostok ice-core measurements; (b) accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere; (c) studies of temperature changes that precede CO2 changes; (d) global temperature trends; (e) current ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere; (f) satellite data for the geographic distribution of atmospheric CO 2; (g) effect of solar activity on cosmic rays and cloud cover. Nothing in the data supports the supposition that atmospheric CO2 is a driver of weather or climate, or that human emissions control atmospheric CO2.”http://file.scirp.org/pdf/GEP_2016080508552359.pdfAbout the Influence of the Giant Planets onLong-Term Evolution of Global Temperature“The observed variability of global temperature is usually explained through the decrease in the coefficient of the grayness of the Earth caused by increased content of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as CO2, i.e. by the anthropogenically caused increase in the greenhouse effect. The validity of such views raises some doubts, as their validity is based either on the results of the climate simulation, or on the results of the regression analysis, in relation to which the fullness of the used set of regression does not seem certain. At the same time, just the results of climate modeling do not seem to be quite reliable … The effects associated with the displacement of the center of gravity of the solar system under the influence of giant planets (Jupiter and Saturn) are discussed. Based on the hypothesis of parametric resonance in the variation of global temperature with disturbances in the photosphere shape and the Earth-to-Sun distance due to the oppositions of said planets, a regression model that explains the observed long-term evolution of global temperature is built. It was shown that residuals of the model are close to white noise, i.e. the [influence of planets] hypothesis almost entirely explains the effect of temperature increase for the period presented in the vernacular crutem3 database [1850-present].”Quantification of the Diminishing Earth’s Magnetic Dipole Intensity and Geomagnetic Activity as the Causal Source for Global Warming within the Oceans and AtmosphereInternational Journal of Geosciences Vol.07 No.01(2016), Article ID:63199,13 pages 10.4236/ijg.2016.71007 Quantification of the Diminishing Earth’s Magnetic Dipole Intensity and Geomagnetic Activity as the Causal Source for Global Warming within the Oceans and Atmosphere David A. E. Vares 1,2 , Trevor N. Carniello 2,3 , Michael A. Persinger 1,2,3 1 Human Studies, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Canada 2 Behavioural Neuroscience Programs, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Canada 3 Biomolecular Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Canada Copyright © 2016 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Received 24 December 2015; accepted 26 January 2016; published 29 January 2016 ABSTRACT Quantitative analyses of actual measurements rather than modeling have shown that “global warming” has been heterogeneous over the surface of the planet and temporally non-linear. Residual regression analyses by Soares (2010) indicated increments of increased temperature precede increments of CO 2 increase. The remarkably strong negative correlation (r = −0.99) between the earth’s magnetic dipole moment values and global CO 2 -temperature indicators over the last ~30 years is sufficient to be considered causal if contributing energies were within the same order of magnitude. Quantitative convergence between the energies lost by the diminishing averaged geo- magnetic field strength and energies gained within the ocean-atmosphere interface satisfy the measured values for increased global temperature and CO 2 release from sea water. The pivotal variable is the optimal temporal unit employed to estimate the total energies available for physical-chemical reactions. The positive drift in averaged amplitude of geomagnetic activity over the last 100 years augmented this process. Contributions from annual CO 2 from volcanism and shifts in averaged geomagnetic activity, lagged years before the measured global temperature-CO 2 values, are moderating variables for smaller amplitude perturbations. These results indicated that the increase in CO 2 and global temperatures are primarily caused by major geophysical factors, particularly the diminishing total geomagnetic field strength and increased geomagnetic activity, but not by human activities. Strategies for adapting to climate change because of these powerful variables may differ from those that assume exclusive anthropomorphic causes. Keywords: CO 2 , Global Warming, Climate Change, Geomagnetic Field, Magnetic Dipole, Volcanic Activity 1. Introduction “Global warming” is a term applied to the approximately 1˚C averaged increase in terrestrial surface temperature that has been measured over the last ~150 years [1] . According to Soares [2] , there has been an enhancement of this warming between approximately 1975 and 1998. There have been multiple concurrent solar and geophysical variabhttp://file.scirp.org/Html/7-2801173_63199.htm… Earth’s Magnetic Dipole Intensity … GeomagneticActivity … Causal Source for Global Warming“Quantitative analyses of actual measurements rather than modeling have shown that “global warming” has been heterogeneous over the surface of the planet and temporally non-linear. Residual regression analyses by Soares (2010) indicated increments of increased temperature precede increments of CO2increase. The remarkably strong negative correlation (r = -0.99) between the earth’s magnetic dipole moment values and global CO2 -temperature indicators over the last ~30 years is sufficient to be considered causal if contributing energies were within the same order of magnitude. Quantitative convergence between the energies lost by the diminishing averaged geomagnetic field strength and energies gained within the ocean-atmosphere interface satisfy the measured values for increased global temperature and CO 2 release from sea water. The pivotal variable is the optimal temporal unit employed to estimate the total energies available for physical-chemical reactions. The positive drift in averaged amplitude of geomagnetic activity over the last 100 years augmented this process. Contributions from annual CO2 from volcanism and shifts in averaged geomagnetic activity, lagged years before the measured global temperature-CO2values, are moderating variables for smaller amplitude perturbations. These results indicated that the increase in CO2 and global temperatures are primarily caused by major geophysical factors, particularly the diminishing total geomagnetic field strength and increased geomagnetic activity, but not by human activities. Strategies for adapting to climate change because of these powerful variables may differ from those that assume exclusive anthropomorphic causes.”Greenhouse Gases“CO2 makes up only a tiny portion of the atmosphere (0.040%) and constitutes only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect. The atmospheric content of CO2has increased only 0.008% since emissions began to soar after 1945. Such a tiny increment of increase in CO2cannot cause the 10°F increase in temperature predicted by CO2advocates. Computer climate modelers build into their models a high water vapor component, which they claim is due to increased atmospheric water vapor caused by very small warming from CO2, and since water vapor makes up 90–95% of the greenhouse effect, they claim the result will be warming. The problem is that atmospheric water vapor has actually declined since 1948, not increased as demanded by climate models. If CO2causes global warming, then CO2should always precede warming when the Earth’s climate warms up after an ice age. However, in all cases, CO2lags warming by ∼800 years. Shorter time spans show the same thing—warming always precedes an increase in CO2and therefore it cannot be the cause of the warming.”The thermodynamic effect of atmospheric mass on early Earth's temperatureThe Thermodynamic Effect of AtmosphericMass on Early Earth’s TemperatureObservations suggest that Earth’s early atmospheric mass differed from the present day. The effects of a different atmospheric mass on radiative forcing have been investigated in climate models of variable sophistication, but a mechanistic understanding of the thermodynamic component of the effect of atmospheric mass on early climate is missing. Using a 3D idealized global circulation model (GCM), we systematically examine the thermodynamic effect of atmospheric mass on near-surface temperature. We find that higher atmospheric mass tends to increase the near-surface temperature mostly due an increase in the heat capacity of the atmosphere, which decreases the net radiative cooling effect in the lower layers of the atmosphere. Additionally, the vertical advection of heat by eddies decreases with increasing atmospheric mass, resulting in further near-surface warming. As both net radiative cooling and vertical eddy heat fluxes are extratropical phenomena, higher atmospheric mass tends to flatten the meridional temperature gradient.An increase in atmospheric mass causes an increase in near-surface temperatures and a decrease of the equator-pole near-surface temperature gradient. Warming is caused mostly by the increase in atmospheric heat capacity, which decrease the net radiative cooling of the atmosphere.[No mention of CO2 as a factor in warming the Earth-Atmosphere system]Vagaries of Atlantic overturning“Notably, the three studies [Jackson et al., 2016; Böning et al., 2016; Robson et al., 2016] report an absence of anthropogenic effects on the AMOC, at least so far: the directly observed AMOC weakening since 2004 is not consistent with the hypothesis that anthropogenic aerosols have affected North Atlantic ocean temperatures. The midlatitude North Atlantic temperature changes since 2005 have greater magnitude and opposite sign (cooling) than those attributed to ocean uptake of anthropogenic heat. The anthropogenic melt from the Greenland ice sheet is still too small to be detected.. And despite large changes in the freshwater budget of the Arctic, some of which are anthropogenic, there is no clear change in the delivery of Arctic freshwater to the North Atlantic due to human climate forcing.”Modulation of ice ages via precession and dust-albedo feedbacksConclusion: “[I]nterglacial warming is eccentricity and polar ice regrowth regulated, Great Summer forced, and dust-ice albedo amplified. And the greenhouse-gas attributes of CO2 play little or no part in this complex feedback system.”Correcting Problems With the Conventional Basic Calculation of Climate Sensitivity“The conventional basic climate model applies “basic physics” to climate, estimating sensitivity to CO2. However, it has two serious architectural errors. It only allows feedbacks in response to surface warming, so it omits the driver-specific feedbacks. It treats extra-absorbed sunlight, which heats the surface and increases outgoing long-wave radiation (OLR), the same as extra CO2, which reduces OLR from carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere but does not increase the total OLR. The rerouting feedback is proposed. An increasing CO2 concentration warms the upper troposphere, heating the water vapor emissions layer and some cloud tops, which emit more OLR and descend to lower and warmer altitudes. This feedback resolves the nonobservation of the “hotspot.” An alternative model is developed, whose architecture fixes the errors. By summing the (surface) warmings due to climate drivers, rather than their forcings, it allows driver-specific forcings and allows a separate CO2 response (the conventional model applies the same response, the solar response, to all forcings). It also applies a radiation balance, estimating OLR from properties of the emission layers. Fitting the climate data to the alternative model, we find that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is most likely less than 0.5°C, increasing CO2 most likely caused less than 20% of the global warming from the 1970s, and the CO2 response is less than one-third as strong as the solar response. The conventional model overestimates the potency of CO2because it applies the strong solar response instead of the weak CO2response to the CO2forcing.”http://climat-sceptiques.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/1-s2.0-S0012825216300277-main.pdfAnthropogenic CO2Warming Challenged By 60-year CycleConclusion: “Dangerous anthropogenic warming is questioned (i) upon recognition of the large amplitude of the natural 60–year cyclic component and (ii) upon revision downwards of the transient climate response consistent with latest tendencies shown in Fig. 1, here found to be at most 0.6 °C once the natural component has been removed, consistent with latest infrared studies (Harde, 2014). Anthropogenic warming well below the potentially dangerous range were reported in older and recent studies (Idso, 1998; Miskolczi, 2007; Paltridge et al., 2009; Gerlich and Tscheuschner, 2009; Lindzen and Choi, 2009, 2011; Spencer and Braswell, 2010; Clark, 2010; Kramm and Dlugi, 2011; Lewis and Curry, 2014; Skeie et al., 2014; Lewis, 2015; Volokin and ReLlez, 2015). On inspection of a risk of anthropogenic warming thus toned down, a change of paradigm which highlights a benefit for mankind related to the increase of plant feeding and crops yields by enhanced CO2 photosynthesis is suggested.”

What does ‘climate change’ mean to you? Yes, if you mean the risk we are heading for another ice age from climate change. No. if you mean global warming from climate change. The climate has only two states over the past millions of years. A HOT BOX OR AN ICE BOX. The former made civilization possible while the latter caused mass extinctions.https://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2839/Just 12,000 years ago all of Canada and much of the US was covered by glacier ice over 2 miles thick. Thankfully the climate warmed and the ice melted and we live without a climate crisis. We prosper from warming not cooling.HOW GLOBAL WARMING MADE CIVILIZATION POSSIBLEThe recent record of cold winters across the earth is very worrisome. It is not evidence of global warming. It may be evidence of another Little Ice Age.The Man Who Predicts Weather Better Than Anyone Astrophysicist Piers CorbynContrary to what the politicians are trying to foist on you, a new mini ice age – a new Maunder Minimum – has already started.Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn“We are plunging now into a deep mini ice age,” says astrophysicist Piers Corbyn. “And there is no way out.”For the next 20 years it’s going to get colder and colder on average, says Corbyn.“Carbon dioxide levels do not have any impact – I repeat, any impact – on climate,” says Piers. “The CO2 theory is wrong from the start.”“The fact is the sun rules the sea temperature, and the sea temperature rules the climate.”“The basic message is that the sun is controlling the climate, primarily via the sea.”The new mini ice age began around 2013“What we have happening – NOW! – is the start of the mini ice age…it began around 2013. It’s a slow start, and now the rate of moving into the mini ice age is accelerating.”“The best thing to do now is to tell your politicians to stop believing nonsense, and to stop doing silly measures like the bird-killing machines of wind farms in order to save the planet (they say), but get rid of all those things, which cost money, and reduce electricity prices now.“Evidence shows that man-made climate change does not exist and the arguments for it are not based on science but on data fraud and a conspiracy theory of nature,” says Piers on his website.“The world is now cooling not warming and there is no observational evidence in the thousands and millions of years of data that changes in CO2 have any observable effect on weather or climate in the real world.”You err if you ignore the obvious bitter cold weather by dismissing it as weather not climate.Extreme winters across the US, Europe and Asia.We cannot be sure but the evidence is far stronger that the solar decline not Co2 is leading the cooling of the earth as it has in the past.The sun has gone blank and lost all sunspots now and this means a decline in solar energy reaching us.There is a proven correlation between solar energy and temperature unlike the lack of correlation with Co2.Graph Showing that Arctic Air Temperature (Blue Line) Parallels Natural Solar Activity (Red Line).This Graph Provides Evidence that Natural Sun Fluctuations Cause Global Warming and Cooling.Source: Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Fall 2007The graph above shows over the past 40 years Co2 has not correlated with temperatures.Europe's Little Ice Age: 'All things which grew above the ground died and starved'1575 Winter Landscape with Snowfall near Antwerp by Lucas van Valckenborch.Städel Museum/Wikimedia CommonsIn North America the same devastating experience of the record colder climate of the Little Ice Age.Valley Forge: George Washington’s Most Dismal Christmas EverWith a quarter of his troops freezing, starving and barely clothed, Washington, running out of options, schemed a bold—and highly risky—Christmas Eve attack.George Washington at Valley Forge Winter 1777/8: picture by Frederick Coffay YohnIf you doubt the history graphs of freezing temperatures at the end of Little Ice age then be reassured by this famous painting showing the death march in 1777 during the US revolution. Many soldiers froze to death.Our political leaders are pathetic on this issue of the cooling earth. They are in the group think grip of the fake global warming meme. Think about it - the purpose of the Paris Accord is vainly to reduce minuscule human emissions of Co2 to make the climate colder- YES colder -WHAT?Early November winter storms are worrisome.20 states under winter storm warnings or watchesNovember 30, 2018 by RobertIncluding CA, OR, MT, ND, SD, WY, ID, NV, UT, AZ, NM, CO, MN, NY, VT, IA, OK, KS, AK and NE.Ahhhh, but it will be politically correct warm snow, right?Montreal's Fête des neiges cancelled due to extreme cold weatherThe event at Parc Jean-Drapeau won't run today due to the snow and cold temperaturesCBC News · Posted: Jan 20, 2019 6:11 AM ET | Last Updated: January 20The event at Parc Jean-Drapeau won't run on Sunday Jan. 20 but will restart Saturday Jan. 26. (Radio-Canada)The annual Fête des neiges at Parc Jean-Drapeau is cancelled today due to the extreme cold and winter storm warning.This is the first time in 10 years that activities for the winter festival have been cancelled due to weather, according to a statement from François Cartier, director of marketing and communications for the Société du parc Jean-Drapeau.Cartier said that the decision was made in an effort to maintain the safety of the public as well as employees and volunteers who make the festival possible.This is what we should fear not the myth of global warming.Chicago January 25, 2019 wind chill of minus 70 F.The alarmist and media are very duplicitous on this issue by seeing a bit of warming as global and dangerous and ignoring the massive freezing winters around the world recently by claiming they are caused by warming???Good example was the drought in California in 2015–17 while record cold weather across the US.The polar vortex is a large area of low pressure and cold air surrounding the Earth's North and South poles. The term vortex refers to the counter-clockwise flow of air that helps keep the colder air close to the poles (left globe). Often during winter in the Northern Hemisphere, the polar vortex will become less stable and expand, sending cold Arctic air southward over the United States with the jet stream (right globe).NOAABIZARRE THEORY LINKING GLOBAL WARMING TO ‘POLAR VORTEXES’ RESURFACES. SCIENTISTS ARE PUSHING BACKIn what’s become an annual affair, the media is pushing articles suggesting bone-chilling temperatures about to hit the U.S. are the product of man-made global warming.However, many scientists disagree that global warming is having the bizarre effect of making it colder in winter, despite the media’s narrative.The two scientists published a study last year claiming cold snaps are more likely when the Arctic is abnormally warm, but their work suffered from serious flaws, namely, it did not test any hypothesis nor did it try to establish causality between global warming and cold snaps.The New York Times also pushed Cohen and Francis’s theory of global warming-induced cold. However, many scientists disagree with that theory and, in fact, there seems to be more evidence it’s just plain wrong.Niagara Fall freezing seen from the US side.Bizarre Theory Linking Global Warming To ‘Polar Vortexes’ Resurfaces. Scientists Are Pushing BackANY real-world evidence that contradicts the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) is viciously refuted with eye-popping examples of reverse logic and shameless shifting of goal-posts. However implausible, a clear and consistent message will follow nonetheless, carefully coordinated and synced between ‘scientific’ bodies and compliant mainstream media to add plausibility, authenticity and believability.A priceless example was one by The Guardian’s resident climate catastrophist, George Monbiot, who claimed that the widespread and prolonged snowfalls of the 2017/18 Northern Hemisphere winter were caused by, yep, ‘global warming’!LIFE Inside The Global Warming Bubble | ClimatismTHE GREATEST MYTH IS WARMING CAUSES FREEZING TEMPERATURESCO2 CANNOT CAUSE BOTH ‘EXTREME’ HOT & COLD???If some gas is claimed to cause every kind of weather it means it causes nothing!NEW YORK Times Climate – making sure you believe that both extreme cold and extreme heat are a direct byproduct of your gasses and excesses.NOTE the goal-posts being shifted to accomodate any weather event :Welcome to the age of extremes: In preparing for how climate change affects the weather, “we have to be prepared for a wider range of possibilities.”NYT Climate‏ @nytclimateFollowFollow @nytclimateMoreMAKE NO MISTAKE: THE #ClimateChange cult now insists that colourless, odourless, tasteless, essential *trace gas* #CO2 causes both: • RECORD COLD • RECORD HEAT *SEE now why we changed name from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”! We got EVERY base covered, SUCKERSJWSpry added,*FORTY years ago, the New York Times blamed the Polar Vortex on global cooling and increasing Arctic ice. Now they say the exact opposite – the Polar Vortex is caused by global warming and decreasing Arctic ice:International Team of Specialists Finds No End in Sight to 30‐Year Cooling Trend in Northern Hemisphere – The New York Times“A gradual increase in area of the northern circumpolar vortex, the massive flow of frigid air around the Arctic, has been recorded by Drs. Angell and Korshover.”‘Polar Vortex’ NOT Proof Of Global WarmingPublished onJanuary 25, 2019Written by Michael BastaschThe New York Times is pushing the theory that cold snaps are becoming more frequent because of global warming. However, many scientists disagree that global warming is making U.S. winters colder.“Such claims make no sense and are inconsistent with observations and the best science,” said one scientist.Large swaths of the U.S. are experiencing the first “polar vortex” event of 2019, and The New York Times is out with an article suggesting cold snaps are becoming more frequent because of global warming.The Times rolled out an article Saturday claiming “[i]f it seems as if these polar freezes are happening more often, you’re right.” Temperatures dipped across the snow-covered Midwest and Northeast where millions of Americans can expect below-zero wind chill.The Times’ “polar vortex” article, published Saturday, rests heavily on two scientists who “suspect that the more frequent polar vortex breakdowns can be tied to climate change.”“I’ve been making that argument that winter is shortening, but you’re getting these more intensive periods in that shorter winter,” Judah Cohen, a climate scientist with the firm Atmospheric and Environmental Research, told the Times.“When we lose a lot of ice in that particular area in the summer, it absorbs a lot of extra heat from the sun,” echoed Jennifer Francis, a climate scientist at the Woods Hole Research Center. (RELATED: Trump Wishes For ‘Good Old Fashioned Global Warming’ As Deep Freeze Hits US East)According to Cohen and Francis, arctic ice melt is linked to the alleged more frequent breakdown of the polar vortex, the stratospheric bands of wind circling the pole, during the winter, sending frigid air and driving winter storms.REUTERS/Aaron Harris.“As the Arctic gets warmer and warmer, the severe weather picks up,” Dr. Cohen said.Media outlets usually turn to Cohen and Francis during the winter months when brutal cold and snowfall can make it hard to convince people the earth is warming. Both scientists regularly argue human greenhouse gas emissions are driving more frequent, bone-chilling arctic blasts.This is not a widely accepted theory. In fact, there’s lots of evidence to suggest it’s not correct, including a 2018 study that found “[c]old waves like this have decreased in intensity and frequency over the last century.”“Such claims make no sense and are inconsistent with observations and the best science,” University of Washington climatologist Cliff Mass told The Daily Caller News Foundation in 2018 when news outlets reported record cold temperatures were a product of warming.“The frequency of cold waves have decreased during the past fifty years, not increased. That alone shows that such claims are baseless,” Mass said.The U.S. government’s 2017 National Climate Assessment special report said “it is not possible to draw conclusions regarding the direction of the relationship between arctic warming and midlatitude circulation based on empirical correlation and covariance analyses alone.”REUTERS/Joshua Lott.The 2017 report added “confidence is low regarding whether or by what mechanisms observed arctic warming may have influenced midlatitude circulation and weather patterns over the continental United States.”Other climate scientists have also challenged Francis’s and Cohen’s claim that cold snaps are becoming more frequent. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist Amy Butler noted breakdowns in the polar vortex, which happen every winter, “does not seem to be increasing in frequency nor is there consensus it will by 2100.”Cohen fired back over Twitter, saying he stood by the results of his work. Butler didn’t dispute the findings of his 2017 study, but did show there seems to be no evidence of a long-term weakening of the polar vortex.Amy H Butler on Twitter‘Cooling Is Warming’: Climate Hoaxers Spin US FreezePublished on February 1, 2019Written by John NolteAmerica enjoys a winter filled with tons of snow and frigid cold weather and out pops the Climate Hoaxsters to assure us this kind of weather only further proves our planet is getting, um… warmer.This current Climate Hoaxster freak-out is largely in reaction to President Trump’s tweet earlier this week mocking them.“In the beautiful Midwest, windchill temperatures are reaching minus 60 degrees, the coldest ever recorded,” he tweeted. “What the hell is going on with Global Waming? [Sic] Please come back fast, we need you!”Naturally, this launched a million reactionary headlines from our oh-so objective, unbiased, not-at-all left-wing media.“Look at This Embarrassing F*cking Moron,” screamed Esquire.“Debunking the utter idiocy of Donald Trump’s global warming tweet,” pouted CNN.“Here’s Why the Crazy Cold Temperatures Prove Global Warming is Real,” Forbes says reassuringly.“What Trump keeps getting wrong about Global Warming,” the Washington Posthelpfully reports.But here is my personal favorite headline from, where else?, NBC News…. “Yes, it can be this cold outside in a time of global warming.”There are three Party slogans in George Orwell’s 1984, his masterpiece about an all-controlling centralized government that runs on lies, terror, and propaganda. See if you can pick out which Party slogan I invented among the four:War is PeaceFreedom is SlaveryIgnorance is StrengthFrigid Weather Means Our Planet is Getting WarmerThe Climate Hoaxsters say that this run of cold weather does not mean the planet will not warm over the course of years, which would sound reasonable if these were not the same Climate Hoaxters who told us Global Warming meant the “end of snow,” or that this winter would be “warmer-than-average,” or that a run of warm weather last winter proved the planet is warming.That last example is interesting, no?You see, last year our Climate Hucksters told us a run of warm weather proved the planet is warming, which means we all have to give up our freedoms to a centralized government in order to save the planet.BUT… a run of frigid weather this year also proves the planet is warming and we all have to give up our freedoms to a centralized government in order to save the planet.So no matter what happens, no matter how cold or warm or temperate it is, everything proves Global Warming is fer real.Hey, remember when the Climate Grifters told us Global Warming would make hurricanes worse?Remember how, when that scientific prediction was humiliated in the face of record low hurricane activity, these same Climate Grifters told us this lack of hurricane activity proved Global Warming was really fer real?Remember in 2005 when the establishment media told us that by 2015 Global Warming would drive gas up to $9 a gallon (it’s $2.08 here today), milk up to $12 a gallon ($2.99), and New York City would be underwater?Remember how during that crucial time between 2005 and 2015, that decade before the imminent flooding of Manhattan, the establishment media did not remove any of its personnel from a New York City that was about to be drowned?In fact, while CNN was telling us the seas were certain to rise, CNN shifted much of its base of operations from the inland safety of Atlanta to Manhattan; while CNN’s then-parent company, Time Warner, spent billions relocating its headquarters just two blocks from the water’s edge in New York.And, soon enough, I’ll be asking if you remember how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — a sitting member of Congress — went on TV and said the world would end in 12 years because of Global Warming.You see, no matter what happens, no matter what the weather looks like, no matter how false their predictions turn out to be, no matter often they act as though they don’t believe in Global Warming, the Climate Swindlers still scream See! See! Toldjaso! — and almost always do it from a wildly expensive base of operations on the same coast they claim will soon be underwater.Cato Institute atmospheric scientist Ryan Maue said claims global warming was driving U.S. cold snaps were “[mostly anecdotal” and that such news articles “serve mostly to reassure their audience and continue a research narrative.”Read more at dailycaller.com'Polar Vortex' NOT Proof of Global Warming | PSI IntlMEDIA BIAS REFUSE TO REPORT BOTH SIDES OF CLIMATE ISSUEConflicting Views on Climate Change: Fire and IceJournalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can’t decide whether we face an ice age or warmingBy R. Warren Anderson and Dan GainorGlobal Research, January 22, 2009Business & Media Institute 17 May 2006Theme: EnvironmentGlobal Research Editor’s NoteThis article first published in May 2006 provides an interesting review of the debate on Climate Change.It was five years before the turn of the century and major media were warning of disastrous climate change. Page six of The New York Times was headlined with the serious concerns of “geologists.” Only the president at the time wasn’t Bill Clinton; it was Grover Cleveland. And the Times wasn’t warning about global warming – it was telling readers the looming dangers of a new ice age.The year was 1895, and it was just one of four different time periods in the last 100 years when major print media predicted an impending climate crisis. Each prediction carried its own elements of doom, saying Canada could be “wiped out” or lower crop yields would mean “billions will die.”Just as the weather has changed over time, so has the reporting – blowing hot or cold with short-term changes in temperature.Following the ice age threats from the late 1800s, fears of an imminent and icy catastrophe were compounded in the 1920s by Arctic explorer Donald MacMillan and an obsession with the news of his polar expedition. As the Times put it on Feb. 24, 1895, “Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.”Those concerns lasted well into the late 1920s. But when the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree, newspapers and magazines responded with stories about the new threat. Once again the Times was out in front, cautioning “the earth is steadily growing warmer.”After a while, that second phase of climate cautions began to fade. By 1954, Fortune magazine was warming to another cooling trend and ran an article titled “Climate – the Heat May Be Off.” As the United States and the old Soviet Union faced off, the media joined them with reports of a more dangerous Cold War of Man vs. Nature.The New York Times ran warming stories into the late 1950s, but it too came around to the new fears. Just three decades ago, in 1975, the paper reported: “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.”That trend, too, cooled off and was replaced by the current era of reporting on the dangers of global warming. Just six years later, on Aug. 22, 1981, the Times quoted seven government atmospheric scientists who predicted global warming of an “almost unprecedented magnitude.”In all, the print news media have warned of four separate climate changes in slightly more than 100 years – global cooling, warming, cooling again, and, perhaps not so finally, warming. Some current warming stories combine the concepts and claim the next ice age will be triggered by rising temperatures – the theme of the 2004 movie “The Day After Tomorrow.”Recent global warming reports have continued that trend, morphing into a hybrid of both theories. News media that once touted the threat of “global warming” have moved on to the more flexible term “climate change.” As the Times described it, climate change can mean any major shift, making the earth cooler or warmer. In a March 30, 2006, piece on ExxonMobil’s approach to the environment, a reporter argued the firm’s chairman “has gone out of his way to soften Exxon’s public stance on climate change.”The effect of the idea of “climate change” means that any major climate event can be blamed on global warming, supposedly driven by mankind.Spring 2006 has been swamped with climate change hype in every type of media – books, newspapers, magazines, online, TV and even movies.One-time presidential candidate Al Gore, a patron saint of the environmental movement, is releasing “An Inconvenient Truth” in book and movie form, warning, “Our ability to live is what is at stake.”Despite all the historical shifting from one position to another, many in the media no longer welcome opposing views on the climate. CBS reporter Scott Pelley went so far as to compare climate change skeptics with Holocaust deniers.“If I do an interview with [Holocaust survivor] Elie Wiesel,” Pelley asked, “am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?” he said in an interview on March 23 with CBS News’s PublicEye blog.He added that the whole idea of impartial journalism just didn’t work for climate stories. “There becomes a point in journalism where striving for balance becomes irresponsible,” he said.Pelley’s comments ignored an essential point: that 30 years ago, the media were certain about the prospect of a new ice age. And that is only the most recent example of how much journalists have changed their minds on this essential debate.Some in the media would probably argue that they merely report what scientists tell them, but that would be only half true.Journalists decide not only what they cover; they also decide whether to include opposing viewpoints. That’s a balance lacking in the current “debate.”This isn’t a question of science. It’s a question of whether Americans can trust what the media tell them about science.Conflicting Views on Climate Change: Fire and Ice - Global ResearchGlobal Warming or The “New Ice Age”? Fear of the “Big Freeze”Top Scientists, Government Agencies Have – For Over 100 Years – Been Terrified of a New Ice Age...By Washington's BlogGlobal Research, January 02, 2013Washington's Blog and Global Research 16 April 2012Theme: Environment, Science and MedicineIn-depth Report: Climate ChangeThere has been an intense debate among leading scientists, government agencies and publications over whether the bigger threat is global warming or a new ice age. As we’ve previously noted, top researchers have feared an ice age – off and on – for more than 100 years. (This post does not weigh in one way or the other. It merely presents a historical record.)On February 24, 1895, the New York Times published an article entitled “PROSPECTS OF ANOTHER GLACIAL PERIOD; Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again”, which starts with the following paragraph:The question is again being discussed whether recent and long-continued observations do not point to the advent of a second glacial period, when the countries now basking in the fostering warmth of a tropical sun will ultimately give way to the perennial frost and snow of the polar regions.In September 1958, Harper’s wrote an article called “The Coming Ice Age”.On January 11, 1970, the Washington Post wrote an article entitled “Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age – Scientists See Ice Age In the Future” which stated:Get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters–the worst may be yet to come. That’s the long-long-range weather forecast being given out by “climatologists.” the people who study very long-term world weather trends.In 1972, two scientists – George J. Kukla (of the Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory) and R. K. Matthews (Chairman, Dept of Geological Sciences, Brown University) – wrote the following letter to President Nixon warning of the possibility of a new ice age:Dear Mr. President:Aware of your deep concern with the future of the world, we feel obliged to inform you on the results of the scientific conference held here recently. The conference dealt with the past and future changes of climate and was attended by 42 top American and European investigators. We enclose the summary report published in Science and further publications are forthcoming in Quaternary Research.The main conclusion of the meeting was that a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experience by civilized mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon.The cooling has natural cause and falls within the rank of processes which produced the last ice age. This is a surprising result based largely on recent studies of deep sea sediments.Existing data still do not allow forecast of the precise timing of the predicted development, nor the assessment of the man’s interference with the natural trends. It could not be excluded however that the cooling now under way in the Northern Hemisphere is the start of the expected shift. The present rate of the cooling seems fast enough to bring glacial temperatures in about a century, if continuing at the present pace.The practical consequences which might be brought by such developments to existing social institution are among others:(1) Substantially lowered food production due to the shorter growing seasons and changed rain distribution in the main grain producing belts of the world, with Eastern Europe and Central Asia to be first affected.(2) Increased frequency and amplitude of extreme weather anomalies such as those bringing floods, snowstorms, killing frosts, etc.With the efficient help of the world leaders, the research …With best regards,George J. Kukla (Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory)R. K. Matthews (Chairman, Dept of Geological Sciences, Brown U)The White House assigned the task of looking at the claims contained in the letter to its science agencies, especially the National Science Foundation and NOAA, who engaged in a flurry of activitylooking into the threat of an ice age.On August 1, 1974 the White House wrote a letter to Secretary of Commerce Frederick Dent stating:Changes in climate in recent years have resulted in unanticipated impacts on key national programs and policies. Concern has been expressed that recent changes may presage others. In order to assess the problem and to determine what concerted action ought to be undertaken, I have decided to establish a subcommittee on Climate Change.Out of this concern, the U.S. government started monitoring climate.As NOAA scientists Robert W. Reeves, Daphne Gemmill, Robert E. Livezey, and James Laver point out:There were also a number of short-term climate events of national and international consequence in the early 1970s that commanded a certain level of attention in Washington. Many of them were linked to the El Niño of 1972-1973.A killing winter freeze followed by a severe summer heat wave and drought produced a 12 percent shortfall in Russian grain production in 1972. The Soviet decision to offset the losses by purchase abroad reduced world grain reserves and helped drive up food prices.Collapse of the Peruvian anchovy harvest in late 1972 and early 1973, related to fluctuations in the Pacific ocean currents and atmospheric circulation, impacted world supplies of fertilizer, the soybean market, and prices of all other protein feedstocks.The anomalously low precipitation in the U.S. Pacific north-west during the winter of 1972-73 depleted reservoir storage by an amount equivalent to more than 7 percent of the electric energy requirements for the region.On June 24, 1974, Time Magazine wrote an article entitled “Another Ice Age?” which stated:As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.Telltale signs are everywhere …Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth’s surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.(here’s the printer-friendly version).Science News wrote an article in 1975 called “Chilling Possibilities” warning of a new ice age.A January 1975 article from the New York Times warned:Conflicting Views on Climate Change: Fire and IceThe most drastic potential change considered in the new report (by the National Academy of Sciences) is an abrupt end to the present interglacial period of relative warmth that has governed the planet’s climate for the past 10,000 years.On April 28, 1975, Newsweek wrote an article stating:Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.Here is a reprint of the article in the Washington Times, and here is a copy of the 1975 Newsweek article.Newsweek discussed its 1975 article in 2006:In April, 1975 … NEWSWEEK published a small back-page article about a very different kind of disaster. Citing “ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically,” the magazine warned of an impending “drastic decline in food production.” Political disruptions stemming from food shortages could affect “just about every nation on earth.” Scientists urged governments to consider emergency action to head off the terrible threat of . . . well, if you had been following the climate-change debates at the time, you’d have known that the threat was: global cooling…Citizens can judge for themselves what constitutes a prudent response-which, indeed, is what occurred 30 years ago. All in all, it’s probably just as well that society elected not to follow one of the possible solutions mentioned in the NEWSWEEK article: to pour soot over the Arctic ice cap, to help it melt.New York Times science columnist John Tierney noted in 2009:In 1971, long before Dr. Holdren came President Obama’s science adviser, in an essay [titled] “Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide,” Dr. Holdren and his co-author, the ecologist Paul Ehrlich, warned of a coming ice age.They certainly weren’t the only scientists in the 1970s to warn of a coming ice age, but I can’t think of any others who were so creative in their catastrophizing. Although they noted that the greenhouse effect from rising emissions of carbon dioxide emissions could cause future warming of the planet, they concluded from the mid-century cooling trend that the consequences of human activities (like industrial soot, dust from farms, jet exhaust, urbanization and deforestation) were more likely to first cause an ice age. Dr. Holdren and Dr. Ehrlich wrote:The effects of a new ice age on agriculture and the supportability of large human populations scarcely need elaboration here. Even more dramatic results are possible, however; for instance, a sudden outward slumping in the Antarctic ice cap, induced by added weight, could generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history.A May 21, 1975 article in the New York Times again stated:Sooner or later a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable.The American Institute of Physics – the organization mentioned in the Boston Globe article – notes:For a few years in the early 1970s, new evidence and arguments led many scientists to suspect that the greatest climate risk was not warming, but cooling. A new ice age seemed to be approaching as part of the natural glacial cycle, perhaps hastened by human pollution that blocked sunlight. Technological optimists suggested ways to counter this threat too. We might spread soot from cargo aircraft to darken the Arctic snows, or even shatter the Arctic ice pack with “clean” thermonuclear explosions.***The bitter fighting among communities over cloud-seeding would be as nothing compared with conflicts over attempts to engineer global climate. Moreover, as Budyko and Western scientists alike warned, scientists could not predict the consequences of such engineering efforts. We might forestall global warming only to find we had triggered a new ice age.A 1994 Time article entitled “The Ice Age Cometh?” stated:What ever happened to global warming? Scientists have issued apocalyptic warnings for years, claiming that gases from cars, power plants and factories are creating a greenhouse effect that will boost the temperature dangerously over the next 75 years or so. But if last week is any indication of winters to come, it might be more to the point to start worrying about the next Ice Age instead. After all, human-induced warming is still largely theoretical, while ice ages are an established part of the planet’s history. The last one ended about 10,000 years ago; the next one — for there will be a next one — could start tens of thousands of years from now. Or tens of years. Or it may have already started.The Register reported last year:What may be the science story of the century is breaking this evening, as heavyweight US solar physicists announce that the Sun appears to be headed into a lengthy spell of low activity, which could mean that the Earth – far from facing a global warming problem – is actually headed into a mini Ice Age.***The announcement made on 14 June (18:00 UK time) comes from scientists at the US National Solar Observatory (NSO) and US Air Force Research Laboratory. Three different analyses of the Sun’s recent behaviour all indicate that a period of unusually low solar activity may be about to begin.***This could have major implications for the Earth’s climate. According to a statement issued by the NSO, announcing the research:An immediate question is whether this slowdown presages a second Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period with virtually no sunspots [which occurred] during 1645-1715.As NASA notes:Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715. Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the “Little Ice Age” when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past.During the Maunder Minimum and for periods either side of it, many European rivers which are ice-free today – including the Thames – routinely froze over, allowing ice skating and even for armies to march across them in some cases.“This is highly unusual and unexpected,” says Dr Frank Hill of the NSO. “But the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation.”***According to the NSO:Penn and Livingston observed that the average field strength declined about 50 gauss per year during Cycle 23 and now in Cycle 24. They also observed that spot temperatures have risen exactly as expected for such changes in the magnetic field. If the trend continues, the field strength will drop below the 1,500 gauss threshold and spots will largely disappear as the magnetic field is no longer strong enough to overcome convective forces on the solar surface.In parallel with this comes research from the US Air Force’s studies of the solar corona.***“Cycle 24 started out late and slow and may not be strong enough to create a rush to the poles, indicating we’ll see a very weak solar maximum in 2013, if at all. If the rush to the poles fails to complete, this creates a tremendous dilemma for the theorists … No one knows what the Sun will do in that case.”According to the collective wisdom of the NSO, another Maunder Minimum may very well be on the cards.“If we are right,” summarises Hill, “this could be the last solar maximum we’ll see for a few decades. That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth’s climate.”***The big consequences of a major solar calm spell, however, would be climatic. The next few generations of humanity might not find themselves trying to cope with global warming but rather with a significant cooling. This could overturn decades of received wisdom on such things as CO2 emissions, and lead to radical shifts in government policy worldwide.And Agence France-Presse reports:For years, scientists have been predicting the Sun would by around 2012 move into solar maximum, a period of intense flares and sunspot activity, but lately a curious calm has suggested quite the opposite.According to three studies released in the United States on Tuesday, experts believe the familiar sunspot cycle may be shutting down and heading toward a pattern of inactivity unseen since the 17th century.The signs include a missing jet stream, fading spots, and slower activity near the poles, said experts from the National Solar Observatory and Air Force Research Laboratory.“This is highly unusual and unexpected,” said Frank Hill, associate director of the NSO’s Solar Synoptic Network, as the findings of the three studies were presented at the annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society’s Solar Physics Division in Las Cruces, New Mexico.“But the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation.”Solar activity tends to rise and fall every 11 years or so. The solar maximum and solar minimum each mark about half the interval of the magnetic pole reversal on the Sun, which happens every 22 years.Hill said the current cycle, number 24, “may be the last normal one for some time and the next one, cycle 25, may not happen for some time.“This is important because the solar cycle causes space weather which affects modern technology and may contribute to climate change,” he told reporters.Experts are now probing whether this period of inactivity could be a second Maunder Minimum, which was a 70-year period when hardly any sunspots were observed between 1645-1715, a period known as the “Little Ice Age.”“If we are right, this could be the last solar maximum we’ll see for a few decades. That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth’s climate,” said Hill.And the Wall Street Journal wrote in January:The entire 10,000-year history of civilization has happened in an unusually warm interlude in the Earth’s recent history. Over the past million years, it has been as warm as this or warmer for less than 10% of the time, during 11 brief episodes known as interglacial periods. [In other words, the Earth is in an ice age most of the time, and that the warmer “interglacial” periods are rare.] One theory holds that agriculture and dense settlement were impossible in the volatile, generally dry and carbon-dioxide-starved climates of the ice age, when crop plants would have grown more slowly and unpredictably even in warmer regions.This warm spell is already 11,600 years old, and it must surely, in the normal course of things, come to an end. In the early 1970s, after two decades of slight cooling, many scientists were convinced that the moment was at hand. They were “increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age,” said Time in 1974. The “almost unanimous” view of meteorologists was that the cooling trend would “reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century,” and “the resulting famines could be catastrophic,” said Newsweek in 1975.Since then, of course, warmth has returned, probably driven at least partly by man-made carbon-dioxide emissions. A new paper, from universities in Cambridge, London and Florida, drew headlines last week for arguing that these emissions may avert the return of the ice age. Less noticed was the fact that the authors, by analogy with a previous warm spell 780,000 years ago that’s a “dead ringer” for our own, expect the next ice age to start “within about 1,500 years.” Hardly the day after tomorrow.Still, it’s striking that most interglacials begin with an abrupt warming, peak sharply, then begin a gradual descent into cooler conditions before plunging rather more rapidly toward the freezer. The last interglacial—which occurred 135,000 to 115,000 years ago (named the Eemian period after a Dutch river near which the fossils of warmth-loving shell creatures of that age were found)—saw temperatures slide erratically downward by about two degrees Celsius between 127,000 and 120,000 years ago, before a sharper fall began.Cyclical changes in the earth’s orbit probably weakened sunlight in the northern hemisphere summer and thus caused this slow cooling. Since the northern hemisphere is mostly land, this change in the sun’s strength meant gradually increased snow and ice cover, which in turn reflected light back into space. This would have further cooled the air and, gradually, the ocean too. Carbon-dioxide levels did not begin to fall much until about 112,000 years ago, as the cooling sea absorbed more of the gas.Our current interglacial shows a similar pattern. Greenland ice cores and other proxy records show that temperatures peaked around 7,000 years ago, when the Arctic Ocean was several degrees warmer than today, trees grew farther north in Siberia and the Sahara was wet enough for hippos (Africa generally gets wetter in warm times). Data from the southern hemisphere reveal that this “Holocene Optimum” was global in extent.An erratic decline in temperature followed, with Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods peaking at successively lower temperatures, culminating in the exceptionally cool centuries of the “Little Ice Age” between 1550 and 1850, when glaciers advanced all over the world. In the Greenland ice cores, these centuries stand out as the longest and most consistent cold spell of the current interglacial.In other words, our own interglacial period has followed previous ones in having an abrupt beginning and a sharp peak, followed by slow cooling. The question is whether recent warming is a temporary blip before the expected drift into glacial conditions, or whether humankind’s impact on the atmosphere has now reversed the cooling trend.

NO. There is no negative impact in the atmosphere or in a closed room during normal use. We can measure CO2 toxicity for enclosed spaces and health and safety regulations protect underground minors. The levels are < 5000 ppm no problem for most closed rooms. The earth’s atmosphere is not closed. It is open unlike a greenhouse or a room that is closed.When you look at a greenhouse the obvious warming comes from all of the panels in tack preventing air escaping into the cooler atmosphere. When the panels are shattered this ends the warming.The open atmosphere of the earth behaves like a shattered greenhouse.Think about applying the small amount of CO2 shown in the next diagram to this drawing and you will see how it is impossible. This is especially true as CO2 does not mix well with the other gases of the atmosphere.Also there are only trace amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere measured in ppm whereas in a closed room with people breathing CO2 at 35,000 ppm the concentration would increase although not toxic until well beyond 5000 ppm. This is the key reason the old so called greenhouse gas theory of CO2 warming the planet is false.This education graph shows the minute amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at 0.04% -nitrogen (N2) 78%oxygen (O2) 21%argon (Ar) almost 1%carbon dioxide (CO2) 400 ppmv (0.04%)everything else (neon, helium, methane, krypton, hydrogen,...) less than 28 ppmv totalThis brief 3 minute Rice Video minute video puts the small amount of CO2 in perspective.THE RICE VIDEO FROM AUSTRALIATHE RICE VIDEO FROM AUSTRALIA SHOWS CO2 ATMOSPHERIC SIZE“The Carbon Cycle“Carbon is the backbone of life on Earth. We are made of carbon, we eat carbon, and our civilizations—our economies, our homes, our means of transport—are built on carbon. We need carbonCarbon is both the foundation of all life on Earth, and the source of the majority of energy consumed by human civilization. [Photographs ©2007 MorBCN (top) and ©2009 sarahluv (lower).]Forged in the heart of aging stars, carbon is the fourth most abundant element in the Universe. Most of Earth’s carbon—about 65,500 billion metric tons—is stored in rocks. The rest is in the ocean, atmosphere, plants, soil, and fossil fuels.Carbon flows between each reservoir in an exchange called the carbon cycle, which has slow and fast components. Any change in the cycle that shifts carbon out of one reservoir puts more carbon in the other reservoirs.”The Carbon Cycle“HISTORY OF THE EARTH’S ATMOSPHEREThis graph gives a picture of the composition of earth's atmosphere over the last 4.5 billion years.The important thing to notice is that there was a lot of carbon dioxide (25%) and water vapour (25%) a long time ago in the eary's atmosphere. There was a little bit of methane and the rest was nitrogen.We only got oxygen in our atmosphere 2 billion years ago, and as I understand it this was because the carbon dioxide in the air, combined with water, lightning and - literally - God knows what else, to form rudimentary plant life in water. That life photosynthesized carbon dioxide and produced oxygen in the air, and deposited carbon into water and the ground as by-products (plant litter, soil.... these later metamorphosed into coal and oil).”Thinking about Air CompositionComposition of the atmosphere todayThe atmosphere is made up of different gases, water vapour and dust particles.The composition of the atmosphere is not static and it changes according to the time and place.Gases of the atmosphereHere is another graphic that helps see how minute C02 is: “Over the past century, atmospheric CO2 has increased by one part per ten thousand. That is equivalent to packing an extra ten people into the Rose Bowl.”Visualizing Man-Made CO2 (Visualizing Man-Made CO2)It is beyond imagination that this minuscule amount of non-toxic life giving through photosynthesis gas is having any effect on the climate.If you live in Vancouver there is only one molecule of C02 from fossil fuels statistically from the city to Hope an hour away and that molecule is a climate control knob??? Jeff Juel (Jeff Juel), former Environmental EngineerA Atmosfera da TerraCo2 as too small a contribution at 2% of greenhouse gases to matter and human emissions less again at only 0.177% of total GHG. [Back radiation is false physics but even if true there are too few Co2 molecules to matter.]If there is anything to the GHG it is water vapour alone at 95%.“Atmospheric Composition and Vertical StructureThomas W. Schlatter4.3 Water Vapor“Because the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is temperature limited, and winds can easily transport vapor thousands of kilometers, this gas is highly variable in space and time. Its concentration is 0-4% by volume. Almost all water vapor in the atmosphere is confined to the troposphere, where clouds and storms occur. Low temperatures at the top of the troposphere (-50 to -70o C) assure that condensation will remove all but trace amounts of vapor before it can reach the stratosphere, the layer of atmosphere immediately above the troposphere. The principal source of water vapor is evaporation from the oceans, mostly in the tropics where the temperature is relatively high. Evaporation from lakes and soils, and transpiration from plants are other important sources of vapor. Precipitation removes water vapor from the atmosphere. Water vapor is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas, that is, it absorbs little incoming solar radiation (visible wavelengths), but absorbs significant outgoing longwave radiation (infrared wavelengths). “http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/vie...Earth’s AtmosphereWhich Gases Make Up Earth’s Atmosphere?Composition of the AtmosphereHere are a few facts to remember:The specific gravity of any gas is the weight of that gas compared with air. Carbon dioxide has a specific gravity of 1.52. It is about one and a half times heavier than air. CO2 has the same weight as propane. [The specific gravity of propane vapor is 1.50; air is 1. W.]This means that propane vapor weighs one and one-half times more than air.If you have used propane, you know it to be very heavy. Carbon dioxide can actually sink into the ground like a puddle of water.Does carbon dioxide trap and retain heat? No, although it cools more slowly than some other gases, it absorbs some amount of heat and quickly cools by the same amount once the heat source is removed. Does it rise up in the atmosphere? No, it does the opposite.The effect of carbon dioxide on the temperature of our atmosphere is fleeting and inconsequential. Note that during the most dramatic industrial growth from 1950 to 1980, the atmosphere actually cooled.CO2 is a trace atmospheric gas constituting 400 parts per million. This trace gas cannot be responsible for climate change”REF. JOHN FLAVIN ENGINEER AND QUORA WRITER.Without doubt photosynthesis is the most important role of Co2 and we contribute to this vital process with every breath.Energy: The Driver of Climate“The current levels of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere, approaching 400 parts per million, are low by the standards of geological and plant evolutionary history. Levels were 3,000 ppm, or more, until the Paleogene period (beginning about 65 million years ago). For most plants, and for the animals and humans that use them, more carbon dioxide, far from being a "pollutant" in need of reduction, would be a benefit. This is already widely recognized by operators of commercial greenhouses, who artificially increase the carbon dioxide levels to 1,000 ppm or more to improve the growth and quality of their plants.REF. Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer: In Defense of Carbon DioxideThe demonized chemical compound is a boon to plant life and has little correlation with global temperature.SUSTAINABILITYThe National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports that global monthly CO2 levels reached 400 ppm. The size in parts per million is so small that there is no effect on the climate.CO2 2015=400ppm. While this may seem to be a large increase because it is measured in ppm it is still insignificant at only an additional 1/10000. Here is the math -CO2 1750=280ppmIncrease: 120ppmCO2 2015=400ppm=0.000400=ca 4/10,000CO2 1750=280ppm=0.000280=ca 3/10,000Increase: 120ppm=0.000120=ca 1/10,000It helps to gain perspective OF HOW MINUTE CO2 IS with a picture graph. The yellow molecule is Co2 at 1 in 2500 and 5 times this for the added human emission? Now the global warming issue is only about the additional human emissions of Co2 from fossil fuels. They are only 4% of natural which is only 0.039% of total air. Now imagine the little yellow molecule of Co2 presented in the graph above and the math puts it at 1 in 100,000 molecules.Further Co2 is not evenly distributed around the globe. There are vast areas where there is at times no Co2 present as shown on this Co2 concentrations in the USA graph from NASA.Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important trace gas in Earth's atmosphere. It is an integral part of the carbon cycle, a biogeochemical cycle in which carbon is exchanged between the Earth's oceans, soil, rocks and the biosphere. Plants and other photoautotrophs use solar energy to produce carbohydrate from atmospheric carbon dioxide and water by photosynthesis. Almost all other organisms depend on carbohydrate derived from photosynthesis as their primary source of energy and carbon compounds.Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere were as high as 4,000 parts per million by mass (ppm) during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago to as low as 180 ppm during the Quaternary glaciation of the last two million years.Reconstructed temperature records for the last 420 million years indicate that atmospheric CO2 concentrations peaked at ~2000 ppm during the Devonian (∼400 Myrs ago) period, and again in the Triassic (220–200 Myrs ago) period. Global annual mean CO2 concentration has increased by more than 45% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm during the 10,000 years up to the mid-18th century to 415 ppm as of May 2019. W.The current levels of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere, approaching 400 parts per million, are low by the standards of geological and plant evolutionary history. Levels were 3,000 ppm, or more, until the Paleogene period (beginning about 65 million years ago).REFERENCESThink about it this Co2 is not 1%, not 0.1 % and not even half of 0.1 %.THE ALARMIST IGNORE THE MINUTE PROPORTION OF HUMAN CO2 EMISSIONS AS A PERCENTAGE OF ATMOSPHERIC GAS AS IT IS BEYOND IMAGINATION THAT THIS SMALL AMOUNT OF CO2 COULD POSSIBLY EFFECT THE CLIMATE!More Climate Deceptions and False IPCC ClaimsPART 2. THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONIf carbon dioxide makes up only a minute portion of the atmosphere, how can global warming be traced to it? And how can such a tiny amount of change measured in ppm produce such large effects?The scientific method eschews the idea that science is settled and debate is over as claimed by alarmists like former US President Barack Obama. Doubt abounds in science and is essential for progress as Einstein says -Yahoo Image Search Results“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” – Albert EinsteinWhat experiments have proved that CO2 controls the climate? No observational only thought experiments.What experiments have discredited the hypothesis that CO2 controls the climate? Answer: MANY.Natural SourcesMore Climate Deceptions and False IPCC ClaimsHarrison H. Schmitt and William Happer: In Defense of Carbon DioxideThe demonized chemical compound is a boon to plant life and has little correlation with global temperature.By HARRISON H. SCHMITT AND WILLIAM HAPPERMay 8, 2013 6:37 p.m. ETOf all of the world's chemical compounds, none has a worse reputation than carbon dioxide. Thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control of energy production, the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is that it is a dangerous pollutant. That's simply not the case. Contrary to what some would have us believe, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet by increasing agricultural productivity.The cessation of observed global warming for the past decade or so has shown how exaggerated NASA's and most other computer predictions of human-caused warming have been—and how little correlation warming has with concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As many scientists have pointed out, variations in global temperature correlate much better with solar activity and with complicated cycles of the oceans and atmosphere. There isn't the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather.The current levels of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere, approaching 400 parts per million, are low by the standards of geological and plant evolutionary history. Levels were 3,000 ppm, or more, until the Paleogene period (beginning about 65 million years ago). For most plants, and for the animals and humans that use them, more carbon dioxide, far from being a "pollutant" in need of reduction, would be a benefit. This is already widely recognized by operators of commercial greenhouses, who artificially increase the carbon dioxide levels to 1,000 ppm or more to improve the growth and quality of their plants.Using energy from sunlight—together with the catalytic action of an ancient enzyme called rubisco, the most abundant protein on earth—plants convert carbon dioxide from the air into carbohydrates and other useful molecules. Rubisco catalyzes the attachment of a carbon-dioxide molecule to another five-carbon molecule to make two three-carbon molecules, which are subsequently converted into carbohydrates. (Since the useful product from the carbon dioxide capture consists of three-carbon molecules, plants that use this simple process are called C3 plants.) C3 plants, such as wheat, rice, soybeans, cotton and many forage crops, evolved when there was much more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than today. So these agricultural staples are actually undernourished in carbon dioxide relative to their original design.At the current low levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, rubisco in C3 plants can be fooled into substituting oxygen molecules for carbon-dioxide molecules. But this substitution reduces the efficiency of photosynthesis, especially at high temperatures. To get around the problem, a small number of plants have evolved a way to enrich the carbon-dioxide concentration around the rubisco enzyme, and to suppress the oxygen concentration. Called C4 plants because they utilize a molecule with four carbons, plants that use this evolutionary trick include sugar cane, corn and other tropical plants.Although C4 plants evolved to cope with low levels of carbon dioxide, the workaround comes at a price, since it takes additional chemical energy. With high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, C4 plants are not as productive as C3 plants, which do not have the overhead costs of the carbon-dioxide enrichment system.That's hardly all that goes into making the case for the benefits of carbon dioxide. Right now, at our current low levels of carbon dioxide, plants are paying a heavy price in water usage. Whether plants are C3 or C4, the way they get carbon dioxide from the air is the same: The plant leaves have little holes, or stomata, through which carbon dioxide molecules can diffuse into the moist interior for use in the plant's photosynthetic cycles.The density of water molecules within the leaf is typically 60 times greater than the density of carbon dioxide in the air, and the diffusion rate of the water molecule is greater than that of the carbon-dioxide molecule.So depending on the relative humidity and temperature, 100 or more water molecules diffuse out of the leaf for every molecule of carbon dioxide that diffuses in. And not every carbon-dioxide molecule that diffuses into a leaf gets incorporated into a carbohydrate. As a result, plants require many hundreds of grams of water to produce one gram of plant biomass, largely carbohydrate.Driven by the need to conserve water, plants produce fewer stomata openings in their leaves when there is more carbon dioxide in the air. This decreases the amount of water that the plant is forced to transpire and allows the plant to withstand dry conditions better.Crop yields in recent dry years were less affected by drought than crops of the dust-bowl droughts of the 1930s, when there was less carbon dioxide. Nowadays, in an age of rising population and scarcities of food and water in some regions, it's a wonder that humanitarians aren't clamoring for more atmospheric carbon dioxide. Instead, some are denouncing it.We know that carbon dioxide has been a much larger fraction of the earth's atmosphere than it is today, and the geological record shows that life flourished on land and in the oceans during those times. The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science.Mr. Schmitt, an adjunct professor of engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, was an Apollo 17 astronaut and a former U.S. senator from New Mexico. Mr. Happer is a professor of physics at Princeton University and a former director of the office of energy research at the U.S. Department of Energy.My Two Favorite Questions for Global WarmistsDetails Written by Paul JacobsonSo, I find myself sitting around a patio table next Independence Day sipping on the perfect mimosa with some friends and a couple of folks I haven't met before. One of the new acquaintances brings up the subject of "climate change." I know from the term used that this one is probably a sorta believer but not a hard-core, unshakable advocate; were that so, he would have used the latest, hippest, most with-it name-change term "climate disruption." Now it's time for my Favorite Global Warmism Question #1:Did you know that there's no such thing as a greenhouse gas?The conversation around the table stops dead in its tracks. Everybody's looking quizzically at each other. No one is looking at me. After a few seconds, a dear friend of many years says, "C'mon, Flyoverpen, you must be kidding. Everybody knows greenhouse gasses exist." I cross my arms, put on a smug pursed-lip smile and repeat, "Nope, there's no such thing as a greenhouse gas."I then proceed to explain that the word "greenhouse" in that term is a misnomer. In a real-world earthbound greenhouse -- we all know what they look like even though there aren't many in existence anymore -- the sun's short-wave infrared light penetrates through the glass roof, warming up what's inside the greenhouse: air, plants, soil, etc.As the things inside the greenhouse absorb the short-wave infrared, they convert it into heat -- long-wave infrared. This long-wave infrared, instead of readily penetrating glass on the way out, is partially blocked; greenhouse glass is said to be opaque to long-wave infrared. Inside heat can escape from a greenhouse more readily if the temperature between inside and outside air increases. However, the mechanism -- convection -- by which the greenhouse cools under such circumstances is altogether different from what the sun does to heat up the greenhouse.And, of course, if that bratty neighbor kid pitches a rock at the greenhouse roof and breaks a glass pane, warm air escapes, by air convection, in a hurry. In other words, a real greenhouse does its job primarily by suppressing convection.Not so with the so-called "greenhouse" gasses, among them water vapor, methane (CH4) and, most controversially, carbon dioxide (CO2). In this case, long-wave infrared radiation radiating back from earth is absorbed by these gasses; some of it is then radiated out into space, and some is radiated back to earth, creating more warmth here. There is no phenomenon quite like this that we experience in everyday human life, which is probably why we don't have an apt word for it in common discourse. Maybe someday somebody smarter than I am will come up with such a word, one that really fits. Until then I'll keep using the term "greenhouse" gas but not without the irony quotes; take those quotes to mean "not really."Hey, I admit it: Question #1 is something of a semantic teaser. But now it's time for Favorite Global Warmism Question #2, and this one is really serious:How much actual CO2 is there in the atmosphere?Shoulders are shrugging all around the table, and folks are muttering, "I have no idea... not a clue... beats me," the way just about any normal citizen would respond to this question... except the other new acquaintance, whose arms are folded and whose face is bearing a smug pursed-lip smile. "That's one I happen to know: the actual CO2 in the atmosphere today is 379ppm." Aha! Now I strongly suspect that I have a global warmism true believer in front of me, so I'm gonna have to be careful. I respond, "You're absolutely right! And that number is virtually undisputed." And it so happens that number comes straight from the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a notoriously pro-global-warmism U.N. entity.At this point, I'm going to depart from the fantasy conversation in order to play some games with that number. The IPCC, along with the rest of the global-warming "consensus," would just as soon nobody even be aware of that IPCC number; notice how global warmists never refer to it in their advocacy propaganda. However, if somebody has to know, best that the data be presented in the format of their choice. They wouldn't like one bit what I'm about to do with it.First, let's take a look at IPCC presentation of present-day CO2 (actual data from 2005) compared with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (1750):CO2 2005=379ppmCO2 1750=280ppmIncrease: 99ppmA normal citizen looking at these numbers would probably be thinking, "Hmm, those are pretty good size numbers, several hundred; the difference between them is substantial. But, uh, what does 'ppm' mean? Oh, yes, parts per million, I get it." But even following that cognitive eureka, the full import of the data is unlikely to really sink in: people can come close to conceiving a hundred in human experiential terms, but a million? That will always remain an abstraction. So far so good for the cause of global warmism: the truth is still very opaque if not completely disguised.To get closer to human experience, we need to play with the IPCC data format by presenting the numbers like this*:CO2 2005=379ppm=0.000379=ca 4/10,000CO2 1750=280ppm=0.000280=ca 3/10,000Increase: 99ppm=0.000099=ca 1/10,000Whoa! You're trying to tell me a change of one part in ten* thousand threatens to plunge the earth into climate catastrophe? That CO2 is just a trace gas and a miniscule one at that. What kind of a super-mega gas is that CO2, anyway? This whole "climate disruption" thing is preposterous before it even gets out of the starting gate.OK, I've calmed down. Now I'll try to speak rationally.New scientific inquiries often as not entail a form of logic known as abduction, or abductive reasoning. Another name for this is "inference to the best explanation." Another way of putting it might be"make your best guess with the data you've got." Inquiries that rely on historical data often begin and end at the level of abduction if there's no possibility of acquiring new evidence.Abduction can also sometimes act as a hypothesis gateway, giving cause for acceptance, even if only provisional, of a hypothesis... or dismissal of a hypothesis as prima facie implausible. Global warmism manifestly deserves the second response. The poison pill is the sheer paucity of CO2 in the atmosphere. Just in case you're still not convinced of the magnitude of that paucity, consider this image:While water vapor is known to be a less potent "greenhouse" gas than CO2, it utterly dwarfs puny little CO2 in terms of sheer quantity.This much we -- skeptics and advocates of global warmism alike -- agree on: CO2 is a "greenhouse" gas (the simplest high school science project can demonstrate that); atmospheric CO2 has increased during the industrial era due to human activity; this has added more heat energy to earth's atmosphere and surface than previously. However, this is not enough to break through the paucity-implausibility gateway. To accept the global warmist hypothesis that anthropogenic global warming is leading to climate catastrophe, we need to know not just that industrial-era anthropogenic CO2 emissions are merely effectual; this variable must be shown to be determinative.This means that anthropogenic CO2 emissions must be examined in full context with numerous other climate variables such as solar activity, volcanism, magnetic field shifts, etc. An inquiry like this is certain to be dauntingly, perhaps overwhelmingly, complex if conducted like authentic, inductive science. Global warmism advocates have shamelessly evaded this monumental evidence burden -- and the burden is entirely on them -- by resorting to garbage-in-garbage-out computer models, even outright data fraud and deceitfulness.Global warmism remains the most colossal hoax ever perpetrated.*numbers correctedhttp://www.melaniemorgan.com/146...C02 Toxicity ResearchCarbon dioxide (CO2) is one of the inputs of photosynthesis and as such CO2plays an important role in increasing crop productivity (Hand 1993, Rijkdjik and Houter 1993). Optimal CO2 concentrations for the greenhouse atmosphere fall with the range of between 700 to 900 ppm (parts per million) (Romero-Aranda et al 1995, Tremblay and Gosselin 1998). Crop productivity depends not only on efficiency of interception of light but also on the efficiency with which light is converted to chemical energy in photosynthesis. Carbon dioxide enrichment to 1200 ppm increases the maximum conversion efficiency by a substantial amount (between 28 to 59%) (Wilson et al 1992). Photosynthetic efficiencies appear never to exceed about 22 % of the absorbed light energy in the 400 to 700 nm range, the maximum efficiency is obtained at relative low light intensities, not in brightest sunlight (Salisbury and Ross 1978). Considering the supply of light to available land area on which a crop is growing, the overall yield efficiencies are always much below 22% (Salisbury and Ross 1978).The use of CO2 in greenhouses can give light use efficiencies exceeding those of field crops (Wilson et al 1992). Glasshouse crops with CO2 enrichment achieve maximum efficiency of light energy utilization between 12-13% (Wilson et al 1992). The ability of plants to utilize CO2 is dependent upon the presence of light, for this reason it is only useful to supplement CO2during the daylight hours (Styer and Koranski 1997).