Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The CO2 canard is coming apart at the seams
American Thinker ^ | 22 Jan, 2025 | John M. Contino

Posted on 01/22/2025 4:40:27 AM PST by MtnClimber

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping emissions (methane, nitrous oxide, and some other stuff) are pollutants under the Clean Air Act and that the government has the authority to curb them.

Since then, the world has been subjected to numerous climate-related laws and treaties, along with assorted governmental, academic, and corporate pressures — all serving to hype the “existential threat” that is climate change. The number-one culprit all along has been atmospheric carbon dioxide.

There is nothing inherently wrong with qualitative versus quantitative statements, but there has been an inordinate amount of hand-waving to explain away the failure over the last 50 years of global temperatures to rise nearly as fast as predicted by the climate alarmists.

“Watts Up With That” claims to be the “world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change,” for which Collister Johnson recently wrote a short but powerful article with an unassuming title: “The saturation effect questions the prevailing narrative on CO2.”

Over that last decade, several pedigreed scientists have performed qualitative analyses and experiments to disprove the assumption that “increases in atmospheric CO2 will cause a linear and dangerous increase in global temperatures.”

William Happer and William van Wijngaarden are both “accomplished and renowned physicists with over 500 published papers to their credit.”

They applied highly detailed mathematical analytics to the physics of CO2 in the atmosphere and raised serious doubts about CO2’s ability to absorb heat after becoming “saturated” at current levels of 400 parts per million, and therefore unable to absorb significantly more heat from the Sun. Thus, any further increases in atmospheric CO2 — even doubling that amount to 800 parts per million — would only result in minimal increases in atmospheric temperature of 0.5C, or 1degree Fahrenheit. [snip]

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Science; Society
KEYWORDS: c02; carbondioxide; co2; conjob; fraud; globalwarming; ripoff; scam
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-43 next last
To: MtnClimber

Anyone with an undergraduate degree in physics should easily understand this. It is the result of the Beer-Lambert Law, which simply states that any optically absorbing matter will logarithmically increase in absorption with increasing concentrations, until absorption reaches 100%. The only question is at what atmospheric concentration of CO2, does it reach 100% absorption? This new research proves current levels of CO2 have reached that level and the atmospheric CO2 spectral window has closed. If runaway global warming were to occur due to the closing of the CO2 window, it would have happened already.


21 posted on 01/22/2025 6:18:55 AM PST by Pres Raygun (Repent America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber
I'm a follower of Dr. Ed Berry...

https://edberry.com/category/climate/climate-physics/

22 posted on 01/22/2025 6:22:28 AM PST by Hot Tabasco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber

Everyone exhale and the CO2 level will still be 0.04% ,LOL


23 posted on 01/22/2025 6:25:09 AM PST by butlerweave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pres Raygun

Yes absorption looks like it has reached 100%. But it is only a couple very narrow spectral lines. So most of the IR heat in the H2O window of non-absorption still radiates into space and Earth still does not have runaway heating.


24 posted on 01/22/2025 6:27:39 AM PST by MtnClimber (For photos of scenery, wildlife and climbing, click on my screen name for my FR home page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber

Which affects the climate more CO2 or H2O?


25 posted on 01/22/2025 6:28:40 AM PST by bray (It's not racist to be racist against races the DNC hates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber

Like most things in nature, the green house effect is a curvilinear function, has already reached the level of diminishing returns. The curve has flattened out, for all intents.


26 posted on 01/22/2025 6:38:18 AM PST by hinckley buzzard ( Resist the narrative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber
If the Gaia Worshipers were really concerned about CO2 emissions they would oppose immigration from poor countries to rich countries. Every immigrant that does so moves from a low carbon lifestyle (ie poor) to a high carbon lifestyle (ie rich). Yet they're silent about this.

They would put all kinds of pressure on China and India which are the largest emitters of CO2 and which are growing their emissions rapidly year on year. Yet they're silent about this.

They would certainly be against really extravagant things like private jets and yachts and palatial homes not to mention multiple homes for the rich. Yet they are silent about this.

They are EXCLUSIVELY against middle class people in Western Countries. They're the only ones called on to sacrifice and to pay and to accept a lower standard of living.

27 posted on 01/22/2025 7:01:24 AM PST by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

bookmark


28 posted on 01/22/2025 7:19:22 AM PST by freds6girlies (many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first. Mt. 19:30. R.I.P. G & J)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pres Raygun

The effect of CO2 has nothing to do with absorption, it is an emission phenomenon. Photons absorbed by CO2 molecules are re-radiated. Always have been, always will be. The amount of those photons hitting the ground or ocean does not significantly change with concentration.

The entire mechanism of warming is based on the change in height in the atmosphere at which CO2-absorbed wavelengths are emitted into space. Radiative heat loss is proportional to the fourth power of temperature, and since the current effective emission heights for CO2-absorbed photons are where temperature decreases as altitude increases, that’s where the net energy balance is driven toward more heat retained in the atmosphere.

Eventually, the effective emission heights reach the thermosphere where temperature increases with higher altitudes, the effect is reversed and the atmosphere dumps extra heat to space. This has happened many times over Earth’s history, and is one of many reasons why Earth has a range of surface temperatures compatible with life.


29 posted on 01/22/2025 7:53:01 AM PST by Go_Raiders (An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur? - Axel Oxenstierna)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird

Excellent.


30 posted on 01/22/2025 8:31:43 AM PST by drwoof
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber

The physics of “heat”.

The new climate science reports, about the “saturation affect”, use similar science as when you can’t keep trapping more heat in your house by adding, ad infinitum, more insulation. At some point each additional inch of insulation i has less and less heat trapping affect til at some point it has no additional heat trapping affect at all. The scientists are observing there is a similar saturation affect that happens with atmospheric CO2. CO2 levels reach a point (may already be there) where any additional heat trapping affect from the CO2 does not occur.


31 posted on 01/22/2025 8:38:20 AM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber

agree

back door collectivism

a communist revolution without firing a shot


32 posted on 01/22/2025 8:54:53 AM PST by joshua c
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Daveinyork

As are all of us along the Gulf of America coast.


33 posted on 01/22/2025 9:30:49 AM PST by ro_dreaming (Who knew "Idiocracy", "1984", "Enemy of the State", and "Person of Interest" would be non-fiction?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Go_Raiders
The entire mechanism of warming is based on the change in height in the atmosphere at which CO2-absorbed wavelengths are emitted into space. Radiative heat loss is proportional to the fourth power of temperature, and since the current effective emission heights for CO2-absorbed photons are where temperature decreases as altitude increases, that’s where the net energy balance is driven toward more heat retained in the atmosphere..

Once CO2 has reached the "saturation limit" it will not absorb any additional power from sunlight with further increases in CO2 concentrations. What I would assume would happen with increasing CO2 concentrations, beyond the "saturation limit" would be the mean altitude of absorption would increase, thus increasing the temperature of the atmosphere at higher latitudes and subsequently reducing the atmospheric temperature at lower altitudes.

If this is correct, then the power of re-radiation of the CO2 would increase at higher altitudes and decrease at lower latitudes, as it appears you are arguing above. But this increase in long wavelength IR radiation power at higher altitudes only decreases the time it takes to reach thermal equilibrium. The long term thermal equilibrium (i.e. temperature) only depends on the average absorption sunlight by the CO2, which hasn't changed. The only significant affect I can imagine from the increasing of the mean altitude of the CO2 IR re-radiation is that more of this radiation would escape the atmosphere, because it would be reflected or absorbed and re-radiated back to earth less by other greenhouse gases, most notably H2O. If this effect were large enough, I would expect the mean global temperature to decrease, not increase.

34 posted on 01/22/2025 11:12:59 AM PST by Pres Raygun (Repent America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber

CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas, and yes, in very very high concentrations it can cause a runaway greenhouse effect. Venus is a perfect example of this, but Venus’ atmosphere is also 96.5% CO2.

CO2 is actually a relatively weak greenhouse gas compared to other greenhouse gasses. Methane for example is 28 times more powerful than CO2.

Earths atmosphere, has only trace amounts of all the greenhouse gasses combined. Earth atmosphere is 78% Nitrogen, 21$ oxygen and .9% argon. Meaning, all the greenhouse gasses combined equate to around 1/10th of 1% of the atmosphere.

Yes CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas, but the idea the earth is on the verge of some cataclysmic meltdown due to CO2 is not remotely true.

I have no issues if we wish to work to reduce emissions, I have no loyalty to gasoline.. so when you figure out a fuel system as effective, reliable, cheap, dependable and convenient as it is or better, I’ll be happy to change my mode of transportation... however, like it or not, currently nothing comes close.


35 posted on 01/22/2025 11:27:05 AM PST by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Arthur Wildfire! March; Berosus; Bockscar; BraveMan; cardinal4; ...

36 posted on 01/22/2025 12:55:08 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Putin should skip ahead to where he kills himself in the bunker.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ro_dreaming

In fairness, it’s a lot colder where he’s at. But y’all are much less used to it.

I escaped the coast of the GoA just ahead of the storm. Ryan Hall was featuring a jammed up hill near Auburn about 6PM EST last night. I went through there around 11AM EST, nervously looking at snow flurries I thought I would be ahead of. They weren’t sticking yet, thankfully, and I was north of the snow line by about 2 PM.

Gulf of America-effect snow, similar to lake effect snow from the Great Lakes.


37 posted on 01/22/2025 1:33:26 PM PST by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber

btt


38 posted on 01/22/2025 4:07:17 PM PST by GailA (WELCOME BACK JESUS AND PRESIDENT TRUMP.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay

Venus has nearly double the Earth’s solar heat flux, whereas Mars, whose atmosphere is also mostly CO2, has only half the Earth’s solar heat flux.

The big yellow ball has a huge effect on temperature.


39 posted on 01/23/2025 7:36:26 AM PST by kosciusko51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Pres Raygun

There is no such thing as a “saturation limit”. There is only a 100% (technically a 99.999...%) absorption altitude, which for the 12um CO2 band is less than 10 meters above ground or sea, and has been ever since CO2 showed up in the atmosphere. It doesn’t make a lick of difference if it’s absorbed in 5 meters or 15 meters, as the atmosphere is in a state of constant mixing and convection. The other CO2 IR bands go a bit higher before being completely absorbed, but again, mixing and convection render this a trivial difference.

Energy balance = Incoming solar radiation - reflected visible light - wavelengths emitted to space at various altitudes

The energy distributed throughout the atmosphere increases until the outgoing reflected and emitted energy is equal to the incoming solar radiation.

That’s all there is. Water vapor is the largest emitter, and it is limited to lower altitudes due to formation of ice crystals, so the only mechanisms that would drive H2O to higher, cooler altitudes and thus reduce those emissions would be vastly increased cumulonimbus cloud formation, or more jet contrails.

CO2 isn’t limited by crystallization, so it lofts to higher and higher altitudes with concentration, where emitting surface area increases with the square of distance, but emission changes with the fourth power of temperature.

CO2 doesn’t just absorb and radiate heat from IR, it also conducts heat to and from the non-emitting gases surrounding it at a given altitude, so it heats up and expands the upper atmosphere below the stratopause, and cools and deflates the atmosphere above the stratopause.

There is no mechanism for a warming stratosphere to cool the troposphere. There will be added heat content in the atmosphere at all altitudes below the stratopause as the emission height of CO2 increases, until at some point the concentration is such that the thermosphere starts to ramp up emissions and decreases the planets energy balance.


40 posted on 01/23/2025 8:28:12 AM PST by Go_Raiders (An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur? - Axel Oxenstierna)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-43 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson