The assertion that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” has been the centerpiece of public policy on climate for the developed world in recent years.
Demonizing CO2 has impacted virtually every aspect of modern Western civilization. It condemns the burning of fossil fuels for electricity, the use of combustion engines for transportation, and the employment of carbon fuels for virtually everything supporting modern civilization – even down to the kind of washing machines and kitchen stoves that are deemed acceptable. It forms the basis for the most grotesque of all the alarmist shibboleths – the “social cost of carbon”.
The theory that CO2 is malevolent was enshrined in the so-called “Endangerment Finding” issued by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2009, which held that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” that “threatens public health and safety”.
CO2 radicalism rests on one main assumption – that increases in atmospheric CO2 will cause a linear and dangerous increase in global temperature. The belief that more CO2 emitted equals significantly more heat and higher temperature is a cornerstone of the ruling scientific paradigm.
But what if this assumption – the most ubiquitous of all modern conventional wisdoms – turns out to be mistaken?
This conventional wisdom has been questioned over the last decade by impeccably credentialed scientists who have undertaken actual science – not political science – to contradict this primary assumption underlying the AGW belief system.
Case in point is the peer-reviewed analysis completed in June, 2020 by eminent physicists William Happer and William van Wijngaarden. Mr. Happer is Professor Emeritus at Princeton University and van Wijngaarden is a professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at York University in Toronto, Both men are accomplished and renowned physicists with over 500 published papers to their credit. Mr. Happer is best known as the brilliant scientist whose insight into the physics of the atmosphere empowered the success of the Strategic Defense Initiative.
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 significanty 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.
This mathematically rigorous finding was validated through a controlled laboratory experiment conducted by a team of seven Viennese researchers in 2024. They measured the back infrared radiation of CO2 in a test chamber with increasing CO2 concentrations emulating realistic atmospheric conditions. They concluded that doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels from 400 to 800 ppm “shows no measurable increase in infrared radiation absorption, and thus can lead to just 0.5C warming increase at most”.
This conclusion illustrates the reason why climate alarmists have never been able to explain the reason why the Earth has never experienced runaway warming in the past when CO2 levels were 5-10 times more concentrated than today, nor why the UN climate models based on linear warming theory have been proven to be so terribly wrong.
If the CO2 concentration in the Earth’s atmosphere is well beyond the level where increases are causing additional radiation to be absorbed, then all the government policies intended to reduce or eliminate CO2 emissions in order to stop climate change are just as effective as King Canute’s efforts to control the tides.
In short, these saturation analyses thoroughly refute the conventional wisdom that increasing levels of CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming.
And they are not alone.
For example, in 2020 German chemist Michael Schnell published his study “Experimental Verification of the CO2 Greenhouse Effect” which also confirmed that the saturation effect of CO2 results in minimal warming. In addition, Franz-Karl Reinhardt, a professor with the leading Swiss research facility EPF, undertook another study in 2017 which demonstrated that a doubling of the current level of atmospheric CO2 from 400ppm to 800ppm would produce only be one quarter of 1 degree Celsius – too small to even be accurately measured.
The impact of all these recent studies – and there are many more than just the ones mentioned above – is clear: the conventional wisdom regarding CO2 warming is unraveling. The demonization of CO2 – one of the greatest popular delusions in modern human history – may finally be coming to an end.
It may well not be not true that an increase in CO2 causes a linear and catastrophic increase in atmospheric temperature.
The implication of CO2 saturation is a game changer, and should provide the Trump Administration with a substantial line of questioning of EPA’s Endangerment Finding.
I believe the whole concept of saturation is in fact built into the standard ‘models’ in the sense that they use a logarithmic response, but the devil in the detail is the feedback.
But let’s face it, if we double to 800ppm, and its still only a 1.5°C rise then the whole narrative somewhat falls apart anyway. Its doubtful there is enough fossil fuel to get us there anyway.
But the narrative includes mysterious ‘positive feedback’ and ‘tipping points’ which actually take the models out of CO2 impact and into the realms of ‘temperatures will rise even higher because they rise higher’
You cant argue with stupid.
I saw this article and thought: “who will have comment #1?”
I was right, the ruler monkeys can’t allow this heresy.
I find it interesting that so many people can have such a different understanding of the various aspects of the climate system.
Perhaps we could agree to parts in smaller bits, and disagreements could be explained more easily if the disagreements were smaller and more contained.
Do we agree or disagree, with short explanations please:
a) The warmed land surface emits IR upwards?
b) If there were no IR active gases or vapour, the earths surface would cool dramatically.
c) If we removed all water vapour the earths surface would warm?
d) If we removed CO2, CH4 etc but kept water vapour, the earths surface would warm?
e) If the IR response of water vapour greatly overlaps that of CO2 and is more extensive, is CO2 effectively irrelevant?
What do you think?
c) is questionable
Water vapor is a GHG, so directly it causes warming.
At temperatures found on the earth, water vapor is also a condensing gas that has the impact of enhancing convection, and so causes cooling.
Finally water vapor, being a condensing gas causes clouds and clouds cause both warming and cooling, depending on conditions.
Which predominates is a matter of great debate. in my opinion, cooling predominates.
d) Removing the non-condensing GHGs would cause cooling.
e) The problem here is that while CO2 is a well mixed gas, water vapor is not.
In those places where there is a lot of water vapor in the air, CO2 is irrelevant.
In those places where the air is dry (deserts, poles, etc) then the warming effect of a GHG dominates.
d) Removing the non-condensing GHGs would cause cooling.
which means you believe CO2 et al cause more warming than water vapour?
Here’s a question. Lets say we saved “the climate”, will CO2 taxes disappear again?
It’s the world biggest scam run by governments.
Getting back to the original claim, as much as i
Agonizing over CO2 is just the ticket to encourage the believers in CO2 as the thermostat of climate. So, let’s rank the known or putative forcings which drive climate.
1. The Sun has warmed over 30% over the past 4 billion years, yet the temperature of the Earth has only fluctuated irregularly between ~5C to ~25C, averaging very near our present global 15C. The Earth’s temperature in radiative equilibrium with the solar input should have continuously risen from -15C, during that time period, to reach today’s 15C. It did not do that and life has persisted throughout nearly 4 billion years when it should have been frozen solid.
2. Galactic plane passage is hypothesized to reduce cosmic ray fluxes and cloudiness, correspondingly, on time scales of about 200 million years, resulting in warm and cold cycles. Each 1% change in cloudiness results in about 1C warming or cooling.
3. Tectonics displaces continents all around the Earth, reforming them, raising and lowering land masses along with the atmosphere, putatively freezing the planet from pole to pole at least once. Tectonics’ dramatic effects did not wipe out life.
4. Vast lava floods are proposed as being responsible for major extinctions, particularly the Permian and K-T extinctions, also drawing down CO2 due to exposure of fresh silicate rocks, resulting in an ice house effect.
5. Milankovic Cycles are orbital forcings that can alter effective solar insolation on time scales between 20 and 100 thousand years, and by as much as 110 w/m2. These cycles are hypothesized to be responsible for repeated glaciations over, particularly, the past 5 million years with global temperature changes as large as 6-8C, so ball-park, requiring 16 W/m2 per degree of warming.
6. Cutting to the bottom of the list, CO2 is the weakest greenhouse gas and increases since 1800 are COMPUTED to have increased the forcing due to CO2 by 1.6 W/m2 by including the knock-on effects of putative CO2 induced warming on water vapor pressure to achieve the effect. Miraculously, CO2 would be 10X as effective as other climate forcings in W/m2 in order to effect a 1C warming.
7. Finally, the Earth has cooled by 5-6C from various proxy measurements in the past 60 million years’ long term decline into glaciation. A substantial rise in CO2 might BE a miracle, in fact, if it could slow or stop the global temperature decline.
8. There is always HOPE!
This “saturation effect” talking point just won’t die. The problem with skeptics bringing it up is that CLIMATE MODELS ALREADY INCLUDE IT. Happer’s paper got the same amount of radiative forcing for 2XCO2 as the climate models use. Look it up! Read their paper! If the models are wrong, it’s NOT because of radiative forcing, which is what the saturation effect applies to. Instead, it’s the feedbacks. And if you think we are close to “saturation”, look at Venus, with 200,000x as much CO2 as Earth, and surface temperatures hot enough to melt lead. (Now, cue the “pressure determines temperature crowd” in 3… 2… 1…)
Harold the Organic Chemist Says:
CO2 Does Not Cause Warming of Air.
There Are No “Feedbacks”
Shown in the chart (See below) are plots of temperatures at the Furnace Creek weather station in Death Valley from 1922 to 2001. In 1922, the concentration of CO2 in the air
was 303 ppmv (0.595 g of CO2 per cu. m.), and by 2001, it has increased to 371 ppmv
(0.729 g of CO2 per cu. m.), but there was no corresponding increase in the air temperature at this remote arid desert. The reason there was no increase in temperature
of the air is quite simple: There is too little CO2 in the air which has mass of 1.20 kg at
70 deg F. Thus, CO2 can not initiate the so-called “positive water feedback” as proposed by the IPCC and coterie of collaborating scientists.
Since 71% of the earth ‘s surface is covered by H2O, it does not any help from CO2. More importantly, the wind is a major force that transports water from surface of the oceans and fresh waters into the air and on to the land as vapor and clouds.
The above empirical data show that the claim by the IPCC that CO2 is a cause of global warming and the control knob for climate change is incorrect.
NB: The chart was obtained from the late John Daly’s website:
“Still Waiting For Greenhouse” available at http://www.John-Daly.com. From the home page scroll down and click on “Station Temperature Data”. On the World Map”, click on “NA”, scroll down and click on “Pacific”. Finally, scroll down and click on “Death Valley. There is a discussion about problems of temperature measurements at the Furnace Creek and
Badwater weather stations.
CO2 as a pollutant was a political decision to gain control of all human activity. No amount of math, physics or thermodynamics will change that. Only reality can change the politics.
I would rather we spent our time finding out what causes glaciation. That is a more interesting question.
As an amateur interested in climate, this issue with the declining impact of CO2 has interested me for years. The Guy Calendar paper in 1938 predicts a logarithmic decrease in warming of “global temperature” with CO2 concentration. The effect of CO2 he shows is powerful up to about 300 PPM and then flattens out. His prediction curve in his paper (using the method of Arrhenius) shows about 0.5C increase from 400 PPM to 600 PPM CO2 after an 8C increase from 0 to 400 PPM.
The concept of sensitivity (DeltaT versus CO2 doubling) in modern climate modeling also includes this concept of logarithmic decline in the rate of increase with CO2 (Temp varies linearly with log2 of CO2). So, whether you believe in saturation or not, it does appear that the impact of future CO2 emissions will be much lower than past emissions.
It also seems intuitive that as CO2 absorption of Infrared radiation increases, the available radiation left to absorb at the right absorption frequencies is reduced. This means the change in greenhouse warming effect of CO2 will decrease as CO2 increases, which is exactly what the models seem to imply.
Since measuring, or even defining “global temperature” is difficult, I don’t doubt that measurements are conflicting on this issue. It does impress me that Calendar’s original work holds up so well compared to modern modeling. I have no idea whether the decreasing impact of CO2 is important for future climate but is does suggest that most of the warming from CO2 is already “baked in”.
Scroll up and read my comment to Roy Spencer. CO2 does not cause warming of air.
Then go to John Daly’s website and and check out the many chart of temperature from the many weather stations. In particular check the charts for Oz.
Climate Cultists like to say that human-caused atmospheric CO2 is like adding a blanket to keep warmth in. It’s more like adding a fourth blanket to three that have been there since pre-industrial times. That’s the saturation effect.
This comment page reminds me a lot of the one on the now defunct “Uncommon decent” web site.
There you had a lot of “scientist’s” who invested their entire careers in the notion that one species of animal evolved into another. Now, with RNA, DNA science basically blowing their theory out of the water, they cannot/will not admit that their entire life’s work has been built on an erroneous theory.
Likewise, in the Global warming/Climate change debate, obedience to the narrative(carbon dioxide is the enemy)is demanded and anyone who dares to stray is a heretic
I think that it is instructive to know that the carbon atom is the basic building block of all carbon based life forms, and the powers that be want a carbon tax.
Always follow the money:).
When considering saturation effects, CO2, or any other “greenhouse” gas should not be considered in isolation. While effects of CO2 can be demonstrated negligeable even in the absence of other absorbing gases, in their presence is another order of magnitude smaller.