Climate scientists have determined, and both sides agree, that the warming effect of each molecule of CO2 decreases significantly (logarithmically) as its concentration increases

[CJ1]

Hi folks, I came across this interesting site on CO2 which William Happer chairs:

About - CO2 Coalition

• lots of quality researchers here

25 climate facts to chew on:

Facts Archive - CO2 Coalition

with this as its 2nd inconvenient fact:

The warming effect of each molecule of CO2 declines as its concentration increases - CO2 Coalition

" The warming effect of each molecule of CO2 declines as its concentration increases

Download This Resource

Climate scientists have determined, and both sides agree, that the warming effect of each molecule of CO2 decreases significantly (logarithmically) as its concentration increases. This is one reason why there was no runaway greenhouse warming when the concentration of CO2 was approaching 20 times that of today. This inconvenient fact, important though it is, is kept very well hidden and is rarely mentioned, for it undermines the theory of future catastrophic climate change. Diminishing returns apply.

A more detailed description of the chart for the physics aficionados is provided here by Dr. William Happer:

“The blue curve shows how the thermal radiation flux Z(C) from Earth to space changes with the concentration C of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. This example is for a temperate, summertime latitude. C is measured in parts per million (ppm) of all atmospheric molecules. At the current value of the CO2 concentration, about C = 400 ppm, the flux is Z(400 ppm) = 277 Watts per square meter (W/m^2). If all the CO2 could be removed from Earth’s atmosphere, so C = 0, but there were no changes in the concentrations of the remaining greenhouse gases (water vapor, ozone, methane and nitrous oxide) and no changes in the atmospheric temperature profile, the flux would be larger, Z (0 ppm) = 307 Watts (W/m^2), shown by the blue dot on the vertical axis of the graph. Adding the greenhouse gas CO2 diminishes the flux to space, very rapidly for the first few parts per million of CO2, as one can see from the blue curve. But as more CO2 is added a law of diminishing returns comes into play. The blue curve is almost flat for current concentrations of CO2, so the greenhouse effect is very insensitive to changes in CO2 concentrations. In the jargon of radiative transfer, the greenhouse effect is said to be “saturated.”

The vertical red lines show the decrease of flux to space caused by successive increases of the CO2 concentration C by 50 ppm increments. The increments are so small that they need to be multiplied by a factor of 100 to be clearly visible on the graph. Except for concentrations C that are almost zero, every doubling of CO2 concentrations decreases the radiation to space by 3 W. For example, the first red bar show that increasing C from 50 ppm to 100 ppm decreases the radiation to space by 300/100 W/m^2 = 3 W/m^2.”

Source(s): Wijngaarden-Happer 2020, Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases

Source(s): Happer 2021 Personal Communications

cheers

[admin]

Hey @CJ1

I’ve not looked through the full links, but as to your headline piece and the graph above, I’m not sure what the assumed point is. Three things stand out clearly though:

1 - CO2 traps heat in our atmosphere. And apparently “all scientists agree”
2 - We are currently at ~420 ppm (just around the “C” in “Concentration”). The decrease in heat retention for CO2 molecules from where we are to - say - 600ppm is pretty small. This means that it wont decrease the heat being stored in our atmosphere / molecule very much at all. In plain English, for the region of the graph we are in, we don’t expect big changes in the amount of heat stored per molecule.
3 - in addition, the heat store per molecule needs to be multiplied by the quantity of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere… which is increasing exponentially. The combination of these effects means that more heat is getting trapped every year.

So what the graph above shows is that CO2 heats our atmosphere, and it’s a big and increasing problem.

thanks
a

[PatB]

However, with current CO2 levels at 427ppm (source Kimi AI, 31 web pages), unless the graph above is shown to be incorrect, even a doubling of the CO2 concentration in the air will have almost zero effect on global warming. Or have I misunderstood?

[admin]

Hey Pat

This graph shows how effective each molecule of CO2 is at trapping heat. What you’re seeing is that each CO2 molecule will trap almost the same amount of heat at 427ppm as 600ppm. They don’t get worse at trapping heat, they are just as good (almost). The amount of heat is ultimately a combination of both the amount of heat each molecule traps and the total amount of carbon we are emitting.

The amount of heat we are already trapping is causing runaway effects on our global climate. And we are continuing to pump exponentially more CO2 into the atmosphere, the amount of heat we are trapping will not go down, but it will still trend upwards.

And this is only 1 effect. The CO2 concentration has knock effects for other gasses and climate modifiers, like ocean acidification, methane release and water vapour. These affect the ability of the planet to maintain it’s carbon balance, with potentially devastating effects on the biosphere. As we zoom by 450ppm to say 600ppm, the change per molecule drops from about 50 on that scale to about 40. This drop is not going to be enough to cause a reduction in heat being stored in the atmosphere and then redirected back down to Earth. Although at least we are finally agreeing that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere - that’s good news.

This single chart in isolation is far from the full picture. Plus it is already taken into account by those whose are modelling (and measuring) the effects of CO2 forced climate change.

Here’s a paragraph on this supposed saturation effect, by the Royal Society:

8. Is there a point at which adding more CO2 will not cause further warming?...

and here’s a deeper dive into the question showing that current climate scientists are taking these sorts of things into consideration as they try their best to understand the physics of whats going on:

Why is Global Warming Projected to Accelerate?

It’s also not a great idea to take climate advice from someone who was a chairman of the board of directors of an institute partly funded by Exxon.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_C._Marshall_Institute

[CJ1]

These are the words used in the link above:
“the warming effect of each molecule of CO2 decreases significantly (logarithmically) as its concentration increases.”…

• this is very simple wording which states that if CO2 increases in concentration in the atmosphere the warming effect of each molecule of CO2 ( by decreasing radiation to space ) decreases significantly. Doubling CO2 from today’s concentration of say 400 ppm to 800 ppm only decreases the radiation to space by 3W which is only about 1% of the average infrared radiation to space.

“This inconvenient fact, important though it is, is kept very well hidden and is rarely mentioned, for it undermines the theory of future catastrophic climate change. Diminishing returns apply.”

The theory stated is that the warming effect of each additional molecule decreases as its concentration increases but the warming always increases (even though the amount is negligible) it never decreases the level of warming which existed before the new CO2 is added. The theory states that adding CO2 will never decrease the heat retained from escaping the atmosphere it can only ever decrease additional emissions of radiation from the atmosphere, the temperature will never fall because of an increase in CO2 it can only ever rise (even though that rise is negligible).

The important factor to note is that "The carbon that’s already up in the atmosphere absorbs most of the light it can. CO2 only “soaks up” its favorite wavelengths of light, and it’s close to saturation point. It manages to grab a bit more light from wavelengths that are close to its favorite bands, but it can’t do much more, because there are not many left-over photons at the right wavelengths. The natural greenhouse effect is real, and it does keep us warm, but it’s already reached its peak performance.

Throw more carbon up there and most of the extra gas is just “unemployed” molecules.

This graph shows the additional warming effect of each extra 20ppm of atmospheric CO2. :

https://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/4-carbon-dioxide-is-already-absorbing-almost-all-it-can/

So yes according to this theory more heat is retained and prevented from escaping the atmosphere BUT it is a minute amount and of course the anthropogenic element is even smaller, almost non-existent. This is what we can see in the graph. See :
[Climate Outlook to 2030 - David C. Archibald, 2007]

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1260/0958-305X.18.5.615

“The projected increase of 40 ppm in atmospheric carbon dioxide to 2030 is calculated to contribute a global atmospheric temperature increase of 0.04°C. The anthropogenic contribution to climate change over the forecast period will be insignificant relative to natural cyclic variation.” (this forecast is for the period 2007 to 2030 - 0.04 degrees centigrade increase over 23 years for both natural and anthropogenic CO2 emissions !).

Interesting that you criticise William Happer for the $715,000 donations made by Exxon mainly in the period 1998 to 2008, whereas he was chair from 2006 to 2015. Could it be that Happer managed to extricate his organisation from any connection with Exxon within 2 years of his appointment and should be praised not smeared. You will recall that Greenpeace was caught trying to execute a sting operation on Happer which failed miserably but shows the length climate fanatics will go to smear their opposition. See:
[happer-interview.pdf]

happer-interview.pdf

"My activities to push back against climate extremism are a labor of love, to defend the cherished ideals of science, which have been so corrupted by the climate-change cult. If your client was considering reimbursing me for writing something, I would ask that whatever fee would have come to me would go directly to the CO2 Coalition. This was the arrangement I had with the attorneys
representing the Peabody Coal Company in the regulatory hearings in Minnesota. The fee I would have received was sent instead to the CO2 Coalition, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt educational organization. The CO2 Coalition covers occasional travel expenses for me but pays me no other fees or salary.
Here you see that I was willing to write something gratis, as a “labor of love,” as long as I could get my message (not the “client’s” message) to more people. The CO2 Coalition that I mentioned is a new tax-exempt educational organization that some friends and I have formed to help get out the good
news about the benefits of CO2. I suppose you might call it a “CO2 Anti-Defamation League.” The Coalition leads a hand-to-mouth existence, with an annual operating budget of under $200,000 per year. Even a few thousand dollars from the “client” would help keep the lights on. The last I checked,
Greenpeace has an annual operating budget of about $350,000,000, more than 1,000 times larger than the CO2 Coalition’s.
I have never taken a dime for any of my activities to educate the public that more CO2 will benefit the world. I even make contributions of several thousands of dollars a year from my modest university pension income. "

Happer comments on the comparative funding of so-called skeptics compared to establishment science:
"I would be surprised if the net total funding of climate skeptics exceeded $2 or $3 million dollars a year, and even that may be high. In the last few years, US government spending for climate research has been about $20 billion dollars a year…. more than a thousand times greater than skeptic funding. But even this huge financial advantage is not sufficient to support the pathetically weak scientific case that the world is in danger from more CO2. "

As to your links above addressed to Pat:
The Royal Society does not state, in the abstract you provide, the amount of extra warming expected in the future - the link I have given above for the total years 2007 to 2030 shows Sage journal’s expectation to be 0.04 degrees centigrade - with anthropogenic elements largely irrelevant !

The Medium article rests its case on this argument:
“natural systems are expected to saturate so that their net uptake of carbon begins to weaken.”

• the words “are expected to saturate” do not come with detailed analysis - it looks like an expression of belief!

So my point and that of Happer et al is that there is clear scientific evidence that optical saturation of CO2 increases with an increase in concentration resulting in a smaller and smaller impact on global temperatures.

The other issues re clouds and humidity are dealt with here:
[The one flaw that wipes out the crisis « JoNova]https://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/the-one-flaw-that-wipes-out-the-crisis/

Finally, this was an interesting paper by both Happer and Lindzen stating :
"SCIENCE DEMONSTRATES THERE IS NO CLIMATE RELATED RISK
CAUSED BY FOSSIL FUELS AND CO2, "

s71022-20132171-302668.pdf
https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-10-22/s71022-20132171-302668.pdf

cheers

[PatB]

Thanks @CJ1 for saving me. You replied in much greater detail than I ever could.

There are a few things I will add for @admin

First, using phrases like “runaway effects” is consistent with all the net zero fanatics and is completely unrealistic except when trying to increase the fear. You may recall some time ago I quoted the scare tactics of London tube stations flooding and some of the East Anglian coast being under water. Fear mongering doesn’t make the case more believable.

Second, I looked again at the graph above and carefully read the explanation of it by the CO2 Coalition. I believe I was right. From where we are in terms of CO2, even significant increases in CO2 will have almost no effect on global warming or cooling.

Finally, the sources you quote are all mainstream and hence come with a need to comply with the GIC’s agenda. After Convid and the scandemic or plandemic, any ‘expert’ who has no axe to grind would be the only sources I can even consider as believable.

[admin]

Hi CJ

I think I’ve already posted the response to your saturation theory. In a few words we can recap it like this.

If the effect of each molecule decreases logarithmically but the amount of CO2 increases exponentially the net effect is that the amount of heat trapped still goes up. This is basically what the Royal Society is saying in it’s short paragraph on this.

@CJ1

Throw more carbon up there and most of the extra gas is just “unemployed” molecules

No. I’m afraid whoever wrote this is not telling the truth. This is simply wrong.

We know from paleo-climate modeling (for example) that there is a strong relationship between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and temperatures on the earth. There are times when the CO2 was much higher than now, and the temperatures were higher than now. The temperature didn’t stop getting higher because after some point the CO2 is saturated. The temperature still climbed higher well past the point these folks are trying to say represents saturation.

That simple fact alone is enough to show that saturation theory with regard to CO2 is just incorrect.

I’m afraid you’ve been fooled again by people who either don’t understand the science or who are actively trying to deceive.

Cheers

[admin]

Hi Pat

@PatB

First, using phrases like “runaway effects” is consistent with all the net zero fanatics and is completely unrealistic except

I wish that were true, but it’s not. Melting polar ice is a runaway effect. Melting permafrost is a runaway effect. Damaging carbon sinks is a runaway effect.

These are positive feedback loops in nature that we are studying, and which have nothing to do with net zero or anything like that.

And sadly they are all really happening.

@PatB

Second, I looked again at the graph above and carefully read the explanation of it by the CO2 Coalition. I believe I was right

You may believe that, but I encourage you to look into a bit more. As I pointed about to CNJ logarithmic reduction multiplied by exponential increase gets cancelled out. The temperature keeps rising (as the Royal Society said). We know what the climate looks like with high CO2. We can see it from our study of deep history. The world didn’t stop warming when CO2 goes past a certain level - it just keeps getting. hotter. That’s exactly what will happen again. Now is no different than the Jurassic… The physics hasn’t changed. It’s still the same effects.

As I said in a previous post, science in service to a political ideology (Exxon’s in this case) is BS. Sadly that’s what this saturation argument is - BS.

@PatB

Finally, the sources you quote are all mainstream and hence come with a need to comply with the GIC’s agenda

I find this ironic given that all of CJs sources are tobacco or fossil fuel companies. I’m sticking with the Royal Society, and people who are dedicating their lives to try to understand what’s going on in a transparent way.

[CJ1]

@admin

science in service to a political ideology (Exxon’s in this case) is BS

Exxon support ended in 2008 and only amounted to 1000th of the funding that the US government poured into the “official stance on global warming” - and the Exxon relationship was ended by Happer’s chairmanship 2 years after he was appointed - ridiculous accusation - just like the Greenpeace “sting” operation against Happer was shown to be ridiculous.

Perhaps we should talk about the official stance as supported and funded by the UK Monarch, GreenPeace, WWF, WEF and other multi million/billion institutions and governments whose objectives include eugenics! Why would we trust IPCC unelected bureacrats to tell us what the science is when they support fraudulent events like Climategate!

The Royal Society is so transparent it failed to tell us that CO2 and particularly man-made CO2 will only increase global temperatures ad infinitum at minute levels- entirely based on the accepted science (and accepted by the Royal Society in your link :
“As the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 increase, the addition of extra CO2 becomes progressively less effective at trapping Earth’s energy…”) that increases in CO2 warming reduces as its concentration increases.

“logarithmic reduction multiplied by exponential increase gets cancelled out” if there are insufficient photons of the right wavelength for all new CO2 emissions to capture then more CO2 will mostly be a bunch of inactive molecules so far as global temperatures are concerned, although will be much appreciated by plants and trees - painting a black box with more black paint only has a minute blackening effect !

Are there really people out there who believe its a good thing to reduce our CO2 emissions to net zero? Surely everyone understands that CO2 at levels below 150ppm will kill off all life on earth!

cheers

PS if we want to test correlation with causation then look at the Mediaeval Warm period and the Maunder Minimum - each had big temperature changes at a time when man-made CO2 emissions were minute compared to Today. Why do you think Climate Change IPCC supporters and contributors sought to hide these periods through Climategate?

[PatB]

@admin . Hi Aly. We agree on many things. On this subject, I suggest we agree to disagree?

[admin]

Hi CJ

@CJ1

man-made CO2 will only increase global temperatures ad infinitum at minute levels

Sadly this claim is false. The idea that CO2 in lab conditions can show a logarithmic tail off is accepted, but the conclusion that this will lead to only trace amounts of extra warming is categorically false. Repeating false claims doesn’t make them true.

This claim is false for SO MANY reasons. Let’s list them:
Section 1 - simple maths:
1 - as I pointed out, mathematically, logarithmic tail off x exponential increase means that warming can increase substantially. And indeed it seems to be the case.

Section 2 - actual physics:
2 - Extra CO2 in the atmosphere creates a thicker layer of warming gas around the planet, meaning that even with the behaviour you describe, warming increases substantially. See this paper for proof
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258816506_The_greenhouse_effect_and_carbon_dioxide

3 - as the main frequency of the CO2 molecule gets saturated as per your picture above, side frequencies become available for further IR absorption. These side frequencies are nowhere near saturated and in fact, Adding CO2 will never stop the temperature of the earth increasing. That is described in the above paper, but summarised nicely here

It’s worth reading the whole thing - it’s not that technical PDF

You can read many comments about the actual physics of both these processes in the “Scientists comments” section in this article

How CO2 warms Earth through the greenhouse effect and why CO2 is not...

4 - Still on the physics, there are multiple ways that CO2 cause heating. One is by direct radiation of photons back down to earth, and another is by collisions with other molecules in the atmosphere, thereby warming the planet. Both of these mean that the CO2 molecule is then ready to absorb new radiation from the sun, meaning that they never, ever actually become saturated. The pass the energy down to the earth and then accept more from the sun. The saturation argument is plain wrong in real-world conditions with regard to limiting heating.

Here’s a nice summary (with links) to these issues:

Is the CO2 effect saturated?

So. The maths is wrong and the physics is also wrong. But wait, there’s more reasons that this is simply wrong.

Section 3 - physical evidence.

5 - Palaeo climate records show that CO2 has been much higher in the past with related higher temperatures. Calling this “correlation” is ignorance of the science. There is a vast literature showing how CO2 has affected climate in the oast. You should read a bit more deeply.

6 - over the last century, CO2 has been rising exponentially

Trends in CO2 - NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory

Have we observed a tail off in the warming as the logarithmic effect of CO2 would suggest?

Of course not. Warming is actually speeding up
https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889

7 - finally, we can actually measure the radiation coming off the earth using satellites. Do they show a tail off off of radiation because CO2 is saturated?

Of course not. Because that conjecture (let me say it again) is false. Here is the evidence:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023GL103947

The findings from our most recent and most accurate measurements match the conclusions of the IPCC. Shocker.

So. This claim is false on the maths, on the physics and on all the available physical evidence.

But that’s not all. There’s a final point that’s worth also including in this list.

In the very paper that started this thread by Wijngaarden and Happer, they find the same climate sensitivity that the IPCC themselves find

So even the authors of this actual paper realise that the amount of warming due to increasing CO2 is what the IPCC is saying.

Ok. That’s enough on this subject, I think. I’m not going to reply further to this clearly debunked claim. It’s not worth it. All the links you need to get to the truth of the matter are in this post.

However, as a courtesy to the board, i would request that we not keep repeating clearly false claims. It’s not helpful for the discussion of this or any other important topic

Cheers
Aly

[Evvy_dense]

Thanks guys, This is a useful discussion for me, laying out the lines of both sides and the areas of agreement and disagreement.

Hi Aly you say

“However, as a courtesy to the board, i would request that we not keep repeating clearly false claims. It’s not helpful for the discussion of this or any other important topic”

Where did that come from! How does anyone know that what they believe is false, if not by discussing it.

Cheers
Evvy

[CJ1]

Perhaps I should have included this comprehensive presentation by William Happer :

Will Happer IPA Speech Brisbane – Climate Physics in Understandable Bites

[1 year ago]

Will Happer IPA Speech Brisbane – Climate Physics in Understandable Bites

.

Essay by Eric Worrall

Following a rousing introduction by Dr. Peter Ridd, Dr Will (Don’t call me a climate scientist) Happer presented a dazzling speech, in which he explained in simple terms why CO2 claims don’t make sense.

Will Happer spoke about his work creating reference stars – he pioneered the concept. Light from stars crosses the universe to finally land in our telescopes, only to be mangled by the last few miles of its journey through our atmosphere. Will’s brilliant idea was to use lasers to create a reference light source at the top of our atmosphere, which can be used to untangle the damage the atmosphere does to the incoming light signal.

Dr. Will Happer is a guy who understands atmospheric physics so well, he was able to confidently predict, just from theory, that it would be possible to artificially create an entirely new atmospheric state, which would help Astronomers use adaptive optics to correct defects in their photos.

To appreciate Will Happer’s genius, it is important to note that the reference star is not the laser beam itself, Happer is not just randomly shining a laser into the sky. The laser causes a small patch of a layer of the atmosphere to glow, just like a bright star. Will Happer figured out how to make that happen, by delivering the right laser frequency and intensity to trigger a predictable glow.

I think from this you can reasonably conclude that Happer is someone who seriously understands the atmosphere and radiation physics at a level few others can approach – key concepts for analysing the Greenhouse Effect.

One of Happer’s most powerful slides was this one, which shows the insignificant impact of doubling CO2 on the level of outgoing radiation.

Take your time looking at the image above, because it took me a few seconds to get it the first time I saw this type of diagram. What the slide is showing is how atmospheric gasses affect thermal radiation escaping the Earth. The blue line is what radiation would be emitted by the Earth at its current temperature if Earth had no atmosphere. The Jagged line underneath the blue line shows the effect of atmospheric gasses partially blocking outgoing radiation at specific frequencies – the greenhouse effect. The reference to the area in the text, is because the area under the curves shows the total amount of energy escaping into space.

If you look carefully, you’ll see two lines sitting almost on top of each other, a dark brown line and a red line. You can’t really see most of the red line, because the red and dark brown lines are intermingled, they almost sit on top of each other. The brown line is how much radiation is trapped by current CO2 levels (around 400ppm). The almost identical red line is how much radiation would be trapped if CO2 levels were raised to 800ppm.

So what is the impact of raising CO2 to 800ppm, over today’s value of approx. 400ppm?

The impact of doubling CO2 from 400ppm to 800ppm, according to basic physics, is 0.71C of warming.

How can anyone possibly still think the CO2 greenhouse effect is a problem, after seeing this diagram and calculation?

The reality is almost all the radiation which CO2 can trap, is already being trapped. Adding more CO2 has almost no impact on outgoing atmospheric radiation.

So how do alarmist climate scientists turn this trivial nothing into a global climate panic? How do they turn 0.7C of warming into 3C, 4C, 12C, whatever the latest panic figure is?

According to Dr. Will Happer, they achieve this by adding unphysical, hypothetical positive feedbacks, which amplify the almost non-existent impact of adding additional CO2 to the atmosphere. But there is no proof significant positive feedbacks which amplify the minuscule CO2 effect actually exist.

The rest of Dr. Will Happer’s presentation was just as powerful.

If only we could photocopy this guy, and get him into all the classrooms of the world, the climate panic would disappear overnight. Which is probably why the left worked so hard to cancel him, when Dr. Happer was given a climate science oversight position under President Trump, and served a year on the America First team.

We’d all love to know what Dr. Happer could have achieved, had he received a little extra time. Let’s hope Dr. Will Happer finds a letter from the White House in his mailbox in early 2024.

A huge thankyou to the Institute of Public Affairs for making the Will Happer speeches happen. And a big shoutout to Raj and Vijay, who over a few beers before the event entertained me with some interesting insights into the murky political games being played in the Aussie state of Victoria and elsewhere, details of which have somehow slipped beneath the radar of Australia’s mainstream media.

Correction (EW): h/t MarkW – 400ppm to 800ppm, not 400C to 800C!

Update (EW): h/t GC – There is no proof significant positive feedbacks which amplify the minuscule CO2 effect actually exist. But Will Happer went further than this, he spent a bit of time discussing why there is significant evidence such feedbacks don’t exist – namely the observed stability of the global climate over geological timescales. Large feedbacks are not compatible with stability.

Until real evidence (unbiased by the massive establishment funding of billions of $) is produced that shows this leading physicist is wrong I’m going to stick with
William Happer, Richard Lindzen, Herman Harde and Dennis Rancourt.

We all know that climate alarmism propaganda is funded by Governments, major international corporations in a financial industry that is worth trillions of $ to the establishment - the people I quote take nothing but travelling expenses for their work to spread the real truth.

Finally given the move by Trump to exit the Paris Agreement and China’s continuing construction of coal powered stations, what on earth makes anyone think that countries with tiny industrial bases like the UK will make any difference to overall CO2 emissions - this is just a joke surely. No evidence of measurable anthropogenic global warming by CO2 and yet measures are introduced to put trillions into the financial industry whilst denying those same trillions to the masses for no effect whatsoever!

After all we have witnessed over the last few decades I am just totally amazed that there are people out there who still believe what the establishment tells them, using politicised science, scientists and media to (in many cases ) fraudulently construct fear based arguments. The latest disclosures that USAID and front organisations have paid the media $billions to print establishment stories must surely make people rethink the whole AGW establishment project!

cheers

[PatB]

@CJ1

Until real evidence (unbiased by the massive establishment funding of billions of $) is produced that shows this leading physicist is wrong I’m going to stick with William Happer, Richard Lindzen, Herman Harde and Dennis Rancourt.

That was, is, and will be my position.

[CJ1]

@admin

In the very paper that started this thread by Wijngaarden and Happer, they find the same climate sensitivity that the IPCC themselves find

And yet 2 paragraphs earlier in that paper, they say this:

"Fig. 9 as well as Tables 2 and 4 show that at current concentrations, the forcings from all greenhouse gases are saturated. The saturations of the abundant greenhouse gases H2O and CO2 are so extreme that the per-molecule forcing is attenuated by four orders of magnitude with respect to the optically thin values. "

cheers

[PatB]

Interesting new post here. It is about a NASA finding that January was actually cooler than 2024. Obviously such a small period means little, but it just serves to highlight how the climate fear porn narrative works.

NASA climate fact check

[CJ1]

@admin

Have we observed a tail off in the warming as the logarithmic effect of CO2 would suggest?

Of course not. Warming is actually speeding up

Compare the latest NASA satellite figures:
see Jan. 2025 Climate Fact Check: NASA Data Shreds ‘Hottest January Ever’ Claim | Principia Scientific Intl.

Jan. 2025 Climate Fact Check: NASA Data Shreds ‘Hottest January Ever’ Claim

Written by Steve Milloy on February 18, 2025. Posted in Current News

This summary serves as a fact check on the most egregious false claim about climate change made in the media in January 2025. [emphasis, links added]

Counter-Narrative Reality vs. Counter-Reality Narrative

It was a busy January keeping track of President Trump’s first steps toward dismantling the federal government’s Climate Leviathan. It was also a very cold January and that’s what this edition of Climate Fact Check will cover.

Per the relatively unmanipulated NASA satellite data, January 2025 is estimated to have witnessed a substantial drop of 0.34°C from last January concerning the made-up metric of “average global temperature.”

This is despite that atmospheric carbon dioxide increased from about 422 parts per million (ppm) in January 2024 to 426 parts per million in January 2025.

That 4 ppm increase in carbon dioxide is worth about 78 billion tons of emissions. Therefore, 78 billion more tons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulted in a January that was 0.34°C cooler than the previous January.

February is typically the coldest average month in the Northern Hemisphere. January 2025 was cooler than February 2016 and about the same as January 2016 and February 1998, hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 and a decade of “warming,” ago.

Faced with the counter-narrative reality of the NASA satellite data, the desperate climate hoax machine produced a counter-reality narrative, claiming that January was the hottest ever as in this Associated Press report.

The Associated Press story is based on a claim from the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service, which estimated that January 2025 was slightly warmer than January 2024.

Who do you believe? Keeping in mind that there is no such physical place with “average global temperature” and that the “metric” is just a guesstimate invented for the climate hoax, the NASA satellite data is likely more credible.

The NASA satellite data is an estimate based on one data type – satellite measurements of atmospheric brightness.

In contrast, the Copernicus estimates are a black box mélange of surface temperature data going back to 1940 and European satellite data.

That surface temperature data can be wildly inaccurate and biased upward due to the urban heat island effect compromising temperature station readings as it is in the US.

How the surface data gets merged with the satellite data is also a troubling mystery. We’re going with the NASA satellite data’s counter-narrative to better gauge reality."

cheers

[admin]

So in answer to my straightforward question - have we observed a logarithmic tail off of global warming - the answer is a categorical “NO”.

I thought that would be the answer.

Now that we have established the answer to one of my points above, how about all the other points I raised?

[admin]

Yes I noticed. So despite the fake saturation argument, the authors still conclude that the IPCC is correct in the amount of warming that can be expected and that the climate models we are using are right.

Interesting paradox isn’t it? What it suggests to me is that these authors are trying hard to obscure the coming problem rather than shed light. Expected behaviour for fossil fuel shills

[admin]

Hi ED

@Evvy_dense

Where did that come from! How does anyone know that what they believe is false, if not by discussing it.

That was a little experiment on my part. It is standard tactic of debate in this area for the deniers to avoid all the arguments that show their latest pet theory is bogus, and instead, just say it again. But louder. No discussion - just repetition of clear bullshit.

Call me prescient, but that’s exactly what CJ has done in this very thread. Simply reposting the same argument, with no changes, and without addressing any of the many ways that it has been shown to be false.

Mathematical, physical, observed data - every single measure shows that the “saturation” argument is propagandistic bullshit, and yet here we have it reposted directly below all the contrary evidence as though it never happened.

Anyway. It’s not as if this is a serious subject, right? I mean the catastrophic collapse of ecosystems and human civilisation isn’t that important is it?

Let’s hear more from the exxon shills and the tobacco companies. I’m sure they have our true interests at heart.

Forgive my impatience, but I get tired of this kind of nonsense.