Tom Segalstad wrote this paper pointing out major holes in the CO2 Warming belief. You can scroll through the text in the embedded document above, or download the pdf by clicking on the Download button. Below is my excerpted synopsis with my bolds and added images.
1. Introduction
It has recently been created a belief among people that an apparent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is caused by anthropogenic burning of fossil carbon in petroleum, coal, and natural gas. The extra atmospheric CO has been claimed tocause global climatic change with a significant atmospheric temperature rise, of 1.5 to 4.5°C in the next decennium (Houghton et al., 1990). This postulate is here discussed and rejected on energetic and geochemical grounds.
2. Heat energy and temperatures
Our relatively high global atmospheric temperature near the surface of the Earth, with an average of 14 to 15°C, is caused by heat-absorbing gases in the atmosphere, mainly H2O vapor. Without the Earth’s atmosphere the surface temperature would be approximately -18°C.
All human activities have been claimed to contribute about 1.3% of this (approx. 2 W/m2 ), while a hypothetic doubling of the atmospheric CO concentration would contribute about 2.6% (approx. 4 W/m2 ) to the present “Greenhouse Effect”. 150 years-long time series of temperature measurements are covering too short time spans to be useful for climate prediction, in order to be used as “evidence” for anthropogenic heating (or cooling). The global mean temperature has risen and fallen several times over the last 400 years, with no evidence of anthropogenic causes, although strong explosive volcanic eruptions have caused periodically colder climates.
It should also be noted that clouds can reflect up to approx. 50 W/m2 and can absorb up to approx. 30 W/m2 of the solar radiation, making the Earth’s average “Greenhouse Effect” vary naturally within approx. 96 and 176 W/m2 . Hence the anticipated anthropogenic atmospheric CO heat absorption is much smaller than the natural variation of the Earth’s “Greenhouse Effect”.
The oceans act as a huge heat energy buffer; the global climate is primarily governed by the enormous amount of heat stored in the oceans (total mass approx. 1.4 x 10^24 g), rather than the minute amount of heat withheld in the heat-absorbing part of the atmosphere (total mass approx. 1.4 x 10^18 g), a mass difference of one million times. Most of the atmospheric heat absorption occurs in water vapor (total mass approx. 1.3 x 10^19 g), which is equivalent to a uniform layer of only 2.5 cm of liquid water covering the globe, with a residence time of about 9 days.
The total internal energy of the whole ocean is more than 1.6 x 10^27 Joules, about 2000 times larger than the total internal energy 9.4 x 10^23 Joules of the whole atmosphere. Furthermore the cryosphere (ice sheets, sea ice, permafrost, and glaciers; total mass of the continental ice is approx. 3.3 x 10^22 g) plays a central role in the Earth’sclimate as an effective heat sink for the atmosphere and oceans. With a large latent heat of melting on the order of 9.3 x 10^24 Joules, that hypothetic energy is equivalent tocooling the entire oceans by about 2°C (5.8 x 10^24 J/°C). For comparison, the energy needed to warm the entire atmosphere by 1°C is only 5.1 x 10^21 Joules.
Hence it will be impossible to melt the Earth’s ice caps and thereby increase the sea level just by increasing the heat energy of the atmosphere through a few percent by added heat absorption of anthropogenic CO2 in the lower atmosphere.
3. CO2 measurements in atmosphere and ice cores
Houghton et al. (1990) claim in their section 1.2.5 three evidences that the contemporary atmospheric CO2 increase is anthropogenic: First, CO2 measurements from ice cores show a 21% rise from 280 to 353 ppmv (parts per million by volume) since pre-industrial times; second, the atmospheric CO2 increase closely parallels (sic!) the accumulated emission trends from fossil fuel combustion and from land use changes, although the annual increase has been smaller each year than the fossil CO2 input [some 50% deviation]; third, the isotopic trends of C13 and C14 agree qualitatively (sic!) with those expected due to the CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and the biosphere.
Figure 1. Concentration of CO2 in air bubbles from the pre-industrial ice from Siple, Antarctica (open squares), and in the 1958-1986 atmosphere at Mauna Loa, Hawaii (solid line): (A) original Siple data without assuming an 83 year younger age of air than the age of the enclosing ice, and (B) the same data after arbitrary “correction” of age of air (Neftel et al., 1985; Friedli et al., 1986; and IPCC 1990).
Jaworowski et al. (1992 a) have presented a number of criticisms regarding the methodology of atmospheric CO2 measurements, including spectroscopic instrumental peak overlap errors (from N2O, CH4 , and CFCs in the air). They also pointed out that the CO2 measurements at current CO2 observatories use a procedure involving a subjective editing (Keeling et al., 1976) of measured data, only representative of a few tenths of percent of the total data. There are also fundamental problems connected with the use of stable carbon isotopes ( C13/ C14) in tree rings for model calculations of earlier atmospheres’ CO2 concentration, a method which now seems to have been abandoned.. The third evidence, based on carbon isotopes, will be discussed below in Section 5.
4. Chemical laws for distribution of CO2 in nature
Statistically it has been found that the atmospheric CO2 concentration rises after temperature rises (Kuo et al., 1990), and it has been suggested that the reason is that cold water dissolves more CO2 (e.g. Segalstad, 1990). Hence, if the water temperature increases, the water cannot keep as much CO2 in solution, resulting in CO2 degassing from the water to the atmosphere. According to Takahashi (1961) heating of sea water by 1°C will increase the partial pressure of atmospheric CO by 12.5 ppmv during upwelling of deep water. For example 12°C warming of the Benguela Current should increase the atmospheric CO2 concentration by 150 ppmv.
From a geochemical consideration of sedimentary rocks deposited throughout the Earth’s history, and the chemical composition of the ocean and atmosphere, Holland (1984) showed that degassing from the Earth’s interior has given us chloride in the ocean; and nitrogen, CO2 , and noble gases in the atmosphere. Mineral equilibria have established concentrations of major cations and H in the ocean, and the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, through different chemical buffer reactions. Biological reactions have given us sulphate in the ocean and oxygen in the atmosphere.
Carbon dioxide is an equally important requisite for life on Earth as oxygen. Plants. need CO2 for their living (the photo synthesis), and humans and animals breath out CO2 from their respiration. In addition to this biogeochemical balance, there is also an important geochemical balance. CO2 in the atmosphere is in equilibriumwith carbonic acid dissolved in the ocean, which in term is close to CaCO saturation and in equilibrium with carbonate shells of organisms and lime (calcium carbonate; limestone) in the ocean through the a series pf reactions.
If the temperature changes, the chemical equilibrium constant will change, and move the equilibrium to the left or right. The result is that the partial pressure of CO (g) will increase or decrease. The equilibrium will mainly be governed by Henry’s Law: the partial pressure of CO2 in the air will be proportional to the concentration of CO2 dissolved in water. The proportional constant is the Henry’s Law Constant, which is strongly temperature dependent, and lesser dependent on total pressure and salinity.
5. Carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2
Houghton et al. (1990) assumed for the IPCC model 21% of our present-day atmospheric CO2 has been contributed from burning of fossil fuel. This has been made possible by CO2 having a “rough indication” (sic!) lifetime of 50 – 200 years. It is possible to test this assumption by inspecting the stable C13/ C12 isotope ratio (expressed as δ13Cpdb ) of atmospheric CO2 . It is important to note that this value is the net value of mixing all different CO2 components, and would show the results of all natural and non-natural (i.e. anthropogenic) processes involving CO2.
Segalstad (1992, 1993) has by isotope mass balance considerations calculated the atmospheric CO2 lifetime and the amount of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere. The December 1988 atmospheric CO2 composition was computed for its 748 GT C total mass and δ13C = -7.807‰ for 3 components: (1) natural fraction remaining from the pre-industrial atmosphere; (2) cumulative fraction remaining from all annual fossil-fuel CO emissions (from production data); (3) carbon isotope mass-balanced natural fraction. The masses of the components were computed for different atmospheric lifetimes of CO2 .
Source: Skrable et al. (2022) Despite an estimated 205 ppm of FF CO2 emitted since 1750, only 46.84 ppm (23%) of FF CO2 remains, while the other 77% is distributed into natural sinks/sources. As of 2018 atmospheric CO2 was 405, of which 12% (47 ppm) originated from FF. And the other 88% (358 ppm) came from natural sources: 276 prior to 1750, and 82 ppm since. Natural CO2 sources/sinks continue to drive rising atmospheric CO2, presently at a rate of 2 to 1 over FF CO2. [My snyopsis: On CO2 Sources and Isotopes]
The calculations show how the IPCC’s (Houghton et al., 1990) atmospheric CO2 lifetime of 50-200 years only accounts for half the mass of atmospheric CO2 . However, the unique result fits an atmospheric CO2 lifetime of -5 (5.4) years, in agreement with numerous C14 studies compiled by Sundquist (1985) and chemical kinetics (Stumm & Morgan, 1970). The mass of all past fossil-fuel and biogenic emissions remaining in the current atmosphere was in December 1988 calculated to be -30 GT C or less, i.e. a maximum -4%, corresponding to an atmospheric CO concentration of -14 ppmv. This small amount of anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 probably contributes less than half a Watt/m2 of the 146 W/m “Greenhouse Effect” of a cloudless atmosphere, contributing to less than half a degree C of radiative heating of the lower atmosphere.
The isotopic mass balance calculations show that at least 96% of the current atmospheric CO2 is isotopically indistinguishable from non-fossil-fuel sources, i.e. natural marine and juvenile sources from the Earth’s interior. Hence, for the atmospheric CO2 budget, marine equilibration and degassing, and juvenile degassing from e.g. volcanic sources, must be much more important, and burning of fossil-fuel and biogenic materials much less important, than assumed by the authors of the IPCC model (Houghton et al., 1990)
6. Conclusions
Water vapor is the most important “greenhouse gas”. Man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels is small, maximum 4% found by carbon isotope mass balance calculations. The “Greenhouse Effect” of this contribution is small and well within natural climatic variability. The amount of fossil fuel carbon is minute compared to the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere. The atmospheric CO2 lifetime is about 5 years. The ocean will be able toabsorb the larger part of the CO2 that Man can produce through burning of fossil fuels. The IPCC CO2 global warming model is not supported by the scientific data. Based on geochemical knowledge there should be no reason to fear a climatic catastrophe because of Man’s release of the life-governing CO2 gas.
The global climate is primarily governed by the enormous heat energy stored in the oceans and the latent heat of melting of the ice caps, not by the small amount of heat that can be absorbed inatmospheric CO2 ; hence legislation of “CO2 taxes” to be paid by the public cannot influence on the sea level and the global climate.
Physicist Donald Rapp retired from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and has authored many books including Ice Ages and Interglacials: Measurements, Interpretation and Models; Assessing Climate Change: Temperatures, Solar Radiation and Heat Balance; and Use of Extraterrestrial Resources for Human Space Missions to Moon or Mars (Astronautical Engineering). Most recently he published Revisiting 2,000 Years of Climate Change (Bad Science and the “Hockey Stick”)
Abstract
The widespread explanations of the greenhouse effect taught to millions of schoolchildren are misleading. The objective of this work is to clarify how increasing CO2 produces warming in current times. It is found that there are two contexts for the greenhouse gas effect. In one context, the fundamental greenhouse gas effect, one imagines a dry Earth starting with no water or CO2 and adding water and CO2 . This leads to the familiar “thermal blanket” that strongly inhibits IR transmission from the Earth to the atmosphere. The Earth is much warmer with H2 O and CO2 . In the other context, the current greenhouse gas effect, CO2 is added to the current atmosphere. The thermal blanket on IR radiation hardly changes. But the surface loses energy primarily by evaporation and thermals. Increased CO2 in the upper atmosphere carries IR radiation to higher altitudes. The Earth radiates to space at higher altitudes where it is cooler, and the Earth is less able to shed energy. The Earth warms to restore the energy balance. The “thermal blanket” is mainly irrelevant to the current greenhouse gas effect. It is concluded that almost all discussions of the greenhouse effect are based on the fundamental greenhouse gas effect, which is a hypothetical construct, while the current greenhouse gas effect is what is happening now in the real world.
Adding CO2 does not add much to a “thermal blanket” but instead,
drives emission from the Earth to higher, cooler altitudes.
Background
Were it not for the Sun, the Earth would be a frozen hulk in space. The Sun sends a spectrum of irradiance to the Earth, the Earth warms, and the Earth radiates energy out to space. This process continues until the Earth warms enough to radiate about as much energy to space as it receives from the Sun, reaching an approximate steady state. If for some reason, the Earth is unable to radiate all the energy received from the Sun, the Earth will warm until it can radiate all the energy received. It is widely accepted that rising CO2 concentration reduces the ability of the Earth to radiate energy to space. In a dynamic situation where the CO2 concentration is continually increasing with time, the Earth will continuously warm as it tries to “catch up” to the effect of increasing CO2 and reestablish a steady state. It is a conundrum that while it is widely accepted that rising CO2 concentration produces global warming, the exact mechanism by which warming is induced in the current atmosphere by rising CO2 is not widely understood. The concept of a “thermal blanket” imposed by greenhouse gases to warm the Earth has merit in some contexts but is mainly irrelevant to the question of how adding CO2 to the current atmosphere produces warming.
Before attempting to deal with the question of how rising CO2 concentration affects the current Earth’s climate, it is appropriate to first discuss the Earth’s energy budget. The exact values for each energy flow are not important, but the relative values are important to show which processes dominate.
Finally, we provide an explanation of how adding CO2 to the current atmosphere produces global warming in the current atmosphere. The mechanism is not widely known and is likely to be surprising to some. Warming does not occur by increasing the thickness of the thermal blanket but instead occurs by raising the altitude at which the Earth radiates to space.
IR radiation
A fundamental law of physics states that all bodies emit a spectrum of radiant power proportional to the fourth power of their absolute temperature. A body at absolute temperature T (K) emits power per unit area: P = σ T 4 = 5.67 x 10 -8 T 4 (W/m 2 ) For example, a body at T = 280 K is said to emit 348 W/m 2 . However, this law of physics is academic and not directly applicable to real-world experience. In the real world, we never have a single isolated body emitting radiation, instead, we deal with pairs of bodies where the warmer one radiates a net flux to the cooler one. (If you stand next to a body at 280 K, you don’t feel an incoming heat flux of 348 W/m 2 ). For example, if there is one body at 280 K and a second body at 275 K, the warmer body will radiate through a vacuum to the cooler body at a net of 24 W/m 2 . That is a real-world parameter that can be measured. But the academic model involves calculating the emission of the warm body as 348 W/m 2 and the emission of the cooler body as 324 W/m 2, and subtracting, the net transfer from the warm body to the cool body is 24 W/m 2 . But the calculated values are academic and cannot be measured in the real world with 348 W/m 2 in one direction and 324 W/m 2 in the opposite direction. Those values are only of academic use to infer the measurable net of about 24 W/m 2 . See the simple model in Figure 1 presented here for illustration.
Figure 1: Radiant heat transfer between warm and cool bodies
The two contexts of the greenhouse effect
We are all aware of the widely discussed greenhouse effectthat warms the Earth as the concentration of greenhouse gases increases. But just how does it work?Here, we define two contexts for greenhouse gas effects:
1) The fundamental greenhouse gas effectcan be described by a “gedanken experiment” in which one imagines a dry Earth starting with no water or CO 2 and begins adding water and CO 2 . The original atmosphere, lacking water and CO 2 , will transmit IR radiation completely. As a result, the Earth will be quite cool. As H 2 O and CO 2 are added to the atmosphere, the transmission of IR radiation from the Earth’s surface is increasingly inhibited, and the Earth warms. As the Earth warms, evaporation and thermals transmit more energy from the Earth to the atmosphere. By the time H 2 O and CO 2levels reach current levels, the atmosphere is almost opaque to IR radiation, and a “thermal blanket” greatly reduces IR transmission from the Earth to the atmosphere. The Earth cools primarily by evaporation and thermals, and it is much warmer than if CO 2 and water were absent. The notion of a “thermal blanket” of IR absorbing gases warming the Earth has validity in this context starting with a transmitting atmosphere and adding greenhouse gases. However, once the thermal blanket is established with ~ 400 ppm CO 2 , adding more CO 2 has only a small effect on reducing IR radiation from the surface.
2) The current greenhouse gas effectdeals with the question: How does the addition of CO 2 to the atmosphere affect the global average temperature in 2024 and beyond, with CO 2 around 400+ ppm? It was shown previously that starting with no water or CO 2 , adding H 2 O and CO 2 to the atmosphere generates a “thermal blanket” for radiation. But once that “thermal blanket” is well established and the lower atmosphere is very opaque to IR radiation, what is the effect of adding even more CO 2 ? Dufresne, et al. provide a detailed technical analysis to show how the current greenhouse effect works [7]. However, this reference is complex and written for expert specialists in IR transmission through the atmosphere. In the sections that follow, a simpler, qualitative interpretation will be presented.
Figure 3: Energy flows in the Earth’s system. (Based on LTWS references).
Energy budget of the earth
Energy transfer in the Earth system can take place by thermal transfers (“thermals”) where winds carry warm air up to colder regions, evaporation from the surface (removes heat), and condensation in the atmosphere (deposits heat) and radiation (further discussion follows).
After analyzing the data in the LTWS references (see Section 1.2), a rough estimate of key energy flows per unit time in the Earth system is given as follows. The exact numbers are not critical; only their relative values are important for this discussion.
These results can be visualized in Figure 3 which is based on the references LTWS. As shown in Figure 3, incoming solar irradiance (341 W/ m 2 ) is partly reflected by the lower atmosphere back out tospace (79 W/m 2 ), partly reflected by the Earth’s surface back out to space (23 W/m 2 ), partly absorbed by the lower atmosphere (76 W/m 2 ), and finally about 163 W/m 2 is absorbed by the surface.
Radiation from the Earth’s surface to the lower atmosphere requires further discussion. The LTWS references show high up and down radiation flows. For example, Trenberth, et al. did not show radiation transfer between the Earth’s surface as a simple 25 W/m 2 net radiative transfer from the surface to the lower atmosphere. Instead, they showed 356 W/m 2 radiated upward from the surface and 333 W/m 2 of “back radiation” from the atmosphere to the surface [2]. The figure 356 W/m 2 radiated upward from the surface corresponds to the theoretical radiation from a blackbody at 281.5 K. The claimed downward figure is difficult to explain. But both of these figures are academic. What is happening is that the warm Earth is radiating upward through an optically thick gas of H 2 O and CO 2 absorbers, and the radiant transfer through that thick gas is estimated to be only a mere ~25 W/m 2. This is the “thermal blanket” so often referred to in discussions of global warming. The thermal blanket is real. But the problem with so many discussions of the greenhouse effect is that there is a preoccupation with radiant energy transfer between the Earth and the atmosphere (which is “blanketed”) while neglecting the more important transfers of energy to the atmosphere by processes other than radiation.
Figure 4: Pressure, temperature, and relative humidity vs. altitude [8].
The terms “lower atmosphere” and “upper atmosphere” are defined next. Following Miscolczi, Figure 4 shows that the demarcation between upper and lower atmospheres occurs at an altitude of roughly 12 km above which H 2 O is frozen out and the temperature roughly stabilizes [8].
Energy transfer in the lower atmosphere takes place by conduction,
convection, and radiation. Energy transfer in the upper atmosphere
takes place primarily by radiation.
The greenhouse effect
The greenhouse effect can only be fully understood by comprehensive modeling of upward energy flows in the Earth system. Excellent studies by Dufresne, et al. and Pierrehumbert provide detailed physics [7,9]. Here, we interpret these results qualitatively.
Within the Earth system of land, ocean, atmosphere, and clouds, energy transfer is taking place continuously. There is a net energy flow upward toward higher altitudes. From the surface of the Earth, much of the upward flow of energy in the lower atmosphere is through evaporation and convection. The lower atmosphere is almost opaque to IR radiation due to water vapor and CO 2.
Figure 5: Qualitative sketch to show radiation is dominant at the highest altitude. By adding CO2 to the atmosphere, radiative energy transport is carried to a higher altitude where it is colder, reducing the radiant power emitted by the upper atmosphere.
Radiation energy transfer will persist out toward a high altitude until the CO 2 concentration diminishes. Each CO 2 molecule that absorbs an IR photon can reradiate in all directions, but in a thin atmosphere, some upward IR radiation will be lost, and on a net basis, this allows the Earth to radiate out to space. The presence of an IR transmitting/absorbing gas (CO 2 ) will allow energy transport to higher altitudes. The highest altitude where there is enough thin gas to maintain radiation is the region of the atmosphere that mainly radiates energy outward to space. This is illustrated on the left side of Figure 5. Figure 5 was created here to illustrate how the predominant energy transfer mechanisms gradually change to IR radiation at higher altitudes, and the presence of CO 2 carries the IR radiation to higher altitudes.
Conclusion
There are two different contexts for discussion of the effect of greenhouse gases on the Earth’s climate.
In one context, one can imagine an Earth with no water vapor or CO 2 in the atmosphere. This Earth can radiate effectively to space and is relatively cold. As water vapor and CO 2 are added to the atmosphere, the IR-opacity of the atmosphere increases and the Earth system warms. The greenhouse gases act as a “thermal blanket” to warm the Earth by impeding upward IR radiation. This is labeled the fundamental greenhouse gas effect. However, once the thermal blanket is established, adding more CO 2 has only a minimal effect on the thermal blanket, and reduced upward IR radiation from the surface does not produce significant warming. This is referred to by Dufresne, et al. [7] as the “saturation paradox”.
In the other context, we are concerned with the effect of adding more CO 2 to the current atmosphere where the CO 2 concentration is already 400+ ppm, and the thermal blanket is already in place, restricting upward IR-radiation. This is labeled the current greenhouse gas effect, and it is quite different from the fundamental greenhouse gas effect. In the current atmosphere, energy transfer from the Earth to the atmosphere is primarily by evaporation and thermals, and IR-radiant energy transfer is significantly impeded by an almost opaque lower atmosphere. The “thermal blanket” is in place, but it doesn’t change much as CO 2 is added to the atmosphere. Adding CO 2 to the current atmosphere slightly increases the opacity of the lower atmosphere but this is of little consequence.
In the upper atmosphere, CO 2 is the major means of energy transport by IR radiation. The greatest effect of adding CO 2 to the current atmosphere is to extend the upward range of IR-radiant transmission to higher altitudes. The main region where the Earth radiates to space is thereby extended to higher altitudes where it is colder, and the Earth cannot radiate as effectively as it could with less CO 2in the atmosphere. The Earth warms until the region in the upper atmosphere where the Earth radiates to space is warm enough to balance incoming solar energy.
My Comment:
The explanation above is clear and understandable in qualititative terms. It does not reference empirical evidence regarding a GHG effect from a raised effective radiating level (ERL). Studies investigating this theory find that the effect is too small to appear in the data.
The following diagram by Andy May shows the pattern of emissions by GHGs, mainly H2O and CO2.
Helpfully, it shows the altitudes where the emissions occur. As stated in the text above, the upper and lower tropopsphere shift occurs about 12km high, with variations lower at poles and higher in tropics. Note the large CO2 notch appears at 85km, which puts it into the thermosphere, where temperatures increase with altitude. Raising the ERL there means greater cooling, not less. The Ozone notch at 33km is in the stratosphere, where temperatures also rise with altitude. Otherwise almost all of the IR effect is from H2O.
At the World Prosperity Forum in Zurich—held alongside the World Economic Forum in Davos—climate scientist Anika Sweetland delivers a provocative and deeply personal address that challenges the foundations of modern climate orthodoxy.
Drawing on her own education and professional experience, Sweetland recounts how climate science training fostered fear, despair, and unquestioned consensus rather than open scientific inquiry. She argues that generations of students have been indoctrinated with alarmist narratives that distort climate history, suppress debate, and justify sweeping political and economic control.
In this speech, Sweetland examines:
♦ The psychological impact of climate alarmism on children and students
♦ Media-driven climate narratives and shifting doomsday predictions
♦ Historical climate cycles, ocean dynamics, and orbital forces
♦ The role of international institutions and the concentration of power
♦ Why carbon dioxide is portrayed as a villain—and why she disputes that claim
♦ How climate policy, finance, and governance have become tightly intertwined
Presented as a counterpoint to the centralized, collectivist worldview promoted at Davos, this talk embodies the mission of the World Prosperity Forum: to challenge prevailing narratives, defend sovereignty, and restore open debate on climate, energy, and economic policy. For those who prefer reading, below is a transcription with my bolds and added images.
My name is Annika Sweetland and I trained as a climate scientist and during my time in what was meant to be a world-class education, I learned the world was a fragile system on the brink of collapse and that we were practically doomed. What sets me apart from most climate scientists is this, I’ve realized I was indoctrinated. Going through my old lecture notes now, I see lie after lie after lie, painting a picture that does not and will not ever exist. I was that girl that ticked the box when booking a plane ticket to say yes, I’m willing to pay a higher price to make this an environmentally friendly transaction and offset my carbon emissions.
Airlines saving polar bears, sign me up. But of course the
consensus was always the same, there was nothing
I could really do to solve the climate crisis.
So let me take you through my journey from being a scientist in complete and utter despair to standing here before you today armed with the truth. Today I’m going to be telling you about the realities of climate education, so let’s start at the beginning of the climate merry-go-round, the indoctrination of school children. Do you realize the alleged consequences from climate change are actually similar to those of war? The child’s world is inherently unstable, after all due to extreme sea level rise and extreme weather events, their lives are at risk. But this is what we’re teaching our kids, that the world they live in is no longer a safe and stable environment, that ecosystems are collapsing and their world is on fire. This is an outrage, they promised this is the truth and if they question that narrative the school will write to their parents, no debate allowed. I have been told my whole life that there is impending doom in the form of climate change. It was in the news every day, my teachers schooled me on it, my friends were talking about it, there were even degrees in it.
I can be forgiven for believing it. Why wouldn’t you believe what your teachers are telling you? They’re the ultimate authority at a young age. But the most significant point is this, it is the effect it has on our children.
They are scaring our children with these ghastly stories, they are shaping them to feel powerless because they can’t do anything about it and they are moulding them to be disillusioned and angry because the so-called people in charge don’t appear to be doing anything about it either. This is how you get the Greta Thunbergs of the world, that girl honestly believes her world is burning. Imagine for a second what it truly feels like to believe that.
I was at school in 1999 and this new emergency of global warming made me feel anxious and at that time three percent of school-aged children were diagnosed with anxiety.By 2023 this had escalated to more than 20 percent of school-aged children being diagnosed with anxiety. This is not a coincidence, the psychological impact of this story is crippling children’s mental health and it is simply unacceptable.
It is wrong, it is socially irresponsible and the minute they try and peddle that story on my child, well let me just make this clear, hell will have no fury like a mother who knows the truth and who is also a climate expert. Hell will not have enough fury and this is why I’m angry because I’ve seen the system from within and what I found at university wasn’t a debate, it was a script. So when I call climate change a narrative, I’m not being edgy, I’m being precise.
If you want a quick test for whether something is solid science or nonsense, just look for consistency and this consistency is exactly what’s missing. Firstly, the story keeps on changing. If it were a real story I guess the general facts surrounding it would probably remain the same but in the 60s and 70s the majority of scientists were predicting global warming but if you looked in the newspaper you’d think we’re heading straight into an ice age.
In 1974, Radio Times ran the headline, the ice age cometh. American media followed suit. Every cold weather event was sold as proof that there was an ice age approaching. Sound familiar? It should. It’s how the media still works today. A flood, a heat wave, a storm, completely normal weather, splash it across the front page, call it unprecedented and blame climate change. Everyday weather is rebranded as existential crisis. My point is this, it was never scientists telling the world an ice age was coming, it was the media with their use of selected experts. But why? Let’s dig deeper.
Newsweek warned governments were unprepared for climate driven food shortages and that planners were ignoring climatic uncertainty and that delay would make the coming crisis impossible to manage. This wasn’t just weather reporting, it was a script to create panic about hunger, global instability, they pull the lever for sympathy, for suffering in poorer countries and even today we see images of flooded villages, failed crops, desperate families, all offered up as proof of climate catastrophe and as justification for sweeping political action, urgent action with no time to consider the consequences.
In 1988, there was a rebranding exercise. The New York Times headline read, global warming has begun, expert tells Senate. I read this article, the evidence rests on five months of slightly warm weather and in climate sciences, a trend takes 30 years to establish, not just a season and worse still was the baseline they chose, 1950 to 1980. This is the very cooling period they had just used to scream ice age.
This is a classic case of data manipulation, you take a cold reference point and everything after that is going to look unusually warm. This was never ever science, there was never ever a global warming trend, it was data manipulated to tell a story. The ice age never came, first wrong prediction, but the story of the ice age, that did its job.
The media succeeded in creating a generation of fearful believers. In a speech to the Royal Society in 1988, Margaret Thatcher talked about the fear that people were feeling, the fear that humans were creating a global heat trap that could lead to climatic instability. This fear was gaslit by an NGO, the National Academy of Sciences, who promised the warming would cause a sea level rise of several feet over the next century.
The following year, another NGO, the UN, went on the record and promised entire nations will be wiped off the face of the earth due to climate change induced sea level rise by 2020. Well, we’re still here aren’t we? Second false prediction, none of this sea level rise has eventuated and it’s exactly the same story they preach today. Extreme sea level rise and climate change refugees are nothing but a myth designed to scare people into whatever policy response is waiting in the wings.
This is the first reason that the man-made climate change story is nothing more than a doomsday tale that has been evolving for the last 60 years. Think about it. These were arguably two of the world’s most powerful organisations. They’d had access to satellite data for 25 years, the best scientists, the most comprehensive data analysis in the world, plus the mainstream media at their fingertips. Was it really a coincidence that their story never came true? We now know that they would have known via satellites that the sea level was always rising steadily at 1.2 inches per decade, just like it does today. Plus, this sea rise actually brings sediment with it and increases the land mass at the same time, therefore rendering it impossible for islands to sink due to sea level rise.
However, because it was never a real story, they were never interested in the real data. They could clearly see that there was no unusual sea level rise, but they intentionally chose to mislead the public and put their fraudulent plan into action. They advised the World Meteorological Organisation, another NGO, to create the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Now, here’s where it gets juicy. The IPCC is structurally identical to the single world government model I was presented with during my studies as a prescriptive solution to climate change. My professors in global governance assured me that a global problem requires a single world government to fix it, and I admit it. I believed them. I respected my professors. Most of them were published authors in respected journals, and I was promised a world-class education.
But the tragedy is this. They were never training scientists.
They were training socialists to enact their agenda.
And it’s been clear to me for a time now that there’s never been a problem with our climate system, just a smoke screen to establish power and create control. Welcome to the only crisis where their solution is always the same. More control, more taxes, and less debate.
Let me make it clear how the IPCC benefits from maintaining and creating generations of climate change believers. To start with, they sit at the very top of the climate change establishment, and when I say establishment, I simply mean a stable network of institutions that fund, credential, and publish the urgency of man-made global warming. Climate finance reached a record-breaking $1.9 trillion in 2023, and last year saw a record $2.2 trillion in clean energy investment.
That’s more than $4 trillion in a couple of years. Think about who are the main winners here. They’re the unelected officials that sit atop the IPCC hierarchy. These are the people selling, building, financing, and certifying the global transition to clean energy. They are making billions.
The financial victims, the United Kingdom is a victim.
Our economy is on the verge of recession after 30 years of big signatory to international climate agreements. What do we have to show for it? Not only are our energy bills the highest in the developed world, but the economy outside of London is closer to that of Bulgaria’s than Germany’s. Today, 18 to 30-year-olds are the first generation to earn less than their parents. We are getting poorer, both relatively and absolutely. My fellow countrymen are suffering, and this also makes me angry. Because of climate policy, because the IPCC says so, we’re not allowed to drill our own gas fields, which will make us completely reliant for others’ gas in the future.
We have the best quality gas in the world, and its exploration has just been made illegal. For existing projects, for every dollar made, the company is taxed upwards of 78 cents due to unnecessary climate taxation. Let’s take a really good look at just how much power the IPCC have created for themselves. They act as a global risk allocation engine. They determine which technologies reduce subsidies, which activities become legally constrained, which investments are encouraged or stranded.
In the UK, we only have four oil refineries left. These are the basic building blocks of the modern industrial economy, but any company that comes in will not make a profit because the taxes are too high. The IPCC is making us poorer, both as nations and as individuals. Recent blackouts across Europe are just a glimpse into the dystopian future which awaits us.
As long as they continue to make us believe that man-made climate change is going to end life as we know it, we will keep filtering trillions of dollars throughout their organisation without questioning a thing. So what can we do? Firstly, I believe that the average person is more than capable of seeing a situation for what it really is. So please, tune in carefully as I seek to disprove the myth of man-made climate change once and for all.
I’ve got you on tenderhooks now, that’s a good thing. You’re still with me. Let’s bust the first myth. More carbon dioxide causes a warmer planet. Here’s the truth. A recent study by arguably two of the world’s leading atmospheric scientists, both Professor Emeritus, one from MIT, one from Princeton, I mean, these guys are not messing around. They have shown that there is a limit to the amount of heat that is able to be trapped by carbon dioxide and they call this the saturation point. We are at 99% of the saturation point. Relatively speaking, no matter how much carbon dioxide we pump into the air, it will not increase our global temperature. It is but a fallacy. Joe Rogan recently had those authors on his podcast, Dr. Linzen and Dr. Happer. Joe Rogan also wants people to stop drinking the Kool-Aid.
Now let’s bust the second myth, that carbon dioxide is bad for the planet. Guess what? Carbon dioxide is actually good for the planet. That’s right, I said it, the truth. Satellite data shows that plant growth has increased significantly over the last 35 years due to increased carbon dioxide. NASA measured a 10% greening of the earth between 2000 and 2020 alone. Meanwhile, at university, I was taught that trees would starve due to climate change.
They intentionally used the word starve to elicit an emotional response. What actually happens is that when there’s more carbon dioxide available, not only do plants grow faster, but they use less water. We know this because commercial greenhouses pump carbon dioxide to 1400 parts per million because it grows the best plants. It’s called carbon dioxide enrichment. Come on. Carbon dioxide enriches the earth.
And the third myth, carbon dioxide has a direct relationship with temperature. Al Gore was the person responsible for demonizing carbon dioxide, and he said carbon dioxide is the highest it’s ever been. It’s just another lie. It’s actually the lowest it’s been in the last 320 million years. Not only that, but some of the highest levels of carbon dioxide occurred during an ice age 340 million years ago, which just proves that carbon dioxide and temperature have no direct link whatsoever.
Of course, in my training, carbon dioxide and its rise or fall could explain everything that happened in our climatic history through some sort of feedback loop or time lag mechanism. And this is the whole basis of their argument. That more carbon dioxide we put into the atmosphere, the more the temperature will increase. The most important takeaway from this today is that is a lie. The truth is, the earth is just getting greener, and we are simply uneducated as to why the climate actually changes. Indeed, all of us are completely brainwashed to never question it.
So why do the IPCC have a conflict of interest with the truth? Let’s understand exactly how much power this unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable, non-governmental organization are protecting with their lies. The IPCC produce assessments that 195 governments around the world use as an authoritative reference for climate policy. They use IPCC scenarios to set emissions targets, justify carbon budgets. If countries argue for compensation or climate aid, they cite IPCC risk assessments.
The IPCC projections define which regions are at risk and therefore where the money flows. And what they really don’t want you to know is that the most powerful leverage is in financial markets. IPCC scenarios are used in ESG scoring frameworks,climate stress testing for banks, insurance risk models, central bank climate risk assessments, and investment screening criteria. In practice, this means that a company’s ability to access capital increasingly depends on whether its business model is aligned with IPCC-derived pathways.
They have a monopoly not only on the success of entire countries but on individual business interests. In effect, their projections now sit upstream of policy, regulation, infrastructure, and economic structure. And this here, this is why they carry so much power. This isn’t just undemocratic, it’s anti-democratic. I never voted for them to make these decisions. These are people that cannot be held to account by the electorate and that is an unacceptable structure. It is a socialist, globalist agenda that has been carried out right beneath our noses. And it is the spitting image of the one world government framework that was prescribed in my training.
So, with the whole world relying on their projections, with trillions of dollars on the line, you would think that their utmost priority should be the accuracy of those projections. It’s why the believers say, look at the data, you can’t ignore the data. Well, spoiler alert, the data is doctored, just like it’s always been, just like my textbooks were, just like my lecture notes were, this whole thing is indoctrination.
And here is the proof. Hackers leaked emails from IPCC assessment report authors which exposed them freely discussing their efforts in deleting and manipulating the real data because it didn’t quite fit with their doomsday story.
And I quote, I’ll maybe cut the last few points of the filtered curve as that’s trending down. They needed it to be trending upward to fit with their past projections. Another email says, I’ve just completed Mike’s nature trick to hide the decline. These are real emails between the authors of the IPCC report. There are more than 2000 emails like this showing corrupt behavior and they are still the lead authors today. They are unelected, corrupt and have a conflict of interest with the truth. Trillions of dollars of spending rests on fabricated nonsense.
In the UK, if we don’t allocate our national budget to their satisfaction, we’re taken to court. Most recently, we were taken to the European Court of Human Rights because of failure to adequately prepare for extreme heat and flooding. And this, they say, violates fundamental human rights because we are not protecting people against man-made climate change. It is an outrage. So what can we do? It’s time to reclaim our sovereignty.
And we do this by formally leaving all agreements governed by the climate establishment, repeal the Climate Change Act, withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol, withdraw from the UNFCC, leave the Paris Agreement. America withdrew from all United Nations architecture this month. It’s time for the rest of the world to follow suit.
I can already hear the objections, but if we don’t act, aren’t we doomed? As a climate scientist, let me reassure you. The climate is meant to change and it’s meant to change drastically. It is just its natural state and this is very much like the earth. We are in a natural period of warming called the Holocene. We’re still coming out of the Little Ice Age, which was between 1400 and 1900. Our earth’s climate gets warmer and cooler in 1500 year cycles. There is also an ocean pattern called El Nino Southern Oscillation, (ENSO) which drives huge temperature changes. Most global warming is in fact driven by changes in the ocean currents. Other changes are driven by orbital forcings called milankovitch cycles. These cycles change the position of our planet relative to the sun and historically produce an ice age every 100,000 years. There’s nothing man-made about it. There is only natural climate change.
But training experts that the world will listen to and who will enact their agenda is a crucial part of the IPCC’s strategy to retain control. Well, I’m a climate scientist. I’m an expert. So, listen to me. All man-made climate education in schools has to stop. It is not science. It is consensus which is very different to objective scientific fact.
Teach them natural climate change. Teach them about milankovitch cycles, the El Nino. Do not teach them lies that I have just proven wrong. I don’t want my child to gain an ideology. I want him to gain an education. The next generation must be clever. And for this to happen, they need to be learning factual information.
For anyone out there that has ever felt guilty or afraid due to climate change, I want to reassure you, you are not the problem. We have been brainwashed every day by the media. We are being lied to every day. And if we question it, we’re told we’re crazy. We are told we’re in denial because the climate establishment is afraid.
They will tell you that I’m the extreme one because I don’t believe the world is on fire. They will do everything they can to make us fearful. The world as we know it is ending, burning, boiling, to maintain control, constrain us in regulatory burden, and have us accountable to their courts if we spend our taxpayers money the wrong way.
The climate establishment targeted intelligent people who genuinely loved the environment. They taught us the earth was dying and on the brink of collapse. And I believed it. That is not stupidity. That is programming. Because my university lecturers who I respected and the institution of the university itself assured me this was the latest cutting edge research.
I mean I’m thinking I want my money back at this point. They told you it’s settled. They told you it’s urgent. They told you to comply. Well, I’ve told you what they haven’t. The climate is meant to change. The man couldn’t affect the climate system even if he wanted to. Carbon dioxide is good for the planet and will not increase the temperature any. And both children and university students are being brainwashed to blindly perform and enact their agenda.
Well, I am no puppet. For me, once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. The choice of what to believe is now yours. But the establishment should be afraid because I am a climate scientist who knows the truth. Thank you. Thank you so much. I also just want to thank the Heartland Institute so much for having me speak at the inaugural World Prosperity Forum here in Zurich.
Javier Vinós provides the list in his yearend Clintel post Six Impossible Things to Believe. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.
Like Alice’s White Queen, European and Spanish authorities want us to believe six impossible things about
climate change and the energy transition.
In Alice Through the Looking-Glass, a character by Lewis Carroll says, “One can’t believe impossible things,” to which the White Queen replies, “When I was your age, I sometimes believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
Like Alice’s White Queen, European and Spanish authorities want us to believe six impossible things about climate change and the energy transition, before and after breakfast. These six impossible things to believe — and yet many people, like the White Queen, do believe them — are as follows:
The first is believing that humanshave — or could have in the near future — some degree of control over the climate and the weather,and that through our actions we can reduce the frequency and intensity of hurricanes, floods, droughts, or sea-level rise. Anyone who believes this is capable of believing anything.
The second is believing that the climate, in its extraordinary complexity with hundreds — perhaps thousands — of variables, is controlled by just one: changes in the concentration of greenhouse gases. The theory and models that propose this are based on a good understanding of the properties of CO₂, but a poor understanding of the other climatic variables. And the fact that no solid evidence for this theory has emerged, despite decades of intensive searching, makes it very difficult to believe.
The third is believing that an energy transition is taking place or will take place. There are no examples of energy transitions. We use more biomass, coal, oil, natural gas, and uranium than at any other time in history, and we are simply adding the so-called renewable energies, which are installed, maintained, and replaced thanks to hydrocarbon fuels. Our energy use is growing faster than our capacity to install renewable energy. The transition is a myth, and anyone who claims to believe in it is either lying or poorly informed.
The fourth is believing that the use of hydrocarbon fuels is going to be .abandoned At the recent climate conference in Brazil, a group of countries, including Spain, pushed for the agreement to include a roadmap for abandoning those fuels. They were forced to back down, and hydrocarbon fuels are not even mentioned in the final agreement. Eighty-three governments supported that roadmap, but together they represent only 13.6% of the world’s population. The remaining 86.4% shows no intention of abandoning the source from which the human species obtains 85% of its external energy.
It is impossible to believe that such an abandonment will take place because, 33 years after the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and 10 years after the Paris Agreement, support among nations for abandoning hydrocarbon fuels has decreased rather than increased.
The fifth is believing that a reduction in global CO₂ emissions will occur. These emissions are linked to human development and population growth. Many regions of the planet remain underdeveloped, and the world’s population will continue to grow in the coming decades.
Since the first climate conference in Berlin in 1995, where strict emission-reduction commitments were adopted — but only for “developed” nations — global CO₂ emissions have increased by 70%. These 30 years should be enough to convince anyone that they are not going to stop rising.
The Fantasy
The sixth is believing that energy can be decarbonized. Only 23% of the EU’s final energy consumption is electricity, and only 70% of that electricity comes from carbon-free sources. One third of it comes from nuclear energy, which Spain rejects and which was installed in the last century. So far this century, the EU has managed to decarbonize less than 10% of the energy it uses. Most of the planet is not even trying.
These six things are impossible to believe, but if we refuse to believe even just one of them, the entire climate and energy strategy of the European Union and the Spanish government is revealed as a tragic farce. Based on these impossibilities, our national and European governments have committed themselves to a transition whose consequences we are already suffering:
♦ more expensive energy, ♦ declining industrial production and competitiveness, ♦ increased risk to the power grid, ♦ environmental policies with tragic consequences, ♦ greater indebtedness, and, ultimately, ♦ an accelerated decline of Europe relative to the rest of the world.
With the lack of global warming and the steep decline of SSTs the last 2 years, climatists are pivoting to the notion invented by the infamous M. Mann, AKA Mr. Hockey Stick (aiming to erase the Medieval warming period). The reasoning is convoluted, as you might expect given the intent to blame cold weather on global warming. The claim is that burning fossil fuels causes the North Atlantic Current to slow down and bring cold temperatures to the Northern Hemisphere. The video below is an excellent PR piece promoting this science fiction as though it were fact.
There is debate about slowing of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), a key component of the global climate system. Some focus is on the sea surface temperature (SST) slightly cooling in parts of the subpolar North Atlantic despite widespread ocean warming. Atlantic SST is influenced by the AMOC, especially on decadal timescales and beyond. The local cooling could thus reflect AMOC slowing and diminishing heat transport, consistent with climate model responses to rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.
Here we show from Atlantic SST the prevalence of natural AMOC variability since 1900. This is consistent with historical climate model simulations for 1900–2014 predicting on average AMOC slowing of about 1 Sv at 30° N after 1980, which is within the range of internal multidecadal variability derived from the models’ preindustrial control runs. These results highlight the importance of systematic and sustained in-situ monitoring systems that can detect and attribute with high confidence an anthropogenic AMOC signal.
Main
Global surface warming (global warming hereafter) since the beginning of the twentieth century is unequivocal, and humans are the main cause through the emission of vast amounts of greenhouse gases (GHGs), especially carbon dioxide (CO2)1,2,3. The oceans have stored more than 90% of the heat trapped in the climate system caused by the accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere, thereby contributing to sea-level rise and leading to more frequent and longer lasting marine heat waves4. Moreover, the oceans have taken up about one third of the total anthropogenic CO2 emissions since the start of industrialization, causing ocean acidification5. Both ocean warming and acidification already have adverse consequences for marine ecosystems6. Some of the global warming impacts, however, unfold slowly in the ocean due to its large thermal and dynamical inertia. Examples are sea-level rise and the response of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), a three-dimensional system of currents in the Atlantic Ocean with global climatic relevance7,8,9,10.
[Comment: The paragraph above is the obligatory statement of fidelity to the Climatist Creed. All the foundational claims are affirmed with references to prove the authors above reproach, and not to be dismissed as denialists. As further evidence of their embrace of IPCC consensus science, consider the diagrams below.
a, The NAWH SST index (°C), defined as the annual SST anomalies averaged over the region 46° N–62° N and 46° W–20° W. Observations for 1900–2019 from ERSSTv.5 (orange) and Kaplan SST v.2 (yellow), and ensemble-mean SST for 1900–2014 (dark blue line) from the historical simulations with the CMIP6 models and the individual historical simulations (thin grey lines) are shown. b, Same as a but for the NA-SST index (°C), defined as the annual SST anomalies averaged over the region 40° N–60° N and 80° W–0° E. c, Same as a but for the AMO/V (°C) index, defined as the 11-year running mean of the annual SST anomalies averaged over the region 0° N–65° N and 80° W–0° E. The SST indices in a–c are calculated as area-weighted means. d, NAO index (dimensionless) for 1900–2019 (red), defined as the difference in the normalized winter (December–March) sea-level pressure between Lisbon (Portugal) and Stykkisholmur/Reykjavik (Iceland). The blue curve indicates the equivalent CO2 radiative forcing (W m−2) for 1900–2019, which is taken from the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) SSP5-8.5 after 2014.
Chart d shows the NAO fluxes compared to a CO2 forcing curve based upon the much criticized RCP 8.5 scenario, which is not “business-as-usual” but rather “business-impossible.” Using it shows the authors bending over backwards to give every chance for confirming the alarming slowdown narrative. The next paragraph gives the entire game away]
Climate models predict substantial AMOC slowing if atmospheric GHG concentrations continue to rise unabatedly1,11,12,13,14. Substantial AMOC slowing would drive major climatic impacts such as shifting rainfall patterns on land15, accelerating regional sea-level rise16,17 and reducing oceanic CO2 uptake. However, it is still unclear as to whether sustained AMOC slowing is underway18,19,20,21,22. Direct ocean-circulation observation in the North Atlantic (NA) is limited9,23,24,25,26,27. Inferences drawn about the AMOC’s history from proxy data28 or indices derived from other variables, which may provide information about the circulation’s variability (for example, sea surface temperature (SST)21,29,30, salinity31 or Labrador Sea convection32), are subject to large uncertainties.
Discussion
Observed SSTs and a large ensemble of historical simulations with state-of-the-art climate models suggest the prevalence of internal AMOC variability since the beginning of the twentieth century. Observations and individual model runs show comparable SST variability in the NAWH region. However, the models’ ensemble-mean signal is much smaller, indicative of the prevalence of internal variability. Further, most of the SST cooling in the subpolar NA, which has been attributed to anthropogenic AMOC slowing21, occurred during 1930–1970, when the radiative forcing did not exhibit a major upward trend. We conclude that the anthropogenic signal in the AMOC cannot be reliably estimated from observed SST. A linear and direct relationship between radiative forcing and AMOC may not exist. Further, the relevant physical processes could be shared across EOF modes, or a mode could represent more than one process.
A relatively stable AMOC and associated northward heat transport during the past decades is also supported by ocean syntheses combining ocean general circulation models and data76,77, hindcasts with ocean general circulation models forced by observed atmospheric boundary conditions78 and instrumental measurements of key AMOC components9,22,79,80,81.
Neither of these datasets suggest major AMOC slowing since 1980, and neither of the AMOC indices from Rahmstorf et al.20 or Caesar et al.21 show an overall AMOC decline since 1980.
In the February, 2022, edition of the journal Nature Geoscience, researchers at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science urged more detailed study of the notoriously complex Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). Now, oceanographer Mojib Latif and his team from the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel, Germany are repeating that call in a paper just published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
The latest study describes the AMOC as a “three-dimensional system of current in the Atlantic Ocean with global climatic relevance.”
The February study responded to an August 2021 warning from the Potsdam Institute
that the AMOC has become wildly unstable and dangerously weak
due to global warming caused by human activity.
The authors of the latest study affirm that the Earth’s oceans have taken up more than 90% of the accumulated heat and roughly a third of all CO2 emissions since the dawn of the industrial age, leading to clearly measurable and devastating impacts like marine heat waves, sea level rise, and ocean acidification.
But it isn’t easy to confirm that the Atlantic circulation is actually slowing, partly because the ocean possesses such “large thermal and dynamical inertia.”
It is also extremely difficult to directly observe ocean circulation patterns in the North Atlantic, and proxies like sea surface temperature are “subject to large uncertainties,” the scientists say. Based on the available data, the GEOMAR study attributes localized sea surface cooling in the North Atlantic since 1900 to natural AMOC variability—not, as had been hypothesized, to a global heating-induced breakdown in the AMOC’s capacity to transfer heat.
Climatic media has fallen in love with Melissa, many of them blaming “climate change”, i.e. CO2 for her strength and destructive power. No surprise that Imperial College London (who foisted its covid pandemic models upon us) reports that its IRIS model confirms a “rapid attribution” claim. No doubt there will be more such yada yada at Belem COP to stir up the faithful.
For the rest of us, let’s remember the saying attributed to George Santayana: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” For example, Melissa belongs to a class of stong Atlantic hurricanes going back almost a century. Here’s a table of them along with peak sustained winds and the CO2 levels at the time.
Peak Wind
CO2 Level
Hurricane
Year
mph
ppm
“Cuba”
1932
175
308
“Labor Day”
1935
185
310
Janet
1955
175
314
Camille
1969
175
325
Anita
1977
175
334
David
1979
175
337
Allen
1980
190
339
Gilbert
1988
185
352
Andrew
1992
175
356
Mitch
1998
180
367
Wilma
2005
185
380
Rita
2005
180
380
Katrina
2005
175
380
Dean
2007
175
384
Felix
2007
175
384
Irma
2017
180
407
Maria
2017
175
407
Dorian
2019
185
411
Milton
2024
180
425
Melissa
2025
185
428
Note that all twenty hurricanes had winds ranging between 175 to 190 mph, going back to 1932. Meanwhile CO2 has increased from 308 ppm to 428 (2025 ytd). Note also the absence of such storms in the decade 2007 to 2017 despite CO2 adding 23 ppm in that period. The correlation between high wind speeds and CO2 concentrations is an insignificant 0.18.
Then there is the Global Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) report that includes the effects of both minor and major storms, combining strength and frequency.
I added an overlay of CO2 to illustrate how unlikely is a link between CO2 and storms. Finally from Roger Pielke Jr. a chart showing ACE strength per hurricane:
The charts show that 16 is the average ACE per hurricane, in North Atlantic since 1900 and Globally since 1980. The trend is not upward, and in North Atlantic appears currently lower than the past.
Alex Epstein reports regarding Bill Gates latest statement downplaying climate doomsterism, and reminds us that he hasn’t changed his mind so much as he is now able to speak freely. For example, watch this short video of Bill Gates in 2019.
Joining us now to continue this conversation is the founder of Center for Industrial Progress, it’s Alex Epstein. Alex, great to see you here today.
I think that, first of all, we should celebrate that Bill Gates has seen the light, has now understood the truth, but that does lead to the question: Why?
Alex Epstein:
It’s a good question, and actually I don’t think Bill’s views have changed much.
I think he’s held the view that he’s saying now, and I think he’s even less of a climate catastrophist and anti-fossil fuel person than he’s letting on now. I think what’s changed—and this is good news—is the cultural, economic, and political environment.
And in particular what we see are, one, the rise of AI and people recognizing that you’re going to need more fossil fuels to provide the reliable electricity—key: reliable electricity—that AI requires.
Number two, you’ve got a government right now that is pro-fossil fuel and very anti-climate catastrophist.
And number three, to the extent I and some others can take credit, I think we’ve advanced the pro-fossil fuel argument that shows that, hey, we do have impact on climate, but the net effect of fossil fuel use is incredibly positive, including on the livability of climate, or safety from climate.
I think those three factors have created an environment where Bill Gates—who I admire in many ways, but is a very calculating guy—where he feels like it’s in his interest to tell more of the truth about this issue than he has in recent years.
Will Cain:
All right, let’s take your three potential explanations for the change of heart for Bill Gates.
Let’s set aside your personal advocacy and persuasion, which I find compelling. And it’s not just you alone, Alex. It’s really most of the thoughtful scientists and thinkers through the last several hundred years have understood the power of fossil fuels and economic growth in helping the vast majority of people across the world.
Maybe that finally broke through to Bill Gates. Maybe he just sees the writing on the wall and understands what’s happening in modern America under President Donald Trump.
But the first is quite interesting: AI and the rise of AI. Does Gates not have significant investment in AI?
Alex Epstein:
Well, he obviously has investments. I mean, every major tech company is taking into account AI, I think validly, whether their current investment level is right or not. It’s key to their future.
But it’s not even that it’s just of interest to his company, although that’s surely a factor. He thinks it’s a big interest to humanity.
But most importantly, all these things, it’s more okay to talk about it. We already knew that the world needed way more energy, but now it’s okay to talk about it.
That’s why all these tech companies who made net zero pledges are suddenly saying, “No, we don’t need net zero”. Nothing changed really in the information environment, but the cultural environment did change.
Will Cain:
Well, I guess I’m just a little skeptical on the sincerity today and yesterday, and when I notice he can mingle his own personal net worth and benefit with that of what is best for humanity.
And if he convinces himself that AI is what’s best for humanity, and AI needs energy to grow, and therefore AI needs fossil fuels, he can convince himself that using fossil fuels is what’s best for humanity. And I think that is a little more in line with what I would suspect to be the motivation of Bill Gates.
Alex Epstein:
It’s definitely true with the broader tech industry. Again, they made “net zero” commitments just a few years ago when Biden was president, when everyone was on to ESG, and then suddenly their views changed and they never really acknowledged it.
Now I’m grateful, guys. Welcome to the party. I’m glad Zuckerberg is here. I’m glad Bezos is here. I’m glad Gates is here. These are people I admire a lot in many ways. I’m glad they’re changing their views.
But maybe stick to the truth this time instead of being so opportunistic and not really explaining how one day you’re “net zero” and then when it conflicts with your business interests, then you’re suddenly, “hey, yeah, let’s use more fossil fuels, we need it for AI”.
I thought you were worried about a climate catastrophe. It turns out there was never a climate catastrophe.
Will Cain:
I’m glad they’re here too, Alex. I just wouldn’t issue them permanent membership yet in the Club of Truth. Alex Epstein, it’s great to have you here on the show today.
Thomas Kolbe explains the sordid history in his American Thinker article Potsdam climate researchers under fire. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.
Critics of climate policy have long pointed to the problematic dominance of politics in climate science. A recent study from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), which systematically exaggerated the economic consequences of climate change, has reignited the debate over scientific standards and political manipulation in the field.
On April 17, 2024, the science journal Nature published a study by PIK researchers Maximilian Kotz, Anders Levermann, and Leonie Wenz. They calculated that global GDP would shrink by 19% by 2050 due to climate change, regardless whether future emissions were reduced. This projection corresponds to an annual output loss of around $38 trillion — an economic apocalypse, given that no society has the resilience to absorb such a dramatic collapse.
A Solution Delivered Alongside the Doom
The authors also provided a ready-made “solution”: according to their math, the costs of climate damage would be at least six times higher than the expenses required to keep global warming below 2°C. The implication is clear:
This was less a scientific exercise than a political directive for policymakers
to accelerate the fight against alleged man-made climate change.
A year later, the material was “corrected” and republished with slightly toned-down results. The timing was not coincidental: peer review — the scientific quality control process — loomed in the background and threatened to spark controversy.
Peer Review Delivers a Devastating Blow
That controversy soon arrived. Three U.S.-based scientists who reviewed the PIK paper identified serious methodological flaws and faulty data — problems that had been known for over a year. According to their report, PIK’s methodology had no scientific foundation. One reviewer wrote: “I have major concerns about the uncertainty and validity of the empirical model they built and used for the forecasts. It would help this study not to follow the often-exaggerated claims found in the literature.” From the Abstract of paper by Bearpark et al (link in red above):
Kotz, Levermann and Wenz1 (henceforth, KLW) analysed how subnational gross domestic product (GDP) growth responds to year-to-year changes in temperature and precipitation. They reported that if historical relationships continue to hold, global GDP would be lowered by roughly 62% (central estimate) in 2100 under the Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 ‘high emissions’ scenario, an impact roughly 3 times larger than similar previous estimates,2,3. Here we show that (1) data anomalies arising from one country in KLW’s underlying GDP dataset, Uzbekistan, substantially bias their predicted impacts of climate change, (2) KLW underestimate statistical uncertainty in their future projections of climate impacts, and (3) additional data-quality concerns in KLW’s subnational GDP data warrant further investigation. When Uzbekistan’s data are removed and statistical uncertainty is corrected to account for spatial correlations, KLW’s central estimate aligns closely with previous literature and their results are no longer statistically distinguishable from mitigation costs at any time this century.
Such devastating words cast doubt not just on PIK’s work, but on the broader foundations of climate science itself. Yet papers like this are routinely used to justify green transformation policies, with their web of subsidies, NGOs, regulations, and deep intrusions into economic life.
Finance Dragged Into the Climate Matrix
The significance of this critique lies not only in the study’s flaws but also in the murky financing behind it. These alarmist reports are not just shaping public opinion; they are the cornerstone of a new “climate economy.” The goal is to channel capital flows so that state funds and private wealth are merged into politically favored projects — a carefully orchestrated fusion of financial power and ideology.
International organizations and political institutions amplify these narratives, embedding them into economic governance. The “Network for Greening the Financial System” (NGFS) — closely tied to PIK and consisting of central banks and regulators — projects future climate costs and uses them as a basis for political and financial decisions. The European Central Bank relies on such scenarios for stress tests on banks, forcing higher capital buffers and restricting lending — with direct consequences for growth.
Networks, Obfuscation, and Propaganda
Additional funding flows through organizations like Climate Works, which bankrolls both NGFS and PIK while paying for the calculation of key scenarios. This blurring of lines between sponsor and reviewer, between science and political agenda, opens the door to propaganda. Genuine public debate becomes nearly impossible under such conditions of institutionalized opacity.
The end result is soulless landscapes scarred by wind turbines, the shutdown of modern power plants, and intrusive state regulation extending into private households. The energy sector is sacrificed, home ownership turned into an ideological experiment — all justified by the apocalyptic narrative of man-made climate collapse.
The Origins of CO2 Politics
The roots of this orthodoxy can be traced back to 2009, when the Obama administration declared CO2 a “dangerous pollutant” via the EPA’s Endangerment Finding. This politically-driven decision, made without congressional approval, laid the groundwork for carbon pricing, emissions trading, and sweeping regulatory interventions.
Europe embraced the same model, perhaps even spearheaded it. As an energy-poor continent, the EU saw an opportunity: by making fossil fuels expensive and heavily regulated, it could level the playing field and prevent resource-rich competitors from exploiting their natural energy advantages.
Donald Trump briefly broke with this orthodoxy, scrapping central EPA rules, declassifying CO2 as an existential threat, and freeing coal, gas, and oil. It was a signal to the world: growth and sovereignty take precedence over panic-driven climate politics.
Politicized Science
The PIK case highlights the dangers of academia’s fusion with state agendas. The old saying applies: “Whose bread I eat, his song I sing.” It was only a matter of time before such politically tailored studies surfaced.
Just as with government-influenced modeling during the COVID crisis, climate research now faces the urgent task of disentangling politics from science. On the back of the man-made climate narrative, an entire apparatus of subsidies, NGOs, and Brussels bureaucracy has entrenched itself. Untangling this nexus is no longer just a scientific issue — it is a historic necessity.
A controversial climate study by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) is one of the biggest scientific scandals of recent years. Media outlets like “Tagesschau” and “Spiegel” made it headlines in 2024. “Scientifically completely invalid,” economist Richard Rosen declared. However, politicians and the financial world made far-reaching decisions based on the PIK study. The alleged annual economic damage of $38 trillion shaped global debates. (welt: 25.08.25)
The publication of the PIK study by “Nature” lent its brilliance. But internal documents show that all four reviewers reported serious deficiencies. One expert wrote: “The statistical methodology … [has] no scientific basis whatsoever.” Another emphasized that the forecasts seemed “unintuitively large.”
Roger Pielke Jr. calls it a scandal. Incorrect figures have been known for over a year, yet they continue to shape climate policy and financial decisions. Weinkle criticizes that “Nature” has “turned into a doormat.” This is how science loses credibility.
Just a few weeks after publication, Christof Schötz of the Technical University of Munich presented a detailed critique. He made it clear that the results “do not provide the robust empirical evidence required for climate policy.” Nevertheless, Nature suppressed the analysis for months.
Other researchers from Princeton and the Bank Policy Institute responded. Gregory Hopper describes his unsuccessful attempts to submit comments. Rosen described the PIK study as “completely scientifically invalid.” It has since become clear that while the criticism was suppressed, the NGFS continued to use the data. This resulted in massive economic and political damage.
Under pressure, the PIK researchers published a new version. In this “preprint,” they claimed their core findings remained intact. However, they had to swap methods to produce similar results. For Pielke, this is “a tacit admission… that the original analysis is no longer valid.”
Hopper is even more critical of the new version. “The revised climate damage model is even more flawed,” he explains. The statistical problems persist. This demonstrates that science is serving politics here rather than providing objective results.
Physicist Donald Rapp retired from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and has authored many books including Ice Ages and Interglacials: Measurements, Interpretation and Models; Assessing Climate Change: Temperatures, Solar Radiation and Heat Balance; and Use of Extraterrestrial Resources for Human Space Missions to Moon or Mars (Astronautical Engineering). Most recently he published Revisiting 2,000 Years of Climate Change (Bad Science and the “Hockey Stick”)
Abstract
The widespread explanations of the greenhouse effect taught to millions of schoolchildren are misleading. The objective of this work is to clarify how increasing CO2 produces warming in current times. It is found that there are two contexts for the greenhouse gas effect. In one context, the fundamental greenhouse gas effect, one imagines a dry Earth starting with no water or CO2 and adding water and CO2 . This leads to the familiar “thermal blanket” that strongly inhibits IR transmission from the Earth to the atmosphere. The Earth is much warmer with H2 O and CO2 . In the other context, the current greenhouse gas effect, CO2 is added to the current atmosphere. The thermal blanket on IR radiation hardly changes. But the surface loses energy primarily by evaporation and thermals. Increased CO2 in the upper atmosphere carries IR radiation to higher altitudes. The Earth radiates to space at higher altitudes where it is cooler, and the Earth is less able to shed energy. The Earth warms to restore the energy balance. The “thermal blanket” is mainly irrelevant to the current greenhouse gas effect. It is concluded that almost all discussions of the greenhouse effect are based on the fundamental greenhouse gas effect, which is a hypothetical construct, while the current greenhouse gas effect is what is happening now in the real world.
Adding CO2 does not add much to a “thermal blanket” but instead,
drives emission from the Earth to higher, cooler altitudes.
Background
Were it not for the Sun, the Earth would be a frozen hulk in space. The Sun sends a spectrum of irradiance to the Earth, the Earth warms, and the Earth radiates energy out to space. This process continues until the Earth warms enough to radiate about as much energy to space as it receives from the Sun, reaching an approximate steady state. If for some reason, the Earth is unable to radiate all the energy received from the Sun, the Earth will warm until it can radiate all the energy received. It is widely accepted that rising CO2 concentration reduces the ability of the Earth to radiate energy to space. In a dynamic situation where the CO2 concentration is continually increasing with time, the Earth will continuously warm as it tries to “catch up” to the effect of increasing CO2 and reestablish a steady state. It is a conundrum that while it is widely accepted that rising CO2 concentration produces global warming, the exact mechanism by which warming is induced in the current atmosphere by rising CO2 is not widely understood. The concept of a “thermal blanket” imposed by greenhouse gases to warm the Earth has merit in some contexts but is mainly irrelevant to the question of how adding CO2 to the current atmosphere produces warming.
Before attempting to deal with the question of how rising CO2 concentration affects the current Earth’s climate, it is appropriate to first discuss the Earth’s energy budget. The exact values for each energy flow are not important, but the relative values are important to show which processes dominate.
Finally, we provide an explanation of how adding CO2 to the current atmosphere produces global warming in the current atmosphere. The mechanism is not widely known and is likely to be surprising to some. Warming does not occur by increasing the thickness of the thermal blanket but instead occurs by raising the altitude at which the Earth radiates to space.
IR radiation
A fundamental law of physics states that all bodies emit a spectrum of radiant power proportional to the fourth power of their absolute temperature. A body at absolute temperature T (K) emits power per unit area: P = σ T 4 = 5.67 x 10 -8 T 4 (W/m 2 ) For example, a body at T = 280 K is said to emit 348 W/m 2 . However, this law of physics is academic and not directly applicable to real-world experience. In the real world, we never have a single isolated body emitting radiation, instead, we deal with pairs of bodies where the warmer one radiates a net flux to the cooler one. (If you stand next to a body at 280 K, you don’t feel an incoming heat flux of 348 W/m 2 ). For example, if there is one body at 280 K and a second body at 275 K, the warmer body will radiate through a vacuum to the cooler body at a net of 24 W/m 2 . That is a real-world parameter that can be measured. But the academic model involves calculating the emission of the warm body as 348 W/m 2 and the emission of the cooler body as 324 W/m 2, and subtracting, the net transfer from the warm body to the cool body is 24 W/m 2 . But the calculated values are academic and cannot be measured in the real world with 348 W/m 2 in one direction and 324 W/m 2 in the opposite direction. Those values are only of academic use to infer the measurable net of about 24 W/m 2 . See the simple model in Figure 1 presented here for illustration.
Figure 1: Radiant heat transfer between warm and cool bodies
The two contexts of the greenhouse effect
We are all aware of the widely discussed greenhouse effectthat warms the Earth as the concentration of greenhouse gases increases. But just how does it work?Here, we define two contexts for greenhouse gas effects:
1) The fundamental greenhouse gas effectcan be described by a “gedanken experiment” in which one imagines a dry Earth starting with no water or CO 2 and begins adding water and CO 2 . The original atmosphere, lacking water and CO 2 , will transmit IR radiation completely. As a result, the Earth will be quite cool. As H 2 O and CO 2 are added to the atmosphere, the transmission of IR radiation from the Earth’s surface is increasingly inhibited, and the Earth warms. As the Earth warms, evaporation and thermals transmit more energy from the Earth to the atmosphere. By the time H 2 O and CO 2levels reach current levels, the atmosphere is almost opaque to IR radiation, and a “thermal blanket” greatly reduces IR transmission from the Earth to the atmosphere. The Earth cools primarily by evaporation and thermals, and it is much warmer than if CO 2 and water were absent. The notion of a “thermal blanket” of IR absorbing gases warming the Earth has validity in this context starting with a transmitting atmosphere and adding greenhouse gases. However, once the thermal blanket is established with ~ 400 ppm CO 2 , adding more CO 2 has only a small effect on reducing IR radiation from the surface.
2) The current greenhouse gas effectdeals with the question: How does the addition of CO 2 to the atmosphere affect the global average temperature in 2024 and beyond, with CO 2 around 400+ ppm? It was shown previously that starting with no water or CO 2 , adding H 2 O and CO 2 to the atmosphere generates a “thermal blanket” for radiation. But once that “thermal blanket” is well established and the lower atmosphere is very opaque to IR radiation, what is the effect of adding even more CO 2 ? Dufresne, et al. provide a detailed technical analysis to show how the current greenhouse effect works [7]. However, this reference is complex and written for expert specialists in IR transmission through the atmosphere. In the sections that follow, a simpler, qualitative interpretation will be presented.
Figure 3: Energy flows in the Earth’s system. (Based on LTWS references).
Energy budget of the earth
Energy transfer in the Earth system can take place by thermal transfers (“thermals”) where winds carry warm air up to colder regions, evaporation from the surface (removes heat), and condensation in the atmosphere (deposits heat) and radiation (further discussion follows).
After analyzing the data in the LTWS references (see Section 1.2), a rough estimate of key energy flows per unit time in the Earth system is given as follows. The exact numbers are not critical; only their relative values are important for this discussion.
These results can be visualized in Figure 3 which is based on the references LTWS. As shown in Figure 3, incoming solar irradiance (341 W/ m 2 ) is partly reflected by the lower atmosphere back out tospace (79 W/m 2 ), partly reflected by the Earth’s surface back out to space (23 W/m 2 ), partly absorbed by the lower atmosphere (76 W/m 2 ), and finally about 163 W/m 2 is absorbed by the surface.
Radiation from the Earth’s surface to the lower atmosphere requires further discussion. The LTWS references show high up and down radiation flows. For example, Trenberth, et al. did not show radiation transfer between the Earth’s surface as a simple 25 W/m 2 net radiative transfer from the surface to the lower atmosphere. Instead, they showed 356 W/m 2 radiated upward from the surface and 333 W/m 2 of “back radiation” from the atmosphere to the surface [2]. The figure 356 W/m 2 radiated upward from the surface corresponds to the theoretical radiation from a blackbody at 281.5 K. The claimed downward figure is difficult to explain. But both of these figures are academic. What is happening is that the warm Earth is radiating upward through an optically thick gas of H 2 O and CO 2 absorbers, and the radiant transfer through that thick gas is estimated to be only a mere ~25 W/m 2. This is the “thermal blanket” so often referred to in discussions of global warming. The thermal blanket is real. But the problem with so many discussions of the greenhouse effect is that there is a preoccupation with radiant energy transfer between the Earth and the atmosphere (which is “blanketed”) while neglecting the more important transfers of energy to the atmosphere by processes other than radiation.
Figure 4: Pressure, temperature, and relative humidity vs. altitude [8].
The terms “lower atmosphere” and “upper atmosphere” are defined next. Following Miscolczi, Figure 4 shows that the demarcation between upper and lower atmospheres occurs at an altitude of roughly 12 km above which H 2 O is frozen out and the temperature roughly stabilizes [8].
Energy transfer in the lower atmosphere takes place by conduction,
convection, and radiation. Energy transfer in the upper atmosphere
takes place primarily by radiation.
The greenhouse effect
The greenhouse effect can only be fully understood by comprehensive modeling of upward energy flows in the Earth system. Excellent studies by Dufresne, et al. and Pierrehumbert provide detailed physics [7,9]. Here, we interpret these results qualitatively.
Within the Earth system of land, ocean, atmosphere, and clouds, energy transfer is taking place continuously. There is a net energy flow upward toward higher altitudes. From the surface of the Earth, much of the upward flow of energy in the lower atmosphere is through evaporation and convection. The lower atmosphere is almost opaque to IR radiation due to water vapor and CO 2.
Figure 5: Qualitative sketch to show radiation is dominant at the highest altitude. By adding CO2 to the atmosphere, radiative energy transport is carried to a higher altitude where it is colder, reducing the radiant power emitted by the upper atmosphere.
Radiation energy transfer will persist out toward a high altitude until the CO 2 concentration diminishes. Each CO 2 molecule that absorbs an IR photon can reradiate in all directions, but in a thin atmosphere, some upward IR radiation will be lost, and on a net basis, this allows the Earth to radiate out to space. The presence of an IR transmitting/absorbing gas (CO 2 ) will allow energy transport to higher altitudes. The highest altitude where there is enough thin gas to maintain radiation is the region of the atmosphere that mainly radiates energy outward to space. This is illustrated on the left side of Figure 5. Figure 5 was created here to illustrate how the predominant energy transfer mechanisms gradually change to IR radiation at higher altitudes, and the presence of CO 2 carries the IR radiation to higher altitudes.
Conclusion
There are two different contexts for discussion of the effect of greenhouse gases on the Earth’s climate.
In one context, one can imagine an Earth with no water vapor or CO 2 in the atmosphere. This Earth can radiate effectively to space and is relatively cold. As water vapor and CO 2 are added to the atmosphere, the IR-opacity of the atmosphere increases and the Earth system warms. The greenhouse gases act as a “thermal blanket” to warm the Earth by impeding upward IR radiation. This is labeled the fundamental greenhouse gas effect. However, once the thermal blanket is established, adding more CO 2 has only a minimal effect on the thermal blanket, and reduced upward IR radiation from the surface does not produce significant warming. This is referred to by Dufresne, et al. [7] as the “saturation paradox”.
In the other context, we are concerned with the effect of adding more CO 2 to the current atmosphere where the CO 2 concentration is already 400+ ppm, and the thermal blanket is already in place, restricting upward IR-radiation. This is labeled the current greenhouse gas effect, and it is quite different from the fundamental greenhouse gas effect. In the current atmosphere, energy transfer from the Earth to the atmosphere is primarily by evaporation and thermals, and IR-radiant energy transfer is significantly impeded by an almost opaque lower atmosphere. The “thermal blanket” is in place, but it doesn’t change much as CO 2 is added to the atmosphere. Adding CO 2 to the current atmosphere slightly increases the opacity of the lower atmosphere but this is of little consequence.
In the upper atmosphere, CO 2 is the major means of energy transport by IR radiation. The greatest effect of adding CO 2 to the current atmosphere is to extend the upward range of IR-radiant transmission to higher altitudes. The main region where the Earth radiates to space is thereby extended to higher altitudes where it is colder, and the Earth cannot radiate as effectively as it could with less CO 2in the atmosphere. The Earth warms until the region in the upper atmosphere where the Earth radiates to space is warm enough to balance incoming solar energy.
My Comment:
The explanation above is clear and understandable in qualititative terms. It does not reference empirical evidence regarding a GHG effect from a raised effective radiating level (ERL). Studies investigating this theory find that the effect is too small to appear in the data.
The following diagram by Andy May shows the pattern of emissions by GHGs, mainly H2O and CO2.
Helpfully, it shows the altitudes where the emissions occur. As stated in the text above, the upper and lower tropopsphere shift occurs about 12km high, with variations lower at poles and higher in tropics. Note the large CO2 notch appears at 85km, which puts it into the thermosphere, where temperatures increase with altitude. Raising the ERL there means greater cooling, not less. The Ozone notch at 33km is in the stratosphere, where temperatures also rise with altitude. Otherwise almost all of the IR effect is from H2O.
Science Matters 