“[T]he absorption of incident solar-light by the atmosphere as well as its absorption capability of thermal radiation, cannot be influenced by human acts.” – Allmendinger, 2017
“[G]lobal warming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory. The varying solar irradiation constitutes the sole input driving the changes in the system’s energy transfers.” – Blaauw, 2017
“The down-welling LW radiation is not a global driver of surface warming as hypothesized for over 100 years but a product of the near-surface air temperature controlled by solar heating and atmospheric pressure.” -Nikolov and Zeller, 2017
The Refutation of the Climate Greenhouse Theory
“The cardinal error in the usual greenhouse theory consists in the assumption that photometric or spectroscopic IR-measurements allow conclusions about the thermal behaviour of gases, i.e., of the atmosphere. They trace back to John Tyndall who developed such a photometric method already in the 19th century. However, direct thermal measurement methods have never been applied so far. Apart from this, at least twenty crucial errors are revealed which suggest abandoning the theory as a whole. In spite of its obvious deficiencies, this theory has so far been an obstacle to take promising precautions for mitigating the climate change. They would consist in a general brightening of the Earth surface, and in additional measures being related to this. However, the novel effects which were found by the author, particularly the absorption of incident solar-light by the atmosphere as well as its absorption capability of thermal radiation, cannot be influenced by human acts.”
“This paper demonstrates that global warming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory. This explanation is based on a simple model of the Earth’s climate system consisting of three layers: the surface, a lower and an upper atmospheric layer. The distinction between the atmospheric layers rests on the assumption that the latent heat from the surface is set free in the lower atmospheric layer only. The varying solar irradiation constitutes the sole input driving the changes in the system’s energy transfers. All variations in the energy exchanges can be expressed in terms of the temperature variations of the layers by means of an energy transfer matrix. It turns out that the latent heat transfer as a function of the temperatures of the surface and the lower layer makes this matrix next to singular. The near singularity reveals a considerable negative feedback in the model which can be identified as the ‘Klimaversta¨rker’ presumed by Vahrenholt and Lu¨ning. By a suitable, yet realistic choice of the parameters appearing in the energy transfer matrix and of the effective heat capacities of the layers, the model reproduces the global warming: the calculated trend in the surface temperature agrees well with the observational data from AD 1750 up to AD 2000.”
Nikolov and Zeller, 2017
“Our analysis revealed that GMATs [global mean annual temperatures] of rocky planets with tangible atmospheres and a negligible geothermal surface heating can accurately be predicted over a broad range of conditions using only two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance and total surface atmospheric pressure. The hereto discovered interplanetary pressure-temperature relationship is shown to be statistically robust while describing a smooth physical continuum without climatic tipping points. This continuum fully explains the recently discovered 90 K thermal effect of Earth’s atmosphere. The new model displays characteristics of an emergent macro-level thermodynamic relationship heretofore unbeknown to science that has important theoretical implications. A key entailment from the model is that the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ currently viewed as a radiative phenomenon is in fact an adiabatic (pressure-induced) thermal enhancement analogous to compression heating and independent of atmospheric composition. Consequently, the global down-welling long-wave flux presently assumed to drive Earth’s surface warming appears to be a product of the air temperature set by solar heating and atmospheric pressure. In other words, the so-called ‘greenhouse back radiation’ is globally a result of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it. … The down-welling LW radiation is not a global driver of surface warming as hypothesized for over 100 years but a product of the near-surface air temperature controlled by solar heating and atmospheric pressure … The hypothesis that a freely convective atmosphere could retain (trap) radiant heat due its opacity has remained undisputed since its introduction in the early 1800s even though it was based on a theoretical conjecture that has never been proven experimentally.”
Huang et al., 2017
“Various scientific studies have investigated the causal link between solar activity (SS) and the earth’s temperature (GT). [T]he corresponding CCM [Convergent Cross Mapping] results indicate increasing significance of causal effect from SS [solar activity] to GT [global temperature] since 1880 to recent years, which provide solid evidences that may contribute on explaining the escalating global tendency of warming up recent decades. … The connection between solar activity and global warming has been well established in the scientific literature. For example, see references [1–10]. … Among which, the SSA [Singular Spectrum Analysis] trend extraction is identified as the most reliable method for data preprocessing, while CCM [Convergent Cross Mapping] shows outstanding performance among all causality tests adopted. The emerging causal effects from SS [solar activity] to GT [global temperatures], especially for recent decades, are overwhelmingly proved, which reflects the better understanding of the tendency of global warming.”
“The Correlation of Seismic Activity and Recent Global Warming (CSARGW) demonstrated that increasing seismic activity in the globe’s high geothermal flux areas (HGFA) is strongly correlated with global temperatures (r=0.785) from 1979-2015. The mechanism driving this correlation is amply documented and well understood by oceanographers and seismologists. Namely, increased seismic activity in the HGFA (i.e., the mid-ocean’s spreading zones) serves as a proxy indicator of higher geothermal flux in these regions. The HGFA include the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, the East Pacific Rise, the West Chile Rise, the Ridges of the Indian Ocean, and the Ridges of the Antarctic/Southern Ocean. This additional mid-ocean heating causes an acceleration of oceanic overturning and thermobaric convection, resulting in higher ocean temperatures and greater heat transport into the Arctic. This manifests itself as an anomaly known as the “Arctic Amplification,” where the Arctic warms to a much greater degree than the rest of the globe. Applying the same methodology employed in CSARGW, an updated analysis through 2016 adds new knowledge of this important relationship while strengthening support for that study’s conclusions. The correlation between HGFA seismic frequency and global temperatures moved higher with the addition of the 2016 data: the revised correlation now reads 0.814, up from 0.785 for the analysis through 2015. This yields a coefficient of determination of .662, indicating that HGFA [high geothermal flux area] seismicity accounts for roughly two-thirds of the variation in global temperatures since 1979.”
Hertzberg et al., 2017
“This study examines the concept of ‘greenhouse gases’ and various definitions of the phenomenon known as the ‘Atmospheric Radiative Greenhouse Effect’. The six most quoted descriptions are as follows: (a) radiation trapped between the Earth’s surface and its atmosphere; (b) the insulating blanket of the atmosphere that keeps the Earth warm; (c) back radiation from the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface; (d) Infra Red absorbing gases that hinder radiative cooling and keep the surface warmer than it would otherwise be – known as ‘otherwise radiation’; (e) differences between actual surface temperatures of the Earth (as also observed on Venus) and those based on calculations; (f) any gas that absorbs infrared radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface towards free space. It is shown that none of the above descriptions can withstand the rigours of scientific scrutiny when the fundamental laws of physics and thermodynamics are applied to them.”
Song, Wang & Tang, 2016
A Hiatus of the Greenhouse Effect
“In the last subperiod [2003-2014], the global averaged SULR [surface upwelling longwave radiation/greenhouse effect] anomaly remains trendless (0.02 W m−2 yr−1) because Ts [global temperatures] stop rising. Meanwhile, the long-term change of the global averaged OLR anomaly (−0.01 W m−2 yr−1) is also not statistically significant. Thus, these two phenomena result in a trendless Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect]. … [A]remarkably decreasing Gaa trend (−0.27 W m−2 yr−1) exists over the central tropical Pacific, indicating a weakened atmospheric greenhouse effect in this area, which largely offsets the warming effect in the aforementioned surrounding regions. As a result, a trendless global averaged Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect] is displayed between 1991 and 2002 (Fig. 2). … Again, no significant trend of the global averaged Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect] is found from 2003 to 2014 (Fig. 2) because the enhanced warming effect over the western tropical Pacific is largely counteracted by the weakened warming influence on the central tropical Pacific.”
“[T]he actual data show that up to now fears of imminent climate catastrophe are not supported by data, or else involve processes occurring since long before excess CO2 in the atmosphere became a concern. Based on actual measurements and reasonable extrapolation of them, there is no reason why the responsible use of fossil fuel cannot continue to support worldwide civilisation. The argument to greatly restrict fossil fuel rests entirely on the theoretical assertion that at some point in the near future there will be a sudden and dramatic change in the very nature of the data presented here. If implemented, these would be sufficient to greatly upset the lifestyle of billions of people, and to further impoverish the already most impoverished parts of the world. … [N]othing in the past suggests that future climate will be significantly different before mid century because of rising levels of CO2.”
Hertzberg and Schreuder, 2016
“The authors evaluate the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) consensus that the increase of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere is of anthropogenic origin and is causing dangerous global warming, climate change and climate disruption. The totality of the data available on which that theory is based is evaluated. The data include: (a) Vostok ice-core measurements; (b) accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere; (c) studies of temperature changes that precede CO2 changes; (d) global temperature trends; (e) current ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere; (f) satellite data for the geographic distribution of atmospheric CO2; (g) effect of solar activity on cosmic rays and cloud cover. Nothing in the data supports the supposition that atmospheric CO2 is a driver of weather or climate, or that human emissions control atmospheric CO2.”
Mikhailovich et al., 2016
About the Influence of the Giant Planets on
Long-Term Evolution of Global Temperature
“The observed variability of global temperature is usually explained through the decrease in the coefficient of the grayness of the Earth caused by increased content of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as CO2, i.e. by the anthropogenically caused increase in the greenhouse effect. The validity of such views raises some doubts, as their validity is based either on the results of the climate simulation, or on the results of the regression analysis, in relation to which the fullness of the used set of regression does not seem certain. At the same time, just the results of climate modeling do not seem to be quite reliable … The effects associated with the displacement of the center of gravity of the solar system under the influence of giant planets (Jupiter and Saturn) are discussed. Based on the hypothesis of parametric resonance in the variation of global temperature with disturbances in the photosphere shape and the Earth-to-Sun distance due to the oppositions of said planets, a regression model that explains the observed long-term evolution of global temperature is built. It was shown that residuals of the model are close to white noise, i.e. the [influence of planets] hypothesis almost entirely explains the effect of temperature increase for the period presented in the vernacular crutem3 database [1850-present].”
Vares et al., 2016
… Earth’s Magnetic Dipole Intensity … Geomagnetic
Activity … Causal Source for Global Warming
“Quantitative analyses of actual measurements rather than modeling have shown that “global warming” has been heterogeneous over the surface of the planet and temporally non-linear. Residual regression analyses by Soares (2010) indicated increments of increased temperature precede increments of CO2 increase. The remarkably strong negative correlation (r = -0.99) between the earth’s magnetic dipole moment values and global CO2-temperature indicators over the last ~30 years is sufficient to be considered causal if contributing energies were within the same order of magnitude. Quantitative convergence between the energies lost by the diminishing averaged geomagnetic field strength and energies gained within the ocean-atmosphere interface satisfy the measured values for increased global temperature and CO2 release from sea water. The pivotal variable is the optimal temporal unit employed to estimate the total energies available for physical-chemical reactions. The positive drift in averaged amplitude of geomagnetic activity over the last 100 years augmented this process. Contributions from annual CO2 from volcanism and shifts in averaged geomagnetic activity, lagged years before the measured global temperature-CO2 values, are moderating variables for smaller amplitude perturbations. These results indicated that the increase in CO2 and global temperatures are primarily caused by major geophysical factors, particularly the diminishing total geomagnetic field strength and increased geomagnetic activity, but not by human activities. Strategies for adapting to climate change because of these powerful variables may differ from those that assume exclusive anthropomorphic causes.”
“CO2 makes up only a tiny portion of the atmosphere (0.040%) and constitutes only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect. The atmospheric content of CO2 has increased only 0.008% since emissions began to soar after 1945. Such a tiny increment of increase in CO2 cannot cause the 10°F increase in temperature predicted by CO2 advocates. Computer climate modelers build into their models a high water vapor component, which they claim is due to increased atmospheric water vapor caused by very small warming from CO2, and since water vapor makes up 90–95% of the greenhouse effect, they claim the result will be warming. The problem is that atmospheric water vapor has actually declined since 1948, not increased as demanded by climate models. If CO2 causes global warming, then CO2 should always precede warming when the Earth’s climate warms up after an ice age. However, in all cases, CO2 lags warming by ∼800 years. Shorter time spans show the same thing—warming always precedes an increase in CO2 and therefore it cannot be the cause of the warming.”
Chemke et al., 2016
The Thermodynamic Effect of Atmospheric
Mass on Early Earth’s Temperature
Observations suggest that Earth’s early atmospheric mass differed from the present day. The effects of a different atmospheric mass on radiative forcing have been investigated in climate models of variable sophistication, but a mechanistic understanding of the thermodynamic component of the effect of atmospheric mass on early climate is missing. Using a 3D idealized global circulation model (GCM), we systematically examine the thermodynamic effect of atmospheric mass on near-surface temperature. We find that higher atmospheric mass tends to increase the near-surface temperature mostly due an increase in the heat capacity of the atmosphere, which decreases the net radiative cooling effect in the lower layers of the atmosphere. Additionally, the vertical advection of heat by eddies decreases with increasing atmospheric mass, resulting in further near-surface warming. As both net radiative cooling and vertical eddy heat fluxes are extratropical phenomena, higher atmospheric mass tends to flatten the meridional temperature gradient.
An increase in atmospheric mass causes an increase in near-surface temperatures and a decrease of the equator-pole near-surface temperature gradient. Warming is caused mostly by the increase in atmospheric heat capacity, which decrease the net radiative cooling of the atmosphere.
[No mention of CO2 as a factor in warming the Earth-Atmosphere system]
“Notably, the three studies [Jackson et al., 2016; Böning et al., 2016; Robson et al., 2016] report an absence of anthropogenic effects on the AMOC, at least so far: the directly observed AMOC weakening since 2004 is not consistent with the hypothesis that anthropogenic aerosols have affected North Atlantic ocean temperatures. The midlatitude North Atlantic temperature changes since 2005 have greater magnitude and opposite sign (cooling) than those attributed to ocean uptake of anthropogenic heat. The anthropogenic melt from the Greenland ice sheet is still too small to be detected.. And despite large changes in the freshwater budget of the Arctic, some of which are anthropogenic, there is no clear change in the delivery of Arctic freshwater to the North Atlantic due to human climate forcing.”
Ellis and Palmer, 2016
Conclusion: “[I]nterglacial warming is eccentricity and polar ice regrowth regulated, Great Summer forced, and dust-ice albedo amplified. And the greenhouse-gas attributes of CO2 play little or no part in this complex feedback system.”
“The conventional basic climate model applies “basic physics” to climate, estimating sensitivity to CO2. However, it has two serious architectural errors. It only allows feedbacks in response to surface warming, so it omits the driver-specific feedbacks. It treats extra-absorbed sunlight, which heats the surface and increases outgoing long-wave radiation (OLR), the same as extra CO2, which reduces OLR from carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere but does not increase the total OLR. The rerouting feedback is proposed. An increasing CO2 concentration warms the upper troposphere, heating the water vapor emissions layer and some cloud tops, which emit more OLR and descend to lower and warmer altitudes. This feedback resolves the nonobservation of the “hotspot.” An alternative model is developed, whose architecture fixes the errors. By summing the (surface) warmings due to climate drivers, rather than their forcings, it allows driver-specific forcings and allows a separate CO2 response (the conventional model applies the same response, the solar response, to all forcings). It also applies a radiation balance, estimating OLR from properties of the emission layers. Fitting the climate data to the alternative model, we find that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is most likely less than 0.5°C, increasing CO2 most likely caused less than 20% of the global warming from the 1970s, and the CO2 response is less than one-third as strong as the solar response. The conventional model overestimates the potency of CO2 because it applies the strong solar response instead of the weak CO2 response to the CO2 forcing.”
Anthropogenic CO2 Warming Challenged By 60-year Cycle
Conclusion: “Dangerous anthropogenic warming is questioned (i) upon recognition of the large amplitude of the natural 60–year cyclic component and (ii) upon revision downwards of the transient climate response consistent with latest tendencies shown in Fig. 1, here found to be at most 0.6 °C once the natural component has been removed, consistent with latest infrared studies (Harde, 2014). Anthropogenic warming well below the potentially dangerous range were reported in older and recent studies (Idso, 1998; Miskolczi, 2007; Paltridge et al., 2009; Gerlich and Tscheuschner, 2009; Lindzen and Choi, 2009, 2011; Spencer and Braswell, 2010; Clark, 2010; Kramm and Dlugi, 2011; Lewis and Curry, 2014; Skeie et al., 2014; Lewis, 2015; Volokin and ReLlez, 2015). On inspection of a risk of anthropogenic warming thus toned down, a change of paradigm which highlights a benefit for mankind related to the increase of plant feeding and crops yields by enhanced CO2 photosynthesis is suggested.”
81 responses to “17 New Scientific Papers Dispute CO2 Greenhouse Effect As Primary Explanation For Climate Change”
Nikolov and Zeller, 2017
Oh look, Real Scientists talking about the gravity/thermal effect.
PEER-REVIEWED and all 😉
“but a product of the near-surface air temperature controlled by solar heating and atmospheric pressure”
Yes, guys.. We KNOW that. 🙂
I like this part.. 🙂
“A key entailment from the model is that the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ currently viewed as a radiative phenomenon is in fact an adiabatic (pressure-induced) thermal enhancement analogous to compression heating and independent of atmospheric composition.”
This paper, is very similar to the view expressed by the Skydraggons. I am not saying that it is wrong, but unfortunately there are only a few bodies with an atmosphere against which to test the hypothesis.
You are probably aware that Harry Huffman was of this view many years ago. See: http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com.es/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
When I was young, my dad, who was a very brilliant engineer, told me that Venus was hot because of its high atmospheric pressure, and Mars was cold because it did not have an atmosphere.
“only a few bodies with an atmosphere against which to test the hypothesis”
Test a hypothesis.. !!! ?????
This is meant to be climate science…
…HOW DARE they actually test their hypothesis. !!!
“Test a hypothesis.. !!! ?????
This is meant to be climate science… ”
i am looking forward to your experimental proof of the lack of a CO2 effect on Mars.
Unless you have any experimental evidence, i will assume that the effect confirms everything that climate science says about earth.
Measured proof for several atmosphere..
You truly are IGNORANT aren’t you sob-sob. !!
Its as if you have barely a primary school education !!
And we are STILL waiting , in vain apparently , for even one paper that proves that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere or of ocean water.
“Measured proof for several atmosphere..2
the measurements are of course even worse than on earth.
But i am curious, when and where did you measure how warm would be without the CO2?
Just link a scientific paper!
I see you have absolutely ZERO comprehension of things such the S-B laws.
But we all know you are totally ignorant of basically everything..
…so you really don’t need to keep drawing attention to the FACT. !
paper is linked above, little cry-baby. !!
Read it and try to understand it …
Read the paper and try to comprehend at least the first line.
Roy is great at satellite stuff, but that doesn’t make him correct about the pressure gradient
Poor wilfully nil-informed, empty-headed seb.
Good one … they start with a reference to their own “study” where they spelled their names backwards 😉
Like Venus, Mars has an atmosphere with about 960,000 ppm CO2 (96%). And yet the planet’s average temperature is −55 °C.
The difference between the average temperature on Venus (462 °C), Earth (15 °C), and Mars (-55 °C) has everything to do with atmospheric pressure, or density, not on CO2 concentration (96%, 0.04%, and 96% respectively).
If the greenhouse hypothesis worked as assumed, Mars would not be -55 °C.
And here I thought you at least understand the greenhouse hypothesis even if you don’t accept it.
Mars is at its temperature because of greenhouse effect. It is minimal because of density of the atmosphere. Density or gravity itself doesn’t warm anything by itself, the gases aren’t constantly compressed and therefor warming. If you suddenly double the amount of gas (by using inert gas like nitrogen) gravity would initially compress it and it would get warmer, but the surplus heat would dissipate towards space and we are back at the old temperatures. There is no mechanism that could contain that initial compression heat.
No, Mars is -55°C predominantly because of its very thin atmosphere, not because its atmospheric CO2 concentration is 960,000 ppm.
You don’t get it do you?
In other comments you emphasize the effects of TSI and how it dominates. On Mars you don’t seem to care 🙂
What year did TSI, clouds, geothermal heat flux, and volcanic aerosol depth stop dominating net temperature changes in the Earth system since each of these variables have changed substantially in the last 100 years?
A classic Kenneth topic switch … hurray!
At Mars the incoming solar radiation is just ~590 W/m². Albedo is smaller than on Earth, but still … there is only 110 W/m² reaching the surface/atmosphere. Don’t you think this has something to do with the average temperature? 😉
What topic was switched? I was replying to your “In other comments you emphasize the effects of TSI and how it dominates” with a comment about TSI.
In addition to atmospheric pressure, distance from the Sun also plays a significant role in the planetary temperature. Mars’ temperature is predominantly explained by two factors: (1) atmospheric pressure/density, and (2) distance from the Sun. These two primary factors also apply to Venus, which is more than 500 degrees warmer than Mars despite both having atmosphere’s with similar CO2 concentrations (960,000 ppm).
You are implying that the temperature should be the same if the GHE would be real? Is that really how you think the mechanism works?
No. Is it really this hard to understand?
As I’ve said again and again, Mars is about -520 degrees C colder than Venus. There are two primary reasons for this: (1) the density/pressure of their atmospheres, and (2) their distances from the Sun. Their CO2 concentrations are effectively the same for both (960,000 ppm), making your claim that it is the CO2 concentration that is the deterministic cause of planetary temperature difference highly dubious relative to (1) and (2).
The same can be said for Earth. The reason why we have a warmer planet than Mars but a cooler planet than Venus has to do with our atmosphere being 90 times less dense than Venus, but 100 times more dense than Mars. Also, the distance from the Sun plays a role. The difference in temperature can be explained by (1) and (2) for all three planets, meaning that a theoretical greenhouse effect is not necessary to explain 462 C (Venus) vs. 15 C (Earth) vs. -55 C (Mars).
“Density of an atmosphere is an effect not a cause.”
Your ignorant fantasies again shown in full light, seb.
Density gradient of an atmosphere is an effect of GRAVITY, you scientifically illiterate twerp!
You are making it sound like you think that I said CO2 is the only thing causing temperature difference and that you think that this is how the “AGW-ers” think the GHE works. Pardon.
I’ll try to repeat in simpler words: the temperature on Mars is what it is because of everything you listed AND the GHE of its CO2 concentration. Without it, it would be even cooler.
Of course it is necessary! It’s also necessary for the lapse rate to be what it is. Also: this “concept” of yours (and AndyG55) doesn’t work for Titan, I wonder why.
Instead of informing what you feel like I might think you might be thinking…why not just respond to the words I actually wrote? This habit of yours – making up stuff and claiming I wrote it – is sophomoric and annoying.
I didn’t write that you said CO2 is the only thing causing the temperature difference. On the other hand, you DID write that Mars is as warm/cool as it is because of the greenhouse effect (CO2). You did not write that Mars is as warm/cool as it is because of its atmospheric density and distance from the Sun. Stop putting words in my mouth.
I didn’t write that. Reply to what I actually wrote, not what you feel I think that you think I wrote mixed in with your own straw man arguments.
That’s your opinion/belief. Like the atmospheric pressure conceptualization, the greenhouse effect is a theoretical conceptualization. It’s never been observed. It’s never been proven. The only reason you think it’s necessary is because of the argument from authority – most scientists, including skeptics agree that it seems to work. I’m influenced by the argument from authority too. And I am willing to consider that the scientists who have found the atmospheric pressure conceptualization to be explanatory are on to something. You’re not. You just dismiss that which doesn’t agree with your presuppositions. And call people names like “deniers” and cornered “conspiracy theorists” who don’t agree with you.
There is NO EVIDENCE of a GHE on Mars, on Venus, and certainly not on Earth.
Its all atmospheric pressure caused by gravity, allowing heat retention.
TOTALLY UNAFFECTED by CO2.
That last sentence describes what you are usually doing despite calling yourself agnostic to almost everything.
I am dismissing gravity/density as the reason for warmer surface temperatures than without an atmosphere because basically this: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/why-atmospheric-pressure-cannot-explain-the-elevated-surface-temperature-of-the-earth/
It doesn’t work that way.
“If the greenhouse hypothesis worked as assumed, Mars would not be -55 °C.” – KR
No climate scientist claims that C02 alone is a driver of climate. There are other factors at play. Tell me something, how dense is Mars’ atmosphere?
I think you might be wrongly assuming I am claiming that (a) CO2 is the main or only factor in the climate equation, or (b) atmospheric pressure is not what predominantly determines the temperatures of Mars, Venus, and Earth.
As I have stated elsewhere, the primary reason why Mars is -55 °C and Venus is +462 °C and Earth is 15 °C is due to the profound differences in their atmospheric pressure/densities, not their atmospheric CO2 levels.
Kenneth how would the temperature on the surfaces of Mars, Venus and Earth change if the atmospheres were consisting only of inert gases? Do you think the temperature would stay the same?
And the other way around: let’s say mankind decides to heat up Mars in some kind of terraforming experiment. Do you think the density of the atmosphere would change as a response to the temperature change?
Those N&Z guys have confused cause and effect and you are doing it too. Mars would have a thicker atmosphere if it were warmer. The current temperature is as high as it is because of the GHE. It would be even colder there without it.
I don’t exactly know how much or little the temperature of Mars would change without its 960,000 ppm CO2 concentration. Relative to the role of atmospheric density, the influence CO2 appears to play a negligible role. That’s because both Mars and Venus have similar CO2 concentrations, and yet one is 500 degrees C warmer than the other. The difference? Venus has a very, very dense atmosphere, and it’s 462 C. Earth has a much thinner atmosphere, and its temperature is 15 C. Mars has an even thinner atmospheric density, and it’s -55 C. The temperature of each planet is correlated with its atmospheric density. It is not correlated with its CO2 concentration.
So how much warmer would Mars be than now (-55 C) if it had an atmosphere with 200 more ppm CO2 than it does? How much warmer would Venus be than now (+462 C) with 200 ppm more CO2?
“if the atmospheres were consisting only of inert gases?”
BUT THEY DON’T seb.. and they NEVER CAN
Your FANTASIES continue unabated. !!
From your comment it appears to me that you don’t understand how GHGs and the GHE work and it works on other planets. I think I said it before: you don’t have to agree with a concept, but please at least try to understand it before you comment against it. Otherwise this is pointless.
The difference is also hundreds of W/m² of incoming solar radiation, something (it’s variations) you care about when talking about Earth’s climate. Density of an atmosphere is an effect not a cause. You cannot increase the temperature of a planet by increasing the density of the atmosphere if you use inert gases. Gravity and the laws of thermodynamics don’t work that way.
We know that Climate Sensitivity to CO2 cannot be large (if there is any sensitivity at all). The RCP 8.5 is a ridiculous scenario.
We know that CO2 in the past reached about 8,000ppm. If pre-industrial levels of CO2 were about 250 ppm, then 8,000 ppm represents 5 doublings of CO2.
If there is a positive water feedback loop, then we would have seen runaway global warming when levels of CO2 were at around 6,000 to 8,000 ppm.
But the fact is simple, the paleo record shows temperatures rising as CO2 levels are falling, it shows temperatures falling as CO2 rises. There are many examples of anti-correlation in the paleo record, and to the extent that there are some similarities between the tracking of temperature and CO2, Co2 lags temperature changes by about 600 to 1000 years.
At all measured time scales (both paleo and yearly), CO2 lags temperature change. All of this strongly supports the view that (i) CO2 is a response not a driver of temperature change, and (ii) whatever drives temperature change, it is something other than CO2.
Further, in Earth’s early history, the atmosphere was like Venus, with about 98% CO2. This is the equivalent of about 12 doublings over and above pre-industrial levels. How could water have ever taken hold on this planet if there is a positive water vapour feedback with high levels of CO2. Don’t overlook that in the early history of this planet, the surface flux was very much greater than today, since the planet was born hot and has gradually over the past 4.5 billion years cooled.
Do you think the current increase in CO2 concentration is a result of a temperature rise 600 to 1000 years ago?
CO2 follows temperature on both short-term and long-term timescales.
“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño“) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”
We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5–10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature.
“CO2 follows temperature on both short-term and long-term timescales.”
were are the historic episodes of someone burning tons of coal?
your argument is horribly weak!
I’ll need another interpretation of your question. Because the way it reads, it sounds like you’re acknowledging that CO2 rises and falls naturally, without significant relation to fossil fuel burning.
You have NO argument, sob-sob..
Just an empty mindless yapping.
” Because the way it reads, it sounds like you’re acknowledging that CO2 rises and falls naturally, without significant relation to fossil fuel burning.”
of course it does.
folks, i am part of the minority here who does accept scientific facts.
CO2 changed in the past following temperature. The situation is different today, because we burn coal. This is not rocket science, the average 6 year old can understand this!
“the average 6 year old can understand this!”
Yet you are still struggling.
That’s more or less seasonal changes you are refering to, Kenneth. Nature is obviously not a constant absorber/emitter of CO2.
I asked about the increase to 400 ppm … there is no temperature change event in the past that could explain it, but there are human emissions which add more CO2 to the atmosphere than the increase. So nature is currently in “absorbtion mode” and not in the “emitter mode” after a previous warming.
That’s assuming that the agreed upon values for past CO2 concentrations are accurate. I am not willing to wholly accept that assumption for reasons such as this…
The ice core data from various polar sites are not consistent with each another, and there is a discrepancy between these data and geological climatic evidence. One such example is the discrepancy between the classic Antarctic Byrd and Vostok ice cores, where an important decrease in the CO2 content in the air bubbles occurred at the same depth of about 500 meters, but at which the ice age differed by about 16,000 years. In an approximately 14,000-year-old part of the Byrd core, a drop in the CO2 concentration of 50 ppmv was observed, but in similarly old ice from the Vostok core, an increase of 60 ppmv was found. In about ~6,000-year-old ice from Camp Century, Greenland, the CO2 concentration in air bubbles was 420 ppmv, but it was 270 ppmv in similarly old ice from Byrd, Antarctica. … In the air from firn and ice at Summit, Greenland, deposited during the past ~200 years, the CO2 concentration ranged from 243.3 ppmv to 641.4 ppmv. Such a wide range reflects artifacts caused by sampling, or natural processes in the ice sheet, rather than the variations of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Similar or greater range was observed in other studies of greenhouse gases in polar ice.
The failure to resolve the notorious problem of why about 30 percent of man-made CO2 is missing in the global carbon cycle, based on CO2 ice core measurements, suggests a systematic bias in ice core data. It is not possible to explain the ice core CO2 record in terms of a system with time-invariant processes perturbed by a combination of fossil fuel carbon release, CO2-enhanced biotic growth, and deforestation.
Until 1985, the published CO2 readings from air bubbles in pre-industrial ice ranged from 160 to about 700 ppmv, and occasionally even up to 2,450 ppmv. After 1985, high readings disappeared from the publications. To fit such a wide range of results to the anthropogenic climatic warming theory, which was based on low pre-industrial CO2 levels, three methods were used: (1) rejection of high readings from sets of preindustrial samples, based on the credo: “The lowest CO2 values best represent the CO2 concentrations in the originally trapped ice”; (2) rejection of low readings from sets of 20th century samples; and (3) interpretation of the high readings from pre-industrial samples as representing the contemporary atmosphere rather than the pre-industrial one.
Neftel, et al. reported in 1982 rather high median CO2 concentrations in the preindustrial ice core from Byrd, Antarctica, of about 330 and 415 ppmv, with maximum value reaching 500 ppmv. However, in 1988, in the second publication on the same core, Neftel et al. did not show these high readings; the highest concentration reported was 290 ppmv, in agreement with the global warming theory.
Pearman, et al.  “on examination of the data,” rejected 43 percent of the CO2 readings from Law Dome, Antarctica core … because they were higher or lower than the assumed “correct” values. Thus, they concluded a value of 281 ppmv CO2 for the pre-industrial atmosphere.
To answer your question, it certainly could be since that would coincide with the MWP.
However, my personal view is that the rise in CO2 is probably due to manmade CO2 emissions, but as the paleo record confirms CO2 is simply not a driver of temperature such that todays 400 ppm does not explain any warming that may have occurred.
Further, I suspect that today’s temperatures are no warmer than those of around 1940. The USA temp dtat shows the 1030s as the warmest decade, Iceland and greenland both show 1940 as the warmest period, Russia has expressed concerns that their high northrn latitude data is no longer being used in the global data sets and that high latitudes in Russia have not warmed.
Michael Mann had to drop the tree ring data post 1960 since had he used it through to the late 1990s it would not have shown warming post the 1940s.
Hansen in his 1981 paper thought that NH temperatures were about 0.3degC cooler than 1940, and observed that there were problems with SH temperatures due to insufficient sampling and historic records. Phil Jones also published a paper to the same effect
THE NAS NH temperature plot showing about 0.5 degC cooling from 1940 to 1975 has oftrn been set out on this site.
Phil Jones in the Climategate emails referred to the need to get rid of the 1940s blip.
If you look at the historical and spatial data on the SH, you will note that we have no good record on the SH or for that matter on the equatorial region. We cannot compile a worthwhile global data set. The only data of any substance is that of the NH.
It appears that the NH cooled between o.3 degC to 0.5 degC from about 1940 to late 1070s, and it would appear that the NH may have warmed by about 0.3degC since the late 1970s to date. That being the case, we are today at approximately the same temperatures as seen in the 1940s.
That is interesting since some 95% of all manmade CO2 has been emitted from about 1940 and it would appear that there has been no warming during this period and during the time of these emissions.
“The USA temp dtat shows the 1030s as the warmest decade, ”
cherrypick, cherrypick, cherrypick.
this is not the way science works.
FACTS really are your enema , aren’t they sob-sob.
In-adjusted data CLEARLY shows that the late 1930’s were the warmest period in the USA since the little ice age.
and there is NOTHING you can do about that FACT. !!
… except go into complete REALITY DENIAL.. as is your natural and permanent form of existence.
… as in not subjected to the mal-manipulations of the GISS fraudulent squad.
Hmm, CO2 concentration increased in the past because of previous temperature rise, correct? If CO2 causes warming this should have amplified the warming until some other variable changed and the surface began cooling again. Maybe it slowed down cooling a bit, but eventually the temperatures decreased until the next such cycle. Correct?
So we get graphs like this one:
Today’s CO2 increase isn’t caused by some warming (e.g. Ocean outgasing), it is manmade. That’s entirely different from past warming/cooling events and I don’t get why skeptics use the “but in the past” argument so often. It didn’t happen before in recent history, it is unprecedented …
Sure, and very thankfully, human CO2 may have added some VERY SMALL amount compared to NATURAL rise due to solar forced ocean warming
CO2 started to rise WAY before man could have had ANY affect whatsoever.
And CO2 DOES NOT slow down cooling, just another piece of LYING, fairy-tale or hallucination by seb.
There is NO MECHANISM, except empty unproven supposition, that allows it to do so.
It is a radiative gas, and therefore is just another conduit for radiative flow.
The current level of CO2 is actually very much on the LOW side of the what its has been for most of the Earth’s history.
If humans are contributing even a small amount to the slight HIGHLLY BENEFICIAL rise, then that is a good thing.
CO2 is one of the 3 main things required for ALL LIFE ON EARTH, (H2O and sunshine being the other two)
Yes seb, even YOU are a product of atmospheric CO2.
Even YOU are TOTALLY reliant on it for your very slimy existence.
I’ll just repost the adjusted version of you graph with the current CO2 increase included: http://imgur.com/a/yru36
Exactly! And every conduit (= object/material you put between a heat source and a heat sink) causes heat build up at the source. You don’t think that is the case, but yeah, you are living in some fantasy world anyway 😉
[…] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]
with the “3 Chemists …” post and this one I have to ask: do you believe these papers you quote/cite here are correct? Do you think the CO2 greenhouse effect is not real?
Thank you for this interesting list of authors and papers. I just read into the first one (Allmendinger 2017) and it could not get more unscientific that this. Was that really peer reviewed somewhere? The used language is vague at best and it’s full of unsupportable claims. Will the other papers be of the same quality?
Have you actually read them and found them to be good examples to support your climate skeptic course?
I personally am fully agnostic regarding the hypothetical greenhouse, as I am influenced by the argument from authority and the fact that very respected atmospheric physicists like Dr. Lindzen believe the model works. On the other hand, the fact that Mars has an atmosphere with 960,000 ppm CO2 and yet has an average temperature of -55°C would clearly suggest that CO2 does not work as expected by current models.
“Mars has an atmosphere with 960,000 ppm CO2 and yet has an average temperature of -55°C would clearly suggest that CO2 does not work as expected by current models.”
Mars is at a greater distance to the sun and the atmosphere is extremely thin. This argument is horribly weak!
“Mars is at a greater distance to the sun and the atmosphere is extremely thin.”
As the papers above point out, you’ve just confirmed that atmospheric pressure is significantly what determine’s planetary temperature, not CO2 concentration. Mars’ CO2 concentration is 960,000 ppm. Earth’s is 400 ppm. And yet the reason why Mars is -70 degrees colder than Earth is due to its atmospheric pressure, not its CO2 concentration.
The distance from the Sun vs. Earth has comparatively little to do with Mars’ temperature relative to the forcing from its atmospheric pressure composition.
Exactly, if CO2 was such an effective greenhouse gas, then even given the distance from the sun, Mars would not be -55degC but would be say -10degC (depending upon climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2).
Of course, there is no water vapour feedback on Mars, just the raw and undiluted effect of CO2 itself. A bit like CO2 here on Earth when over a desert, ot over the Antarctic, or Arctic where humidity is very low.
Mars is a good place to study the no water vapour feedback effect of CO2.
Of course there is a greenhouse effect on Mars. If the concentration would change the effect changes. The reason for the effect not being as large as on Earth (or Venus) is the density of the atmosphere. It might have been denser in the past since scientists have found evidence of liquid water on the surface and that requires higher pressure.
The reason why it looks like pressure determines average surface temperature (it certainly doesn’t do that locally: see night time temperatures with clear sky vs. cloudy sky) could be that there is a fine tunes equilibrium between all those variables. Meaning: the pressure is exactly that which it is to maintain the temperature together with the radiation fluxes. An effect, not a cause. The cause is incoming SW radiation vs. the distribution of layers that emit the outgoing LW radiation towards space.
Your explanation does not stand scrutiny.
You ought to consider some of the basic facts, ie., Mars’s atmosphere weighs some 25,000,000,000,000,000 kg as compared to Earth’s atmosphere of about 5,148,000,000,000,000,000 kg. This means Mars’ atmosphere is about 1/206th that of Earth’s.
Mars has an atmosphere consisting of 95.32% Carbon Dioxide (CO2), or some 953,200 ppm. Given that Mars’ atmosphere is some 206th that of Earths, at an equivalent density to that of Earth, Mars has an equivalent CO2 density of 4,627 ppm (ie., 953,200/206). Put another way, if you could do a count, you would find that the number of CO2 molecules in Mars’ atmosphere is 10 times the number of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere.
So even adjusted for the lower density of Mars’ atmosphere the density of CO2 in Mars’ atmosphere is 10 times greater than that on Earth.
So if one were to notionally compare it to Earth’s pre-industrial levels of CO2, ie., of about 250 ppm, there is an equivalence of some 4 complete doublings of CO2.
If CO2 was an effective GHG (and I accept that there is no water vapour feedback on Mars), Mars ought to be a lot warmer even if one takes into account the low density of its atmosphere. But there is no GHE seen on Mars as the the Nikolov and Zeller paper makes clear.
As you have written, Mars’ atmosphere consists of 95+% CO2. No water vapor, no other GHGs. Do you really expect the GHE to be of the same or greater magnitude just because there is more CO2 in that atmosphere than on Earth? It is exactly the magnitude that can be expected from the composition of the atmosphere.
No, I don’t expect the CO2 concentration difference to have much of anything to do with the temperature of Mars (960,000 ppm) vs. Earth (400 ppm).
Mars’s atmospheric mass of 25 teratonnes compares to Earth’s 5,148. That’s predominantly why Mars is 70 degrees C colder.
You have not dealt with my point that whilst the Martian atmosphere may not be dense, there are in real terms 10 times as many CO2 molecules in the Martian atmosphere as there are in Earth’s atmosphere. Instead you set up a strawaman.
As I mentioned, there is no water feedback loop on Mars. I am therefore not expecting to see on Mars, any additional forcing which would be brought about by a water vapour feedback loop. I thought that I had already made that clear.
What I am expecting to see on Mars is the direct CO2 forcing caused by CO2 itself. There are 10 times as many molecules of CO2 in the Martian atmosphere as there are molecules of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere. If the radiataive effect of a CO2 molecule leads to any radiative forcing and thence to warming, one would expect to see more warming in an atmosphere that contains 10 times as many CO2 molecules than one would expect to see in an atmosphere which has 1/10th as many CO2 molecules. That ought not to be a contentious proposition.
Now then many people argue that here on Earth, the direct radiative forcing of CO2 is about 1.66W/m^2 per doubling of CO2 (per IPCC Climate Change Synthesis Report 2007). This is the claimed GHE of the so called GHG of CO2 without any additional forcing caused by the water feedback loop. These people of course go on to argue that with water feedback, the radiative forcing is increased to about 3.7W/m^2 per doubling of CO2.
Thus on Mars I am not expecting to see the increased water vapour enhanced radiative forcing of 3.7W/m^2 per doubling of CO2, but simply evidence of the non enhanced radiative forcing of the CO2 molecule itself (ie., the 1.66W/m^2 per doubling of CO2 radiative component).
But the simple fact is this. Just like the Moon, Mars does not exhibit any enhanced GHE, whereas because its atmosphere physically contains 10 times as many CO2 molecules as are present in Earth’s atmosphere, there ought to be some measurable GHE on Mars if radiative forcings of CO2 molecules can result in surface warming of a planet.
That is the problem, and that is the issue that you need to address. Of course Kenneth explains why Mars is so cold, namely the Martian atmosphere has so little pressure (Surface pressure: 6.36 mb at mean radius (variable from 4.0 to 8.7 mb depending on season) [6.9 mb to 9 mb (Viking 1 Lander site)]). To which I would add there is no GHE from CO2 warming the Martian surface even though the Martian atmosphere contains 10 times as many Co2 molecules as found in Earth’s atmosphere.
Your mind is horribly weak, sob-sob
It lacks any form of learning or comprehension ability.
You blindly refuse to accept what is very obvious from the data… just because it is counter to your AGW brain-washing.
people have looked at the planets. what you folks write here is totally insane. you can not just “estimate” that Mars should be warmer/colder. That is plain out stupid.
“you can not just “estimate” that Mars should be warmer/colder”
Yet that is what you and your brain-washed AGW cretins do for Earth.
Come on sob-sob.. what SHOULD the temperature of Earth be? with reasons.
Or will you RUN and HIDE like you do when asked about your EV ???
How many sewer-laden socks have you eaten this year sob.
Foot in mouth seems to be your only diet !!
Your comment also shows that you are, as always, MONUMENTALLY IGNORANT of anything to do with science or physics.. or .. basically anything.
You might like to read the Schneider 1971 paper published in Science Volume 173.
It considers the effect of CO2, and concludes
Perhaps you will identify, for the benefit of all of us who read this blog, what is wrong with the science and the physics in that paper.
Scheider et al, were clearly of the view that CO2 was not much of a temperature driver.
Do you want me to find you a paper which comes to the conclusion that 8 times the CO2 concentration would result in 20+ degrees difference? Would you then tell me what is wrong with the science in that paper?
No problem. I’ve found it for you. It’s James Hansen’s “Earth will be uninhabitable and 20 C warmer by 2130” paper: http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/2001/20120294
James Hansen also believes sea levels will rise 10 feet in the next 48 years. Do you see anything wrong with his science? If so, cite it. Or do you too believe we’ll get 10 feet of rise by 2065 too?
Here are 60+ papers that have climate sensitivity in the tenths of a degree for CO2 doubling. Explain why each one is wrong, Sebastian.
Explain why they are right please.
You can’t even produce even ONE paper that show CO2 makes ANY DIFFERENCE AT ALL.
Just empty yapping !!
If we take Trump impact as Mother of All Bombs, then Allmendinger, with his reproducible measurements, is nuclear.
[…] – See more at: https://notrickszone.com/2017/06/08/17-new-scientific-papers-dispute-co2-greenhouse-effect-as-primary… […]
A researcher has pointed it out to us that Tyndall’s IR sensing apparatus only works because it is water cooled. Tyndall had found, of course, that only warmer can affect cooler. Hence, zero GH effect!!!
Same deviation from truth by alarmists re Fourier and even Arrhenius, who was soon well-refuted by Woods.
“17 New Scientific Papers Dispute CO2 Greenhouse Effect As Primary Explanation For Climate Change”
as the number of scientific articles published each year is well beyond 1 million,
these 17 articles would make about 17 ppm. And according to a “sceptic” position, such a small number can not have any effect at all.
please come back, when a significant number of articles is available!
This is one of the silliest arguments seen in quite some time. Firstly we are talking about literature published on climate, and they are far fewer in number. Secondly it takes only one single paper to contradict what a thousand, million or even a billion papers might assert.
“This is one of the silliest arguments seen in quite some time. ”
i was obviously smiling while i wrote that post. The problem is, that recently i am constantly faced with totally absurd arguments in the comment section. this was attempt to point out, what the structure of some arguments here is!
” Firstly we are talking about literature published on climate, and they are far fewer in number.”
so you also think that the ppm number in the atmosphere does not make as much sense, as a lot of it is also made up of molecules which do not have any greenhouse effect? Soi we should take a look at the real effect and not just at abstract numbers?
” Secondly it takes only one single paper to contradict what a thousand, million or even a billion papers might assert.”
like it might only take a single ppm in a chemical mix to ruin the effect that it was supposed to have or to give it a different effect? So we agree that the ppm line of argument does not make any sense?
You really are tailing off into dementia, sob-sob.
For your own mental health, to preserve what little sanity you have left..
… find another way to spent your insignificant mindless existence.
sob-sob is off in his hallucinogenic fantasy land yet again
And no , you haven’t produced even ONE paper yet sob-sob.
No proof that CO2 has ANY AFFECT WHAT-SO-EVER on a convective atmosphere, or oceans,.
Nothing, nada.. a complete void of mind and substance.
You are still just an empty yapping vassal.
[…] This linked article make many of the arguments that have been promoted on this blog. […]
[…] 17 New Scientific Papers Dispute CO2 Greenhouse Effect As Primary Explanation For Climate Change here's one. https://www.omicsonline.org/open-acc…lternative.pdf Environment Pollution and Climate Change Thomas Allmendinger, Environ Pollut Climate Change 2017, 1:2 Abstract In view of the global acceptance and the political relevance of the climate greenhouse theory–or rather philosophyit appeared necessary to deliver a synoptic presentation enabling a detailed exemplary refutation. It focuses the foundations of the theory assuming that a theory cannot be correct when its foundations are not correct. Thus, above all, a critical historical review is made. As a spin-off of this study, the Lambert-Beer law is questioned suggesting an alternative approach. Moreover, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is relativized revealing the different characters of the two temperature terms. But in particular, the author’s recently published own work is quoted revealing novel measurement methods and yielding several crucial arguments, while finally an empiric proof is presented. The cardinal error in the usual greenhouse theory consists in the assumption that photometric or spectroscopic IR-measurements allow conclusions about the thermal behaviour of gases, i.e., of the atmosphere. They trace back to John Tyndall who developed such a photometric method already in the 19th century. However, direct thermal measurement methods have never been applied so far. Apart from this, at least twenty crucial errors are revealed which suggest abandoning the theory as a whole. In spite of its obvious deficiencies, this theory has so far been an obstacle to take promising precautions for mitigating the climate change. They would consist in a general brightening of the Earth surface, and in additional measures being related to this. However, the novel effects which were found by the author, particularly the absorption of incident solar-light by the atmosphere as well as its absorption capability of thermal radiation, cannot be influenced by human acts. But their discovery may contribute to a better understanding of the atmospheric processes. The fact that the atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentration has increased while the average global temperature has increased, too, does not reveal a causal relationship but solely an analogous one. The two phenomena just occurred simultaneously. Likewise, the urbanisation and the industrialisation of the world have considerably increased, as a result of the global population increase, being related to an increase of the buildings and further superficial changes, in particular of the brightness Most people have no idea how little the carbon-dioxide content of the atmosphere really is. Even if one adjusts the values given in the figures 2 and 3 upward to 400 ppm=0.04 percent amounting the 2500th part of air, it seems unlikely that this would be responsible for the warming up of the whole atmosphere. […]
Please also note this important paper by Gerlich & Tscheuschner, from 2009. Summary with link to full paper: http://tech-know-group.com/papers/Falsification_of_the_Atmospheric_CO2_Greenhouse_Effects.pdf