New AGU Presentation: ‘No Increase In Earth’s Surface Temperature From Increase In CO2’

Source: American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting

At next month’s American Geophysical Union (AGU) Fall Meeting in New Orleans (US), an independent researcher named Trevor Underwood will be presenting an equation-rich analysis that thoughtfully undermines the perspective that increases in CO2 concentrations are a fundamental variable affecting climate.

Instead, Underwood argues that the absorption band where CO2 emissivity could have an effect is likely already saturated, precluding the capacity of increased CO2 concentrations to produce atmospheric warming.

He also advances the position that solar irradiance changes can explain modern temperature variations, which is consistent with other recent analyses.

It seems that more and more of these papers questioning the “consensus” view on the efficacy of the CO2 within the greenhouse effect are being considered in scientific circles.  Several previous examples are listed below.

The volume of contrarian analyses would seem to suggest that the climate’s specific sensitivity to CO2 concentration changes is not yet settled.

And so the debate rages on.

•   Another New Paper Dismantles The CO2 Greenhouse Effect ‘Thought Experiment’
•   New Paper: CO2 Has ‘Negligible’ Influence On Earth’s Temperature
•   3 Chemists Conclude CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is ‘Unreal’, Violates Laws Of Physics, Thermodynamics
•   Ph.D. Physicist Uses Empirical Data To Assert CO2 Greenhouse Theory A ‘Phantasm’ To Be ‘Neglected’
•   Swiss Physicist Concludes IPCC Assumptions ‘Violate Reality’…CO2 A ‘Very Weak Greenhouse Gas’
•   Recent CO2 Climate Sensitivity Estimates Continue Trending Towards Zero
•   A Swelling Volume Of Scientific Papers Now Forecasting Global Cooling In The Coming Decades
•   Russian Scientists Dismiss CO2 Forcing, Predict Decades Of Cooling, Connect Cosmic Ray Flux To Climate
•   2 New Papers: Models ‘Severely Flawed’, Temp Changes Largely Natural, CO2 Influence ‘Half’ Of IPCC Claims
•   Leading Heat Transfer Physicists/Geologists Assert The Impact Of CO2 Emissions On Climate Is ‘Negligible’
•   New Atmospheric Sciences Textbook: Climate Sensitivity Just 0.4°C For CO2 Doubling
•  U of Canberra Expert: Doubling Atmospheric CO2 Would Increase ‘Heating By Less Than 0.01°C’
•   Uncertainties, Errors In Radiative Forcing Estimates 10 – 100 Times Larger Than Entire Radiative Effect Of Increasing CO2
•   New Paper Documents Imperceptible CO2 Influence On The Greenhouse Effect Since 1992

Underwood, 2017

No Increase in Earth’s Surface Temperature From Increase in Carbon Dioxide

A critical look at these different in situ measures of the Earth’s surface temperature identified a divergence between land and marine surface temperatures, with land surface air temperatures showing a significant and increasing rate of warming of around 0.5°C between 1880 and 1981, and 0.7°C between 1982 and 2010, whilst marine air temperatures show little if any change between 1880 and 2010 (Underwood (1) 2017). Recent academic literature is also beginning to question the accuracy of the adjusted in situ data (Kent et al. 2017).
In order for an increase in carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere to result in an increase in the surface temperature of the Earth, it must be able to increase the absorption of infrared radiation emitted from the surface. This would result in an increase in the absorption factor, f. However, as seen above f is currently around 0.9444. Absorption of infrared radiation by molecules of greenhouse gases, involves increasing the internal energy of the molecule by changing the quantum state of the molecules, which can only occur at particular wavelengths, known as absorption bands.
These absorption bands can be extended by what is referred to as pressure broadening (Strong and Plass 1950; Kaplan 1952), but when all of the emitted infrared radiation within these absorption bands has been absorbed by greenhouse gas molecules in the atmosphere, no further absorption of the terrestrial radiation is possible. The radiation with wavelengths falling outside of the absorption bands passes through the atmosphere and escapes into space.
Absorption of solar radiation in in the stratosphere is almost 100% efficient in the ultraviolet due to electronic transitions of oxygen (O2) and ozone (O3) and a significant amount of solar radiation is absorbed by water vapor (H2O) in the lower atmosphere. It is primarily the visible radiation that is absorbed at the Earth’s surface. In the infrared, absorption is again almost 100% efficient because of the greenhouse gases, but there is a window between 8 and 13 mm, near the peak of terrestrial emission, where the atmosphere is only a weak absorber except for a strong ozone feature at 9.6 mm. This atmospheric window allows direct escape of radiation from the surface of the Earth to space and is of importance in determining the temperature of the Earth’s surface (Jacob 1999).
Additional leakage could occur if the greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere were insufficient to absorb all of the infrared radiation in the absorption bands emitted by the Earth’s surface, but due to the extent of the atmosphere and its known unsaturated state, it is more likely that the current leakage corresponds to radiation in the part of the infrared spectrum that does not fall in the greenhouse gas absorption and emission bands, referred to as the “infrared window”. As a consequence, even in the case where there is leakage of infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface directly into space, as long as the atmosphere is able to absorb all of the upwelling infrared radiation in the greenhouse gas absorption bands, neither the amount of this leakage nor the amount of the absorption will depend on concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. From the emission spectra (a) and absorption percentages (b) in the diagram above (Fig. 2.6, Yang 2016), where the 255°K blackbody curve represents the terrestrial radiation, it appears that at the current surface temperature and absorption factor of 0.9444 all of the radiation within the emission bands is fully absorbed, and that the remaining 5.56 percent of the infrared emission represents radiation with wavelengths within the atmospheric window. If this is true, there can be no further increase in f [absorption], and no increase in the surface temperature with an increase in carbon dioxide.

Increase In Solar Forcing Explains Recent Warming

The difference between the minima showed an increase of 0.2812 W/m-2 for VIRGO; 0.4701 W/m-2 for ACRIM; and 0.2650 W/m-2 for ACRIM + TIM over the 11.6 year solar cycle 23 beginning in May 1996 and ending in January 2008; or 0.24 W/m-2 per decade for VIRGO, 0.40 W/m-2 per decade for ACRIM, and 0.23 W/m-2 per decade for ACRIM + TIM (pmodwrc website
These decadal increases in TSI [Total Solar Irradiance] from ACRIM, SARR, VIRGO and ACRIM + TIM are sufficient to explain the whole of the increase in surface temperature estimated from in situ data during the last 100 years. They compare with the six published model-based estimates of forcing examined in Schwartz (2012) that showed forcing by incremental greenhouse gases and aerosols over the twentieth century ranging between 0.11 and 0.21 W/m-2 per decade.


Solution of the Greenhouse Effect equations based on a more realistic atmospheric model that includes absorption of solar radiation by the atmosphere, thermals and evaporation, and an examination of the fraction of terrestrial infrared radiation absorbed whilst passing through the atmosphere, suggests that the contribution of greenhouse gases to the surface temperature is close to its upper limit. Any further contribution would depend on an increase in the infrared absorption factor of the atmosphere from its current level of around 0.9444, which seems unlikely. As this appears to correspond to total absorption of all black body infrared emission from the Earth’s surface at wavelengths at which there are greenhouse gas absorption bands, including for water vapor, it seems likely that we are close to the thermodynamic limit of greenhouse warming for the current luminosity of the sun, and that any further increase in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere will have little or no effect on the surface temperature of the Earth. Questions about the reliability of in situ measurements of surface temperatures also raise questions about current estimates of global warming. Moreover, recent evidence from satellite measurements of solar irradiance, indicate that any recent warming could be due to increasing solar irradiance.

A conference paper with a similar conclusion regarding the emissive/warming limitations of increased CO2 concentrations was presented by a molecular physicist, Dr. N. Doustimotlagh, at the World Conference On Climate Change in October, 2016.

Doustimotlagh and Mirzaee, 2016

So because of the limited values of electromagnetic waves that come from Earth and limitation of  absorption of greenhouse gasses, the greenhouse effect of greenhouse gasses should be limited.  In other words, after absorbing of all the IR waves that come from Earth by greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, there are no IR waves to cause greenhouse effect. It means that “two things that cause greenhouse effect are greenhouse gasses and IR waves in absorption spectrum of these gasses, so if greenhouse gasses increases but there are no IR waves, it is natural that there is no greenhouse effect”.
If the concentration of CO2 in atmosphere increases until absorbs all the values of  electromagnetic waves that are absorbable for CO2, additional values of CO2 should not have greenhouse effect.

56 responses to “New AGU Presentation: ‘No Increase In Earth’s Surface Temperature From Increase In CO2’”

  1. SebastianH

    What kind of “independent researcher” is the author of the paper? It should be basic knowledge amongst climate scientists (and skeptics) that the surface temperature does not increase because more infrared radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere, but in changes of the volume/distance it is absorbed (at least for Earth). So, why do we want to believe in the results of a paper from someone who doesn’t understand this basic principle?

    1. tom0mason

      What’s up seb, don’t like the message go after the messenger?

      1. SebastianH

        What’s up seb, don’t like the message go after the messenger?

        What’s up tomOmason, don’t recognize when someone goes after the message?

        1. tom0mason

          OK seb, you obviously are trying not to understand so let’s take this statement first

          What kind of “independent researcher” is the author of the paper?

          “What’s up tomOmason, don’t recognize when someone goes after the message?”

          Guess what that first question is about err, not the message but the messenger!

          In REAL SCIENCE it doesn’t matter, so why did YOU bother asking. Ex-patent clerks would be interested if they were still alive.

          1. SebastianH

            And you didn’t bother to read further than the first sentence? Does that happen often to you?

            The message is bad, so recognizing that it is not allowed to ask who this “independent researcher” is that is being celebrated so uncritically in the article?

          2. tom0mason

            No YOU are implying by saying What kind of “independent researcher” that he has researched and had this paper published to do something other than further scientific knowledge — that he has an anterior motive for this research.
            Only someone with a mental aberration could disparage this independent researcher without proof.

          3. SebastianH

            Reply in spam folder?

            What I am implying is that a researcher should know the basics of his field, shouldn’t he/she?

            Improving insulation doesn’t mean that the insulating material is suddenly absorbing more of the energy, than before. Or to say it in another way, do you (and/or the researcher) think that the CO2 above the height at which all radiation at the relevant wavelength is absorbed, has no effect?

          4. tom0mason

            What kind of child would attempt to divert the conversion?

            No seb, YOU are implying, by saying ‘What kind of “independent researcher” is the author of the paper?’, that he is a researcher doing something other than seeking to further scientific knowledge — that he has an anterior motive for this research. By that one phrase You are questioning the bona fides of the man, and not his research.

          5. SebastianH

            What kind of child would attempt to divert the conversion?

            What kind of crumpy old person would misinterpret everything on purpose and make up straw man arguments to distract from the topic?

            Should I have written “what type”? The intent was to ask for the field that this researcher researches in, but if you say I implied stuff … then that must be the case.

          6. tom0mason

            “What kind of crumpy old person would misinterpret everything on purpose and make up straw man arguments to distract from the topic?”

            Look in the mirror much seb?

  2. A C Osborn

    In the Underwood paper shouldn’t the Units be nM and not mm?

  3. The history of Climate Change - Page 139 - Historum - History Forums

    […] saturated, precluding the capacity of increased CO2 concentrations to produce atmospheric warming. New AGU Presentation: ?No Increase In Earth?s Surface Temperature From Increase In CO2? […]

  4. CO2isLife

    “Instead, Underwood argues that the absorption band where CO2 emissivity could have an effect is likely already saturated, precluding the capacity of increased CO2 concentrations to produce atmospheric warming.”

    It will be interesting to see how much of his analysis matches this analysis. It would be independent confirmation if it happens.

    Climate “Science” on Trial; CO2 is a Weak GHG, it has no Permanent Dipole

  5. Dan Pangburn

    Same conclusion (CO2 has no significant effect on climate) but different approach
    and including that which is temporarily countering global cooling are at

    1. yonason
  6. Don

    Underwood doesn’t understand the Hansen theory. With Hansen, saturation at low altitudes is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that CO2 emissions occur at a high altitude which is cooler/less efficient and that warms the entire planet. The adiabatic curve shifts.

    That is of course ridiculous as we all that CO2 acts as a blanket to shield us from the warmth of the stratosphere.

  7. sunsettommy


    How can CO2 act as a blanket,shield when it most of the IR window is outside of its bandwidth absorption range?

    Here is a simple chart showing how little outgoing IR gets absorbed:

    “Let’s look at a real result, below – the absorption spectrum for pure carbon dioxide plus an amount of water vapor equal to that in our current atmosphere as the sample and infrared radiation from a black body spectrum as the source. This is part of the so-called “greenhouse effect”

    “As we can see above, carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in only three narrow bands of frequencies, which correspond to wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µm), respectively. The percentage absorption of all three lines combined can be very generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the “heat” passes right through without being absorbed by CO2. In reality, the two smaller peaks don’t account for much, since they lie in an energy range that is much smaller than the where the 15 micron peak sits – so 4% or 5% might be closer to reality. If the entire atmosphere were composed of nothing but CO2, i.e., was pure CO2 and nothing else, it would still only be able to absorb no more than 8% of the heat radiating from the earth.”

    I have known this for many years,how come you still don’t know?

    1. SebastianH


      How can CO2 act as a blanket,shield when it most of the IR window is outside of its bandwidth absorption range?

      the article is about how CO2 is already absorbing all radiation in its spectrum. Did you miss that?

      1. sunsettommy

        Sebastian, did you write this?

        “Kenneth, what happens when you have one layer of isolation around a heat source? Let’s say it is a sheet of metal, so no IR goes through that sheet, everything is absorbed (or reflected, but that is irrelevant now). What happens when you add a second sheet closer to the heat source? Everything is still absorbed, but you now have a far better insulation effect.

        If you think gases work fundamentally different insulating things, then please prove it and get a Nobel for that discovery.”

        What I wrote is correct,while you IGNORE the 92-95% outgoing IR flow it doesn’t absorb. Therefore it can’t be a insulator,blanket at all.

        That slight increase in the absorption of outgoing IR doesn’t significantly impact the total energy flow that leaves the system.

        1. yonason

          I think that ought to make clear why he rarely engages in scientific details. They just aren’t his strong suit.

        2. SebastianH

          What I wrote is correct,while you IGNORE the 92-95% outgoing IR flow it doesn’t absorb. Therefore it can’t be a insulator,blanket at all.

          It doesn’t have to perfectly absorb all IR to be an insulator/blanket. Absorbing all IR at a specific wavelength over a distance and re-emitting it again in all directions and that repeated several times until the radiation (at that wavelength) leaves the Earth-atmosphere system is what happens here. More CO2 raises the height at which that happens, which makes “losing” the heat to space less effective, which causes the surface to warm. A pretty basic principle which doesn’t only work with CO2, but anything that isn’t a perfect reflector or perfectly transparent.

          That slight increase in the absorption of outgoing IR doesn’t significantly impact the total energy flow that leaves the system.

          It certainly doesn’t on the grand scale. What is a 1K temperature increase at 288 K average temperature? A 0.35% increase?

          1. sunsettommy

            Sebastian, you still fail to think it through because the 1K you babble about is swamped by the increase in outgoing IR OUTSIDE of the CO2 absorption bands.

            I showed you this before,yet you still fail to get it:

            “Since the accepted value of the total GHE is 33 °C, I used each proportion of energy to the 33 °C. The result was as follows:

            Evaporation: 22.0 °C
            Water vapor (GHG): 5.0 °C
            Convection: 4.7 °C
            CO2 (GHG): 0.9 °C
            Ozone (GHG): 0.3 °C
            Other (GHG): 0.2 °C

            If CO2 were removed, the change in energy transfer would be 3.3 W/m^2 which is 2.75% of the total. That change corresponds to a total change to the GHE of 0.9 °C which I will consider 1 °C as the ozone transfer really takes place in the stratosphere.

            Since the Earth’s temperature is ~287K, the temperature of the Earth without CO2 would be ~286K.”


            The added CO2 in the atmosphere is a TRIVIAL increase in the overall budget.which is based on the %5 of the outgoing IR that CO2 absorbs.But when you realize that as the surface warms up,increases the speed of energy leaving the planet…..CO2 doesn’t stop it.

            As shown here:

            “A 0.5 °C temperature difference between these two years resulted in an additional 2.5 W/m2 increase in the measured amount of energy lost to space. That increase in energy loss is not theoretical, it is a measured difference. It is also what is predicted by the Stefan-Boltmann Law.

            If the Earth were to warm by 1.1 °C, the amount of energy lost would be almost 4 W/m2 greater than what it lost in 1984. If the Earth were to warm by 3.0 °C which is what is predicted by a doubling of CO2, then the amount of energy lost would be > 10 W/m2 the energy loss that existed in 1984.

            The science of this is very clear. The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot stop the Earth from losing more energy if it warms up. The reasons behind this are the wavelengths of energy that are transmitted by the Earth, but it can simply be shown by looking at the energy loss increase that has taken place over the past 25 years.”


            You fuss over a 5% of the IR window,while ignoring the rest.

            That is stupid.

          2. SebastianH


            I showed you this before,yet you still fail to get it:

            Sorry, but it is you who “has to get it”. We had that discussion before and you didn’t understand why it is nonsense to split up the upward energy flux from the surface to the atmosphere this way. Do I need to repeat myself?

            The added CO2 in the atmosphere is a TRIVIAL increase in the overall budget.which is based on the %5 of the outgoing IR that CO2 absorbs.But when you realize that as the surface warms up,increases the speed of energy leaving the planet…..CO2 doesn’t stop it.

            As shown here:

            Oh please, you have to stop believing that “inconvenient skeptic”. Take a physics course and learn how heat transfer works. The above statement works for a moon without an atmosphere, then a warmer surface results in more radiation being emitted. With an atmosphere that is also true for the top of the atmosphere temperature … if it increases the planet loses more energy. But we are talking about the surface of a planet with an atmosphere.

            I don’t know why you choose to believe that author over there. Aren’t you a skeptic? What causes you to not question the validity of what he writes? Because it’s what you want to read? Maybe you should read something that really is “inconvenient” for you.

            Blankets aren’t radioactive, and thus they don’t re-emit heat in all directions.

            What has radioactivity to do with it? And of course, blankets re-emit in all directions. Everything re-emits in all directions. If it has a temperature, it emits.

            How much more CO2 is required to cause this hypothetical conceptualization to occur?

            Every single CO2 molecule causes this to occur. When you add gas to the atmosphere and increase its concentration, what do you think happens? The concentration increases at every height and since the height where CO2 radiates towards space depends on the density of those molecules this height naturally increases when the concentration increases.

            I ask because the Earth’s surface was about 5 degrees warmer than now, and the oceans were about 3 meters higher than now, at a time when CO2 concentrations were about 260 ppm.

            No, you are asking because you ignore basic physics and instead want to distract (again). Surprisingly Earth’s surface was even hotter before and maybe it will get even hotter in a billion years again. That has nothing to do with the CO2 (and other GHGs) mechanism and how it influences temperature.

            Yes, a “principle” that has never been observed to occur in the real world.

            Every day.

            Nowhere in your “explanation” does the physical process by which the Earth’s deep ocean temperatures are warmed by this unspecified mechanism (“more CO2 raises the height at which that happens”).
            Come on, this can’t be new to you. If you heard of this mechanism the first time from me here in the comments, then you aren’t reading as many papers as I thought you do.

            And by now you should also know why the temperature of things changes. When you want an object with a 100 Watt energy source to become warmer than you either increase the power or you increase insulation. The latter one is what CO2 and other GHGs do. And no, it doesn’t disappear if you happen to increase the power at the same time.

          3. SebastianH

            So with well-mixed CO2 concentrations, why was the Earth 5 degrees warmer than now when CO2 concentrations were apparently causing significant cooling (because they were only 260 ppm vs. today’s 405 ppm)? Why does this principle/hypothetical model not match up with paleoclimate data which show the oceans were much warmer with low concentrations of CO2 than high concentrations?

            Are you asking this question because you think that I am saying that only CO2 concentration changes cause temperature changes?

            I bet Earth was a few hundred K warmer shortly after it formed. And I am also pretty sure that the CO2 concentration was way higher in the past (e.g. before plants existed). Neither was caused by humans.

            So – to answer your question – something else warmed the oceans. You don’t need high CO2 concentration to get warming, but when they happen, you get warming.

            Sheesh, considering about half the Earth has not experienced any net warming since the first half of the 20th century,

            From the soon-to-be Kenneth FAQ: Nope …

            What caused the lack of significant warming? The Antarctic ice sheet has been gaining mass since 1800. The Greenland Ice Sheet gained mass between the 1940s and 2000s, just as CO2 concentrations were rising dramatically. Why, SebastianH? Why has the GIS only contributed 1.5 cm in total to sea level rise since 1900? In other words, why has the GIS effectively been in long-term balance, and why has Antarctica not even warmed at all?

            Global warming doesn’t necessarily mean that the additional heat is distributed equally.

            Sorry, but no, there has been no real-world cause-effect observation or controlled scientific experiment that provides measurements for how much a body of water’s temperatures are cooled by …

            You asked about the principle … it is observable every day, you can observe it in laboratories. That is can’t be directly observed for the scenario you describe doesn’t mean that the principle doesn’t exist. Your logic seems to be flawed.

            Wow, with this kind of power to heat the oceans with such minuscule change in CO2 density, one would think the Holocene would have been much, much colder than now.

            You don’t seem to be aware of what huge quantities of energy a constant forcing causes to accumulate. It’s not a switch that causes instant warming, it is the accumulation over decades/centuries. The effect of the current level of the CO2 concentration are just at the beginning. Even if we could somehow stop the increase and let it level out at 400 ppm with reduced emissions, it would still continue to warm until the accumulation of energy is enough to reach an equilibrium state.

            You and large numbers, integrals, derivatives and exponential functions … they don’t seem to go together.

          4. SebastianH

            So identify the “something else”

            Why? I guess you have a list of papers which tell you exactly what supposedly happened, haven’t you? Pick anything from that list.

            when CO2 was exerting a cooling influence (since it was only 260 ppm during that period).

            You haven’t understood a thing about how CO2 acts and how the greenhouse effect works. Why do you think 260 ppm exert a cooling influence?

            That’s probably why the Southern Hemisphere hasn’t been warming since the 1940s.

            There Has Been No ‘Global’ Warming In The Southern Hemisphere, …

            I’ll just repeat that link …

            So it’s a principle that varying CO2 molecules in volumes of +/-0.000001 over water bodies causes either cooling or warming

            No, it is a principle that’s based on the laws of physics and can be observed in a laboratory. Again, while your point is valid, your conclusion from it is the same as someone claiming gravity works differently at some place in the universe where we can’t easily test it. It could be, but it is very unlikely that Nobel prize worthy physics concerning this principle hasn’t been discovered yet.

            Apparently this “accumulation” principle works for CO2, but not other natural factors.

            It works for any constant forcing. The periodic changes of the Sun’s influence aren’t constant, they are periodic and sometimes even cause negative forcing. It seems to be the time of the month (again) to repost this graph:
            Still don’t understand it?

            This statement assumes that ocean temperatures are controlled by human CO2 emissions

            No, it just assumes that the laws of physics continue to work.

            It also assumes that all other factors that “used to” influence changes in ocean temperatures remain static or do not change to any significant degree,

            Huh? If there is a change that counters the warming from CO2, good. If there is a change that causes additional warming, bad. Whatever other changes happen, it doesn’t influence the change caused by CO2.

            Sometimes I think you really believe that if you turned on the air condition in a heated building you could somehow cause the heater to not cause heating. Yes, the temperature will stabilize, but it still would be warmer than without the heater.

            an assumption at odds with paleoclimate data that show ocean temperatures rise and fall at ten times the rate of the last 200 years, or since humans presumptively took over the climate controls.

            I find it very strange that you seem to think the man-made climate change first has to surpass past climate changes in magnitude to confirm that it couldn’t be of natural origin …

          5. Lit

            “It’s 9.81 m/s^2”

            *Surface acceleration (m/s2) 9.780*


            “1 W = 1 kg * m^2/s^3
            1 N = 1 kg * m/s^2”


            Convert 1W to Nm and see what you get.

            If you want instructions how to square Nm and W, let me know. It seems like you have some problems with this stuff.

            Are you aware that Newton’s constant, G, is in units Nm²?
            You seem to have a problem with perspective, having a hard time visualizing a force acting on a square meter instead of in a point along a meter.

            On Mars you can find the same relationship where g² is the difference between effective emission and surface temp. Venus has it as well, but at higher altitude.

            If you choose a retarded theory where dry ice in cold fluids makes its heat source hotter by energy creation, instead of the first law, then it’s your problem and everybody else can ignore you, because that is religious blanket-people talk.

        3. sunsettommy

          Here is a chart showing how little CO2 absorbs outgoing IR:

          Surely you have seen this before?

          1. SebastianH

            Sure, I’ve seen this before. Surely you can calculate what amount of energy is absorbed by CO2, can you?

            Have you seen this before and played with it?

          2. sunsettommy


            You must be willfully avoiding that 95% of the IR outflow that CO2 doesn’t absorb. That part of the IR window has long been habitually avoided by narrow minded warmists everywhere,you are just the latest to do it.

            The chart make it clear how little outgoing IR CO2 absorbs,yet you ignore that fact.

            MODTRAN doesn’t cover it either,when you use CO2 and CH4 in it.

            Why can’t you think beyond the end of your nose?

          3. SebastianH

            Why can’t you think beyond the end of your nose?

            Again, can you calculate the amount of energy in that band or not?

          4. yonason

            @sunsettommy 16. November 2017 at 4:39 PM

            I’ve got a calculation for SebH right here (from a paper published in 1998)…

            “The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m2 [14] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n3 band as observed from satellite measurements (Hanel et al., 1971) and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m2 – and not 4.3 W/m2.

            This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC’s radiative forcing.

            In other words, we knew 2 decades ago that CO2 causing any warming to speak of was nonsense.

          5. sunsettommy

            It has been calculated many,many times Sebastian, you are being desperate because you know your babble is silly and confined to just one small energy stream,the main point I keep bringing up is what you never acknowledge at all. You keep harping on the that slim CO2 bandwidth (the 5%) while you ignore the 95% part I bring up.

            The chart make clear the main Terrestrial IR outflow is mostly OUTSIDE the main CO2 band. This is the part most warmists fail utterly since they don’t even have that 95% adequately accounted for in that cute Trenberth cartoon chart.

            Modtran calculations only covers a small part of the IR window,surely that is obvious. You made that clear with your own MODTRAN link, he he….

            The 1990 IPCC report PREDICTED a .30C per decade warming,based on the AGW conjecture. The Satellite data shows about HALF that rate of .16C per decade.

            This is why there is no visible indication in the Satellite data of any CO2 effect. No Tropical hotspot either,which is a major prediction based on the ABW conjecture.

            THere is no CO2 warm forcing effect visible in the temperature data. The Inconvenient skeptic is a well educated man with a science degree and strong math skills,who used actual data that you apparently ignored,while you mock him. He used two calendar data points to show the INCREASED outflow of energy from the planet,that is more than TWICE what the postulated increased CO2 warm forcing can promote.

            Stop ignoring the evidence Sebastian!

          6. SebastianH

            The Inconvenient skeptic is a well educated man

            Then he shouldn’t make the errors of a highschool student and exploit people like you and yonason who believe this nonsense.

            Stop ignoring the evidence Sebastian!

            Yes, please stop ignoring the evidence and don’t fall for nonsense. Even if CO2 would only account for 5% of the radiative greenhouse effect, that doesn’t mean that a change in that effect is insignificant. I have no patience with trying to explain it to you over and over again. You obviously made up your mind from reading those questionable sources … well, stay in wonderland, continue to talk about unicorn farts, ignore reality and pad yourself on the shoulder for being a good skeptic 😉

  8. Pariah Dog

    First up, my apologies, I’m about to ask something which was mentioned on a different thread. Specifically, this comment about the ‘two shell model’:
    I’m trying to follow this in my poor uneducated head, but it seems to me that there’s a lot of extra numbers coming from nowhere. If the rule is, the outer shell must emit to space as much as it absorbs as input, and the input is 240W/m2 from the sun, then where is the extra 240W/m2 coming from that gets passed on to the next ‘shell’? And if the first shell is 100% absorbent, how is the 240W/m2 from the ‘external source’ getting to the inner shell and the surface?
    If the shells are also ‘transparent’ to the external source, in other words, the external source acts on them independently of each other, which is the only way I can how the extra 240W/m2 is applied to the inner shell, then surely each shell and the surface will all emit 240W/m2 back into space the same way that it arrived?
    This example as read (by me) implies that the surface will be emitting 3x as much (720W/m2) as is being provided by the external source, and I don’t understand how this can be so unless there is another ‘source’ at or below the surface.

    1. John Brown

      Pariah Dog,

      you need to understand that the two shell model a wrong representation of the thermodynamic processes in the atmosphere is. It is only for the radiative energy transfer but neglects the true complexity and dependencies, which arise from conduction and convective heat transfers that occur simultaneously.

      The key to understand the idea behind the two shell concept is the point that the heat flow has to be constant. As per transfer equation it depends on the temperatures. Two bodies at the same temperature will have no heat flow between them. If one body is hotter it will transfer energy to the cooler body. If the cooler body has a warmer temperature then according to the equation the warmer body would need to be at a higher temperature too in order to be able to transfer the same amount of energy.

      The main conditions in the shell problem are:
      Shells are not connected, outer shell surrounds the other body and has a constant energy source. No other energy transfers or cooling options.

      While the atmosphere surrounds Earth like a shell it also is coupled with Earth via conduction and convective heat transfer.
      Also the sun is not a constant energy source for all of Earth and it is also a energy source not on the inside. To understand the complexity look up “Prandtl layer”.

      So the simple model of the two shells wrongly assumes to represent the Earth and its atmosphere. It does not!

      1. Pariah Dog

        Thanks, John, that’s what I thought. The explanation of it given didn’t make any sense to me at all!

  9. John Murphy

    Here is an experiment that proves that radiation fluxes cannot be added together to produce a higher temperature than the highest produced by either of the sources.
    That means that you cannot add heat fluxes and get an intelligent result any more than you can add temperatures.
    In turn that means that the radiant flux from the Greenhouse Gas layer cannot increase the temperature of the Earth’s surface set by the Solar flux.
    Fluxes can never, ever be added under any circumstances – although that is what is taught in all universities as the Greenhouse Gas theory.
    Go here:

    Of course this should be done in a proper laboratory using a vacuum instead of the open air – but the results are undeniable anyway.
    We are currently thinking how to use this simple experiment to get some the people spending our money to rethink – and do something else.

    All ideas welcome.

  10. John Brown


    while it is correct that fluxes do not add up as proposed in the Greenhouse gas theory it is not correct to assume that the apparent flux coming from the sun is equivalent to a temperature. Simply spoken it is energy that is coming in. And in theory if you have energy being added to a body it heats it up dependent on the in and outs. The fundamental flaw with greenhouse gas theory is: not to look at how the incoming energy is converted to heat and also that it ignores that Earth has a primary temperature from its internal heating processes.
    The assumption of Earth being at -18 Deg C is bogus the same way it is bogus to assume that back radiation heats up Earth. Back radiation adjusts to the temperature of Earth and not the other way around. If it was the other way around it would be a self heating process and we would have burned out already.
    Greenhouse gases cool Earth. How is that as a general idea?

  11. Paul

    I remember from one of my themo classes from 50 years ago that there is such a thing as critical radius of insulation i.e. if an insulation thickness is increased over a certain distance the increased area of the exposed surface are of the insulation to the outside temperature difference will cause an increase in heat flow and thus a decrease in the temperature of the body being insulated. We even performed lab experiments which showed this happening.

  12. A Thorpe

    The Underwood paper treats the so called Earth Energy Balance diagram of Trenberth as though it is based on science. Firstly, it is not an energy balance diagram. It is a heat flux balance diagram. Thermodynamics is about conservation of total energy, not heat flux. It is not correct to say the heat flux from the sun is equal to the heat flux from the earth.

    Next it assumes a balance at the surface of the atmosphere, the surface of the earth and at some point in the atmosphere. It does not matter whether this is flux or total energy because these energy balance points do not exist. Even at the surface of the atmosphere there cannot be a balance in the long term otherwise we would not have experience the ice ages. An accurate climate model must take the energy from the sun as variable and calculate all other variables with no balance points assumed. Such a model may be too complex, but anything else is just nonsense.

    The Trenberth diagram is complex but it simplifies to this. The energy from the sun (S) is absorbed by the earth’s surface. The surface heat (E) is transferred to the atmosphere where it is absorbed. The atmosphere radiates energy (A) equally to the earth and to space. Sketch the diagram and S = A at the edge of the atmosphere. The atmosphere is in balance so E = 2A. The surface is in balance and so E = S + A. But since S=A then E = 2S. The result of assuming the atmosphere has an energy balance means that the earth’s surface radiates twice the energy received from the sun. This is not correct. Hence, the greenhouse effect was born. The atmosphere cannot generate energy and in the Trenberth diagram it is shown as heat circulating as backradiation. This is a perpetual motion machine.

    The entire concept put forward by Trenberth is wrong. The climate models make the matter worse since they add more balance layers to the atmosphere in an attempt to increase the accuracy. But just extend my simple diagram to three balanced layers and each layer has to generate energy to make it work.

    I do not understand how this utter rubbish has taken hold of the science community and highly technical papers are written in support and against. It is rubbish at a fundamental level generating even more nonsense in published papers.

    Prof Brian Cox supported this the Australian TV Q&A programme in 2006. He claimed a “consensus” of scientist could not be argued against. In his work on the Large Hadron Collider which proved the existence of he Higgs Boson particle he would never claim a consensus. It was experimental evidence. He then went on to hold up graphs of CO2 and temperature and claimed a visual correlation was proof that humans were the cause of global warming. I am afraid that many scientists have now been bought by government funding which is only available for research on human causes of global warming. Michael Mann tried to eliminate recent warm and cold periods with his hockey stick. Now it seems the world has eliminated all the ice ages and believes only humans can change the climate.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy