Study Finds The CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is Real…But Dangerous Global Warming From Rising CO2 Is Not

Share this...

German physicists claim to have experimentally demonstrated the greenhouse effect from greenhouse gases like CO2 and CH4 is a real phenomenon, but assess the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 with feedbacks is “only ECS = 0.7°C … 5.4x lower than the mean value of CMIP6 with ECS = 3.78°C.”

The derived forcing for CO2 is in quite good agreement with some theoretical studies in the literature, which to some degree is the result of calibrating the set-up to the spectral calculations, but independently it determines and also reproduces the whole progression as a function of the gas concentration. From this we deduce a basic equilibrium climate sensitivity (without feedbacks) of ECSB = 1.05°C. When additionally assuming a reduced wing absorption of the spectral lines due to a finite collision time of the molecules this further reduces the ECSB by 10% and, thus, is 20% smaller than recommended by CMIP6 with 1.22°C.”
Detailed own investigations also show that in contrast to the assumptions of the IPCC water vapor only contributes to a marginal positive feedback and evaporation at the earth’s surface even leads to a significant further reduction of the climate sensitivity to only ECS = 0.7°C (Harde 2017 [15]). This is less than a quarter of the IPCC’s last specification with 3°C (see AR6 [1]) and even 5.4x lower than the mean value of CMIP6 with ECS = 3.78°C.”
“The presented measurements and calculations clearly confirm the existence of an atmospheric GHE, but they also demonstrate the only small impact on global warming, which apparently is much more dominated by natural impacts like solar radiative forcing (see, e.g., Connolly et al. 2021 [16]; Harde 2022 [17]). Therefore, it is high time to stop a further indoctrination of our society with one-sided information, fake experiments, videos or reports, only to generate panic.”

Image Source: Harde and Schnell, 2022

 

Share this...

17 responses to “Study Finds The CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is Real…But Dangerous Global Warming From Rising CO2 Is Not”

  1. Stephen Richards

    I saw a guy do an experiment where he used plastic zip bags and an infra-heater. I know, we’ve seen this done so many times. He filled one bag with co² ( almost certainly wet ) and another with (almost certainly containing water ).
    Put a 375°F heater in front of an infra sensor (don’t know what frequency ) with the CO² bag and then the air bag.
    The co² read 315°F the air 305°F.
    So near 100% co² retained an extreme temperature 60° below the initiated source. The air must have contained 0.04% co².
    I’ll leave to work through the relevance of these results

  2. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

    Was that paper pulled, and only the shortened version left up on Harde and Schnell’s website? Because the DOI for that isn’t found at the link provided in the shortened version.

    https://doi.org/10.53234/scc202112//213
    https://sci-hub.se/10.53234/scc202112//213

    Both of the links above are 404.

    If so, why? Are they yet again attempting the smash-n-grab tactic of publishing utter (and utterly wrong) pabulum to fool the unwashed proles, then quietly pulling the paper while leaving it up on a personal site?

    1. NIc

      Error in your link – look closely and you will see a double back slash //

      Try https://doi.org/10.53234/scc202112/213

      1. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

        Ah, I see. So the link in the paper is the problem.

  3. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

    I think I see what they did… they put their energy source at the top of the container, and the energy sink at the bottom… purportedly to overcome any effects due to convection.

    But it is that exact effect which is what makes CO2 a net atmospheric radiative coolant… it can carry more energy in its higher DOF than the monoatomics (Ar) and homonuclear diatomics (N2, O2), thus an increasing concentration of CO2 will convectively transit more energy from surface to upper atmosphere. And because it is a radiative molecule (whereas monoatomics cannot emit IR, and homonuclear diatomics cannot emit IR unless their net-zero magnetic dipole is perturbed via collision, which doesn’t happen as often in the upper atmosphere due to the altitude / air density relation), it is one of the few atmospheric molecules which can radiatively cool the atmosphere.

    Consider what would happen if the atmosphere consisted solely of monoatomics, unable to radiatively emit. The monoatomics could pick up energy via conduction by contacting the surface (just as the polyatomics do), they could convect (just as the polyatomics do), but once in the upper atmosphere, they could not radiatively shed that energy to space. The upper atmosphere would thus warm, lending less Convective Available Potential Energy to lower-altitude parcels. Thus convection would be hindered. The gravitational auto-compression of the lapse rate would necessitate that the surface warm as well, which would further warm the upper atmosphere… round and round, a runaway greenhouse effect. Now… how does an actual greenhouse work, again? Oh yeah… by hindering convection. It is the monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics which are the actual ‘greenhouse gases’, and they dilute the polyatomic radiative coolant molecules which remove ~76.2% of all surface energy and reject it to space.

    So of course we should expect to see an increase in temperature differential between the top and the bottom of the container with an increased CO2 concentration.

    That’s pretty disingenuous of them. Now they should do the experiment with the energy source at the bottom, and the energy sink at the top. I guarantee it’ll show a higher transit of energy from source to sink with an increased CO2 concentration.

    That’s the same reason the dry adiabatic lapse rate is higher than the humid adiabatic lapse rate… water vapor acts as a literal *refrigerant* below the tropopause.

    That higher dry adiabatic lapse rate is due to the homonuclear diatomics and monoatomics. You really want to cool the planet? Remove all Ar. It occupies 1/5th of the atmosphere and dilutes the radiative polyatomics. It is a monoatomic and thus a true ‘greenhouse gas’.

    The refrigeration cycle (Earth) [A/C system]:

    A liquid evaporates at the heat source (the surface) [in the evaporator], it is transported (convected) [via an A/C compressor], it emits radiation to the heat sink and undergoes phase change (emits radiation in the upper atmosphere, the majority of which is upwelling owing to the mean free path length / altitude / air density relation) [in the condenser], it is transported (falls as rain or snow) [via that A/C compressor], and the cycle repeats.

    We live in what can be analogized to the evaporator of a world-sized AC unit, with water vapor and air as the working fluid. Now consider why AC techs remove noncondensable (lower DOF) gases from an AC unit, and why they use a high-DOF polyatomic as a refrigerant.

    1. Graeme No.3

      I thought Argon was 0.9% of the atmosphere. Also that homonuclear diatomics could absorb IR via collision, (some guy called Einstein in 1915, supported by Planck). Otherwise you would wind up with 0.04% of the atmosphere capturing all the heat radiated from the surface.
      Not that there would be much unless you are claiming that liquid water (70% of the Earth’s surface) is radiating IR, rather than evaporation.

      1. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

        Yeah, you’re right. Brain glitch. 0.934% Ar (9340 ppmv). Still, removing it would remove Ar’s dilution of the radiative polyatomics and thus cool the atmosphere, much as removing noncondensable gases from an AC system allows more energy to be transited from evaporator to condenser. Remember, we live in what can be analogized to the evaporator of a world-sized AC unit, with water vapor and air as the working fluid removing ~76.2% of all surface energy via convection and advection, then emission to space… the more energy that working fluid can transit (ie: the more DOF the molecules of that working fluid have to store energy), the more surface cooling there is.

        I actually did the calculations to determine the magnitude of cooling if all Ar were removed from the atmosphere, but I had a catastrophic hard drive crash on 3 drives simultaneously, so I wiped the internal drive and remapped the few bad sectors, installed Zorin Core OS (already much better than Windows… everything just works, including Bluetooth, which I could never get working right under Windows), and I can switch at-will between the Intel and Nvidia video cards (something Windows tended to stumble over). I’m remapping bad sectors on the other two drives… I’ll be able to get the data with the calculations back, as those drives are partitioned into several logical drives, so there’s backup upon backup upon backup upon backup. It’ll take awhile, though… they’re big drives.

        Now, I’m using ZFS file system. It keeps a rolling history so you can roll back if something glitches (I just now tried to install Linux kernel 6.0.9 and it glitched… I was back up and running on the next reboot with the original kernel), and it automatically takes care of bad sectors when you issue a SCRUB command. I’ve got one external SSD as an L2ARC cache drive (somewhat akin to Windows ReadyBoost) to speed boot and program load time, and after I get the data off the other drives, I’ll replace them with new drives and add them to the ZFS zpool so the data is held across 3 drives… any single drive crash means I can just replace that drive and the data on it will be rebuilt. I’ll get a fourth drive that’ll be just a traditional backup of my personal files, in case this 3-drive crash somehow impossibly happens again.

        And I was able to switch to the Linux version of the browser I was using under Windows (SRWare Iron… Google Chrome with all the Google corporate spyware stripped out)… same browser, same extensions, same everything. I don’t think I’m going back to Windows. Zorin OS can run Windows programs if I need to do so.

        As to emission and absorption by homonuclear diatomics requiring collision… yes, that’s what I stated, that homonuclear diatomics can absorb (and emit) IR radiation, but only if their net-zero magnetic dipole is perturbed via collision, which occurs less frequently in the upper atmosphere due to the altitude / air density relation.

        There is emission from N2 and O2 due to molecular collision, and it rivals the magnitude of emission from CO2 (but obviously, at different wavelengths) due to the fact that N2 and O2 are so much more prevalent than CO2.

        Water does, in fact, emit IR, as well as evaporates. In fact, there is a controversy right now… there’s a strange similarity between the anistropy of the CMB and the geography of the planet, and some suspect that that anistropy is merely the IR emitted from our oceans, overlaid on the energy density signature of the CMB, fooling our satellite sensors.

  4. Stephen Wilde

    The thing is that any atmosphere contains two energy transfer systems not one.
    Radiation up and down plus convective mass motion up and down. They keep the system stable because they have equal and opposite effects on lapse rate slopes on the local and regional scale.
    That is the grave error of the climate establishment.

  5. Richard Greene

    The greenhouse effect was discovered in the late 1800s so we don’t need more proof of the greenhouse effect.

    The ECS of CO2 including any feedbacks is unknown.
    This “study” adds one more guess to the hundreds made before

    It is claimed that a nearly +50% increase of CO2 was accompanied by about a +1.1 degree C. global warming since 1850. The 1800s numbers are rough guesses.

    The +0.4 degree C. warming prior to 1975 must have had mainly natural causes since CO2 increased very little. The +0.7 degree warming after 1975 was very likely affected by rising CO2.

    If rising CO2 caused all the warming of +0.7 degrees C., then we could say a worst case for CO2 was a 50% increase caused +0.7 degrees C. warming.

    And that would suggest less than +1.4 degrees C. warming from a +100% increase of CO2 as a worst case estimate.

    It is not necessary to make any more guesses.

    Doubling the current level of CO2 of 415ppm to 830ppm would take 166 years at +2.5ppm per year. Perhaps it will be +1.4 degree C. warmer in 166 years as a worst case estimate. That’s not a climate emergency.

    All other estimates of TCS and ECS are just guesses.
    This worst case back of an envelope analysis based on observations gives us the answer we need: There is no climate emergency.

  6. AC Osborn

    My problem with the experiment is the CO2 concentration.
    If you extroplate downwards to look at 0.04% you can see that the W/m2 available for doubling to 0.08% is way below 1 W/m2.

  7. Tom Anderson

    It is hard to understand how people still discuss the earth’s “greenhouse,” a repeatedly debunked notion, as if it were real. The first refutation was by Professor R.W. Wood in 1904, and that was confirmed by the US Department of Energy in 1985. More recently two physicists, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralph Tschneuschner in 2009 examined and rejected all six of the “greenhouse” conjectures by physical principles and the laws of thermodynamics. They were supported two years later by two physicists, Gerhard Kramm and Ralf Dlugi.

    There is no “greenhouse” on this planet. It is a deathless fairy tale and runaway grade school teaching aid whose only virtue is its appeal to lazy minds.

    Carbon dioxide “forcing” is the second joke parading as science. Radiant interactive molecules of every kind interact only within spectral bands of radiation that resonate with their quantum energy number. For CO2, interaction is overwhelmingly (99% +) at 15 microns’ wavelength, the temperature of which, by Wilhelm Wien’s Displacement Law is at 193.13K or -80°C (that is minus 80 degrees). Carbon dioxide, like all molecules, does not interact with the entire solar spectrum and there is no “forcing” from 368°C below 288K.

  8. Richard Greene

    “It is hard to understand how people still discuss the earth’s “greenhouse,” a repeatedly debunked notion, as if it were real.”

    An excellent sentence if you want people to stop reading your comment

  9. david russell

    Back in 2015 Okulaer show that DWLWIR actual decreased from 2000 to 2014 based on CERES data, thereby refuted AGW once and for all.

  10. Al D

    CO2 is around 0.042% of our atmosphere. It’s am essential trace gas. If we were to waste trillions of dollars in a vain attempt to reduce CO2 levels to 0.035% where they’d probably be without our contribution, it wouldn’t make a damn bit of difference. Run those numbers through your heads. It’s such a small reduction of an already small percentage.

    Of course, the great majority of the money slated for CO2 reduction will end up in the pockets of crooked globalists and their co-conspirators and they’ll con the ignorant public into believing they’re making great progress.

    What really needs to be reduced is the 6 major air pollutants. The globalists don’t tell us that. They tell us hundreds of millions of EVs, billions of solar panels, and who knows how many windmills and storage batteries will solve the “CO2 problem” and save the planet. Well, if we adopted that strategy, the planet will become a toxic wasteland. We’re talking about an enormous amount of lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite, rare earth metals, and other raw materials. Mining and refining all of these materials is highly toxic.

    So what should we be doing? We should be prioritizing nuclear power. The enormous amount of energy stored within the atom will not be ignored for long. We should also realize there won’t be enough Li-ion batteries to make even 50% of all transportation and personal vehicles fully electric. Something will have to fill that gap and that means FCEVs and ICEVs that run much cleaner than today’s ICEVs. We can phase out gasoline and diesel oil and phase in hydrogen, natural gas, and eFuels.

    Over a year ago, Chinese government officials said nuclear energy will be producing most of their electricity in the future, even though they are prioritizing coal plants right now. They see the mistake Germany made with solar and wind power. They’re also getting heavily involved with hydrogen, which will be joining batteries to become a big part of our transportation future.

    My prediction for the future: Nuclear power will be providing most of the world’s electricity and producing most of the hydrogen and ammonia for the transportation industry. Batteries, solar panels, windmills, and other energy sources will all be contributing, but nuclear power is the Holy Grail.

  11. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

    Al D wrote:
    “We can phase out gasoline and diesel oil and phase in hydrogen, natural gas, and eFuels.”

    The more processing one does upon an energy source, the more losses mount.

    I once was in an argument with an EV owner on CFACT who claimed that his vehicle was far more efficient than any ICE vehicle.

    But once I did the calculations for him, showing that the fuel-to-wheels efficiency of my ICE vehicle was higher than the fuel-to-wheels efficiency of his EV, he was flummoxed. He’d neglected all the losses inherent in generating and transmitting his electricity, figuring his efficiency only from battery-to-wheels, even neglecting the loss inherent in the battery itself (self-discharge) and the loss from charging (typically 5-15% wallplug-to-battery loss depending upon battery type and age, charge rate and charger used).

    In short, I average ~40 MPG with my ICE vehicle, whereas his Tesla averaged the equivalent of ~34 MPG fuel-to-wheels. Which makes sense, given that his Tesla is so much heavier (due to the battery) than my vehicle.

    Which is why I often state:
    “EVs are shams marketed to people who can’t do the simple math to determine that EVs are shams marketed to people who can’t do simple math.”

  12. Mike Gilding

    I don’t doubt the Greenhouse Effect (GE). But equally, I don’t doubt the Reverse Greenhouse Effect(RGE). If it is possible for CO2/H2O/CH4 etc to reverse the direction of IR Photons from spacewards to earthwards (GE), then it is possible for the same gasses to reverse the direction of IR photons from earthwards to spacewards. Taking account of the fact the ejection takes a random direction, the relative size of space and earth solid angles from anywhere in the atmosphere and that incoming (solar) radiation is greater than outgoing (reflected proportion of solar), the RGE is more potent than the GE. Thus the cooling effect is greater than the warming.

    If this is correct, then the entire ‘catastrophe’ collapses. I do not see why it is incorrect. Advice please.

  13. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #530 – Watts Up With That?

    […] Study Finds The CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is Real…But Dangerous Global Warming From Rising CO2 Is … […]

Leave a Reply

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

Close