Adding CO2 to the atmosphere can have no significant climatic effect when rising above the threshold of about 300 ppm. Due to saturation, higher and higher concentrations do not lead to any further absorption of radiation.
If one were to paint a white surface black so as to allow it to absorb as much heat as possible, it is well known the first layer of paint has the most dominant impact on heat absorption. A second coat covers up any remaining grayish color and perhaps a few spots missed on the first layer. By the third layer, there is effectively no more heat absorption that can be attained with the additional coat, as the surface is saturated in black. It cannot become blacker.
Three Polish physicists have focused their attention on this saturation principle as it applies to CO2 in three recently published papers (Kubicki et al., 2024, 2022, and 2020). Their latest (Kubicki et al., 2024), published in Applications in Engineering Science, summarizes the experimental evidence from their 2020 and 2022 publications substantiating the conclusion that “as a result of saturation processes, emitted CO2 does not directly cause an increase in global temperature.”
“From the conducted considerations, it follows that both in Eq. (4) and Eq. (6), the value of absorption is limited. In the first case, it cannot exceed 1, and in the second case, it cannot exceed the value of ψ less than unity. Therefore, for a sufficiently large mass m, saturation must occur, and further increase in mass will result in a negligible increase in absorption.”
This research adds another layer to more than 50 years of research on the CO2 saturation principle.
“Schack (1972)…demonstrated that for a concentration of 0.03% of carbon dioxide in the air, the absorption process in the troposphere is saturated.”
The authors are concerned about the recent push to rely on modeling and assumptions about CO2’s capacity to drive changes in global temperature rather than observational evidence. They point out the current CO2-is-the-climate-control-knob zeitgeist is no more than a hypothesis.
“This unequivocally suggests that the officially presented impact of anthropogenic CO2 increase on Earth’s climate is merely a hypothesis rather than a substantiated fact.”
Image Source: Kubicki et al., 2024
In their 2022 paper the authors showed that at 400 ppm the CO2 concentration can no longer cause any increase in temperature, as no more absorption of thermal radiation can occur due to saturation.
“…the experiment described in articles [5] an [6] was carried out, where it was shown that thermal radiation from the hot surface of the Moon, after passing through the Earth’s atmosphere, is not absorbed in carbon dioxide. Thus, it was shown for this radiation there is a complete saturation of the process.”
“It can be seen that practically with the mass of carbon dioxide of about 1.5 kg/m², the process of absorption of thermal radiation goes into saturation… So, for the current concentration of 400 ppm for which the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is ~6 kg/m², the limit is four times exceeded.”
“Thus, it can be presumed that the carbon dioxide additionally emitted into the atmosphere does not absorb thermal radiation and thus is not a greenhouse gas.”
Image Source: Kubicki et al., 2022
In their 2020 paper the three physicists reported their experimental evidence can “disprove [the] general theorem” that increasing the concentration of absorbing gases will “cause strong increase of the absorption of the infrared radiation.”
In their experiment they found that there was no difference (120.9 vs. 121.0 μW) in the power of air, with 0.04% CO2, to absorb infrared radiation versus the capacity of 100% CO2 to absorb radiation due to the saturation effect.
Image Source: Kubicki et al., 2020
Recently, other scientists (Chen et al., 2023) also reported that CO2 has a severely reduced effect on atmospheric transmissivity due to (a) absorption saturation (CO2 can have no effect beyond a pre-industrial concentration), and because (b) water vapor and cloud forcing overlap and thus dominate absorption in CO2’s band.
“[Transmissivity] in the CO2 band center is unchanged by increased CO2 as the absorption is already saturated…”
“[T]he water vapor and CO2 overlapping at an absorbing band prevents absorption by additional CO2.”
Image Source: Chen et al., 2023
Physicist Dieter Schildknecht (2020) also reported on the saturation of the CO2 impact once it reaches 300 ppm concentrations, concluding that because of this saturation further CO2 increases “cannot affect the earth’s climate.”
“The absorption reaches values close to 100% for a realistic CO2 content of 0.03%, [so] it is concluded that any further increase of (anthropogenic) CO2 cannot lead to an appreciably stronger absorption of radiation, and consequently cannot affect the earth’s climate.”
Image Source: Schildknecht, 2020
Dr. Easterbrook also illustratively referenced the saturation effect in research published in 2016, calculating the effect of a 80 ppm increase in CO2 as only about 0.01°C.
Notice on the pie chart there is almost no detectable change after the CO2 concentration has reached ~240 ppm.
Image Source: Easterbrook, 2016
In the 1970s, before the anthropogenic global warming narrative had evolved into what it is today, it was common for scientists to admit the CO2 radiative impact is already saturated.
According to Weare and Snell (1974), doubling of the CO2 concentration was thought to lead to a global surface temperature increase of 0.7 K, but a six-fold increase (~2,000 ppm) would only raise temperature 1.0 K more “due to saturation of the 15 μm band.”
Per Rasool and Schneider (1971), increasing the CO2 concentration 10-fold (over 3,000 ppm) would not increase temperatures more than 2.5°C “because the 15 μm band ‘saturates’.”
Image Source: Weare and Snell, 1974 and Rasool and Schneider, 1971
Other scientists at the time estimated that when increasing CO2 “seven times the normal concentrations, the average temperature increase is about 1°C” (Zdunkowski et al., 1975), or that doubled CO2 concentrations lead to 0.30°C warming, but quadrupled CO2 (~1250 ppm) leads to just 0.48°C warming (Gates et al., 1981). Again, this is due to the saturation effect.
The chart (9.7) Archibald via Easterbrook was one of the first items I encountered when using the web sometime after 2008 — I got a speedier connection in the fall of that year.
Now there are questions about how high the concentration of CO2 can become. I recall reading that “doubling” at this time would be 2 X 420. That would be good for plants. Possible? Maybe. Likely? No.
Mr. Richard serves up yet another baloney sandwich, this time from CO2 Does Nothing Nutters who claim almost 100% of climate scientists are wrong about the greenhouse effect and the fact that more CO2 adds to it. A person with some intelligence would see this as an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. But not Richard. He is a dumb-dumb. A super-duper dumb-dumb. He thinks decades of lab spectroscopy are wrong and all the data in HITRAN and MODTRAN are wrong. Almost all scientists are wrong, And Richard Lindzen is wrong, And William Happer is wrong Must be a global conspiracy ?
Saturation is not a simple subject. The saturated argument falls apart like a cheap suitcase when you consider what actually happens in the atmosphere. Here is a simple explanation:
CLAIM:
No matter how high you make the CO2, the absorption doesn’t increase much once you get over about 300 ppm
FALSE
Saturation refers to the condition where increasing the amount of CO2 fails to increase the absorption, because the CO2 was already absorbing essentially all there is to absorb at the wavelengths where it absorbs at all.
Infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere. Some is stopped in each layer by a molecule of carbon dioxide, water vapor or some other greenhouse gas that absorbs a bit of energy from the radiation. The molecule may radiate the energy back out again in a random direction. Or transfer the energy into velocity in collisions with other air molecules, so that the layer of air where it sits gets warmer. The layer of air radiates some of the energy it has absorbed back toward the ground, and some upwards to higher layers. As you go higher, the atmosphere gets thinner and colder. Eventually the energy reaches a layer so thin that radiation can escape into space.
The effect of CO2 never reaches a limit. That is EXACTLY what a logarithmic effect means.
CO2 gas infrared absorption frequency saturation is a somewhat complicated subject. I’ve tried to keep it simple so Mr. Richard will understand.:
You’d still get an increase in greenhouse warming even if the lower atmosphere were saturated.
Why?
Because it’s the absorption in the thin upper atmosphere (which is not saturated) that counts.
It’s not even true that the lower atmosphere is 100% saturated with respect to absorption by CO2,
In the upper atmosphere, water vapor doesn’t overwhelm the effects of CO2 because there’s little water vapor in the high, cold regions of the atmosphere from which infrared escapes to the infinite heat sink of outer space.
At the low pressures there, water vapor radiation absorption is not very efficient, and would let more radiation through to outer space, if not for CO2
These issues were addressed by physicists 50 years ago, and the physics is included in all climate models.
Unfortunately, climate models include a large water vapor positive feedback (except the Russian INM model) that can not be measured.
Why?
Because there are no accurate global annual average water vapor percentage data to figure out the exact correlation of the global annual average temperature and global annual average water vapor percentage.
Unfortunately, “we don’t know” is not permitted in modern climate science. Always permitted are predictions of climate doom and claims that “It’s worse than we previously thought”
No one knows what 10x more CO2 would do to the climate. Or even 2x more CO2. That does not stop the predictions of global warming doom. Wrong for 44 years in a row so far, but they never stop.
CO2 as a boogeyman supports Nut Zero and Nut Zero supports a Transition to Leftist Fascism
NUT ZERO IS ABOUT GAINING POLITICAL POWER, NOT STOPPING CLIMATE CHANGE.
The big open climate science issue is that a warmer troposphere from more CO2 in the air is capable of holding more water vapor, which is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.
The warming amplification from a water vapor positive feedback is unknown, with a HUGE range of guesses from zero to 7x the warming effect of CO2 alone. Meaning no one could possibly know the warming effect of the next doubling of atmospheric CO2. Which would take 168 years at the current CO2 rise rate of +2.5ppm a year
If the concentration of CO2 is essentially constant throughout the tropospere and if it is saturated down here, why it is not saturated up there at 10 km?
The Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and water vapor absorb much of the heat radiation leaving the Earth’s surface. Their concentration determines how much heat escapes from the top of the atmosphere to space. It is the change in what happens at the top of the atmosphere that matters, not what happens near the surface.
As we climb higher in the atmosphere the air gets thinner. There is less of all gases, including the greenhouse gases. Eventually the air becomes thin enough that any heat radiated by the air can escape all the way to space. How much heat escapes to space from this altitude depends on how cold the air is at that height. The colder the air, the less heat it radiates.
If we add more greenhouse gases the air needs to be thinner before heat radiation is able to escape to space. So this can only happen higher in the atmosphere. Where it is colder. So the amount of heat escaping is reduced.
By adding greenhouse gases, we force the radiation to space to come from higher, colder air, reducing the flow of radiation to space. And there is still a lot of scope for more greenhouse gases to push ‘the action’ higher and higher, into colder and colder air, restricting the rate of radiation to space even further.
The Greenhouse Effect isn’t even remotely saturated.
What happens when the height at which radiation escapes to space reaches the tropopause ? Temperature stops declining and heat escaping to space too ?
Hi Richard – Re. “The Greenhouse Effect isn’t even remotely saturated” then where does this graph fit in?
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CO2-has-diminishing-effects-the-higher-it-rises-Easterbrook-2016.jpg
Surely this points to ‘albeit not wholly saturated’ atmospheric CO2 increases will have very little effect on global temperature. So no ‘crisis’. Surely, a small fraction of the many $Trillions ‘Net Zero’ cost W. economies as a whole would be better spent on technologies to turn more deserts green (https://reasonstobecheerful.world/regreen-desertification-loess-plateau-great-green-wall/) and more efficient processes for producing fresh water from sea-water – and much more besides; and there would still be $plenty left in the kitty. Right now if the ‘Net Zero’ track continues to be followed Western economies will be wrecked and we’ll be back to stone-age, surveilled dystopian living in the human battery cage settlements envisioned by the WEF.
Quote
The effect of CO2 never reaches a limit. That is EXACTLY what a logarithmic effect means.
—————-
1.The function is NOT logarithmic but similar to logarithmic. The logarithm is not defined at 0ppm
2.Sure there is a limit. If the CO2 Level is 100%
3. NASA Goddard Institut said there is a absorption limit. https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-san-bernardino-county-sun/57321468/
Richard Greene is full of himself. There could not possibly be thousands of scientists who have presented compelling evidence of a wide variety in papers, books and videos all of which refute the climate change hoax. Calling scientists and common sense citizens names is a cowardly attempt at censorship and conformity, both of which are inimical to science and truth.
http://TheGlobalWarmingFraud.wordpress.com
I note you made no attempt to refute any facts in my long comment Too difficult?
Climate change is not a hoax
There are AGW deniers like Mr. Richard. I believe I called him a something like a There is no AGW Nutter, which is a accurate description. Someone here changed my words to dumb dumb. I have never typed or said that phrase in my life.
Virtually no one has refuted the greenhouse effect and the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Not once in my 26 years of climate and energy reading
The hoax is CAGW, not AGW.
Great Information and really informative! keep up the good work.
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology caclulated the greenhouse effect of CO2:
It is just 0.24°C
https://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Infrared_absorption_capability_of_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide.pdf
ECS can not be calculated or measured.
0.24 is the lowest estimate I have seen in 26 years of climate science reading. I would file it in a circular file.
ECS can be estimated from lab spectroscopy. With no water vapor positive feedback the warming is estimated at 0.7 to 0.8 degrees C. per CO2 x 2. I reject all lower estimates, and so do almost 100% of climate scientists
Among skeptic scientists the ECS of CO2 range is about 0.7 to 1.5 degrees C per CO2 doubling
Among consensus scientists from +2.0 to +5.0 degrees C. per CO2 doubling
The right answer is no one knows.
[…] their evidence by noting that as a result of saturation, “emitted CO2 does not directly cause an increase in global temperature”. Current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are around 418 parts per million (ppm) but the […]
[…] and his team recently published three papers which all conclude that Earth’s atmosphere is already “saturated” with carbon […]
[…] și echipa sa recent a publicat trei lucrări care toate concluzionează că atmosfera Pământului este deja „saturată” cu dioxid de […]
[…] and his team recently published three papers which all conclude that Earth’s atmosphere is already “saturated” with carbon […]
[…] and his team recently published three papers which all conclude that Earth’s atmosphere is already “saturated” with carbon […]
[…] and his team recently published three papers which all conclude that Earth’s atmosphere is already “saturated” with carbon […]
[…] their evidence by noting that as a result of saturation, “emitted CO2does not directly cause an increase in global temperature”. Current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are around 418 parts per million (ppm) but the […]
[…] their evidence by noting that as a result of saturation, “emitted CO2does not directly cause an increase in global temperature”. Current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are around 418 parts per million (ppm) but the […]
[…] From NoTricksZone […]
I applied this saturation physics to climate in 2011, here: https://archive.org/details/RadiationPhysicsConstraintsOnGlobalWarmingCo2IncreaseHasLittleEffect/mode/1up
“Radiation physics constraints on global warming: CO2 increase has little effect”
[…] by noting that as a result of saturation, “emitted CO2 does not directly cause an increase in global temperature”. Current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are around 418 parts per million (ppm) but the […]
[…] 3 Physicists Show CO2’s Capacity To Absorb Radiation Has Saturated, by Kenneth Richard […]
[…] Weitere von Experten begutachtete Studien beweisen neuerlich, dass Kohlendioxid (CO2)-Emissionen in der Erdatmosphäre keine „globale Erwärmung“ verursachen können, wie die Kollegen von NoTricksZone berichten. […]
[…] and his team recently published three papers which all conclude that Earth’s atmosphere is already “saturated” with carbon […]
[…] for increases in carbon dioxide to cause temperatures to rise. Kubicki and his team recently published three papers which all conclude that Earth’s atmosphere is already “saturated” with carbon dioxide. This […]
[…] and his team recently published three papers which all conclude that Earth’s atmosphere is already “saturated” with carbon […]
[…] și echipa sa recent a publicat trei lucrări care toate concluzionează că atmosfera Pământului este deja „saturată” cu dioxid de […]
[…] in der Erdatmosphäre keine „globale Erwärmung“ verursachen können, wie die Kollegen von NoTricksZone […]
[…] și echipa sa recent a publicat trei lucrări care toate concluzionează că atmosfera Pământului este deja „saturată” cu dioxid de […]
[…] 3 Physicists Use Experimental Evidence To Show CO2’s Capacity To Absorb Radiation Has Saturate… […]
Oh dear, so now it seems that they’ve removed the document from sciencedirect. Not so direct anymore..
Anyone care to upload, or refer another loadable link to the pdf? Much obliged.
[…] 3 Physicists Use Experimental Evidence To Show CO2’s Capacity To Absorb Radiation Has Saturate… […]
[…] and his team recently published three papers which all conclude that Earth’s atmosphere is already “saturated” with carbon […]
[…] și echipa sa recent a publicat trei lucrări care toate concluzionează că atmosfera Pământului este deja „saturată” cu dioxid de […]
[…] un articolo in cui si afferma che a causa di saturazione “la CO2 emessa non causa direttamente un aumento della temperatura globale”. […]
[…] the carbon monoxide emitted by gas and diesel engines is being shown not to cause global warming. Reported No Tricks Zone, “Three Polish physicists have focused their attention on this saturation […]