New Study: ‘Carbon Dioxide And A Warming Climate Are Not Problems’

Instead, warmth and elevated CO2 are a boon for humanity.

A new peer-reviewed paper published in The American Journal of Economics and Sociology (May and Crok, 2024) counters the prevailing “wisdom” that says a warmer climate and greener vegetation are problematic.

The authors detail the horrors of the much colder Little Ice Age that destroyed civilizations (crop failures, summerless years). Half the population of Finland and 15% of Scotland’s citizens died off in the 1690s due primarily to the cold-induced famines and frozen-over water supplies.

Elevated CO2 and warmth are 70% and 8% responsible, respectively, for a much greener, more vegetated landscape across the world since the 1980s.

The incidence and severity of storms, hurricanes, floods, and extreme weather in general have undergone flat to declining trends over the last several decades. Thus, “it is hard to find any unusual weather or weather-related disaster that can be blamed on climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic.”

“52 of 53 studies of disaster losses due to extreme weather were unable to attribute the events to human causes…”

The US government estimates the warming since 1950 has reduced the country’s gross domestic product by less than 0.5%, and an estimated 3°C of warming by 2100 still only reduces the GDP by less than 1%. Considering the US economy grew by 800% from 1950 to present, this means any assumed “damage” from warmth and elevated CO2 would not be detectable.

The quest to “save” the world from warming and elevated CO2 is devoid of scientific and socio-economic merit.

Image Source: May and Crok, 2024

Image Source: May and Crok, 2024

14 responses to “New Study: ‘Carbon Dioxide And A Warming Climate Are Not Problems’”

  1. New Study: ‘Carbon Dioxide And A Warming Climate Are Not Problems’ - Climate-

    […] From NoTricksZone […]

  2. New Study: Elevated CO2, Warmth, And Greener Vegetation A Boon For Humanity –

    […] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]

  3. Andy May

    Thanks for the nice review Ken!

  4. soundos

    great article, thanks

  5. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

    We know exactly how much CO2 has increased surface temperature via the lapse rate:

    Let’s calculate the Specific Lapse Rate due to each constituent atomic or molecular species of the atmosphere.

    Idealized dry gas molar heat capacity lapse rate:
    If we take ϒ = 1.404, g = 9.80665 m s-2, R = 8.31446261815324 J mol-1 K-1 and M = 28.9647 g mol-1, then:

    dT / dh = -0.4/1.404 * (((28.9647 g mol-1) * 9.80665 m s-2) / 8.31446261815324 J mol-1 K-1) = -9.7330377706482238008458858152373 K km-1

    The stated molar isobaric heat capacity for dry air is Cp = 7/2 R
    7 / 2 * 8.31446261815324 J mol-1 K-1 = 29.10061916353634 J mol-1 K-1

    ∴ Molar Heat Capacity / 7 * 2 = Specific Gas Constant

    dT / dh = -0.4/1.404 * (((Molar Mass) * 9.80665 m s-2) / Specific Gas Constant) = Specific Lapse Rate

    The below data is taken from the model atmosphere I constructed in my paper at:

    … to calculate the Specific Lapse Rate below:

    Symbol: Molar Mass: Molar Heat Capacity: Specific Lapse Rate (SLR):
    H2 | 2.01588 g mol-1 | 28.82 J mol-1 K-1 | 0.6859482857817 K km-1
    He | 4.002602 g mol-1 | 20.7862 J mol-1 K-1 | 1.8883738683977 K km-1
    H2O | 18.01528 g mol-1 | 75.327 J mol-1 K-1 | 2.3453681364178 K km-1
    CH4 | 16.04246 g mol-1 | 35.69 J mol-1 K-1 | 4.4080355942551 K km-1
    N2 | 28.0134 g mol-1 | 29.12 J mol-1 K-1 | 9.4339738283240 K km-1
    CO | 28.0101 g mol-1 | 29.1 J mol-1 K-1 | 9.4393555726775 K km-1
    Ne | 20.1797 g mol-1 | 20.7862 J mol-1 K-1 | 9.5205114453312 K km-1
    O2 | 31.9988 g mol-1 | 29.38 J mol-1 K-1 | 10.680770320623 K km-1
    N2O | 44.0128 g mol-1 | 38.6 J mol-1 K-1 | 11.181816712950 K km-1
    CO2 | 44.0095 g mol-1 | 36.94 J mol-1 K-1 | 11.683426182319 K km-1
    O3 | 47.9982 g mol-1 | 39.22 J mol-1 K-1 | 12.001569302138 K km-1
    NO2 | 46.0055 g mol-1 | 37.2 J mol-1 K-1 | 12.127952596066 K km-1
    SO2 | 64.0638 g mol-1 | 39.87 J mol-1 K-1 | 15.757493460485 K km-1
    Ar | 39.948 g mol-1 | 20.7862 J mol-1 K-1 | 18.846929895790 K km-1
    Kr | 83.798 g mol-1 | 20.95 J mol-1 K-1 | 39.225663804284 K km-1
    I2 | 253.80894 g mol-1 | 54.43 J mol-1 K-1 | 45.728742264382 K km-1
    Xe | 131.293 g mol-1 | 21.01 J mol-1 K-1 | 61.282460659191 K km-1

    It is easy to calculate the current surface warming at the current CO2 atmospheric concentration due to the lapse rate:
    11.683426182319 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.00043 = 0.0256468729841 K

    And for any given atmospheric concentration:
    (1000 ppm): 11.683426182319 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.001 = 0.0596438906607 K

    So going from current concentration to 1000 ppm CO2 would increase the lapse rate by:
    0.0596438906607 K – 0.0256468729841 K = 0.0339970176766 K

    So any climate models prognosticating a number greater than that are just flat-out wrong.

    “But it’s not about the lapse rate! It’s about CO2 trapping heat!”, some leftist will bleat.

    Yeah, no. As I show at the link above, “backradiation” is physically impossible (ie: it violates the fundamental physical laws), thus it cannot cause the purported “greenhouse effect” (which the climastrologists have conflated with the lapse rate. The lapse rate has nothing to do with their “greenhouse effect” nor any “greenhouse gases”, it’s the direct result of translational mode (kinetic) energy in the z-axis DOF converting to gravitational potential energy with altitude (and vice versa), which is why temperature decreases as altitude increases (and vice versa), thus there can be no “heat trapping”.

    And without their claimed “greenhouse effect”, the climastrologists have no basis to designate polyatomics (CO2, CH4, H2O, etc.) as “greenhouse gases”, which leaves them no basis to claim certain of those “greenhouse gases” will cause CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, due to CO2).

    The entire thing is predicated upon mathematical fraudery… a misuse of the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation in Energy Balance Climate Models (which I prove at the link above), using the idealized blackbody form of the equation upon real-world graybody objects.

    The idealized blackbody form of the S-B equation assumed emission to 0 K and thus artificially inflates radiant exitance of all calculated-upon objects.

    Thus the climastrologists must carry those incorrect values through their calculation and cancel them on the back end to get their equation to balance, subtracting a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but too high because it was calculated for emission to 0 K) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow.

    That wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow is otherwise known as “backradiation”. It is merely a mathematical artifact due to that misuse of the S-B equation. It doesn’t actually exist. Its existence would imply rampant violations of the fundamental physical laws (energy spontaneously flowing up an energy density gradient).

    “But they’ve measured backradiation!”, some leftist is sure to bleat. Yeah, no… at the link above I describe how pyrgeometers and similar such equipment used to ‘measure’ “backradiation” misuse the S-B equation in the same exact manner… apriori assuming emission to 0 K and thus a subtraction of a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from a real (but too high because it was calculated for emission to 0 K) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow.

    The proper method of using the S-B equation, as I show at the link above, for graybody objects is to subtract cooler object energy density from warmer object energy density to arrive at the energy density gradient, which determines radiant exitance of the warmer object.

    From the link above:


    The S-B equation in energy density form:

    σ / a * Δe * ε_h = W m-2

    σ / a = 5.67037441918442945397099673188923087584012297029130e-8 W m-2 K-4 / 7.5657332500339284719430800357226e-16 J m-3 K-4 = 74948114.5024 W m-2 / J m-3.

    Well, what do you know… that’s the conversion factor for radiant exitance (W m-2) and energy density (J m-3)!

    It’s almost as if the radiant exitance of graybody objects is determined by the energy density gradient, right?


  6. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

    Likewise, it is easy to see from the above why the Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate is stated to be ~9.81 K km-1:

    (N2) 9.4339738283240 K km-1 * 0.780765 +
    (O2) 10.680770320623 K km-1 * 0.209465 +
    (Ar) 18.846929895790 K km-1 * 0.00934 +
    (CO2) 11.683426182319 K km-1 * 0.00043 =

    7.3657165760713 + 2.2372475552092 + 0.1760303252266 + 0.0050238732583 = 9.7840183297654 K km-1

    The differential of 0.025981670234 K km-1 between the stated value and the calculated value of the Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate is accounted for via the other atmospheric constituents that weren’t included in the calculation above because they are such low concentration that they barely affect adiabatic lapse rate; and because we merely reduced N2 and O2 each by 1/2 of the CO2 concentration… a proper treatment would necessitate a spreadsheet which calculates the change of all constituent gases to maintain 1,000,000 ppm total concentration for any given change in concentration for any given gas (which I’m working on). Still, the above is pretty close.

    But you will notice from my prior post:

    dT / dh = -0.4/1.404 * (((28.9647 g mol-1) * 9.80665 m s-2) / 8.31446261815324 J mol-1 K-1) = -9.7330377706482238008458858152373 K km-1

    That’s for dry air, so I’m definitely standing on home plate in the right ball park with my calculation… but I want to get it exact, so I’m working on the code to adjust atmospheric concentration of all atmospheric gases for any change in the concentration of any given gas, while maintaining 1,000,000 ppm total.

  7. Kühler und nasser Siebenschläfer: Ist der Sommer schon vorbei? – wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung

    […] liegt in Osteuropa… Warnungen: Bis Freitag verbreitet weitere Gewitter in Deutschland. Neue Studie: Kohlendioxid und ein wärmeres Klima sind keine Probleme sondern ein Segen für die […]

  8. soundos

    I love your great blog, This is what I have always been looking for, thanks a lot and keep up the good work.

  9. Zdzislaw Meglicki

    Warmer and wetter is better.

  10. Hansi
  11. Hansi
  12. New Study: Elevated CO2, Warmth, And Greener Vegetation A Boon For Humanity - circ

    […] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]

  13. New Research: Elevated CO2, Heat, And Greener Vegetation A Boon For Humanity - Drimble World News

    […] Learn extra at No Methods Zone […]

  14. David Hamilton Russell

    It’s widely known that the extra warmth and CO2 has been an unmitigated boon to humanity, literally greening the planet. Idso wrote about this decades ago.

    What I don’t get is how anyone believes in the GHE, which is easy to disprove.

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