German Researcher: Doubling Of Atmospheric CO2 Causes Only 0.24°C Of Warming …Practically Insignificant

The CO₂ scam and “climate denial”

German researcher concludes CO2 warming immensely exaggerated…. IR radiation of clouds considerably reduces the greenhouse effect of CO₂.”

The prosperity and political stability of our countries are in grave danger. The reason for this is an ideology that claims catastrophic climate change caused by the alleged “greenhouse gas” CO₂ and is intent to destroy our civilization and prosperity. Its supporters are spreading a witch-hunt atmosphere against anyone who questions their ideology. So-called “climate deniers” are also denied any scientific expertise.

Every Swiss person can already see the first financial consequences on their electricity bill: In this country, the price of a kilowatt hour has shot up by up to 300% for some households in just four years. And this is just the beginning, as the Swiss government is pursuing the goal of switching to solar and wind power and thus to sources that cost 20 instead of 6 rp/kWh.

Figure 1: A cumulonimbus cloud with the typical “anvil” in the upper area. The white upper surface reflects a large part of the sunlight back into space so that this energy cannot penetrate into the lower parts of the earth-atmosphere system. The nearly black underbelly demonstrates the effectiveness of this reflection (Photo: Fred Mueller)

“Climate deniers”: the everyday witch-hunt against science and freedom of opinion

“Natural science does not provide absolute truths or laws chiseled in stone, but only assumptions and hypotheses. Even if a thesis has proven itself in practice and has found general acceptance, critical scrutiny is not sacrilege but an indispensable duty of every scientist. Bans on thought and muzzles are methods and typical characteristics of a dictatorship that degrades science to an unworthy servant of the powerful. How credible is an ideology that wants to be colourful but suppresses diversity of opinion?” asked chemist Dr Michael Schnell¹⁾ in his lecture “Experimental verification of the CO₂ greenhouse effect – the false climate prophets” at the EIKE Climate Conference in Munich in 2020. The downright canceling campaign of the previous year’s EIKE Climate Conference²⁾ showed just how justified his warning of dictatorial tendencies is.

“Ministry of Truth” at work

With the participation of journalists, environmental organisations, politicians and “Antifa” (a rogue self-declared antifascist organisation in Germany), attempts were made to prevent the conference through “actions” and political and media pressure on the landlord of the conference hotel. The fact that the corresponding video on the EIKE website can no longer be accessed shows just how sophisticated, intricate and far-reaching this suppression has become. Only an internet search shows that it can still be found on YouTube. However, it is labelled with a warning euphemistically referred to as an “info section” referring to reviews and “fact checks”. There are now networks of such “fact-checkers” operating worldwide⁴⁾ and throughout Europe⁵⁾ , which attack alleged misinformation under the guise of “correction” and present “official” opinions as the truth. They use tricks to try to discredit the statements made or people involved. If you follow the link given on the “Info section” on the subject of climate change⁶⁾, the reader is showered with the full plethora of climate hysteria and money-begging messages brought forward by the United Nations (UN). And of course, this presentation of “infallible truths” is not tagged with any reference to critical scientific voices on the subject.

Even the University of Rostock felt compelled to issue a press release on Dr. Schnell’s lecture⁷⁾. In it, it “emphatically distances itself from the statements made by Dr. Michael Schnell in relation to climate change. These statements are not based on research results from the University of Rostock”.

These are still the currently milder working methods of the complexly structured “Ministry of Truth”, with which our woke climate overlords want to nudge us towards the “right way of thinking” on climate issues.

Figure 2: The course of CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere (black line) and the temperature on the Earth’s surface (blue line) over the last 600 million years or so. It is difficult to understand why CO₂ can be described as the “Earth’s thermostat” in view of these curves (graphic from: centil-europe.ch ⁸⁾

What was Dr. Schnell’s offence?

What was the actual offence that brought Dr. Schnell this form of reputational damage? He had conducted experiments on the question of how the CO2 greenhouse effect could be proven or falsified. His conclusion:

“Both research methods proved that at least the near-Earth CO₂ greenhouse effect is physically possible. But it was also shown that the IR radiation of clouds considerably reduces the greenhouse effect of CO₂. The experiments confirm the position of the ‘sceptics’ who see a reduction in CO₂ climate sensitivity in water vapour and clouds and accuse the ‘alarmists’ of grossly exaggerating the alleged CO₂ danger.”

A thorough analysis

Prof Franz-Karl Reinhart from the EPF Lausanne is one of the well-known critics of the IPCC in Switzerland. In a publication dated 12 September 2017⁹⁾ , he presented a comprehensive analysis of radiative transfer through CO₂ . This involved scrutinising Svante Arrhenius’ theory that the strong IR interaction of CO₂ molecules leads to the absorption of IR photons emitted from the ground and then to the re-emission of this radiation. The resulting counter-radiation towards the earth’s surface would counteract its cooling and thus cause a greenhouse effect. In his introduction, F. K. Reinhart points out that “water in its aggregate forms [clouds of water vapour, water droplets and snow and/or ice] has an enormous impact on the climate and it therefore makes little sense to assume [solely] radiation or energy balances”. By analysing the pure CO₂ radiation mechanism, he wanted to check mathematically what climate impact a doubling of the concentration of CO₂ would actually have with respect to the increase in temperature if the interfering influences of water were not present. The IPCC gives values of 3-5°C here.

This is not just about the main absorption bands of CO₂ in the IR range in question, which lie at wavelengths of 4.25 and 15 µm. The calculation is way more complicated because these bands have a considerable width. If their structure is broken down more precisely, numerous secondary absorption frequencies can be seen on both sides of the main peaks.

Figure 3: Distribution of secondary absorption lines of the 4.25 µm band of the CO₂ molecule (graphic: Anton Paar ¹⁰⁾

In addition, there are various other, less pronounced absorption frequencies spread across the entire IR spectrum. Even if the energy contribution of each of these “smaller” peaks is comparatively small, they should not be neglected as a whole. In total, around 200,000 frequency lines had to be taken into account in the relevant spectral range of 2.9 to 29 µm. Dr. Reinhart relied on the HITRAN program¹¹⁾ for this analysis. This scientific software package offers the researcher comprehensive calculation tools, including the necessary databases. It calculates radiation reactions and radiation transport processes in all possible gases and gas mixtures according to the latest scientific and technical standards. Changes in atmospheric composition and density as well as their evolution with increasing altitude can be taken into account. HITRAN is used by scientists as well as satellite operators, meteorologists and the military due to the quality of its results.

Table 1: The calculation of the forcing Fc based on the current CO₂ concentration and climate situation (T_Earth = 288 K), the increase in forcing ΔF_max and the resulting temperature increase ΔT_max compared to today for CO₂ concentrations of 800, 2,000 and even 4,000 ppm (Table: F. K. Reinhart)

The calculation results shown in Table 1 prove that carbon dioxide is only a very weak greenhouse gas. The temperature increase that has occurred since the beginning of the industrial age as a result of increasing the CO₂ content of the atmosphere to 400 ppm is therefore only 0.12 K (or 0.12 °C). It would only rise by 0.24 K even if it were doubled to 800 ppm. Even a tenfold increase to 4,000 ppm (which would be utopian anyway due to the far too small reserves of raw materials) would only result in a temperature increase of < 0.8 K.

Conclusions

In his summary, Prof. Reinhart comes to the following conclusions:

“- The heat retention (“forcing”) by atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂ ) causes a maximum temperature increase of 0.24 K (0.24°C) when the concentration doubles from 400 ppm to 800 ppm, based on a simplified absorption model that is independent of climate.

– This value depends only on the accepted mean earth temperature, T = 288 K, and is relatively insensitive to its uncertainty of 2 K.

– The temperature increase since the industrial revolution amounts to a maximum of 0.12 K, which is within the range of measurement accuracy. The anthropogenic contribution is therefore practically insignificant.

– The behavior of glacial and current temperature trends is not causally linked to carbon dioxide concentrations.

– The causes of global warming have not been clarified. However, they are most likely linked to the solar system and the water cycle.

– Measures to control CO₂ emissions and the earth’s temperature are unsuitable, even dangerous means”.

Figure 4: The last cold period in the Alps was characterized by extreme swings in both directions. The upper part of the picture shows the considerably reduced ice cover around 25,000 years after the beginning of the cold period. Only 17,000 years later, the Alpine region was covered by a gigantic ice sheet and the temperature (black curve) was 13 °C below today’s level. The blue curve indicates the volume of ice bound in the glaciers in cm sea level equivalent (screenshots from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXzExbdHuDM ¹²⁾

Figure 5: The joint representation of the trends in atmospheric CO₂ content and temperature over the course of the last ice age shows that the correlation between the two variables appears to be rather weak. In particular, the explosive rise in the red curve at the very end raises doubts. The course of the CO₂ concentration with temperature can easily be attributed to outgassing or absorption due to higher or lower solubility in the sea as a result of Henry’s law. An industrial influence can be ruled out (except for the last 150 years or so). (Graphic: author + screenshot from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXzExbdHuDM)

No mincing of words: Nobel Prize winner Prof John Clauser ¹³⁾

It may well be argued that the two authors mentioned above are possibly mistaken and not leading specialists. However, this attempt to disqualify them definitely does not apply to John Clauser. The experimental physicist, who specialzes in the fundamentals of quantum mechanics, was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2022. He is a vehement critic of the current CO₂ climate hysteria, as evidenced by his statements at an EIKE conference in 2024. In it, he states that “the IPCC and its collaborators misjudge the prevailing climate process on Earth”. Here is a small selection of statements:

Figure 6: Some key statements from Prof Clauser’s presentation at EIKE ¹³⁾

With these theses, Prof Clauser has naturally become a hate figure for climate catastrophe prophets. Significantly, however, the well-known climate activist platform Wikipedia¹⁴⁾ merely accuses him of not having published a single peer-reviewed study on climate change in his career. The ridiculousness of this argument can hardly be surpassed. The “climate impact” of CO₂ is based on quantum physical interactions between CO₂ molecules and IR photons, and this falls entirely within his area of expertise. Of course, no factual refutations of his theses are to be found on Wikipedia. Prof Clauser’s role as ambassador of the “World Climate Declaration” of the Clintel Foundation¹⁵⁾ (Climate Intelligence) proves that he is by no means alone in his theories. In addition to Prof Clauser, its more than 1,900 supporters include the Nobel Prize winner for physics Prof Ivar Giaever¹⁶⁾ from Norway as well as prominent climate researchers such as the atmospheric physicist Prof Richard Lindzen¹⁷⁾ and the experimental physicist Prof Herrmann Harde¹⁸⁾ . Prof Clauser is also a member of the board of the CO₂ Coalition Foundation¹⁹⁾ .

Fred F. Mueller

References:

• https://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/2020/06/28/
• https://eike-klima-energie.eu/2019/11/21/eilmeldung/
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyatWldokc4
• https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/
• https://efcsn.com/
• https://unric.org/de/klimawandel/
• https://www.uni-rostock.de/en/university/news/
• http://www.centil-europe.ch/ArtikelDetail.asp?id=464&t=14:11:57
• https://www.c-c-netzwerk.ch/2017/09/12/de
• https://wiki.anton-paar.com/en/infrared-spectrum-of-carbon-dioxide/
• http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/ and L.S. Rothman et al. J. Quant. Spect. and Rad. Transfer 110, 533-572 (2009) We use the CDSD-296 databank. The 2012 HITRAN version complements the near infrared data that is of no concern for this study
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXzExbdHuDM
• https://eike-klima-energie.eu/?s=john+clauser
• https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Clauser
• https://clintel.org/
• https://eike-klima-energie.eu/2017/01/20/nobelpreistraeger/
• https://eike-klima-energie.eu/2023/03/20/richard-lindzen/