A major new study has debunked the narrative that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from human activity is causing so-called “global warming.” [emphasis, links added]
The study, published in Science Direct [archived here], confirms what “climate scientists” should have told the public a long time ago.
The warming effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is naturally limited, according to the new study. That limit was reached decades ago.
The study found that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions have zero impact on the Earth’s global temperatures.
Even if we dug up all the world’s coal and extracted all the world’s oil and burned it in one giant pyre, the CO2 emissions wouldn’t heat the planet.
The findings of this study directly conflict with the globalist “climate crisis” narrative being promoted by the United Nations-funded “science” community.
Even the taxpayer-funded National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) continues to push these “global warming claims.”
In a statement explaining “climate change” to children, NASA presents the “greenhouse effect” as a simple cause-and-effect:
How are humans impacting the greenhouse effect?
Human activities are changing Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. Burning fossil fuels like coal and oil puts more CO2 into our atmosphere.
NASA has observed increases in the amount of CO2 and some other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Too much of these greenhouse gases can cause Earth’s atmosphere to trap more and more heat. This causes Earth to warm up.
What NASA doesn’t mention is that CO2 doesn’t cause Earth to warm up infinitely.
The three Polish scientists at the Military University of Technology in Warsaw who authored this latest study were following in the footsteps of other scientists who drew similar conclusions in their research, published in the last few years.
As Slay News reported, one recent study found that the atmosphere becomes saturated with CO2.
Much like a sponge, it can only hold so much, meaning CO2 cannot increase temperatures anymore as the saturation point was reached a long time ago.
The corporate media has refused to report on these studies, however.
All of these studies follow the same underlying concept.
The latest study uses a hypothetical concept of a fire inside a greenhouse that is steadily emitting heat.
The greenhouse grows increasingly hotter but at some point, the heat will start to dissipate, and the temperature inside levels off.
The glass walls and ceiling can contain only so much heat before they start emitting it to the outside.
The case of CO2 in the atmosphere is very similar.
It can act as a “greenhouse” gas but all the CO2 together can only contain so much heat, much like the hypothetical greenhouse.
CO2 Coalition explains:
“The warming effect of each molecule of CO2 declines as [CO2’s overall] concentration increases.”
Once the overall limit has been reached, adding more CO2 has no more impact.
Interestingly, the greenhouse limit may have been reached before the first coal-fired factory was even built.
The Polish scientists assert, based on their findings, that there is “currently a multiple exceedance of the saturation mass for CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere.”
According to the study, we already reached the point, long ago, where CO2 lost its effectiveness in warming the planet.
Scientists at McGill University made the same point last year:
Transmission in the CO2 band center is unchanged by increased CO2 as the absorption is already saturated.
By “already saturated,” they meant that absorption has been saturated for centuries—since the “preindustrial age,” in fact.
The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is slightly above 400 ppm today.
According to Prof. Dieter Schildknecht of Bielefeld University, Germany, CO2’s saturation level is just 300 ppm, a level that was probably reached around 1950, as the graph below illustrates.
Based on previous research, Schildknecht writes that beyond this level, emissions caused by human activity have no significant effect on CO2’s greenhouse properties.
According to National Geographic, however, CO2 levels reaching 400 ppm was a “climate milestone”:
The last time the concentration of Earth’s main greenhouse gas reached this mark, horses and camels lived in the high Arctic.
Seas were at least 9.1 meters (30 feet higher)—at a level that today would inundate major cities around the world.
National Geographic doesn’t provide any evidence to prove these remarkable assertions, however.
Yet, it does admit that “the last time the concentration of CO2 was as high as 400 ppm was probably in the Pliocene Epoch…”
It then attempts to bolster the case by claiming:
But tens of millions of years ago, CO2 must have been much higher than it is now—there’s no other way to explain how warm Earth was then.
There are actually many ways, like changes in solar activity, to explain why Earth may have been warmer and colder in the past.
But what National Geographic and climate alarmists are attempting to promote is the fear of the future unknown:
The planet was about 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer.
But Earth then was in the final stage of a prolonged greenhouse epoch, and CO2 concentrations were on their way down.
However, the May 2013 reading represented something different.
This time, 400 ppm was a milepost on a far more rapid uphill climb toward an uncertain climate future.
Parents may want to check how much of their children’s science textbooks are filled with fearmongering as opposed to proper physics.
Explanations of how greenhouses and greenhouse gases work are key to understanding the facts about the Earth’s climate.
h/t Jim M.
Read more at Slay News
Someone please explain to me how CO2 traps heat.
If IR is absorbed by CO2 it thermalizes right?
If it heats up, all gasses expand and rise when heated right?
Is it not true that the warmed up CO2 starts to cool as it rises into the higher cooler elevation?
How is that called ‘trapping heat’?
As I’ve been stating for years now, saturation occurred long ago… there is more CO2 to absorb IR radiation in the waveband centered on 14.98352 µm than there is IR radiation in the waveband centered on 14.98352 µm.
https://www.patriotaction.us/showthread.php?tid=2711
The MFPL (Mean Free Path Length) at current atmospheric CO2 concentration is ~10.4 m. At doubled CO2 concentration, it would be ~9.7 m. The only effect of an increased CO2 concentration is a reduction in MFPL.
Thus all of that radiation is absorbed and thermalized within one MFPL. That thermalization converts vibrational mode quantum state energy to translational mode (kinetic) energy, which does indeed increase temperature… but what they don’t tell you are three things:
1) That increase in temperature increases CAPE (Convective Available Potential Energy), which increases convection, which drags with it water vapor which has a much higher (latent heat of vaporization) energy capacity, which increases near-surface cooling. Of course, being saturated, this increase in convection has been occurring since long before industrialization took place, at about the same magnitude regardless of CO2 concentration.
2) The transfer of energy from vibrational mode to translational mode (ie: thermalization) is one direction on a two-way street… as temperature increases, less energy flows from vibrational mode to translational mode, and more flows from translational mode to vibrational mode (and given the energy density gradient, it cannot flow back to translational mode, and is thus radiatively emitted).
3) While the absorption and thermalization occurring near-surface is saturated, the emission higher in the atmosphere never can be… more emitters per parcel of air means a greater capability of that parcel to emit, thus a greater capability to radiatively cool. Which is why CO2 is the most predominant atmospheric radiative coolant above the tropopause, and the second-most predominant (behind water vapor) below the tropopause.
“At what temperature does this inverse of thermalization significantly start occurring?”, some may ask? Well, this occurs for all radiative polyatomics, and the temperature at which it occurs for any given molecular species depends upon:
A) The vibrational mode quantum state energy of the lowest excited vibrational mode quantum state of the molecule in question.
B) The combined translational mode energy of two colliding atoms or molecules (one of which is the radiative molecule from A above)… IOW, the temperature.
When A > B, energy flows from vibrational mode to translational mode. This is thermalization. This does indeed cause warming, as the climate alarmists state… but they claim it occurs at all times, which violates the fundamental physical laws.
When B > A, energy flows from translational mode to vibrational mode (then is radiatively emitted because the energy density gradient is such that that energy cannot spontaneously flow back to translational mode). The conversion of translational mode to vibrational mode energy is a cooling process (reduction of kinetic energy of atmospheric molecules); and the radiative emission of that energy to space is a cooling process (emission of energy from the system known as ‘Earth’ reduces system energy).
For CO2, it is unsurprising that this starts significantly occurring at ~288 K.
https://i.imgur.com/CxVTcro.png
You’ll note from the image above that as temperature increases, the gas fraction of atoms and molecules with sufficient kinetic (translational mode) energy to vibrationally excite CO2’s lowest excited vibrational mode quantum state ( CO2{v21(1)} and its 2 practically-degenerate vibrational mode quantum states: CO2{v22(2)} and CO2{v23(3)} ) increases.
14.98352 µm ({v2}; 667.4 cm-1 wavenumber) {v20(0)} -> {v21(1)}; {v21(1)} -> {v22(2)}; {v22(2)} -> {v23(3)}
Wien Displacement Law equivalent temperature: 193.4 K, -79.75 C, -111.55 F
2 degenerate bending modes with 3 practically-degenerate vibrational states.
Do remember that all action requires an impetus… and that impetus is generally in the form of a gradient. Without a gradient, nothing occurs. So with zero energy density gradient, energy (regardless of its form) does not spontaneously flow. And energy most certainly will not spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient. That is key to destroying AGW / CAGW.
The entirety of AGW / CAGW is predicated upon “backradiation” (energy spontaneously flowing up an energy density gradient) causing their claimed “greenhouse effect”… except “backradiation” is physically impossible (it violates the fundamental physical laws), the “greenhouse effect” doesn’t exist, and the entirety of AGW / CAGW is built upon conjuring that wholly-fictive “backradiation” out of thin air via a misuse of the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation… using the idealized blackbody form of the equation upon real-world graybody objects.
How does this occur? Well, the idealized blackbody form of the S-B equation assumes emission to 0 K, so using it upon real-world graybody objects artificially inflates the calculated radiant exitance of all calculated-upon objects… which forces the climatologists to carry those incorrect values through 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.
Except that’s not how the graybody form of the S-B equation is meant to be used… it’s meant to be used by subtracting cooler object energy density from warmer object energy density to arrive at the energy density gradient, which determines radiant exitance of the warmer object.
There are two forms of the S-B equation:
https://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif
[1] Idealized Blackbody Object form (assumes emission to 0 K and ε = 1 by definition):
q_bb = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
= 1 σ (T_h^4 – 0 K)
= σ T^4
[2] Graybody Object form (assumes emission to > 0 K and ε < 1):
q_gb = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
————————-
Temperature (T) is equal to the fourth root of radiation energy density (e) divided by Stefan’s Constant (a) (ie: the radiation constant), per Stefan’s Law.
e = T^4 a
a = 4σ/c
e = T^4 4σ/c
T^4 = e/(4σ/c)
T = 4^√(e/(4σ/c))
T = 4^√(e/a)
where:
a = 4σ/c = 7.5657332500339284719430800357226e-16 J m-3 K-4
where:
σ = (2 π^5 k_B^4) / (15 h^3 c^2) = 5.6703744191844294539709967318892308758401229702913e-8 W m-2 K-4
where:
σ = Stefan-Boltzmann Constant
k_B = Boltzmann Constant (1.380649e−23 J K−1)
h = Planck Constant (6.62607015e−34 J Hz−1)
c = light speed (299792458 m sec-1)
σ / a = 74948114.502437694376419756266673 W J-1 m (W m-2 / J m-3)
————————-
The traditional Stefan-Boltzmann equation for graybody objects:
q = ε_h σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
[1] ∴ q = ε_h σ ((e_h / (4σ / c)) – (e_c / (4σ / c)))
Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
W m-2 = W m-2 K-4 * (Δ(J m-3 / (W m-2 K-4 / m sec-1)))
[2] ∴ q = (ε_h c (e_h – e_c)) / 4
Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
W m-2 = (m sec-1 (ΔJ m-3)) / 4
[3] ∴ q = (ε_h * (σ / a) * Δe)
Canceling units, we get W m-2.
W m-2 = ((W m-2 K-4 / J m-3 K-4) * ΔJ m-3)
One can see from the immediately-above equation that the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation for graybody objects is all about subtracting the energy density of the cooler object from the energy density of the warmer object.
————————-
The Stefan-Boltzmann equation in energy density form ([3] above):
σ / a * Δe * ε_h = W m-2
σ / a = 5.6703744191844294539709967318892308758401229702913e-8 W m-2 K-4 / 7.5657332500339284719430800357226e-16 J m-3 K-4 = 74948114.502437694376419756266673 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?
Energy can’t even spontaneously flow when there is zero energy density gradient:
σ [W m-2 K-4] / a [J m-3 K-4] * Δe [J m-3] * ε_h = [W m-2]
σ [W m-2 K-4] / a [J m-3 K-4] * 0 [J m-3] * ε_h = 0 [W m-2]
… it is certainly not going to spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient.
————————-
Note 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense:
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
‘Heat’ [M1 L2 T-2] is definitionally an energy [M1 L2 T-2] flux (note the identical dimensionality), thus equivalently:
“Energy can never flow from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
That “some other change” typically being external energy doing work upon the system energy to pump it up the energy density gradient, which is what occurs in, for example, AC units and refrigerators.
Remember that temperature is a measure of energy density, equal to the fourth root of radiation energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant, per Stefan’s Law, thus equivalently:
“Energy can never flow from a lower to a higher energy density without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
Or, as I put it:
“Energy cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient.”
My statement is merely a restatement of 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense, but you’ll note my statement takes all forms of energy into account… because all forms of energy follow the same rules.
————————-
Do remember that a warmer object will have higher energy density at all wavelengths than a cooler object:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240422125305if_/https://i.stack.imgur.com/qPJ94.png
… so there is no physical way possible by which energy can spontaneously flow from cooler (lower energy density) to warmer (higher energy density). ‘Backradiation’ is nothing more than a mathematical artifact due to the climatologists misusing the S-B equation.
The above completely destroys AGW and CAGW, because they are predicated upon the existence of “backradiation” (radiation spontaneously flowing up an energy density gradient) as the causative agent for the climatologists’ claimed “greenhouse effect”.
————————-
Tap your ruby slippers together and repeat over and over “There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas.”
In fact CO2 has been found to be the best coolant. Physicists have been unable to get it to warm anything. It emits infrared (IR) at -80 deg C and it is constantly working to cool things.
The bogus climate models claim that CO2 in the upper tropical atmosphere sends IR back to the surface and thus warms it. At -17 deg C at altitude, no IR sent downward can warm a surface that is 15 deg C. It’s thermodynamically impossible as the energy levels at -17 deg C are already full. This IR would be reflected upward and out to space.
CO2 has no effect on our weather it just is needed as Plant Food