• Privacy Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Climate Change Dispatch
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
Climate Change Dispatch
No Result
View All Result

Study: CO2 Has Negligible Role In Warming, ‘Effectively Unmeasurable’

by Kenneth Richard
February 14, 2020, 8:59 AM
in News and Opinion
Reading Time: 1 min read
A A
27
Share on FacebookShare on XwitterShare on Linkedin

earth sun cloudsA new study (Stallinga, 2020) assesses the climate sensitivity to rising CO2 concentrations is just 0.0014°C per ppm.

Dr. Peter Stallinga has published a comprehensive analysis of the Earth’s greenhouse effect. He finds an inconsequential role for CO2.

Doubling CO2 from 350 to 700 ppm yields warming of less than 0.5°C (500 mK).

Feedbacks to warming are likely negative, as adding CO2 may only serve to speed up natural return-to-equilibrium processes.

As for absorption-reemission perturbation from CO2, “there is nothing CO2 would add to the current heat balance in the atmosphere.”

Image Source: Stallinga, 2020

A portion of Dr. Stallinga’s paper worth highlighting – which he mentions only in passing – refers to the early history of the Earth’s greenhouse effect paradigm.

K. Ångström receives little attention as a pioneer of the conceptualization that warming and cooling result from radiative imbalances within a planetary greenhouse effect.

About 120 years ago, Ångström (1900) contradicted the oft-cited Arrhenius (1896) – the atmospheric physicist referred to by proponents of anthropogenic global warming.

Ångström suggested Earth’s greenhouse effect is already saturated in its current (1900) state, and therefore increasing CO2 will have “no effect whatsoever” on climate (Stallinga, 2020).

Ångström’s conclusions were largely ignored.

Image Source: Arrhenius, 1896 and Stallinga, 2020

Read more at No Tricks Zone

  • Truth
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Gettr
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…
Share via
  • Facebook
  • Like
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Skype
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky

Join our list

Subscribe to our mailing list and get interesting stuff and updates to your email inbox.

Thank you for subscribing.

Something went wrong.

We respect your privacy and take protecting it seriously

Related Posts

Energy

Congress Resurrects Fight Against The Climate Cult’s Regulatory Assault

May 27, 2025
Health

No, Climate Change Isn’t Behind Britain’s Mosquito Fears

May 27, 2025
Energy

‘Green’ Waste Piles Up As Solar Panels And Wind Turbines Pollute Landfills

May 27, 2025

Comments 27

  1. Brian L Taylor says:
    5 years ago

    Control of CO2 is attractive to statist politicians because it is produced by combustion and man’s exhalation making it the perfect gas to control man’s freedom. Funding for research depends upon the researchers finding what the politicians are willing to pay for, a reason for them to gain more control. This study’s findings are dead on, but unusual.

  2. Spurwing Plover says:
    5 years ago

    Still no sails on either the Greenpeace ships Arctic Sunrise and Rainbow Warrior II

  3. Sonnyhill says:
    5 years ago

    Refrigeration is a closed system. There’s several types of refrigerants, some are more efficient but more expensive than others. CO2 in an ice rink should not be compared to the atmospheric trace gas. The hardware is missing.

  4. YouKnowWho says:
    5 years ago

    This paper was NOT repeat NOT peer-reviewed

    I wonder if it will take years for that to happen just like Anthony Watts 2nd climate station study (still waiting).

    • Sonnyhill says:
      5 years ago

      Youknowwho is holding the pail for the climate change peer review 97% concensus circle jerks.

  5. Spurwing Plover says:
    5 years ago

    CO2 is needed by plants to grow then the Deer eats the plants a predator eats the deer Yes we need CO2

  6. Boxorox says:
    5 years ago

    Try to be objective in your evaluations of the claims about the role of CO2 in the atmosphere. I must laugh at the statements in the commentary about CO2 never heating anything. While this is completely true, these rants completelymiss the point. It is important not to be heading into this argument sideways, because doing so makes the anti-Global Warming position look ridiculous. While CO2 cannot heat anything, the problem is that carbon dioxide does have an effect on an atmosphere whereby it absorbs heat from other sources, in the atmosphere, namely radiant solar energy in the infrared range. While wool does not heat anything either, it is hard to refute any claim that wool retains heat and is a lousy fabric to wear when running a warm-weather marathon. This is the same general principle.
    As for the capacity of carbon dioxide to continue to have an influence on further heat absorption in the earth’s atmosphere, the frequency absorption potential in the earthly environment is already pretty much as maximum, and I am very glad finally to read that more scholarly treatments of this property are being made.

    • Sonnyhill says:
      5 years ago

      If only we could get the politicians pushing CC that they have been exaggerating.

      • Sonnyhill says:
        5 years ago

        ….to admit that they have been exaggerating.

    • Al Shelton says:
      5 years ago

      Wool is a solid and can slow down the heat flow.
      CO2 is a gas and all gasses expand and rise when heated. No??
      Thus, CO2 is a coolant.

      • Sonnyhill says:
        5 years ago

        Water is the most common coolant there is, but hit it with microwaves and what happens?

      • Squidly says:
        5 years ago

        CO2 is a coolant.

        Not just a “coolant”, but the most widely used industrial coolant in the world! .. why? .. because it is the opposite of Argon (which is used in double glazed windows for insulation), where Argo has extremely low emissivity to IR, CO2 has extremely high emissivity to IR !! … You are spot on Al !! .. CO2 is a very effective coolant for certain environments, especially for freezing ice-skating rinks. Virtually every ice-skating rink (at least in North America) uses CO2 to freeze their rinks in order to save approximately 40% of energy costs in doing so. Doesn’t sound to me like CO2 is very good at heating anything.

    • Squidly says:
      5 years ago

      “Slowing cooling”, which is the only thing “wool” can do, does not create “heating”. Heat cannot pile! .. no matter how much 130F coffee you pour into your cup, your coffee will never get hotter than 130F !!

      Furthermore, CO2 does not absorb and re-emit an any IR bandwidth found on Earth except for very small locations in the Antarctic or from volcanoes. So, what you just said fails miserably! .. the fact is, the very laws that govern our universe expressly prohibit any such mechanism as the so-called “greenhouse effect”.

      Not to mention the fact that you are attempting to mingle two seperate “greenhouse effect” hypothesis’ into one. You are trying to mix the “back radiation” hypothesis into the “traps heat” hypothesis to create your own “back radiating trapping heat” hypothesis, which is nothing more than absurdity + absurdity which == bullshit.

      A so-called “greenhouse effect” is not possible in our known universe. Let me spell this out for you very clearly. Again, the so-called “greenhouse effect”, no matter how you would like to twist it, modify it, contort it, cannot, under any circumstance, exist within our known universe! … Physical laws that govern our universe expressly prohibit it !!! .. end of story .. so give up the bullshit already!

  7. Sonnyhill says:
    5 years ago

    RETRODICTION got my attention.
    “…a process by which one attempts to test a theory whose predictions are too long term to be tested by waiting for a further event to occur. Instead, one speculates about uncertain events in the more distant past, and applies the theory to consider how it would have predicted a known event in the less distant past….” This explains, to me, why historical data has been tampered with. Hind casting and back testing are examples of retrodiction. Michael Mann knows how to make it work for him.

  8. Squidly says:
    5 years ago

    CO2 has exactly ZERO ability to warm anything. It is simply not possible in this universe! .. directly violates physical laws!

    • JPS says:
      5 years ago

      True, but the leftist greens reject physics…
      Too difficult for them i guess.

      • YouKnowWho says:
        5 years ago

        Which cereal box did you read that from?

    • jerry says:
      5 years ago

      CO2 absorbing IR in the range that the surface emits and re-radiates IR violates no physical laws.
      please go study physics at the university level before you attempt to tell people what does or does not violate physics or physical laws.

      • Mark Luhman says:
        5 years ago

        Funny the law of thermodynamics says a cold body cannot warm a warm body. Yet you tell me CO2 can do that. Even Niels Bohr did an experiment about CO2 absorption, funny when CO2 adsorbs a photon it does not warm, it changes state. Add it can only hang on to that photon for milliseconds. Lastly if you had bother to read the article you would have learned the in all probability that the so called mislabeled ‘greenhouse effect” is in saturation so no addition CO2 will make no difference even if CO2 is able to warm the earth. Be careful who lecture about science, one should perhaps study real science not the pap you now get in schools today.

      • Russell Johnson says:
        5 years ago

        “Earth to Jerry, Earth to Jerry”
        CO2 as Global Thermostat/Green House Effect/Re-Radiation of CO2 with any measurable effect is the stuff of a Twilight Zone mental illness. It violates conservation of energy doctrine, centuries of scientific thought and unmolested empirical data. If CO2 were the issue the smoldering molecules would be so hot they would become visible from their re-radiation activity. No, we are not witnessing the birth of the future instead we’re allowing the ancient religion of earth deification to possess the present. Intelligent individuals are cognizant of this perversion and are actively and knowledgeably in opposition.

      • Del says:
        5 years ago

        The reverse is then also true. CO2 absorbs IR from the sun and re-radiates back into space. Could that mean the sun cools the earth?
        CO2 strengthens plants and makes them healthier. That means they grow bigger and better and then absorb more CO2. Nature will balance itself. This concept is evidently too complicated for Trudeau.

        • YouKnowWho says:
          5 years ago

          The sun emits shortwave radiation that rebounds from the surface as longwave. Ever sat in your car on a sunny day with the windows rolled up? Same principle.

      • Squidly says:
        5 years ago

        CO2 absorbing IR in the range that the surface emits and re-radiates IR violates no physical laws.

        You really should have your facts straight before projecting yourself to the world as such an idiot. I mean really, people like you just make this way too easy:

        CO2 absorbs IR radiation at 15 microns, which has a Planck radiation temperature of -80C = 193K = -112F, which cannot melt an ice cube, whose Planck radiation max wavelength by the way is 10.6 microns.

        CO2’s only other IR absorption wavelengths are 2.7 microns and 4.3 microns. 2.7 microns corresponds to a Planck radiation temperature of 797C (1070K) (1466F), and 4.3 microns corresponds to a temperature of 401C (675K) (755F), neither of which the Earth’s surface is capable of reaching outside of volcanoes.

        So, your very first statement is demonstrably WRONG!. Now, let us move on to the actual “physics” side of the problem, that being the Laws of Thermodynamics. According to the Laws of Thermodynamics, a cooler object (the atmosphere) cannot further heat a warmer object (the surface) without work (additional energy into the system). So, therefore, the cooler atmosphere cannot further heat the warmer surface. Not to mention the physical law that dictates that no object can heat itself (ie: IR from the surface cannot be used to further heat itself, period). Nevermind that the only IR that the CO2 could possibly be re-emitting back to the surface would have to either be -80C, 401C or 797C .. none of which could possibly be the case.

        Now, let us further address the whole CO2 “slows cooling” or “traps heat”. First, “slowing cooling” is NOT “heating” .. Heat cannot pile .. no matter how much 130F coffee you pour into your cup, it will never get hotter than 130F !! .. and you cannot “trap heat”, that is impossible. Heat is not a “thing”, it is a result! .. heat is a result of the vibrational state of atoms and molecules. Heat cannot be moved from one place to another, only the energy can. Heat is a result of that energy. Heat itself didn’t (and doesn’t) move anywhere, and thus you cannot “trap heat”. You can retard energy transfer, but you cannot trap heat.

        So, Jerry, care to begin to discuss the “physics” behind the claim(s) I made in my first comment? .. I would be more than happy to discuss and show to you have a so-called “greenhouse effect” is not possible in this universe .. no matter the gas .. the laws the govern our physical universe prohibit such a mechanism. We have known this for centuries for it is the very reason you cannot create a perpetual motion machine (perpetuum mobile).

        • YouKnowWho says:
          5 years ago

          You should visit YouTube and see the countless REAL WORLD experiments that have done for decades which proves you are completely wrong. I suggest you begin with the Myth Buster video.

    • YouKnowWho says:
      5 years ago

      Which cereal box did you read that from?

  9. Shirish says:
    5 years ago

    If CO2 causes warming, try grilling a leg of lamb with a blast of CO2

    • Deedz says:
      5 years ago

      This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen a person write on the internet.

Stay Connected On Social Media

gab-logo

Donate Today

Beating back the alarmist narrative takes time and money. Please donate today to help!

Recent Posts

  • Capitol Hill DCCongress Resurrects Fight Against The Climate Cult’s Regulatory Assault
    May 27, 2025
    Congress eyes bills to rein in climate overreach, challenge secret science, and expose hypocrisy fueling the elite-driven climate change narrative. […]
  • mosquitoNo, Climate Change Isn’t Behind Britain’s Mosquito Fears
    May 27, 2025
    The Guardian asserts that climate change will make the UK more hospitable to mosquito-borne diseases, ignoring established drivers. […]
  • wind turbine blades landfill‘Green’ Waste Piles Up As Solar Panels And Wind Turbines Pollute Landfills
    May 27, 2025
    Solar and wind waste is piling up with no clear plan for disposal, raising new questions about the cost of going green and the myth of net zero. […]
  • new orleans blackoutMISO Ignored Warnings Before Holiday Blackout Left Blue City In The Dark
    May 27, 2025
    Nearly 100,000 lost power in New Orleans after MISO cut the grid, raising alarm over blackout risk tied to green energy replacing coal and gas. […]
  • protest FFF world on fire‘Doomed From Birth’: How Climate Alarmism Is Stoking An Epidemic Of Youth Anxiety
    May 26, 2025
    Hollywood heirs like Ramona Sarsgaard and Violet Affleck are spiraling into climate panic—fueled by activism, media hype, and elite institutions. […]
  • Biden touting green economyGOP’s Big, Beautiful Bill Would Rescind $500 Billion In Green Energy Handouts
    May 26, 2025
    The House-passed BBB would repeal $500B in green handouts, slash subsidies, and undo key parts of the inaptly named Inflation Reduction Act. […]
  • humpback whale ny coastHow Climate Buzzwords Hijacked The Language To Hide Environmental Harm
    May 26, 2025
    Climate buzzwords like ‘carbon footprint’ and ‘green energy’ mislead the public and mask real environmental damage. […]
  • north sea oil rigTrump Urges UK To Cut Sky-High Bills With More Drilling, Less Renewables
    May 23, 2025
    Trump urged the UK to slash sky-high energy bills by expanding oil and gas drilling, embracing fracking, and ditching costly renewables and imports. […]
  • Ocean waves near pierMeteorologist Slams CNN For Stoking Debunked Fears Of A Collapsing AMOC
    May 23, 2025
    CNN pushes debunked AMOC collapse claims to fuel coastal flooding and economic panic—ignoring data, expert doubts, and real insurance cost drivers. […]
  • NY Times headline screencapNYT Decries NOAA Staffing Cuts While Ignoring Altered Temperature Records
    May 23, 2025
    NYT highlights Trump rollback of climate programs, but skips over NOAA’s temp data tampering and holes in the climate crisis narrative. […]

Get Instant Email Notifications

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts by email either instantly or daily. Check your Junk folder for any verification emails upon subscribing.

Submit a tip

Please enter your email, so we know you're human.

Books We Like

very convenient warming

exposing great lie

Have a suggestion? Let us know! We swap out books based on your input. We participate in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. See here.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

© Portions copyright Climate Change Dispatch

Share via
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us

© 2025 Climate Change Dispatch