IPCC’s climate claims are a global fraud that wants to make you a slave.
NASA’s “The Causes of Climate Change” parrots the UN IPCC:
In its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there’s a more than 95 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet.
The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to about 417 parts per million in the last 151 years. The panel also concluded there’s a better than 95 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth’s temperatures over the past 50-plus years.
The IPCC is really saying:
We don’t have any evidence to support our position, but we found 1300 government-paid scientists who will vote for it anyway.
We assume, in contradiction to data, that (1) human carbon emissions cause all the increase in atmospheric CO2 and (2) CO2 increase causes warming.
NASA also says,
Water vapor. The most abundant greenhouse gas, but importantly, it acts as a feedback to the climate. Water vapor increases as the Earth’s atmosphere warms, but so does the possibility of clouds and precipitation, making these some of the most important feedback mechanisms to the greenhouse effect.
The IPCC admits that CO2 alone cannot explain the observed warming, so the IPCC blames the additional warming on water vapor. But IPCC claim is in trouble because the relative humidity in the atmosphere has decreased as the Earth has warmed.
Ferenc Miskolczi showed here and here that the relative humidity decreased as CO2 increased in a manner that keeps the greenhouse effect constant.
Cork Hayden shows the basic physics
Howard “Cork” Hayden presents the basic physics of radiation as it affects the Earth’s temperature. He calls out the IPCC for its errors in physics. His presentation here is the place to begin because we all should be on the same page on the basic physics of radiation.
He clarifies the importance of heat inflow and heat outflow. For a given heat inflow, the surface and atmosphere will adjust until heat outflow equals heat inflow. That is the equilibrium condition. Even though the flows continue, the levels remain the same.
This parallels my paper’s discussion of the effect of human CO2 on atmospheric CO2. The rate of change of CO2 in the atmosphere will adjust until CO2 outflow equals CO2 inflow. At this equilibrium, even though the flows continue, the levels remain the same.
To correct a post on WUWT, at equilibrium, the temperature at the surface will be greater than the temperature above the surface because heat is flowing away from the surface.
Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller show surface pressure controls surface temperature.
What if you could find an equation that describes the effect of surface pressure on the increase in surface temperature for Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars, Titan and Triton?
Nikolov & Zeller (2022) use the results of Nikolov & Zeller (2017) to derive exact analytical formulas that show how albedo and surface pressure accurately predicts the surface temperatures for these six diverse planetary bodies.
Their research shows the composition of an atmosphere is irrelevant, which indicates CO2 and other greenhouse gases don’t control the surface temperature. Applied to Earth, this means atmospheric CO2 is irrelevant to climate change.
They show how total surface pressure, independent of atmospheric composition, adiabatically heats the surface. Their Equation (20) fully describes the global surface temperature of rocky planets and moons without recourse to greenhouse-gas radiative forcing.
Their result proves the recent warming was caused by a reduction of cloud albedo and not by the increase of greenhouse-gas concentrations as claimed by the IPCC.
They show the Earth’s climate is much more stable than the other bodies to a wide range of solar radiation and the effect of changing CO2 is insignificant or zero.
Here is Nikolov & Zeller (2017).
Nikolov & Zeller (2014) Equation (2) use the same formula for the Stefan-Boltzmann Law as Equation (4) in Hayden’s Chapter 4.
So, how can Nikolov & Zeller conclude that GHGs do not warm the atmosphere when Hayden Chapter 8 that shows that GHGs do warm the atmosphere for Earth?
Who will be first to explain why this difference occurs?
Henrik Svensmark et al. show how cosmic rays change the Earth’s albedo.
Hayden and Nikolov and Zeller show the albedo is very important in controlling the heat inflow from the sun.
Henrik Svensmark et al. (2021) show how changes in cosmic rays change the duration of clouds and thereby change the Earth’s albedo. Cosmic rays create cloud nuclei.
More cloud nuclei make warm convective clouds last longer (Berry, 1967, 1969; Berry and Reinhardt, 1974a, b, c, d).
Henrik Svensmark et al. put the last nail in IPCC’s coffin. The effect of cosmic rays on the Earth’s climate shows in monthly to millennial data.
As the solar system traveled through the Milky Way’s spiral arms, cosmic rays increased, cloud cover increased, and Earth cooled.
This subject is due for your serious review.
The four publications shown here help plow a path to what really controls the climate.
Ned, your papers show a simple model that accurately predicts the Earth’s surface temperature without considering a greenhouse effect.
In his Chapter 8, Cork Hayden presents two radiation charts that demonstrate the greenhouse effect exists for Earth.
I can’t find any errors in your papers or in Cork’s.
How do we reconcile these two results?
I am now somewhat amazed that I, at one time, actually believed in this greenhouse effect caused by, of all things, a trace gas, CO₂, that is only around .04% of the Earth’s total atmosphere and, of extreme importance, CO₂, is 1.6 times heavier than the atmosphere that it is a part of so it quickly settles out of it to ground level to be taken up by plant life or water. When I applied logic and considerable consideration to this issue of the greenhouse effect, this is what I arrived at for an answer to this question.
There is no greenhouse effect caused by CO₂. The Earth is warmed by the Sun and kept warm due to the pressure of the gases in its atmosphere that is reflected in how much mercury that pressure will displace which amounts to the barometric pressure at various altitudes and that is directly reflected in the temperature range at that altitude.
I know much about this relationship between altitude and temperature from having went over the 17,769 ft Tharong-La pass on the Annapurna circuit in Nepal and also on my hike to Everest Base camp in Nepal & also when on Kilimanjaro in Tanzania. Then we have alarmist maintaining that; “This research has improved our understanding of how much the world will eventually warm if the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is maintained at double the level of pre-industrial times”.
Plus this nonsense; “There is much greater certainty that, if left unchecked, global warming would be high enough to bring very severe impacts and risks worldwide”, when in fact there is no evidence that CO₂ has anything to do with the Earth’s temperature or its climate.
I enjoy seeing what other fable that someone who is so illogical and gullible to believe that the trace gas, CO₂, that is only .03-.04% of the total atmosphere of the Earth has the unbelievable ability to now do to the planet since it became a tool of the unscrupulous people to use to try to control the citizens of the world. In today’s world, who controls the energy controls the world’s population.
Altitude Above Sea Level Temperature Barometer In. Hg. Abs. Atmospheric Pressure
500 feet 57⁰F 14⁰C 29.38 17.48 PSI
15,000 feet 6⁰F -14⁰C 16.89 8.29 PSI
Greenhouse Effect is Invalidated
The IPCC has promoted a model(s) for temperature prediction that has been woefully inadequate due to their faulty theory. Do you see a model being developed from your, Hayden, Nikolov/Zeller, and Svensmark et. al., and others’ work? Developed from classical atmospheric physicists?
When I pointed out on line that there are almost 8 billion people on earth, and that they breathe oxygen and exhale CO2 my computer was attacked. Did not have much on the hard drive except my postings on Real Clear Energy but I think it shows the promotors of AGW know it is based on fraud.
J D Swallow, it is because CO2 is 1.6 x heavier than air that it is the most buoyant molecule when warmed, it travels to the highest altitude of all the atmospheric gases.
It is warmed by the sun at sunrise and starts rising. it sinks back on the darkside as it cools.
Gary Ashe says: “J D Swallow, it is because CO2 is 1.6 x heavier than air that it is the most buoyant molecule when warmed, it travels to the highest altitude of all the atmospheric gases” I really understand none of what Gary Ashe is endeavouring to explain to me about how molecule that is 1.6 x heavier than air can become so buoyant that it, “when warmed, it travels to the highest altitude of all the atmospheric gases”. Would Gary Ashe please elucidate regrading this assertion?
Densities of Various Substances
Air 1.29 × 10−3
Carbon dioxide 1.98 × 10−3
Carbon monoxide 1.25 × 10−3
Hydrogen 0.090 × 10−3
Helium 0.18 × 10−3
Methane 0.72 × 10−3
Nitrogen 1.25 × 10−3
Nitrous oxide 1.98 × 10−3
“Do the math” and you have to have help with this, I have come to understand.
1.98 × 10−3 – 1.29 × 10−3= .69
If this is not enough to convince even you, then I suggest that you get some help and fill a balloon with CO₂ and see how far you can drag it before it burst and then report back on that experiment that you would have a problem doing.