Study: CO2 NOT causing climate change
Written by PSI Staff
New study shows that the trace gas CO2 found in the atmosphere cannot be shown to cause anything other than small changes in Earth’s surface temperature.
Independent climate researcher Jef Reynen has submitted a detailed study for open peer review at the independent science body, Principia Scientific International (PSI). Titled ‘CO2 Has Hardly Any Effect on Surface Temperate’, the study is presented for full open peer review. Reynen, who has a strong mathematics background and relies extensively on numerical analysis, has also helpfully provided herein a layperson’s guide to his paper, paraphrased below.
According to the paper’s findings climate changes are due to other physical phenomena – not carbon dioxide – and such changes have always taken place and will continue to do so despite the recent claims at the UN’s Paris climate summit (COP21) to ‘limit’ global warming to two degrees.
‘CO2 Has Hardly Any Effect on Surface Temperature‘ tells us, “Besides CO2 is not a poisonous gas, on the contrary, it has beneficiary properties for mankind because it is a fertilizer: if the concentration would become less than half of the present 400 ppm (0.04%) the vegetation on the planet would disappear, and consequently animals and human beings. In nursery greenhouses the concentration of CO2 is augmented in order to ameliorate the production of plants.”
As witnessed at the Paris climate summit (December 2015) the IPCC (International Panel of Climate Change) under the auspices of the United Nations, continues to promote the increasingly discredited view that traces of CO2 are causing a dangerous increase in the planet’s temperature.
In Paris UN lobbyists succeeded in persuading nearly 200 nations to agree to sign up to limit the use of so-called fossil fuels. Critics have condemned the UN agreement as anti-industrial and a curb on global wealth creation enjoyed for the last 150 years.
In earlier papers the author has discussed the matter using mathematical techniques programmed on a computer. In ‘CO2 Has Hardy Any Effect on Surface Temperature’ Reynen avoids use of the complex mathematics so that more people will consider the message, which focuses on clear, concise facts.
The so-called greenhouse effect, a misnomer
The bulk of the atmosphere consists of 80 % nitrogen N2 and 19% oxygen O2.
The remaining 1% are traces of other gases.
Gases consisting of molecules with three or more atoms are IR-active (infra red active): they absorb and emit IR-radiation, also called LW (long wave) radiation, related to not too high temperatures.
The sun at high temperature is emitting SW (short wave) radiation which is absorbed by the atmosphere and by the surface of the planet, and the heat is re-emitted as LW radiation.
In the so-called greenhouse effect it is assumed that the atmosphere with traces of IR-active molecules trap the heat of outgoing LW radiation.
A comparison is made with greenhouses in nurseries. That is a misnomer, those greenhouses stay warm because the glass roof is transparent to incoming SW solar radiation and the glass roof keeps the warm air inside the greenhouse.
Heat losses by convection are avoided due to the glass barrier.
Reynen, along with many scientists at Principia Scientific International (PSI) says the ‘greenhouse gas effect’ is a serious misnomer and we should henceforth speak about the atmospheric effect of traces of IR-active (infrared active) molecules.
A roof of chicken wire, not a single one but many layers of fine grids
As a demonstration, Reynen shows that by replacing the glass in a greenhouse by gauze, allowing convection, brings us closer to reality in the simulation of the play between surface and atmosphere. He says, “In particular when we take a stack of grids to model the IR-active trace gases in the atmosphere, convection can take place from the surface and at higher heights the IR-active molecules emit heat to outer-space.”
Reynen used a global annual mean heat balance as validated by defining input parameters from the data of the astronomer Ferenc Miskolczi who uses the two-stream formulation, en vogue in astronomy. But Ferenc Miskolczi does not interpret back-radiation as a heat flux nor the Prevost type of LW surface radiation. In fact Ferenc Miskolczi claims that the two values are about equal.
Reynen observes, “We found 79 W/m^2 LW surface flux, 60 through the window and 19 W/m^2 absorbed. We conclude that the stack model is validated by the data of Ferenc Miskolczi obtained by analyzing world wide weather balloon measurements using the spectroscopic line-by-line computer program HARTCODE. “
An important point which Ferenc Miskolczi has made is that a mono-chromatic model describes reality very well, because water vapor is the dominant IR-active trace gas with resonance frequencies spread over the complete spectrum.
That explains also why the mono-chromatic treatment in the present stack-model gives excellent results.
Ferenc Miskolczy concludes that CO2 hardly has any effect on the surface temperature.
Surface Temperature Sensitivity from CO2
In Reynen’s study, in order to take into account any possible effect of CO2, the sensitivity study of the surface temperature from CO2 is carried out on a model with a height of 30 km.
He says, “Indeed for the global annual mean heat budget a model with a height of 11 km or even lower is sufficient since anyhow the effect of CO2 is about 0.1% of the effect of water vapor, which will be confirmed by the results of a stack of 30 km high.”
Reynen insists his latest analysis is conclusive:
“because it is sufficient to argue that the influence of CO2 is less than 0.1% of the total effect of the IR-active trace gasses H2O+CO2; the concentration of CO2 is about 1% of the concentration of water vapor and in the spectrum CO2 resonance frequency is a single line and water vapor has resonance frequencies along the total spectrum, giving another factor 10 or more.”
As such the effect of CO2 is around 0.1% of that of H2O.
“We continue, however, to give a further sensitivity analysis by means of the stack model and evaluate the forcingCO2 in more detail,” adds the author.
The analysis gives results, which contradict explicitly IPCC authors.
PSI is inviting interested scholars to participate in the open peer review of Reynen’s compelling study. Here we have shown a simplified version helpful to the layperson. The earlier papers on the subject have been replaced by a kind of presentation around 10 slides. Reynen adds, “It is hoped that a broader group of people receives the message: CO2 is a fertilizer, it will give increased vegetation to feed the growing world population.”
Like an increasing number of scientists Reynen finds that the doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration from 400 ppm to 800 ppm will have no dangerous impact on climate. Here he gives an increase of the surface temperature of dTs = 0.032 C. A further increase towards the optimum of 1600 ppm, from the agriculture point of view, gives a surface temperature increase of dTs = 0.1 C.
In short, IPCC authors have misinterpreted the results of the spectroscopic computer program MODTRAN.
Instead, independent analysts such as Ferenc Miskolczi use the spectroscopic line-by-line program HARDCODE and find hardly any influence of CO2 on the surface temperature.
The author wants to thank in particular Claes Johnson who inspired him to write this paper. The author interpreted his ideas by writing Stefan-Boltzmann always for a pair of surfaces: it opens the concept of standing waves.
The efficient help of Hans Schreuder to edit and to host my papers on his site and give them a broader distribution is appreciated as well as the suggestions by the peer reviewers which Hans has called upon.
Thanks also to John O’Sullivan at Principia Scientific International for the publication of this paper.
or also in
or also in