25 Reasons CO2 Does Not Cause Global Warming

Written by John O'Sullivan

Royalty Free Number 25 Pictures, Images and Stock Photos ...

Experienced geologist, Dr Roger Higgs provides 25 simple bullet points proving CO2 does not cause global warming. The full PDF appears at researchgate.net and we feature it below. [1]

25 simple bullet points proving CO2 does not cause global warming: by a geologist for a change:

1) Geologists know climate change unrelated to atmospheric CO2 occurred throughout Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history. Yet the IPCC (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has no geologists among the hundreds of appointed authors of its Fifth Assessment Report of 2014 and its Sixth Report due in 2022 (see my Technical Note 2019-10). Thus, IPCC incredibly lacks both geological input and long-term perspective.

2) IPCC’s very existence relies on public belief in manmade or ‘anthropogenic’ global warming (AGW) by CO2 emissions. Moreover, its appointed authors, mostly government and university researchers, are nearly all biased by strong vested interests in AGW, i.e. reputations (publications, lectures) & continuance of salaries & research grants. Similarly, major universities have abandoned their scientific impartiality & integrity by hosting research institutes mandated to confirm & act on AGW, e.g. Grantham Institute (Imperial College), Tyndall Centre.

3) The often-repeated ‘97% consensus among scientists that global warming is man’s fault’ (CO2 emissions) is untrue. It refers in fact to surveys of just a relatively small group of ‘climate scientists’ (a fairly new type of scientist, with strong incentives for bias; see Bullets 2 & 15), moreover only those who are ‘actively publishing’.

4) ‘Climate change denier’ & ‘global warming denier’ are despicable & dishonest terms for ‘AGW doubters’. No educated person disputes global warming, as thermometers measured 1°C rise from 1850 to 2016 (with pauses).

5) The ‘Greenhouse Hypothesis’, on which IPCC’s belief in AGW is based, is that atmospheric gases trap heat. But this old (19th century) notion is merely an idea, not a hypothesis, because it is untestable, impossible to prove in a laboratory as no experimental container can imitate Earth’s uncontained, well-mixed atmosphere.

6) IPCC computer models are so full of assumptions as to be extremely unreliable, e.g. forecast warming for 1995 to 2015 turned out to be 2-3 times too high! A likely reason is that the greenhouse idea is nonsense, as explained in recent publications by several scientists. See Bullet 19 for an equally drastic failure of IPCC models. See also https://www.wnd.com/2017/07/study-blows-greenhouse-theory-out-of-the-water/ https://principia-scientific.org/r-i-p-greenhouse-gas-theory-1980-2018/

7) For about 75% of the last 550 million years, CO2 was 2 to 15 times higher than now. Evolution flourished, CO2 enabling plant photosynthesis, the basis of all life. Extinction events due to overheating by CO2 are unknown!

8) Through the last 12,000 years (our current Holocene interglacial period), CO2 was a mere 250 to 290 ppm (parts per million), near plant-starvation level, until about 1850 when industrial CO2 emissions began, making CO2 climb steeply. Nevertheless, CO2 today it is still only 412ppm, i.e. under half of one-tenth of 1% of our atmosphere.

9) Until man began adding CO2 about 1850, warming (determined from ‘proxies’ like tree rings) since the 1600AD Little Ice Age peak was accompanied by slowly rising CO2 (measured in ice cores). A simple explanation is CO2 release by ocean water, whose CO2-holding capacity decreases upon warming.

10) Supporting this sign that CO2 is a consequence, not cause, of global warming, a published study of 1980-2011 measurements showed that changes in warming rate precede changes in CO2’s growth rate, by about a year.

11) Since the 1850 start of man’s additions, CO2’s rise has generally accelerated, without reversals. In stark  contrast, the post-1850 to present-day continuance of warming out of the Little Ice Age was interrupted by frequent small coolings of 1-3 years (some relatable to ‘volcanic winters’), plus two 30-year coolings (1878 to 1910, 1944 to 1976), and the famous 1998 to 2013 ‘global-warming pause’ or ‘hiatus’ (Wiki).

12) This unsteady modern warming instead resembles the unsteady rise of the sun’s magnetic output from 1901 toward a rare solar ‘Grand Maximum’ peaking in 1991, the first in 1700 years!

13) Modern warming reached a peak in February 2016. Since then, Earth has cooled for 3 years (now April 2019).

14) The ‘Svensmark Theory’ says increased solar magnetic flux warms Earth by deflecting cosmic rays, thus reducing cloudiness, allowing more of the sun’s warmth to heat the land and ocean instead of being reflected. In support, a NASA study of satellite data spanning 32 years (1979-2011) showed decreasing cloud cover.

15) Vociferous IPCC-involved climate scientist Dr Stefan Rahmstorf (Wiki) of the German government’s Potsdam  Institute for Climate Impact Research, recipient of a US$1 million personal research grant from a private foundation, wrongly said in his 2008 article ‘Anthropogenic Climate Change’: “there is no viable alternative … [to CO2 as driver of modern warming from 1940 to 2005 because] … different authors agree that solar activity did not significantly increase” during that period. Yet nine years earlier, in 1999, famous physicist Dr Michael Lockwood (Wiki; FRS) wrote, in ‘A Doubling of the Sun’s Coronal Magnetic Field During the Past 100 Years’, published in prestigious Nature journal: “the total magnetic flux leaving the Sun has risen by a factor of 1.4 since 1964” and 2.3 since 1901 !! See for yourselves the striking overall 1964-91 climb in solar-magnetic output, recorded by the strong overall fall in detected neutrons (proportional to cosmic rays), in graph 3 here … https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi

16) Lockwood showed averaged solar magnetic flux increased 230% from 1901 to 1995, i.e. more than doubled !  The final peak value was 5 times the starting minimum value ! Bullets 17 & 18 likewise back Svensmark’s theory…

17) … after the previous solar Grand Maximum (4th century, long before industrial CO2), in the next decades  Earth warmed to near or above today’s temperature. Then ‘sawtooth’ cooling proceeded, through the Dark Ages and ‘Medieval Warm Period’, into the Little Ice Age, paralleling a 1,000-year unsteady solar decline; and …

18) … before that, between 8000 and 2000BC, Earth was occasionally warmer than today for hundreds if not thousands of years, as shown by tree rings, shrunken glaciers, etc.. Then unsteady cooling from 3000BC into the Little Ice Age paralleled unsteady solar decline following the Holocene’s ‘super-Grand’ Maximum near 3000BC.

19) This 4,500-year cooling contradicts IPCC computer models that instead predict warming by the simultaneous  (slow) rise in CO2. This is the ‘The Holocene Temperature Conundrum’ of Liu et al. (2014). See also Bullet 6.

20) Embarrassingly for AGW promoters, the 8000-2000BC warm interval (Bullet 18) was already, ironically, named  the ‘Holocene ClimaticOptimum’, before today’s CO2/AGW hysteria began. The warmth probably benefitted human social development. Indeed, it was cold episodes, bringing drought and famine, that ended civilisations.

21) Cross-correlating post-1880 graphs of solar-magnetic flux versus Earth’s temperature suggests a 25-year time-lag, such that the 2016 peak temperature corresponds to the 1991 solar peak. The lag is probably due to the ocean’s high thermal inertia due to its enormous volume and high heat capacity, hence slow response to warming.

22) IPCC, ignoring the possibility of such a time-lag, claims that simultaneous global warming (until 2016) and solar weakening (since 1991) must mean that warming is driven by CO2!

23) The last interglacial period about 100,000 years ago was warmer than our Holocene interglacial. Humans and polar bears survived! CO2 was then about 275ppm, i.e. lower than now (Bullet 8).

24) The simultaneous rise of temperature & CO2 is a ‘spurious correlation’. Warming’s real cause was a solar build-up to a rare Grand Maximum, which man’s industrialisation accompanied by chance. So, IPCC demonising CO2 as a ‘pollutant’ is a colossal blunder, costing trillions of dollars in needless & ineffectual efforts to reduce it.

25) Global cooling now in progress since February 2016 can be predicted to last at least 28 years (i.e. to 2044), matching the sun’s 28-year decline from 1991 to today, and allowing for the 25-year time-lag (Bullet 21).

Inescapable conclusion: IPCC is wrong the sun, not CO2, drove modern global warming.

 

Comments (8)

  • Avatar

    David

    |

    what causes solar cycles?
    Probably planet orbits causing forces inside the sun.
    The moon controls the tides on earth.
    But what if planetary positions affect the ocean currents as well?
    The oceans contain 1000x the thermal enery of our atmosphere.
    Then we see a coincidence between solar activity and earth climate because they share the same source.
    Also planetary positions may cause seafloor vulcanism releasing massive heat from the core of the earth.

  • Avatar

    Squidly

    |

    I will give you just 1 reason .. and the only reason you will ever need.

    CO2 does not cause global warming because it would be a violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics .. that’s it ! .. that’s all there is to it. period!

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    This article is too complicated. I agree with Squidly, CO2-Warming violates Thermodynamics.

    CO2 is capable of absorbing about 37W/m^2 of the 389W/m^2 leaving the sun-warmed surface, assuming it absorbs 100% between 14 and 16 microns (an overestimate, but doesn’t matter)

    Every single second, CO2 emits 37 Joules per m^2 towards Earth, and Earth emits 389 Joules per m^2. The Earth is now 389 Joules colder, while only getting 37 Joules from CO2.

    NET COOLING.

    CO2 is a radiative coolant. Period. -Z

    • Avatar

      James Rogers

      |

      According to Boyle’s gas law PV=nrt. Solving for t, n of Co2 = 44 is higher than current n average atmosphere = 32 ish. T is reduced with more Co2 to raise average n. Does that make sense?

      • Avatar

        jerry krause

        |

        Hi James,

        You asked: Does that make sense? No, n is the number of moles of the gas being considered. 44 is the number of grams of one mole of carbon dioxide molecules. 32ish is the number grams of one mole of oxygen molecules (O2). You need to review certain details of the ‘ideal’ gas law which is commonly used as if it were an absolute scientific ‘law’ but is known (observed) that it sufficiently described the properties (behavior) of a sample of a gas with a sufficient practical accuracy in most common applications.

        Have a good day, Jerry

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        James,
        I was very specific in saying RADIATIVE coolant.

        I didn’t mention mass or heat capacity because that has nothing to do with the Official Greenhouse Effect ™.

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        James, you also did it wrong.
        If every molecule of O2 was magically switched to CO2, Earth would be: ~311°K, about 23°C higher than today.

        CO2 effects P.

        So CO2 warms by its mass/heat capacity, not spectral characteristics.

Comments are closed