Evidence Proves That CO2 Is Not A Greenhouse Gas

Written by Dr Tim Ball (Climatologist)

“The CO2 error is the root of the biggest scam in the history of the world, and has already bilked nations and citizens out of trillions of dollars, while greatly enriching the perpetrators. In the end, their goal is global Technocracy (aka Sustainable Development), which grabs and sequesters all the resources of the world into a collective trust to be managed by them.” ⁃ TN Editor

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claim of human-caused global warming (AGW) is built on the assumption that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in global temperature. The IPCC claim is what science calls a theory, a hypothesis, or in simple English, a speculation.  Every theory is based on a set of assumptions. The standard scientific method is to challenge the theory by trying to disprove it. Karl Popper wrote about this approach in a 1963 article, Science as Falsification. Douglas Yates said,

“No scientific theory achieves public acceptance until it has been thoroughly discredited.”

Thomas Huxley made a similar observation.

“The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”

In other words, all scientists must be skeptics, which makes a mockery out of the charge that those who questioned AGW, were global warming skeptics. Michael Shermer provides a likely explanation for the effectiveness of the charge.

“Scientists are skeptics. It’s unfortunate that the word ‘skeptic’ has taken on other connotations in the culture involving nihilism and cynicism. Really, in its pure and original meaning, it’s just thoughtful inquiry.”

The scientific method was not used with the AGW theory. In fact, the exact opposite occurred, they tried to prove the theory. It is a treadmill guaranteed to make you misread, misrepresent, misuse and selectively choose data and evidence. This is precisely what the IPCC did and continued to do.

A theory is used to produce results. The results are not wrong, they are only as right as the assumptions on which they are based. For example, Einstein used his theory of relativity to produce the most famous formula in the world; e = mc2. You cannot prove it wrong mathematically because it is the end product of the assumptions he made. To test it and disprove it, you challenge one or all of the assumptions. One of these is represented by the letter “c” in the formula, which assumes nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Scientists challenging the theory are looking for something moving faster than the speed of light.

The most important assumption behind the AGW theory is that an increase in global atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase in the average annual global temperature. The problem is that in every recordof temperature and CO2, the temperature changes first. Think about what I am saying. The basic assumption on which the entire theory that human activity is causing global warming or climate change is wrong. The questions are how did the false assumption develop and persist?

The answer is the IPCC needed the assumption as the basis for their claim that humans were causing catastrophic global warming for a political agenda. They did what all academics do and found a person who gave historical precedence to their theory. In this case, it was the work of Svante Arrhenius. The problem is he didn’t say what they claim.  Anthony Watts’ 2009 article identified many of the difficulties with relying on Arrhenius. The Friends of Science added confirmation when they translated a more obscure 1906 Arrhenius work. They wrote,

Much discussion took place over the following years between colleagues, with one of the main points being the similar effect of water vapour in the atmosphere which was part of the total figure. Some rejected any effect of CO2 at all. There was no effective way to determine this split precisely, but in 1906 Arrhenius amended his view of how increased carbon dioxide would affect climate.

The issue of Arrhenius mistaking a water vapor effect for a CO2 effect is not new. What is new is that the growing level of empirical evidence that the warming effect of CO2, known as climate sensitivity, is zero. This means Arrhenius colleagues who “rejected any effect of CO2 at all” are correct. In short, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

The IPCC through the definition of climate change given them by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) were able to predetermine their results. 

a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods.

This allowed them to only examine human-causes, thus eliminating almost all other variables of climate and climate change. You cannot identify the human portion if you don’t know or understand natural, that is without human, climate or climate change. IPCC acknowledged this in 2007 as people started to ask questions about the narrowness of their work. They offered the one that many people thought they were using and should have been using. Deceptively, it only appeared as a footnote in the 2007 Summary for Policymakers (SPM), so it was aimed at the politicians. It said,

“Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”

Few at the time challenged the IPCC assumption that an increase in CO2 caused an increase in global temperature. The IPCC claimed it was true because when they increased CO2 in their computer models, the result was a temperature increase. Of course, because the computer was programmed for that to happen. These computer models are the only place in the world where a CO2 increase precedes and causes a temperature change. This probably explains why their predictions are always wrong.

An example of how the definition allowed the IPCC to focus on CO2 is to consider the major greenhouse gases by name and percentage of the total. They are water vapour (H20) 95%, carbon dioxide (CO2) 4%, and methane (CH4) 0.036%. The IPCC was able to overlook water vapor (95%) by admitting humans produce some, but the amount is insignificant relative to the total atmospheric volume of water vapour. The human portion of the CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 3.4% of the total CO2 (Figure 1) To put that in perspective, approximately a 2% variation in water vapour completely overwhelms the human portion of CO2. This is entirely possible because water vapour is the most variable gas in the atmosphere, from region to region and over time.

Figure 1

In 1999, after two IPCC Reports were produced in 1990 and 1995 assuming a CO2 increase caused a temperature increase, the first significant long term Antarctic ice core record appeared. Petit, Raynaud, and Lorius were presented as the best representation of levels of temperature, CO2, and deuterium over 420,000-years. It appeared the temperature and CO2 were rising and falling in concert, so the IPCC and others assumed this proved that CO2 was causing temperature variation. I recall Lorius warning against rushing to judgment and saying there was no indication of such a connection.

Euan Mearns noted in his robust assessment that the authors believed that temperature increase preceded CO2 increase.

In their seminal paper on the Vostok Ice Core, Petit et al (1999) [1] note that CO2 lags temperature during the onset of glaciations by several thousand years but offer no explanation. They also observe that CH4 and CO2 are not perfectly aligned with each other but offer no explanation. The significance of these observations are therefore ignored. At the onset of glaciations temperature drops to glacial values before CO2 begins to fall suggesting that CO2 has little influence on temperature modulation at these times.

Lorius reconfirmed his position in a 2007 article.

“our [East Antarctica, Dome C] ice core shows no indication that greenhouse gases have played a key role in such a coupling [with radiative forcing]”

Despite this, those promoting the IPCC claims ignored the empirical evidence. They managed to ignore the facts and have done so to this day. Joanne Nova explains part of the reason they were able to fool the majority in her article, “The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed.” when she wrote confirming the Lorius concern.

“It’s impossible to see a lag of centuries on a graph that covers half a million years, so I have regraphed the data from the original sources…”

Nova concluded after expanding and more closely examining the data that,

The bottom line is that rising temperatures cause carbon levels to rise. Carbon may still influence temperatures, but these ice cores are neutral on that. If both factors caused each other to rise significantly, positive feedback would become exponential. We’d see a runaway greenhouse effect. It hasn’t happened. Some other factor is more important than carbon dioxide, or carbon’s role is minor.

Al Gore knew the ice core data showed temperature changing first. In his propaganda movie, An Inconvenient Truth he separated the graph of temperature and CO2 enough to make a comparison of the two graphs more difficult. He then distracted with Hollywood histrionics by riding up on a forklift to the distorted 20th century reading.

Thomas Huxley said,

“The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a lovely hypothesis by an ugly fact.” 

The most recent ugly fact was that after 1998 CO2 levels continued to increase but global temperatures stopped increasing. Other ugly facts included the return of cold, snowy winters creating a PR problem by 2004. Cartoons appeared (Figure 2.)

Figure 2

The people controlling the AGW deception were aware of what was happening. Emails from 2004 leaked from the University of East Anglia revealed the concern. Nick at the Minns/Tyndall Centre that handled publicity for the climate story said,

“In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public relations problem with the media.” 

Swedish climate expert on the IPCC Bo Kjellen replied,

“I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global warming.”

The disconnect between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures continued after 1998. The level of deliberate blindness of what became known as the “pause” or the hiatus became ridiculous (Figure 3).

Figure 3

The assumption that an increase in CO2 causes an increase in temperature was incorrectly claimed in the original science by Arrhenius. He mistakenly attributed the warming caused by water vapour (H2O) to CO2. All the evidence since confirms the error. This means CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. There is a greenhouse effect, and it is due to the water vapour. The entire claim that CO and especially human CO2 is absolutely wrong, yet these so-called scientists convinced the world to waste trillions on reducing CO2. If you want to talk about collusion, consider the cartoon in Figure 4.

Read more at drtimball.com
*****

DR TIM BALL is co-founder and first Chair of PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone: Calls from within the UK: 020 7419 5027. International dialling: (44) 20 7419 5027. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Comments (21)

  • Avatar

    Bill Butler

    |

    In 1859/1860 John Tyndall discovered that carbon dioxide absorbed long wavelength (heat) radiation. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tyndalls_setup_for_measuring_radiant_heat_absorption_by_gases_annotated.jpg

    This is why increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide content retard outgoing heat radiation from the earth with the result that the earth warms. So far, after 150+ years of other confirming evidence, this information has yet to penetrate the closed minds of Global Warming Deniers.

    P.S. There never was a “17 year cooling trend”. The “17 year cooling trend” claim is a continuously recycled fabrication of Global Warming Deniers.

    P..S.S. As for Tim Ball’s qualifications . . .
    “Professor Tim Ball”
    “Dept of Climatology”
    “University of Winnipeg”
    (As depicted in “The Great Global Warming Swindle”) http://www.durangobill.com/SwindlePics/SwindleTimBall.jpg
    except that the University of Winnipeg never had a Dept of Climatology while Tim Ball was there.

    • Avatar

      Joseph A Olson

      |

      There is NO greenhouse gas and NO phantom back radiation warming force.

      Read the full Tyndall report at Geologist-1011 website and the footnotes on Tyndall errors by Timothy Casey.

      Svante Arrhenius was proven wrong by Knut Angstrom in 1896 for not excluding water vapor, reran his experiment, proven wrong again. US Monthly Weather Report, June 1901 acknowledged that the whole world knew Arrhenius was wrong. In 1906, the Rockefeller puppet Samuel Langley admitted error in IR measurements, which forced Arrhenius to admit he was wrong.

      Alarmists will soon admit they were ONE GIANT HOAX.

    • Avatar

      ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N

      |

      Well gee whiz. Why is it that it’s usually always warmer on cloudy nights than clear ones? How can you freeze to death in the desert at night and boil during the day? How can you NOT freeze to death at night in the tropics?

      Difference in regional atmospheric water vapour. Where’s the CO2 signal? Dead and buried.

      • Avatar

        jerry krause

        |

        Hi ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N,

        Yes, the difference is due to water vapor. But not as you seem to propose. The difference is the dew which forms on solid surfaces, or on the liquid surface of water, from the vapor in a humid atmosphere during the nighttime and then evaporates again during the daytime due to warming by the absorption of solar radiation. Thus, this cycle of evaporation and condensation limits the daytime maximum temperature and limits the nighttime minimum temperature in the topics..

        In the desert there is little water vapor in the atmosphere and little liquid water in the desert soil to moderate the daytime temperature by evaporation and the nighttime temperature by condensation. Hence, the desert has a much greater range of temperatures during its usual diurnal temperature oscillation.

        Have a good day, Jerry

      • Avatar

        jerry krause

        |

        Well gee whiz. ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N, You are the only one, to the point when I write this, who has written the word CLOUD and actually it was the word cloudy. Can you explain how it is that the common cloud of the atmosphere is so seldom considered? Can you explain how clouds can influence the nighttime temperature to which you referred? I will await your possible comments.

        Have a good day, Jerry

    • Avatar

      James McGinn

      |

      Bill Butler:
      In 1859/1860 John Tyndall discovered that carbon dioxide absorbed long wavelength (heat) radiation.

      JMcG:
      Unlike H2O which has a huge capacity to absorb IR energy, CO2’s capacity to absorb radiation is small. It is saturated immediately. So, there really is no drama in Tyndal’s discovery. The drama is in the mind of enviro-whackos.

      Bill Butler:
      https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tyndalls_setup_for_measuring_radiant_heat_absorption_by_gases_annotated.jpg
      This is why increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide content retard outgoing heat radiation

      JMcG;
      All gasses retard outgoing heat radiation So this is a meaningless claim.

      There is no drama in CO2. The drama is in the minds of enviro-whackos.

      James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

  • Avatar

    JungleDrums

    |

    “This is why increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide content retard outgoing heat radiation from the earth with the result that the earth warms.”

    Nonsense –

    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Nimbus/nimbus2.php

    “When it comes to climate and climate change, the Earth’s radiation budget is what makes it all happen. Swathed in its protective blanket of atmospheric gases against the boiling Sun and frigid space, the Earth maintains its life-friendly temperature by reflecting, absorbing, and re-emitting just the right amount of solar radiation. To maintain a certain average global temperature, the Earth must emit as much radiation as it absorbs. If, for example, increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide cause Earth to absorb more than it re-radiates, the planet will warm up.”

    “Frigid Space” at near Earth orbit ?

    Nonsense !

    Nothing exposed to 1361 W/m2 solar radiation continuously can possibly by any stretch of the imagination be considered “frigid” !!

    And the graph shows explicitly the opposite of what the text says !

    There is a positive anomaly for almost ALL of the period from 1979 to 2005.

    The RSS and UAH satellite datasets confirm Earth has continued to radiate more to space – NOT less.

    Besides that Trenberth et al –

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/bhogundc9uwagj3/trenberth9.jpg?dl=0

    Show that ~83% of Earth’s emissions to space come from the atmosphere. As 99+% of the atmosphere is alleged to not be “greenhouse gases” practically ALL of this 83$ of the radiation to space is coming from a few variable percent of water vapour and 0.04% CO2.

    Logic says having more of the only gases capable of radiating to space would mean no heat trapping at all by them. If this nonsense is true then O2 and N2 are the heat trapping gases as the only mechanism allgede for them to reduce the energy they accumulate is by collision with a GHG which does the radiating for them. Again why would increasing the chance for O2 or N2 to lose energy result in heat trapping ?

    And have you ever considered the consequence of Trenberth et al’s “Net Absorbed 0.9 W/m2” ?

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/9i2qky3uo1v34tu/Are%20Energy%20Budgets%20realistic.docx?dl=0

  • Avatar

    Bill Butler

    |

    Tim Ball: “Yes, it warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it’s been cooling down.” http://web.archive.org/web/20050506190607/http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?PubID=864

    But Global Warming Deniers continue to believe Tim Ball’s garbage simply because they will believe anything that fits what they want to believe.

    “The Plaintiff [Tom Ball] is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”
    Court document (Page 12 – section 50) at: https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Calgary%20Herald%20Statement%20of%20Defence.pdf
    (Tim Ball lost the case)

    • Avatar

      Ross Handsaker

      |

      Bill. according to Wikipedia Dr Ball obtained a PhD in climatology from the Queen Mary University of London, England in 1983 and his thesis was on climate and weather. He has also published a number of peer-reviewed papers in the field of historical climatology. Under “Funding Sources,” the Toronto Sun’s, Michael Coren, is quoted as stating that Ball, “unlike so many global warming advocates, is not in the pay of anybody”.
      Page 12 of the court document to which you refer, is part of the Defendants’ counter claims, which is merely an opinion, rather than fact.
      You ought to be aware that climate was part of the geography syllabus during Dr Ball’s tenure in the geography department at University of Winnipeg.

    • Avatar

      Al Shelton

      |

      Bill I have a question for you.
      What is your astrological sign?

      • Avatar

        jerry krause

        |

        Hi Al,
        Does your question to Bill have anything to do with the fact that Karl R. Popper, in Science as Falsification, third paragraph, wrote: “The latter method may be exemplified by astrology, with its stupendous mass of empirical evidence based on observation — on horoscopes and on biographies.”?
        Have a good day, Jerry

        • Avatar

          Al Shelton

          |

          No. I was trying to get Bill to give me his “sign” so that we would know for sure that he is a complete ignorant fool.

          • Avatar

            jerry krause

            |

            Hi Al,

            Thank you for answering my previous question. Now I have another question: What do you conclude about Popper’s statement which I reviewed for you and other PSI readers? Just curious.

            Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    Patrick Hunt

    |

    In 1218A.D., in the medieval warming, carbon dioxide (CO2) was 285 Parts Per Million (PPM) in the atmosphere.
    Today, 2018 A.D.,CO2 makes up 400 PPM in the atmosphere, an increase of 115 ppm.
    It was 0.8°C warmer 1,000 years ago than it is today. The correlation between temperature and CO2 in the last thousand years is -0.007°C per PPM increase in CO2. Without correlation, there cannot be causation.
    So Bill Butler, what correlation coefficient do you use between temperature and atmospheric CO2?

    • Avatar

      James McGinn

      |

      Jim:
      “Perhaps this platform ought to get their facts straight.”

      JMcG:
      Jim, in this SA article Schmidt makes the absurd claim that N2 O2 and Argon “play no role in regulating the planet’s atmospheric temperature.” This is a nonsense claim. This claim is based on the absurd suggestion that only infrared has an effect on the temperature. This is a stupid thing to believe. IR is a small part of the radiation coming in from the sun. H2O absorbs the infrared. Schmidt is a con artist. And you are just dumb. The effect of CO2 and infrared is negligible.

  • Avatar

    John Doran

    |

    A great article, & some good comments.
    Thank you Dr. Tim.
    Wanting to understand the warming/climate debate, I read quite a few books, watched many videos & read many articles.
    My conclusions?
    1) CO2 concentrations ALWAYS rise after warming & thus are an effect of warming, not a cause.
    2) CO2 concentrations are entirely beneficial for plant growth & thus for all land based life on Earth.
    3) CO2 concentrations have a zero to negligible effect on Earth’s climate.

    John Doran.

  • Avatar

    John Doran

    |

    Books I would recommend:

    1) Dr. Tim’s great little book: Human Caused Global Warming, The Biggest Deception In History.
    All the science, all the frauds, all the scandals & all in only 121 easy to understand pages. A must read. Contains a list of recommended further reading.

    2) Geology Prof. Ian Plimer’s Heaven and Earth, Global Warming: The Missing Science. 500 pages. Touches on the scandals. Heavy on the science. Over 2,000 ref’s to peer-reviewed papers etc.
    Again, easy to read plain English. A work of considerable scholarship.

    3) Dark Winter, by NASA engineer John L. Casey.
    Predicts the coming cold period, as all the best current climate science does, as Dr. Tim has stated.
    The global elite, through the UN IPCC & their fake news MSM are trying to flog us global warming, when fast approaching is a cold period. & cold kills.

    The motivations of the evil morons & their poodles?
    http://www.c3headlines.com
    Click on Quotes.

    John Doran.

  • Avatar

    John Doran

    |

    My second comment: number 21009 has been wiped.
    John Doran.

  • Avatar

    John Doran

    |

    The biggest deception in history, IMHO, is the fraud of fiat money created out of thin air, as debt, & lent out, at interest, to govts, corporations & individuals.

    Money is created by private banking cartels which pretend to be part of govts, such as the US Fed & the UK Bank of England.

    This serves to vastly enrich & empower the 1% Banksters & deeply indebt & enslave us 99%.

    Two books I recommend:
    1) Pawns in the Game, by WWII Canadian naval intelligence officer William Guy Carr.

    2) The Creature From Jekyll Island, by G. Edward Griffin.
    His website: needtoknow.news

    John Doran.

  • Avatar

    jerry krause

    |

    Hi Tim,

    You wrote: “Every theory is based on a set of assumptions. The standard scientific method is to challenge the theory by trying to disprove it. Karl Popper wrote about this approach in a 1963 article, Science as Falsification.”

    The third paragraph of Popper’s article is: “I knew, of course, the most widely accepted answer to my problem: that science is distinguished from pseudoscience—or from “metaphysics”—by its empirical method, which is essentially inductive, proceeding from observation or experiment. But this did not satisfy me. On the contrary, I often formulated my problem as one of distinguishing between a genuinely empirical method and a non-empirical or even pseudo-empirical method — that is to say, a method which, although it appeals to observation and experiment, nevertheless does not come up to scientific standards. The latter method may be exemplified by astrology, with its stupendous mass of empirical evidence based on observation — on horoscopes and on biographies.” As I read this last sentence, I have to conclude that Popper was crediting astrology to be based upon a stupendous mass of empirical evidence based on observation. Equally nonsensical to me is Douglas Yates’ quote: “No scientific theory achieves public acceptance until it has been thoroughly discredited.”

    You referred to a prediction of Einstein’s theoretical reasoning: E = mc^2. To the best of scientists’ abilities the speed of light has been measured and the energy produced (which has been measured to the best of scientists’ abilities) by the decrease of mass (which has been measured to the best of scientists’ abilities) has all been observed to closely approximate that predicted by this equation.

    Later, Einstein imagined another theory that gravity could bend light (radiation). When this prediction was compared with the observation (measured to the best of scientists’ abilities) of a star’s light passing near the sun during a total solar eclipse, these scientists concluded that Einstein’s prediction was not ‘discredited’.

    I offer a quote of the scientist—Einstein: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong.” In these two cases there have been (to my knowledge) no experimental measurements (observations) which prove either of these two predictions of Einstein’s theories to be wrong. Hence, I, as a scientist, accept that Einstein’s ideas (theories) seem to be approximately correct. But I do not know if they are absolutely correct.

    Relative to this issue of approximately correct theories, I propose you read about Richard Feynman’s (another scientist) essay (story) titled: The 7 Percent Solution. (“Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!”)

    And, as a scientist I do not consider that there is any relationship between the philosophy of science and the intellectual process based solely upon observations (with measurements in some cases) which is called (simply) science.

    So Tim, thank you for your article which allowed me to directly address what you wrote.

    Have a good day, Jerry

Comments are closed