Climate Scientists – Living The Big Lie For Over A Century

Knut Ångström demonstrated over a century ago that adding more CO2 has minimal impact on Earth’s radiative balance. Climate scientists either ignore this completely, or lie about the significance of his findings.

2015-10-26-02-21-10

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Adding more CO2 has very little effect. That is why Hansen had to invent his fake positive feedbacks.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Climate Scientists – Living The Big Lie For Over A Century

  1. Andy DC says:

    That is what they taught in 1976 college “Radiation Theory” before global warming became a political football. Adding CO2 has a point of rapidly diminishing returns.

    • daveburton says:

      Yes, additional CO2 has a logarithmically diminishing effect on temperatures, due to saturation of CO2’s main IR absorption bands. The NCAR Radiation Code calculates that just 40 ppmv of CO2 would generate fully half the warming produced by the current 400 ppmv, and MODTRAN Tropical Atmosphere calculates that just 20 ppmv would do it.

      • Which point is moot, because H2O absorbs it to near opacity long before CO2 gets sloppy seconds. Except at the poles, where there is very little sunlight, making that point moot as well.

      • Which point is moot, because H2O absorbs it to near opacity long before CO2 gets sloppy seconds. Except at the poles, where there is very little water vapor, but there is very little sunlight there, making that point moot as well.

        • daveburton says:

          Not really, Morgan. There’s a lot of overlap between the absorption spectra of H2O and CO2, but the later is not a subset of the former.
          https://www.google.com/search?q=h2o+co2+%28spectra+OR+spectrum%29&tbm=isch

        • Nope. In tropical zones there is much more water vapor, so the overlapped part of the spectrum is completely dominated by H2O there. In temperate zones H2O and CO2 are more comparable absorbers of the 15 micron band, but the temperate zones are smaller and there is much less IR radiation to speak of, so it is less important. In Antarctica, the 15 micron band would be totally dominated by CO2, but it’s so cold there the Earth’s radiation is much lower and the Plank’s curve falls below the point where atmospheric absorption is relevant, and there is no 15 micron absorption band at all. Most of Earth’s radiation comes from the tropical zone, because Earth is bigger there, and hotter. CO2 has little to do with IR absorption in the tropics. It’s negligible. Water vapor is everything in the tropical zone.

  2. What do you mean? If I put a coat on in the winter I feel warmer, so if I put two coats on I will burn up. Right?

  3. gregole says:

    Here’s an interesting development:

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/10/23/fighting-agw-is-a-mad-obsession-new-195-page-white-paper-by-french-scientists-declares-the-battle-against-global-warming-is-an-absurd-costly-pointless-crusade/

    “Selected Excerpts by the Mathematical Calculation Society, SA, a group that does mathematical modeling for the French government and others and touts its mission as providing “mathematical tools for fraud detection.” The group was founded by mathematician Dr. Bernard Beauzamy, former professor at the University of Lyon in France.”

    From a translated excerpt:
    “There is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world‘s climate is in any way ‘disturbed‘. It is variable, as it has always been, but rather less so now than during certain periods or geological eras. Modern methods are far from being able to accurately measure the planet‘s global temperature even today, so measurements made 50 or 100 years ago are even less reliable. Concentrations of CO2 vary, as they always have done; the figures that are being released are biased and dishonest…

    These are French scientists. Love it.

  4. daveburton says:

    Ångström lacked the ability to resolve the fine lines in the CO2 absorption spectrum. He was right that the atmosphere already has more than enough CO2 in it to make most of the CO2 absorption bands darn near opaque, so that additional CO2 has little effect. However, what he could not tell was that that is not true at the fringes of those bands. The far fringes are where the action is. At wavelengths where CO2 is nearly, but not completely, opaque, adding more CO2 does increase the greenhouse effect — though probably by about 30% less than is widely assumed.

  5. darrylb says:

    On this we have to be careful.
    Those investigations showed that CO2 was mostly saturated with respect to the IR radiation it could absorb. However, that was before there was an understanding of quantum mechanics and radiative transfer.

    With the additional CO2, it simply becomes saturated closer to the earths surface, and with that there was at first an expected increase in down welling radiation. However, in the pressurized lower atmosphere, as we have discussed earlier on this blog, the time between collisions is much less than the time for remission of absorbed photons.l Thus the energy exchange becomes predominately kinetic.

    The whole hypothesis is based upon a concept of feedback in which more radiation would be absorbed by water vapor closer to the earth. Water vapor is a much greater greenhouse gas than CO2 and the absorption spectra of CO2 and H20 overlap. So then the emission from CO2 could be absorbed by H2O. This would increase humidity and there would be more down welling radiation into the earths surface, Thus, more heat stored, and warmer temps before the energy is emitted back into space.

    Some things should then be observed.

    1) increased humidity–not happening

    2) A warm spot in lower altitudes in mid latitude regions where there is a greater amount of surface area covered by water— not happening

    3) A cold spot in altitudes above the predicted warm spot – not happening

    Generally, when observations regarding an hypothesis do not agree with the hypothesis, the
    hypothesis is dropped. Not in the current climate science conundrum.

    • gymnosperm says:

      “With the additional CO2, it simply becomes saturated closer to the earths surface, and with that there was at first an expected increase in down welling radiation.”

      Why? Radiating GHG’s radiate equally in all directions. When the altitude of total absorption (and zero transmission) decreases for saturated bands due to additional gas,
      the number of downward vectored photons does not change. The number of upward vectored photons does not change, it remains zero. The number of sideways vectored photons does not change. The only thing that changes is that the net radiative (and kinetic) warming is closer to the louvered boxes where we put our surface thermometers.

  6. Andy Oz says:

    Australia’s government just appointed a new “Anti carbon” academic as Chief Scientist.

    “My vision is for a country, a society, a world where we don’t use any coal, oil, or natural gas because we have zero-emissions electricity in huge abundance,” Dr Finkel said.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-27/chief-scientist-finkel-touts-vision-for-coal-free-economy/6887578

    What an idiot.

    Just in time for the COP21 in Paris, and exactly as predicted by Lord Monckton, the Australian PM was replaced by a Goldman Sachs clone and a rabid alarmist is installed as Chief Alarmist.
    But this is no conspiracy. This is no conspiracy. This is no conspiracy.
    If I say it three times Toto, we can go home.

    • Disillusioned says:

      I think you’re on target. Except for your classification of the “Chief Scientist”. They all seem to know exactly what they’re doing, part of which is purposefully avoiding all dissenting scientific data that show AGW failed, still beating the same drum. It all leads to purposeful avoidance of truth, while preaching something else. Was Goebbels an idiot?

  7. gofer says:

    That person is living in a fantasyland populated by unicorns and fairies. You can’t replace oil and coal. Every solar or wind farm is backed up by a real energy plant. Fools or con artists, maybe both. Climate talks are populated by crooks, thieves, tyrants, but mostly power and money grubbing pirates hyping a imaginary problem for their own devious means. On blogs, I always refer back to this one and http://www.green-agenda.com which lets their own words reveal the truth about them as well as history behind it. These two cover it simply and straightforward.

    I thank Tony for everything, that not only uncovered my eyes, but gave me the ammo to show others. I am grateful for all the hard work, that one day will be historical in crushing this hoax.

  8. Crashx says:

    Another example of one of the Koch brothers fueling the denialist movement.

    • There are no words to describe the profound depths of your stupidity. Why would the Koch brothers care about denialsm? They don’t pay a carbon tax. They are oil men, and oil doesn’t make CO2. The CO2 is produced by people who BURN the oil, which means people with cars, houses, and electricity. Like you.

  9. Russell says:

    The role of CO2 has been portrayed in an exaggerated and fraudulent manner well before the beginning of Gore’s hoax. Right now Odama and his thugs at EPA are focused on eliminating coal as an energy source. Climate change is less to do with climate and more about exerting power over the people. While we discuss the science, methodology and physical/chemical properties——THE LIE MARCHES ON.!!!!

  10. songhees says:

    I would like to tell you of my latest book and documentary.
    ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
    My latest documentary and video of my presentation.

    My website is
    Thank you.
    Tim



    http://www.drtimball.com

    Debate between Dr Tim Ball and Elizabeth May
    Scroll down to Ian Jessop part 1
    http://www.cfax1070.com/Podcasts

  11. Gail Combs says:

    The Ångström, Knut paper:
    Ångström, Knut (1900). “Über die Bedeutung des Wasserdampfes und der Kohlensaüres bei der Absorption der Erdatmosphäre.” Annalen der Physik 4(3): 720-32. published online 308(12): 720-32 (2006) [doi: 10.1002/andp.19003081208]

    ( https://www.aip.org/history/climate/bib.htm#606 )

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s