Climate Fraud Exposed: CO2 doesn’t rise up, trap and retain heat

Written by John O’Sullivan,

We have been lied to: Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an alleged ‘well-mixed gas’ also alleged to reside in sufficient quantities high in the atmosphere to cause global warming (via the so-called greenhouse gas effect). But as President Trump looks to help dismantle the hoax there is much inconvenient science at hand to help his administration discredit this ‘theory’ beloved by climate alarmists.

The first damaging fact to the theory: CO2 is actually a heavy gas. It is not ‘well mixed’ in the air as per the glib claim.  Just check out the NASA image (above) showing widely varying carbon dioxide concentrations. Indeed, schoolchildren are shown just how heavy CO2 is by way of a simple school lab experiment. This heavy gas thus struggles to rise and soon falls back to earth due to its Specific Gravity (SG). Real scientists rely on the SG measure which gives standard air a value of 1.0 where the measured SG of CO2 is 1.5 (considerably heavier). Thus,  in the real world the warming theory barely gets off the ground.

As shown  in Carbon Dioxide Not a Well Mixed Gas and Can’t Cause Global Warming the same principle applies to heat transfer: the Specific Heat (SH) of air is 1.0 and the SH of CO2 is 0.8 (thus CO2 heats and cools faster).  Combining these properties allows for thermal mixing. Heavy CO2 warms faster and rises, as in a hot air balloon.  It then rapidly cools and falls. Once it falls it loses any claimed climate impact.

Read the rest of the article here.

  • Louis Deaux

    It is easy to justify the scientific bases of fact explained in the above article with a simple white board discussion that draws on fixed IPCC Constants, the periodic table and the use of some simple math. Lets do just that:

    1) The mean current Climate is the measure of ALL Kinetic Energy (A:eK) found in the entire atmosphere as mean average world wide temperature (wwT).

    2) A:eK is the total Kinetic energy, however total A:eK comes as a product of two types of heat energy machines within the system. We will divide these two system components as: Ambient / Baseline (or background present) bA:eK and Greenhouse (or GHG forced) gA:eK. So bA:eK + gA:eK = A:eK

    3) Total mean wwT which is how scientists measure climate is most accurately measured as 289k (289 degrees kelvin) > |0|.

    4) Of that, 281k > |0|k has nothing to do with GHG’s. The baseline or ambient temperature at this time during the current inter-glacial (Holocene) period is entirely attributed to the combination of various natural celestial cycles such as solar energy output, and orbital mechanics of axial tilt, procession, and positions of the hemispheres during progression of the orbital ellipse. (See Milankovic Cycles). Due to the way in which these various cycles have been relative constant over the last 35 million years, the earth has settled into a relatively recent cycle of approximately 100,000 year long declining climates and ice ages, and brief 12,000-18,000 year long warm spells we call inter-glacial periods like our current Holocene. The ambient or baseline wwT will fluctuate from the coldest moments in an ice age (267k > |0| ~ 282k |0|k). This is an enormous factor in climate science and paleo-climatology that tends to be completely ignored by CO2 AGW activists and their EDP modelers. Yet THIS aspect of climate science accounts for more than 97.4% of the reason our climate is warm. It is a reflection of the earth’s position within the “golden zone” which is that area of planetary measure where the earth lies in the “habitable zone” of common liquid and atmospheric surface water.

    5) So what then of GHG’s. well the other 2.6% of 8 degrees Kelvin come because of the compounding affects of heat forcing and added convection forcing applicable to GHG’s. GHG’s add to the dry atmosphere by forcing more eK to be stored than would otherwise be normal in the golden zone. This GHG energy forcing adds from 6k to 9k of additional wwT (ice age ~ inter-glacial) and establishes total climate in a given point in time.

    6) There is less eK in the entire A during ice ages, and cold ocean waters also store (sink) more CO2 within.

    7) There is more eK in the entire A during an inter-glacial such as the present. Warmer and significantly larger ocean surfaces also allow considerably more CO2 to evaporate into the atmosphere during warm periods (your soda pop after it is exposed for an hour goes flat – same principle).

    8) Right now, the total gA:eK within total wwT is about 8K. So of a current wwT measure of Climate at 289k, 281k is due to Celestial Mechanics and 8 degrees kelvin is entirely due to the mechanics of GHG’s. As such, it means that relative to total climate, wwT > |0| is 281/289 attributed to celestial and solar mechanics, not GHG’s. That means 97.232% of climate has nothing to do with GHG’s, and yet most of the AGW arguments often center on GHG’s as if they are the only reason the earth has a climate > |0|.

    9) Now lets look at GHG’s and the IPCC Constants that matter. The IPCC does recognize H2O (water) is the principal baseline GHG. Water vapor present in the atmosphere can both deflect solar radiation and trap it in a way that forces either a positive or negative effect on the ambient/baseline A of 281k. The IPCC has accepted laboratory and field studies that sets a constant overall heat forcing kinetic energy amplification value (HFeKV) of 1.00, meaning it has a positive effect of 100% the value of a significant equal volume by ratio to ambient non GHG’s (N2, O2, O3 and Argon that make up about 97.4% of the atmosphere). Water is established as the baseline and all other GHG’s are evaluated at the molecular level as they compare to H2O. The second important constant is therefore 2.011 for CO2. It means that a one molecule of water has a HFeKV of 1.00 and one molecule of CO2 has a HFeKV of 2.011 (roughly twice that of water). This 2:1 ratio is constantly used by AGW alarmists to justify the danger of CO2 and why they ignore water vapor in A.

    10) Now lets look at these same constants in a more equated scientific way. The article correctly points out that CO2 is a heavy gas, but what does that actually mean? CO2 is composed of relative atomic weight atoms, (Carbon = 12 and Oxygen = 16) and so it is 12+16+16 and has a relative atomic weight of 44. Water or H2O has an atomic weight of just 18, so it floats easily in the dominant O2 (atwt = 32) and N2 (atwt = 28) A. It also means that it takes 2.4444~ Water Molecules to equate to the weight of one CO2 molecule.

    11) Well then if you were to measure the HFeKV of EQUAL WEIGHTS of Water and CO2, you would find that water is 2.4444~/2.011 = 121.554% as powerful a GHG at eK Forcing as the same weight of CO2. Perhaps this is why the modelers like to stop at their statements that CO2 is twice as dangerous a GHG as H2O without further analysis. The statement does not hold up in a meaningful way that scientists would look at the statement. Given equal weights of the two gases disbursed within the A, water is in fact 121.444% as efficient at forcing the A to store more eK as CO2. This clearly backs up the author’s conclusions. But like a Ronco add, there’s more.

    12) The above referenced study indicates that real CO2 ratios within A sit somewhere around 380 ppm. World-wide, water vapor exists in the atmosphere at an estimated 100 ppm:1 ppm of CO2. It is also disbursed more fully through all levels of the atmosphere below 100 Km>mean Sea Level.

    13) Therefore, water is 100 x’s a prevalent in the A as CO2. H2O weighs only 41% as much as CO2. Therefore ALL the eK stored in the A that contributes to total gA:eK (of the additional 8k that takes us to current climate) is mostly attributed to water, not CO2. In fact of the eK attributed to all GHG’s (remember, just 8k of total current wwT measuring this present Holocene industrial age climate) water accounts for 98.5% of the total HFeKV from GHG’s. Why? because for every f: HFeKV~CO2, H2O = 1.21444 x 41% or a little more than 49 x the HFeKV. That’s a convenient but nicely rounded 49:1 ratio.

    14) So per #13 above, water accounts for 98.5% of the total 8k attributed to GHG’s. Only 1.5% can be attributed to wind forcing and additional CO2 HFeKV. But wait, there’s more.

    15) Let’s take some of the most liberal assumptions that of the 380 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, only about 50 ppm is attributed to human industrialization and the rest is part of the natural CO2 cycle. That means that 50/380 is human activity related (13.2%). Lets be reasonable and say it’s 1/8th of total CO2.

    16) That means that the entire human induced power of climate heat forcing, the human addition of eK attributed to human CO2, must be of all climate measured by the present wwT = 289k > |0|, the SUM of following equation factors:

    CO2:gHFeKV = 8/289 x 1/50 x 1/8 …. = 6.920415225e -05 or ~

    …a decimal of 0.00006920415224914

    …which adjusted to reflect a percentage of influence, = .00692%


    So all the AGW alarm is thrust upon society and especially the third world of developing nations by stating that Humans supposedly have an < 7/1,000th of a percent influence on total wwT over the last 125 years. But you say you can model catastrophic global warming on the horizon, even though the more logical hysteria should be about the pending cooling that is without question inevitable and our near term destiny.

    There is no refuting the above argument. There is no changing the facts except perhaps to refine the calculations to the scientific level of several decimal places in every factor. The above very clearly demonstrates how ludicrous AGW CO2 theory is. It doesn't wash. Any HS kid with a rudimentary understanding of a Periodic Table and knowledge of the A:gas ratios and IPCC Constants could prove what I just proved.

    Some climate scientists might want to decrease the water to CO2 ratio, though the 100-1 factor is not considered an unusual standard. So lets cut the water ratio to 50% if you want to be more conservative. Even if you got super conservative and stated for a variety of factors that human induced CO2 was double the above calculated ratio, it means humans had a 14/1000th of an affect on climate over 125 years. Its barely measurable. Yet these Al Gore camp followers would have us disrupt the economy and suppress development in the third world over this almost immeasurable effect. There is no refuting the above. It proves CO2 climate fears are a complete hoax and it is in total support of the draft author's paper.

    Neither I or any scientist I know of is a climate change denier. If anything we absolutely know climates change and modern humans need to face that reality with solid engineering approaches as we continue to progress. But CO2 is NOT a reason climate is changing, let alone human induced. Let's be realistic about the causes and eventual preparations humanity should begin to discuss when the topic of climate change is taken up in scientific institutions, journals and within governments. Lets not use bull-crap about CO2 to get us humans to think about the real long term implications of why, how and when climates do inevitably change.

    • LouisD

      The 14/1000th is actually 14/1000 of 1% of reason. Inasmuch as climate scientists say that the increase in t(1890)wwT ~ t(2015)wwT is .51 degrees K, it means that humac CO2 contributions or AGWf(CO2) is .0014 x .51 or .000714 degrees k…an almost immeasurable increase. This is absolute proof that if mankind has added to global climate change, its more likely to have come inconveniently from Al Gore’s fat ass.

      • Excellent!

      • Amen Brother. I think that Al Gore, his groopies, and the destructive policies that give Radical Left-wing “elites” power, are the most immeadiate threat to human life on earth.

        • Louis Deaux

          Thank you and I totally agree.

          I should clarify one thing I did not point out in my post. Some astrophysicists believe that the delta between the earth’s ambient temperature and its GHG level of climate (i.e. mwwT – mwwTa) is as much as twice the level I have stated. This is based on their blackbody temperature gradiant between observed BBR from space and the mwwT on earth. However, I believe the larger delta between BBR~T and current climate mwwT falsely attributes 100% of atmospheric eK to the effect of GHG’s. This is incorrect because about half of the additional delta eK is a result of atmospheric convection that causes friction within the system and in contact with the earth’s surfaces. In otherwords, wind energy within the atmosphere is a reflection of a large portion of the pool of energy that lies within the ambient eK and GHG eK as a subset of stored eK within the entire reservoir of total energy within A:eK. I jyst didn’t think it relevant to the discussion. But lets suppose the AGW alarmists were correct and take a worst case scenario. It means human induced contributions of eK through CO2-GHG emmissions, would be about .00134 and not .00067 (therefore 1.34% and not .67%) of total change in 125 years.

          The reality is, CO2 within the oceans evaporates out of it in warmer climates and the levels rise, like popping the top on a cold can of soda and then watching it go flat as the liquid heats to room temperature. CO2 follows global warming, it does not cause it.

      • Thomas

        Measurements like this are well within the tolerance of the measuring devices that typically are +- 1% or worse. It is impossible to make judgements on a 1,000th of a degree changes when the measuring device tolerance is 1/10 degree.

    • Nick

      “1) The mean current Climate is the measure of ALL Kinetic Energy (A:eK) found in the entire atmosphere as mean average world-wide temperature (wwT).”

      I stopped after this first point of yours as it shows you are not informed. Climate is not kinetic energy. So to say that climate is “the measure of all kinetic energy…” is completely false. Climate is a statistical notion that involves norms of weather data, and various degrees of deviations from the established norms. The biggest indicator of the highly supported notion of global warming is a change in the statistical norms of weather (thus, the changing of the climates).

      • Louis Deaux

        Well you are obviously NOT A SCIENTIST. Climate is not just a perception of any planetary atmospheric state. It is a reflectice measurement of the aggregated (SUM) of pooled eK stored within ANY PLANETARY ATMOSPHERIC SYSTEM. So frankly, it doesn’t matter what the hell you think. YOU ARE WRONG and I and any atmospheric physicist can tell you that. On the EARTH, we happen to derive a planetary wife measure of eK using various measuring sticks (Fahrenheit, Celsius, Kelvin). I really don’t give a rats ass what measuring system you use to determine the correct present mean world-wide TEMPERATURE. They are all relative measurements of the aggregated atmospheric eK present at a given moment in time. That current mwwT number is 59.6 degrees F, and 13.333 C, and 288.4833 Kelvin. Those are best current estimates of the measures of climate here on earth.

        You can be like most AGW assholes and bury your head in the warm sand, or you can be like many money grubbing AGW climate modelers who could not find their way out of a paper bag with scissors and a match, or you can accept that I just laid out the absolute fact to you. I am write. You Nick are wrong.

        I do not argue against Climate change as it changes constantly. I argue against the idea that human activity has much to do with any of it as human contributions to GHG’s are insignificant as measured in my post above. I would also be right. I do think climates will be changing in geophysical terms, fairly soon…and not warmer. sadly cooler and gradually much cooler as we are pursuant to the Milankovic Cycles getting near the end of the Holocene.

        • Nick

          Wrong again. Climate is not temperature.

          Temperatures are rising. Climates are changing. And it isn’t orbital cycles.

          “I am write. You Nick are wrong.”


  • brian jones

    Follow the money you’ll find your answers so sad. The constant aerosol spraying of aluminum,barium and other toxic nano particles are doing more damage to all life
    than anything else. Recently flying back from Florida at 30K I videotaped a massive flurry of reflective silver particles right among heavily sprayed trails like I have never witnessed . Stephanie Senef leading Scientist at Harvard has gone on the record stating by 2020 50% of all children born will indeed have Autism and the main link is Aluminum and Glysophate form Roundup. It’s bad enough we have to drink and eat this poison but have to breathe it too.This has to stop.

    • Louis Deaux

      I suspect the complaints about aerosol spraying might be grossly exaggerated. Heavy dust of various forms, especially metallics tend to wash out of the A quickly and most, back int the ocean. This is not to say some threat does not exist. Again, we need to be careful of the exaggeration vs. reality. There is a reality in the good Dr.’s words, but it is a relatively insignificant risk. Just developing the earth stirs up more aluminum and other heavy metals on most dry climate sites than anything done experimentally by the air force. I have tasted the acidic contrails of particles that have been dropped so I have no doubt this is happening. But I think the risk to that is very rare and insignificant.

      I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy theorist. But the implication of using heavy aluminum based aerosols to carry biological agents that could terminate massive populations quickly is for me, a little more realistic scenario. I do not trust the more liberal governments and especially Marxist and Despotic Government that could use the same simply technology to wage war against the United States and Europe. .

  • Of course Carbon Dioxide is a heavy gas, as its volume proves against the lighter predominant molecules of Nitrogen and Oxygen, which also means that Carbon Dioxide is a COOLING molecule in Earth’s atmosphere due to the smaller volume of heat it can maintain against the larger volumes for Nitrogen and Oxygen…

    One pound of Carbon Dioxide has a volume of 8.7 cubic
    feet, smaller than Nitrogen at 13.8 cubic feet, and Oxygen at 12.1
    cubic feet. With a smaller volume than either Nitrogen and Oxygen,
    Carbon Dioxide can only possess less heat than Nitrogen and Oxygen.

    Carbon Dioxide and how the atmosphere heats…

    The following is the second half of my article, ‘Throwing Cold Water on Global Warming’…

    More important than a gas’ IR absorption capabilities is an atmosphere gas
    molecule’s volume. One pound of Carbon Dioxide has a volume of 8.7 cubic
    feet, smaller than Nitrogen at 13.8 cubic feet, and Oxygen at 12.1
    cubic feet. With a smaller volume than either Nitrogen and Oxygen,
    Carbon Dioxide can only possess less heat than Nitrogen and Oxygen.

    Because the atmosphere is a Nitrogen-Oxygen based atmosphere, representing over 99.9% of the atmosphere’s gasses, adding Carbon Dioxide to the
    atmosphere cools the Nitrogen-Oxygen based atmosphere, as
    demonstrated in experimental designs conducted by Professor Gert Venter,
    Agricultural Engineering, University of Pretoria: “You
    know, that’s why all I can do is laugh when these global warming
    monkeys tell me that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is not, and I have
    live, precise experimental situations in over 30 sites around the world
    that prove that it is not. These guys create a model in their computers,
    based on arbitrary assumptions, and then ignore all the experimental
    evidence to the contrary. My experiments show that INCREASING
    TEMPERATURE in my agricultural environments.”

    With Carbon Dioxide A Cooling Molecule In Earth’s Atmosphere, Then What Is Warming The Atmosphere?

    The heat obtained by both Nitrogen and Oxygen comes from thermals and
    latent heat from the surface, heat from man-made structures on the
    ground, and the heat produced by incoming radiation absorbed directly by the atmosphere, not solely from the absorption of outgoing IR. The warmth that blankets us each day is due to Nitrogen and Oxygen, not the puny amounts of the
    trace gas Carbon Dioxide, nor any of the other trace gasses.

    Regarding man-made structures on the ground, interestingly NASA’s ‘earth’s energy budget’ illustration fails to provide the data on the amount of solar
    radiation absorbed by those structures, and it is the massive growth of
    urban sprawl the last sixty years that accounts for the atmosphere’s
    warming, a warming that is being tempered by increasing amounts of
    Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.

    To read first half of article, see link below…

  • “the Specific Heat (SH) of air is 1.0 and the SH of CO2 is 0.8 (thus CO2 heats and cools faster).”

    The specific heat for Nitrogen is 1.04, for Oxygen is 0.919; while for Carbon Dioxide is an inferior 0.844…

    Carbon Dioxide warms faster than either Nitrogen and Oxygen because it’s COOLER then the latter molecules.

  • Arationofreason

    “Climate Fraud Exposed: CO2 doesn’t rise up, trap and retain heat”
    If you hope to be taken seriously as a scientific information site, you must find a scientist to review some of these very unscientific musings. The atmosphere is of course vigorously stirred and CO2 along with it. If there is any serious gravitational separation, let’s see the measurements. Too much of this article is poorly understood nonsense.

    Your #1 skeptic.

    • Nick

      to believe this nonsense, you’d also have to believe that there is no oxygen or nitrogen at ground level; and would have to discount Brownian motion, diffusion, and even the notion of kinetic energy; the complete nonsense on this site draws the uninformed that are firmly planted in denialism to find a reinforcement for disputing of facts that they do not want to accept

      • Thomas
        • Nick

          gee, thanks; if Thomas says it’s so, then I guess it must be

        • MDHatfield

          I agree,
          The truth is there is not enough data to support this theory. Unfortunately with so much corruption in this world who can you trust ?
          Spraying our skies full of chemicals is a bad idea.Bad for us and our environment. Who would have ever thought we would intentionally be polluting our skies to block the sun? They try to scare the masses into believing the sky is falling to justify giving up BILLIONS. So exactly where is all this money going? Who’s getting rich? is it David Keith from Harvard? Who’s paying for the jets,pilots,fuel,and all those chemicals they spray every day of the year?
          When the jets don’t fly in your area the skies are darker blue and clearer.When they spray their chemicals to block the sun supposedly to stop global warming the man made haze traps the heat in and it gets hotter.
          Remember clear and cold? Clouds trap the earths heat. So in essence they are they ones creating more warming by filling our skies with these nano sized chemicals were all breathing.I call it madness.They call it the volcano effect and their getting rich. I always said follow the money and you’ll find your answer.Sad.

    • Thomas
  • Neil F.

    I am a skeptic of AGW. I have an AAS degree in HVAC&R. CO2 is used as a refrigerant so it is one of the gases that we studied. That said, I don’t think the premise of this article is accurate. Sure, it would act as described if it were contained in a balloon as per the example. But it’s not in a balloon. It is mixed in with all of the other gases so the properties of each individual gas are less pronounced in a mixture than they would be if they were separated.
    The basic facts are true. CO2 is heavier than air. But it does get forced aloft when contained in a mixture. All gases that don’t chemically bond with other gases would separate out and stratify according to their atomic weight if they were unmoving, or static. But it is never unmoving, it is constantly roiled.
    I think this was written by someone who took some basic facts and extrapolated on them poorly.

    • Thomas

      NASA has stated repeatedly that no atmospheric warming as measured by satellites has occurred for over 18 years. The Ocean has not risen past the margin for error and the poles are not melting. When you add that to the fact that Polar Bear populations are exploding and Enuit Indians are dwindling because of the increased polar bears, you begin to understand the real harm that the Global Warming Fraud has done to the world.

  • Derek James von Oetinger

    You are a fool if you don’t know solid CO2 is dry ice, you can visibly see the vaporized CO2 settles to the lowest point. DRY ICE is CO2. How do you feel knowing the UN has brainwashed you. IPCC is a ponzy scheme. Getting you to buy in with no actual substance. The greatest temperature increase happen before the industrial revolution. Its a fact.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.