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.

        • whitney64

          I agree, which us proving the point of the math.

    • 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.”


          • whitney64

            What a stupid food the lemming comment. I just said in very scientific terms the wwT is just the mean average termperature, discovered by using tools. It is however a measure of the Sum of all eK stored within a body or reservoir of gas > |0|° state. I am right Nick. Curent climate agreed to by actual scientists, physicists and climate Scientists is ~288.4°K. It was significantly higher in three of the previously five interglacials per the fossil records. The earth is not in crisis. Science is not any bullsh’t you wasn’t to make it.

          • Nick

            already had calculus; and heat transfer; and thermodynamics; nothing you have written is contrary to the consensus of scientists who declare that humans are raising the global average temperature and thus changing the climates

          • whitney64

            I am not writing to refute that humans may/may not have an impact on climate. I am writing to discredit the ridiculous notion that CO2 is causing climate change.

            As a LEED AP I have years,studying the effects of human impacts on the environment in OTHER more rational ways.

            Humans contribute to increased H2O in the air. The A is “wetter” (more humid) than 100 years ago, perhaps by 2,000 ppm. That gas an equivalent eK effect of adding 1000 ppm of CO2 to the lower atmosphere, about 10 x the Delta caused by CO2 increases since 1900, and about 20 x the estimated human impact oN CO2. The planet is greening as a result of that.

            But none of that is outside the norm even for president industrial societies and even earlier ice ages. Humans do have a heat-island impact on climate. About 2% of all landmasses have been urbanized, although urban zones in desert regions net additional thermal reservoir is rather minimal. The net effect is a modest human increase in thermally stored and night radiated eK absorbed by A at surface levels.

            I doubt any rational scientist will argue humanity has had no impact on climate. To argue it is significant, and especially related to CO2 as a principal dricer among GHG’s is simply fraud.

          • Nick

            “ridiculous” to you; not to the overwhelming consensus of trained experts

          • whitney64

            Nick let’s be realistic. You claim “experts” contribute the above, and yet I showed mathematically the reality of actual f:xCO2 RFeK and it’s tiny (if it exists at all as the author of the paper attests). You do not offer any argument or debate that up ends the facts of our two base contentions of fact (article author’s theory and mine).

            You do what all poorly educated leftests do. You climb back onto the “consensus bandwagon” which we know is a complete fraud, as easily discredited as the Mann Hockey Stick Graph. Here’s aN idea. If you want to argue from a position of discipline and reason, use actual facts, maybe the periodic table, some axioms of physics and thermodynamics of RF molecular eK induction >ambient states, a little algebra or even that calculus you brag of. So far I have seen nothing but emotional leftests clap and claims that some “ethereal consensus” is out there siding with you. I’m sorry, but ten thousand so called scientists that cannot do the simplest math is not science. When you apply the IPCC constants to the standard model of atmospheric gasses in accordance with the proven chemical and physical properties, the molecular mechanics (see Periodic Table, looks like a calander with there x’s as many days) of GHG’s, it’s easy to prove thE murder weapon was not the pipe wrench in the Library, the rope in the drawing room or the CO2 in the coke can.

          • Nick

            Carbon dioxide is well known as a mild heat-soaking substance. Without it, the earth would be a snowball. Not impressed by your math. The system is far more complex than you must realize.

          • whitney64

            We could go quite deep into the spectral physics of heat obsorption at the molecular level for the various gas elements that make up the atmosphere.

            We could discuss at what frequencies various types of excitation take place and at what elevations within the ato sphere said RFeK gains are naximized, and at what levels and concentrations there is in fact a negative absorption band within the spectrum.

            Unfortunately, mathematics doesn’t impress you. To be frank my numbers posted in haste on this phone from a toilet seat back then while I was lwaving a human carbon deposit in the crapper, we’re not particularly accurate at the purely scientific level. But the general aspect of what was posted then was realistic. Inasmuch as you have yet to offer a cogent argument to the debate, I am guessing you really are an over-zealous snowflake that just cannot accept the IPCC got something potentially right (the CO2 molecule) does potentially store up to 2.011 × the RFeK of one H2O molecule. The weight of one CO2 Molecule is 2.222 x the weight of one H2O molecule. Given stipulation that the IPCC’s constants as referenced above are relatively accurate. The math clearly demonstrates that among GHG’s, CO2 os birtually inconsequential. Some scientists believe the physics of CO2 eK:p is far more limited in the environment of A, and total RFeKp:CO2 misunderstood. Many physicists studying the properties of GHG’s, CO2 is if not RF(c:n=0), it is potentially RF(-eK ), and not RFeK+, let alone over 2x as powerful a heat sink as H2O. These arguments are among them, and fairly based on the assumption laboratory results are not fully equivelent in replication of test to complex A system.

            Having said that, you offer NO MATH, Nothing other than the emotional ties to a cause and I suspect you can’t do math or you would refute at least the most basic assumptions and foundational facts from the periodic table.

            The world’s general climate as measured wwT:t=p is 288.4°K. That is a measure of the average level of molecular energy discharged in the browning action of the gasses that make up earth’s A. Any system or body of mass that exists at a T:state>|0°K| has an energy state that can be expressed as an absolute mean average Temperature. GHG’s of all types contribute about 16.2°K to wwT. ConveCt I’ve friction amplifies ambient wwT wis about 16.2°K (wind/convection is a feedback loop that contributes to this). So of wwT~288.4°K, and 32.4°K is attributed to then the earth’s blackbody radiation has to be equal to 256°K and that’s really close.

            Now, do the rest of the math. Non GHS’s account for 96% of climate and wwT>|0°k| 288.4k GHGs only account for a small fraction of total heat (16.2°K/288.4°K). RFeK pursuant to maximum CO2 is about 1/44th of that.

            16.2/288.4 x 1/44 = .125° (1/8°K). At least 5/6 of CO2 is natural. The human element is probably bo more the CC potential we discovere the fact is that human impact is no more than an 1/6th of .125 about .021°K after 125 years. You don’t like the math. TOO BAD!

          • Nick

            To reply to your latest comment: I’m still not impressed with the math you present. We can’t treat the earth as if it’s a solid lump (“billiard ball model”). It has two major volumes of fluid, the oceans and the atmosphere. Scientists develop coupled models that model the interactions between those two fluids. Additionally, much of the heat absorbed by the planet is channeled into melting solid water, and that heat is a massive quantity, given the mass of ice being melted and the fact that there’s essentially no temperature change as the melting takes place (heat to change phase, as opposed to raising temperature). The lion’s share of the heat is warming the oceans and in melting the ice caps (and this has profound effects on the ocean and atmospheric circulations). You can’t assume that there’s simple radiation from the earth’s surface, at a given temperature. In reality, radiation reflects off the planet’s surface and is re-radiated many many times as it makes its way back toward the vacuum of space. And the re-radiations occur in all directions, and at different temperatures (reference the adiabatic lapse rate). Simply changing the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere by 30 percent has major impacts in the adiabatic lapse rate and the rate at which radiated heat is passed from the planet. Your application of thermal radiation is vastly over-simplified, and is only a first order estimate. Nature’s contribution is not 5/6 of the existing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but only 7/10 (and rapidly decreasing). Carbon dioxide is not the only GHG that is being released by humans in large amounts. Methane – a far more potent gas – is being released by industrial activity and also as a feedback by melting permafrost (which is occurring primarily due to man’s GHG emissions). Let’s face it, you’re out of your league when you are disputing what thousands of highly trained scientists (who apparently have an understanding on a much deeper level than you) are doing with very high-powered computing machines. In addition, data show, from many different lines of evidence, that the planet’s fluids ARE warming, and doing so for no other discernible reason than the release of GHGs into the atmosphere. This is occurring at a time when the sun is in a period of general quiescence (that is, when the planet should be cooling rather than warming). The oceans are rising in an accelerated fashion, attesting to the effect of massive melting of ice in the arctic and antarctic. The oceans are demonstrably more acidic, as a result of carbon dioxide absorption, creating carbon acid in higher quantities. The evidences are overwhelming and one can dispute all one likes, but the consensus of the experts in the disciplines point their fingers at humans as the source of climate changes that we are presently seeing. No insults or demeaning comments are going to change my mind, so you can dispense with all that futile effort.

        • whitney64

          Sorry about the typos. Big fingers, little phone.

          • whitney64

            Now we all know you are an activist, bUT not rooted well in science. Thank you for proving it.

            1. Paragraphs dude.

            2. The jury is out on the % of present atmospheric CO2 that is human introduced. What we do know is that 280 ppm was a low guess 125 years ago. In fact there is literature from the period proffered by significant sources that placed it around 400 ppm.

            3. Inasmuch as the time frame (125 yrs) is geophysical speaking, very short, we use the more modern Assumption, that is was around 280 ppm. That means an increase potential of 100 ppm in 125 years. While some of that is human caused, the fact is the ocean surfaces have also warmed overall by about 1°K since the end of the little ice age mid 18th century. That warming is the equivalent of popping the top off a soda can. A substantial portion of the CO2 is evaporating to A from the ocean. The 1/6th may be overstating it, but not understating it.

            5) the Blackbody temperature of 256.4k for earth is a known slightly variable constant. It fluctuates based on the actual type of climate state the earth is in at a given time. The earth absorbs heat and still enjoys significant internal heat sources (is volcanic ally active). It radiates heat away. It’s current net bbT is 256.4K.

            6) As it moves through space, its distance from the primary heat source in position relative to the sun changes in several ways cyclically. Russian astro-physicist Milankovich developed the understanding of the combinations of these cycles and how they interact to create out 30ma trend of long gradually declining ice ages interspersed with relatimely brief global warm interglacials (like our present). Perhaps it’s not popular among idiot millennial to consider real science, especially if it comes from an evil Russian, but the dude was right.

            7) Methane like CO2 is an overblown ruse, not a realistic threat. Again the physics do not wash out. Among gasses in A onereason it’s not taken seriously by real physicists is its short lived. CH4 and any organic hydrocarbon within the array of C(n) + H (2n)+H2 are quickly destroyed by IR and UV both below and above the Vspectrum. Please don’t bring that silly shit to the conversation. Any petrochemical scientist will laugh you right put of the room. There is no real appreciable change in A:CH4 from 100 ya to today. Even huge water-body releases of ancient stores as they occassionally occur are rare. Once they happen they can be locally deadly, but also are quickly gone. CH4 doesn’t hang long in A. Even CO2 is mainly absored as algal and land based botanical live catches up to it. The reason that deserts are SHRINKING and the earth GREENING is because CO2 is increasing. That’s a good thing.

            8) the ridiculous fears about runaway hot-house earth fly in the face of everything we know regarding geological history and paleoclimates. The 280 ppm level is actually a mass plant extinction level. As any freak’n botanist dude. Until a few million years ago, there was a much more active CO2 Cycle working within the tectonic crust. The earth during periods of high volcanic activity results in a significant increase in A:CO2…. we know that. Before 25 mya, CO2 ran over 1000 ppm, and at times, as high as 20,000 ppm (about as 1/2 as high a percentage as H2O vapor). No runaway heat.

            9) As long as Volcanism comes up, talk with any geologist. The earth’s volcanic history is pretty wild. The last major period of non-induction zone volcanic excitation was around 3 my and in some cases laster until relatively recently (eastern California and Northern Arizona) 85% of volcanism takes place under the ocean surface and remains hidden from view. We do know from studies that over that last 30 years, volcanic activity has nearly doubled. The earth is less dormant volcanic ally and that is a significant source of CO2. CO2 venting from the Pacific Rim induction zones and from the 12,000 mile long mid Atlantic Ridge is far greater than it was just 200 years ago. The thermodynamics of the earth as an entire body do not change, but the heat within caused by massive core stores of radioactive metals means that inner heat is migrating to the surface which does affect ocean temperatures, climate and A. They absorb the heat and warm. These natural sources of CO2 and RFbtu+ are acting in concert to help boost sea temperatures.

            9) The main source of surface heating is our sun. We were warming until around 2000, but the suns daily amount of eK:w/m^2 at the equator has simply dropped since then. We have instruments measuring that constantly. The sun is in a less active stage.

            10) The sun has a core abut the size of the earth. It is at the core’s mainly gradually growing surface boundary that the H》He cycle of thermonuclear fusion takes place. Most people think of this process where 4mmtn of Hydrogen are converted to He every second occurs in some massive explosion. BUT in reality, it occurs in a thin film barely a few atoms wide surrounding the entire core. Think of a smooth billiard ball the size of earth. Now imagine the earth’s surface covered with a sheet of felt. Then imaging there is gas on top of that 2 times farther from the surface as the moon. That felt thick layer is were TN H》He Fusion is taking place. It produces all the energy and the earth receives at 91-93m MI away, enough energy to make us warm up to an ambient bbT of 256.4K

            11) To get to 288.4K we need an excitable gas atmosphere. We need that A to act as an insulator, magniying instrument, and to do what gasses do when they absorb photonic energy in a variety of spectrums. Getting to an atmospheric mean climate of wwT = 288.4°K (32°K>bbT) is the result if 16°K from convective thermal dynamics in a gas or friction heating, plus the GHG affect of about 16.2°K. Of 16.2°K 96% of it comes from RFeK within water vapor only 4% comes from all other GHG’s and only 1/6th of that 4% comes from humans. Those are easily proven facts.

            12) I Don’t really give a rats as if you are not impressed with the math. My peers generally are because they are not into popcycle-science. They actually view the periodic table is meaningful, physics as an ever expanding body of provable theory and fact. CO2 is easily discredited as a significant contributor to climate RFeK. CH4 is even magnitudes less important. As for interglacials, the present is significantly cooler than much of the first 9,000 years of the current Holocene. When the last ice age ended, the oceans were very close to 120 m (nearly 400 feet) LOWER than today (NASA’s own website) As for runaway GHG induced heat, at the hight of our present right now, sea levels are STILL 4-6 meters LOWER than they wrre during the previous interglacial. In fact of the last 4 interglacials, the heating overall during our Holicene is on the low end.

            13) Look Nick I suspect you want to be an honest guy, at least within. The fact is, you’ve been sold a load of emotional crap but very little real science. There is no substitute for real science and the CO2 theory is pretty easily debunked by the inherint math of it, and by incidental evidences provided by geophysicists, astrophysicists, geologists, marine and general biologists, and paleoclimatologists.

            14) Nick, climate changes. Humans as important a species as we may be are simply not changing climate w/CO2 or CH2. H2O may be a different story, but evendors there H2O is like CO2 critically important in the cycle of life and thus, it’s affects are quickly absorbed in evolutionary ways throughout the environment. You want to believe man is some sort of evil because you have been brainwashed to believe that. Man is absent any religious inferrance, an animal of incredible manipulative intellect unlike any other on this planet. With so much intellectual capability we are simply better at tool making and environmental control than any other species. We are still natural. The difference between humans constructing a 104 story skyscraper and a bird building a nest, is degrees of complexity, but the act of constructing shelter is completely natural. You gave been taught that humans are an enemy to nature, and in fairness humans can be bad stewards of nature at times. But in general mankind tends to learn of its follies and is self correcting. We do not do the lemming leap, or at least not for very long.
            I shall not respond again. If you insist on commenting, so be it.

    • Stewart Clark

      I enjoyed reading your comment, it makes sense, human-kind does not effect climate. I think we should be good stewards of our planet and reduce or eliminate pollution.

      • whitney64

        I didn’t claim we do not affect climate (please see my most recent post just above). But I do dispell the myth regarding CO2 as a significant agent of climate change. We humans do have an impact. It pales in comparison to real eK modifiers in the environment (Sun, Volcanism, Plate Tectonics, Milankovich Cycles).

        • Stewart Clark

          Okay, I am not trying to discredit your statement. Thank you, for the clarification.

          • whitney64

            I didn’t believe you were. From reading Nicks comments, I can tell, it at least assess that he is likely a very passionate leftst. He may well have some education, but his assumption are not well founded in scientific terms. The fact is, the earth does project a bbT of 256.4°K and yet our A:wwT = 288.4°K, an ~32°K Delta. The warm climate exists because of convective induced frictional magnification of eK stored within the A, ~16°K and ~16°K of excess RFeK stored by GHG’s. Of GHG’s 1/6 of RFeK is from human caused CO2 and so the human C-Footprint is easy to understand:

            16°K/288.4°K x 1/45 (H2O = RFEK of 44/45ths) x 1/6. That is the tiny reality of human CO2 from industrialization. There us no getting around the math.

          • Stewart Clark

            Thank you for the information Whitney64. I do not have enough knowledge to completely understand the acronyms and symbology. Can you lead me to a brief textbook or article explaining these concepts. I have a deep distrust of liberal ideologies.

          • whitney64

            My apologies. The dictionary is in simplest terms as follows:

            A = Atmosphere
            eK= Kinetic Energy which is the underlying energy potential stored in a body.
            RF is essential radiative energy gain so RFeK represents the energy potential stored within a body.
            °K is degrees Kelvin. K scale begins at |0°|K whicH in physics means an atom is so cold, it’s motionless or in a zero energy state.

            Climate is usually measured by applying a mean-average-temperature to the lower atmosphere at sea level. We Americans are used to measuring Climaye on the Farenheit Scale, and it’s around 59.6°F worldwide (so 59.6°F is the current wwT. On the Kelvin Scale which is a far more scientific approach that looks at energy states >|0°|K, the wwT is 288.4°K. Of course that is just an average, but it is a relatively stable number overy short durations like a decade. In reality climate always changes.
            It is important to understand a concept that Nick completely misses. The A is a reservoir of gasses that at sea level, contains enough kinetic energy from solar radiation and convective friction, that it’s average energy state can be measured at 288.4°K or 59.6°F and those are equal values and represent wwT which is world wide Temperature (shorthand for the climate energy state)

            GHG is greenhouse gas. All gasses, liquids and solids absorb heat and reradiate heat away. The study of this effect is called thermodynamics. All gasses will reach an energy state in balance which means a given temperature at which it neither stores more +eK (heat) or sheds more -eK (-heat). GHG’s theoretically hold more heat at the molecular level than non-GHG’s common in A, such as N2 (diNitrogen) and O2 (diOxygen) which make up 96% of A. 1% of A is made up of energy Ar(gone) which does not mix with anything and is a mild GHG. The other 3% of the A is 94% H20 5% CO2 and 1% other GHG’s (Numbers rounded).

            Of GHG’s CO2 is insignificant, even when double its value 100 years ago.

            ThE author of the articLe above has CORRECTLY pointed out that the RFeK potential of CO2 as a GHG is if anything, at least overstated, but potentially non-existant. I point out that even in the worst case scenarip, if CO2 is a mild +RFeK engine 2.011 x as powerful as fellow GHG Water (H2O), the fact remains that it’s real effects are minimal when compared to water. Furthermore, studies that do peg CO2 as a mild RFEK molecule note that at increasing concentrations CO2 reaches a saturation limit at,around 400-440 ppm and at 400 ppm is 95% there. So CO2 CANNOT cause run-away climate warming. It’s simply not physically possible without corresponding atmospheric pressure expanding. Venus is hot because 1) closer to the sum by 1/3rd and 2) the gas that makes up V atmosphere is about 90 x as thick and heavy, compressing the planet surface in the same way a Hugh comforter made of lead feathers would trap heat on a bed.

            I think that covers it. Let me know if you have other questions.

  • 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…

    • whitney64

      I suspect that at worst, arguing CO2 heat gain via IPCC model constants, where CO2 supposedly holds 2.011x the RFeK of H2O, clearly shows CO2 is not a threat, or your assessment that net RFeK:CO2 is actually less than ambient N2 & O2 molecules… the theory of human impact based on CO2 us ridiculous. I thank you and appreciate your theory as well.

      • “I thank you and appreciate your theory as well.”

        Oh, I NEVER delve into theories. If anything, I tear theories apart! At any rate, we’re dealing with the actual PHYSICS of nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide. As my article directs the reader’s attention to, nitrogen and oxygen are approximately one-third greater in volume than carbon dioxide, that volume, of course, constituting heat energy. It’s incredulous to me that no one points out this basic fact of physics that implodes the ‘carbon dioxide is a warming molecule’. It ain’t, and it can’t be.

        • whitney64

          Much of the “blow” comes from activists pointing at Venus and saying that it’s 80%CO2 atmosphere is runaway GHG trapped heating. They fail to understand the physics of CO2 but also the distance from the primary heat source. Any gas attains the ambient temperature relative to its eK absorption and eK radiative nature as a body. Equalibrium in Venus’ neck of the solar neighborhood account for the 808°K VwwT, not because it’s just CO2. Also, all over VenusIan CO2 is from within the planet (out gassed A). It is gravitationally compressed which is suffocating as opposed to coolING in feedback loops. But, in genersl, if you placed Venus where earth is, in 3 billion years it might be a N2, O2, H2O Rich atmosphere w/green plants and only traces of CO2 remaining. We know this because the earth’s early atmosphere was similar to Venus’.

          • “… but also the distance from the primary heat source.”

            That’s taken into account, of course, but what isn’t is the massive atmospheric pressure of Venus,* which I discuss in the article I linked to. You didn’t read it! And Venus’ atmosphere isn’t 80% carbon dioxide, it’s 96.5% carbon dioxide…

            * Ninety-two times that of Earth. The atmospheric pressure of Venus is always left out of the heat calculations for Venus!

          • whitney64

            You are cor rectangular at 96.6% at least so far as special analysis and probes gave returned information. There is some speculation that scouring and convection has put other mico-solids and heavy gasses such as significantly higher sulfuric oxides in the lower atmosphere so that the surface concentrations of CO2 below 10km may be somewhat lower than cloud top observations. Nevertheless, I concur with you in general and to the extent of what we know as opposed to what I was speculatiNG without clarification. My hat is off to you for making a more accurate statement based on what we do know.

          • “My hat is off to you for making a more accurate statement based on what we do know and can observe from all penetrating probes, orbiting probes and observitories on earth.”

            I merely regurgitate God’s physics, nothing more.

          • whitney64

            I am LDS, firmly believe in an eternal God, his physics as you state, and a 4.56BYO earth.

          • “I am LDS, firmly believe in an eternal God…”

            Great to hear! Then you’re going to be shocked by the following article (and its follow-up piece)…



  • “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.

          • whitney64

            I think there might be something to this theory. One thing is certain, the earth is on the downside of the current interglacial. To limit the effects of the next long decline into an ice age, humans may need to figure out how to trap heat and warm climate. The difficulty in that is knowing when to stop as 80k-100,000 years in the future, when do you stop artifical heating measures in response to rapid global warming enviable but exact date unknown? I am glad I won’t be around to think about the problem. But WD are at the front end of a very long problem. Cities like Boston, Toranto, NY, Helsinki, Paris will be icebound and crushed by the next ice age. What we think endearing and permanent is probably in a post apocolyprice world totally destroyed. That’s the reality if climate change the “snowflakes” are really not considering.

      • whitney64

        Yet you made not one actual valid argument. Your emotion is not science.

    • 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.

    • whitney64

      While all that is true, let’s stick to the raw science. Yes, CO2 is heavy and it’s a good thing because plants were starving for “their air” at 280 ppm. At 400 ppm, the atmosphere is neither in danger of any runaway GHE, and it is barely to a point where plant diversity and evolution get started. Below that level plant extinction is common (some species cannot survive long). Glaciation and competition for CO2 resources inhibit plant life and evolutionary diversification. Sadly, the last 35MA track record makes the next ice age likely, and the gradual 10,0000 year decline to the descent to a deep freeze not too far into the future. We may already be in it.

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