What must CO2, ACO2 do to the Atmosphere to support the AGW claims?  And do those theories work?

The question is quite a complicated one to answer but we will attempt.  To cause a noticeable amount of warming on the earth's surface several things must be true:  (this an outline of the IPCC claims)

  • In looking at the history of climate there needs to be a strong indicator that CO2 is a statistical driver of climate.
  • ACO2 (human emitted CO2) must be large enough in concentration to affect the energy accumulation of energy in the atmosphere.
  • ACO2 must dominate the capture of the IR photons emitted by the earth's surface, and must also dominate Water Vapor.
  • Variation of CO2 cannot lag the variation of temperature.
  • The energy from ACO2 must be somehow reflected back and transmitted to the earth's surface, thereby heating the earth's surface.
  • The feedback from this increased heating by CO2 increases water vapor and that in turn increases the heating of the atmosphere and the earth's surface temperature.
  • ACO2 must have a lifetime long enough in the atmosphere that the above is possible.
  • The IPCC models which assume that CO2 dominate the variation of the future and even past climate are accurate.

The first six of these must be very true to enable even the possibility of AGW as a crisis.   The last 2 are required in terms of the GCM models predicting climate to rise as much as the IPCC has indicated.  If any of these characteristics are not true then the AGW as a crisis is greatly diminished as compared to what IPCC predicts.  The crisis scenario would then fall apart.


It turns out in our study and analysis that none of these theories above is true, and results are not close to what the IPCC claims.   

Climate History is in a separate section, but the additional and select articles can be found here:

ACO2 is but a few percent of the total CO2.  It simply is not high enough in concentration to cause a climate shift.

The carbon cycle from IPCC assumes human emissions are large and stay in the atmosphere much longer than credible studies.   The residence time is so short that the assumption made by the IPCC falls apart.

The residence time is found to a very small fraction of a fraction of what IPCC assumes.

Carbon dioxide is dominated by water vapor and lacks the absorption power to remove much energy from the atmosphere. 

CO2 lags temperature by almost a year.   And as such the argument that CO2 drives temperature is actually the other way around:  temperature drives CO2.  

There is no proof of the feedback of CO2 increases Water Vapor and then the temperature.    This assumption is essential to the claims that IPCC has made.


IPCC models suffer greatly in accuracy and do not pass the test for validity.   Error estimates are much large than the amount of temperature increase that is being forecast.  And the results of the models which assume that CO2 dominates prove if anything that this assumption is wrong. 


Alternative models which are curve fits to the temperature of the past also show that CO2 is not a statistical driver of the past century. 


To comprehend all of this perhaps first review the shorter presentation of CO2 science and its impact on climate. 


Conclusion is that ACO2 is not a bad thing or a maker of a crisis in climate.  It is however aiding in the greening of the world and is not a crisis in any century.


Cato Carbon Calculator

Could include a pic

This could also be inserted into the field above, or erased


Currently as a society, we are having a most difficult time discussing political issues.  What is driving this?   And why a rebirth in political culture would be a good thing.


Market Economy

Are "markets" dead as some would conjecture? Or is free enterprise what got us here?


Economic Theories

At the heart of economics there are several possible economic schools of thought, the essence of these schools of thought and how they relate to our lives.


Add Comments


Powered by Disqus