Extensive studies have shown that more CO2 and water molecules do not cause dangerous warming
David Wojick, Ph.D.
Precision studies by physicists William Happer and Willem van Wijngaarden have shown that the current values for atmospheric carbon dioxide and water vapor are “saturated”. In radiation physics, adding more CO2 or water molecules means modest warming that benefits plant growth and thus all life on earth. More CO2 and H2O do not cause dangerous warming.
From then on, emissions from fossil fuel burning will add little additional global warming, and what is happening will improve forests, grasslands and agriculture. There is no such thing as a climate emergency.
This finding is astonishing, the paradigm shattering, contrary to what alarming scientists have told us for decades. Scientifically, it solves a great uncertainty that has plagued climate science for over a century: How should saturation be measured and how big is it in relation to the primary greenhouse gases?
Just as “the greenhouse effect” has nothing to do with the way greenhouses work, “saturation” in radiation physics is nothing more than the simple, everyday concept of saturation. Your paper towel is saturated when it stops picking up spilled milk. Greenhouse gases are saturated when more water, methane or carbon dioxide molecules are added. This has no significant other impact on the planet's warming and climate.
Dr. Happer is known as a leading skeptic of "dangerous man-made climate change". He was a co-founder of the prestigious CO2 coalition and a member of the National Security Council, which advised President Trump. His career, however, was as a top radiation physicist at Princeton. Dr. van Wijngaarden teaches and researches in pure and applied physics at York University in Canada. Happer's numerous peer-reviewed journal articles have collectively received over 12,000 citations from other researchers.
In their study, Professors Happer and van Wijngaarden (H&W) analyzed the physics of saturation down to the smallest detail. Your preprint “The dependence of the earth's thermal radiation on the five most common greenhouse gases” goes far beyond any work that has previously been carried out on this complex problem.
First, standard studies examine the absorption of solar radiation by greenhouse molecules using raw absorption bands of radiant energy. H&W goes far beyond that and analyzes the millions of different energies, so-called spectral lines, that make up these bands. Their detailed line-by-line approach is an emerging field that often delivers dramatically new results – and here contradicts prevailing climate theory.
In addition, H&W doesn't just look at absorption. As Dr. Happer explained it to me: First, the thermal emission of greenhouse gases is just as important as the absorption. Second, the change in temperature of the atmosphere with altitude is just as important as the concentration of greenhouse gases.
The two physicists therefore not only dealt with absorption, but also with emissions and atmospheric temperature fluctuations. The work is far more complex than I, most non-physical scientists, and certainly most citizens and politicians can understand. However, the conclusions are simple and dramatically clear.
The central conclusion of Happer and van Wijngaarden is: For the most common greenhouse gases H2O and CO2, the saturation effects are extreme, with the force forces per molecule being suppressed by four orders of magnitude at standard concentrations. (Forcing force means affecting atmospheric temperature.)
Your graphics are particularly convincing: Figure 9 and Tables 2 and 4 show that the forces of all greenhouse gases are saturated at current concentrations. Due to the saturation of the most common greenhouse gases H2O and CO2, the drive per molecule is weakened by a factor of 10,000.
The other greenhouse gases analyzed are ozone, nitrous oxide and methane. These are also almost saturated, but not as complete as water vapor and carbon dioxide. They are also even less important constituents of the atmosphere than CO2 (0.0415% or 415 ppm), which in turn is tiny compared to H2O (3% or less). At only 0.00019%, methane really has a tiny impact on the climate.
The climate science community clearly needs to consider this work very carefully. This may not be easy as three major trade journals have refused to publish it. Her reviews were defensive and antagonistic, rather than thoughtful, science-based, or helpful. Climate alarmism appears to control these journals, and they tend to censor findings to the contrary. For this reason, H & W released the preprint version.
Undaunted, H & W is now expanding its analysis to include clouds. Alarmist climate science bases its "dangerous man-made" global warming not only on the increase in CO2, but also on the inclusion of positive water vapor and cloud feedback: highlighting the heat-trapping properties of clouds, largely ignoring the extent to which clouds also block or reflect incoming ones Solar radiation. Since both carbon dioxide and water vapor are saturated, it is very unlikely that positive cloud feedback could cause much damage. However, more careful analysis is required to know for sure. Stay tuned.
Meanwhile, America and the world are forced to think only about "legitimate" climate science. This is used to justify the demand that we eliminate the fossil fuels that provide 80% of all energy in the US and the world and replace that energy with an enormous number of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, new transmission lines … and Mines for the production of their raw materials … all with a significant environmental impact.
"Admissible" climate science is also used as the basis for computer models that purport to predict the warming and weather of the planet in 50 to 100 years. The models have not done anything right so far, which is understandable because the physics on which they are based is so flawed.
The good news, says Ken Haapala, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, is that humanity's use of fossil fuels and the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere are not causing a climate crisis. Halving the existing atmospheric CO2 content would have little impact on the climate – but it would affect plant growth and the ability of forests, food crops and grasslands to survive droughts and other stresses. The "carbon capture" (actually carbon dioxide capture) is of little value and would only increase electricity prices.
As for the "turning points" of climate – when the earth gets relentlessly hotter, never to cool – the idea is ridiculous. Over time, our planet has moved back and forth from temperate to very warm periods. from ice ages and mile-high glaciers in half of North America and Europe to interglacial periods as we are now experiencing; From the Medieval Warm Age to the Little Ice Age, 1350-1810, Haapala notes. (The LIA ended around the time the age of fossil fuels and industry began.)
In other words, with greenhouse gases already saturated, there is no reason to accept the IPCC or any other claim that planet temperatures could rise more than 3.0 ° C (5.4 ° F) without empirical evidence of severe warming Deliver atmosphere. This evidence is completely absent from IPCC reports, and satellite measurements show no significant warming. Accepting alarmist claims is science denial.
In reality, the warming trend is modest, according to atmospheric temperature trends measured by satellites and weather balloons tracked by the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama-Huntsville. Since January 1979 it has been + 0.14 ° C / decade (+ 0.12 ° C / decade above the globally averaged oceans and + 0.18 ° C / decade above globally averaged land areas). That's only 0.25 ° F per decade or 2.5 ° F per century – modest, beneficial warming; certainly nothing remotely disastrous.
Some of this warming is likely caused by humans. But most of it is natural and not at all unprecedented.
In addition, the atmospheric “hot spot” over the tropics predicted by climate models is nowhere to be found. In other words, for carbon dioxide to have a significant impact on global temperatures, humankind would have to burn more fossil fuels than is known on our planet, Haapala concludes.
No wonder that climate alarmists, computer modellers, supporters of the Green New Deal and sellers of wind turbines, solar modules, batteries and concrete want to silence Happer and van Wijngaarden – or at least want to keep their work out of scientific journals. It's also not surprising that China is delighted with the suppression of H&W science: its companies will sell us turbines, panels, and batteries. Follow science!
David Wojick is an independent analyst specializing in science, logic, and human rights in public policy and the author of numerous articles on these topics.