Physics studies: more CO2 cannot lead to global warming

The UN and its “World Climate Council” claim that more CO2 leads to global warming

Dr. Peter F. Mayer, tkp.at (German)

Data from the past have never been able to show this, and the reason lies in the physical properties of the atmosphere and of CO2 molecules. Three studies show this once again.

The physicists Wijngaarden and Happer found that the warming effect of each individual CO2 molecule decreases significantly (logarithmically) as the concentration increases. This is one of the reasons why there was no runaway warming of the atmosphere when the CO2 concentration was almost 20 times as high as today. This inconvenient fact, important as it is, is persistently sidestepped and rarely mentioned, because it undermines the theory of future catastrophic climate change caused by CO2. The principle of diminishing returns applies. The graph shows how the CO2 content of the air relates to its influence on temperature:

The blue curve shows how the thermal radiation flux Z(C) from the Earth into space changes with the concentration C of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. The vertical red lines show the decrease in radiation flux into space caused by successively increasing the CO2 concentration C in steps of 50 ppm. The increases are so small that they have to be multiplied by a factor of 100 to be clearly visible in the graph.

New studies

Further peer-reviewed studies prove once again that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the Earth’s atmosphere cannot cause “global warming”, as our colleagues at NoTricksZone report.

The first study by Dr Jan Kubicki et al., entitled “Climatic consequences of the process of saturation of radiation absorption in gases”, shows, similarly to the work by Wijngaarden and Happer (2020) cited above, that a higher CO2 content makes no difference. The authors also show that it is simply not possible to cause a rise in temperature through an increase in carbon dioxide.

In what are now three papers, Kubicki and his team conclude that the Earth’s atmosphere is already “saturated” with carbon dioxide. This saturation means that the greenhouse gas will not lead to a rise in temperature even with a greatly increased CO2 content.

Kubicki et al. sum up their findings by stating that, because of saturation, “the emitted CO2 does not cause a direct increase in global temperature”.

The current CO2 content of the atmosphere is around 420 parts per million (ppm), but the scientists find that a CO2 concentration above 400 ppm “can no longer cause a rise in temperature”. The saturation of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is the physical theory that must not be mentioned in the mainstream media, in politics and in large parts of climate science.

The World Economic Forum’s (WEF) “Net Zero” agenda is doomed to fail without constant scaremongering about a so-called “climate crisis”. One of the most important propaganda messages behind this “green agenda” is that humans, by burning hydrocarbons and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, are responsible for the constant warming of the climate.

The saturation hypothesis is complex, but in simple terms it can be described using the example of loft insulation in a house.

Beyond a certain point, doubling the insulation has little effect, because most of the heat trying to escape through the roof has already been captured by the previous layers of insulation.

Carbon dioxide only traps heat in narrow ranges of the infrared spectrum, as can be seen in the following graph:

In the past, the concentration of the gas was up to 20 times higher without any sign of runaway “global warming”. The Polish scientists suspect that at current levels the saturation mass for carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere is exceeded several times over.

Here are the links to the 3 studies:

• Kubicki et al., 2024
• Kubicki et al., 2022
• Kubicki et al., 2020

Original article on tkp.at (German)

The blog for science & politics

To the platform (German)

CO2 as a raw material

We have pointed out in the past that CO2 is available as a valuable resource. It is not only nature that makes use of this gas, for example in photosynthesis. Carbon dioxide can also be put to use by us as a society. Perhaps it will soon even be possible to generate sustainable renewable energy from it. Various projects give us hope.

Let us please ask ourselves whether, when the media either declare other opinions inadmissible or at least defame them, there might not be economic interests behind it. In Europe that would be nothing new.