CO₂ and climate change

[klondike]

CO₂ Emissions Can't Warm Atmosphere Because it is "Saturated" Published in Peer-Reviewed Journal

Further scientific evidence has emerged to suggest that the Earth's atmosphere is 'saturated' with carbon dioxide, meaning that at higher levels the 'greenhouse' gas will not cause temperatures to rise. A group of Polish scientists led by Dr. Jan Kubicki have published three papers recently, and according to the science site No Tricks Zone they summarise their evidence by noting that as a result of saturation, "emitted CO₂ does not directly cause an increase in global temperature". Current levels of CO₂ in the atmosphere are around 418 parts per million (ppm) but the scientists state that past 400 ppm, "the CO₂ concentration can no longer cause any increase in temperature".

As regular readers of the Daily Sceptic will be aware, the saturation of CO₂ in the atmosphere is the hypothesis that dares not speak its name in mainstream media, politics and across much of climate science. The Net Zero collectivisation project is dead in the water without the constant fearmongering that humans control the ever-warming climate by burning hydrocarbons and releasing CO₂ into the atmosphere.

The saturation hypothesis is complex, but in simple terms it can be described by the example of loft insulation in a house. After a certain point, doubling the lagging will have little effect since most of the heat trying to escape through the roof has already been trapped. Carbon dioxide traps heat only within narrow bands of the infrared spectrum, and levels of the gas have been up to 20 times higher in the past without any sign of runaway global warming. At current levels, the Polish scientists suggest that there is "currently a multiple exceedance of the saturation mass for carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere". The latest work is featured on Elsevier's Science Direct peer-reviewed online platform.

Many other scientists are attracted to the saturation hypothesis because it provides more plausible explanations to fit past changes in the climate. Last year, three scientists led by Atmospheric Professor Yi Huang of McGill University stated that: "Transmission in the CO₂ band centre is unchanged by increased CO₂ as the absorption is already saturated." Despite over 50 years of trying, climate modellers and scientists in the anthropogenic camp are no nearer putting a temperature rise on a doubling of CO₂ in the atmosphere. Estimates from 0.5°C up to around 6°C, with some outliers as high as 10°C, are little more than guesses, yet they form the 'scientific' bedrock for promoting global fear of human-caused climate change. The figures are too wild and imprecise to make any reasonable scientific predictions, yet the claim is constantly repeated that the science is 'settled', the 'consensus' proof is in and it is all beyond debate. For their part, the Polish scientists quote the author of Idso 1998 that "currently used models do not yet provide a suitable basis for the development of rational policies related to pot

Full text : https://dailysceptic.org/2024/04/24/new-scientific-evidence-that-co2-emissions-cant-warm-atmosphere-because-it-is-saturated-published-in-peer-reviewed-journal/

It has been shown that CO₂ levels often follow global temperature rises but nowhere where it preceeds it. We are at pretty low levels of CO₂ now compared to the past where it was far higher.

Follow the money - if you want any science funding then climate change must be mentioned somewhere in the grant application. Careers can be destroyed by questioning the cause of the small current temperature rise.

[JBR]

Yes, 'Climate Change' has become a major topic of discussion today, pursued by greenies, politicians, and anyone else with a particular 'interest' in the matter, regardless of their knowledge and qualifications.

We are being forced into living and behaving within restrictions in the hope and belief that we can prevent climate change.  We are spending money unwisely simply because the people in authority have decided that they can prevent this happening.  They will eventually be obliged to be upset and angry when none of their bright ideas achieve nothing.

Climate change is natural and has gone on for thousands if not millions of years.

The unfortunate thing is that we shall all have to suffer restrictions and problems simply because some people believe that they can control nature.

[Michael Rolls]

very true - and they can't

[ansu]

Very interesting. You are right the climate has always changed, but not as quick as it does now and there must be a reason for it. Here in Germany I have the impression that the heavy rains and heat in summer are now like those I first experienced in Italy 40 years ago. 

[klondike]

I certainly agree that the climate is changing. I disagree that every gale, flood, drout, whatever is caused by climate change. Those things are weather and the various records don't show any consistent increasing occurrence of them.

The qustion is why is the climate changing. Those advocating net zero point to increasing CO₂ levels which may be caused by use of fossil fuels although it must be said that natural CO₂ production dwarfs anything we produce and current levels are very low compared to the geological past levels. We are still coming out of the last ice age.

As with all things follow the money.  As governments have been sold on the idea that CO₂ must be reduced to halt climate change and governments fund science the only way to be sure of project funding these days is to link the project to climate change in some way. Better make sure your results show a way climate change is having an adverse impact too to keep the cash flowing.

Climate Scientists Hail Boost to Global Plant Growth From Higher CO2

Both the quantity and nutritional value of plants is growing around the planet due to recent increases in carbon dioxide, claim the authors of an important new science paper. The recent rise in carbon dioxide during modern industrial times, from a period of dangerous denudation, is at the centre of worldwide fearmongering designed to enforce a Net Zero collectivisation. "In fact, the only clear result of increasing CO2 has been an overall greening of the Earth and increasing productivity of agricultural and forest crops," state the authors.

Regular readers of the Daily Sceptic will be aware of the massive greening of the planet that has occurred over the last 40 years. Alas, this astonishing success story is inexplicably missing from most mainstream Net Zero-focused discourse. This latest paper is written by a group of scientists and published by the U.S.-based educational foundation CO2 Coalition. It is highly technical but it seeks to explain why the nutritional value of the world's more abundant crops "can and will remain high as atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase towards values more representative of those existing throughout most of Earth's history". With CO2 levels considerably higher over most geological history, the current level of 425 parts per million (ppm) is much less than optimum for most plants, the experts observe.

For too long, note the scientists, atmospheric CO2 has been the nutrient in shortest supply holding back plant growth. "Rising atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have clearly been beneficial for the biosphere, agriculture, humanity and particularly for global food security at very low additional cost. Still higher concentrations will bring additional benefits," they note. The CO2 Coalition, supported by the work of atmospheric scientists like Emeritus Professor William Happer of Princeton, has long argued that CO2 becomes 'saturated' at certain levels in the atmosphere. At higher levels its warming properties diminish rapidly. Due to this 'saturation', which helps explain why atmospheric CO2 concentrations been up to 20 times higher in the past without the planet turning into a fireball, "man-made CO2 emissions are not capable of triggering dangerous future warming".



The great success of what is termed the 'green revolution' is shown above. The scientists note that important factors in the dramatic increase in food production have been increased atmospheric CO2, the development of greatly improved plant varieties and intelligent use of mineral fertilisers. The authors quote from a recent scientific paper, Taylor and Sclenker 2023, which states: "We consistently find a large CO2 fertilisation effect: a 1 ppm increase in CO2 equates to a 0.4%, 0.6%, 1% yield increase for corn, soybeans and wheat respectively."


The evidence for greening of the Earth from atmospheric carbon dioxide "is now too obvious to deny". The scientists publish the world map below to prove their point.



The above map was produced from satellite data recorded between 1982 and 2012. Greening by 20-30% was recorded in India, West Australia, the Sahel and the Anatolian highlands. Reference is also made to Chen et al. 2024, reported here in the Daily Sceptic, that found CO2  greening had actually accelerated over the last two decades. The increase in C02 was found to be the dominant driver of the positive trend of the Leaf Area Index over most of the global land surface.


Attempts have been made recently to downplay the benefits of more vigorous CO2-driven plant growth by suggesting it leads to a slight dilution of some nutrients, notably nitrogen, in plant tissues. In the course of their work, the authors state that these deficiencies are small compared with the nutritional shortages that agriculture and livestock face because of natural phenomena. "These problems have been routinely dealt with for generations through adequate fertilisation, proper species and cultivar selection, and food supplements for livestock and humans," they argue.

The numerous desirable and beneficial effects of more CO2 in the atmosphere greatly outweigh 'climate-damaging' or 'nutrient-damaging' impacts, to the extent that these even exist. There is no 'social cost' of carbon, as is incorrectly claimed in numerous recent publications. In the course of their paper, the scientists say that have reviewed the literature and provided arguments that "arrive at quite a contrary view" to those who claim enhanced atmospheric CO2 somehow threatens human nutrition. "In fact, there is a social benefit from more CO2 in the air," they conclude.

https://dailysceptic.org/2024/04/26/climate-scientists-hail-boost-to-global-plant-growth-from-higher-co2/

[Diasi]

I thought I'd post this here rather than start a new thread.

It exposes, how many of us, including me, have said, that stupid Thunberg & all the other climate activists are being gulled by self-interest scientists whose livelihoods depend on it.

I can't recall seeing this video on this forum, so I apologise if I've duplicated it.

[klondike]

I did post it somewhere but it got little response from what I recall. It is quite long which may be the reason.

I'll try to find the original thread.

This was it and as I said the main comment was too long plus maybe the picture was offputting

https://letschat.club/index.php?topic=4439.msg102540#msg102540

[Diasi]

I did post it somewhere but it got little response from what I recall. It is quite long which may be the reason.

I'll try to find the original thread.

This was it and as I said the main comment was too long plus maybe the picture was offputting

https://letschat.club/index.php?topic=4439.msg102540#msg102540

I came across from a link in a Conservative Home article about the EU becoming climate change pragmatists & the UK still being climate change zealots.

[klondike]

Yes maybe we should be joining the EU 

Although it isn't the EU Commision that is becoming more pragmatic it is the nations and of course the more sensible (extreme right according to the media) parties.

[JBR]

Very interesting. You are right the climate has always changed, but not as quick as it does now and there must be a reason for it. Here in Germany I have the impression that the heavy rains and heat in summer are now like those I first experienced in Italy 40 years ago.

Yes, I'm sure the climate changed quite quickly at the end of the last Ice Age.
It's what it does, regardless of what people do.

I'd also hazard a guess that there were few, if any, nasty motorists causing that climate change back then!

[klondike]

We are actual still recovering from that ice age and the planet is still warming to the more normal temperature range the earth has had over the last few billions of years.

[Diasi]

The whole video was summed up in 10 seconds when Nobel Prize winner Prof John Clauser said that a gangster, when asked why he always robbed banks, replied "that's where the money is".