{"id":269385,"date":"2023-07-25T17:55:27","date_gmt":"2023-07-25T15:55:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=269385"},"modified":"2023-07-25T17:55:29","modified_gmt":"2023-07-25T15:55:29","slug":"refresher-ghg-theory-and-the-tests-it-fails","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=269385","title":{"rendered":"Refresher: GHG Theory and the Tests It\u00a0Fails"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Science Matters<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Ron Clutz<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

There continues to be a lot of discussions (arguments?) and confusing statements regarding the Green House Gas theory of global warming, in legacy and social media.\u00a0 So to clear the air I am reposting a concise explanation of the theory and a summary of various independant attempts to find empirical evidence supporting it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Overview<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Many people commenting both for and against reducing emissions from burning fossil fuels assume it has been proven that rising GHGs including CO2 cause higher atmospheric temperatures.\u00a0 That premise has been tested and found wanting, as this post will describe.\u00a0 First below is a summary of Global Warming Theory as presented in the scientific literature.\u00a0 Then follows discussion of several unsuccessful attempts to find evidence of the hypothetical effects from GHGs in the relevant datasets.\u00a0 Concluding is the alternative theory of climate change deriving from solar and oceanic fluctuations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Scientific Theory of  Global Warming<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

The theory is well described in an article by Kristian (okulaer) prefacing his analysis of\u00a0 \u201cAGW warming\u201d fingerprints in the CERES satellite data.\u00a0\u00a0How the CERES EBAF Ed4 data disconfirms \u201cAGW\u201d in 3 different ways\u00a0<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0by okulaer November 11, 2018. Excerpts below with my bolds.\u00a0 Kristian provides more detailed discussion at his blog (title in red is link).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Background: The AGW Hypothesis<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

For those of you who aren\u2019t entirely up to date with the hypothetical idea of an \u201c(anthropogenically) enhanced GHE\u201d (the \u201cAGW\u201d) and its\u00a0supposed mechanism for (CO2-driven) global warming<\/strong>, the general principle is fairly neatly summed up here.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019ve modified this diagram below somewhat, so as to clarify even further the concept of\u00a0\u201cthe raised ERL (Effective Radiating Level)\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 referred to as Ze in the schematic \u2013 and how it is meant to \u2018drive\u2019 warming within the Earth system; to simply bring the message of this fundamental premise of \u201cAGW\u201d thinking more clearly across<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Then we have the\u00a0\u201cdoubled CO2\u201d (t1) scenario<\/strong>, where the ERL has been pushed higher up into cooler air layers closer to the tropopause:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

So when the atmosphere\u2019s IR opacity increases with the excess input of CO2,\u00a0the ERL is pushed up, and, with that, the temperature at ALL ALTITUDE-SPECIFIC LEVELS of the Earth system<\/strong>, from the surface (Ts) up through the troposphere (Ttropo) to the tropopause, directly connected via the so-called environmental lapse rate, i.e. the negative temperature profile rising up through the tropospheric column, is\u00a0forced to do the same.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Expected GHG Fingerprints<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

How, then, is this mechanism\u00a0supposed to manifest itself?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Well, as the ERL, basically the\u00a0\u201ceffective atmospheric layer of OUTWARD (upward) radiation\u201d<\/strong>, the one conceptually\/mathematically responsible for the All-Sky OLR flux at the ToA, and from now on, in this post, dubbed rather the\u00a0EALOR<\/strong>, is lifted higher, into cooler layers of air, the diametrically opposite level, the\u00a0\u201ceffective atmospheric layer of INWARD (downward) radiation\u201d (EALIR),<\/strong>\u00a0the one conceptually and mathematically responsible for the All-Sky DWLWIR \u2018flux\u2019 (or \u201cthe atmospheric back radiation\u201d) to the surface, is simultaneously \u2013 and\u00a0for the same physical reason, only inversely so \u2013 pulled down, into warmer layers of air closer to the surface.<\/strong>\u00a0This latter concept was explained already in 1938 by G.S. Callendar. Feldman et al., 2015, (as an example) confirm that this is still how \u201cMainstream Climate Science (MCS)\u201d views this \u2018phenomenon\u2019:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The gist being that, when we make the atmosphere more opaque to IR by putting more CO2 into it, \u201cthe atmospheric back radiation\u201d\u00a0(all-sky DWLWIR at sfc) will naturally increase as a result, reducing the radiative heat loss (net LW) from the surface up<\/strong>. And do note, it will increase regardless of (and thus, on top of) any atmospheric rise in temperature, which would itself cause an increase. Which is to say that\u00a0it will always distinctly increase also RELATIVE TO tropospheric temps<\/strong>\u00a0(which are, by definition, altitude-specific (fixed at one particular level, like \u2018the lower troposphere\u2019 (LT))). That is, even when tropospheric temps do go up, the\u00a0DWLWIR should be observed to increase systematically and significantly MORE than what we would expect from the temperature rise alone.<\/strong>\u00a0Because the EALIR moves further down.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conversely, at the other end, at the ToA, the\u00a0EALOR moves the opposite way, up into colder layers of air,<\/strong>\u00a0which means the all-sky OLR (the outward emission flux) should rather be observed to systematically and significantly decrease over time relative to tropospheric temps. If tropospheric temps were to go up, while the DWLWIR at the surface should be observed to go significantly more up, the\u00a0OLR at the ToA should instead be observed to go significantly less up<\/strong>, because the warming of the troposphere would simply serve to offset the \u2018cooling\u2019 of the effective emission to space due to the rise of the EALOR into colder strata of air.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What we\u2019re looking for, then, if indeed there is an \u201cenhancement\u201d of some \u201cradiative GHE\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0going on in the Earth system, causing global warming, is ideally the following:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

OLR stays flat<\/strong>, while TLT increases significantly and systematically over time;<\/em>
TLT increases systematically over time, but DWLWIR increases significantly even more.<\/strong><\/em>
Effectively summed up in this simplified diagram.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Figure 4. Note, this schematic disregards \u2013 for the sake of simplicity \u2013 any solar warming at work.<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

However, we also expect to observe one more \u201cgreenhouse\u201d signature.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

If we expect the OLR at the ToA to stay relatively flat, but the DWLWIR at the sfc to increase significantly over time, even relative to tropospheric temps, then,\u00a0if we were to compare the two (OLR and DWLWIR) directly, we\u2019d, after all, naturally expect to see a fairly remarkable systematic rise in the latter over the former<\/strong>\u00a0(refer to Fig.4 above).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Which means we now have our three ways to test the reality of an hypothesized \u201cenhanced GHE\u201d as a \u2018driver\u2019 (cause) of global warming.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
Three Tests for GHG Warming in the Sky<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

The\u00a0null hypothesis<\/strong>\u00a0in this case would claim or predict that,\u00a0if there is NO strengthening \u201cgreenhouse mechanism\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0at work in the Earth system, we would\u00a0observe<\/strong>:1. The general evolution (beyond short-term, non-thermal noise (like ENSO-related humidity and cloud anomalies or volcanic aerosol anomalies))* of the\u00a0All-Sky OLR flux at the ToA to track that of Ttropo (e.g. TLT) over time;<\/strong><\/em>
2. The general evolution of the\u00a0All-Sky DWLWIR at the surface to track that of Ttropo<\/strong>\u00a0(Ts + Ttropo, really) over time;<\/em>
3. The general evolution of the\u00a0All-Sky OLR at the ToA and the All-Sky DWLWIR at the surface to track each other<\/strong>\u00a0over time, barring short-term, non-thermal noise.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

* (We see how the curve of the all-sky OLR flux at the ToA differs quite noticeably from the TLT and DWLWIR curves, especially during some of the larger thermal fluctuations (up or down), normally associated with particularly strong ENSO events. This is because\u00a0there are factors other than pure mean tropospheric temperatures that affect Earth\u2019s final emission flux to space<\/strong>, like the concentration and distribution (equator\u2192poles, surface\u2192tropopause\/stratosphere) of clouds, water vapour and aerosols. These may (and do)\u00a0all vary strongly in the short term, significantly disrupting the normal temperature<\/strong>\u2194flux (Stefan-Boltzmann) connection, but in the longer term, they display a remarkable tendency to even out, leaving the tropospheric temperature signal as the only real factor to consider when comparing the OLR with Ttropo (TLT). Or not.\u00a0The \u201cAGW\u201d idea specifically contends<\/strong>, resting on the premise, that\u00a0these other factors<\/strong>\u00a0(and crucially also including CO2, of course)\u00a0do NOT even out over time, but rather accrue in a positive (\u2018warming\u2019) direction<\/strong>.)<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Missing Fingerprint #1<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first point above we have already covered extensively.\u00a0The combined ERBS+CERES OLR record is seen to track the general progression of the UAHv6 TLT series tightly<\/strong>, both in the tropics and near-globally, all the way from 1985 till today (the last ~33 years), as discussed at length both here and here.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since, however, in this post we\u2019re specifically considering the CERES era alone, this is how the global OLR matches against the global TLT since 2000:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Figure 5.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

This is simply the monthly CERES OLR flux data properly scaled (x0.266), enabling us to compare it more directly to temperatures (W\/m2\u2192K), and superimposed on the UAH TLT data.\u00a0Watch how closely the two curves track each other,<\/strong>\u00a0beyond the obvious noise. To highlight this\u00a0striking state of relative congruity<\/strong>, we remove the main sources of visual bias in Fig.5 above. Notice, then, how the red OLR curve, after the 4-year period of fairly large ENSO-events (La Ni\u00f1a-El Ni\u00f1o-La Ni\u00f1a) between 2007\/2008 and 2011\/2012, when the cyan TLT curve goes both much lower (during the flanking La Ni\u00f1as) and much higher (during the central El Ni\u00f1o), quickly reestablishes itself right back on top of the TLT curve, just where it used to be prior to that intermediate stretch of strong ENSO influence. And as a result, there is\u00a0NO gradual divergence whatsoever to be spotted between the mean levels of these two curves<\/strong>, from the beginning of 2000 to the end of 2015.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Missing Fingerprint #2<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second point above is just as relevant as the first one, if we want to confirm (or disconfirm) the reality of an \u201cenhanced GHE\u201d at work in the Earth system. We\u00a0compare the tropospheric temperatures with the DWLWIRsfc \u2018flux\u2019<\/strong>, that is, the apparent atmospheric thermal emission to the surface:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Figure 9. Note how the scaling of the flux (W\/m2) values is different close to the surface than at the ToA. Here at the DWLWIR level, down low, we divide by 5 (x0.2), while at the OLR level, up high, we divide by 3.76 (x0.266).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

We once again observe a rather close match overall. At the very least, we can safely say that there is\u00a0no evidence whatsoever of any gradual, systematic rise in DWLWIR over the TLT,<\/strong>\u00a0going from 2000 to 2018. If we plot the difference between the two curves in Fig.9 to obtain the \u201cDWLWIR residual\u201d, this fact becomes all the more evident:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Figure 10.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Remember now how the idea of an \u201cenhanced GHE\u201d requires the DWLWIR to rise significantly more than Ttropo (TLT) over time, and that its \u201cnull hypothesis\u201d therefore postulates that such a rise should NOT be seen. Well,\u00a0do we see such a rise in the plot above? Nope. Not at all.<\/strong>\u00a0Which fits in perfectly with the impression we got at the ToA, where the TLT-curve was supposed to rise systematically up and away from the OLR-curve over time, but didn\u2019t \u2013\u00a0no observed evidence there either of any \u201cenhanced GHE\u201d at work.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Missing Fingerprint #3<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, the third point above is also pretty interesting. It is simply to\u00a0verify whether or not the CERES EBAF Ed4 \u2018radiation flux\u2019 data products<\/strong>\u00a0are indeed suggesting a strengthening of some radiatively defined \u201cgreenhouse mechanism\u201d. We sort of know the answer to this already, though, from going through points 1 and 2 above. Since neither the OLR at the ToA nor the DWLWIR at the surface deviated meaningfully from the UAHv6 TLT series (the same one used to compare with both, after all), we expect rather by necessity that\u00a0the two CERES \u2018flux products\u2019 also shouldn\u2019t themselves deviate meaningfully overall from one another. And, unsurprisingly, they don\u2019t:<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Figure 14.\u00a0 Difference plot (\u201cDWLWIR residual\u201d)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Again, it is so easy here to allow oneself to be fooled by the visual impact of that late \u2013 obviously ENSO-related \u2013 peak, and, in this case, also a definite ENSO-based trough right at the start (you\u2019ll plainly recognise it in Fig.14); another perfect example of how one\u2019s perception and interpretation of a plot is directly affected by \u201cthe end-point bias\u201d. Don\u2019t be fooled:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

If we expect the OLR at the ToA to stay relatively flat, but the DWLWIR at the sfc to increase significantly over time, even relative to tropospheric temps, then, if we were to compare the two (OLR and DWLWIR) directly, we\u2019d [\u2026] naturally expect to see a fairly remarkable systematic rise in the latter over the former (refer to Fig.4 above).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Looking at Fig.14, and taking into account the various ENSO states along the way,\u00a0does such a \u201cremarkable systematic rise\u201d in DWLWIR over OLR manifest itself during the CERES era?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019m afraid not \u2026<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Five Lines of Evidence Against GHG Warming Hypothesis<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

The above analysis showing lack of GHG warming in the CERES data is added to four other atmospheric heat radiation studies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

1. In 2004 Ferenc MIskolczi studied the radiosonde datasets<\/strong>\u00a0and found that the optical density at the top of the troposphere does not change with increasing CO2, since reducing H2O maintains optimal radiating efficiency.\u00a0 His publication was suppressed by NASA, and he resigned from his job there. He has elaborated on his findings in publications as recently as 2014. See:\u00a0\u00a0The Curious Case of Dr. Miskolczi<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

2.\u00a0 Ronan and Michael Connolly\u00a0 studied radiosonde data and concluded in 2014:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt can be seen from the infra-red cooling model of Figure 19 that the greenhouse effect theory predicts a strong influence from the greenhouse gases on the barometric temperature profile. Moreover, the modeled net effect of the greenhouse gases on infra-red cooling varies substantially over the entire atmospheric profile.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, when we analysed the barometric temperature profiles of the radiosondes in this paper, we were unable to detect any influence from greenhouse gases. Instead, the profiles were very well described by the thermodynamic properties of the main atmospheric gases, i.e., N 2 and O 2 , in a gravitational field.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

While water vapour is a greenhouse gas, the effects of water vapour on the temperature profile did not appear to be related to its radiative properties, but rather its different molecular structure and the latent heat released\/gained by water in its gas\/liquid\/solid phase changes.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For this reason, our results suggest that the magnitude of the greenhouse effect is very small, perhaps negligible. At any rate, its magnitude appears to be too small to be detected from the archived radiosonde data.\u201d Pg. 18 of referenced research paper<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

See:\u00a0\u00a0The Physics Of The Earth\u2019s Atmosphere I. Phase Change Associated With Tropopause<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

3.\u00a0 An important proof against the CO2 global warming claim was included in John Christy\u2019s testimony<\/strong>\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

29 March 2017 at the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. The text and diagram below are from that document which can be accessed\u00a0here.<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

IPCC\u00a0Assessment Reports show that the IPCC climate models performed best versus observations when they did not include extra GHGs and this result can be demonstrated with a statistical model as well.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Figure 5. Simplification of IPCC AR5 shown above in Fig. 4. The colored lines represent the range of results for the models and observations. The trends here represent trends at different levels of the tropical atmosphere from the surface up to 50,000 ft. The gray lines are the bounds for the range of observations, the blue for the range of IPCC model results without extra GHGs and the red for IPCC model results with extra GHGs.The key point displayed is the lack of overlap between the GHG model results (red) and the observations (gray). The nonGHG model runs (blue) overlap the observations almost completely.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4. 2021 Finding from William Happer<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

The updating of this previous post is timely following on Dr. William Happer\u2019s additional test of Global Warming Theory, the notion that rising CO2 causes dangerous warming of earth\u2019s climate. A synopsis of that presentation is at Climate Change and CO2 Not a Problem.<\/strong><\/a>  For the purpose of this discussion I will add at the end Happer\u2019s finding that additional CO2 (from any and all sources) shows negligible effect in the radiative profile of the atmosphere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The full discussion of this slide is in the linked synopsis at the top.\u00a0 In summary here, Happer points to the black line of CO2 infrared absorption at 400 ppm, compared to CO2 IR absorption at 800 ppm.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The important point here is\u00a0the red line. This is what Earth would radiate to space if you were to double the CO2 concentration from today\u2019s value.<\/strong>\u00a0Right in the middle of these curves, you can see a gap in spectrum. The gap is caused by CO2 absorbing radiation that would otherwise cool the Earth.\u00a0If you double the amount of CO2, you don\u2019t double the size of that gap. You just go from the black curve to the red curve, and you can barely see the difference.<\/strong>\u00a0The gap hardly changes.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The message I want you to understand, which practically no one really understands, is that doubling CO2 makes almost no difference.<\/mark><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An Alternative Theory of Natural Climate Change<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Dan Pangburn is a professional engineer who has synthesized the solar and oceanic factors into a mathematical model that correlates with Average Global Temperature (AGT). On his blog is posted a monograph Cause of Global Climate Change <\/strong><\/a>explaining clearly his thinking and the maths.  I provided a post with some excerpts and graphs as a synopsis of his analysis, in hopes others will also access and appreciate his work on this issue.  See  Quantifying Natural Climate Change<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Footnote on the status of an hypothetical effect too small to be measured:\u00a0 Bertrand Russell\u2019s teapot<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Postscript<\/strong>:  For an explanation why CO2 has negligible effect on thermal properties of the atmosphere, and why all W\/m2 are not created equal, see: Light Bulbs Disprove Global Warming<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The message I want you to understand, which practically no one really understands, is that doubling CO2 makes almost no difference.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":269416,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691821345,691818056,691818076,691818087,691821344],"class_list":{"0":"post-269385","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-agw-hypothesis","9":"tag-climate-change","10":"tag-co2","11":"tag-global-warming","12":"tag-green-house-gas-theory-of-global-warming","14":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/0banner-greenhouse-effect-1150x650-1.webp?fit=1150%2C650&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-184V","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":358601,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=358601","url_meta":{"origin":269385,"position":0},"title":"Science Shock: CO2 is Good for the Planet, Peer-Reviewed Studies Suggest","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"12\/25\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Dramatic evidence has been published in a number of recent science papers that carbon dioxide levels are already\u00a0\u2018saturated\u2019, meaning little or no further warming is to be expected, and rising CO2\u00a0levels are all beneficial.","rel":"","context":"In \"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)\"","block_context":{"text":"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=carbon-dioxide-co%e2%82%82"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/0Screenshot-2024-12-23-202651.jpeg?fit=1200%2C707&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/0Screenshot-2024-12-23-202651.jpeg?fit=1200%2C707&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/0Screenshot-2024-12-23-202651.jpeg?fit=1200%2C707&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/0Screenshot-2024-12-23-202651.jpeg?fit=1200%2C707&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/0Screenshot-2024-12-23-202651.jpeg?fit=1200%2C707&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":271809,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=271809","url_meta":{"origin":269385,"position":1},"title":"CO2 Plant Transpiration Reduction Is a 9.1 Factor Larger Global Warming Driver Than CO2 GHG.","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"08\/06\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"CO2 is not the big driver.","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/0Carbon_cycle-cute_diagram-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C825&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/0Carbon_cycle-cute_diagram-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C825&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/0Carbon_cycle-cute_diagram-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C825&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/0Carbon_cycle-cute_diagram-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C825&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/0Carbon_cycle-cute_diagram-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C825&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":385893,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=385893","url_meta":{"origin":269385,"position":2},"title":"The Real Climate Science Crisis: CAGW Hypothesis Lacks Scientific\u00a0Evidence","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"06\/30\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"For a hypothesis to reach\u00a0the status of being a\u00a0legit theory, it\u00a0requires withstanding\u00a0the onslaught of\u00a0observed empirical evidence.\u00a0The\u00a0CAGW hypothesis is no such animal. Known by its more contemporary aliases, such as\u201d climate crisis,\u201d \u201cclimate emergency,\u201d \u201cclimate collapse,\u201d or \u201cexistential threat,\u201d the\u00a0CAGW has zero empirical evidence to support it.","rel":"","context":"In \"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)\"","block_context":{"text":"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=carbon-dioxide-co%e2%82%82"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/image-693.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/image-693.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/image-693.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/image-693.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":294750,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=294750","url_meta":{"origin":269385,"position":3},"title":"New Study Finds No Evidence Of A CO2-Driven Warming Signal In 60 Years Of IR Flux Data","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"01\/13\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe Arrhenius type greenhouse effect of the CO2 and other non-condensing GHGs is an incorrect hypothesis and the CO2 greenhouse effect based global warming hypothesis is also an artifact without any theoretical or empirical footing.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In \"atmospheric CO2 content\"","block_context":{"text":"atmospheric CO2 content","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=atmospheric-co2-content"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0CO2-valorisation-scaled-e1579868131198.jpg?fit=1200%2C555&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0CO2-valorisation-scaled-e1579868131198.jpg?fit=1200%2C555&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0CO2-valorisation-scaled-e1579868131198.jpg?fit=1200%2C555&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0CO2-valorisation-scaled-e1579868131198.jpg?fit=1200%2C555&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0CO2-valorisation-scaled-e1579868131198.jpg?fit=1200%2C555&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":383526,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=383526","url_meta":{"origin":269385,"position":4},"title":"Physics Demonstrates That Increasing Greenhouse Gases Cannot Cause Dangerous Warming, Extreme Weather or Any Harm","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"06\/17\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"At the outset it is important to understand that carbon dioxide has two relevant properties, as a creator of food and oxygen, and as a greenhouse gas (GHG).","rel":"","context":"In \"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)\"","block_context":{"text":"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=carbon-dioxide-co%e2%82%82"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/ChatGPT-Image-24.-Mai-2025-20_11_24-3.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/ChatGPT-Image-24.-Mai-2025-20_11_24-3.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/ChatGPT-Image-24.-Mai-2025-20_11_24-3.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/ChatGPT-Image-24.-Mai-2025-20_11_24-3.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":228819,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=228819","url_meta":{"origin":269385,"position":5},"title":"Veteran Chemical Engineer: CO2 Evaporation Reduction 11 Times Larger Global Warming Driver Than CO2","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"11\/12\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"This fresh chemical engineering perspective from a high-altitude sheds new quantified insights on the old climate change subject. \u00a0","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/image-432.png?fit=819%2C736&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/image-432.png?fit=819%2C736&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/image-432.png?fit=819%2C736&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/image-432.png?fit=819%2C736&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269385","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=269385"}],"version-history":[{"count":19,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269385\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":269418,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269385\/revisions\/269418"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/269416"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=269385"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=269385"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=269385"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}