{"id":287535,"date":"2023-11-11T11:45:30","date_gmt":"2023-11-11T10:45:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=287535"},"modified":"2023-11-11T11:45:33","modified_gmt":"2023-11-11T10:45:33","slug":"co2-is-not-a-bogeyman-and-heres-the-proof","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=287535","title":{"rendered":"CO2\u00a0is not a bogeyman \u2013 and here\u2019s the proof"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

By Dave Hipperson<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

We are constantly told, and the majority of people have come to believe, that global warming is mostly caused by increases in CO2<\/sub>. Solid scientific evidence shows this is the wrong way round and that the\u00a0case is, in fact, quite the opposite. It is warming that is increasing CO2<\/sub>.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thankfully there are still people who can tell us the truth but we must listen to them and stop chanting the mantra that \u2018we all want a carbon-free planet.\u2019 We really don\u2019t.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Following David Wright\u2019s\u00a0excellent piece in\u00a0this paper on November 6<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0I\u00a0can summarise and\u00a0simplify the\u00a0evidence given to\u00a0us by Professor William Happer in the short video David\u00a0recommends at the end of his article.\u00a0\u00a0

First, remember CO2<\/sub>\u00a0doesn\u2019t warm anything. The sun\u00a0warms and the presence of CO2<\/sub>\u00a0inhibits this\u00a0warmth from radiating away into space. <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s called our\u00a0atmosphere. Without it\u00a0we die.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The issue\u00a0 revolves around the heat radiated\u00a0back into\u00a0space from the surface\u00a0of our planet. Greenhouse gases trap this heat. So surely more greenhouse gases trap this heat more. Or do they?

The graph below blows away that idea. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This lovely\u00a0smooth curve was derived by quantum physicist Max Planck in the 1900s. It shows\u00a0on the\u00a0left or vertical axis the power of the radiation in waves per centimetre.\u00a0The horizontal axis shows the frequency\u00a0of that\u00a0radiation. (Don\u2019t worry too much about the units.) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The area under the blue line\u00a0represents the total power (heat) that goes back out into space.\u00a0It represents what would be\u00a0the situation if there were no greenhouses gases at\u00a0all.\u00a0However there are numerous greenhouse gases and so there are other lines less smooth because of\u00a0variability.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These other\u00a0gases inhibit\u00a0radiation and lessen the radiation going out to space some more. (The area under\u00a0those jagged curves is now less than the first area.) These factors were\u00a0discovered a little\u00a0later by Karl Schwarzschild and they take into account water\u00a0vapour, ozone, methane and of\u00a0course CO2<\/sub>. In this diagram they are shown to reduce\u00a0the heat energy radiated\u00a0away by\u00a0about 30 per cent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

That big dip is the effect of C02<\/sub>. (The green line represents a situation with no CO2<\/sub> at all.) CO2 <\/sub>contributes to keeping the planet warm. With much less of the greenhouse gases the planet would be much colder and not suitable for our sort of civilisation, and without any CO2<\/sub> we would have no food to eat either. The current stable situation we find ourselves in is represented by the area under the black jagged curve. So does more CO2<\/sub> threaten to make it warmer \u2013 too warm?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is interesting about this graph therefore is the effects (mathematically calculable) that changes (increases) in the CO2 <\/sub>content might have on the amount of heat radiated back or conversely the amount not radiated back and hence warming. The black line is the current CO2<\/sub>, the green one is without CO2 <\/sub>and the red one is the effect of doubling CO2<\/sub>. As you can see the red line is virtually coincident with the black line. Some CO2<\/sub> makes a big difference but doubling it doesn\u2019t make any difference, or at least too small to measure and certainly too small to be worrying about.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So as not to appear biased there then follow other curves from other places on the globe all with differing ambient temperatures but all showing the same effect. (Please note that the computer models and the hard data are shown side by side to illustrate how accurate the modelling is in this case.) Doubling CO2<\/sub> has virtually no effect on warming. What it will have an effect on is crop yields \u2013 a very beneficial effect. They would be increased considerably were CO2<\/sub> to double, the opposite being equally true with less CO2<\/sub> reducing crop yields. So, more food with increased CO2<\/sub> and less without it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Do I see a pattern here? Isn\u2019t it the Climate Crisis fanatics who also want us to eat less meat and are happy to plaster our arable fields with wind farms and glass solar panels? Then with less energy available from their expensive and inefficient systems, we have the call coming from a confused and misled government to make it virtually illegal to live in a house that doesn\u2019t comply with the latest edicts on insulation and heating efficiency. (Temporarily pushed back, but heat pumps and compulsory insulation are coming, believe me.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I recommend everyone to read or re-read David Wright\u2019s piece <\/a>and  listen carefully to William Happer\u2019s explanation of the situation. In it he illustrates many areas where the \u2018consensus\u2019 science simply doesn\u2019t hold up and the simple physics does. You can follow along with the actual calculations if you are so minded. On a lighter note, he also explains a great deal about meteorology, and how air temperatures shift about with altitude, not to mention a pocket book explanation of how you might create a Star Wars-style weapon too \u2013 he was involved in the early stages of that with President Reagan!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CO2<\/sub> is not the problem: quite the opposite. We really have to start the pushback on this \u2013 every one of us. Until CO2<\/sub> has been lifted out of this equation we are going nowhere and our arguments will be forever diluted and ignored. We have to snap out of this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

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

Dave Hipperson is an engineer, photographer and journalist from Boreham Wood, Hertfordshire.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Originally published by the conservativewoman.co.uk<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

\n\n\n\n
\n