Physicists Discover CO2 Cannot Cause Global Warming

Sharing is Caring!

by Natura Naturans

Physicists: CO2 Molecules Retain Heat Just 0.0001 Of A Second, Meaning CO2-Driven Warming ‘Not Possible’

Mainstream climate science claims CO2 molecules “slow down the rate of heat-loss from the surface” like a blanket does. And yet the rate at which a CO2 molecule retains or slows down heat loss is, at most, a negligible 0.0001 of a second. A CO2 concentration of 300 ppm versus 400 ppm will therefore have no detectable impact.

SkepticalScience, a blog spearheaded by climate science “consensus” advocate John Cook, is widely considered the explanatory guidebook for the anthropogenic global warming movement.

The blog claims CO2 molecules, with a representation of 4 parts in 10,000 in the atmosphere (400 parts per million, or ppm), collectively function like a blanket does in slowing down the rate at which the human body cools.
The rate or time lapse involved in this “slowing” of heat loss is problematic to the paradigm that says CO2 drives global warming, however.

Professor Nasif Nahle has mathematically assessed the rate at which heat is retained by CO2 molecules; his work was endorsed by the Faculty of Physics of the University of Nuevo Leon (Mexico).

Nahle found the “mean free path” for a quantum wave to pass through the atmosphere before colliding with a CO2 molecule is about 33 meters (Nahle, 2011a). Such a wide chasm between molecular collisions would appear to undermine a visualization of CO2 functioning like a blanket does.

Even more saliently, Nahle determined that the rate at which CO2 molecules can retain heat at the surface may only last about 0.0001 of a second (Nahle, 2011b).

If heat-loss is slowed down at a rate of 0.0001 of a second by CO2 molecules, the atmospheric CO2 concentration – whether it’s 300 ppm or 400 ppm – effectively doesn’t matter. The time lapse differential would be immaterial for either concentration.

Consequently, Nahle concludes “carbon dioxide has not an effect on climate changes or warming periods on the Earth”.…-possible/

There has never been any evidence that CO2 caused warming on any time period. The Antarctic and Greenland Ice cores show CO2 rise always follows warming and does not cause it:

New research in Antarctica shows CO2 follows temperature “by a few hundred years at most”
Anthony Watts / July 23, 2012
The question of “which comes first, the temperature or the CO2 rise?” has been much like the proverbial “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” question. This seems to settle it – temperature came first, followed by an increase in CO2 outgassing from the ocean surrounding Antarctica.

“Our analyses of ice cores from the ice sheet in Antarctica shows that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere follows the rise in Antarctic temperatures very closely and is staggered by a few hundred years at most,” –…s-at-most/…ore-graph/

If CO2 caused warming why are present temperatures so low? 8,000 years ago at the Holocene climate optimum temperatures were at least 3 degrees Celsius warmer, but CO2 was almost half what it is today:

The elite pushing global warming want money, YOUR money, and they want to control energy to enslave the world. Don’t buy it, look into the fraud.…warming-2/

For 600 million years CO2 has varied widely from 200 PPM to 20 times what it is today. Here is a chart of temperature and CO2 over that period. As you can see there is no relation between the two. In fact in the last 65 million years CO2 has declined as the Cretaceous warmed. This chart alone shows the lie that is modern climate theory. CO2 has no warming ability AT ALL!…de-levels/

The man who invented ‘climate change’
October 18, 2019 by Robert
“It was never about climate change but about setting up a one world socialist government run by the UN!”
– Don Brown

Here are snips and pieces from an article by Christopher Booker, who describes Canadian socialist multimillionaire Maurice Strong’s “absolutely central role” in the whole story.

In 1972, Strong, a superb political operator, set up a UN “Environment Conference” to declare that the Earth’s resources were the common inheritance of all mankind and should no longer be exploited for the benefit of only a few countries at the expense of poorer countries.

In 1988, he helped set up the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

In 1992, Strong pulled off his greatest coup when he helped stage and presided over the colossal “Earth Summit” in Rio, arranging for it to be attended not only by 108 world leaders and 100,000 others but also by 20,000 UN-funded “green activists”.

And ever since, it has been Strong’s ideology, enshrined at Rio in “Agenda 21”, which has continued to shape the entire process.

Had it not been for this man, says Booker, we would not have seen 150 heads of government joining 40,000 delegates in Paris for that mammoth climate conference.

The UN in effect has dictated the global climate change agenda ever since. Almost yearly it has staged huge conferences, notably those at Kyoto (1997), Copenhagen (2009) and the present one in Paris.

To this day, global climate policy is still shaped by Strong’s Agenda 21, as was highlighted when Christiana Figueres, the Costa Rican Marxist now head of the UNFCCC and organiser of the Paris conference, urged that the West should give “$1 trillion a year” to the “developing” world.

Lest you think that Strong’s motives were pure, Booker includes this amazing tidbit:

“In 2005, Strong was caught having been illicitly paid $1 million from the UN’s Oil for Food programme, supposedly set up to allow Saddam Hussein to pay in oil to feed starving Iraqis. He retired to a flat in Beijing, where he had been close to China’s Communist leaders back to Mao.”

Funny, isn’t it, how our self-declared ‘saviours’ so often benefit while supposedly rescuing us?

Or maybe that’s not so funny after all.…hange.html

The Vostok Ice Core: Temperature, CO2 and CH4
Posted on December 12, 2014 by Euan Mearns
In their seminal paper on the Vostok Ice Core, Petit et al (1999) [1] note that CO2 lags temperature during the onset of glaciations by several thousand years but offer no explanation. They also observe that CH4 and CO2 are not perfectly aligned with each other but offer no explanation. The significance of these observations are therefore ignored. At the onset of glaciations temperature drops to glacial values before CO2 begins to fall suggesting that CO2 has little influence on temperature modulation at these times.

As discussed at the end of this post, consideration of the geochemical cycles of CO2 and CH4 in ice, permafrost, terrestrial and oceanic biospheres and in deep ocean water during freeze – thaw glacial cycles suggests that it is inevitable that CO2 and CH4 are going to correlate with temperature in a general way. This correlation shows that CO2 and CH4 are controlled by temperature and so provides no evidence for CO2 or CH4 amplifying temperature signals that are linked to orbital cycles.…2-and-ch4/

The Vostok Ice Core and the 14,000 Year CO2 Time Lag
Posted on June 14, 2017 by Euan Mearns
A detailed analysis of temperature, CO2 and methane variations from the Vostok ice core is presented for the time interval 137,383 to 102,052 years ago. This captures the termination of the glaciation that preceded the Eemian interglacial and the inception of the last great glaciation that succeeded the Eemian. At the termination, CO2 follows dT exactly, but at the inception CO2 does not follow temperature down for 14,218 years. Full glacial conditions came into being without falling CO2 providing any of the climate forcing. This falsifies the traditional narrative that dCO2 amplified weak orbital forcing effects. It is quite clear from the data that CO2 follows temperature with highly variable time lags depending upon whether the climate is warming or cooling.

Methane on the other hand lags temperature by about 2,000 years at the termination but follows temperature down exactly at the inception. It therefore follows that methane and CO2 are not coupled. Each responds in their own time to changing climate. The absence of coupling may be explained by the different bio-geochemical pathways these gasses have in the biosphere – ocean – atmosphere system.…-time-lag/



Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.