"Radiation Absorption Saturation" Disproves ACC/AGW

[Stryder50]

For a start and to those who enter here lately;
ACC = Anthroprogenic Climate Change
AGW = Anthroprogenic Global Warming

Anthroprogenic = Human Caused

So the theme of this thread is proof that Human Caused Climate Change/Global Warming is false science (pseudo-science) and that the premise based upon increasing CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) levels (especially human caused increases) in the atmosphere causing heat retention/growth is false and not valid.

In short, such is a scam and sham foisted upon humanity/civilization and needs to be addressed and invalidated before more harm is done to society, economies, civilizations, etc.

The following posts will be excerpts from an article recently presented in Epoch Times. Those subject to source bias will wail about the links provided, however, the article is based upon items published in other science sources and these will be cited when possible. Epoch Times did not generate the data and material here, only re posited such.

A Physicist’s View of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Impact on Climate​

A Physicist’s View of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Impact on Climate

www.theepochtimes.com

 

[Stryder50]

EXCERPT:
................
“Saturation” occurs when a thing has absorbed all of something that it is capable of absorbing.

When that something is radiation—like the radiation the Earth’s surface continually emits and sends out towards space—such saturation occurs when a gas has absorbed all the radiant energy that it is capable of absorbing. Could radiation absorption saturation occur with the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere?

Such a scientific phenomenon would seem self-evidently important with regards to the science of climate change. You would expect it to have been thoroughly investigated long ago. You would be wrong.

If greenhouse gases like water vapour, methane, and especially that arch-villain of the “climate emergency” narrative, carbon dioxide (CO2), can keep on absorbing radiation and transforming it into heat essentially without limitation, then the current “settled science” concerning climate change is likely to be correct and we should probably expect a significantly warmer planet over time.

But what if greenhouse gases also exhibit radiation absorption saturation? What if these gases reach a concentration at which they can no longer absorb any more radiation and, in turn, lose their capacity to trap further heat? Then we would need to ask at what concentrations—i.e., when—that point might be reached. If saturation has not yet occurred, then further raising the atmospheric CO2 concentration via man-made emissions will absorb more radiation, and CO2 could be the main driver of global warming as claimed.
......

A Physicist’s View of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Impact on Climate

www.theepochtimes.com

 

[Stryder50]

EXCERPT:
......
But if radiation absorption saturation for CO2 was reached in the past, at a lower concentration of CO2 than we have at present, then adding more gas now will make no difference to the amount of energy absorbed. That would mean more CO2 can’t really trap any more heat. And the implications for pretty much everything to do with the “settled science” of climate change are, well, very unsettling.

Again, why weren’t answers to these questions sought 30+ years ago, when global warming theory burst onto the scene? Thankfully, a few scientists are at last doing what should be regarded as the foundational work to underpin—or challenge—the theory of global warming.

Physicists William A. van Wijngaarden and William Happer have developed a mathematically rigorous theoretical formulation for the absorption of long-wavelength radiation (LWR) by a column of air as the concentration of CO2 (or other greenhouse gases such as water vapour) increases. Titled “Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases,” their paper is highly technical and contains a lot of math, as would be expected for such an undertaking, so makes for difficult reading.
......

A Physicist’s View of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Impact on Climate

www.theepochtimes.com

 

[Stryder50]

EXCERPT:
................
At its simplest, the duo postulate that LWR absorption does not increase in a linear fashion as CO2 increases, but does so in an exponentially decreasing fashion. Equal additional amounts of CO2 added to the air column absorb ever-decreasing amounts of additional LWR, until at some point the CO2 is absorbing effectively all of the LWR in the band that CO2 can absorb. Absorption is saturated.

This suggests that further increasing the concentration of atmospheric CO2 just won’t make any difference to the radiation absorbed (or the resultant heat trapped). The two scientists concluded that “the [current] saturations of the abundant greenhouse gases H2O and CO2 are so extreme” that, one can then easily calculate, this saturation point has not only been reached, it was reached long before the Industrial Age when human emissions of CO2 really took off.
.......

A Physicist’s View of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Impact on Climate

www.theepochtimes.com

 

[Stryder50]

EXCERPT:
...................
The basic idea behind their theory is not radical or new. The Beer-Bouguer-Lambert “extinction” law, which dates back nearly 300 years, holds that for a radiation beam passing through a particular medium, the radiation’s intensity “decays exponentially in the absorbance of the medium,” and that one of the variables upon which this absorbance depends is “the concentration of interacting matter along that path.” The “extinction” occurs when, after some length, the beam of radiation disappears, the radiant energy having all been absorbed. At this point, no more radiation can be absorbed. As we would say today, absorption saturation is reached.

So rather than having invented a fanciful new theory, Van Wijngaarden and Happer reformulated an accepted theory by applying it to CO2 in our atmosphere. Their conclusion should rock the “climate emergency” crowd. If they are right, the absorption of additional radiant energy by the increasing concentration of atmospheric CO2 in our era is not causing climate change because additional absorption is not happening.
.........

A Physicist’s View of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Impact on Climate

www.theepochtimes.com

 

[Stryder50]

EXCERPT:
......................
Both scientists have since endured smears in social and news media as climate skeptics or “deniers.” Still, in the four years since publication, there has not been any known attempt to refute their theory, such as by identifying errors in the logic or mathematics of their theoretical formulation. Accordingly, their paper is in my opinion an example of good science.

All good science also includes experimentation aimed at testing a new scientific hypothesis. Just such a series of controlled experiments was performed by a trio of Polish scientists and their results, titled “Climatic consequences of the process of saturation of radiation absorption in gases,” were published in a scientific journal earlier this year.

The experiment’s results were consistent with Van Wijngaarden and Happer’s theory. That in itself should have been big news. Even bigger is that the Polish scientists found that the saturation level for CO2 with respect to LWR is not only lower than today, lower than in pre-Industrial times, and lower than even the minimum during the Ice Age—it is more than an order of magnitude lower.

The current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 422 parts per million. This can be also expressed as 6.48 kilograms of gas per square metre (kg/m2) of total atmospheric column. The experiment’s eye-popping finding was that (based on the level required to absorb 50 percent of the radiation), the level of CO2 needed to absorb 99 percent of the incident LWR is a mere 0.264 kg/m2.
.............................

A Physicist’s View of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Impact on Climate

www.theepochtimes.com

 

[Stryder50]

EXCERPT:
..................
The Earth has never had a CO2 concentration anywhere near that low; today’s concentration is over 24 times that level. Each subsequent increase of 0.264 kg/m2 absorbs 99 percent of the radiation that has not already been absorbed. So at 2 X 0.264 kg/m2, 99.99 percent of the radiant energy has been absorbed. At 24 times, the amount of radiant energy not already absorbed is effectively zero!

This suggests that the fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 concentrations over time have had no material effect on the amount of LWR being absorbed and, in turn, on the amount of heat trapped. This in turn suggests that CO2 has not been and is not currently capable of driving increases in global temperatures.
.............

A Physicist’s View of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Impact on Climate

www.theepochtimes.com

 

[Stryder50]

EXCERPT:
..............
“Despite the fact that the majority of publications attempt to depict a catastrophic future for our planet due to the anthropogenic increase in CO2 and its impact on Earth’s climate, the shown facts raise serious doubts about this influence,” the three Polish co-authors state in their paper. “In science, especially in the natural sciences, we should strive to present a true picture of reality, primarily through empirical knowledge.”

I couldn’t agree more. In my opinion, radiation absorption saturation is the stake through the heart of the climate change vampire that is sucking the lifeblood out of our economy.
.............

A Physicist’s View of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Impact on Climate

www.theepochtimes.com

 

[Matted Joybeard]

.

 

[EMH]

Much easier to just check the actual data.

We have 2 and only 2 measures of atmospheric temps, satellite and balloons.

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling


Translation from NBC spin - for more than three decades of rising atmospheric Co2, the highly correlated satellite and balloon data showed precisely NO WARMING.... until being FUDGED in 2005.


One of the reasons why adding tiny amounts of Co2 to atmosphere does precisely nothing is because Co2 absorbs IR, which is weak EM. O3 otherwise known as Ozone absorbs powerful UV by comparison. All gasses absorb some part of EM. The founders of Co2 FRAUD have known it was a fraud since before they pushed it in 1988.

 

[ReinyDays]

One photon, one molecule ... there's not enough CO2 molecules in the atmosphere to cover even a small fraction of the photons being emitted by Earth ...

The physics behind these statements is based on the vibratory motion of the molecule ... any particular vibration can only exist at two frequencies ... the lower "0" quantum state or the higher "1" quantum state ... the difference in energy between these two vibration frequencies must exactly equal the energy contained in the photon that's absorbed ...

We usually discuss the 15 µm bandwidth ... only carbon dioxide reacts to this wavelength of infrared light, all other atmospheric species are inert ... the CO2 molecule must be at her "0" quantum state before she can except this energy from a photon, and this photon must be the exact energy needed to jump the vibration up to the "1" state ... once the CO2 molecule is in their "1" state, they can't absorb any more 15 µm photons ... not until they emit one and returns to their "0" state ...

Quantum Saturation in that particular bandwidth is when ALL CO2 molecules have absorbed a 15µm photon ... now 15 µm photons cannot be absorbed and thus the atmosphere becomes transparent to 15 µm radiation ...

Carbon dioxide has multiple vibrations each with their corresponding wavelength of photons needed to jump between the two quantum states ... if we were to graph the total energy across all wavelengths, the absorption of CO2 would follow a fourth-root curve, the effect is strong at first, then dampens down ... why the IPCC models predict we've already seen half of all possible global warming from carbon dioxide ...

The light blue line below (RCP4.5):

 

[ReinyDays]

So the theme of this thread is proof that Human Caused Climate Change/Global Warming is false science (pseudo-science)

... just gotta nitpick now don't I? ...

If it's "False Science", then it is in fact science ... "Pseudo-science" cannot be falsified, we can't prove BigFoot doesn't exist:

Only in Eugene:

Teamsters Charge Bigfoot with Additional Unfair Labor Practices During Strike

(EUGENE, Ore.) – Amid an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) strike at Bigfoot Beverages, Teamsters Locals 206 and 324 have charged the company with additional ULPs f

teamster.org

How are you PROVING that carbon dioxide from fossil fuels is completely inert to radiation? ... if the carbon dioxide from combustion is normal like all other carbon dioxide ... then her effect on atmospheric temperatures will have that fourth-root proportionality ... it takes a large mass of CO2 to raise temperatures a little ... and the current 1ºC over 20th Century average is tiny ...

You've only proved that this is safely ignored and we should focus on all the other evils of burning fossil fuels ... like funding Hamas ...

 

[Stryder50]

Much easier to just check the actual data.

We have 2 and only 2 measures of atmospheric temps, satellite and balloons.

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling


Translation from NBC spin - for more than three decades of rising atmospheric Co2, the highly correlated satellite and balloon data showed precisely NO WARMING.... until being FUDGED in 2005.


One of the reasons why adding tiny amounts of Co2 to atmosphere does precisely nothing is because Co2 absorbs IR, which is weak EM. O3 otherwise known as Ozone absorbs powerful UV by comparison. All gasses absorb some part of EM. The founders of Co2 FRAUD have known it was a fraud since before they pushed it in 1988.

Focus of article link is the basic foundation assumption that CO2 Levels are key factor to temp Raise and ACC/AGW.
The article-link dispels this as summed in this excerpt;
......
At its simplest, the duo postulate that LWR absorption does not increase in a linear fashion as CO2 increases, but does so in an exponentially decreasing fashion. Equal additional amounts of CO2 added to the air column absorb ever-decreasing amounts of additional LWR, until at some point the CO2 is absorbing effectively all of the LWR in the band that CO2 can absorb. Absorption is saturated.

This suggests that further increasing the concentration of atmospheric CO2 just won’t make any difference to the radiation absorbed (or the resultant heat trapped). The two scientists concluded that “the [current] saturations of the abundant greenhouse gases H2O and CO2 are so extreme” that, one can then easily calculate, this saturation point has not only been reached, it was reached long before the Industrial Age when human emissions of CO2 really took off.
....

A Physicist’s View of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Impact on Climate

www.theepochtimes.com

 

[Stryder50]

... just gotta nitpick now don't I? ...

If it's "False Science", then it is in fact science ... "Pseudo-science" cannot be falsified, we can't prove BigFoot doesn't exist:

Only in Eugene:

Teamsters Charge Bigfoot with Additional Unfair Labor Practices During Strike

(EUGENE, Ore.) – Amid an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) strike at Bigfoot Beverages, Teamsters Locals 206 and 324 have charged the company with additional ULPs f

teamster.org

How are you PROVING that carbon dioxide from fossil fuels is completely inert to radiation? ... if the carbon dioxide from combustion is normal like all other carbon dioxide ... then her effect on atmospheric temperatures will have that fourth-root proportionality ... it takes a large mass of CO2 to raise temperatures a little ... and the current 1ºC over 20th Century average is tiny ...

You've only proved that this is safely ignored and we should focus on all the other evils of burning fossil fuels ... like funding Hamas ...

I personally am not trying to prove anything, just quoting from an article by scientists.
I won't claim to be a scientists, but do have technical applications background.

The article isn't claiming that CO2 is inert to radiation, only that like the other atmospheric gases it also a saturation point that declines after a certain concentration level.

BTW; "false science/pseudo-science" are loose colloquial of limited precision such as "climate change" (Natural or Man-made?) or "Health Care" (life style, medical care, or medical insurance ?).

 

[Stryder50]

Some interesting bio on the two authors mentioned in the OP, shared from a friend;
.....
The study by Happer and Wijngaarden is ground-breaking. LWR saturation had already been observed from satellite, but they proved it from first principles. The two scientists are very special. Happer, as an atmospheric physicist was instrumental in defeating the Soviet Union. He used his knowledge of cosmic radiation interaction with our upper atmosphere to establish a basis for a MIRV tracking method in the 1980s! He was also the president's science advisor under Trump 1.0. Wijngaarden comes from a family of scientists. His father or grandfather established the theoretical basis for what we now call climate change. It is a shame most people can't understand their work as these two men have been an enormous benefit to humanity.

 

[EMH]

why the IPCC models predict we've already seen half of all possible global warming from carbon dioxide

Half of ZERO is still ZERO.