Source, Email
Is CO2 Exonerated of Changing Our Climate?
Charles W Pennington
July 25, 2025
Prologue and Summary
For more than 20 years, I have been pretty confident that CO2, as an atmospheric trace gas of trivial concentration, could not be the primary agent that is responsible for warming the Earth's surface and atmosphere! So, it is nice to finally be able to say that was the correct position and that science presently seems to show that such is so (or is that just wishful scientific thinking?)!
Recall the research papers I have distributed in the last few months on how CO2 is prevented from warming the climate by a natural design feature of the atmosphere that features its following scientific rules and laws, especially the papers by Shula/Ott/May. And I'm sure you must have also seen other papers by Happer/Lindzen, and sometimes with van Wijngaarden, that show a completely different natural control mechanism in the atmosphere that prevents CO2 from warming the atmosphere. Yes, two separate but equally effective natural control mechanisms that have been known for many decades and that have been well understood with proven scientific rules and laws, whose outcomes can be calculated and situationally applied in computations by using mathematics and computers.
After sending out these Shula/Ott/May papers, I expected some refutation (or even some rebuttal) that might have to be addressed before we had an indisputable, scientific approach that showed CO2 could not be the direct cause of the Earth's atmospheric/surface
warming. But, both research groups, each developing one of the CO2 disenabling ideas, clearly understood their method was applying natural laws, already known and stated, and each understood that their "research" used a known natural law with a very common application in the earth's atmosphere, which was simply their performing "applied science." Of course, any attempt at refuting it would be a most horrific scientific undertaking that might require decades of unsuccessful effort to refute a long-validated natural law (typically not a good course for enhancing one's career path with successes). But, while this science appears settled, there are still organizations that must acknowledge that.
So the introductory essay, below my name, explains what these two research groups have done, and, to tip my hand for the answer to the Subject's question, yes, CO2 is now, in my view only, fully exonerated of changing the earth's climate, and has not, cannot, and will not now or ever in the future. It's just not gonna happen. To summarize: we have two independent natural and physical processes in the atmosphere that can each deactivate the radiative energy transfer of the Earth's blackbody radiation by CO2 molecules over most of the atmosphere, while also fulfilling the green house effect (GHE) functions through convection of heat to the upper atmosphere. This process is called Thermalization. Further, the atmosphere has a superfluity of water vapor to capture more blackbody IR radiation than CO2. And a process called Saturation also provides another deactivating physical process, assuring CO2 can never be a harmful influence on climate change. So, three interacting but independent natural processes are involved in deactivating CO2's direct impact on Earth's atmospheric and surface warming.
This will, of course, stimulate all sorts of hatred and attack against those who have awaited this day by those who, so badly, want humanity's conviction of harming the Earth and hurting vast populations. In reality, this outcome of CO2's disempowerment will preserve the earth and help so many of the billions and billions of
poor people in Africa, South America, Central America, etc. Energy arising from fossil fuels will make this world far more blessed with equality, food, electricity, housing, clean water, and all those things that spur growth and health of nations, which select rational energy uses for their people.
Enjoy this excellent outcome!
Charles W. Pennington
“If the climate tale were undeniably true, the activists in and out of the media would not have to exaggerate, disinform, and make connections that don’t exist. The fact that they feel they have to provides a clear insight into their duplicitous nature.”
Overview
For almost 30 years, scientists and researchers have been investigating and evaluating the IPCC's efforts and predictions from the climate models IPCC and its contractors have developed over the last 48 years. These investigations have produced a number of flaws and errors in these models, and formalized questions and suggested modifications have been sent to the IPCC. Since it is not required to respond to such communications, the IPCC has ignored much that was sent to it in these critiques. So when a body of scientific investigation ignores comments and clear errors from other scientists, for which the IPCC is responsible, one will almost certainly arrive at a conclusion that deception is/was intended, and that the
deception's purpose was to propagate fear from the non-science nonsense that was contained within the IPCC's efforts.
We are now at a point in history where the powers that be in DC are seeking to fix this awful situation that the IPCC's climate change modeling and its projections have caused, and one such major area of discontent is the misattribution of characteristics to the carbon dioxide (CO2) atmospheric molecule. What now seems to be not just clear but confirmed is that CO2 does not behave at all like the IPCC has assumed and modeled, AND that there are at least two very natural behaviors imposed on the CO2 molecule that prohibit what the IPCC has assumed about CO2's characteristics of interaction in the atmosphere. In summary, the IPCC's false assumptions have led to a condition of aporia, a logical disjunction and irresolvable contradiction that cannot produce acceptable science or model outputs!
Discussion
There is ongoing research that shows CO2 does not behave in the atmosphere AT ALL like is assumed in the IPCC's climate change modeling, and this research has not been rebutted, let alone refuted, over quite some period of time. Now, the research that shows CO2's non-greenhouse gas behavior is in the previous papers I have sent out for review by discussion groups ((1) by Shula/Ott/May, and (2) by Happer/Lindzen, the 2 research groups that published two of the papers) is not a basic, raw, foundational type of research, but the application of physics mathematics, applied science, from older proven research to the behavior of a new area of concern, i.e., CO2 molecules in the earth's normal atmosphere. Yes, the atmospheric behavior of CO2 is not as the
IPCC has modeled it since the late1970s, and two groups of researchers have published exactly what occurs when CO2 molecules that have proven physics characteristics, discovered in earlier research, imposed on them by natural behavior within the earth's atmosphere. What is found to happen is that CO2 is not now, never has been, and can never be a harmful influence on climate change! There is a basic phenomenon that each of the two research groups (there are two separate, unrelated phenomena) has applied to the threat of CO2 taking control of radiative transfer of blackbody infrared energy (heat) for each of the phenomena. So the basic research was already accomplished as much as 100 years ago, and these two research groups have simply applied the physics/rules/laws arising from the older foundational research to the situations within the earth's atmosphere that could involve threats from CO2 causing warming and, perhaps, influencing climate change through that warming.
Now to review a bit, there are two behaviors of CO2 that can result from natural events when the physics characteristics of CO2 behavior are "corrected" so that CO2 cannot directly warm the Earth's atmosphere or surface, as the above research groups have discussed in several papers. These two physics characteristics are not reliant on each other, and neither of the research groups has identified more than one such characteristic. So the two groups have each addressed one characteristic for the atmospheric impact on CO2, and each one, on its own, is fatal to the IPCC's claimed CO2 influence on climate change. Each of these two factors can separately disrupt any CO2 threat of climate change and neither factor needs the other one to disable CO2. These characteristics are each fatal to the IPCC's claims that CO2 can cause a significant warming of the Earth's atmosphere and surface. So if one, somehow, disappears, the other will still preclude any truly measureable CO2 climate warming.
These two characteristics have names, and these names are Thermalization and Saturation. These are described in the first two attachments. Now, there is a third characteristic that greatly impacts the relative "atmospheric availability" of CO2 even if the quantity of CO2 molecules per cubic cm were to be doubled in the Earth's atmosphere. This factor I refer to as the Absorption Control feature, which arises when water vapor (WV) is around its global average concentration in the atmosphere of 2.6%. In that state of the atmosphere, WV is about 65 -70 times more dense, more numerous than CO2, and WV offers just about the same breadth of absorption frequencies of infrared radiation (IR) as CO2 has. Indeed, ≤ 1.5% of atmospheric CO2 is available to interact with the Earth's infrared blackbody radiation. To summarize what these proven characteristics are, Thermalization is a long-recognized and proven feature of chemistry and physics. It refers to the process where physical bodies reach thermal equilibrium through mutual interaction (collisions), leading to a state of equipartition of energy and uniform temperature. This phenomenon is fundamental to understanding of the physical world and influences various applications, from industrial processes to quantum mechanics. Similarly, Saturation is a long-recognized and proven concept in chemistry and related fields. It represents a state of equilibrium where a system reaches its maximum capacity for a specific substance or for engaging in certain interactions. This is fundamental in understanding various chemical processes, and is widely applied throughout science.
So let's examine these other two physics characteristics as to what they entail. Thermalization is a rough descriptor of the great number of non-IR-active molecules (not greenhouse gases) in Earth's atmosphere. For instance, N2, N2O, O2, etc, which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, are quite numerous (almost 2,200 times more numerous than CO2). These non-IR-active molecules zoom through our atmosphere at roughly the speed of sound and collide with CO2 frequently at their high velocities. These collisions
are what cause the CO2 to dissipate (transfer) any elevated energy state from absorbing earth's IR blackbody radiation photons. This happens in less than 1 second after absorbing an IR photon from the earth's blackbody radiation. The outcomes of these thermalization collisions represent adscititious features that are supplemental to the real or essential nature of the molecules. The concept of "Thermalization" has been applied to neutron theory associated with neutron absorption for fissioning, a field in science that is almost 100 years old. Thermalization has proven physics/rules/laws and because Thermalization is more difficult to understand than Saturation, there is a summary, below, an excerpt from the full paper in the first attachment, explaining how the authors have used the earlier research for this extension to the correct process of heating the atmosphere.
But the best summary of what is happening is that the earth's atmosphere is such that CO2 cannot behave as it might if it were, say, in the sun's atmosphere, as proposed by Karl Schwarzschild in his 1906 paper, and the earth's atmospheric content of water vapor and the pronounced effects on CO2 of the non-IR-active atmospheric gas molecules (having no absorption of the earth's infrared blackbody radiation) prevent CO2 from using excessive radiative transfer of energy to directly warm the atmosphere. Now let's look at the Saturation Effect that also reduces the impact on the atmosphere that CO2 can have. See attachment 2 for a thorough discussion of Saturation by two of the world's foremost experts, Drs. Lindzen and Happer. Also, attachment 3 provides saturation information from a 3rd party.
Focusing on CO2, it becomes a less effective greenhouse gas at higher concentrations because of what in physics is called "saturation." Each additional increase of CO2 in the atmosphere causes a smaller and
smaller change in "radiative forcing," or in temperature. At today's CO2 concentration in the atmosphere of approximately 425 parts per million, additional amounts of CO2 have little ability to absorb heat and therefore, CO2 is now a weak greenhouse gas. Even at higher CO2 concentrations in the future, should they arise, the ability of future CO2 increases to warm the planet will be even smaller. This also means that the common assumption that carbon dioxide is, in the IPCC's words, "the main driver of climate change" is scientifically false, a massive error which the IPCC must now know is wrong, but has never chosen to correct.
In short, more CO2 cannot cause catastrophic global warming or even extreme weather. Now and at higher levels, increasing carbon dioxide creates more food for people worldwide, and only a trivial and beneficial increase in temperature, if any at all. How changes in atmospheric greenhouse gases affect radiation transfer are described by precise physical equations from research of many decades ago that has never failed to describe observations of the real world.
Saturation also explains why temperatures were not catastrophically high over the hundreds of millions of years when CO2 levels were 10 to nearly 20 times higher than they are today, covering 600 million years. Further, saturation means that from now on, CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels and other sources will have little-to-no impact on global warming. We could double atmospheric CO2 to 850 ppm and have little warming effect, if any at all. Since CO2 at today's level is "saturated," for this reason alone there is no risk that the continued use of fossil fuels will cause catastrophic global warming and extreme weather. Nor is there any scientific basis for the United Nations and IPCC repeated warnings that carbon emission reductions are urgently necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change. Professional scientific opinion is that there
is no reason to limit CO2 increases, which are bringing major benefits to agriculture and forestry.
Drs. Lindzen, Happer, and Prof. Dr. van Wijngaarden applied these formulas to the enormous efforts by the U. S. and worldwide to reduce CO2 emissions to Net Zero by 2050 in a paper that is recommend to those with a technical background. We show that all these efforts to achieve Net Zero emissions of carbon dioxide, if fully implemented, will have a trivial effect (immeasurable) on temperature.
As Dr. Lindzen has explained: "The climate system consists of two turbulent fluids interacting with each other, [ocean and atmosphere]. They are on a rotating planet that is differentially heated by the sun. A vital constituent of the atmospheric component is water in the liquid, solid, and vapor phases, and the changes in phase have vast energetic ramifications. The energy budget of this system involves the absorption and reemission of about 200 watts per square meter. Doubling CO2 involves a two percent perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds, ocean circulations, and other features, and such changes are common in occurrence. In this complex, multifactor system, what is the likelihood that the climate (which itself consists of many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomalies) is controlled by a two percent perturbation in the energy budget due to just one of the numerous variables, namely CO2? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. "
Conclusion
CO2 has become a weak GHG, and the warming effects of the other GHGs, including methane and nitrous oxide, are so small that they are irrelevant to climate, and there is no risk GHGs and fossil fuels will cause catastrophic global warming and extreme weather.
Therefore, for this reason alone, there is no scientific knowledge that supports any of the Net Zero Theory rules, subsidies or polices. Further, attachment 4 shows a recent paper that discusses the contents of the President's Executive Order and how climate experts say it can impact the resolution of this problem the IPCC has caused. Finally, the answer to the question in the Subject above is repeated here: yes, CO2 is fully exonerated and has never in the past, is not now, and never will in the future play a direct role in changing our climate, for all the multitudinous reasons provided herein. We can be thankful for nature's built-in protections that disarm CO2, like the Thermalization, Saturation, and Absorption Control phenomena, well known, understood, and applied with proven science. Let's hope that this now becomes accepted science by the organizations so chartered to say so!
Exoneration Demonstration - this is a summary of the stated paper that most readers have already read. So this may be ignored, if desired.
Findings, Messages, Conclusions of: Beyond CO2:
Unraveling the Roles of Energy, Water Vapor, and Convection in Earth’s Atmosphere; May A, Shula T, WUWT, March 9, 2025 (see1st attachment)
Summary of the paper: The only reason that CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) are special is that they [can] absorb most of the radiation emitted by Earth’s surface.
Because the humid lower atmosphere is nearly opaque to most surface emitted radiation that is outside the atmospheric windows, surface emissions are absorbed by GHGs very close to the surface.
According to Heinz Hug, at sea level, with a CO2 concentration of 357 PPM and 2.6% water vapor, 99.94% of all surface
radiation in the main CO2 frequency band at about 15 μm is normally absorbed in the lower 10 meters of the atmosphere (Hug, 2012). Even at the edges of the deep CO2 frequency band (15 μm peak) where any increase in the CO2 effect would be observed, 99.9% of the surface radiation is absorbed in the first 690 meters [about 2,250 ft. or 43% of a mile.
When GHG molecules absorb surface radiative emissions or emissions from other GHGs, they become excited and rise above their molecular ground state and then either dissipate the excess energy among their neighbors as kinetic energy through collisions or emit the energy according to their specific frequency of emission (Hug, 2000). In the lower atmosphere, dissipation is much more common than emission, but when emission takes place, the emitted energy is quickly captured by nearby GHGs and they dissipate it to their neighbors. Radiant energy from the surface or from other GHGs that is captured by a greenhouse gas molecule is held for a relatively long time, around a half second, before it is re-emitted. In this half second, the molecule will have around three billion collisions with other molecules at sea level (Siddles et al). Siddles et al. also report that the excited molecule is 50,000 times as likely to dissipate excess energy (transfer excitation energy to impacting atmospheric molecules) as to emit it as energy at sea level. Radiative return to the ground state is insignificant in the lower atmosphere (Hug, 2000). Heinz Hug goes on to say that is why climate change caused by CO2 cannot be measured directly in the laboratory and can only be modeled. In our opinion, the
effect of CO2 is so small it will likely never be measured.
Any “back radiation” that makes it to the surface, outside atmospheric windows, is from the lower 10 meters of the atmosphere, the remaining emissions from the lower 10 meters of the atmosphere are captured by other greenhouse gases, almost always water vapor molecules.
Dissipating the excess energy via collisions warms the neighborhood around excited GHG molecules, and that process is called thermalization. Thermalization increases the non-IR-active gas ’ s kinetic energy and sensible heat and stimulates convection in the troposphere, these processes increasing both evaporation and conduction of heat from the surface. [The outcomes of these thermalization collisions represent adscititious features that are supplemental to the real or essential nature of the molecules.] Conduction directly transfers sensible heat from the surface to the air and evaporation carries away latent heat.
Most descriptions of the greenhouse effect [in conventional "consensus" modeling] emphasize heat transfer through the atmosphere via radiation and either ignore heat transported by convection or fudge an adjustment in the tropospheric lapse rate to “correct” for convection. If a vertical atmospheric temperature profile is created using a radiative transfer model it does not match observations.
Radiative heat transfer is faster than convective cooling and the oceans and atmosphere (collectively the “climate system”) have a considerable heat capacity and store thermal energy for
varying lengths of time. The radiative heat transfer assumptions in the conventional “consensus” greenhouse gas model of climate change do not match the real world, so the vertical temperature profile must be assumed, it cannot be modeled.
When the Sun elevates the surface temperature, conduction and evaporation cause the lower air to become less dense, and it begins to rise. Convection starts spontaneously. Convection carries heat, both latent and sensible, higher into the atmosphere where it is colder. The water vapor condenses in the cooler upper air, releasing its latent heat, and the resulting drier and denser air descends to evaporate more water and continue the circulation.
The uppermost boundary of the circulation is the tropopause at the top of the troposphere. At the tropopause, the air pressure and density are lower, and water vapor is nearly gone. The tropopause is well above the so-called “emission layer” (about 5 km on average, with a temperature of about 255K) where water condenses, and on average, sends most of its latent heat to space as emitted radiation. The latent heat release warms GHGs (mostly water vapor molecules) in the neighborhood and stimulates them, which induces emissions.
In this atmospheric region, between the emission layer and the tropopause, water vapor largely disappears, convection subsides, and most emissions of OLR (outgoing long-wave radiation) to space occur. In this region, thermalization is harder to achieve due to lower atmospheric density and low humidity, and emitted radiation goes farther. At some altitude within the region, and below it for some frequencies, emitted radiation can escape to space.
Thermalization as described above, can work in reverse. Molecules warmed by latent heat that is released by condensing water vapor or upward convection of warm air can collide with GHGs and cause them to become excited and emit radiation. This is especially true of water vapor which is more easily excited by collisions than CO2. This is another reason why nearly all emissions to space are from water vapor. As a GHG, as is CO2, water vapor absorbs far more of the Earth's blackbody radiation photons than CO2, having a density 65 - 70 times greater, on average.
Indeed, most of the energy lost to space comes from water vapor emissions, and emissions by other GHGs are insignificant. Koll's and Cronin's data show that water vapor is in the driver’s seat and the other GHGs have little effect on Earth’s cooling rate. All GHGs can absorb energy emitted from the surface, but nearly all the energy (except in deserts and at the poles in winter) is absorbed by water vapor. There are a lot more water vapor molecules than molecules of the other GHGs in the troposphere, so water vapor both absorbs and emits nearly all the radiation. This is the Absorption Control feature arising from water vapor's huge density, mentioned above.
What Shula & Ott propose is that the radiation emitted by the surface and the radiation observed from a satellite are decoupled from one another by the conversion of surface radiation to sensible heat by GHGs very near the surface. The added sensible heat is what drives the convection. Convection transports thermal energy upward, and in the critical region between around 2 and 7 km, spontaneous radiation emissions, mostly from water vapor, are radiated to space. It is not surprising that the previously mentioned “emission layer,” at 5 km deduced from satellite OLR observations, . . . lies in the middle of this region. Between 2 and 7 km is where upwardly
convected water vapor condenses or freezes out of the air, releasing its latent heat, and forms clouds. The extra heat stimulates other water molecules (and a few other minor GHGs), causing them to emit radiation, much of which makes it to space. Hermann Harde modeled water vapor emissions as seen from 12.5 km and Figure 4 shows the spectrum from his model (Harde 2013). Figure 4: Water vapor dominates atmospheric OLR emissions because it can emit across nearly the entire IR spectrum. Water vapor is also more easily stimulated to emit radiation than other GHG molecules (Harde, 2013).
The argument presented in most descriptions of the radiative greenhouse effect is one-dimensional and relies on average temperature profiles and solar irradiance. In order to use these one-dimensional models in a three-dimensional global climate model, modelers invoke a hypothetical local radiative equilibrium. Local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) is a mathematical abstraction and tool used in climate models. If the planet had a constant input and radiative heat transfer were the actual cooling mechanism, this could be true. In that scenario, perturbing the model by increasing the CO2 concentration to create a “radiative forcing” would result in a different equilibrium temperature. However, even if the surface cooled with radiative emissions and the process were not short circuited by convection, the radiative forcing of CO2 is approximately logarithmic with its atmospheric concentration. This is due to the distribution of its absorption coefficients in the large CO2 15μm wavelength band (Romps, et al., 2022). Put another way, the radiative impact of going from 50 ppm to 100ppm is the same as going from 400 ppm to 800
ppm. However, the data we’ve shown suggests that radiative heat transfer only occurs at the top and bottom of the atmosphere, and, in between, convection rules and convection is very complex with a lot of constantly changing associated heat, or more precisely thermal energy, storage capacity.
Standard radiative models use simplifying assumptions to account for the average changes to the vertical temperature distribution caused by convection. These assumptions can work to make reasonable one-dimensional models, but do not work in our three-dimensional rotating real world. In reality, the vertical temperature profile and the lapse rate, change constantly and from place to place.
Convection is not just a train that transports heat from the surface to the TOA at a constant rate everywhere. Its pathway and efficiency are constantly changing, which causes our weather. Plus, it has a very powerful energy storage cell at the bottom, the world ocean. As circulation changes, the amount of energy stored in the ocean changes. The amount is trivial to the ocean, with its immense heat capacity, so its temperature normally does not change significantly, except in the shallow mixed layer. But when atmospheric and ocean circulation changes, and become more or less efficient, the atmospheric temperature changes dramatically due to its smaller heat capacity and density.
Everyone seems to ignore the considerable heat storage in the climate system and the storage time factor. Energy residence time makes a difference, and it does change with time. Earth’s surface contains more heat (aka thermal energy) than the
surface of Venus, yet the surface temperature on Venus is 464°C, because Venus has no water or oceans.
Reality is more complex than we can explain today, and we haven’t even touched on the impact of variations in cloudiness (van Wijngaarden & Happer, 2025).
Findings, Messages, Conclusions
1. So, in the lower atmosphere, up to about 2,250 ft. above the surface, the huge majority of CO2's absorbed IR radiation from the earth/other GHGs is transferred to non-IR-active molecules in the atmosphere (e.g., nitrogen, oxygen, nitrous oxide, nitric oxide, etc.), which produce higher molecule velocities and sensible heat that is transferred to the atmosphere.
2. Back radiation to the Earth's surface only results from emissions in the first 10 meters; other emissions in the lower 10 meters are predominantly captured by water vapor, which is far more molecularly dominant than CO2 by a factor of about 65! So, the warming of the Earth from back-radiation emitted from the lower 10 meters is truly trivial.
3. So radiative energy transfer can approximate reality, but it cannot produce the real vertical temperature profile in the atmosphere, a sure indicator that it is a false representation. Radiative energy transfer by CO2 only occurs near the Earth's surface and high in the troposphere, near the tropopause.
4. Convection is a process stimulated by the sun, supported by the addition of sensible heat, and it leads to
water vapor condensing around the "emission layer," sending its latent heat to space, especially if it is stimulated by remaining thermalization, and water vapor is more easily excited by collisions than CO2. So nearly all emissions to space come from water vapor. Emissions to space from other GHGs are insignificant. There are so many more water vapor molecules (a density 65 times higher than that of CO2) than molecules from other GHGs in the troposphere that water vapor absorbs and emits nearly all of the radiation.
5. So we can certainly see that the radiative energy transfer models are falsified by inserting simplified assumptions AND by trying to force the use of a one-dimensional model in a 3-dimensional world. The reality is that radiative heat transfer only occurs at the top and bottom of the atmosphere, and, in between, convection rules and convection is very complex, or, more precisely, makes use of thermal energy storage capacity, which allows for much constantly changing associated heat.
6. Conclusions: The use of radiative heat transfer models to explain the atmosphere's workings on the greenhouse effect and climate change is far from the complex truth. It is a falsehood. The modern father of the Scientific Method, Dr. Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate, has said what clearly is wrong about the IPCC's efforts to falsify CO2's role so as to claim it causes anthropogenic climate change: "First you guess. . . . Then you compute the consequences. Compare the consequences to experience. If it disagrees with experience, the guess is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. "
So, the IPCC has concluded that the trivially trace amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere can cause anthropogenic climate change because, it claims, that CO2 is a "doer" atmospheric molecule that can, by itself, heat the atmosphere and earth through the unproven (now disproven) use of radiative heat transfer throughout the atmosphere. The radiative heat transfer assumptions in the conventional “ consensus ” greenhouse gas model of climate change do not match the real world, so the vertical temperature profile must be assumed, it cannot be modeled. What the Shula/Ott paper and the May/Shula paper show is that CO2's radiative energy transfer capabilities only occur in two small ranges of the troposphere: at the surface, up to about 700m, 2,250 ft. altitude, and up, near the tropopause, at an average altitude of about 10 km - 13 km. So, about 25% - 30% of the altitude from the earth's surface up to the tropopause experiences radiative heat transfer to some limited extent. Further, it, therefore, becomes obvious that CO2 cannot be a "doer" atmospheric molecule. Rather, it may be called, at most, a "facilitator" molecule, not in charge of warming the Earth or atmosphere, but facilitating convection warming, which is accomplished by non-IR-active atmospheric molecules and atmospheric water vapor, which play a grand role in the thermalization process! Nothing more need be concluded here. The IPCC has falsified the science regarding the greenhouse effect and climate change, and has basically used the "conjecture" assumption of Karl Schwarzschild from 1906 regarding the sun's (not the Earth's) atmosphere. The first calculations to estimate the global warming produced by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere were attributed to Arrhenius in 1896. Karl Schwarzschild and his paper “Ueber Gleichgewicht in der Sonnenatmosphare” [About Balance in the Solar Atmosphere. - Note that the paper was about the sun's atmosphere, not Earth's (1906) is often cited as the seminal
work in the concept of radiative transfer theory.
Schwarzschild presented this concept as a conjecture, not a conclusion. It is more a substitution from a material flow (convection) to a radiation flow (with the physical matter of the atmosphere static, i.e., no convection.) At the end of the introductory paragraph
Schwarzschild states, “The whole consideration can therefore by no means be considered conclusive or compelling, but it may provide a starting point for further speculation, by expressing a simple thought initially in the simplest form.” So we know that the source idea used by the IPCC was totally flawed from the get-go, and the IPCC never sought to validate just exactly how the earth's atmosphere worked, as it should have done. To accept a conjecture assumption from 1906 was just a massive error, producing massive failure.
