Some scientists say rising CO2 is not contributing to additional global warming. Thus, the underlying reason for the carbon tax is false.It seems that CO2 has saturated and can't contribute much more to global warming. This phenomenon has enormous policy implications for government spending. We are well aware of the extreme mandates given by the government against the internal combustion engine and the almost obscene amounts of taxpayer subsidies assigned to the “green energy” sector.If greenhouse gases like water vapour, methane and especially carbon dioxide — the villain of the "climate emergency" narrative — can keep absorbing radiation and transforming it into heat without limitation, then the current "settled science" is correct. In that case, we should expect a significantly warmer planet over time.Jim Mason, PhD of Lakefield, Ontario, reviews the apparently suppressed science in the review magazine, C2C. The articles he cites are based on many sources, most of which can be read on the net. This list is extensive.Greenhouse gases can reach radiation absorption saturation. At this concentration, they can no longer absorb any more radiation, losing their capacity to trap further heat. If saturation has not yet occurred, further raising the atmospheric CO2 concentration via man-made emissions will absorb more radiation, and CO2 could be the primary driver of global warming, as claimed.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 will not change the amount of energy absorbed. That means more CO2 can't trap any more heat for global warming.Therefore, the implications for everything related to the "settled science" of climate change are very unsettling. Thankfully, a few scientists are finally doing what should be regarded as foundational work to 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 vapor) increases. Titled “Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases,” their paper is highly technical, making it difficult to read.At its simplest, LWR absorption does not increase linearly as CO2 increases, but does so in an exponentially decreasing fashion. Equal amounts of CO2 added to the air column absorb ever-decreasing amounts of additional LWR until at some point the CO2 is effectively absorbing all of the LWR in the band that CO2 can absorb. Absorption is saturated.Consequently, further increasing the concentration of atmospheric CO2 won't affect the heat trapped. The two scientists concluded that the current saturations of the abundant greenhouse gases H2O and CO2 are so extreme that one can easily calculate that this saturation point has not only been reached but was reached long before the Industrial Age when human emissions of CO2 really took off. If CO2 is not actually an effective current driver of atmospheric temperature, the implications are staggering.Another paper was published in March of this year and reports on experiments conducted to test van Wijngaarden and Happer's theory, in accordance with the standard scientific method, using several different greenhouse gases. If the experiments were adequately designed to duplicate natural processes realistically and generated results inconsistent with the theory, then the van Wijngaarden/Happer theory could be considered disproved. If the experiments produced results consistent with the theory, the theory would not be proved but would increase in plausibility and justify further experimentation, which is indeed the case. Jan Kubicki-Krzysztof Kopczyński-Jarosław Młyńczak confirmed the van Wijngaarden/Happer theory.If further experimentation generates results consistent with the van Wijngaarden/Happer theory, it would appear that CO2 is incapable of having any impact on atmospheric temperature at all. It cannot be the primary source of “global warming” or “climate change”, let alone of a “climate emergency”.Suppose the CO2 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere is well beyond the level where increases are causing additional LWR to be absorbed and consequently changing the climate. In that case, all government policies intended to reduce/eliminate CO2 emissions to stop climate change are a pointless waste.However, scientific research does not intend to encourage anyone to degrade the natural environment. Coal and petroleum are valuable resources, and due to their finite reserves, they should be utilized sparingly to ensure they last for future generations.Furthermore, intensive coal mining directly contributes to environmental degradation (land drainage, landscape alteration, tectonic movements). Frequently used outdated heating systems that burn coal and outdated internal combustion engines fueled by petroleum products emit many toxic substances (which have nothing to do with CO2.) Efforts towards renewable energy sources should continue. Nevertheless, unsubstantiated arguments that produce harmful policies that hinder economic development and hurt human well-being should not be used for this purpose.In science, we should always strive for a more accurate picture of reality. This is achieved primarily through empirical knowledge and scientific rigor, by constantly questioning and always testing our theories and assumptions.
Some scientists say rising CO2 is not contributing to additional global warming. Thus, the underlying reason for the carbon tax is false.It seems that CO2 has saturated and can't contribute much more to global warming. This phenomenon has enormous policy implications for government spending. We are well aware of the extreme mandates given by the government against the internal combustion engine and the almost obscene amounts of taxpayer subsidies assigned to the “green energy” sector.If greenhouse gases like water vapour, methane and especially carbon dioxide — the villain of the "climate emergency" narrative — can keep absorbing radiation and transforming it into heat without limitation, then the current "settled science" is correct. In that case, we should expect a significantly warmer planet over time.Jim Mason, PhD of Lakefield, Ontario, reviews the apparently suppressed science in the review magazine, C2C. The articles he cites are based on many sources, most of which can be read on the net. This list is extensive.Greenhouse gases can reach radiation absorption saturation. At this concentration, they can no longer absorb any more radiation, losing their capacity to trap further heat. If saturation has not yet occurred, further raising the atmospheric CO2 concentration via man-made emissions will absorb more radiation, and CO2 could be the primary driver of global warming, as claimed.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 will not change the amount of energy absorbed. That means more CO2 can't trap any more heat for global warming.Therefore, the implications for everything related to the "settled science" of climate change are very unsettling. Thankfully, a few scientists are finally doing what should be regarded as foundational work to 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 vapor) increases. Titled “Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases,” their paper is highly technical, making it difficult to read.At its simplest, LWR absorption does not increase linearly as CO2 increases, but does so in an exponentially decreasing fashion. Equal amounts of CO2 added to the air column absorb ever-decreasing amounts of additional LWR until at some point the CO2 is effectively absorbing all of the LWR in the band that CO2 can absorb. Absorption is saturated.Consequently, further increasing the concentration of atmospheric CO2 won't affect the heat trapped. The two scientists concluded that the current saturations of the abundant greenhouse gases H2O and CO2 are so extreme that one can easily calculate that this saturation point has not only been reached but was reached long before the Industrial Age when human emissions of CO2 really took off. If CO2 is not actually an effective current driver of atmospheric temperature, the implications are staggering.Another paper was published in March of this year and reports on experiments conducted to test van Wijngaarden and Happer's theory, in accordance with the standard scientific method, using several different greenhouse gases. If the experiments were adequately designed to duplicate natural processes realistically and generated results inconsistent with the theory, then the van Wijngaarden/Happer theory could be considered disproved. If the experiments produced results consistent with the theory, the theory would not be proved but would increase in plausibility and justify further experimentation, which is indeed the case. Jan Kubicki-Krzysztof Kopczyński-Jarosław Młyńczak confirmed the van Wijngaarden/Happer theory.If further experimentation generates results consistent with the van Wijngaarden/Happer theory, it would appear that CO2 is incapable of having any impact on atmospheric temperature at all. It cannot be the primary source of “global warming” or “climate change”, let alone of a “climate emergency”.Suppose the CO2 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere is well beyond the level where increases are causing additional LWR to be absorbed and consequently changing the climate. In that case, all government policies intended to reduce/eliminate CO2 emissions to stop climate change are a pointless waste.However, scientific research does not intend to encourage anyone to degrade the natural environment. Coal and petroleum are valuable resources, and due to their finite reserves, they should be utilized sparingly to ensure they last for future generations.Furthermore, intensive coal mining directly contributes to environmental degradation (land drainage, landscape alteration, tectonic movements). Frequently used outdated heating systems that burn coal and outdated internal combustion engines fueled by petroleum products emit many toxic substances (which have nothing to do with CO2.) Efforts towards renewable energy sources should continue. Nevertheless, unsubstantiated arguments that produce harmful policies that hinder economic development and hurt human well-being should not be used for this purpose.In science, we should always strive for a more accurate picture of reality. This is achieved primarily through empirical knowledge and scientific rigor, by constantly questioning and always testing our theories and assumptions.
