Climate Scientists Celebrating 115 Years Of Debunked Junk Science

In 1901, Knut Angstrom showed that Arrhenius didn’t know what he was talking about with his global warming theories. CO2 absorption is already nearly saturated, so additional increases in CO2 have little effect.


Arrhenius also ignored H2O in his calculations, which produces most of the greenhouse effect. As a result of his “inadmissable” error, Arrhenius overestimated the effects of CO2 by about 96%.



This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Climate Scientists Celebrating 115 Years Of Debunked Junk Science

  1. CheshireRed says:

    Criticising St Arrhenius is tantamount to climate heresy and would get a lifetime ban at the Guardian if not a contract on your denier ass. A dangerous game.

    • jb says:

      Ur comment is ambiguous. Clarify.

      • CheshireRed says:

        The Guardian consider his findings sacrosanct. To question them makes one the target of abuse and (obviously) a denier.

    • Rosco says:

      From what I read Arrhenius remained a believer in the “aether” transfer of radiation hypothesis – that alone should seriously question the value of his musings – as “musings” they would be if based on a discredited hypothesis of radiative transfer.

  2. Pingback: Greenhouse Gas Climate Theory 'inadmissible' and 'junk science' - Principia Scientific International

  3. Sunsettommy says:

    Arrhenius, did dial it down in his later paper of 1906,but the damage was done. Warmists always focus on the 1896 paper.

  4. Edmonton Al says:

    Here is what I read:

    Aethereal Misunderstanding versus Subatomic Heat Transfer

    Arrhenius (1906b, pp. 154 and 225) still clung to the aether hypothesis, which refers to the unspecified material medium of space. Arrhenius’ adherence to this hypothesis remained firm in spite of its sound refutation by Michelson & Morley (1887). This leaves the conceptual underpinning of radiation in Arrhenius’ “Greenhouse Effect” to Tyndall (1864, pp. 264-265; 1867, p. 416), who ascribes communication of molecular vibration into the aether and communication of aethereal vibration to molecular motion. This interaction conceptually separates radiated heat from conducted heat so that radiation remains separate and distinct from conductive heat flow – effectively isolating conductive heat flow from the radiative mode of heat transfer. Thus no consideration is made for internal radiative transfer as a part of conductive transfer, in the context of aethereal wave propagation. However, Arrhenius’ contemporaries, having moved beyond the debunked aether hypothesis, had a much more realistic perspective of the interactions between radiation, heat, and subatomic particles.

  5. DeplorableBritInMontreal says:

    The 20 degrees above normal claim – can anybody clarify this? I saw the story in the Guardian, no data, of course. The same day, I checked the Environment Canada weather data for Grise Fjord, Eureka and Alert, which are the three most northern weather stations in Canada. They were running at normal, which is from -15 to -25C.

  6. Steve Case says:

    The 1901 Angstrom article talks about infrared wave lengths of 0.3 – 4.0 microns. Isn’t the whole brouhaha over the 15 micron band? The study quoted involved a 100° black body. I assume that was centigrade. Black bodies radiating at 15 microns are a bit cooler than a pot of boiling water. A cake of dry ice would fill the bill.

    That aside, great find!

    Anyone who dives into the CO2 causes warming issue should come away with the basic concept that yes, CO2 should cause some warming. And so, temperatures are up around a degree or so. It’s just a matter of how much of that is due to the 40% increase in carbon dioxide. The duck test says, “It looks like not very much.”

  7. Rud Istvan says:

    Neither was correct. The key CO2 absorption band is 15 microns, not 3. The H2O overwhelms is wrong on two counts: the shoulders of the absorption band matter and there is not perfect overlap; the water vapor lapse rate with altitude (cold is drier) means that at the effective radiation level, CO2 is the main GHG. The saturation argument fails because more CO2 pushes the ERL up. Essay Sensitive Uncertainties provides a lawmans tour of GHE physics along the way to deriving various observational ECS.

    • Steve Case says:

      Rud Istvan said – at 5:10 pm
      Neither was correct

      Since you seem to be the last word in correctness, how much of the warm-up since 1850, HADCRUT says it’s around 0.8K, is due to CO2?

      • Rud Istvan says:

        That is not possible to know, even approximately, for two reasons. First, we don’t know that the delta 0.8c is correct. Lack of instrument coverage both land and ocean. It is a dubious guess for all the reasons this blog has pointed out. Second, we know that there has to be a natural temperature change component. Not just MWP and LIA. The warming from ~1920-1945 is essentially indistinguishable from the warming ~1975-2000. Yet even IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM fig 8.2 said the former period was mostly natural; there simply was not enough change in CO2 dor it to be attributed to AGW. Yet the same figure claimed the later period was mostly CO2–which is illogical, because natural variation did not magically stop in 1975.

        None of which has to do with H2O masking and saturation misunderstandings about how the GHE actually works via which molecules and frequencies where in the troposphere to inhibit radiative transfer of OLR heat to space.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Are you taking into account Dr Happer’s experimental data? He and Freeman Dyson are co-writing a paper regarding the wings of of the CO2 absorption spectra.

      Slide 22: Lorentzian line shape nor Voigt line shapes are correct in the far wings!

      Dr. Happer says the shape is narrower. The take away I got from his lecture (9/2014) is CO2 ‘modeling’ is a mish-mash of theoretical equations and experimentally derived data. Where the Climate modelers missed the boat is in using equations for ‘line broadening’ aka the ‘wings’ where the current CO2 absorption ( at 400 ppm) is supposedly taking place. These equations produce results that do not match up to the experimental data. The lines are not as broad as theory would have it.

      Audio and slides of the physics lecture

      A less-technical lecture for the lay person from John Locke Foundation:

      Second CO2 doesn’t start radiating IR until it is in the stratosphere. Before that, at ground level, it is ten times more likely to hand off the energy via collision and contributes slightly to convection. That is CO2 energy increases (slightly) the temperature of the surounding gas and increases the rate the hot air rises.

      Paraphrasing Dr. Brown @ Duke Univ.
      What is the absorption cross-section for a 15 micron photon?
      That’s the effective surface area intercepted by each CO_2 molecule. It is large enough that the mean free path of LWIR photons in the pressure-broadened absorption bands of CO_2 in the lower atmosphere is in the order of a meter. That means that LWIR photons — whatever their “size” — with frequencies in the band go no more than a meter or few before they are absorbed by a CO_2 molecule.

      When CO2 near the earth’s surface absorbs back radiation, the lifetime of the excited state caused by the absorption of the photon is much longer than the mean free time between molecular collisions between the CO_2 molecule and other molecules in the surrounding gas. That means that the radiative energy absorbed by the molecule is almost never resonantly re-emitted, it is transferred to the surrounding gas, warming not just the CO_2 but the oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, argon as well as the other CO_2 molecules around.

      In other words near the surface back radiation, aka a ‘resonantly re-emitted’ photon is a RARE EVENT.

      Dr Happer in his lecture for physics grad students at NCU agreed and further stated that the time to radiate is about ten times slower than the time to the next collision in the troposphere. He also stated experimental data shows barely any radiation at 11 KM and most of the CO2 is radiating in the stratosphere ~ 47 KM above the surface.

      It is illustrated here:

      Last are these two energy phenomenon

      Mössbauer effect
      (recoil energy lost during absorption <===CRITICAL)

      The Pound–Rebka experiment (VERY IMPORTANT because gases are moving randomly and in random directions)

      …The test is based on the following principle: When an atom transits from an excited state to a base state, it emits a photon with a specific frequency and energy. When an atom of the same species in its base state encounters a photon with that same frequency and energy, it will absorb that photon and transit to the excited state. If the photon’s frequency and energy is different by even a little, the atom cannot absorb it (this is the basis of quantum theory). When the photon travels through a gravitational field, its frequency and therefore its energy will change due to the gravitational redshift. As a result, the receiving atom cannot absorb it. But if the emitting atom moves with just the right speed relative to the receiving atom the resulting doppler shift cancels out the gravitational shift and the receiving atom can absorb the photon…. WIKI

      So CO2 is radiating above the tropopause in the DRY stratosphere and the back radiation has to make it past not only all the CO2 molecules but also all the H2O molecules all moving in random directions.

      I really think very little back radiation makes it to the earth’s surface. Makes me think of a pinball machine combined with pocket billiards. A bit of a time delay before the energy escapes the atmosphere.

      Water, in all its phases, completely overwhelms CO2 as a factor in climate.

      • Rud Istvan says:

        GC, your post confounds a number of things that would take a long time to explain correctly. Let me simplify. Thermalization of backradiation is NOT the main facet of the GHE. The main facet is impeded OLR radiative cooling, which raises surface T until incoming SWR energy and outgoing OLR energy rebalance. In the absence of feedbacks, doubling CO2 riases the balance about 1.1-1.2C. Observational ECS is about 1.65, which means the positive water vapor feedback is much less than modeled and/or the supposed positive cloud feedback is negative.
        From a planetary primary balance perspective, you are completely correct about water and water vapor beingnthe main GHE. Without the oceans and the water vapor they supply, Earth would be about -18C and we would not be having this conversation. But the GHE we are talking about is the first derivative– how much does the primary system equilibrium created mainly by water vapor GHE change when CO2 changes?

  8. Oliver K. Manuel says:

    Thank you, Tony, for using your abundant talents to expose the misuse of government-funded science to enslave the public.

    Jon Rappoport, an investigative reporter, has also noted the striking similarity between politically-correct opinions in the main-stream news media and “97-% consensus science” in research journals and scientific organizations.

  9. Rud Istvan says:

    Steve and Gail, you might both appreciate my most recent ebook, foreword by none other than Dr. Judith Curry. Lots of stuff you would find relevant, simply explained. The ‘When Data Isn’t’ essay you would would find very familiar, as globally amplifies the temp data manipulation claims made here by TH– except using many examples reinforced by others.

  10. jimmmy says:

    Wait a minute – we are basing EVERYTHING about this GG theory on all those high tech measuring devices from 1896. How can this be? We use the Large Hadron Collider to tease out details of quantum mechanics and general relativity – yet we hang our hat on a theory from 1896 that used the oh-so-complicated Bunsen burner as its most formidable tool stating that a gas that comprises 0.04% of our atmosphere is the culprit molecule? ponderous man, ponderous

  11. Dear skeptical friends. I like to comment the first time, because the absorption of GH gases is the area what I have been studying intensively during the last 5 years. I wanted to find out, is CO2 capable to increase the temperature as much as claimed by IPCC and its followers. I found it cannot. There are two major reasons. 1) There is no positive water feedback in the atmosphere. The direct humidity measurements since 1979 show that the long-term absolute humidity (the absolute water amount) remains constant. This cuts 50 % off from the warming caused by the increase of CO2 as well N2O and CH4, which have very minor effects. 2) The formula of Myhre et al. which is called canonical by Gavin Schmidt is probably carried out in the “fixed relative humidity”. I found this fact doing exactly the same calculations as Myhre et al. and my formula is 3.12 * ln (CO2/280) (compare to Myhre et al. = 5.35 * ln (CO2/280). There are other papers from Hansen et al an Shi. Shi write that he did the calculations in the atmosphere with “fixed relative humidity” and he got y the same result as Myhre et al. This means that Myhre’s formula doubles the radiative forcing of CO2.
    This means that the climate sensitivity is only 0.6 C degrees and the warming impact of CO2 in the present climate is about 0.25 C degrees. It is amazing that Ångström got the warming impact of CO2 almost correctly to be 16 %, if it were the only GH gas in the atmosphere (my value 15 %). But he did not understand the role of water and the overlapping of absorption peaks of these gases. Actually, he had no means to know it. I included also a figure about the absorption bands of GH gases but I do not know, if it is coming through.

    My web page is There you find a lot of material about the climate change and everything is based on the published peer-reviewed papers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *