Why the Sun Controls the Climate and CO2 is Meaningless


To understand AGW, one must understand quantum physics. The Greenhouse Gas Effect is the thermalization of Longwave Infrared (LWIR) Photons. LWIR is relatively long-wavelength electromagnetic (EM) radiation and having a long-wavelength, it doesn’t pack much energy into a unit of distance. If you view a Slinky (Spring) as an Em Wave, as you pull the Slinky, the less Slinky there is per foot. If a Slinky is 6 inches fully compressed, and you stretch it to 1 foot in length, there is 1/2 the amount of Slinky per inch as a fully compressed Slinky. The more you pull the Slinky apart, the less Slinky there is per inch. If the Slinky represents a quantum of energy, the longer you stretch the Slinky the less energy you have per inch. That is how EM radiation works. Frequency is directly related to energy, and wavelength is inversely related to energy.


As we’ve mentioned countless times on this blog, to understand the climate you have to understand the oceans (Click Here). The oceans, lakes and rivers cover upwards of 70% of the earth’s surface, and water is a highly effective heat sink, storing over 2,000x the energy found in the atmosphere. Very small changes to the energy in the oceans, therefore, means very big changes to the relative energy balance between the oceans and the atmosphere, and the oceans warm the atmosphere, not vice versa.


The only defined mechanism by which atmospheric CO2 can affect climate change is through the thermalization of LWIR between 13 and 18µ, that is it. Climate alarmists point to the warming of the oceans as evidence that CO2 is the cause.  The problem with that theory is that they can’t explain how LWIR between 13 and 18µ warms the oceans (Click Here). LWIR between 13 and 18µ doesn’t penetrate the oceans and actually causes cooling through surface evaporation. Additionally, LWIR between 13 and 18µ is very very low energy EM Radiation when compared to EM wavelengths that do actually penetrate and warm the oceans, wavelengths mostly at the blue end of the spectrum. CO2, in reality, is a very weak Greenhouse Gas (Click Here) in terms of warming the atmosphere and the oceans.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

A British Thermal Unit or BTU is the amount of energy it takes to warm 1lb or water 1°F. 1 BTU is the energy equivalent of 1,055 joules (Click Here). A Joule is a unit of energy measured in kg*m^2/s^2 (Click Here). Basically, it takes a lot of energy to warm water.

LWIR between 13 and 18µ has 8kJ/mol (Click Here). A mole is a fixed number of molecules found in 12 grams of Carbon-12. I use kJ/mol instead of Joules to avoid numbers like 1×10^-23. The relative relationship is what matters for this problem.

Blue light, on the other hand, has a wavelength of  0.45µ and 266kJ/mol. 266kJ/mol is 33x the energy of LWIR between 13 and 18µ. Additionally, CO2 only thermalizes a narrow band of low energy LWIR between 13 and 18µ, and the oceans absorb the full high energy visible spectrum between 0.4 and 0.7µ.

Even adjusting for the 24/7 Greenhouse effect, and visible radiation being on a 12/7 schedule, the energy balance is still 16.5x. Working in the fact that the N Hemisphere has more land mass and the angle of incidence over the hemisphere at any given moment you might be able to cut the relative energy down to 8x, but that still means that 1 day of clear visible radiation is greater than 8 days of LWIR between 13 and 18µ.

There is another problem, we are dealing with marginal gains, not absolute levels. The CO2 change from 270 to 411 ppm only accounts for a fraction of the 8kJ/mol. To make matters worse, H2O absorbs those identical wavelengths, so the LWIR between 13 and 18µ downwelling that is impacting the oceans isn’t increased/affected by CO2. H2O saturates the absorption of LWIR between 13 and 18µ  in the lower atmosphere directly above the oceans. The following MODTRAN reports highlight how doubling CO2 from 400ppm to 800ppm has no impact on outgoing radiation in the lower atmosphere.

Note how the CO2 level is changed from 400ppm to 800ppm, and the upward IR heat flux remains constant at 417.306 W/M^2.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

No matter how the climate alarmists want to spin this con, no matter how desperate they want to believe, no matter how much lipstick they want to put on this pig, there is no way the actual physics behind the GHG Effect and the CO2 molecule will ever support their claims that CO2 is the cause of the oceans, and in turn atmosphere warming. It all is simply a big lie. The introductory graphic of the cleaning of the atmosphere is the cause of the warming. More visible warming radiation is simply reaching the oceans. CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with it.


Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment


19 thoughts on “Why the Sun Controls the Climate and CO2 is Meaningless”

  1. Well, but why are the oceans “storing” more energy?
    Are you then saying that the so called global warming/climate change is due only to the increase of the energy stored in the oceans?


      1. Good day co2islife (agree). Sorry I got sidetracked, but in fact I do agree with your premise that CO2 has little or no effect on the thermal balance of the biosphere. My opinion (I cannot assert it as a fact) is the water vapor, in conjunction with the incident solar radiation, controls our climate. Just imagine that somehow the temperature in the biosphere is on the rise: this would result in an increase of evaporation from all the bodies of water and a subsequent increase in cloud coverage (more solar energy reflected) and an eventual cooling effect as it happens after every major volcanic event.
        While most likely the effects of recent volcanic activity (say, last 5 years or so) have subsided, thus resulting in a corresponding increase of solar energy intake. However, the above graph “Ocean heat content and atmospheric CO2 concentrations”, clearly indicate a steady increase of ocean heat content since 1955, except for a couple of dips around 1970 (about 5 eruptions) and 1985 (Mt St Helens eruption in 1980, el Chichón in 1982 and Nevado del Ruiz in 1985?).
        My opinion about an increase of ocean heat content is that it is extremely difficult to give a robust estimate, and if in fact the heat content rises it would result in a rise of the surface water temperature (warmer sea water tends to go up)) and thus more evaporation (cooling effect in the water).


      2. Thanks for the comment. I agree, so many of these metrics are simply hard to accept as accurate. We simply don’t have the measuring capabilities to make them robust.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s