Global Warming from CO2, All Politics – No Science!

Global Warming from CO2, All Politics – No Science!

Guest post by Robert A. Ashworth


Some meteorologists have blamed water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere for warming the earth. Below is an excerpt from a paper1 written by meteorologists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). “Climate models used for estimating effects of increases in greenhouse gases show substantial increases in water vapor as the globe warms and this increased moisture would further increase the warming.” The NOAA got it completely backwards about water vapor and CO2 – they cool the earth! Al Gore did something similar in his bogus “Inconvenient Truth” presentation of the Vostok Ice Core data.

Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” Documentary has Cause and Effect Reversed

In this documentary, Al Gore fudged the Vostok Ice core temperature and CO2 line graphs so it would show a CO2 spike coming first but alas the real graph showed just the opposite. See data, in a shorter time frame (240,000 Years Before Present rather than 420,000 years) to make it easier to see which came first, Figure 1.

Vostok Ice Core Data

Vostok Ice Core Data

Figure 1. Vostok, Antarctica Ice Core Data 2.

It is clearly seen that a global warming spike (blue line) always comes first. This warms the oceans, which reduces the solubility of CO2 in water and results in the liberation of CO2 from the oceans over 800 years later. Gore gave no explanation what would cause a CO2 spike to occur in the first place, but then again he is a politician. What is so disturbing is that many climatologists have a problem discerning cause and effect. It is very simple and does not require a rocket scientist. If what you call an effect comes first, you have it backwards; the cause comes first to produce an effect. Gore is a journalist, not a scientist, yet many people believe him, proving that if you are well known you can say anything even if it is absolutely wrong and many will follow you.

The author also found that most physicists, climatologists and meteorologists in recent times have not taken courses in thermodynamics so many don’t understand the first two laws of thermodynamics.

First Law: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Second Law:Without additional energy input, heat can only be transferred from a hotter to cooler body, never vice versa. Our cooler atmosphere cannot radiate energy that will heat up earth’s warmer surface. Although all bodies in the universe radiate and absorb radiant energy, the warmer body always emits more energy than it receives back from a cooler body; a cooler body can never warm a warmer body.

A Scientific Truth

Any mass between you and a radiant energy source will provide cooling. Stand near a fireplace that is burning and feel the warmth of the radiant energy; then have two people drape a blanket between you and the fireplace – you will feel cooler! Another example, stand outside on a sun shiny day. When a cloud goes over and shades you from the direct rays of the sun, you feel cooler.

Nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor, carbon dioxide and any dust that is in the atmosphere all provide cooling. Why is this? If there were no atmosphere, all of the radiant energy from the sun would hit the earth. However, with an atmosphere, a portion of the incoming sun’s rays are absorbed or reflected away from earth by striking the gaseous molecules and dust particles, so less radiant energy hits the earth and the earth is cooler because it has atmosphere, see Figure 2.

Earth with and without an atmosphere

Earth with and without an atmosphere

Figure 2. Earth without and with an atmosphere

Everyone knows that cloud cover at night (more insulation) prevents the earth from cooling off as fast as it does when there are no clouds. However, on a relatively clear night if a cloud goes overhead you cannot feel any warming effect of the cloud, so this insulating effect is shown to be very minimal compared to the daytime effect. No rocket science is required here, just common sense. If common sense isn’t good enough for you there is also scientific proof.

Do Most Scientists Support Global Warming?

No, most scientists do not agree with the CO2 global warming premise! In the United States 31,478 scientists, signed a petition rejecting the Kyoto global warming agreement and of these, 9,029 have PhDs3.

Further, U.S. Senator James Inhofe 4 (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, on his web site states, the over 700 dissenting scientists are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. The author is included in both lists and this paper tells why.

Does Atmospheric CO2 Change Correlate with Earth Temperature Change?

Does a correlation exist between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the earth’s temperature? No, that does not exist. Does an increase in CO2 cause the earth’s temperature to increase? No, look at Figure 3 for temperatures and carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere for the past fifty years. The data for this graph was published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data. Apparently those working at NOAA never analyzed their own data. Even a non-scientist can see there is no correlation between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and the earth’s temperature. The CO2 has been on a continuous upward trend – not true for the earth’s temperature.

NOAA Land-Ocean Temperature versus CO2

Figure 3. Earth Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 Concentration 5.

CFC Destruction of Ozone 6 Although CO2 had nothing to do with temperature rise, from 1966 to 1998, man-made chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs or Freon) destroyed ozone in the lower stratosphere-upper troposphere and caused these zones to cool by 1.37 oC 7. The loss of ozone allowed more UV light to pass through the lower stratosphere-upper troposphere at a sufficient rate to warm the lower troposphere plus 10 inches of the earth up by 0.48 oC during that time frame. So of the 0.62 oC rise, 77% was caused by stratospheric ozone loss. Ozone destruction made it look like there may have been a correlation with a CO2 increase from 1978 to 1998 but not before or after those times. In 2007, the stratosphere started warming back up but it is estimated it will take some 50 to 100 years to get back to normal because CFCs are very stable.

In 1978, the USA banned the use of Freon in hair sprays and other aerosols. In 1987, the world governments, through the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), agreed to limit the production and release of a variety of CFCs at a meeting in Montreal, Canada. The agreement is known as the Montreal Protocol. CFC production was stopped in developed countries in 1987 and in 2010 was stopped in developing countries (Mexico, China, etc).

Human Made Emissions of Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Do you realize that CO2 emissions created by man’s activities, combustion of fuels, etc. (called anthropogenic emissions) is miniscule compared to the emissions of CO2 from nature? Table 1

was developed by the IPCC. It shows annual CO2 emissions to the atmosphere from both nature and man and how much of the CO2 emitted is re-absorbed by nature.

Global Sources and Absorption of CO2

Global Sources and Absorption of CO2


Using the table above in combination with a total concentration of 392 ppmv of CO2 seen in the atmosphere in December 2011, one sees that the increase in CO2 caused by all of man’s activities amounted to only 11.5 ppmv. The amount of CO2 from man is a mouse milk quantity compared to nature’s emissions. If we eliminated worldwide, all manmade CO2 emissions, we would go back to the level in December 2005 and it was warmer then than in December 2011.

Nature absorbs 98.5% of the CO2 that is emitted by nature and man. As CO2 increases in the atmosphere, nature causes plant growth to increase via photosynthesis which is an endothermic (cooling) reaction. For every pound of biomass formed some 10,000 Btu are removed from the atmosphere. CO2 is absorbed, and oxygen is liberated. Further, a doubling of CO2 will increase the photosynthesis rate by 30 to 100%, depending on temperature and available moisture 8. More CO2 is absorbed by the plants due to the increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere available for conversion to carbohydrates. Nature therefore has in place a built-in mechanism to regulate the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere that will always completely dwarf man’s feeble attempts to regulate it. Further, no regulation is necessary because CO2 is not a pollutant; it is part of the animal-plant life cycle. Without it, life would not exist on earth

Misnamed” Greenhouse Gases Cool the Earth

Following the 9-11 terrorist attacks, the Federal Aviation Administration prohibited commercial aviation over the United States for three days following the attacks. This presented a unique opportunity to study the temperature of earth with and without jet airplane contrails.

Dr. David Travis, atmospheric scientist at the University of Wisconsin, along with two others, looked at temperatures for those three days and compared them to other days when planes were flying. They analyzed data from about 4,000 weather stations throughout the lower 48 states (U.S.) for the period 1971-2000, and compared the three-day grounding period with three days before and after the grounding period. They found that the average daily temperature range between highs and lows was 1.1 degrees C higher during September 11-14 (see Figure 4) compared to September 8-11 and September 11-14 for other years with normal air traffic.

Average Diurnal (Daily) Temperature Range (DTR)

Average Diurnal (Daily) Temperature Range (DTR)

Figure 4. Average diurnal (daily) temperature range (DTR)9

The data proved that contrails (water vapor) cooled the earth. You cannot just look at earth radiation like the IPCC members have done, it is miniscule compared to the radiation hitting the earth from the sun. The overall effect of our atmosphere is cooling, not warming. You have to look at energy in and out, not just energy out.

Comparison of Earth and Mars Average Temperatures

Both the Earth and Mars rotate around the Sun and rotate on their axes. The earth rotation time for Earth is 23.9 hours and for Mars is 24.6 hours. Therefore, they are similar regarding the way the sun strikes them. However, the atmospheric pressure on Mars is only 0.007 times the earth’s atmosphere. The earth gets hit on average by 1367.5 watts/m2 and Mars by 589.2 watts/m2 of solar irradiance10. The average temperature on earth is 288.3°K and the average temperature on Mars is 208.3°K11. Now then if the Earth had the identical composition and atmospheric pressure as Mars, based on the solar irradiance hitting it, the average temperature on earth would be (1367.6/589.2) x 208.3 = 483.5°K. The earth’s atmosphere therefore provides a cooling effect (483.5-288.3) of 195°K (383°F), compared to the temperature effect of a sparse Mars atmosphere.

Other IPCC Shenanigans

Back in time, the IPCC relayed there was a greenhouse signature in the atmosphere and the temperature 8-12 km above the tropics was warmer than the ground temperature12. Actual temperature measurements refuted this so the IPCC changed their tactics and violated the second law of thermodynamics by saying a cooler atmosphere can warm a warmer earth. They went from one bogus explanation to another.

It was also found the IPCC so-called scientists were fudging data by eliminating the cooler temperature station measurements back in time. Someone released emails from the IPCC group that revealed what they were doing; it was given the name “Climategate”13. Michael Mann’s famous “hockey stick” was born here when the Medieval Warm period was completely eliminated.

Since Climategate came to light in November 2009, another inappropriate activity by another IPCC member was uncovered 14. Peter Gleick, President of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security; and a past respected expert on water-and-climate issues. He had co-authored a paper for the American Geophysical Union’s (AGU) task force on scientific ethics and integrity.

Then it was found he had no ethics or integrity.On Feb. 20, 2010, Gleick revealed that he had sent Heartland memos to climate reporters and analysts, and that he had used deception in order to obtain some of them. The Heartland Institute is a think tank that advocates highly skeptical views of climate science. They are fighting, among other things, to not allow the bogus climate science of the IPCC to be taught in schools.


Based on real data evaluation, CO2 causing global warming was completely contrived. The lesson to the world here is, when it comes to science; never blindly accept an explanation from a politician or scientists who have turned political for their own private gain. Many scientists, including the author, see global warming from CO2 as a cruel global swindle to eliminate fossil fuels, so that a few, at the expense of the many average people, can reap huge profits from either carbon taxes or alternative fuels. Science is a search for truth – nothing else; when scientific truth is trashed for personal gain, the world is in deep trouble!


  1. Ross, R. J., and Elliott, W.P., “Radiosonde-Based Northern Hemisphere Tropospheric Water Vapor Trends”

Journal of Climate, Vol. 14, 1602-1612, July 7, 2000.

2. Petit, J.R., et. al., “Climate and Atmospheric History of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok Ice Core,

Antarctica”, Nature 399: 429-436, June 3, 1999.

3. Global Warming Petition Project,

4. U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – December 11, 2008.

5. National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration data: and .

6. Hydrocarbon Processing “Ozone destruction major cause of warming!”, Robert Ashworth, guest columnist, Part 1- October 10, 2010, Part 2 – November 9, 2010. Complete article can be read @

7. HadAT2 radiosonde developed by the United Kingdom Met Office Hadley Centre, maintained by Peter Thorne

and Holly Titchner. Hosted by Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Change.

8. Pearch, R.W. and Bjorkman, O., “Physiological effects”, in Lemon, E.R. (ed.), CO 2 and Plants: The Response

of Plants to Rising Levels of Atmospheric CO2 (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1983), pp 65-105

9. Travis, D., A. Carleton, and R. Lauritsen, 2002: Contrails reduce daily temperature range. Nature, 418, 601.



12. David Evans, “Carbon Emissions Don’t Cause Global Warming”, November 28, 2007,





Filed under Uncategorized

6 responses to “Global Warming from CO2, All Politics – No Science!

  1. Burton Floyd

    Excellent article!

  2. The case could be made much better with CO2 measured in billions of metric tons of carbon.
    Tom Shipley

  3. Finley Shapiro

    Ashworth writes “. . . most physicists, climatologists and meteorologists in recent times have not taken courses in thermodynamics so many don’t understand the first two laws of thermodynamics.”

    He then goes on to state “The earth gets hit on average by 1367.5 watts/m^2 and Mars by 589.2 watts/m^2 of solar irradiance. The average temperature on earth is 288.3°K and the average temperature on Mars is 208.3°K. Now then if the Earth had the identical composition and atmospheric pressure as Mars, based on the solar irradiance hitting it, the average temperature on earth would be (1367.6/589.2) x 208.3 = 483.5°K. The earth’s atmosphere therefore provides a cooling effect (483.5-288.3) of 195°K (383°F), compared to the temperature effect of a sparse Mars atmosphere.”

    The equation is simply incorrect. I have not confirmed the measurements for earth and Mars, but if we accept them as correct, a very simplistic model based on a correct knowledge of thermodynamics changes Ashworth’s equation to 208.3x(1367.6/589.2)^1/4=257.1°K. The earth is warmer than this due to the atmosphere. The correct way to do the calculation has been known and accepted for about 100 years. (Ashworth’s error is that he uses an equation for how an object gives off heat to a surrounding fluid rather than an equation for how an object gives off heat to the vacuum of space.)

    A more detailed calculation would undoubtedly give a slightly different result, but the point would still hold. A correct calculation supports the point that Ashworth claims he is disproving.

  4. Reed Gibby

    I appreciated the graph showing that CO2 concentrations lagged temperature increases. Period. The rest of the article lacks an understanding of some atmospheric science. In general, when solar radiation enters the atmosphere, a considerable amount of it is absorbed. The balance of the radiation reaches the Earth’s surface, which is heated and then, the warm surface radiates infrared energy back toward space. While most of the shorter wavelength energy escapes to space, the longer wavelength energy is absorbed by GHG. The retention of this energy is the greenhouse effect. If the absorption is excessive, an increase in global temperature is likely.
    More specifically the solar radiation, most of it being ultraviolet and visible light, reaches the Earth’s surface. Most of this radiation ranges in wavelength from about 0.2 µm to 2 µm with the ultraviolet light being less than 0.4 µm and infrared radiation being more than 0.7 µm. Obviously, the visible range is between 0.4 and 0.7 µm. Much of the inbound ultraviolet radiation from the sun is absorbed by O3, and O2 absorbs some of the visible light. As this radiation warms the surface of the Earth, infrared radiation ranging from about 3 µm to 30 µm is emitted toward space. There are a number of GHG with water molecules for vapor and clouds consisting of upwards of 90% by volume and CO2, CH4 and other minor GHG making out the rest. [CO2 is a MINOR GHG not much more than 5% of ALL GHG.] The GHG absorb a significant portion of the escaping infrared radiation waves thereby retaining heat. Without this greenhouse affect, the Earth would be a very cold planet.

    • johnosullivan

      Reed Gibby, you are re-stating the discredited hypothesis of ‘back radiation heating’ of the so-called greenhouse gas effect as put forward by climatologists. But the idea that incoming IR gets two shots at heating the earth’s surface by being bounced back again by (cooler) CO2, after already being radiated away from the surface upon initial heating from the sun, is contrary to the laws of thermodynamics as proven by scientists with specialist training in thermodynamics. As they have shown, cold things cannot make warm things even warmer. See here for a scientific explanation:

      Also, if the enhanced heating effect of CO2 was true then our planet would not have experienced ice ages when atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were many orders of magnitude higher than today’s values.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s