Headlined The Most Comprehensive Assault on “Global Warming” Ever data analysis expert Mike Van Biezen explains that he first thought CO₂ was indeed a significant greenhouse gas until he saw that while CO₂ was steadily increasing between 1940 and 1980 global average temperatures were not only not increasing along with CO₂, but were slightly declining. To a data analyst this shift seemed to mean that there is no correlation between CO₂ and global temperature. We’ve all heard that “correlation is not causation”, and that’s an obvious truism. Two things can seem to occur simultaneously but it’s a logical fallacy to assume, without more, that one caused the other. It’s just as true that lack of correlation rules out any causal connection between different phenomena.
Van Biezen decided to look further into the matter. He starts by saying, “Before we begin, let’s establish what we know to be correct.” I like that. I always found that to be the best way to begin a closing argument to a jury. The goal is make sure the facts that are not in dispute don’t get lost, so the verdict bears some resemblance.
He goes on to list “10 of the many scientific problems [things we know to be correct] with the assumption human activity is causing ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’”:
Since I have been binging on evidence that CO₂ is a very insignificant greenhouse gas, overtaken by water vapor, [See, e.g., How Much Does Carbon Dioxide Contribute to Global Warming?] I like his point number 7:
7. CO2 cannot, from a scientific perspective, be the cause of significant global temperature changes:
The CO2 molecule is a linear molecule and thus only has limited natural vibrational frequencies, which in turn give this molecule only limited capability of absorbing radiation that is radiated from the Earth’s surface. The three main wavelengths that can be absorbed by CO2 are 4.26 micrometers, 7.2 micrometers, and 15.0 micrometers. Of those 3, only the 15-micrometer is significant because it falls right in range of the infrared frequencies emitted by Earth. However, the H2O molecule which is much more prevalent in the Earth’s atmosphere, and which is a bend molecule, thus having many more vibrational modes, absorbs many more frequencies emitted by the Earth, including to some extent the radiation absorbed by CO2.
It turns out that between water vapor and CO2, nearly all of the radiation that can be absorbed by CO2 is already being absorbed. Thus increasing the CO2 levels should have very minimal impact on the atmosphere’s ability to retain heat radiated from the Earth. That explains why there appears to be a very weak correlation at best between CO2 levels and global temperatures and why after the CO2 levels have increased by 40% since the beginning of the industrial revolution the global average temperature has increased only 0.8 degrees centigrade, even if we want to contribute all of that increase to atmospheric CO2 increases and none of it to natural causes.
Since we know that in its history earth has warmed and cooled many times all due to natural causes we should never attribute any warming or cooling to anything else without solid proof. That would require empirical evidence, not just computer models that are subject to easy manipulation by fraudsters.
Van Biezen adds lots of scientific analysis to what I’ve said here, many times. Cool.