CO2 is absolutely insignificant in the climate on Earth

by Carl G. Looney, Ph.D.
(Reno, NV)

But we're caught up in the idea anyway.

But we're caught up in the idea anyway.

Yes, I am afraid you have it wrong. The historical data show that CO2 and temperatures on the Earth's surface are independent. This data is what actually happens on Earth and is not the result of conjectures.

It has been much hotter when CO2 levels were lower, and also it has been much colder when CO2 levels were higher. And there have been times with just the opposite of these factors. So the factors of temperatures on Earth's surface and the levels of CO2 (from any and all sources) are INDEPENDENT of each other.

The only greenhouse gas of any significance for the Earth is WATER VAPOR, at 22,000 parts per million (versus 386 ppm for CO2). Further, water vapor absorbs about 50 times as much infrared radiation as does CO2, and it also absorbs visible light (by far most of the Sun's radiated energy is in the visible light range because of its high surface temperature).

CO2 does NOT absorb visible light; it absorbs only a very narrow band of infrared, while water vapor absorbs a much larger band of radiation waves.

If one looks at the science, and then at the motivation for the CO2 scare, one sees an ominous attempt at a scam. How would Al Gore understand the situation. He is NOT a scientist in any lower sense of the word. He stands to make billions of dollars while making most of us poorer and colder. He is the head of Generation Investment in London, handled by Goldman Sachs. His cut of the pie if we adopt the "carbon" laws he wants is about $5 billion per year.

That is just plain obscene. But the blatant lack of human values this man has does not prove or disprove anything about the role of global warming/cooling. That belongs to unbiased and unfettered SCIENCE.

A Demonstration

Try this experiment that I have tried. Put some CO2 and a little water in one gallon jug, and put the same amount of water in the other jug. Put them both in the sunshine with a thermometer in each (test them to see that they give the same temperatures). Leave them in the sunshine for a few hours. The only difference is that one has only the CO2 from the atmosphere, including that from the burning of fossil fuels, and the other has lots of CO2. After they have both warmed in the sunshine, read the thermometers. Is there a difference. There was none in my experiment.

This doesn't mean that the NEW attempt by those who have a lot to gain by a "coming catastrophe," the conjecture that the upper fringes of the atmosphere would have enough extra CO2 to block the outgoing radiation of heat from the Earth, are incorrect. But the science definitely goes against this new conjecture. The atmosphere is so sparse up there that the infrared quanta of energy from water vapor, and the insignificant amount from CO2, would pass right through to outer space.

It would be like randomly shooting into a lake of many square miles in which there were a few fish and hoping to hit one. On very few instances, relatively, a fish may be hit, but the other shots would not hit one. So the energy in the upper atmosphere just goes out to space.

Even if it hits a CO2 molecule, that CO2 molecule will absorb it as thermal energy and then shoot it back into space as a new quantum of energy. Putting the whole scenario together, there is no way that any heat (molecular motion of molecules) can be blocked from the Earth. The Earth behaves as a black body and radiates energy absorbed from the Sun back out to space through the sparse sieve of the upper atmosphere.

The oceans are the reservoirs of thermal energy on the Earth, while the atmosphere keeps a very small amount of it. The Great Warm Water Pool (GWWP) along the Equator from Africa, across the Indian Ocean to past Indonesia and Australia, expands and contracts as it warms and cools in cycles of a few decades. This controls the El Ninos, the floods, the droughts, the amount of snow and the buildup or decrease of glacial mass.

If you haven't studied the data, as well as the wobbly path of the Sun that orbits the center of gravity of the Solar Sytem (it causes the sunspot cycles that affect our weather), then you ought not be posturing a belief about the climate of the Earth (either way), which is always changing. The Wolf-Gleissberg cycles are related to the GWWP that is related to the varying water level in Lake Victoria in Africa.

For much more, go to (a Web site that explains much more, but it may be under construction still).

-- Cheers

Barry's Response - Wow. Quite insightful. Thanks for your input, Carl.

Want to know more about the physics of global warming? It's important if you need to make impactful decisions.

Search this site for more information now,

Comments for CO2 is absolutely insignificant in the climate on Earth

Average Rating starstarstarstarstar

Click here to add your own comments

Interacting Climate Factors
by: Anonymous

No one knows how all of the factors affecting the Sun, nor those affecting climate and weather on Earth. The way these factors interact has not been worked out well.
But these factors are listed in an edocument at

We should be able to start putting it all together from these factors.

Click here to add your own comments

Join in and write your own page! It's easy to do. How? Simply click here to return to Cause of Global Warming.

ADD TO OTHER SOCIAL BOOKMARKS: add to add to DiggDiggadd to SpurlSpurl

Are you concerned about Air Pollution in your area?

Maybe modelling air pollution will get you the answers you need for this problem.

That's what I do full-time.  Try it.

Have your Say...

on the StuffintheAir         facebook page

See the newsletter chronicle. 

Catch me at Trafeze