1 of 31

Global Warming and Climate Change

The Impact of Greenhouse Gases on Earth’s Spectral Radiance

This paper is presented in two Parts, Part A and Part B. Part A uses an analogy to
simplify the subject while retaining scientific rigour. Part B is a more detailed analysis.

PART A
Simplified Explanation about the Content of this Paper
This following analogy is presented to assist readers understand the principles
underlying the content of this paper.
White light is made up of all the colours of the rainbow and each colour consists of
electromagnetic waves of particular wavelengths. White light is a radiation, it is radiated
from a source, like a light bulb or the Sun. Figure 1 shows the colours of white light
separated into the colours of the rainbow by their wavelengths, shown in nanometres
(nm). One nanometre is one millionth of a millimetre in length; that is, 1 nanometre =
0.000001 millimetre.

Figure 1: The wavelengths of white light

If each colour of this rainbow were used to colour a separate segment of a cardboard
disc having a pin through its centre and the disc were to be spun quickly like a top, then
the disc would appear to be white. No individual colour would be seen. Figure 2 below
shows such a colour wheel.

Figure 2: Colour Wheel

The terms, spectral range, spectra, spectral and spectrum are used throughout this
paper. These terms refer to the range of wavelengths of a particular radiation. For
example, the red part of the spectrum of white light in Figure 1 has a spectral range
from about 625 nm to 740 nm. The colour to the right of the red spectrum becomes
 2 of 31

more orange as you move towards the yellow spectrum; that is towards shorter
wavelengths.
Like the spinning disc of colours described above, white light can be represented also if
the segments of the spinning disc are coloured only red, green, and blue. This is the
RGB colour mode used on computer monitors. Now, if this three colour disc has the
blue removed, leaving only red and green, the colour seen when spinning the disc is
yellow. If the green is removed, leaving only the red and blue, the colour seen when
spinning the disc is magenta. This is indicated in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3: Superimposing the colours red, green, and blue.

As can be seen in Figure 3, the colour magenta is obtained by removing the colour
green from white light, leaving only the red and blue wavelengths. To do this, we can
place a special glass filter that absorbs green light between a source of white light and
a screen (the filter can be made from any material that will pass light through it). The
green light is absorbed by the filter and the light transmitted through the filter is the red
and blue, which together make the colour magenta. This is shown in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4: A magenta filter absorbs green light from white light

A magenta filter that is only 25% effective in absorbing green light will allow 75% of the
green light to pass through it. Adding four such filters would make the overall filtering of
the green light 100%; no green light would pass through. Adding even more such
filters would have no further effect on green light because there would be no
more green light remaining to absorb.
This analogy will be applied to the impact that atmospheric Greenhouse gases have on
Earth’s thermal emissions. A “Greenhouse gas” (GHG) is defined simply as one which
can absorb infra-red energy at particular wavelengths from the total spectral range of
Earth’s emissions. The atmospheric gases which absorb this energy are principally
carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapour (H2O), with minor contributions from methane
 3 of 31

(CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Each Greenhouse gas can be likened to a filter, like the
magenta filter described above.
Note: Using nanometres results in large numbers. Converting to micrometers (µm)
gives smaller numbers; where 1 µm = 1,000 nm. Micrometers will be used throughout
most of this paper from here on.
The wavelengths of radiation from a hot body (the Sun) or a warm body (the Earth) are
determined by the temperature of the body. The Sun emits energy at the short
wavelengths of ultraviolet, visible light, and some “near infrared” radiation. The next
graph, Figure 5, shows that most of the Sun’s radiation received by the Earth lies
between about 0.2 µm and 2 µm (the red curve), with its most intense radiation within
the visible part of the spectrum. Much of this radiation passes through the atmosphere
to hit the Earth’s surface unhindered by Greenhouse gases, which are largely
transparent to these wavelengths. The radiation emitted by the Earth that is very much
cooler than the Sun lies mostly between 5 µm and 35 µm (the blue curve). The
Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere selectively absorb some of these wavelengths
thereby limiting some of the Earth’s radiation into space with a consequential warming
of the Earth. This is the Greenhouse effect.

Figure 5: Radiation received and emitted by the Earth

In the magenta filter analogy, replace the white light with the thermal radiation from the
Earth. Replace the several layers of magenta filters with increasing concentrations
(layers) of atmospheric CO2. The analogous result is that there is an amount of CO2 in
the atmosphere that will absorb all of the thermal radiation from the Earth that falls
within the wavelengths that CO2 is able to absorb, like the magenta filter, meaning
that adding more CO2 will have no further effect. This explanation applies also to all
other Greenhouse gases. In reality, the edges of the absorption band of CO2, say, are
fuzzy, not sharp, so there is a very small warming effect by adding more CO2 if CO2
were the only Greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
To explain that last statement, an important fact is that some Greenhouse gases
absorb the same wavelengths as other Greenhouse gases. For example, the main
absorption band of CO2 is from about 13 µm to 17 µm. At the present atmospheric
CO2 concentration of about 400 parts per million (400 ppm), CO2 alone would absorb
almost 100% of the radiation within this band. However, atmospheric water vapour
overlaps this band completely and by itself would absorb about 50% of the radiation
that lies within the CO2 band. That is, there is a capacity to absorb about 150% of the
radiation from the Earth that lies between 13 µm and 17 µm. This means, therefore,
 4 of 31

that adding more CO2, or water vapour, can have no further significant effect.
Indeed, the CO2 or the water vapour concentrations could be reduced by a third in total
and the combination would still affect full absorption. Some scientists, including
Witteman and Coe (see Acknowledgements at the end of Part B of this paper), state
that complete absorption could occur with an atmospheric CO2 concentration as low as
200 ppm; that is, at about the concentration that existed at the start of the industrial
revolution in 1750.
There are many influences on climate change and many are not fully understood.
Indeed many are poorly understood. The latest IPCC Assessment Report No. 6 (see
Acknowledgements), at page 5-87, accepts that each increase of atmospheric CO2 has
a smaller and smaller effect on global temperature. It also mentions at pages 7-111 and
7-112 the claims that atmospheric CO2 is already saturated and will not lead to further
warming, but counters this by noting that some scientists refuted this conclusion in the
1950s. A close search of the nearly 4,000 page document found no new analysis of this
saturation argument. The Report does agree there are many studies that mostly imply
a lower sensitivity of temperature to CO2 concentration than that proposed by the
IPCC, while stating also that some studies show high sensitivity. However, the IPCC
Report selects a middling result in its conclusion about sensitivity, seemingly averaging
the conclusions of the papers it has chosen.
The IPCC uses “consensus” to determine its position about climate change. This is akin
to taking a middle course. However, true science has nothing to do with consensus.
The term has been confused with the scientific requirement that scientific experiments
must be able to be replicated by other scientists and reach the same result. It has
nothing to do with some scientists agreeing with the opinions and theories of some
other scientists. As Galileo Galilei said in 1632, "In questions of science, the authority
of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual".
Importantly, the IPCC Report seems to have bypassed evidence that the absorption
bands of atmospheric CO2 and other GHGs, including water vapour, overlap to varying
degrees. Additionally, no mention could be found in the Report of the temperature
feedback, governed by Wien’s Law, that affects Greenhouse gas absorption.
The factors governing Earth’s climate are complex and not fully understood. The impact
of cosmic rays and the many attributes of solar activity are controversial and in a state
of experimentation and theorising. The Earth is warming and the main causes are likely
to do with clouds and Sun activity, with a minor contribution from man-made GHGs;
albeit the large scale, planet-wide, clearing of vegetation and the increasing “heat
island” effect of expanding cities because of population growth will have an effect.
Part B of this paper explores the Impact of Greenhouse Gases on Earth’s Spectral
Radiance in greater detail.

Lindsay Hackett B.Sc 18 December 2021

 5 of 31

Global Warming and Climate Change

The Impact of Greenhouse Gases on Earth’s Spectral Radiance

PART B
Introduction to Main Paper
The average temperature of the Earth is determined solely by the energy balance at
the top of the atmosphere (TOA); the stratopause, the boundary between the
stratosphere and the mesosphere, about 50 km above the Earth’s surface. At
equilibrium, energy input from the sun is balanced by the energy radiating from the
Earth, which is a function of its temperature.
A “greenhouse gas” (GHG) is defined simply as one which can absorb infra-red energy
within the spectral range of Earth’s emissions, being between 3 μm and 100μm
(micrometres). The atmospheric gases which absorb this energy are principally carbon
dioxide (CO2) and water vapour (H2O), with minor contributions from methane (CH4),
ozone (O3) and nitrous oxide (N2O). The term “greenhouse effect” is used to describe
the process whereby short wavelength radiation from the sun is transmitted through the
atmosphere without much effect from GHGs, whereas components of the long
wavelength radiation emitted by the Earth are absorbed to various degrees by the
GHGs, thus limiting reradiation into space with a consequential warming of the Earth.
There are many scientific references that support the content of this paper. Some use
the complex mathematics of Black Body radiation, Plank’s Law for the spread of
radiation frequencies at different temperatures, and Wien’s Displacement Law that
determines the peak frequency of the radiation spectrums for different temperatures,
amongst others. Mostly, these calculations are understood only by scientists and others
versed in such mathematics. This paper presents evidence and argument while
avoiding the complex mathematical detail (References are contained in the section
“Acknowledgements” at the end of this paper).
The paper uses the transmission characteristics of the Earth’s atmosphere as it is now;
that is, containing the present concentrations of GHGs. The analysis takes the present
atmospheric concentration of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere to be 400 parts per million
(ppm), of CH4 to be 1.8 ppm, and of N2O to be 0.32 ppm; that is, 0.04%, 0.00018%,
and 0.000032% respectively. The concentration of atmospheric H2O is temperature
dependent. A value of 80% Relative Humidity is generally assumed for average
atmospheric water content, although local levels can be found across the globe varying
anywhere from almost zero to 100%. At 288 K (15 deg C) and at a Relative Humidity of
80 %, the atmosphere contains about 10 g/m3 of water vapour. This is the equivalent of
about 13,000 ppm. (“Humidity, Relative Humidity and Temperature” and “Converter
Parts per Million” – see Acknowledgements).
The selective heat absorption bands of H2O and CO2 are found to be nearly saturated
at these concentrations within Earth’s emitted radiation band; that is, almost all of the
infra-red (IR) energy falling within the absorption bands of H2O and CO2 has already
been absorbed. Importantly, the overlapping of particular GHG absorption bands
increases absorption to full saturation even when the individual GHG absorption bands
are less than at full saturation. Increases in concentration of these GHGs would have
little further impact. This near saturation occurs also for much smaller concentrations of
 6 of 31

these gases, including for CO2 at 200 ppm (Witteman, and Coe et al – see
Acknowledgements).
The GHGs CH4 and N2O have very low atmospheric concentrations and are shown to
have very low climate sensitivities, even though CH4 and N2O have higher Global
Warming Potentials (GWP) than CO2.
The results of this paper conflict with important conclusions of the latest IPCC
Assessment Report No. 6 (see Acknowledgements). The statements by the IPCC and
others that Global Warming and Climate Change will be seriously affected by man-
made CO2 and other emissions in the future are disputed.
Additionally, the Summary for Policymakers in the latest IPCC Assessment Report No.
6 cannot be relied upon. It contains statements that are not supported by the technical
detail of the Report let alone being demonstrably wrong; including for example the
statement that the frequency of global tropical cyclones is likely to have increased over
the last four decades, when they have not (Global Tropical Cyclone Activity by Dr Maue
and Tropical Cyclones by NOAA - see Acknowledgements).
GHGs do influence Earth’s climate but are not the only influencers. Solar events,
cosmic rays, clouds, the Milankovitch Cycles, and many other factors are important.
Some studies show that ‘cloudiness’ has a major and dominating temperature
influence.
This paper will discuss the effect of Greenhouse gases by exploring concentrations
ranging from those of today to vastly increased amounts. There is no reasonable
expectation that the extreme concentrations would be produced by mankind.
Finally, no attempt has been made to “homogenise’” or otherwise manipulate the data
to support a desired position.

Earth’s CO2 and Temperature History

Long-term temperature changes occur due to changes in the Earth’s “climatic
equilibrium” that is affected by a great many influences. These include the level of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, clouds, the geographic configuration of the
continents and ocean basins, the effectiveness of erosion and chemical weathering of
rocks, volcanism, meteor impacts, the reflectivity of the Earth’s surface (albedo), the
Milankovitch Cycles, and cosmic rays. Many of these factors are interconnected by a
complex network of positive and negative feedback loops that can accelerate or
decelerate changes in long-term global temperature. Reactions to inputs can be
delayed for many years. Determining what has caused temperature changes in the
past is difficult. All estimations are ‘best estimates’ only, with many assumptions.
Albedo is a comparison between the amount of radiation reflected from the surface to
the amount of radiation that hits it. The type of surface that sunlight first encounters is
the most important factor. Forests, grasslands, ocean surfaces, ice caps, deserts, and
cities all absorb, reflect, and radiate differently. Sunlight falling on a white glacier
surface strongly reflects back into space, resulting in minimal heating of the surface
and lower atmosphere. Sunlight falling on a dark desert soil is strongly absorbed, on
the other hand, and contributes to significant heating of the surface and lower
atmosphere. Cloud cover also affects greenhouse warming by both reducing the
amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface and by reducing the amount of
radiation energy emitted into space.
 7 of 31

Simplistically, in a laboratory setting, close correlations between CO2 and temperature

can be shown. Adding CO2 can increase temperature in a purely gaseous
environment. However, the converse is true; increasing temperature can increase CO2
when CO2 has been partially absorbed in water. Neither experiment represents the
very complex nature of Earth’s environment.
Figure 1, below, has been copied from my paper, “Global Warming Misunderstood”
(see Acknowledgements) and was produced from the separate works of Scotese and
Berner (see Acknowledgements) who both indicated that much of the proxy data used
in producing their individual graphs was uncertain and controversial to varying degrees.

Figure 1: Atmospheric CO2 and Global Temperature, from Proxy Evidence

Displaying the independent results of these studies, Berner for CO2 and Scotese for
Temperature, the result as seen in Figure 1 shows little causative correlation of CO2
driving temperature. For example, Figure 1 shows that the temperature was about 22
deg C at each of the atmospheric CO2 concentrations and times before the present, as
follows:
 at about 1200 ppm, 50 million year before the present (myBP);
 at about 2700 ppm, 160 myBP;
 at about 3000 ppm, 370 myBP; and
 at about 5400 ppm, 480 myBP.
This lack of correlation might be explained by the effect of and interactions between the
myriad of impacts outlined on page 6. An alternative explanation is that atmospheric
CO2 concentration is not the main driver of temperature as is generally assumed. This
latter explanation is explored in this paper.
In “Global Warming Misunderstood”, I plotted CO2 and temperature variations from
Vostok ice core data. Of particular interest was the finding that CO2 lagged
temperature at the end of the last ice age by about 800 years, confirming the results of
other recently reported studies. Certainly, Vostok data cannot be assumed to represent
 8 of 31

global data. However, the relationship between CO2 and temperature was conclusive,
at that time and in that region.
Another study of data sourced between January 1980 and December 2011 concluded
that there is a phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the
different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature,
surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature. The study found that
changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagged behind corresponding
changes in temperature. (Humlum et al – see Acknowledgements).
It is against this backdrop that present climate change must be considered.

Source of Heat
The Sun is the primary source of external heat for the Earth. It is the interrelated
characteristics of the Sun and the Earth that determine how much Earth warms or
cools; including the characteristics of Earth’s atmosphere. The ‘Greenhouse’ effects of
CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere, as well as other influences that are discussed
in this paper, are significant to varying degrees in determining this reaction.
In the following discussion, the temperature unit used will be the Kelvin. The Kelvin is
the base unit of temperature in the International System of Units (SI), having the unit
symbol K. Zero degrees K is equal to minus 273.15 deg Centigrade (C). 1 deg K is
equal to 1 deg C. Figure 2 shows this relationship.

Figure 2: Temperature Conversion

Important Matters in Contention

The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) states that “based
on preliminary analysis, the global average atmospheric carbon dioxide in 2020 was
412.5 parts per million, setting a new record high amount despite the economic
slowdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, the jump of 2.6 ppm over 2019
levels was the fifth-highest annual increase in NOAA's 63-year record”. (Climate
Change: Atmospheric Carbon – see Acknowledgements)
If indeed man-made CO2 emissions decreased during the period of the COVID-19
pandemic but global CO2 concentrations actually increased, then there must be
another source of CO2 emissions, likely to be the warming oceans. Attributing the
major cause of global warming to man-made CO2 might be misguided.
 9 of 31

NOAA also states that “the combined land and ocean temperature has increased at an
average rate of 0.13 degrees Fahrenheit ( 0.08 degrees Celsius) per decade since
1880; however, the average rate of increase since 1981 (0.18°C / 0.32°F) has been
more than twice that rate”. (Climate Change: Global Temperature – see
Acknowledgements)
If this latter rate of 0.18 K per decade were to continue at a linear rate, then the
temperature would increase by another 1.8 K one hundred years from now. The Paris
Agreement of 2015 established the long term goal of keeping the global average
temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit
the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. The present rate of
temperature increase does not exceed the Paris target for about one hundred years, if
the rate is linear. However, as will be seen in this paper, each incremental increase of
atmospheric CO2 has a proportionately smaller and smaller effect on global
temperature; the effect is not linear, rather logarithmic.
The IPCC modelling is suspect. No model should be used to forecast events unless the
model works accurately when back-tested and then only when the input variables
remain within the limits of the model parameters into the future and there is confidence
that no other variable might appear, or an included variable might disappear, to disturb
the model. Earth’s climate is impacted by many variables with most being poorly
understood or not included in the models. As such, the IPCC and other climate models
should not be used to forecast future climate.

Radiation Received by the Earth

Without worrying about the specific detail of black body radiation and absorption, the
Sun and the Earth can be modelled approximately as black bodies. The following
graph, Figure 3, shows the spectrum of wavelengths emitted by the sun that is incident
on the Earth (Spectral Radiance Calculator – see Acknowledgements).

Figure 3: Spectral Radiance of the Sun

Note that the temperature of the Sun is generally agreed to be 5525 K, and the spread
of wavelengths with any significant energy is between about 0.2 and 2.0 µm.
This is the radiance received at the Earth; the downgoing solar radiation.
 10 of 31

Radiation Emitted by the Earth

Using Planck’s Law, Figure 4 shows the wavelength spectrum emitted by the Earth at
its average temperature of 288K. Here the spread of wavelengths with any significant
energy is between about 3 and 60 µm.

Figure 4: Spectral Radiance of Earth

This is the radiance of the Earth; the upgoing thermal radiation.

Note the relative strengths of the spectral radiances for the Sun and Earth. For
example, the peak radiances are:
 Sun = 21,500,000 W/m2/sr/µm.
 Earth = 8 W/m2/sr/µm.
Combining Figures 3 and 4 illustratively produces Figure 5 (not to scale). The
horizontal axis has been changed to a logarithmic scale for convenience and to allow
both graphs to be presented on the page using a continuous wavelength axis. Two
additional graphs have been added to the upgoing thermal radiation graph for different
Earth temperatures using Wien’s Law. The upgoing thermal radiation curve moves to
the left with temperature increases and to the right with temperature decreases. The
present temperature of the Earth is 288 K.

Wavelength (µm)

Figure 5: Incoming and outgoing radiation at the Earth

 11 of 31

From Figure 5, only Greenhouse gases that have absorption bands between about
5µm and 50 µm are relevant because only in those wavelengths is there any significant
radiation from the Earth to absorb.

Effect of Atmospheric Gases on Radiation

The absorption of radiation received and emitted by the Earth is affected by the
transmissibility of the gases in the atmosphere. All atmospheric gases have a unique
pattern of energy absorption. They absorb some wavelengths of energy but are
transparent to others (windows).
No atmospheric GHG is a cover-all blanket.
Figure 6 below shows the absorption characteristics of the main atmospheric gases of
concern, at their present concentrations, including CO2 at 400 ppm. (Adapted from
graphs by Robert A. Rohde – see Acknowledgements).

Figure 6: Absorption by ‘Greenhouse’ Gases

Note especially in Figure 6 that the vertical scale for each gas measures the
percentage of the Earth’s radiation that is absorbed by that gas within its absorption
band, where 0% is at the bottom of each graph and 100% is at the top. For example,
within the spectral range shown, water vapour absorbs 100% of Earth’s radiation
between 20 µm and 70 µm.
Only the wavelengths to the right of the vertical, black, dashed line (longer wavelengths
– less energy) are within the band of Earth’s significant IR emissions. The only CO2
absorption band of significance then is the 15 µm band. The significant radiation from
the Sun lies to the left of the vertical, black, dotted line (shorter wavelengths – more
energy). Consequently, the absorption bands of Greenhouse gases lying between
these two vertical lines, being between about 2 µm and 5 µm, are essentially irrelevant
to global warming.
 12 of 31

Most importantly in Figure 6, shown in the pink coloured columns, are the wavelengths
within Earth’s emissions where the absorption bands of some Greenhouse gases
overlap others. When overlapped, one greenhouse gas competes with the absorption
of the others. Once 100% absorption has occurred, the excess absorption capacity has
no effect. Water vapour is a major component of these overlaps. The overlaps shown
are:
 N2O, CH4 and H2O at about 8 µm; and
 N2O, O3, CO2 and H2O at about 15 µm.
This section will describe radiant energy in terms of photons, not wavelengths unless
indicated otherwise. A photon of electromagnetic energy is a particle representing a
discrete amount of electromagnetic radiation. A photon carries energy proportional to
the radiation frequency but has zero rest mass.
The energy of a photon is related to the inverse of its wavelength. Therefore, the
shorter the wavelength is of a radiation, the more energetic the photon. Photons
radiated by the Earth have the energies and wavelengths shown in Figure 4. Some of
these photons pass through the atmosphere and into space without encountering any
other atmospheric molecules. Many, with the correct energy, collide with molecules of
Greenhouse gases and are absorbed momentarily, increasing the energy of the gas by
causing the bonds between the atoms comprising the molecule to vibrate in particular
modes. When a vibrating molecule returns to its initial state, its ground state, it will emit
a photon of the original energy in an arbitrary direction, with some photons directed
back towards the Earth’s surface. Differently, the energised Greenhouse gas molecule
might collide with another atmospheric molecule of any type, like oxygen and nitrogen.
The total energy is then shared in the collision by causing the non-Greenhouse
molecule to vibrate and by the Greenhouse gas molecule returning to its initial ground
state and emitting radiation at a longer wavelength, lesser energy, than that originally
absorbed.
Considering CO2, the present atmospheric CO2 concentration of about 400 ppm
equates to 1.145 x 10+16 molecules of CO2 per cubic centimetre. The four main
absorption bands for CO2, 2 µm, 2.7 µm, 4.3 µm, and 15 µm (Figure 7 on page 14)
emit a total of 6.929 x 10+7 photons per cm3. That is, there is one photon for every
165,300,000 CO2 molecules, at 288 K. Calculations determine that all of the radiation
within the four bands of CO2 emitted from the Earth’s surface at an average
temperature of 288 K would have been absorbed within a few hundred metres of the
surface, leaving the vast majority of the CO2 molecules in their vibrational ground state.
(Dockery – see Acknowledgements).
Figure 6 on the previous page shows that of the four main absorption bands of CO2,
only the 15 µm absorption band lies within the significant part of Earth’s emitted
radiation spectrum at its temperature of 288 K. The 4.3 µm band lies at the short
wavelength end of the spectrum but has a relatively miniscule intensity. The
overwhelming majority of photons absorbed by atmospheric CO2 molecules will be in
the 15 micron band that emits 6.917 x 10+7 photons per cm3. That is, one photon for
every 165,500,000 CO2 molecules.
At these atmospheric CO2 densities, there is little to no chance that a photon emitted
by the Earth could pass through the atmosphere without being absorbed by a CO2
molecule if the photon had an energy lying within the absorption band of CO2. Indeed,
most photons absorbed by CO2 would be and are absorbed in the lower atmosphere
as previously mentioned.
 13 of 31

The additional vibration energy of atmospheric molecules due to collisions warms the
lower atmosphere because temperature is a measure of the total vibrational energies of
the molecules forming the atmosphere. This warming can be likened to the
Greenhouse effect. Earth's temperature would be much cooler at 255 K (-18C) without
some greenhouse effect.
As described on the previous page, a photon emitted by the Earth at the speed of light
is captured by a Greenhouse gas and then re-emitted as that Greenhouse gas relaxes
to its ground state. Alternatively, the energised Greenhouse gas molecule collides with
another atmospheric molecule. These captures and releases take place in
microseconds. However, most of the energy transfer is via collisions between
energised Greenhouse gas molecules and other atmospheric molecules like N2 and
O2. These collisions occur within nanoseconds.
Consider the example of CO2. Using energy and heat as interchangeable terms, once
the Earth has emitted a single photon, which is of the correct wavelength that a CO2
molecule is able to absorb, it will perform as follows:
 The photon will be absorbed by a CO2 molecule that will become energised
momentarily before the photon is re-emitted, ‘bouncing’ between other CO2 gas
molecules with each one in turn becoming momentarily energised before
relaxing.
 Differently, the energised CO2 molecule might collide with another atmospheric
molecule and share or exchange energy with it.
 The photon might return to the Earth’s surface.
 The photon might escape to space.
The result is that the energy of this single photon will heat the lower atmosphere by
increasing the vibrational energy within the atmosphere, or it will replace the heat it
took initially from the Earth’s surface, or it might escape to space where the heat will be
lost from the system.
Once there are enough CO2 molecules to absorb each of the photons with the correct
wavelengths emitted by the Earth for the first time then that is the end of the matter.
Subsequent atmospheric photon releases and molecular collisions do not create more
energy or heating. “Energy cannot be created or destroyed.”
Adding even more CO2 molecules merely provides more opportunities for exchange
but cannot create or destroy energy. Hence, there can be no further warming.
The important concept to understand is that the Earth’s atmospheric Greenhouse
gases at their combined present concentrations are effectively fully saturated.
Increasing their concentrations will have no significant effect on Earth’s temperature
other than to decrease the altitude at which complete absorption takes place.

Absorption by CO2 of the Heat Radiated by the Earth

Note by inspection from the CO2 absorption graph in Figure 6 that the 15 µm CO2
absorption band occupies the radiation band from about 13 µm to 17 µm and that CO2
absorbs 100% of thermal wavelengths between about 14 µm and 16 µm.
Assembling elements of Figure 5 and the graphs for Water Vapour and Carbon Dioxide
from Figure 6 produces the following graph, Figure 7.
 14 of 31

Figure 7: Absorption of Earth’s Radiation by Water Vapour and CO2

In Figure 7, the Carbon Dioxide graph and the two vertical lines bracketing the
wavelengths of up going radiation absorbed by CO2 are centred at about 15 µm. These
are located towards the right hand side of the blue radiation curve (centred at about
10 µm). Thus, CO2 has no effect on the higher intensity radiation that gets passed
towards space to the left of its absorption band, nor does it affect the lower intensity
radiation to the right of its band. Note that most of the CO2 absorption band is
overlapped by water vapour (H2O) absorption, thereby reducing the impact of CO2.
As discussed above, increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentration would make
negligible difference in its ability to block the up going radiation because there is
already enough CO2 to block most of the radiation within its 15 µm absorption band.
Importantly, its absorption band is overlapped by water vapour that alone would absorb
about 50% of the radiation lying within the 15 µm CO2 band. That is, there is a capacity
to absorb about 150% of the radiation from the Earth lying between 13 µm and 17 µm.
Adding more CO2 would have no significant effect except that its concentration overall
would increase to give total blocking at a lower altitude. The CO2 at higher altitudes
would be irrelevant as to further blocking.
Bevan Dockery (see Acknowledgements) notes, “This supports results from the
analysis of data at a number of CO2 stations across the globe that satellite lower
troposphere temperature was independent of CO2 concentration”.
The next graph, Figure 8, combines all of the gas absorption graphs from Figure 6 to
show in grey shading the wavelengths at which Earth’s thermal input and output are
partially or totally absorbed by these gases.

Wavelength (µm)

Figure 8: Total Absorption and Scattering

Note: The vertical scale shows the percentage of radiation absorbed.
 15 of 31

Figure 9 results from combining Figures 5 and 8, showing the amount of incoming
radiation from the Sun and outgoing radiation from the Earth that passes through the
“windows”.

Wavelength (µm)

Figure 9: Radiation Transmitted by the Atmosphere

Note: The Blue curve is the Plank curve for the Earth’s present temperature of 288 K.

As can be seen from Figure 9, more radiation is received by the Earth than is radiated
from it (the red area is greater than the orange area). The widely accepted temperature
of the Earth with no Greenhouse gases but with an albedo of 30% that allows for cloud
reflections is 255 K (-18 deg C). This is 33 K less than the present temperature of the
Earth, which is 288 K (+15 deg C). The difference is due to global warming from
Greenhouse gases including water vapour and cloud absorption effects (different from
albedo).

The Effect from Doubling Atmospheric CO2

There are many studies that investigate the effect of increasing atmospheric
Greenhouse gas concentrations. Those referenced in this paper are listed under the
heading “Acknowledgements” at the end of the paper.
It is widely accepted that of the 33 K increase mentioned above, 29.4 K is attributed to
H2O, 3.3 K to CO2 and 0.3 K to CH4 and N2O combined. H2O is by far the dominant
greenhouse gas, and its atmospheric concentration is determined solely by
atmospheric temperature. Like CO2, the strength of most H2O infra-red absorption
bands is such that the radiation within those bands is quickly absorbed in the lower
atmosphere resulting in further increases in H2O concentrations having little further
effect upon atmospheric absorption and hence Earth temperatures. An increase in
average Relative Humidity of 1% will result in a temperature increase of about 0.03 K
(Table 4, page 22 refers).
By comparison, CO2 is a bit player. It, however, does possess strong spectral
absorption bands. The primary CO2 band within Earth’s radiation spectrum is its 15 µm
band that, like H2O, absorbs most of the radiated energy within the lower atmosphere.
As discussed on page 14, the impact of CO2 is diminished because most of its 15 µm
absorption band is overlapped by H2O.
 16 of 31

The IPCC claims the Earth has warmed between 0.5 K and 1.0 K from the date the
industrial revolution started in the year 1750, when CO2 was 280 ppm. However, the
data about global temperature in 1750 is scarce to non-existent. There were no orbiting
satellites, land temperature recording stations were scarce, and ocean temperatures
were recorded intermittently in shipping logs. Hence, the assumed global temperature
for 1750 is highly questionable as to accuracy and, therefore, so is the claimed
temperature increases since that time.
The IPCC states that the cause of the temperature change since 1750 is generally
believed to be from atmospheric CO2 having increased from 280 ppm to about 400
ppm today. Even accepting the temperature change, the cause is questioned by many.
Temperature changes of the Earth can be investigated mathematically by calculating
the absorptivity of CO2 for a range of atmospheric gas concentrations.
The next graph, Figure 10, shows the relationship between temperature and
atmospheric CO2 concentration assuming all other atmospheric constituents remain at
their current values (adapted from Figure 14 in the Coe reference – see
Acknowledgements).

Figure 10: Variation of Equilibrium Earth Temperature with CO2 Concentration

The relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and Earth’s temperature in

Figure 10 is logarithmic; the increases in the temperature of the Earth become less and
less sensitive to increasing atmospheric concentrations of atmospheric CO2.
Figure 10 shows that the increase in CO2 concentration from 280 ppm to 400 ppm is
responsible for 0.20 K of the temperature increase. With feedbacks, this becomes 0.22
K (page 23 refers). Assuming again that the IPCC estimate of the temperature change
from 1750 is correct, the balance of the larger increase claimed by the IPCC must be
from other causes.
Table 1 shows the incremental changes in temperature for every additional of 400 ppm
of atmospheric CO2, calculated from Figure 10.
 17 of 31

Temperature
PPM
Change
400 to 800 0.45
800 to 1200 0.30
1200 to 1600 0.25
Table 1: Relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature

These calculations are informative. The urgency to stop any further increase in
atmospheric CO2 from its present concentration of about 400 ppm is unfounded. An
increase to as much as 600 ppm would raise Earth’s temperature, with feedbacks, by
about 0.33 K; insignificant. Concentrations of CO2 up to 1600 ppm are extremely
unlikely to be produced by mankind.
As stated previously, most of Earth’s emissions that are able to be absorbed by
Greenhouse gases are absorbed in the lower atmosphere. The next graph, Figure 11,
shows that of the Earth’s radiant heat that CO2 and H2O are able to absorb, most is
essentially fully absorbed at today’s concentrations within 5000 metres of the Earth’s
surface (shown as Figure 7 in the Coe reference).

Figure 11: Atmospheric Absorptivity Variation with Altitude

Another approach is to look at the impact of atmospheric Greenhouse gas

concentrations at the mesopause. The mesopause is the temperature minimum at the
boundary between the mesosphere and the thermosphere atmospheric regions about
86 km above the Earth’s surface and defined to be the Top of Atmosphere (TOA). Due
to the lack of solar heating and very strong radiative cooling from carbon dioxide, the
mesosphere is the coldest region on Earth with temperatures as low as 173 K (-100 C).
Figure 12, below, shows the results of calculations done by W. A. van Wijngaarden and
W. Happer (see Acknowledgements). Their calculations include the effect of
overlapping Greenhouse gases.
 18 of 31

Figure 12: CO2 Concentration vs. Filtered Spectral Flux

In Figure 12, the abscissa is shown as “Frequency ν (cm-1)”. To be able to compare this
graph to others in this paper that use microns, frequency can be converted to
wavelength as follows:
Wavelength in µm = 10,000 / (Frequency in cm-1) ……………………. (1)
For example, the peak CO2 absorption frequency in Figure 12 is at 666 cm-1. Using
equation (1) converts 666 cm-1 to the peak absorption wavelength of 15 µm, as is
shown in previous graphs in this paper.
The plots shown in Figure 12 (Figure 4 in the W. A. van Wijngaarden and W. Happer
reference) are:
 The smooth blue line is the spectral flux from a surface at the temperature of
288.7 K for a transparent atmosphere with no greenhouse gases.
 The green line is with the CO2 removed but with all the other greenhouse gases
at their standard concentrations.
 The black line is with all greenhouse gases at their standard concentrations.
 The red line between about 550 cm-1 and 800 cm-1 is for double the standard
concentration of CO2 but with all the other greenhouse gases at their standard
concentrations.
According to Wijngaarden and Happer, doubling the standard concentration of CO2
(from 400 to 800 ppm) would cause a forcing increase (the area between the black and
red lines) of 3 W m-2. They conclude this equates to an increase in surface temperature
of 2.3 K. However, they seem not to have applied a temperature feedback. In any case,
their temperature result seems too high for a forcing of 3 W m-2.
Applying the Radiant Power to Temperature Conversion calculator (see
Acknowledgements), a forcing of 3 W m-2 equates at worst, with zero albedo, to a
temperature increase of 0.55 K. Given the albedo of Earth averages about 30%
including cloud cover, the calculator gives the temperature increase for 3 W m-2 as
about 0.4 K (0.4 C), in line with other estimates previously mentioned. The Wijngaarden
and Happer discrepancy needs to be explained.
 19 of 31

Another study (Schildknecht - see Acknowledgements) concludes that in dry air most
of the CO2 absorption within its 15 µm band occurs near the Earth’s surface and the
value of the total absorption tends towards an asymptotic value as the altitude
increases. There is total absorption between 630 cm-1 and 710 cm-1; that is, between
14 and 16 µm, which agrees with the statement on page 13.
Figure 13 (Figure 2 in the reference) shows this result where the spectrum includes the
effects of the decrease in temperature and pressure with altitude.

Figure 13: The absorbance of 300 ppm and 600 ppm concentrations of CO2 in a dry
atmosphere for a vertical path length from the surface to 7 km altitude. The surface
temperature is 293 K. The lapse rate is – 6.5 K km−1.

Repeating the calculations for moist air demonstrates again the importance of water
vapour on the absorption of IR radiation emitted by the Earth. Figure 14 displays the
results of these calculations (Figure 3 in the reference).

Figure 14: The absorbance of 300 ppm and 600 ppm concentrations of CO2 in a moist
atmosphere for a vertical path length to 7 km altitude. The surface temperature is 293
K. The relative humidity at the surface is 85 % and the lapse rate is - 6.5 K km−1.

Schildknecht calculates that doubling the CO2 concentration in dry air increases the
radiant flux at the Earth’s surface by 6.09 W m-2. However, he calculates that
atmospheric water vapour at a RH of 85% reduces this flux to 2.6 W m-2, equating to a
temperature increase of 0.46 K. This shows conclusively the effect of water vapour on
absorption. Schildknecht states that this result is supported empirically by combining
 20 of 31

the data of sea-surface temperature fluctuations with data on radiation-flux intensities

from the NASA/NOAA “Earth Radiation Budget Experiment” (ERBE) and the NASA
“Clouds and Earth Radiant Energy System” (CERES) experiments.
The temperature increase of about 0.5 K for a doubling of atmospheric CO2
concentration is in close agreement with the other estimates in this paper.
Figure 14 shows clearly that, at present day concentrations, atmospheric CO2
overlapped with water vapour is essentially saturated below 7 km altitude, meaning that
adding more CO2 cannot affect Earth’s temperature other than by a tiny fraction.

Absorption by Methane
Methane (CH4) is about 23 times more effective than CO2 as a Greenhouse gas over a
100 year time span. This assumes methane is continually maintained in the
atmosphere because the lifetime of a particular emission of CH4 is reckoned to be 12
years before it disappears by being oxidized into CO2 and H2O. The 100 year Global
Warming Potential (GWP) of CH4 being 23 means that the global warming contribution
of 1 kg of CH4 is equivalent to 23 kg of CO2.
No single lifetime can be given for carbon dioxide because it moves throughout the
earth system at differing rates. Some carbon dioxide will be absorbed very quickly,
while some will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years.
The present atmospheric concentration of CO2 is 400 ppm and of CH4 is 1.8 ppm. This
means that the present atmospheric CH4 concentration is equivalent to 41.4 ppm of
atmospheric CO2. Consequently, CH4 is a minor actor compared with CO2 at present
concentrations.
Figure 15, below, shows the effect of doubling the concentration of atmospheric
methane on the spectral flux at the mesopause altitude of 86 km, the TOA (Figure 5 in
the Wijngaarden and Happer reference).

Figure 15: Effect of Doubling Methane Concentration

 21 of 31

The blue and black lines in Figure 15 have the same meanings as for Figure 12 on
page 18.
 The green line is with the CH4 removed but with all the other greenhouse gases
at their standard concentrations.
 The red line between the frequencies of 1200 cm-1 and 1400 cm-1 is with twice
the standard concentration of CH4 but with all the other greenhouse gases at
their standard concentrations.
 Doubling the standard concentration of CH4 would cause a forcing increase (the
area between the black and red lines) of 0.7 W m-2.
Applying the Radiant Power to Temperature Conversion calculator (see
Acknowledgements) calculates a temperature increase of 0.09 K (0.09 deg C). As
stated above, the contribution of CH4 to warming is shown to be measurable, but
relatively miniscule.
Importantly, the absorption bands of CH4 are overlapped everywhere by those of H2O,
which dominates the absorption of the Earth’s emissions within the CH4 bands (see
Figure 6 on page 11).
Another study calculated the absorptivity of atmospheric methane with the impact of
current atmospheric levels of CO2, H2O and N2O included; that is, it accounted for the
overlapping absorption bands. The results are presented in Table 2 below (adapted
from Table 3 in the David Coe et al reference).
Present day data is shown in the yellow cells. The cells to the right of the present day
data show the temperature changes from doubling, quadrupling, multiplying by 8, and
multiplying by 16 the present day CH4 concentration.

ppm CH4 1.8 3.6 7.2 14.4 28.8

CH4 absorption % 1.6 2.1 2.8 3.7 4.7

Temperature Kelvin 287.97 288.02 288.09 288.17 288.28

Table 2: Variation of atmospheric absorptivity and Earth temperature with variation in

CH4 concentration up to 16 times the current level of 1.8ppm.

Table 2 shows that doubling the atmospheric concentration of CH4 from its present
level would increase Earth’s temperature by 0.05 K (0.05 deg C), or 0.06 K with
feedbacks; very close to the estimate calculated above from Figure 15; so small as to
be almost immeasurable. As before, the absorption of water vapour swamps CH4
absorption, as is shown in Figure 6.
The present media and popular concerns about methane emissions are shown to have
little foundation.

Absorption by Nitrous Oxide

Similar calculations for N2O concentrations up to 5.1ppm are provided in Table 3. This
is 16 times current atmospheric levels of 0.32 ppm, a level most unlikely to be
produced by mankind (adapted from Table 4 of the David Coe et al reference).
 22 of 31

ppm N2O 0.32 0.64 1.28 2.56 5.12

N2O absorption % 1.7 2.6 3.8 5.4 7.3

Temperature Kelvin 287.97 288.04 288.14 288.28 288.49

Table 3: Variation of atmospheric absorptivity and Earth temperature with variation in

N2O concentration up to 16 times the current level of 0.32ppm.

Table 3 shows that doubling the concentration of atmospheric N2O would increase the
Earth’s temperature by 0.07 K (0.07 deg C), or 0.08 K with feedbacks.
The data clearly shows that adding more N2O to the atmosphere would have minimal
impact on Earth’s temperature because of its very low climate sensitivity and its
absorption bands being overlapped by those of H2O, CH4, and/or CO2 (see Figure 6)
to a degree that makes N2O have little influence on temperature,.

Absorption by H2O
As stated on page 15, of the total 33 K warming of the Earth from its widely accepted
zero-atmosphere temperature of 255 K, 29.4 K is due to atmospheric water vapour.
This makes water vapour the overwhelmingly dominant GHG.
The maximum atmospheric H2O concentration at any time is a direct consequence of
temperature. This maximum is called the saturated vapour pressure (SVP). When the
SVP is exceeded, fog and clouds form and it might start to rain.

Relative Humidity (RH) is the amount of water in the air relative to the maximum
amount of water that the air can hold at a given temperature. That is, the RH is the ratio
of the actual water vapour pressure to the saturation water vapour pressure at the
prevailing temperature. An RH of 0.8 (80%) is generally taken to be the average global
RH.

The calculated emission absorption and temperature changes from variations in RH are
shown in Table 4 (adapted from Table 5 of the David Coe et al reference).

Relative Humidity % 60 70 80 90 100

H2O absorption % 65.1 66.1 67.0 67.8 68.6

Temperature Kelvin 287.3 287.7 288.0 288.2 288.5

Table 4: The impact of variations in mean relative humidity on atmospheric absorptivity

and Earth temperature.

The surprisingly low temperature variation with changes in water vapour concentration
is because the main H2O absorption bands are already well saturated; that is, almost
all of the infra-red energy in those bands has been absorbed already. Changes in
atmospheric H2O concentration have little further effect.
 23 of 31

Water Vapour Feedback

It is often claimed that the increasing temperatures claimed to have been caused by
increasing CO2 levels will result in a positive temperature feedback. The argument is
that the increasing atmospheric temperature will increase the SVP of H2O, thus
enabling the atmosphere to retain higher levels of moisture, giving rise to significantly
higher climate sensitivity values. The quantum of this feedback is explored below.
A temperature increase ΔT from whatever cause will result in an increase in H2O
saturated vapour pressure ΔSVP and an increase in H2O concentration ΔH2O,
proportional to the temperature increase. This increased H2O concentration will
increase the amount of infra-red radiation absorbed resulting in a further temperature
increase proportional to ΔH2O. The lower altitude levels of the atmosphere have by far
the strongest effects on absorptivity.
Mathematically, this relationship results in an infinite series that can be calculated.
Using lower altitude parameters produces a “worst case” scenario, giving a result that
converges to a value of 1.183 (Coe – see Acknowledgements). This becomes the
amplification factor of IR absorption due to H2O increases for any change in
temperature in Kelvin for any reason. That is, an increase in atmospheric CO2
concentration causes a temperature increase and that increase is amplified by the
water vapour feedback that multiples the temperature increase by 1.183 (18.3%).

Temperature Feedback
Considering Figures 5 and 7, if the Earth were to get warmer from any cause then the
up going radiation distribution curve would shift to the LEFT, shorter wavelengths; per
Wien’s displacement law. The absorption bands of the CO2 (and other GHGs) would
not change.
The result for CO2 would be that a greater proportion of higher intensity radiation,
shorter wavelengths, would pass by to the left of the CO2 absorption band and there
would be LESS intense radiation falling within the CO2 absorption band. Thus, the
greenhouse warming contribution of CO2 for a warmer Earth would be less and so help
bring the Earth back to a cooler climate.
This negative temperature feedback equates to a factor of 0.9498 (Coe, et al).
If the Earth were to get cooler, as it did during the Little Ice Age between the late 1500s
and 1800s, then CO2 would be a stabilizing factor since the up going radiation curve
would shift RIGHT and there would be more photons for CO2 molecules to absorb,
bringing Earth back into a warmer climate.
Coe et al calculate the combined water vapour and temperature feedbacks as being a
factor of 0.9498 x 1.183 = 1.124. That is, the combined water vapour feedback and
temperature effect is to increase the change of temperature caused by an increase in
atmospheric CO2 concentration by an additional 12.4%.

Clouds
Clouds play a complex role in Earth's radiation budget, albeit there appears to be no
conclusive understanding about the effect clouds have on the balance between albedo
and absorption characteristics on an average global basis.
Several acknowledged sources indicate this complexity but point to a dominating effect
by clouds that swamps clear sky calculations of warming where GHGs are treated in
 24 of 31

isolation. There are many papers supporting this concept that appear not to have been
considered by the IPCC.
Clouds within a mile or so of Earth’s surface tend to cool more than they warm. These
low, thicker clouds mostly reflect the Sun’s heat. This cools the Earth’s surface. Clouds
high up in the atmosphere have the opposite affect, they tend to warm Earth more than
they cool by trapping some of the Sun’s heat.
On a global basis, clouds increase the global radiation balance by 40 W m−2 by
absorbing longwave radiation, but decrease it by 56 W m−2 by reflecting solar radiation
to space. The net cloud effect is therefore a reduction of the radiation balance by 16 W
m−2, and is dominated by the cloud albedo effect. (Gerald F. Herman, et al – see
Acknowledgements)
Dr Frans van den Beemt states that “within the troposphere the atmospheric radiation
energy transport processes are subordinated to non-radiation processes. As such
greenhouse gases do not play a big role in the ongoing atmospheric energy distribution
within the troposphere and in setting the temperature near the surface. Other
mechanisms, especially non-radiative processes such as evaporation and clouds
regulate our Earth’s temperature. As a consequence, the atmospheric models that are
based on atmospheric radiation transfer processes, with afterwards corrections for non-
radiation processes, are only useful above the troposphere and the tropospheric
temperatures especially those near the surface are not directly ruled by the
CO2 concentration, but rather by the non-radiative energy transport related to the water
cycle and clouds.” (The Warming Effect of Clouds - see Acknowledgements)
These differing perspectives reinforce the view that the IPCC climate forcing models
are incorrect and its focus on Greenhouse gases is misplaced. Certainly, climate
forecasts based on those models would appear highly doubtful. There remain too many
conflicts in describing the forcings of climate change to be able categorically to forecast
future climate.

Cosmic Rays
Comic rays come from several sources:
 Solar Cosmic Radiation. Solar cosmic radiation refers to sources of radiation in
the form of high-energy particles (predominantly protons) emitted by the sun,
primarily in solar particle events. The Sun not only constantly releases warmth
and light, but also sometimes discharges large amounts of energetic particles
such as protons and other nuclei such as helium ions that are accelerated either
close to the Sun during a flare or in interplanetary space by coronal mass
ejection shocks.
 Galactic Cosmic Radiation. Galactic cosmic radiation refers to sources of
radiation in the form of high-energy particles originating outside the solar system,
but generally from within our Milky Way galaxy. It consists of ionized atoms
ranging from a single proton up to a uranium nucleus. The flux levels of these
particles is very low. However, since they travel very close to the speed of light,
and because some of them are composed of very heavy elements such as iron,
they produce intense ionization as they pass through matter.
 Radiation from Earth’s Radiation Belts (van Allen belts). Van Allen radiation
belts are zones of high-energy particles (especially protons) trapped by Earth’s
magnetic field.
 25 of 31

These cosmic rays interact with the Earth’s atmosphere and have been shown to
influence aerosols and cloud formation; more cosmic rays, more clouds. There is
evidence that ozone in the upper atmosphere can be influenced by cosmic rays. This
atmospheric ionization is reduced when magnetized plasma clouds ejected from
coronal holes on the Sun hit the Earth. These shield part of the cosmic ray flux. These
decreases in flux are called Forbush Decreases (FD).
Henrik Svensmark et al (see Acknowledgements) state that solar activity modulates the
flux of cosmic ray particles that affect aerosols and cloud formation on time scales from
days to millennia while over geological timescales it is the position of the solar system
in our Galaxy that is important. Svensmark et al show that a 10% decrease in cosmic
ray ionization, caused by the five strongest FDs that they studied, resulted in an
increased global TOA radiative forcing of 1–2 W/m2. This net radiation increase was
due to reduced cloud formation causing reduced albedo.

Solar Cycle
Sun related events include the Milankovitch Cycles of the Earth’s orbit, inclination, and
precession characteristics. These cycles are thought to be the initiating cause of the
approximately 100,000 year cycle of ice ages experienced by Earth during the last
800,000 years or so. Milankovitch Cycles are important but are outside the scope of
this paper.
The solar cycle is about 11 years long. Every 11 years or so, sunspots and flares
increase then fade away. The Sun’s magnetic poles flip. The Sun’s intensity increases
then lessens. The Earth heats then cools as a result. Scientists don’t fully understand
the internal churning of the Sun that causes this magnetic flip-flop, so models trying to
forecast the behaviour are many and varied.
Figure 17 shows the solar cycles that have occurred from about the year 1600 until
today (LISIRD – see Acknowledgements).

Figure 17: Historical Total Solar Irradiance Reconstruction (see Acknowledgements)

Figure 17 shows that the Sun's energy output changes by an average of about 0.15%
over the course of a complete cycle; a 0.07 % increase followed by a 0.07% decrease.
Some scientists say this is less than what would be needed to force the change in
 26 of 31

climate being experienced today. Also, scientists have not been able to find convincing
evidence that the 11-year cycle is mirrored in any aspects of the climate beyond the
stratosphere, such as surface temperature, rainfall or wind patterns. However, the
picture is different during a Grand Solar Minimum (GSM).
Note the two Grand Solar Minima (GSM) in Figure 17; the Maunder Minimum and the
Dalton Minimum. GSMs occur when several consecutive solar cycles exhibit less than
average activity for many decades. The Maunder Minimum in the 1600s was weaker
and lasted very much longer than the typical solar minimum. The Maunder Minimum
lasted from the year 1645 until 1715. Interestingly, in Figure 17, the spread of years
shown by the symbol ‘?’ indicates that the actual start of the Maunder Minimum might
have been earlier than stated. The Maunder Minimum occurred in the middle of the
period known as the Little Ice Age, which lasted from 1550 until 1850.
There is debate about the causes of GSMs. Several causes have been proposed,
including cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity (specifically the
catastrophic Kaharoa eruption of Mount Tawarewa in 1315), changes in ocean
circulation, variations in Earth's orbit, Earth’s axial tilt and precession (Milankovitch
Cycles), and others mentioned previously in this paper.
During the period of the Maunder Minimum, many parts of the globe experienced local
floods, droughts, and temperature drops of up to about 5 degrees C. “Repeatedly,
crops either failed or produced little food. Reconstructed tree-ring sequences from the
island of Tasmania, Australia, showed a succession of poor growing seasons in the mid
and late seventeenth century, a period that saw the ‘most prolonged cool period in the
past 700 years.’ In Sweden, a prolonged period of cold weather had reduced crop
yields and trade, and the harvest of 1650 ‘was the worst Sweden had known for fifty
years, or was to know for near fifty more’, and in March, the Stockholm bakers fought
each other at the city gates to secure some of the scarce flour. In China the winters
between 1650 and 1680 formed the coldest spell recorded in the Yangzi and Yellow
river valleys over the last two millennia.” (Maunder Minimum – see
Acknowledgements).
Some studies state that determining an upper limit for the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI)
difference during the Maunder Minimum remains difficult due to the uncertainties in
climate forcings, sensitivity, and temperature reconstructions, but the TSI difference is
most likely not larger than 1 W m−2. Other studies estimate the drop in solar irradiance
during the Maunder Minimum to be about 3 W m-2, which could have caused the 1 K to
1.5 K drop in average global temperature that led to the extreme drops in local
temperatures recorded in many parts of the world at the time. Models indicate that the
drop in temperature was related to ozone in the stratosphere, the layer of the
atmosphere that is between 10 and 50 kilometres from the Earth’s surface. Ozone is
created when high-energy ultraviolet light from the Sun interacts with oxygen. The more
ozone in a given parcel of air, the more heat it retains. Consequently, decreased ozone
in the stratosphere results in lower temperatures. During the Maunder Minimum, the
Sun emitted less strong ultraviolet light, and so less ozone was created thereby cooling
the Earth.
The causes and possible interrelationships of the Little Ice Age and the Maunder
Minimum remain controversial. There are many unknowns.
A solar cycle numbering system started in 1755. NASA states that solar cycle 25 began
in 2019 and will reach its maximum in 2025. However, the maximum is predicted to be
weak, like that of solar cycle 24, which had only half the number of sunspots seen
in solar cycle 23. This decrease in the number of sunspots has led some solar
 27 of 31

physicists to conclude that the Sun may be at the start of a period of inactivity like the
Dalton minimum. Others disagree.
The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) forecasts that the
real solar minimum will start in about 2025 and the cycle might last beyond 2040. It
states this might be the start of a GSM.
Another effect of solar cycles is that long-lived coronal holes can appear. Coronal holes
can develop at any time and location on the Sun, but are more common and persistent
during the years around solar minimum. These are vast regions in the Sun’s
atmosphere where the Sun’s magnetic field opens up to emit streams of solar wind into
space. When the particles from these streams hit the Earth they can cause
geomagnetic storms. These can have significant effects on Earth’s magnetic field,
causing auroras and disruptions to electronic systems. There is evidence of a
connection between the solar wind and climate. The charged particles hitting the
Earth's atmosphere may boost the production of nitrogen oxides that are ozone killers.
This might affect the properties of terrestrial water clouds, particularly the percentage of
those clouds covering the Earth. In turn, significant changes in the cloud cover
influence the temperature of the lower troposphere, with temperatures rising with
decreased cloud cover.
There are many uncertainties, which is why care must be taken in accepting particular
models and forecasts.

Earth’s Magnetic Field Effects

The magnetic field of earth changes its polarity over time. The Earth’s magnetic field
slowly weakens to nearly zero and then flips. The North Pole becomes the South Pole
and vice versa. There have been about 170 of these reversals during the last 76 million
years according to geological evidence. The time between reversals seems to be
growing longer, and is currently about 300,000 years or so. Presently, Earth's magnetic
field is weakening in strength by 5% every 100 years. It might be near zero in another
few thousand years at this rate.
The magnetic field shields Earth from the solar wind mentioned above. If the solar wind
can affect climate then the present weakening of the field might be contributing to
climate change.
This is another factor that needs further research before fixating on Greenhouse gases.

Other Impacts
The wide spread global clearing of vegetation, the draining of wetlands and other water
bodies, and the expansion of cities and other infrastructure that create “heat island
effects” all affect global warming. These impacts are directly related to population
numbers, as is the production of Greenhouse gases. Capping the growth of populations
might be a more effective, practical, and sustainable approach to limiting mankind’s
impact on climate. The impact of population growth needs much more study.

Summary
Likely changes in the concentration of Greenhouse gases from their present
concentrations are seen not to be a significant influence on global warming. This paper
 28 of 31

shows that even doubling the concentrations from their present amounts would be a
minor influence on global temperature.
The factors governing Earth’s climate are complex and not fully understood. The impact
of cosmic rays, clouds, and the many attributes of solar activity are controversial and in
a state of experimentation and theorising. Mathematical models of climate are
abundant but none have yet been validated such that accurate forecasting is possible.
Amalgamating all of the results contained in this paper, the global temperature changes
from doubling the main GHGs of CO2, CH4 and N2O from their present
concentrations are shown in Table 5 below.

Present Temperature
Present GHG Doubled GHG Temperature
GHG Global by Doubling
Concentration Concentration Increase
Temperature GHGs
CO2 400 ppm 800 ppm 288 K 288.45 K 0.45 K
CH4 1.8 ppm 3.6 ppm 288 K 288.05 K 0.05 K
N2O 0.32 ppm 0.64 ppm 288 K 288.07 K 0.07 K
Table 5: Temperature Changes from Doubling GHG Concentrations

Note: The figures shown must be taken to be approximate given the uncertainties in
the science of climate change. Most importantly, the results incorporate the overlaps of
GHG absorption bands where they occur.
Applying the combined water vapour and temperature feedback multiple of 1.124 (see
“Temperature Feedback” on page 23), the overall temperature increase from
doubling all GHGs from their present concentrations is about 0.7 K (0.7 deg C). A
0.7 K increase in global temperature would have no significant climate consequences.
This 0.7 K estimate is far less than the IPCC forecasts of between 1.5 K and 8 K.
The results have been reached after impartially reviewing the rigorous calculations of
acknowledged scientists and cannot be discounted simply because of a belief that the
IPCC and its followers are the only authority. IPCC reports are repeatedly questioned
by other scientists who often are not widely reported because of power imbalances
between individuals and institutions, or the apparent need for “consensus”. True
science has nothing to do with consensus. The term has been confused with the
scientific requirement that scientific experiments must be able to be replicated by other
scientists and reach the same result. It has nothing to do with some scientists agreeing
with the opinions and theories of some other scientists. As Galileo Galilei said in 1632,
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning
of a single individual".
The reasons for questioning IPCC reports are obvious when reading the Summary for
Policymakers in the latest IPCC Assessment Report No. 6, where statements are made
that are not supported by the technical detail of the Report let alone being
demonstrably wrong; including for example the Summary statement that the frequency
of global tropical cyclones is likely to have increased over the last four decades, when
they have not (Global Tropical Cyclone Activity by Dr Maue and Tropical Cyclones by
NOAA - see Acknowledgements).
Climate change has complex causes, only partially understood. The climate has
changed always and always will change. During the past 550 million years, Earth’s
temperatures are estimated to have been mostly 10 K warmer than now and have been
 29 of 31

close to today’s relatively cool temperature only three times, and then for relatively
short periods of from about 10 to 40 million years (see Figure 1 on page 7).
Noteworthy is that over this 550 million year geological timescale there has been no
obvious causative correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and Earth’s
temperature.
Global population numbers are likely causing effects that contribute to global warming
and climate change by the wide spread clearing of vegetation and heat island effects.

Conclusion
The proposition that Global Warming and Climate Change are being affected seriously
by man-made CO2 and other Greenhouse gas emissions is shown to be wrong, arising
from an erroneous understanding about the real effect the atmosphere has on
radiations and about the effect of cosmic rays, clouds, and solar activity.
Importantly, the spectral absorption wavelengths of the several GHGs of concern
overlap each other, and the GHG of atmospheric H2O overlaps all others to varying
degrees. The consequence is that, essentially, there is total absorption of Earth’s long
wave radiation emissions within the absorption bands of all GHGs at their present
concentrations. Therefore, increasing the concentrations of GHGs, even a doubling or
quadrupling, would have no significant effect on Earth’s temperature. Water vapour is
the dominant Greenhouse gas and is well regulated by evaporation, cloud formation,
and precipitation, such that changes in Relative Humidity have minimal overall effect.
Temperature feedbacks according to Wien’s Law are negative and tend towards
balancing any positive feedbacks from other sources like water vapour. The combined
water vapour and temperature feedbacks are shown to multiply any temperature
increase by a factor of 1.124.
With combined water vapour and temperature feedbacks, the effect of doubling CO2
from its present concentration would increase average global temperature at the
Earth’s surface by about 0.5 K (0.5 deg C). This is a very small change when compared
with natural changes throughout Earth’s history.
Likewise, a doubling of CH4 would increase temperature by about 0.06 K and a
doubling of N2O would increase temperature by about 0.08 K. Neither would be
significant influencers of climate change even at those doubled concentrations.
The effects of changes in solar activity, cosmic rays, Earth’s magnetic field, cloud type
and density, and in the concentrations of ozone and other atmospheric molecules are
likely to be more important, albeit are contentious and needing further study. The effect
of clouds is important and a likely major factor in moderating Earth’s temperature.
Warming drives changes in Earth’s cloud cover that, in turn, amplifies or dampens
global warming depending on cloud type. Clouds are influenced by all of the factors
above.
The IPCC seem not to have acknowledged some of these considerations, but does
admit to large uncertainties in various components of its modelling.
The Earth is warming and the main causes are likely to do with clouds and Sun activity,
with only minor contributions from man-made GHGs.
The overall temperature increase of about 0.7 K (0.7 deg C) from a combined doubling
the CO2, CH4, and N2O GHGs would be of little consequence, whether the doubling
 30 of 31

was produced by mankind or by any other source. A temperature change of 0.7 K

would have little effect on climate, certainly in no way dangerous to mankind.
This paper shows that the present emphasis on reducing atmospheric Greenhouse
gases is misguided because these gases are a minor influence on global warming; a
case of tilting at windmills. Climate change is highly likely driven fundamentally by
natural processes. Stopping the global clearing of vegetation and the expansion of heat
island effects by capping the growth of populations might be a better, practical, and
sustainable approach to limiting mankind’s impact on climate.
In the final analysis, adaption to climate change is required.

Lindsay Hackett B.Sc

16 Cotton Tree Avenue
Macleay Island Qld 4184 18 December 2021

Acknowledgements:
Copy the hyperlink wording and paste to a web browser to investigate the references.
 Humidity, Relative Humidity and Temperature (basics_humidity.pdf (brownell.co.uk))
 Converter Parts Per Million (ppm) (Parts Per Million (ppm) Converter (lenntech.com))
 Witteman - The Absorption Of Thermal Emitted Infrared Radiation By CO2. Published on April 3,
2020. Written by W.J.Witteman, Emeritus professor University of Twente (NL). (The absorption of
thermal emitted infrared radiation by CO2 | Principia Scientific Intl. (principia-scientific.com))
 Coe - The Impact of CO2, H2O and Other “Greenhouse Gases” on Equilibrium Earth
Temperatures by David Coe, Walter Fabinski, Gerhard Wiegleb, 2021 (The Impact of
CO₂, H₂O and Other “Greenhouse Gases” on Equilibrium Earth
Temperatures :: Science Publishing Group)
 IPCC Assessment Report No. 6 (Sixth Assessment Report — IPCC)
 Global Tropical Cyclone Activity by Dr Maue (Global Tropical Cyclone Activity | Ryan Maue)
 Tropical Cyclones (Tropical Cyclones - Annual 2020 | National Centers for Environmental
Information (NCEI) (noaa.gov))
 Global Warming Misunderstood by Lindsay Hackett (2021)
(https://www.scribd.com/document/383385011/)
 Scotese: (Phanerozoic paleotemperatures: The earth’s changing climate during the last 540
million years - ScienceDirect)
 Berner: qn020100182.pdf (yale.edu)
 Humlum et al: (The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
(researchgate.net))
 Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, 2021 (Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon
Dioxide | NOAA Climate.gov)
 Climate Change: Global Temperature, 2021 (Climate Change: Global Temperature | NOAA
Climate.gov)
 Spectral Radiance Calculator – Blackbody Calculator Tab (Spectral Calculator-Hi-resolution gas
spectra)
 Rhode - Some of the graphs have been adapted from one produced by Robert A. Rohde who is
a Physics PhD from the University of California, Berkeley, currently residing in Zurich, Switzerland.
In 2016, he was employed as the lead scientist for Berkeley Earth.
 Dockery - Some observations were taken from a paper entitled, “The Much Misunderstood
Climate Issue of CO2 Infrared Absorption”, published on 28 October 2020 in Principia Scientific
 31 of 31

International by Bevan Dockery (B.Sc.(Hons), Grad. Dip. Computing, (The Much Misunderstood
Climate Issue of CO2 Infrared Absorption | Principia Scientific Intl. (principia-scientific.com))
 Wijngaardenn - Dependence of Earth's Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse
Gases by van Wijngaardenn, W. A. and Happer, W, December 2020. (WThermal-Radiationf.pdf
(yorku.ca))
 Radiant Power to Temperature Conversion Calculator (Science Facts - Temperature Conversions
(mc-computing.com))
 Schildknecht - Saturation of the Infrared Absorption by Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere by
Dieter Schildknecht August 6, 2020 (*2004.00708.pdf (arxiv.org))
 Herman - The Effect of Clouds on the Earth's Solar and Infrared Radiation Budgets: Page(s):
1251–1261, by Gerald F. Herman, Man-Li C. Wu, and Winthrop T. Johnson (The Effect of Clouds
on the Earth's Solar and Infrared Radiation Budgets in: Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
Volume 37 Issue 6 (1980) (ametsoc.org))
 Beemt - The Warming Effect of Clouds by Dr van den Beemt, 2021 (The warming effect of clouds
- Clintel)
 Svensmark - Atmospheric ionization and cloud radiative forcing by Henrik Svensmark, Jacob
Svensmark, Martin Bødker Enghoff & Nir J. Shaviv; Scientific Reports volume 11,
Article number: 19668 (2021) (Atmospheric ionization and cloud radiative forcing | Scientific
Reports (nature.com))
 LISIRD - Historical Total Solar Irradiance Reconstruction, Time Series to 2021(LISIRD
(colorado.edu))
 Maunder Minimum (History: Extreme Weather during the Maunder Minimum - Ice Age Farmer
Wiki)