Carbon Dioxide Update

None of this work will be reported in the mainstream since it disrupts a settled climate science narrative tied to the net zero fantasy. Recently published papers found that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere led to minimal temperature increases. They destroy the shaky scientific foundation upon which net zero rests. ⁽³⁾

Seven Viennese researchers provide additional evidence the CO2 absorption band is already saturated at today’s concentrations (over 400 ppm). Rising CO2 levels thus cannot drive significant global warming. ⁽⁴⁾

Doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels (280 to 560 ppm) increases global mean infrared absorption just 1.1% (82.1% vs. 83.2%). This is an indicator of the decreasing effectiveness of CO2 as a warming agent as its concentration rises.

Indeed, a 400 to 800 ppm increase shows no measurable increase in IR absorption, so it can lead to just a 0.5 C warming at most. ⁽¹⁾

There are other papers on CO2 saturation. A group of Polish scientists led by Dr. Jan Kubicki supplied three papers arguing that above 400 ppm, ‘the CO2 concentration can no longer cause any increase in temperature’. In 2023, three scientists from McGill University stated that: ‘Transmission in the CO2 band center is unchanged by increased CO2 as the absorption is already saturated.’ In Chen et al. 2023, it is reported that CO2 had a severely reduced warming effect past pre-industrial concentrations. It was also noted that water vapor and cloud influences overlap and thus dominate absorption in the CO2 IR band. In 2022, the German Physics Professor Dieter Schildnecht set the CO2 saturation level at just 300 ppm. ⁽³⁾

Levels of CO2 have been much higher in the past, with evidence of vibrant animal and plant life. Many plants evolved to thrive with higher levels than they feed on today. This is borne out by considerable evidence, although the recent substantial greening of the planet is largely hidden from readers reliant on mainstream media.

Cloud Cover

Polar ice melt, earth’s radiation budget, sea surface temperature, water circulation, and climate variability are all controlled or crucially regulated by clouds. ⁽⁵⁾

After analyzing satellite data, researchers concluded that the earth has warmed because it’s been absorbing more sunlight due to reduced global cloud cover. ⁽⁶⁾

An increase in low cloud cover of only about 1% could largely compensate for the doubling of CO2. Since cloud cover changes of well more than 1% occur routinely, both from year to year and decadally, the role of CO2 within the greenhouse effect is rendered insignificant, if not irrelevant. ⁽⁷⁾

Plants and CO2

Plants across the world are absorbing about 31% more carbon dioxide than previously thought. ⁽⁸⁾

This finding is expected to improve Earth system simulations that scientists use to predict the future climate and spotlights the importance of natural carbon sequestration for greenhouse gas mitigation.

The amount pf CO2 removed from the atmosphere via photosynthesis from land plants is known as Terrestrial Gross Primary Production, or GPP. It represents the largest carbon exchange between land and atmosphere on the planet. GPP is typically cited in petagrams of carbon per year. One pentagram equals 1 billion metric tons, which is roughly the amount of CO2 emitted each year from 238 million gas powered passenger vehicles.

Researches used new models and measurements to assess GPP from the land at 157 petagrams of carbon per year, up from an estimate of 120 petagrams established 40 years ago and currently used in most estimates of Earth’s carbon cycle.

Pan-tropical rainforests accounted for the biggest difference between previous estimates and the new figures, a finding that was corroborated by ground measurements. The discovery suggests that rainforests are a more important natural carbon sink than previously estimated using satellite data. ⁽⁸⁾

Carbon Capture

A new study shows fundamental components of the human caused global warming narrative fail molecular chemistry. According to the study, the notion that we can and must reduce atmospheric CO2 to avoid climate catastrophe does not withstand probing academic scrutiny. ⁽⁹⁾

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a mitigation strategy proposing to sequester CO2 underground to reduce emissions to net zero by 2050. The practice is poised to cost tens of trillions of dollars over the coming decades. New analysis suggests high or ambitious CCS scenarios are presumed to mitigate about half of today’s emissions by 2050. But these economically draconian CCS scenarios are projected to cost US $30 trillion more than those that only mitigate about one-tenth of today’s emissions. Either way, the costs of CCS are astronomical.

But can CCS actually do what is intended and reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations? Chemistry says no, CCS will not reduce the atmosphere concentration of CO2 at all. ⁽⁹⁾

Earlier Warming

Studies from Central China, Russia, and Central Europe indicate there was just as much (or more) warming and drought before 1900, or when CO2 concentrations were under 300 ppm. ⁽¹⁰⁾

A recent 1606 to 2016 Central China minimum temperature reconstruction reveals cold periods only occurred in nine years of the 1600s (1663-1672), but there were 71 years of cold periods during the 20^th century (1900-1942, 1959-1979, 1985-1994). ⁽¹¹⁾

Notably, CO2 hovered around 278 ppm during the 1600s and 1700s, but it rose from 290 ppm to 370 ppm during the 1900s. From 1650-1750, the winter temperatures in Central China were 0.44 C warmer than they were during the 20^th century. Finally, it should be noted that the year 1719 was 1.4 C warmer than the 1961-2016 average.

An 1805-2020 Central Europe precipitation reconstruction determines drought were more prolonged and pronounced during the 1880s than in the 1900s, as the 1900s were relatively wet. ⁽¹²⁾

Finally, another new precipitation and temperature reconstruction from the Russian Altai Mountains suggests ‘stable summer temperature signals’ since the 1500s, with no obvious trend changes falling outside the long-term average. ⁽¹³⁾

Methane

Methane is responsible for around 30% of global warming since pre-industrial times. Although most methane is removed by processes in the atmosphere, soils are full of bacteria that absorb the gas and break it down for use as energy. Soil has been thought of as the only terrestrial sink for methane, but scientists say that their research suggests that trees may be as important, perhaps more so. ⁽¹⁴⁾

Understanding how much carbon can be stored in land ecosystems, especially in forests with their large accumulation of biomass in wood is essential to making predictions of future climate change. ⁽¹⁵⁾

Tree bark in the world’s forests absorbs the greenhouse gas methane on a global scale—a discovery that could have big implications for tackling climate change.

As trees photosynthesize, their leaves take up carbon dioxide and lock it away as biomass in their trunks and branches providing a long term store of carbon. But now, a large-scale study proves that there is another way that trees absorb greenhouse gases—so forests can be 10% more beneficial for climate overall than previously thought.

Summary

We are told that because CO2 levels are higher than at any point in human history, we should expect catastrophic warming. But a fundamental in this narrative is hiding in plain sight. The last interglacial period, the Eemian, was significantly warmer than today despite CO2 levels being much lower. ⁽¹⁶⁾

This glaring inconsistency should give pause to anyone who accepts the idea that CO2 is the sole or even primary climate control knob.

If CO2 is truly the driving force behind global temperature, why was it hotter 120,000 years ago when CO2 was only 275-280 ppm? Why have climate models consistently failed to accurately recreate past climate conditions?

If climate models cannot reliably reproduce historical warm periods like the Eemian, how can we trust their projections for the future? ⁽¹⁶⁾

Carbon dioxide is insignificant as a greenhouse gas. In truth, CO2 is essential to all life on earth, and is not a pollutant, despite the fact that in their ignorance, greenies ignorantly and persistently claim that it is.

Physicists Prof. Emeritus Dieter Schildknecht and Coe et al, independently calculated from fundamental physics that the climate sensitivity of carbon dioxide is only 0.5 C, which is one-sixth of the IPCC’s best estimate. (The climate sensitivity of a greenhouse gas is defined as the increase in earth’s mean temperature caused by every doubling of the atmospheric concentration of that gas.) ⁽¹⁷⁾

The contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect is 4%-5%. Human CO2 emissions represent 4% of the total, which means that the total human contribution to the enhancement of the greenhouse effect is 0.16% to 0.20%, a negligible effect. ⁽¹⁸⁾ -

The major influence of generation of atmospheric CO2 in the Equatorial zone has been the El Nino event, that is, the climate causes a change in the rate of generation of CO2, the complete opposite to the UN IPCC claim that CO2 causes climate change. ⁽¹⁹⁾

As far as is known, no physical process has been proposed whereby the CO2 change could cause the El Nino event

In all likelihood, the UN together with the World Economic Forum are working to raise the fear of climate catastrophe in the population at large so as to bring about the UN ‘Pact for the Future’ of One World Government on the assumption that the World will avoid a catastrophe once they control the World.

As Klaus Schwab stated recently at the World Economic Forum 2025 in Davos: “The future doesn’t just unfold, the future is shaped by us and especially by us in this room.” ⁽¹⁹⁾

References

1. Kenneth Richard, “Another climate sensitivity study finds doubling CO2 leads to 0.5 C warming at most,” notrickszone.com, December 20, 2024
2. Peng-Sheng Wei et al., “Thermal processes affected by carbon dioxide near ground zero,” Results in Engineering, Volume 24, December 2024, 103300
3. Roland Gross, “Science shock: CO2 is good for the planet, peer-reviewed studies suggest,” climate-science.press, December 25, 2024
4. Ernst Hammel et al., “CO2 back radiation sensitivity studies under laboratory and field conditions,” Atmospheric and Climate Science, 2024, 14, 407-428
5. Kenneth Richard, “Six new studies confirm clouds play a central role in earth’s climate,” climatechangedispatch.com, June 8, 2020
6. Katie Spence, “Sunlight and clouds, not CO2 drive earth’s climate, new study finds,” climatechangedispatch.com, September 17, 2024
7. Kenneth Richard, “Physicists: increasing CO2 by 100% only reduces radiative cooling to space by an imperceptible 1%,”, notrickszone.com, January 9, 2025
8. “Plants absorb 31% more CO2 than previously thought,” technologynetworks.com, October 22, 2024
9. Bruce Peachey and Nobue Maeda, “Challenging the chemistry of climate change,” mdpi.com, November 16, 2024
10. Kenneth Richard, “3 new studies show warming and drought were as severe before 1900 with CO2 under 300 ppm,” principia-scientific.com, January 17, 2025
11. Chaoling Jiang et al., “Anomalous warm temperatures recorded using tree rings in the headwater of the Jinsha River during the Little Ice Age,” Forests, 2024, 15(6), 972
12. Viorica Nagavciue et al., “A long term drought reconstruction based on oxygen isotope tree ring data for central and eastern parts of Europe (Romania),” Biogeosciences, 22, 55-69, 2025
13. Alexander V. Kirdyanov et al., “Tree ring chronologies from the upper treeline in the Russian Altai Mountains reveal strong and stable summer temperatures,” Forests, Volume 15, No 8, 2025
14. Vincent Gauci et al., “Global atmospheric methane uptake by upland tree woody surfaces,” Nature 631, 796-800 (2024)
15. Jiameng Lai et al., “Terrestrial photosynthesis inferred from plant carbonyl sulfide uptake,” Nature, October 16, 2024
16. Matthew Wielicki, “Why CO2 cannot explain current warming,” principia-scientific.org, February 9, 2025
17. Michael Darby, “Convincing proof that net zero is an utter waste of resources,” principia-scientific.com, March 10, 2024
18. 18.Kenneth Richard, “New study: human contribution to enhancement of earth’s greenhouse effect a negligible 0.2 percent,” notrickszone.com, November 12, 2024
19. Bevan Dochery, “ More evidence CO2 does not drive temperature,” principia-scientific.com, January 30, 2025