By David Wojick, Ph.D. ~
The “climate emergency” appears to have died, far out on the scientific frontier. Word of this death has yet to reach the mainstream.
Professors William van Wijngaarden (Canada) and William Happer (USA) have published some extremely important research on the radiation saturation of the major greenhouse gases. Their first report is titled simply “Relative Potency of Greenhouse Molecules”. It makes use of a major breakthrough in radiation physics.
Until recently the estimates of greenhouse potency were based on approximation bands of absorbed radiation wavelengths. Now the authors have done line by line spectral analysis, looking at over 300,000 individual wavelengths within these bands.

It turns out that saturation occurs much sooner than previously thought. In particular the primary greenhouse gases, CO2 and H2O, turn out to be “extremely saturated” at present atmospheric concentrations.
These results strongly suggest that the dangerous multi-degree warming assumed by the climate emergency simply cannot occur. Is CO2 significantly impotent? This should now be a major research question.
The paper is here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.16465 Their second paper — Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases — is here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098.pdf
The second paper extends the research to include methane, nitrous oxide and ozone. All three have important climate policy implications, including agricultural policy. Methane in particular has become the target of a climate policy witch hunt. Professor Happer has an illuminating video on this topic. See my introduction and the video here: https://clintel.org/agriculture-policy-is-a-climate-change-witch-hunt/.
I first wrote about this ground breaking research a year ago, see my article: https://www.cfact.org/2020/09/26/study-suggests-no-more-co2-warming/. Since then I have done a bit of research on their research. There is almost nothing on greenhouse saturation in the scientific literature and that needs to change.
Aside: there is a huge literature on “CO2 saturation” but it is about the saturation of porous rock during deep well injection. This is a big problem with so-called carbon sequestration, where CO2 is removed from our emissions and (hopefully) stored underground.
There is also some confusion. As explained below, saturation is not an absolute, rather it comes in degrees. There is no such thing as complete saturation, so when a scientist says CO2 is saturated they mean a lot saturated, not completely saturated. This is important because I have found several articles where the author says skeptics claim CO2 is saturated and then points out that it is not completely saturated. This is just a straw man argument because skeptics who know the science never claim complete saturation.
CO2 Saturation explained: The surface emits a limited number of photons (or units of radiation) of the sort that atmospheric CO2 absorbs. In effect the molecules are competing for the available photons. So as the number of CO2 molecules increases the absorption per molecule goes down. More and more molecules are looking to absorb the same number of radiation photons.
The greenhouse warming is based on the absorption not on the number of molecules. Thus the warming potency of the CO2 does not rise nearly as fast as the number of molecules. This diminishing effect is called “saturation”.
The warming first drops off rapidly as the number of molecules increases. This means most of the warming occurs when the number of molecules is relatively small, far fewer than we have today. After that the warming changes very little as more and more molecules are added. That is where we are today, with a little over 400 ppm of CO2 molecules. The CO2 is extremely saturated. Even doubling the number of molecules to over 800 ppm would have relatively little warming effect.
That H2O is also extremely saturated is very important. Much of the amplified warming built into the emergency computer predictions is based on a strong positive water vapor feedback from the relatively modest CO2 induced warming. But as water vapor is already extremely saturated this strong feedback cannot occur, even if the number of water vapor molecules increases a lot.
More broadly, all of the scary IPCC warming projections are entirely based on these five gases creating a lot of future warming. None of the climate models include the high degree of saturation found by Professors van Wijngaarden and Happer. And according to these researchers, their pioneering results are confirmed by satellite measurements of radiation.
In short it looks like the IPCC climate modeling is simply obsolete. The models need to be redone to include all this saturation. And of course there is a lot more research to be done on greenhouse saturation itself.
But in the meantime it looks like the so-called climate emergency is dead. It has been killed by a big breakthrough in radiation physics. The greenhouse effect does not work the way the scary computer models have all assumed, instead it is dominated by saturation.
This is how science is supposed to work: hypotheses die as science advances.
David Wojick contributes Posts at the CFACT site. He is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy.
Read more excellent articles at CFACT http://www.cfact.org/




oldbrew
Sun 09/12/2021
Ross McKitrick has a new study in Climate Dynamics…
IPCC Method Linking Climate Change To Greenhouse Gases Disputed
11 Sep. 2021
The methodology, known as “optimal fingerprinting,” has been used to link greenhouse gases to everything from temperature to forest fires, precipitation, and snow cover.
https://climatechangedispatch.com/ipcc-method-linking-climate-change-to-greenhouse-gases-disputed/
LikeLiked by 2 people
gallopingcamel
Sun 09/12/2021
Thanks for that link. It is in tune with something John Staddon and I wrote in 2020:
https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/21058/Staddon-Morcombe2020_Article_TheCaseForCarbonDioxide.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
While the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere keeps rising there is no correlation with hurricanes, drought, floods, heat waves etc. There is a strong correlation with crop yields, planetary greening, the drought resistance of plants and per capita income.
Of course I realize that correlation does not imply that CO2 causes all those good things. However the lack of correlation proves that it does not cause any of those bad things.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Nick Anaxagoras
Mon 09/13/2021
CO2 causes nothing because the greenhouse effect does not exist.
LikeLiked by 2 people
cognog2
Sun 09/12/2021
David:
1) No it is NOT. The GHE is being presented in ‘isolation’ from other influences such as water vapor (to be pedantic). That is where the deliberate? error occurs.
2) You are being unnecessarily pedantic here. Maybe to duck the issues raised? I use the term water as it embodies both the liquid and vapor phases which co- exist during the evaporation process, where the enthalpy manifests itself in terms of increased volume rather than in temperature. Are you not aware that temperature and volume are inversely proportional? This makes temperature a poor metric when dealing in matters of enthalpy.
LikeLiked by 2 people
cognog2
Sat 09/11/2021
David:
I certainly DON’T think that . Whatever gave you that idea? My general comments relate to the behaviour of water in relation to the climate and is therefore outside the closed current mindset of just radiation as the way to explain the climate. Even Arrhenius was doubtful about his paper in the way he dealt with the problems of Umbrosity, as he called it.
My reason for putting the current perception of the Greenhouse Effect to bed is that it ignores the basic fact that a force/influence always gets matched by an opposing force/influence to provide an equilibrium. IMO Water, by its behaviour is one of the main factors that provides that force where the GHE is concerned; and very effective it is too when you look at the detail.
To me the absence of considering this aspect is fundamental error which I suspect is deliberate for political reasons; but that is an entirely different subject.
My regards
Charles
LikeLiked by 1 person
gallopingcamel
Mon 09/06/2021
@David Appell.
The Robinson & Catling analytic model is much simpler than the Wijngarten/Happer “Full Physics” model yet the two models are in close agreement.
The published Wijngarten/Happer model covers the effect of three concentrations of CO2 (200 ppm, 400 ppm & 800 ppm) on planet Earth.
The R&C model works for all seven bodies in the solar system that have significant atmospheres.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Chaswarnertoo
Fri 09/03/2021
Who’d a thunk it ? Me, actually.
LikeLiked by 2 people
David Appell
Thu 09/02/2021
These are preprints — not peer reviewed. Let’s see if they get published in a legitimate scientific journal. Very unlikely given the track records of the authors, especially Happer, who hardly has a reputation for doing quality work in climate science.
LikeLike
Terry
Thu 09/02/2021
David. It isn’t climate science. It is spectroscopy that is a very well defined discipline that doesn’t have much room for novel theories.
LikeLiked by 2 people
David Appell
Sat 09/11/2021
Terry, it’s not just spectroscopy, it’s molecular energy transitions that take place in complexity of the atmosphere. That is, it’s climate science.
As I wrote, let’s see if any of this gets published. These preprints came out in March, I believe. Already that’s 6 months ago without publication….
LikeLike
Martin Cropp
Thu 09/02/2021
David, a great report, thanks
LikeLiked by 2 people