Paris climate agreements honored without energy transition

pinnochio parisEnglish version

Climate crisis?

On February 20, 2024, the article 1900 scientists agree: there is no climate crisis! was published

Some people will raise their eyebrows when reading such a title, but we want to reduce those eyebrows, because it is always better to think critically first.

The temperature of the Earth is determined by the balance between the incoming energy from the sun and the energy the Earth sends into the universe via infrared radiation. However, the gaseous atmosphere around the Earth acts as a thermal resistance. As a result, the temperature on Earth is approximately 31°C higher than if there were no atmosphere. According to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a UN body), this thermal resistance depends on the composition of the atmosphere. Certain 'greenhouse gases' are targeted and CO2 in particular is under attack, but the evidence is not that simple as we will demonstrate.

The core of the story described here is that the CO2 in the atmosphere shows a saturation effect and as such shows a reduced effect on atmospheric radiation. At current atmospheric concentrations, CO2 has hardly any effect on the thermal behaviour of the atmosphere and therefore on the temperature on earth.

Outgoing radiation and CO2

Let's take a look at the figure below. This represents the energy distribution for the radiation to space at the top of the atmosphere, as a function of the frequency of the radiation (inverse of wavelength). The blue line shows the radiation distribution for a transparent standard atmosphere. In the broad frequency band 0-800 there is a zone below the blue curve and the serrated curve that represents the absorption of water vapor for standard air. This absorption results in a loss of radiation and resulting in a more difficult and reduced radiation to space, leading to an increased Earth's temperature.

Now look at the jagged curve. An increasing dip (= radiation loss) occurs with an increasing CO2 concentration in the much more limited frequency range 600-800 that is called the CO2 window. There is no dip in the absence of CO2 in the atmosphere as shown in green, but a heavy dip at 400 ppm (ppm means parts per million) CO2 shown by the black curve, however, when doubling to 800 ppm shown in red there is hardly any effect noticeable, this phenomenon is called saturation and the energetic difference between 400 and 800 ppm CO2 is only 3W/m². Currently the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is approximately 420 ppm and we are already in this saturation zone. The evolution of this saturation phenomenon is shown by the inserted figure at the top right of the figure, which indicates the effect for doubling CO2 concentrations. It is very specific that not the depth but the width of the dip increases with increasing concentration with hardly any noticeable difference between 400 and 800 ppm CO2.

244 1 

Water vapor

If the concentration of CO2 (400 ppm versus 800 ppm) apparently has little effect on the magnitude of the radiation loss, where does the radiation loss come from?

The answer is: water vapor!

The atmosphere is neither dry nor homogeneous, and humidity also occurs in varying concentrations. This has an effect on the radiation pattern from the top of the atmosphere to space.

The figure below shows this radiation into space measured by satellites in black and blue is the theoretical addition.

244 2  

Look at the graph over the Sahara. The air is quite dry and the CO2 window is shown as 100% for further reference. The CO2 is dominant with a limited radiation loss due to water vapor and a strong radiation loss due to CO2. The graph corresponds quite well to the dry transparent standard air sketched above.

But look at the measured graph for the middle latitude: there is already a further radiation loss due to a decrease in the maximum peak because of water vapor, but the CO2 window has been reduced to 30%. At the equator there is another halving and in Antarctica the maximum radiation has even halved, and there is hardly any CO2 influence.

This shows that in real terrestrial conditions, water vapor in the air is the dominant factor in the average radiation of energy to space and not CO2, and hinders the radiation of heat. The greenhouse gas par excellence is water vapor, which dominates the Earth's temperature and CO2 plays a subordinate role due to the sharply decreasing influence of CO2 because of saturation.

Yet the IPCC designates CO2 as dominant and uses water vapor as an amplifying factor for CO2 in its climate models, but this in no way corresponds with the measurements and observations.

ECS value

ECS stands for Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity. This benchmark indicates the increase in temperature on the Earth's surface when doubling the concentration of the greenhouse gas in question (for the IPCC, mainly CO2). It is an important parameter that scientists use in climate studies.

Here the recent ECS value is examined looking from various scientific perspectives.

  1. Above it was indicated that for dry transparent air the loss of radiation between 400 and 800 ppm is 3W/m². It was also shown that water vapor is dominant. In the exaggerated case of the assumption that CO2 still has an average 30% influence, this value is 0.9W/m² or converted ECS = 0.3°C and the atmosphere warms up by 0.3°C when doubling CO2 levels.
  2. An IPA study delivers an ECS= 0.71°C based on the Stefan Boltzman law.
  3. The Scafetta meta study concludes that new scientific publications show increasingly decreasing ECS ​​values ​​over time, and from 2015 to 2017 the published values ​​were below 1°C, so ECS is rated between 0 and 1 degree.
  4. The universal gas law provides a maximum value ECS = 0.05 °C
  5. Nicolov and Zeller show through a dimensional analysis of our planetary system that the temperature of celestial bodies only depends on irradiation and atmospheric pressure, so ECS = 0.

The conclusion is that scientifically from various perspectives it can be stated with certainty that ECS <1 and can even be very small: up to and including zero.

However, the IPCC comes to very different conclusions with their latest CMIP6 (CMIP6 - Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6) models as shown below. The ECS values ​​starts in the graph below on the right with 1.8 and 1.9 values ​​for Russian models and go up to the extreme values ​​of 5.67 on the left for other IPCC studies.

244 3

The IPCC therefore states ECS between 1.83 and 5.67, namely the values ​​obtained from models, and gives as the “most preferential value” ECS=3.

Note on the one hand that the ECS values ​​depend very much on the approach and intentions that the authors can introduce into the model within the CMIP6 format. But on the other hand, a spread factor of almost 3 between the extremes indicates a very low reliability of these models. Moreover, no author validates his result.

Scafetta did the validation and divided this CMIP6 ECS range into 3 equal parts and then calculated the corresponding temperature series for each model separately. These temperature series were plotted in the figure below and compared with the temperature series obtained with measurements via satellite and thermometer.

244 4    

It is clear that with decreasing ECS ​​values, the model results increasingly approach the measurements. If CMIP6 models had existed with a 0< ECS<1, the model calculations would probably correspond quite well with the measurements. This shows that even the climate models validated against the measurements indicate that 0< ECS<1, a conclusion the IPCC will never want to admit because it is the essence of their existence!

The Paris Accords

The 2015 Paris Agreement stipulates that human-induced temperature rise must remain below 1.5°C.

It has been shown above that, based on various scientific perspectives and validating measurements and observations of the IPCC climate models, it can be scientifically stated that 0 < ECS < 1. A better figure cannot yet be given, but the fact that an upper limit ECS = 1 is now known is sufficient to draw definitive conclusions.

The table below provides the calculations of the temperature increase as a result of the CO2 increase for both the extreme ECS = 1 value and for comparison an informative arbitrary value of 0.3, compared to the IPCC recommendations.

244 5

It therefore appears that the impact of CO2 on the temperature for  ECS=1 at the end of last year, has a temperature share of 0.47°C in the "official" 1.2 °C  measured temperature increase, and with an ECS of 0.3 this is only 0.14°C (there is therefore a temperature effect of 0.73 and 1.06°C respectively due to other factors such as geothermal energy, sun, cloud cover, etc.) By the year 2100 the CO2 temperature effect would rise to 0.78 respectively 0.23°C.

These values ​​are still far below the limit of the Paris agreement. Hence there is no need for decarbonization or an energy transition and the depletion of earth's resources.

The IPCC continues to wallow in fantasy by maintaining the unsustainable value of ECS=3, and at COP 28 in Dubai took an even more extreme position, namely “Business as Usual”, abbreviated BAU, which would currently have a CO2 impact give from 1.42°C to 2.37°C. These are values ​​ are much higher than the actually measured value of 1,2°C. They are impossible values unless the IPCC can indicate where an atmospheric cooling occurs to explain the lower measured values ​​actually observed.

Even worse, by 2100 these values ​​will rise to 2.35 and 3.92°C. At COP 28, even an 6°C increase was expressed under the assumption that CO2 values ​​would exceed 600 ppm.

These are all utopian figures that the IPCC cannot possibly prove.

Dr ir Eric Blondeel


  • Hits: 202