New Peer-Reviewed Study: Climate Models Overestimate CO2’s Impact On Global Temperatures By A Factor Of 5

There are no credible scientists warning of a ‘climate emergency’ — not a single one.

Many will agree that human activities are impacting the planet, and that this may cause us problems in the future, but 1) these researchers are likely adhering to the ‘upside-down pyramid‘ that Dr. Nakamura talks of–where today’s AGW science is built on the work of just a few climate modeler pioneers, and 2) buzzwords like ‘crisis’ and ‘catastrophe’ aren’t used by scientists — such extremist terms are only bleated by alarmists and activist-journalists.

However, the waters have been muddied by a reticence from those in the relevant academic fields, a silent complicity — because while scientists aren’t saying that we’re in the grips of an existential climatic threat, they aren’t widely dismissing it, either.

This odd hush is due to the current political climate on the topic. It is career suicide to publicly denounce CAGW, and the wreckage of many a career lay strewn before us as proof.

It’s akin to the transgender debate. Biologists daren’t wade in. Science isn’t enough when combating the claims of extreme activists, and logic isn’t accepted when debating their forged ideologies.

You can’t argue an emotionally-driven debate with science and logic: facts don’t care about your feelings and so they often come off sounding mean.

New Peer-Reviewed Study: Climate Models Have Overestimated CO2’s Impact On Global Temperatures By Factor Of 5

A new study suggests carbon dioxide molecules have little consequential impact on outgoing radiation, and that today’s climate models assign fundamentally erroneous global temperature effects to CO2.

Russian physicists (Smirnov and Zhilyaev, 2021) have recently had their peer-reviewed paper published in the Advances in Fundamental Physics Special Issue for the journal Foundations.

After a detailed assessing of the role of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, they assert: “we have a contradiction with the results of climatological models in the analysis of the Earth’s greenhouse effect.”

Key points from the paper, as collated by Kenneth Richard of, include:

1. Climate model calculations of CO2’s impact on global temperatures are in error by a factor of 5 as a result of “ignoring, in climatological models, the fundamental Kirchhoff law” which says radiators are “simultaneously the absorbers.”

2. Change in the concentration of an optically active atmospheric component (like CO2) “would not lead to change in the outgoing radiative flux.”

3. CO2 molecules “are not the main radiator of the atmosphere.” Water vapor molecules are, and thus they “may be responsible for the observed heating of the Earth.”

As Richard also points out, the discrepancy between the greenhouse gas effect of water vapor molecules relative to CO2 has been addressed elsewhere: Lightfoot and Mamer (2014) and (2017) suggest that water molecules are a) 29 times more abundant in the atmosphere and 1.6 times more effective at warming than CO2 molecules are; b) water vapor accounts for 96 percent of the total radiative forcing for all greenhouse gases; and c) doubling CO2 concentrations to 550 ppm would only result in a global temperature increase of 0.33C.

Proponents of anthropogenic global warming can blindly dismiss these findings all they want, but what they clearly show is that the science is far from settled. The term ‘consensus’ is one used to rally the misinformed and browbeat weak politicians. In reality though, the science is still very much out on global warming (and that’s me being generous). But without an open and honest review of the literature, the masses will remain in the dark, forever anxious of what the future will bring — and, tragically, this means the most indoctrinated among us will continue super gluing their faces to busy motorways:

Insulate Britain protester winces in pain as he glues his face to road |  Metro News
Insulate Britain protester winces in pain after gluing his face to road.

Social Media channels are restricting Electroverse’s reach: Twitter are purging followers while Facebook are labeling posts as “false” and have slapped-on crippling page restrictions.

So, be sure to subscribe to receive new post notifications by email (the box is located in the sidebar >>> or scroll down if on mobile).

And/or become a Patron, by clicking here:

The site receives ZERO funding, and never has.

So any way you can, help us spread the message so others can survive and thrive in the coming times.

Grand Solar Minimum + Pole Shift

Related posts

17 Thoughts to “New Peer-Reviewed Study: Climate Models Overestimate CO2’s Impact On Global Temperatures By A Factor Of 5”

  1. Anonymous

    “The climate system is a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of
    future climate states is not possible.”
    ~ IPCC, Third Assessment, Ch. 14

  2. Global excess heating is totally contrived by the climate models, and yet this alarmism is rewarded with the Nobel Prize …

  3. Michael Peinsipp

    Millions of years ago Earth was HOTTER than now.
    Are the Dinosaurs responsible for that
    is that bright ball of plasma we call Sol responsible?
    I bet my life on Sol heating the Planets of our Solar System not the pipsqueak’s I call Mankind?

    1. Matt Dalby

      According to Svensmark (see The Chilling Stars) the reason why the Earth was much warmer for long periods in the geological record is due to the position of the solar system in the milky way. As the solar system orbits the centre of the galaxy it passes in and out the the various spiral arms where stars are concentrated and galactic cosmic rays are highest. When GCR’s reaching the solar system are high, such as for the last 10 or more million years, the amount reaching the Earth is high regardless of the strength of the sun, so the Earth is relatively cool due to GCR’s leading to the formation of lots of clouds. Hence the reason why we’re currently in a long term ice age, albeit a relatively short lived inter-glacial. During some of the age of the dinosaurs the solar system was between spiral arms hence fewer GCR’s reached the Earth, meaning less clouds and higher temperatures.
      This is an extension of the solar cloud theory which states that global temperatures are related to solar activity due to the strength of the sun’s magnetic field influencing how many GCR’S reach the Earth and hence how cloudy it is. The solar cloud theory states that the number of GCR’s reaching the solar system remains constant on the time scale of interest, i.e. thousands of years, hence solar activity is the dominant driver of climate. However this isn’t true on much longer time scales, i.e. millions or 10’s of millions of years, when galactic rather than solar forces become dominant.
      I recommend reading The Chilling Stars by Henrik Svensmark & Nigel Calder for a full explanation of how solar and galactic forces influence the climate in different ways on vastly different time scales.

      1. Anonymous

        Great read.
        I wonder if any world leaders have read it . The calling card of the muons is left behind.
        If you ask alarmists what do clouds seed from , they’ll say aerosols.
        Mention Muons ? Crickets.

  4. Konrad

    Is there something wrong with the ice extent graphs? They show a big diminishing of the extent.

    1. Ray

      Not sure what you mean. The extent of sea-ice has a regular annual variation from slight, in summer, to great, in winter, and back down
      the next summer. The ice-caps – the land ice – are the relatively constant features.

      The Arctic and the Antarctic have a phase difference of six months, of course.

      1. GeertVB

        Als je bvb hier kijkt is het Arctic ijs gelijk aan 2018? 2015? 2013.
        Het Antarctisch ijs ligt gelijk met het minimum van 2017

      2. Konrad

        I forgot to say Antarctica. The extent seems to be a lot less below average, as to what Cap and others advocate.

        1. Cap Allon

          Re Antarctica:

          I show the extent/area vs decadal averages. Click link below for extent/area vs recent years (scroll down to the final chart).

  5. Chris Norman

    Arctic – Max ice extent in millions of square kilometers. All of the below occured in March. Source NSIDC.
    2016 – 14.52
    2017 – 14.42
    2018 – 14.48
    2019 – 14.78
    2020 – 15.05
    2021 – 14.77

  6. prioris

    SILENT COMPLICITY has been a way of life for the corrupted scientific establishment

    a silent complicity — because while scientists aren’t saying that we’re in the grips of an existential climatic threat, they aren’t widely dismissing it

    1. JaKo

      “Silent Complicity”
      I would like to see how many brave souls are among the “moral” population. How many had taken the covidism serums (misnamed “vaccines”) to just keep their jobs, or wear a face diaper just for not getting harassed by the authorities — both examples while fully knowing these are futile or, rather, contra-productive measures.
      So, let’s stop “blaming the scientists,” and fix the corruption problem by arresting, suing and jailing the lobbyists, pretend philanthropists and scammers as well as all the corrupt politicians (there comes the famed 97% figure).
      Cheers, JaKo

  7. Alison Pannell

    I feel that scientists that keep quiet about any beliefs that the “climate change crisis” is either untrue or vastly exaggerated have a moral duty to stand up and say so before the climate scammers take full control of the world for their own ends

  8. Trebenath

    I quite agree with Alison, but any sane person’s responsible protests that this is not an existential crisis are met with online abuse, death threats, threatening phone calls and labels of ‘Climate Denier’. They are ignored by the mainstream media or passed of as cranks or ignorant of the great truth of ‘The Science’. You need a very thick skin to stand up to this.

  9. OddBall

    I would like to comment on key point #3, while it is true that water vapor dictates how much heat air can hold, it is also true that CO2 will allow the air to hold more water vapor. That is why they call on CO2 rather than relative humidity. The reason this works is to ensure the humidity can also be released by that same CO2 related humidity increase. Yes this means CO2 increase will bring more rain, but not taking it away from another location because that same rain removes the CO2 from the air and puts it into the waters and grounds.

    My home radiator has a blow-out valve to stop it from exploding the plumbing, so does Earth.

Leave a Comment