The climate science behind climate change. Point? There is no “climate crisis”. We are living through climate change that can be best understood in terms of “natural variation” caused by prominent natural factors. This evidence counters the irrational hysteria incited by the prophets of the climate apocalypse narrative. And that narrative can be understood better in terms of the continuing influence of apocalyptic millennial mythology on many people today.
The evidence below, along with much similar evidence, reveals/exposes the climate crisis movement to be a “profoundly religious crusade”. Its certainly not science. This site probes the mythology behind such crusades and their endeavors to undermine/overturn our liberal democracies through crusades promising “salvation through destruction”, typical of all the similar crusades before, whether religious or “secular/ideological” (as in “secularized” versions of the same basic mythological themes).
Note the same old “salvation through destruction” in Marxist versions, in Nazism, and now prominently in environmental alarmism. The “destruction” element is in the “de-growth, de-development” policies of “Net Zero decarbonization”. Policies now hindering, overturning, and eventually full-frontal ruining/destroying our heritage of industrial civilization based on (what are in reality) plentiful and (hence, what should be) inexpensive fossil fuels.
Add here also the good research of atmospheric physicists like Richard Lindzen and William Happer on the physics of CO2 (see their reports at “CO2coalition.org”) and the fact that the warming influence of CO2 is now “saturated”, a physics term referring to the fact that the area on the infrared spectrum where CO2 functions to warm climate (around 15 mm) is now full. And even a doubling of CO2 levels to 800 ppm will not result in much more warming, if any.
They further add evidence on the many benefits of increased CO2 in our “CO2 starvation era” (Patrick Moore). Benefits like a massive greening of our planet, where more CO2, as basic plant food, has resulted in the addition of some 15-20% more green vegetation on Earth just since 1980. That means more food for animals and significantly increased crop production for humanity. And all this good news is a “crisis”. Huh? What the…? Why are the Greens not celebrating this incredible greening of our planet?
In a long ago article on Anthony Watts’ excellent site “Wattsupwiththat.com” some author stated that you can engage and win arguments over energy policy but if you do not engage the actual science behind climate change then you have lost the game. Here is some excellent comment on the best of climate research- i.e. Henrick Svensmark’s research on cosmic rays and cloud cover.
Let me try to summarize some overall points from Svensmark’s research:
When cosmic rays enter Earth’s atmosphere they excite atoms or molecules around which water vapor adheres, thereby forming cloud cover. While this also happens normally, the cosmic rays give more permanence to the water vapor formed, permitting more permanence to the cloud cover. Such clouds, particularly those 3000 meters and below, have significant reflective potency, reflected solar energy back out to space, thus resulting in cooling of the climate. But when there is stronger solar activity- i.e. “coronal mass ejections”- these sweep across our region of the solar system and block the cosmic rays coming in (related to the sun’s magnetic field). That hinders cloud formation, thereby resulting in more solar energy reaching the Earth and heating the climate. As Svensmark and others show, this has significant correlation to cooling and warming periods on Earth. Hadron Collider experiments have affirmed Svensmark’s research.
Using my simple-minded approach to understanding and summarizing things:
Cosmic rays=more cloud=cooling of climate.
Solar eruptions blocking cosmic rays=less cloud=warming of climate.
This from Ken Haapala’s “The Week That Was- 2025/10/04 (Oct. 4, 2025), The Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)”.
Thanks to Haapala for reproducing this fascinating comment below from varied interviews of astrophysicist Henrick Svensmark the author of “The Chilling Stars”, research on how cosmic rays, as related to solar activity (i.e. coronal mass ejections), reveal a strong correlation to warming and cooling periods in climate, a much stronger correlation than the influence of CO2.
Haapala begins:
“This TWTW begins with comments on how Solar activity changes high energy cosmic rays hitting Earth’s atmosphere and how these rays change cloudiness on Earth….
He then mentions the research of Danish astrophysicist Henrick on “The Sun and Cosmic Rays”. Svensmark has “advocated the hypothesis that solar activity such as changing solar wind influence the intensity of high energy cosmic rays hitting Earth’s atmosphere. The changing intensity of cosmic rays in turn change the cloudiness of Earth. The changing cloudiness in Earth’s atmosphere has a far greater influence on climate fluctuations than changing carbon dioxide. The hypothesis has stood experimental testing by CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research which has the world’s largest particle accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).”
He then moves on to an interview of Svensmark on “How Sun and Cosmic Rays Make Our Climate Change”. The interviewer Hannes Sarv asks Svensmark questions about his research in relation to the claimed “climate crisis”.
“Svensmark responds that claiming that the modest warming experienced over the last 100 years is a crisis is foolish. Cold is a greater foe of humanity than heat.”
Sarv first offers his understanding of Svensmark’s research, stating, “If there are more clouds and reflect the sunlight back to space… if it reflects more sunlight out, then well, logically, we get the cooler climate, right?”
Svensmark responds, “Yes, exactly. Observations are one of the ways we can verify that it works… there are some explosions at the sun. They’re called coronal mass ejections. It’s when the magnetic field lines sort of open up and the sun is throwing out a large magnetic plasma. And this magnetic plasma works more or less like an umbrella or a shield against the cosmic rays. So, within a week, the cosmic rays are dropping, and they can drop maybe up to 30% or something like that. And that is like a natural experiment with the whole Earth.”
He continues, “We see a drop in the clouds following these events. And it’s not just the cloud fraction, it’s also the optical properties of clouds. So, we can actually see changes in the cloud’s microphysics under these events….
Further, “The solar activity modulates the cosmic rays. And that’s simply because the solar activity translates into changes in the solar wind. And the solar wind is covering the whole solar system and all the planets. That works like it’s a magnetic shield that screens against the cosmic rays.
“So, when the solar activity is high, you can say that it’s screening better against the cosmic rays. That means you get fewer cosmic rays into the atmosphere. So solar activity can regulate the amount of cosmic rays that comes into the atmosphere. So that regulates in the cloud cover.”
Haapala interjects these comments on Svensmark’s research:
“It provides an alternative explanation to carbon dioxide for the recent warming.”
He then refers to the similar research of an Israeli scientist Nir Shaviv, “(Who) has made a case that over the long haul, the temperature of the planet depends on the cosmic ray flux, which is affected by the motion of the solar system into and out of the arms of the Milky Way.”
Continuing with the interview of Svensmark, Haapala notes the question of how Svensmark’s hypothesis fits the historical records.
Svensmark replies, “If you look at solar activity going back in time, we talked about the Little Ice Age, which is from around 1300 to 1850. And then you had the medieval warm period for 900 until maybe 1200. that these changes, they fit very beautifully with changes in cosmic rays. So, when it’s cold, you have more cosmic rays coming in. And when it’s warm, you have less cosmic rays entering into the atmosphere. And we know these changes in cosmic rays because when cosmic rays enter the atmosphere, They are actually producing new elements like carbon-14, which is a radioactive form of carbon…
“You can use carbon-14 for dating things. But this carbon becomes CO2, the heavy form from carbon, and it goes into trees. And then you can look at the annual rings of the tree rings and measure how much carbon-14 you have relative to carbon-12. And you can then measure that for all the tree rings going back in time and you can actually reproduce solar activity almost 20,000 years back in time. And if you look at these changes and you compare with how climate has been changing over that period, there is beautiful correlations again.
“So, it is near certain that there is a connection between solar activity and climate. And you can also quantify some of these changes and they are relatively big, and it seems as if that, you know, changes in clouds are a very good candidate for explaining this. And when we look about the last 10,000 years, then the modulation of the cosmic rays, it’s caused by solar activity.”
Haapala brings in other scientists who further question Svensmark about his research…
One asks this, “Okay. Let me just ask you about those cosmic rays again. You did say, but again, I’m not that bright in your field. You did say it comes from Milky Way. Okay. Why does it come from there? Or what is it? What sends it here?”
Svensmark answers, “Cosmic rays are very energetic particles. It’s mainly atomic nuclei, 90% is protons. So that’s the core of the hydrogen atom. So, the energetic particles that we are interested in are mainly produced in what we call supernova… And this supernova, when it explodes, it produces a shock front that is moving out from where the star was located. And this shock front, it works as, you can call it, a cosmic accelerator…. it accelerates particles… And these particles, they are then moving in the interstellar space in the Milky Way….
“Then some of them will be outside, you know, arrive outside our solar system…. Then some of them will then enter into the top of the atmosphere. And then you have maybe one proton that comes in with extremely high energy. And then it works a little bit like billiard ball where you have one particle hitting the molecules or the atoms in the atmosphere and it makes a shower, sort of a cascade of particles that goes down through the atmosphere… you can have one particle coming in that becomes millions and even billions of particles that move down through the atmosphere….
Haapala ends with a reference to another scientist noting this, “I’ve also talked, for example, to Professor Zharkova. She said to me that we are entering another ice age soon.”
Svensmark replies to this point: “There’s no doubt that we will get an ice age. We have had a number of ice ages back in time. I don’t know if you’re talking about a real ice age or you’re talking about a little ice age, which is just a colder period”.
Haapala concludes: “The discussion brings up the Little Ice Age and the failure to understand brief warming and cooling periods. Then goes into the failure of global climate models, such as ignoring changes in cloudiness, then adjusting the parameters of the models to fit the data. Such actions demonstrate that the models are useless for prediction of future climate. The discission covers the unwillingness of scientists to go against the prevailing political interpretation and ugly demonstrations against Svensmark speaking in Germany. Svensmark then discusses long term climate changes and how traveling through the cosmic rays produced by supernovas may have caused Earth’s extreme ice ages (snowball Earth during the Precambrian period (720 to 635 million years ago). “
“The discussion continues with how traveling through supernovas may have changed the composition of life on Earth and concludes with asserting that the correlation between CO2 and temperatures is poor.”
This is a reference to the eras when the Earth passes through the spiral arms of the Milky Way, is subjected to supernova explosions, and how that correlates with long periods of ice ages on Earth.
Poking Grok over climate science, Wendell Krossa
I asked Grok for some comment on where CO2 operates/functions on the infrared spectrum, where CO2 exercises its warming influence on climate:
My question:
What is the number identifying where CO2 operates on the infrared spectrum?
Grok responded:
“CO2 absorbs infrared radiation primarily at wavelengths around 4.3 μm (micrometers) and 15 μm, corresponding to wavenumbers of approximately 2350 cm⁻¹ and 667 cm⁻¹, respectively. The 15 μm band is the most significant for atmospheric CO2, as it aligns with the Earth’s thermal emission spectrum, contributing to the greenhouse effect.”
I then asked further:
How long is the infrared spectrum? And why include the 4.3 micrometer number?
Grok answered:
“The infrared spectrum spans wavelengths from about 0.7 μm to 1000 μm (700 nm to 1 mm), divided into near-infrared (0.7–2.5 μm), mid-infrared (2.5–25 μm), and far-infrared (25–1000 μm). This range corresponds to wavenumbers from approximately 14,286 cm⁻¹ to 10 cm⁻¹.
“The 4.3 μm number for CO2 is included because it represents a key absorption band where CO2 strongly interacts with infrared radiation, due to its molecular vibrational modes (specifically, the asymmetric stretch). While the 15 μm band is more dominant for Earth’s atmospheric greenhouse effect, the 4.3 μm band is significant in contexts like atmospheric sensing or planetary studies, as it’s a strong absorption feature in CO2’s infrared spectrum.”
I probed further:
Richard Lindzen and William Happer, among others, state that CO2’s ability to warm at the 15 micro-meter range is now limited because that range of infrared is now “saturated”.
Grok replied further:
“The claim by Richard Lindzen and William Happer that CO2’s ability to warm at the 15 μm range is “saturated” refers to the idea that the atmosphere is already so opaque to infrared radiation at this wavelength that adding more CO2 has a diminishing effect on additional warming. Let’s unpack this with clarity:
Infrared Spectrum and CO2 Absorption
“The infrared spectrum, as noted, spans roughly 0.7 μm to 1000 μm. CO2 absorbs strongly at 15 μm (around 667 cm⁻¹), corresponding to its bending vibrational mode, which is critical for trapping outgoing longwave radiation (the greenhouse effect). This band is indeed where CO2 has its most significant impact on Earth’s climate.
Saturation Argument
“The “saturation” argument suggests that at current CO2 concentrations (~420 ppm as of 2025), the 15 μm absorption band is so effective that most infrared radiation at this wavelength is already absorbed within a short distance in the atmosphere. Adding more CO2, they argue, primarily affects absorption in the “wings” (edges) of the band or at higher altitudes, where the atmosphere is colder and emits less radiation, leading to a logarithmic rather than linear increase in warming. This is grounded in radiative transfer physics:
• Absorption Saturation: In the center of the 15 μm band, absorption is nearly complete in the lower atmosphere. Additional CO2 increases absorption slightly at the band’s edges or in thinner upper atmospheric layers.
• Logarithmic Forcing: The radiative forcing from CO2 scales logarithmically with concentration, meaning each doubling of CO2 (e.g., from 400 to 800 ppm) produces roughly the same additional forcing (~3.7 W/m² per doubling, per IPCC estimates).
Why 4.3 μm Was Mentioned
“I included the 4.3 μm band because it’s another strong CO2 absorption feature, relevant in contexts like spectroscopy or planetary atmospheres. However, it’s less significant for Earth’s greenhouse effect because it lies outside the peak of Earth’s thermal emission spectrum (~10–20 μm). The 15 μm band is central to the saturation debate, so my mention of 4.3 μm was supplementary to provide a fuller picture of CO2’s infrared interactions.
Evaluating the Saturation Claim
“While the 15 μm band is highly absorbent, “saturation” doesn’t mean CO2 stops contributing to warming. Key points:
1. Band Wings and Altitude Effects: Increased CO2 broadens absorption in the wings of the 15 μm band and shifts the effective radiating layer higher, where it’s colder, reducing outgoing radiation and enhancing warming.
2. Quantitative Impact: Climate models and measurements (e.g., satellite observations of outgoing longwave radiation) show that CO2’s forcing continues to increase with concentration, albeit logarithmically. Studies, like those in the IPCC AR6, estimate that even at current levels, additional CO2 contributes measurably to warming.
3. Critiques of Saturation: Critics of Lindzen and Happer argue that saturation is overstated because the atmosphere’s complexity (e.g., pressure broadening, overlapping absorptions with water vapor) ensures CO2 remains effective. Observational data from AIRS and IASI satellites confirm ongoing changes in infrared absorption with rising CO2.
Context of Lindzen and Happer
“Lindzen and Happer are prominent skeptics of mainstream climate sensitivity estimates. Their saturation argument is used to suggest lower climate sensitivity (e.g., 0.5–1.5°C per CO2 doubling) compared to IPCC ranges (2.5–4°C). However, mainstream climate science, supported by radiative transfer models and observations, finds that while saturation reduces the marginal effect of CO2, it doesn’t eliminate it, and feedbacks (e.g., water vapor, clouds) amplify warming.
“In summary, the 15 μm band is highly absorbent, but not fully “saturated” in a way that halts CO2’s warming potential. The logarithmic nature of forcing means diminishing returns, but measurable warming persists with rising CO2, consistent with observations and models.”
(End of Grok comments.)
My added notes on Grok’s comments:
Note Grok’s appeal to “mainstream climate sensitivity estimates”. He used to respond to my inquires on climate science by summarizing his counter points with appeal to the “consensus science” of the alarmist narrative. Grok made persistent retreats to affirm the alarmist narrative as the final word on any issue I raised.
The appeal to a climate alarmism “consensus” is something that was long ago discredited as fraudulent. Grok appears to have now shifted to a milder affirmation of the alarmist narrative with this reference to “mainstream climate…”. Note the subtle dismissal of skeptical climate science in Grok’s use of this term “mainstream”, meaning that skeptics of the alarmist narrative are “non-mainstream”- a new take on “climate change deniers”?
I give props to Grok for being honest enough to include the qualifier that “The logarithmic nature of forcing means diminishing returns”, though Grok then immediately follows with a further counter qualification on that bit of honesty- “but measurable warming persists with rising CO2”. And that qualification of a qualification is weakened by his appeal to the highly discredited climate “models”.
Grok seems unaware of the evidence that the CO2 influence on climate is consistently overwhelmed by significant other natural factors, resulting in notable disconnects between CO2 and climate warming periods. That has been noted over long-term paleo-climate eras as well as over shorter periods of the ice-age eras of glaciations/inter-glacial periods (e.g. Vostok ice-core research), millennia scales, centuries, and shorter.