Conclusion.pdf 22 July 2019
The analysis of satellite lower troposphere temperature data compared to observatory CO2 concentration data revealed that temperature is independent of CO2 concentration. This contradicts the IPCC claim that CO2 causes atmospheric warming. Further, the analysis shows that there is a statistically significant probability that the temperature controls the rate of change of the CO2 concentration.
This is supported by the fact that the temperature and the annual rate of change of CO2 concentration have near identical autocorrelation functions and Fourier Transform spectra. These reveal that there is a prominent 42 month cycle for the temperature due to the synodic period of the Sun, Earth, Moon configuration which is expressed in the Earth’s climate as the El Niño event. The same cycle is revealed in the rate of change of CO2 concentration. Furthermore other cycles in these spectra may relate to the orbital paths of the planets indicating that, at least in terms of years, the orientation of the planets with respect to the Sun may determine the changes in the Earth’s temperature.
That is, climate change is the result of the continually changing position of the Moon and the planets relative to the Earth and the Sun and has nothing whatsoever to do with the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Other external factors such as cosmic ray bursts are known to influence the temperature.
The correlation between the temperature and the rate of change of CO2 mandates that temperature change precedes CO2 change confirming that the temperature change cannot possibly be caused by the later CO2 change.
Furthermore the CO2 measurements display a repeated cycle arising from the seasons implying that biological processes such as photosynthesis, driven by climate variation, cause the changes in CO2 concentration. Additional evidence of climate driving CO2 is seen in the close correlation between the annual rate of change of CO2 concentration and the Oceanic Niño Index 3.4 which tracks the occurrence of El Niño events, a major, regular climate change. The continual upward trend in the CO2 concentration is due to the current climate conditions causing a positive rate of change for the CO2 concentration.
Support for the validity of these conclusions is to be seen in the study of the Greenhouse Effect. Estimates of the Effect show that it only produces a small fraction of the energy required to produce the supposed warming. In fact it should cause a cooling of the Earth due to ‘backradiation’ into space of the incoming Sun’s irradiance, if it had the claimed action. The Greenhouse Effect is not a property of the atmosphere but a measure of the bias inherent in the artificial model used to estimate the average temperature of the surface of an imaginary Earth.
Hence CO2 change has not caused global warming and has not caused climate change, it has been caused by climate change.
Climate Auditor 
Competent research and data. Thank you.
LikeLike
Thank you Daniel,
It is good to get feedback and read that I am providing useful and properly researched information.
LikeLike
Great work, I to am a retired geophysicist after 49 years. Over the past ten years I find BRW increased temp by 3.72 C while SPO decreased by 2.30. Multiply by 10 to get the rate for 100 years. This is an order of magnitude more than the IPCC. Am I doing something wrong?
LikeLike
Good to read of your interest gekeyser,
I have not looked at the BRW or SPO temperature data over the most recent 10 year period but would expect your results to be more realist than anything that comes from the UN IPCC.
In general I have found that the rate of change of temperature over the Antarctic area is not significantly different from zero. The rate of change of temperature and the amplitude of the seasonal variation in temperature increase steadily in going from South to North. I am searching around for a reason but, not being an astronomer, I am hindered by my lack of knowledge of the movements of the Solar System.
LikeLike
Very interesting, I had not heard about the amount of incoming IR before now.
Your studies will take time to absorb
What is puzzling is how so many people see so convinced by AGW, Anthropocentric Global Warming. I find climate science fascinating, but also immensely complicated. ‘The Science’ is nowhere near finished.
I picked up on this site from considering the role of CO2 within the IR atmospheric mix and landed on your CO2 absorbtion page.
The main AGW claim is predicated on reduced IR emissions to outer space due to an elevation of the Effective Emission Height (EEH)?
Your work on absorption parallels my musings on emissions …
Analysing the role of emissions from CO2 compared to emission from H2O at 15 microns, H2O being 1000 times more prevalent than CO2, might also bring into question this part of AGW theory – the raising of the EEH? Surely adding 1 CO2 molecule per 1000 active IR molecules has very little effect on outgoing IR at 15 microns? Maybe not so much at 5 microns but even that raises other questions about the impact of outgoing IR emissions from CO2 as a % of all outgoing IR to outer space?
The Lapse Rate (which is a gravitational forcing effect) driven by rising (and cooling) packets of air at the equator, plus sunlight, is what primarily heats the earth surface it seems?
I don’t think there is any ‘backwarming’ or ‘downwelling’ of energetic flux heating the earth’s surface at all, cold air doesn’t heat a warmer earth’s surface? It is the convective flux at the equator which charges the atmosphere like a battery, raising and cooling packets of gas storing potential energy in the volume and size of the Troposphere, to be slowly re-released as IR. This also creates the temperature gradient and creates the lapse-rate warming of the earth’s surface, driven primarily by gravity, and the work done against gravity by the rising air packets?
IR active gases and emissions play an important part, but are NOT the primary drivers of a warm earth?
LikeLike