The question is whether an increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause an increase in temperature near the surface of the earth due to absorption of infrared radiation.

Near the surface of the earth, CO2 absorbs all radiation available to it in 10 meters. Doubling the CO2 would shorten the distance to 5 meters, which is not an increase in temperature. The first 20% of the CO2 in the atmosphere does most of what CO2 does. Therefore, promoters of the scheme needed to contrive a fake mechanism to explain how CO2 creates global warming.

Supposedly, the all-important effect occurs high in the atmosphere where the shoulders on the absorption peaks for carbon dioxide are not saturated. In the thinner atmosphere, the shoulders do not overlap with the peaks for water vapor. But the reason why they do not overlap is because the shoulders start to disappear, which means they are of miniscule proportions.

The shoulders of the peaks are said to not be saturated, which means more CO2 will result in more absorption. If not absorbed, the radiation would go into outer space. So the point is that less heat escapes into space, when CO2 levels increase.

Not only is this effect miniscule, but logic indicates that it would occur above the lower atmosphere (troposphere), where there would be no mixing with air near the surface of the earth.

The center of the peaks absorbs all available radiation in a short distance, while the shoulders absorb all available radiation in a longer distance. This means CO2 is still absorbing it's central wavelengths way above the stratosphere—something like 80-100 kilometers up.
(The numbers are evaluated more completely on the page titled 220 Trillionth °C.)

It also means shoulder molecules do the same thing nitrogen and oxygen do—they absorb radiation over a long distance. But shoulder molecules only absorb a narrow band of frequencies, while nitrogen and oxygen absorb a wide band of frequencies; and there are almost a million times as many nitrogen and oxygen molecules as shoulder molecules. Why would doing some more or what nitrogen and oxygen do result in global warming? It wouldn't.

For example, at a height of 16 kilometers, the atmospheric density is about one tenth that at sea level. The peak wavelengths should absorb completely in about 100 meters, because at ground level they absorb in 10 meters. Shoulders which are 5% as effective would absorb completely in 20 times as much distance, or 2 kilometers. When doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, they would do the same in 1 kilometer. The shorter distance is not an increase in heat. But does it add heat to the lower atmosphere, where the concern is? Not significantly, because 17 kilometers is in the stratosphere, which does not circulate significantly with the lower atmosphere.

Consider these quantities. Carbon dioxide is said to absorb 8% of the wavelengths emitted by black body radiation. The shoulders are assumed to be something like 5% of the 8%. But Heinz Hug says it is much less, and logic indicates he is right, since shoulders disappear higher in the atmosphere. Humans are responsible for 3% of the carbon dioxide being produced. Propagandists say humans put 30% of the CO2 into the air, but new evidence is showing otherwise, and it is ridiculous to assume that the human input accumulates, while the natural input does not, particularly since oceans regulate the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to the most minute degree.

Promoters of the global warming hype are claiming that such a miniscule amount of heat scattered in the upper atmosphere, with almost no ability to influence temperatures in the lower atmosphere, is supposedly the cause of global warming.

Even extreme numbers will not salvage the fraud.

The total atmosphere is said to heat the earth by 33°C.

Propagandists say 41% of the heat leaving the surface of the earth is radiation. It's actually closer to 1%, but just look how ridiculous the result is even when using the 41%.

Only 8% of the radiation is of a frequency which can be absorbed by CO2.

So 33°C X 41% X 8% = 1.08°C — The total heat that CO2 supposedly produces.

Then humans only put 3% of the CO2 into the air. Frauds say it accumulated to 30%; but even with the 30% figure, we must multiply the 1.08°C time 30%, which equals 0.32°C.

If then, the fake mechanism high in the atmosphere only concerns the shoulders on the absorption peaks, the fraction gets smaller. 5% is about what they are talking about. But even if it is 10%, the increase in global temperature caused by humans putting carbon dioxide into the air is an absolute maximum of 0.032°C.

These numbers are so undeniable, that the frauds produced another rationalization. They said water vapor multiplies the effect. They call it forcing. They say CO2 heats a little bit, and this heat causes more water to evaporate from the oceans, and the water vapor heats the globe 3 to 10 times more.

I explain the fraud of multiplying through water vapor on the web page titled The Water Vapor Fraud. But notice that before the multiplication, the absolute maximum number is 0.032°C. Multiplying by 10 would only be 0.32°C. They claim it is already 0.6°C and is going to increase some more. These numbers cannot be increased.

The upper, maximum limit for human induced temperature change based on the claims of the frauds is 0.32°C.

For an exact estimate of numbers, see 220 Trillionth of a Degree Centigrade.

The point here is the main point of all global warming criticism. The claims and purposes are so ridiculous that no amount of lying can fix the numbers.