I am a mechanical engineer by profession. I graduated from a technical high school with an aviation focus and then studied transport and handling technology at the Czech Technical University (CVUT), specializing in internal combustion engines. Due to serious health issues, I had to end my studies in the 5th year. I think I was a good student. I passed all exams in mathematics, physics, mechanics, electrical engineering, and other technical subjects on the first try, usually with top grades (1s and 2s). Because I studied internal combustion engines, I believe I have not only fundamental knowledge of math and physics but also specialized knowledge of thermal machines and energy sources.
For a long time, I didn’t pay much attention to the debates about climate change. I always believed the main cause was obvious: the population explosion of human civilization. I was also convinced that there were enough experts in the world studying these problems. I became more interested in this topic when electromobility in transportation started being promoted based on misleading and often completely false information. Leading experts in the fields of energy, transport, and propulsion units across Europe have been warning EU leadership for years about numerous technical, economic, and social risks accompanying this purely political decision. But it seems to have been in vain.
That’s what prompted me to start studying the arguments of climate activists and their opponents more deeply. I was very surprised by the information and data in the only currently recognized theory of global warming, namely the effect of greenhouse gases. I would rather call this the Theory of CO₂ Harmfulness.
Before I begin my analysis and critique of this theory, I want to state that I do not claim to present some universal, main cause of warming. I want to share the information I’ve gathered through my studies, my doubts, and my conclusions. A key part of serious science should be open discussion and the evaluation of arguments.
My first surprise while examining the Theory of Global Warming concerned the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere. Despite the fact that we hear about CO₂ in the media practically every day, I was unable to find anyone around me who could correctly answer the question: how much CO₂ is in the atmosphere? Based on information from the media, most people feel that we will soon start suffocating from CO₂. On average, the absolute share of CO₂ in Earth’s atmosphere is, in words, four ten-thousandths of the whole. Or, one could say it is four hundredths of a percent, or four tenths of a per mille of the atmosphere. It is a trace amount. Over the last century, its share in the atmosphere has increased by one ten-thousandth that is, by one hundredth of a percent. The increase was from 0.03% to 0.04%. The relative increase is therefore approximately 30% compared to the state 100 years ago. This relative increase is a key argument for climatologists that this rise is enormous. As proof, they present graphs of the increase in CO₂ levels alongside the rise in average atmospheric temperature. They see a mutual connection here. However, the rise in CO₂ is also directly dependent on humanity’s energy consumption and the number of people on Earth. These dependencies, however, are not mentioned by climatologists, and they do not work with them. The number of people is five times higher an increase of +400% and the thermal energy emitted by humanity has risen due to technological progress by roughly +1000%.
My second surprise related to the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere was discovering how much humanity contributes to the overall natural CO₂ cycle (on the order of a maximum of 10 percent), and more specifically, how much human activity in Europe contributes to the CO₂ cycle. Human activity across all of Europe contributes at most one percent to the total CO₂ cycle on Earth. So with this one percent, we Europeans can influence the global CO₂ cycle. However, climate scientists do not take into account the global population size in their considerations. Before Europeans reduce their CO₂ emissions by half or to zero, the world’s population will grow by half a billion people, and CO₂ emissions will rise regardless of what Europe does. Paradoxically, no climate conference mentions population explosion as a cause of climate change, nor proposes any control or regulation of the human population. While searching for information about the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere, I came across units expressed in PPM (parts per million). These are used to define very low trace concentrations, for example in solutions. In our case, it refers to the number of CO₂ molecules per million molecules of the atmosphere. The reported increase from 300 to 400 PPM may look alarming, even though it’s a trace amount that is, in reality, very difficult to measure accurately.
My third surprise was discovering how the entire current Theory of Global Warming has essentially been reduced to a very elementary problem. This theory works solely with greenhouse gas emissions, while effectively ignoring emissions of the most significant greenhouse gas — water vapor. Furthermore, it does not take into account the thermal emissions of human civilization at all. The essence of the theory is briefly expressed mathematically by the claim that an increase of CO₂ content in the atmosphere by every 10 PPM (parts per million) allegedly causes a warming of 0.1°C. In addition to CO₂, the theory considers emissions of methane and other gases, which contribute to the greenhouse effect to a lesser degree. Water vapor, which is responsible for approximately two-thirds of the greenhouse effect, is ignored by this theory. It only admits that the warming caused by CO₂ emissions will lead to an increase in the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, which will then amplify the greenhouse effect. I would explain here that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is primarily determined by the temperature of the atmosphere. This theory asserts that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is physically limited by air temperature, and any excess condenses and falls as rain. Allegedly, humans do not influence this quantity in any way.
Here I would mention another surprise related to the so-called Theory of CO₂ Harmfulness. As I already mentioned above, this theory strongly denies that humans contribute to the increase of water vapor in the atmosphere. This is a key problem of the theory. If this is not true, then the theory is flawed because water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas. The authors of this theory dealt with the question of water vapor in a very simplistic way. They explicitly claim that the energy produced by human heating sources is negligible compared to the energy coming from the Sun, and therefore the thermal output of human civilization cannot influence the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. However, a detailed analysis of Earth’s energy balance can easily prove that this claim is false.
To explain this key question, we will need to conduct a more detailed analysis of the Earth’s energy balance. To begin with, when the term energy is used in this context, it typically refers to thermal energy measured over a period of time. From a physics perspective, this means thermal power. Energy from the Sun reaches the Earth, and part of it is reflected while another part is absorbed by both the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface. In addition, the Earth is heated by geothermal energy from its core, by the thermal output of human civilization, and by other contributing factors. Crucial to maintaining thermal balance is the invisible infrared radiation that the Earth emits just like any object with a temperature above absolute zero. The amount of energy radiated is actually greater than the energy absorbed from sunlight. The reason lies in the additional internal heat sources on Earth and the infrared radiation that is reflected back to the surface due to the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere. The amount of heat radiated by a body is determined by the Stefan–Boltzmann law and depends on the fourth power of the object’s absolute temperature in degrees Kelvin (measured from absolute zero). So, the heat radiated from the Earth is governed by the surface and atmospheric temperature of the planet. If we increase the amount of heat on Earth, its temperature rises, more heat is radiated, and a new thermal equilibrium is eventually reached. Thanks to the fourth-power temperature dependence, even a small temperature increase can cause the Earth to radiate a significantly larger amount of heat. This mechanism makes Earth’s thermal system relatively stable. Over long time scales, the planet maintains a kind of energy balance. Changes in average global temperature are thus caused by what’s known as Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI) a scientific term. Scientists monitor this imbalance using various sensors and measurements on Earth and in satellites. I do not know the exact methods of this evaluation. Scientists claim that due to the heat capacity of the oceans, changes in Earth’s average temperature are not immediate, but occur with a certain delay. Reportedly, the Earth’s energy imbalance has doubled in recent decades and has now reached a thermal power output of 460 terawatts (TW).
Now I will compare this output with the thermal output of the entire human civilization. This consists of the total energy consumption of humanity (around 10 TW), which ultimately turns into heat. It also includes the waste heat generated during electricity production in power plants and other thermal engines. In addition, it includes a variety of heat sources in industry and agriculture. The total thermal output of human civilization is estimated at 18 TW. In comparison with the EEI (Earth Energy Imbalance), this represents about 4% of the reported value of 460 TW, bearing in mind that in previous decades, the share of human-generated energy was around 8% of EEI. Values between 4% and 8% are certainly not negligible and this represents only the direct energetic contribution of humanity to Earth’s energy imbalance. Furthermore, it must be recognized that this significant contribution to EEI also leads to an increase in atmospheric temperature, which in turn results in an increase in the amount of watervapor in the atmosphere. This should not be surprising when we consider, for example, the vast amount of heat released as water vapor from the cooling towers of thermal and nuclear power plants. The greenhouse effect caused by the water vapor present in the atmosphere due to heat emitted by human civilization further increases the human contribution to EEI, likely by tens of percent. These are not facts that can be ignored when studying global warming.
As I mentioned above, the currently accepted theory of global warming completely ignores the thermal output of human civilization as negligible. The argument of its proponents is that the thermal output of humanity is only one ten-thousandth of the energy from the Sun that reaches the Earth. This is clearly a selective and manipulative statement designed to divert attention from the examination of the impact of human civilization’s thermal output on the warming of the atmosphere. As I explained above, solar energy is only one component of Earth’s energy balance, which has been in a long-term state of equilibrium due to the massive infrared radiation that the Earth emits into space.
For a rough understanding of the main thermal flows, I am providing a graphical representation. Shortwave radiation from the Sun reaches the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. Longwave thermal radiation is emitted from the surface and almost entirely absorbed into the atmosphere. In thermal equilibrium, the energy absorbed by the atmosphere is the same as the energy radiated into space. The numbers show the radiation power in watts per square meter during the years 2000–2004. The Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI) is expressed here as a thermal power value of 0.9 W/m², which remains on Earth. It is necessary to examine how the energy of human civilization contributes to this value, which causes the warming of the Earth.
We can now compare how climate experts work with numerical data in terms of relevance. The absolute proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by one ten-thousandth over 100 years. This ten-thousandth has a different weight for them than the heat energy of humanity, which represents one ten-thousandth of the energy coming to Earth from the Sun. Given the above data on EEI, it is clear that comparing humanity’s energy with the energy coming from the Sun to Earth is misleading.
The total impact of human civilization’s energy on EEI, when accounting for the greenhouse effect of water vapor emitted by humanity, likely reaches several tens of percent of EEI. This impact is closely tied to the population size and its civilizational needs. Scientists tactfully remain silent about this fact. This stance is not scientific but rather typically political. Politicians usually select only the data that supports their claims and conceal other relevant contexts and data.
In connection with the aforementioned impact of the thermal energy emitted by human civilization on the Earth’s energy imbalance, it is important to realize that from an energy perspective, thermal power plants, nuclear power plants, and solar power plants all burden the climate in a similar way. In each case, a comparable amount of waste heat is added to the electrical output, emitted into the atmosphere, and the electricity generated is also converted into heat through consumption. The idea that we can cool the atmosphere by installing a large number of nuclear or thermonuclear energy sources is entirely illusory.
A view of a nighttime satellite photograph of the USA shows, for example, how the entire continent shines.
Cities shine, heating, power plants run, and the energy of civilization emits heat into the atmosphere even at night without sunlight. This heat certainly affects the amount of water vapor that can stay in the atmosphere, and it influences the greenhouse effect. Thermal and nuclear power plants emit a large amount of heat and the most significant greenhouse gas—water vapor. The burning of hydrocarbon fuels leads not only to CO2 emissions but also directly to the emission of water vapor, which is produced during combustion, and the heat that keeps it in the atmosphere. If these facts have been downplayed and concealed by most scientists for many years, I don’t consider it a mistake but an intentional act. Taxing water vapor would be a much bigger problem.
If someone wants to investigate the causes of various uprisings, revolutions, and wars, historians recommend following the money trail. Can this approach be applied to the case of examining the theory of the harmfulness of CO2? Who came up with this theory? Who financially supports this theory? Who and how profits from it? These are questions that need answers. According to the official explanation from climatologists, I learned that this theory supposedly originated based on a request from large insurance and financial companies, who were concerned about the risks threatening their profits. It was supposedly found that the greatest risk of profit loss is CO2 emissions. My personal opinion, which I certainly do not impose on anyone, is that this theory about the harmfulness of CO2 was created on commission, and the goal of the commissioners is to increase their profits through it. In my view, the current carbon emission permits are the scam of the century, aimed at stealing from the population and transferring wealth from the middle class into the hands of the richest group. Examining financial flows may reveal that the Green Deal, electromobility, and support for migration are backed by the same financial groups as the theory of the harmfulness of CO2, with similar economic goals.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that the purpose of this text is to draw attention to the misleading oversimplification of the current global warming theory. We need to seriously address all the real causes of warming, including the impact of population growth on Earth. Humanity is reshaping the Earth in its own image, and I believe that is a good thing. I believe that the issue of global warming can be satisfactorily resolved in the future with the possibilities that humanity has. However, it is essential to clarify all the causes and the seriousness of climate change truthfully. In my opinion, carbon emission permits are a financial scam that is destroying Europe. These should be firmly and consistently rejected in every case. In our country, we should also reconsider the importance of coal mining and its use in energy and metallurgy. These are our own resources, in which we are self-sufficient. Paying fines for the use of coal seems nonsensical to me.
In Prague
14. 4. 2025 Václav Knob