CO2 Does Not Drive Temperature; Temperature Drives CO2

It seems the "consensus" climate alarmists may have it backwards. Research suggests that rising CO2 does not cause rising temperatures. Rather, rising temperatures cause an increase in CO2. Nir Shaviv, among others, pointed this out long ago, but the alarmists were determined to promote their narrative. One wonders how many times will it be necessary to point out the emperor is not wearing any clothes?

New Study: The Rising-CO2-Causes-Warming Perception Not Supported By Real-World Observation
By Kenneth Richard on 18. September 2023

Share this...
“Oddly, while the principal direction suggested by the models is ΔIn[CO₂] → ΔT, the explained variance is impressively low (10-15%) in this direction and impressively high (reaching 90%) in the opposite direction, at ΔT → ΔIn[CO₂].” − Koutsoyiannis et al., 2023
One of the most basic concepts in physics is that causes precede effects and effects follow causes. Determining the directionality sequence is thus essential in any causality analysis.

The assumed CO₂→T causality direction cannot be scientifically supported

The assumption in climate models is that CO₂ causes changes in temperature, or T. More specifically, it is assumed modern global warming has been caused by increases in anthropogenic CO₂ emissions.

However, scientists (Koutsoyiannis et al., 2023) have now expanded upon last year’s 2-part study on stochastics-formulated causality published in The Royal Society (Koutsoyiannis et al., 2022 (1) and Koutsoyiannis et al., 2022 (2)) where they notably contend:

“Clearly the results […] suggest a (mono-directional) potentially causal system with T as the cause and [CO₂] as the effect. Hence the common perception that increasing [CO₂] causes increased T can be excluded as it violates the necessary condition for this causality direction.”

A year later these same authors have again conspicuously demonstrated the assumed CO₂→T causality direction cannot be scientifically supported because observations clearly show that variance in T leads or precedes growth rate variance in CO₂ by 6 or more months.

“All evidence resulting from the analyses suggests a unidirectional, potentially causal link with T [temperature] as the cause and [CO₂] as the effect.”

Observational evidence overrules modeled assumptions, regardless of how compelling or mainstream the conventional wisdom.



Image Source: Koutsoyiannis et al., 2023
Cross-correlation analysis reveals CO₂-causes-warming trend alignment depictions are spurious

Because it is widely assumed human CO₂ emissions are the cause and temperature changes are the effect, tendentiously adjusting the axes on graphs to make it appear that the CO₂ and T trends align (i.e., curve-fitting, as shown in the left-side chart below) has become a popular pursuit for those advancing the anthropogenic global warming narrative.

It can be shown, however, that these trend alignments are spurious. Why? Because in the industrial era there have been periods when temperatures have risen rapidly with negligible CO₂ emissions (1700-1750), and decreasing temperatures while CO₂ emissions were rising (1880-1900, 1950-1970). When including all these counter-alignments together and differencing the time series (cross-correlation), the CO₂→T trend alignment disappears. These non-correlations are clearly shown in the right-side charts below. If there are non-correlations, or if the correlations are spurious, causation cannot be established.



Image Source: Koutsoyiannis et al., 2023
Natural CO₂ emissions induced by warming can be shown to be responsible for rising CO₂ concentrations

Fossil fuel emissions amount to 9.4 GtC/year, which is only 4% of the total CO₂ emissions from all sources. In contrast, nature (respiration, freshwater outgassing, fire, volcanism, etc.) produces CO₂ emissions amounting to 216 GtC/year.

It is assumed that the carbon cycle is, in its natural state (without human interference), in perpetual equilibrium, with emissions from natural sources almost perfectly balanced by natural sinks. This presumption is flawed, however, because nature’s sinks don’t decide to only absorb the 216 GtC/year from natural sources as they simultaneously fail to absorb the 9.4 GtC/year from human activities. The 216 GtC/year from nature and 9.4 GtC/year from fossil fuels are instantaneously combined, and nature’s sinks absorb emissions proportionately from the total, ~225 GtC/year.

In their new paper’s appendix, Koutsoyiannis and colleagues have used basic chemistry to show that outgassing from warming and respiration can be biochemically shown to produce emissions rates of 31.6 GtC/year. This is 3.4 times more than the annual emissions from fossil fuels (9.4 GtC/year). Thus, the observation that temperature may potentially a cause of rising CO₂ concentrations appears to be observationally supportable. A substantial portion of modern CO₂ rise may thus be natural.



Image Source: Koutsoyiannis et al., 2023
Natural mechanisms for warming may include the natural increase in sunshine duration

If rising CO₂ concentrations cannot explain modern warming due to the violation of the requisite causality direction, what can?

As has been detailed extensively in many other observational studies, the recent decline in Earth’s planetary albedo (clouds, aerosols) has been reflecting less solar radiation and increasing sunshine duration in recent decades. This, in turn, warms the surface.

A 0.01 change in planetary albedo can induce a radiative forcing of ±3.4 W/m² (Wielicki et al., 2005).

Koutsoyiannis and colleagues cite CERES data that depict a falling linear trend of -0.0019 per decade in planetary albedo since 2000. This can be shown to have elicited a +1.4 W/m² positive imbalance from incoming shortwave, which is sufficient to explain the modern radiative forcing associated with rising temperatures.

So the warming in recent decades may be natural. The CO₂ increases resulting from the natural warming may be substantially natural too. And these results are observationally supportable.

Given the evidence presented in this new study, the claim that human CO₂ emissions are the cause of modern warming is not observationally supportable.



Image Source: Koutsoyiannis et al., 2023

 

Great documentation. This has been the assumption from the data from a long time. Nice to see it compiled in such an easy to consume way.

 

"rising temperatures cause an increase in CO2"

Like Venus?

Hardly a reassuring assertion!

 

Deep policy implications.

 

It sounds like a new pony trick - the denialists are finding it more and more difficult to deny that the Earth is warming.

 

No one has denied warming, at least through 2016. The debate was always about attribution. And again, if CO2 is not the driver of warming then everything from electric vehicles to renewable energy begins to seem pointless.

 

Can you point out an actual DENIALIST? An actual sentient human being that says NO warming has occurred?

 

To put it super bluntly, no one I know has ever tried to "deny" that the earth is warming or not. The assertion from the faithful of AGW have asserted that human outputs of CO2 are causing warming. And yet, to date, the studies from science indicate that the relationship between warming and CO2 is counter to what the AGW folks have said. So, warming does likely influence CO2 saturation levels, and this has been repeatedly shown in the actual evidence.

My first question is, why shouldn't the earth warm up? It has, historically, been significantly hotter than it is today. Do you feel like you should be able to consign the planet climate conditions (there are many btw) to never change? And if so, why? Why do you feel like the climates shouldn't change? Can you explain the absence of CO2, for example, in the latest warming trend that started ~12800 years ago? Can you explain what caused the Laurentian Ice sheet to melt in that era? No?

As for what is a denialist, I'd say, look in a mirror. You seem entirely willing to deny the actual evidence. Why? Faith based socialism got your tongue??

 

Oh, there is a very real point. It's called control, isolation, and determination of what populations are able to do, and how successful they are, and how dependent on authoritarian government they become. That has always been the point of AGW.

 

I don't think the alarmists are that organized.

 

And therefore let's burn some more car tires and drill for more oil...Are you really that transparent?

 

There is no reason to move away from ICE vehicles (or their tires) if CO2 has no climate downside.

 

What are you going to make tires with? Old solar cells, or recycled wind mill blades?

 

Denialists are just buttsore because ICE can't compete with Tesla. Once those batteries drop in price it's all over.

 

The petro-chemical industry will remain important in the foreseeable future.

 

The EV is less capable than the ICE vehicle.

 

I'll remind you that Tesla has been in existence for 20 years and it has yet to be competitive with ICE vehicles. They need massive subsidization and regulatory destruction of ICEs to even become profitable.

 

Nice fantasy.

 

Nonsense.

 

The data are the data.

 

Obviously not sales data.

 

Can’t you lot come up with some new rubbish? This is so silly on so many levels and has been debunked more often than a drunken sailor in a cyclone
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/11362
This bogus claim has been around for at least ten years and the so called “study” in the article isn’t a study at all

 

Lols!

I chased down that article which seems to be more of a philosophical treatise replete with “weasel words” because I wanted to check the level of peer review

Lols!

https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sci/special_issues/Y1E5UQV4W2
Looks impressive yes? Until you get further down the page and……..

 

When I watch the democratic party in the US push things like the green new deal, I'd make the case it seems pretty well organized to create a political outcome.

 

I had a quick look. Oh dear!