CO2 Does Not Drive Temperature; Temperature Drives CO2

null

 

More like this

 

Fixed it for you!

Anyone who thought your model was correct has NEVER seen the sheer volume of research on climate change

 

Yeah? Well when you stumble across some I’ll let you know

 

Ooooh! You get a widdle star! You got something right. Now do some extrapolating. If the last couple of years have been hot and the sun is about to make things hotter then……….

 

Was repeat was and since when does having done an MD in 1969 make you an expert in climate science?

 

Then you guys will yell and scream about how that evil CO2 is the real culprit and solar cycles don't matter.

 

Actually you just demonstrated your own shortcomings because there are very, very few "Climate Change Deniers". The fact you have to use untruthful titles shows the weakness and dishonesty of Climate Change Disasterists.

 

~ This is what we learned in High School science back in 1971. Something along the explanation of desert areas being higher in Co2 as compared to colder climate. Plant and foliage growth benefits was also mentioned. We also could tell the difference between male and female by that time ...

 

If I meet any "RWers" I'll let you know. FYI: It's not a good look to reply to data with a personal attack.

 

Sorry, but your claim is demonstrably false. I fear you are the demonstration of denial.

 

Lifelong interest in science. And quite a bit more qualified than you seem to have assumed.

 

I assess qualifications on how people post. If you post with a degree of academic rigor then I will accept claims of higher education. I will accede that you do use citations, unfortunately those citations are “fringe” sites that themselves do not adhere to any form of academic rigor seen at a tertiary level. You would not be able to use “wattsupwiththat” in a term paper for high school let alone for a university. But then you cannot use Wikipedia either. Not because of the political “lean” but because they are not considered to be in line with full academic tertiary standards

 

Lols! Want me to prove it? Mind you I actually have time and again. E.G. Whatsupmybutt and notrickszone use “articles” written by known twonks like Monckton. The climate science equivalent of Sydney Powell. How often do they post articles by “guest bloggers” who are not even named? How often have we caught them including unreferenced graphs? Whatsupwiththat even posts contradictory articles! Ie one article will outline how it is the volcanoes are pumping co2 into the atmosphere causing warming whilst the next article will deny that co2 is affecting the planet at all (which is moon made of green cheese level twonkerism)

 

And yet I've never seen you tell anybody what your actual qualifications are in anything. Makes your insult laden riffs seem pretty silly.

 

Shakes head and feels pity for those who cling to myths and misconceptions whilst denying science that has been known since the 1800’s

https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/sci...arrhenius-the-man-who-foresaw-climate-change/

 

Because I do not boast. I expect my posting style to speak for me. I admit I often choose citations that based on who I am responding to I.e. it is counterproductive to cite the IPCC if the person you are responding to thinks the ipcc is some form of “evil conspiracy”

 

That's a pathetic excuse for not putting your money where your mouth is.

 

Lols! I ALWAYS know when the opposition has run out of pertinent points- they resort to Ad Homs

Read my sig

 

So far, you're entirely ad homs.

 

We were discussing Dr. Michael Crichton. Your view of my posts is not of interest.

 

The "guest bloggers" are always named. You obviously know little of the sites you criticize.
FYI: Only WUWT uses the "guest blogger" terminology; the authors are always named at the top of the post.
WUWT is an aggregator which proudly and purposefully posts differing viewpoints.
Your claims are rooted in ignorance -- classic denial.

 

New Study Upends Modeling, Finds Earth’s Rocks Are A Net Source Of CO2 Rivaling Volcanic Emissions
By Kenneth Richard on 12. October 2023

Share this...
For decades rock weathering has been thought to be a net sink in carbon budget models. New research finds rock emissions are a large net source of CO2 to the atmosphere.
A few years ago Buesseler et al., 2020 discovered that all of the climate modelers’ previous estimates of global ocean carbon uptake are substantially wrong because they were measuring from the fixed “canonical fixed 150-m depth.” The alleged new-and-improved way to assess carbon uptake is from much shallower depths: the euphotic zone (Ez). This is the section of the upper ocean layer that sunlight is able to penetrate, and it can “vary from less than 20 m to almost 200 m” in depth.

When the variable Ez depth is used to estimate carbon absorption versus export, the absorption estimate changes by more than a factor of 2, from 2.8 petagrams of carbon (PgC) per year to 5.7.



Image Source: Buesseler et al., 2020 and press release
Now, new research reverses the decades-long assumption that rocks exposed to the air absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. Instead, weather-exposed rocks “act as a large CO2 source,” as they release “as much carbon dioxide as the world’s volcanoes.” Rock weathering as a net source of CO2 is thus “not captured in climate models.”



Image Source: AAAS
About 5 years ago it was discovered that modeled estimates of CO2 emissions from volcanoes are 10 times smaller than actual measurements indicate (Illyinskaya et al., 2018).



Image Source: Illyinskaya et al., 2018
Another 2018 study (Gray et al., with a Physics Today press release) estimated the carbon uptake for the Southern Ocean. But instead of using the traditional ship-based measurement, the authors utilized biochemical floats. The results upended decades of modeling.

Instead of absorbing close to 1 petagram of carbon (PgC) per year, the Southern Ocean is barely even a carbon sink at all – just 0.08 PgC of yearly absorption (with a ~14 times larger uncertainty range, ±0.55 PgC/year). Large regions of the Southern Ocean near Antarctica are now considered a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere.

In other words, when estimates are float-based rather than ship-based, one estimate can be more than 10 times different than another.



Image Source: Physics Today
These wildly varying results and consequent large uncertainties underscore just how guess-based carbon budget modeled estimates are.

 

97,404 Direct CO2 Measurements From 1826-2008 Indicate Humans Do Not Drive CO2 Change
By Kenneth Richard on 17. October 2023

Share this...
Per a new study, atmospheric CO2 levels rose to 383 ppm in the 1940s mostly as a consequence of soil respiration processes and sea surface temperature warming. Any anthropogenic contribution to this CO2 peak “can be largely excluded.”
When assessing the historical atmospheric CO2 concentration, direct measurements of chemically analyzed air samples are at least 10 times more accurate than data derived from the commonly-accepted proxy records from ice cores (Harde, 2023).



Image Source: Harde, 2023
The proxy data are subject to a great deal of selection bias, and thus the claim modern CO2 levels are uniquely due to human activity can seemingly be supported by using preferred data selection.

The late Dr. Ernst-Georg Beck spent years compiling an exhaustive chemical database of the CO2 levels measured in air samples from across the globe. Analyzing 979 technical papers reporting from 1,901 air sample measurement stations, Beck’s CO2 measurement data was published in a scientific paper entitled “Reconstruction of Atmospheric CO2 Background Levels since 1826 from Direct Measurements near Ground” after his death in 2022.

The CO2 variability in the measured data profoundly deviate from the far-less-accurate proxy data derived from one single continent’s (Antarctica) ice samples. The 60,000 global-scale chemical measurements compiled between 1930 and 1950 using data from 25 authors and locations assessed that between 1939 and 1943 global atmospheric CO2 rose to 383 ppm – the same concentration again achieved in 2007. After the early 1940s, the chemical measurements indicate CO2 plummeted to 310 ppm by the late 1940s.

These fluctuations are consistent with variations in sea surface temperatures (warmer water releases more CO2, cooler less) and temperature-dependent soil respiration (with mixing ratios ranging between 500 and 20,000 ppm) processes, suggesting that temperature is the driver, and CO2 variations are the effect. This T→CO2 directionality found in measured CO2 air sample data from 19th to mid-20th century is also evident for the satellite era.

Furthermore, the analysis reveals that of the 90 ppm rise in CO2 since 1958 (the Mauna Loa era), not more than 12 ppm could be said to have derived from fossil fuel emissions. And when the CO2 rose to 383 ppm in the early 1940s, the impact from anthropogenic emissions “can be largely excluded.”

 

No Tricks Zone

New Study: CO2 Emission Rates From Natural Sources Are Up To 6 Times Larger Than From Humans

By Kenneth Richard on 23. November 2023

Analysis of CO2 residence times suggest 65% to 96.5% of the CO2 concentration increase since 1958 is natural.
According to a new study, the claim that increases in atmospheric CO2 are driven exclusively by humans relies on a made-up, disparate accounting model, with the residence time for natural emissions 3 to 4 years (which is consistent with real-world observations), but CO2 from human sources is claimed to have a residence time of 50 to over 100 years.

LINK

=========

Ferdinand Engelbeen, who has in the past idiotically claims humans are 100% responsible for the CO2 increase in the air posted a comment was strongly addressed by the author of the paper.