The Test and Failure of the AGW Paradigm

New Study: 90% Of Recent Warming Is From Shortwave Cloud Forcing…Humans Contributed 0.03°C
By Kenneth Richard on 8. May 2023

Share this...
Data analysis again reveals the increase in absorbed shortwave forcing has been driving modern climate change since the 1970s. CO2 changes are more of an effect than a cause of temperature increases.
Scientists have for years been pointing to the causality sequencing problem inherent in the claim that CO2 is the driver of temperature changes.

The sequencing observation clearly supports the conclusion that variations in the CO2 growth rate lag changes in temperatures by about 4-10 months (Humlum et al., 2013, Koutsoyiannis and Kundzewicz, 2020, Koutsoyiannis et al., 2022). Effects can only lag – not lead – causes.

Wang et al. (2013) further estimate only 10% of the variance in global CO2 growth rates can be explained by fossil fuel emissions. Instead, there is a “strong and persistent coupling (r² ≈ 0.50) between interannual variations of the CO2 growth rate and tropical land-surface temperature during 1959-2011.”

Image Source: Wang et al., 2013
Building on this temperature→CO2 directional causality, Jyrki Kauppinen and Pekka Malmi (2023), Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku, have used existing CO2 and temperature data to calculate an 83 ppm CO2 increase associated with a 1°C surface temperature increase. The authors suggest this 83 ppm/°C value is consistent with Henry’s Law and CO2 residence time calculations.

Kauppinen and Malmi further assess the warming in recent decades has been predominantly (90%) driven by the increase in absorbed solar radiation due to the downward trend in cloud cover.

The greenhouse effect has contributed just 10% to the warming trend, and the human contribution to the CO2 concentration changes is only a fraction (hundredths of a degree) of that 10% impact – about 0.03°C since 1980.

Thus, not only is the “causality used in IPCC reports wrong,” but “the greenhouse effect cannot explain climate change.”

“Since 1970, according to the observations, the changes of the low cloud cover have caused practically the observed temperature changes. The low cloud cover has gradually decreased starting in 1975. The human contribution was about 0.01°C in 1980 and now it is close 0.03°C.”


Image Source: Kauppinen and Malmi, 2023

 

LINK

In February 2022, Health Physics published a little-noticed study that recently received so much attention, the publisher removed the paywall behind which the article previously hid. [CCD covered this study when it was first published in Jan 2022 but is worth reiterating.]

The article’s title is mind-numbing: “World Atmospheric CO2, Its 14C Specific Activity, Non-fossil Component, Anthropogenic Fossil Component, and Emissions (1750–201.”

The three authors are all academics in the field of radiology with ties to the University of Massachusetts Lowell (something I figured out here.)

According to the study, it is true that CO2 began to increase a bit with the Industrial Revolution. However, the increase in CO2 because of human fossil fuel use has been negligible and could not have caused the climate to change.

Here’s the authors’ abstract:

After 1750 and the onset of the industrial revolution, the anthropogenic fossil component and the non-fossil component in the total atmospheric CO2 concentration, C(t), began to increase. Despite the lack of knowledge of these two components, claims that all or most of the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been due to the anthropogenic fossil component have continued since they began in 1960 with “Keeling Curve: Increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuel.” Data and plots of annual anthropogenic fossil CO2 emissions and concentrations, C(t), published by the Energy Information Administration, are expanded in this paper.

Additions include annual mean values in 1750 through 2018 of the 14C specific activity, concentrations of the two components, and their changes from values in 1750. The specific activity of 14C in the atmosphere gets reduced by a dilution effect when fossil CO2, which is devoid of 14C, enters the atmosphere. We have used the results of this effect to quantify the two components.

All results covering the period from 1750 through 2018 are listed in a table and plotted in figures. These results negate claims that the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been dominated by the increase of the anthropogenic fossil component.

We determined that in 2018, atmospheric anthropogenic fossil CO2 represented 23% of the total emissions since 1750 with the remaining 77% in the exchange reservoirs. Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.

 

Does GHG Forcing Have Significantly Less Efficacy Than a Similar Sized Solar Forcing?
Guest Blogger
Is it possible that the Effective Radiative Forcing (ERF) of a small change in GHG forcing is a lot lower than the ERF for a similar change in solar forcing?…

 

Another blow against the CO2 empire:
Europe’s Climate Suffers From Lack Of Clouds And Rain…Not From A CO2 Increase
By P Gosselin on 9. June 2023

Share this...
The higher temperatures are clearly attributable to a reduction in cloud cover, not CO2
The DIY way to demystify “greenhouse gas” claims

Rapidly rising temperatures and drought in parts of central Europe are caused by a long-term trend of receding cloud cover. Fewer clouds result in increased solar energy influx and reduced downpour. Both factors lead to higher temperatures. By comparison, the influence of CO2 levels is minimal at best.

By Fred F. Mueller
Preceding chapters see part 1 1), part 2 2), part 3 3), part 4 4), part 5 5), Part 6 6)



Fig.1. Bad weather clouds during a spring storm

Clouds: Unwilling slaves of CO2, or climate drivers of their own right?

According to official sources (NOAA 7), DWD ), the net long-term cooling effect of clouds is about -20 W/m2. It thus is much stronger than the so-called back radiation effect exerted by increased levels of “greenhouse gases,” which is assumed to be just +3,222 W/m2. And since common sense tells us that a warming climate should result in more evaporation of water, this should in turn ultimately form more clouds – resulting in a cooling effect on earth’s climate.

But as we have seen in the past chapters, the IPCC and its followers stubbornly insist on pretending that CO2 and the other “non-condensing greenhouse gases” – mainly methane and N2O – are the only relevant “forcers” of climate change. Water vapor and clouds – the other aggregate conditions of water in the atmosphere – are declared to be simple amplifiers who slavishly obey the directives given by the “forcers.” The short average lifetime of water molecules in the atmosphere is forwarded as the reason why water vapor should be unable to exert a sustainable long-term influence on the evolution of the climate by itself. This is the core of the untruth the IPCC disseminates about the reality of climate control. In the previous parts of the article, we have already seen that clouds are the only climate drivers that are able to prevent solar radiation from reaching earth’s surface by reflecting noticeable proportions of it directly back into space. No other “greenhouse gas” can produce such an effect: at best, they are just slowing down the re-emission of energy into space after it has reached and warmed the surface. It is really remarkable that the “official” climate science has succeeded in negating this unique feature of water in the form of clouds while attributing the role of “only climate control knob” to CO2 and its minor allies methane and N2O, see Fig 2.



Fig. 2. “Hockey stick” Michael E. Mann and his followers have succeeded in selling to the public the story of the (CO2)-tail (red) that wiggles the (cloud-) elephant in the room.

To put it clearly: in terms of climate system influence factors, CO2 is (if ever) just the tail and clouds are the elephant in the room. Fantastic job how Michael E. Hansen and his followers have been able to sell to the public a story that literally turns reality upside down. . . . .

 

New Research: Only 2 Of Every 100,000 CO2 Molecules Radiate Photons. And This Controls Climate?
By Kenneth Richard on 12. June 2023

Share this...
Examining the beliefs underpinning the assumption that humans are heating up the planet can be enlightening.
A book focusing on CO2 storage has recently been published by two geophysicists (Amundsen and Landro, 2023).

Using insights from Svante Arrhenius, the late 19th century founding “father of climate change,” the authors assess that the radiative lifetime of CO2 de-excitation in the atmosphere is about 1.1 seconds. During this time span (1.1 seconds), an estimated 2,620 collisions with N2 and O2 molecules occur.

Nearly all – 99,998 out of every 100,000 – CO2 molecules do not radiate photons, but instead re-excite through collisions. Just 2 of 100,000 CO2 molecules radiate photons.

Of the CO2 molecules that absorb infrared energy from the Earth’s surface, about 1 of every 20 (5%) participate in the photon radiation process about 3-4 km above the surface.

So, if the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased by 1 part in 10,000 since 1950 (0.032% to 0.042%), and even if 100% of this one-one-hundredths of a percentage point change is due to human activity, it still can be said that humans have had a vanishingly small impact on the atmospheric CO2 radiation process.



Image Source: Amundsen and Landro, 2020

 

Shaviv and Svensmark strike again!
Scientists: Cosmic Ray-Cloud Connection Explains Million-Year Climate Changes Far Better Than CO2
By Kenneth Richard on 3. July 2023

Share this...
Per a new study, million-year variations in cosmic rays (CR) modulating cloud cover, which, in turn, drives variations in incident solar radiation on short- and long-term timescales, is the dominant cause of million-year climate variations, explaining all 7 Ice Age epochs over the Phanerozoic.
In contrast, declining CO2 and rising solar luminosity over the last billion years cannot explain past climate variations, as they “cancel each other out.”

CO2’s effects on climate are, using paleoclimate estimations of solar luminosity, assessed to be nearly just half of what the climate models say they are (2.1 W/m² for CO2 doubling [~0.7°C] rather than 3.7 W/m² [1.2°C] per doubling).

Assessing only millions-of-years timescales, the authors (Shaviv et al., 2023) suggest:

“The CR/climate relationship is the only one capable of explaining the magnitude of the observed solar-climate interactions.”

“The apparent effect that the CRs have on cloud cover automatically explains the size of all the observed solar-related climate variations.”

“The seven ice-age epochs…over the past billion years have taken place when the CR flux was higher, as the theory predicts.”

“Decreases in CO2 concentration and the increase in solar luminosity mostly cancel each other out.”



Image Source: Shaviv et al., 2023

 

Climate sensitivity remains the Achilles heel of AGW claims.

How much warming can we expect in the 21st century?
Posted on July 8, 2023 by curryja | 35 comments
by Hakon Karlsen

A comprehensive explainer of climate sensitivity to CO2

Continue reading →
Short summary

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the atmosphere’s climate sensitivity to CO2is likely between 2.5 and 4.0°C. Simply put, this means that (in the very long term) Earth’s temperature will rise between 2.5 and 4.0°C when the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere doubles.

A 2020 study (Sherwood20) greatly influenced how the IPCC calculated the climate sensitivity. Sherwood20 has been “extremely influential, including in informing the assessment of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) in the 2021 IPCC Sixth Assessment Scientific Report (AR6); it was cited over twenty times in the relevant AR6 chapter“, according to Nic Lewis. A Comment in Nature confirmed this view.1)

Nic Lewis took a closer look at this study, and in September 2022, he published his own study (Lewis22) that criticizes Sherwood20. By correcting errors and using more recent data, including from AR6, Lewis22 found that the climate sensitivity may be about 30% lower than what Sherwood20 had found.

If we know what the climate sensitivity is, and if we also know approximately the amount of greenhouse gases that will be emitted going forward, then the amount of future warming that’s caused by greenhouse gases can also be estimated.

In terms of future emissions, a 2022 study (Pielke22) found that something called RCP3.4 is the most plausible emissions scenario. Traditionally, another scenario (RCP8.5), has been used as a business-as-usual scenario, but this is now widely regarded as an extremely unlikely scenario, with unrealistically high emissions.

Assuming that the climate sensitivity from Lewis22 is correct and that RCP3.4 is the most appropriate emissions scenario, then we find that global temperatures will rise by less than 1°C from 2023 to 2100 (not accounting for natural variability). . . .

 

More evidence of the failure of AGW theory on climate sensitivity.
Physicist: Physics Laws ‘Neglected’ In Climate Models…Doubled CO2 Leads To 0.6°C Warming
By Kenneth Richard on 20. July 2023

Share this...
“Climatological models…pretend on a long-term description of the atmosphere…ignoring physical laws in climatology.” – Smirnov, 2022
“[T]he Kirchoff law is neglected in climatological models. This leads to a large mistake in prediction of the global temperature change.”

“[D]oubling the concentration of atmospheric CO2 molecules leads to the following change of the global temperature T = (0.6 ± 0.3) °C.”

“[E]xtraction of fossil fuels from the Earth’s interior…the flux of this carbon is small and equals to approximately 5% of that for natural processes [10 GtC/yr for fossil fuels, 220 GtC/yr for nature].”





Image Source: Smirnov, 2022

 

CO2 Plant Transpiration Reduction Is a 9.1 Factor Larger Global Warming Driver Than CO2 GHG.
By P Gosselin on 5. August 2023

Share this...
CO2 is not the big driver.

Solution: Increase Ocean Evaporation (<4% of CO2 Reduction Cost)
By David R. Motes



Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is real and caused by increasing CO2. However, it is not driven by the prevailing CO2 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) theory, but rather by a much larger CO2 induced Plant Transpiration Reduction (PTR).

This PTR is caused by an increased plant Water Use Efficiency (WUE, consensus science) from increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations and is a 9.1 factor larger AGW driver than the CO2 GHG theory. The proposed ocean evaporation solution below costs <4% of the prevailing Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) solutions and is only ~2% of the US federal budget. This paper uses only consensus scientific data, facts, and diagrams from CO2 GHG proponent sites such as the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), NASA, NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency), and the IEA (International Energy Agency) to make all the calculations presented. Our paper is only calculations and explanations with no new data or theories.











Global surface relative humidity has fallen steadily on land and oceans since prior to 1971. The photo on the right is a proposed solution- floating ocean evaporator.

The linked full 23-page paper pdf includes all calculations, discussions, figures, references, an abstract and David’s email and may be viewed or downloaded at docdroid.com (periodically updated). The 5 main quantified facts along with a proposed new cost-effective solution follow:

1. CO2 PTR drives AGW, not CO2 GHG. Using the NOAA solar energy balance below, the CO2 PTR radiative energy imbalance (watts/m2) is a 9.1 factor larger than the IPCC CO2 GHG energy imbalance. Thus, the CO2 GHG energy imbalance is relatively small in comparison to PTR. Explaining this large PTR impact on surface temperatures- The NOAA energy balance below quantifies that a huge 51% of the sun energy reaching the earth is removed by evaporation (Latent Heat) or reflected / absorbed by clouds (produced by that same evaporation), thus transporting that 51% sun energy back to the troposphere for subsequent radiation to space. This quantitative comparison between PTR science and CO2 GHG theory is this engineering paper’s most compelling calculation.

1. PTR is generated by a CO2 induced 0.70%/year plant Water Use Efficiency (WUE) increase. In the photosynthesis reaction, higher CO2 concentration allows plants to use less water (WUE increase), causing less plant evapotranspiration (consensus IPCC fact). Per the Hydrologic Balance (Figure 1 above), a significant 15% of all evaporation is from plant evapotranspiration on land. Man generated the atmospheric CO2 increase, causing the WUE increase, thus yielding less evaporation on land. and resulting in our current global warming. This PTR explains the global relative humidity decline above (Figure 2 above) and particularly the more severe land relative humidity decline. These declines were both much more than predicted by IPCC Global Circulation Models (GCMs), which unfortunately do not include any WUE impact.
2. Solar elliptical cycles drove the below 800k year geologic correlation between CO2 and temperature, not CO2 GHG. As calculated in the linked paper, solar elliptical cycles increased temperatures by 10oC, which caused a 35% ocean CO2 solubility decrease, which resulted in the measured atmospheric CO2 increase from 180 to 280ppm. Conversely, using the IPCC’s max factor, CO2 GHG contributed only 17% of the total 10oC temperature rise.

1. The prevailing CO2 GHG theory that a small 129 ppm CO2 increase caused a temperature rise of 1.5 °C (since 1880) is not quantifiable. The Stefan–Boltzmann law of thermal radiation (assuming no feedbacks) calculates only 0.46°C AGW (vs an actual of 1.5°C) when CO2 increased from 292 to 421ppm (1880 to 2023). The GHG theory needs a tripling from feedbacks to generate the temperature rise, unlike PTR. That same 44% CO2 increase (1880 to 2023) did greatly increase photosynthesis and plant WUE which quantitatively drove the measured 1.5 °C increase.

CO2 is not the big driver

While CO2 GHG theory is proven science and does contribute to AGW, it is just not as big an AGW driver as PTR. This CO2 GHG theory does not fit the 2 distinctly different CO2 / temperature historical and geological correlations and cannot be modeled directly using GHG infrared absorbances, but is instead modelled using empirical factors.

Burning fossil fuels releases additional CO2 into the atmosphere causing AGW via PTR, not GHG. This paper presents a practical, new, green solution. The implementation advantages of our ocean evaporation solution (per Figure 2 above) over the prevailing CO2 emission reduction plans follow:

1. Ocean evaporation uses proven, reliable technology that is substantially more cost effective: <4% of the current CO2 GHG solutions and only ~2% of the US federal budget.
2. Other advantages- Higher success probability, simpler, practical, uses existing technology, more environmentally friendly, and probably reduces severe weather events.
3. The proposed CO2 fossil fuel emission reduction plans focus on reducing the 8% CO2 emissions driver, while completely ignoring the 92% plant biomass CO2 driver. Conversely, our “increased ocean evaporation solution” increases that large (92%), green photosynthesis driver.

Our paper is a quantitative determination of the cause of AGW, focusing on engineering calculations, versus the hereto date presentations of CO2 GHG data and theories. The authors calculated the energy imbalance and surface temperature impacts using only peer-reviewed consensus IPCC scientific data and then summarized these quantified facts into a logical explanation as provided in the link below.

This fresh chemical engineering perspective from a high-altitude sheds new quantified insights on the old climate change debate. These new engineering calculations identified a potential new root cause of AGW, while revealing a much more cost-effective and greener solution (a potential paradigm shift). The purpose of this introduction is to entice reading the full paper. Again, click the 23-page paper pdf at docdroid.com for all the details.

David Motes is a 46-year professional chemical engineer residing in Houston, TX.

 

Another precinct heard from . . . .

New Study: Sunshine Duration Changes Over Europe, N. Atlantic Natural, ‘Result Of Internal Variability’
By Kenneth Richard on 7. August 2023

Share this...
Changes in cloud cover over Europe and the North Atlantic have been observed to be a significant driver of sunshine duration (SD) changes, and thus climate change, in this region. Changes in cloud cover are “the result of internal variability in the ocean-atmosphere system.”
Previously, the non-linear, oscillatory climate variations over Europe had been assumed to be connected to the sunshine duration variations elicited by anthropogenic pollution (aerosol) mitigation policies.

But a new study (Marsz et al., 2023) presents compelling evidence decadal-scale sunshine duration variations are driven by the internal processes affecting cloud cover, namely the natural thermohaline circulation in the North Atlantic (THC NA). This relationship spans the entire period from 1900 to 2018.

“The mechanisms of the THC NA functioning are known and indicate that they are the result of the internal variability in the ocean-atmosphere system.”

“SST changes occur not only because of changes in the amount of radiation reaching the ocean’s surface but also due to the meridonal oceanic heat transport.”

“t is the long-term changes in the thermal condition of the North Atlantic, and not changes in the concentration of aerosols, that would be the primary cause of the long-term change in the SD over Europe.”

“[T]he occurrence of long-term variability in the SD over Europe, manifested in the occurrence of successive phases of dimming and brightening, can be explained without resorting to changes in the concentration of volcanic and anthropogenic aerosols in the atmosphere.”



Image Source: Marsz et al., 2023

 

4 More Temperature Reconstructions Fail To Support The ‘Unprecedented’ Global Warming Narrative
By Kenneth Richard on 21. August 2023

Share this...
New studies find recent non-warming and/or a warmer Medieval Warm Period.

From 1785-2015 (231 years), the warmest 21-year period in India’s Himalayan region occurred from 1890-1910 (Rastogi et al., 2023). The years spanning 1995-2015 were the 4th warmest and 1946-1966 was the 2nd warmest period.
So, overall, the region has cooled slightly since 1890.


Image Source: Rastogi et al., 2023
Over the last 1000 years along Eurasia’s extensive Silk Road trade routes, the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was warmer than the Current Warm Period (CWP), as “the amplitude of the warming during the CWP did not exceed that during the MWP” (Chen et al., 2023).



Image Source: Chen et al., 2023
Temperatures in northeastern Asia are no warmer today than the 1800s or 1940s (Du et al., 2023). The warmest period in the Common Era occurred during Medieval times (830-850 CE).

In the last 170 years, 8 of the 10 coldest years occurred between 1965-2012.



Image Source: Du et al., 2023
A new study finds reconstructed temperatures in Iran align well with the “actual” temperatures for recent decades (1976-2014). And when the reconstructed temperature record is extended to 1657, the long-term trend shows no net warming trend in the last 357 years.



Image Source: Alipoorfard et al., 2023

 

State of the climate – summer 2023
Posted on August 14, 2023 by curryja | 171 comments
by Judith Curry, Jim Johnstone, Mark Jelinek

A deep dive into the causes of the unusual weather/climate during 2023. People are blaming fossil-fueled warming and El Nino, and now the Hunga-Tonga eruption and the change in ship fuels. But the real story is more complicated.

Continue reading →
". . . . The exceptionally warm global temperature in 2023 is part of a trend of warming since 2015 that is associated primarily with greater absorption of solar radiation in the earth-atmosphere system. This increase in absorbed solar radiation is driven by a slow decline in springtime snow extent, but primary by a reduction in reflection from the atmosphere driven by reduced cloudiness and to a lesser extent a reduction in atmospheric aerosol. Any increase in the greenhouse effect from increasing CO2 (which impacts the longwave radiation budget) is lost in the noise. . . . ."

 

Why is this little gem buried?
"...the sun is the brightest it has been for the past 23 years."
Hello? Although the difference in solar brightness is not enough by itself to account for the sharply increased global surface temperature this year, solar activity in the broader sense has been extremely, unexpectedly high so far this year, continuing a sharp up-trend that began early last year and confounding the predictions of astrophysicists. Solar activity is strongly linked with changes in global surface temperature through some mechanism or mechanisms that are not well understood. Lying idiots, however, claim that, "not well understood" just means, "caused by CO2."

 

Geophysical consequences of celestial mechanics
Posted on September 1, 2023 by curryja | 39 comments
by Vincent Courtillot, Jean-Louis Le Mouel and Fernando Lopes

Sources of variability of some terrestrial and solar phenomena.

Continue reading →
As former members of the geomagnetism department at IPGP (Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris), we have always retained an interest in solar-terrestrial relationships. Being in charge of geophysical observatories, we have always paid the foremost attention to long series of observations and as a consequence to methods of time series analysis. As of some five years ago, we have undertaken a systematic study of several long series of observations recorded around the globe (“long” means from several decades up to three centuries). . . . .

We note that trends could actually correspond to still other pseudo-periodic components with much longer pseudo-periods (longer than the data interval). As a result, we argue that a very large part of the geophysical and atmospheric variations covered by the series we have analyzed appear to have an external origin (astronomical or gravitational). The perturbing effects of the giant planets correspond to a remarkable set of frequencies [ref 5, 19] that modulate (force) solar activity, variations in inclination of the Earth’s rotation, many terrestrial parameters among which sea level, oceanographic indices, sea – ice and finally temperature. These components have in general not yet been modeled.These works shed light and are in turn illuminated by the works of giants, the Legendre, Laplace, Lagrange and Poisson, who revolutionized geophysics [ref 25, 26, 27, 28]. The core of their elegant physics explains well the careful observations gathered in the past 200 years.

The first results of our research program have been discussed in an informal seminar at the Paris Academy of Sciences last May. Some 20 academy members attended and a lively open discussion followed. We hope this open, truly scientific attitude prevails. . . .

 

New Study: Up To 87% Of Modern Warming Can Be Explained By Variations In Solar Activity
By Kenneth Richard on 4. September 2023

Share this...
Nearly all of the alleged anthropogenic link to climate change can be removed simply by exchanging and/or replacing biased temperature and solar activity data sets.
A new study authored by 37 scientists in the journal Climate finds using rural-only Northern Hemisphere temperature data (i.e., removing artificial, non-climatic urban heat effects) reduces the post-1850 warming trend from 0.89°C per century to 0.55°C per century.

Further, using a total solar irradiance (TSI) dataset neglected by the IPCC (Hoyt and Schatten, 1993, updated to present) allows TSI to explain up to 87% of modern warming.

Variations in cloud cover, albedo, and natural ocean circulations may also be factors arising from internal climate variability that could explain modern climate changes.

In summary, then, much of modern global warming’s alleged link to human activity may have been formulated by selecting data that align with the hypothesis, and neglecting or dismissing data which do not.



Image Source: Soon et al., 2023

 

Adding CO2 leads to cooling.
Lab Experiment Shows A 2500-Fold CO2 Increase Delivers Surface Cooling, Not Warming
By Kenneth Richard on 11. September 2023

Share this...
“In a modified experiment, where IR emission from the heating source is present, no heating but a slight cooling of a black object is found when air is replaced by CO2. The modified experimental situation is also more like the earth/atmosphere situation.” – Seim and Olsen, 2023

Scientists Hermann Harde and Michael Schnell published a paper in 2021 entitled “Verification of the Greenhouse Effect in the Laboratory.” The study purported to experimentally determine that the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect not only exists, but functions in concert with physical laws.

“To our knowledge we present the first demonstration of the atmospheric greenhouse effect in a laboratory experiment, which also allows quantitative measurements under conditions as in the lower troposphere. We use an experimental set-up consisting of two plates in a closed housing, one plate in the upper position heated to 30°C, the other at the bottom and cooled to -11.4°C.”

Thorstein Seim and Borgar Olsen (2023) have analyzed their experimental setup in further detail. They discover that in the Harde and Schnell (2021) greenhouse effect experiment, when the CO2 is increased 500-fold, or from 0.04% (400 ppm) to 20% (200,000 ppm), the plate temperature increases by just 1.18°C. Further, raising CO2 from 20% to 100% (1,000,000 ppm) adds just 0.4°C additional warming (1.6°C).

Since it is assumed that the 100 ppm (0.01%) atmospheric CO2 increase since 1950, from ~310 to 410 ppm, has been the primary cause of 1950-to-present global warming, an experiment that shows increasing CO2 2500-fold (0.04% to 100%) only produces a warming of 1.6°C would hardly appear to support the “verification” of the CO2 greenhouse effect.



Image Source: Seim and Olsen, 2023
But it may be worse than that. Seim and Olsen modify the Harde and Schnell experiment to better simulate “the earth/atmosphere situation.” Instead of modestly increasing the plate temperature by a degree and a half, the modified experiment shows that increasing CO2 from 0.04% to 100% actually cools the blackbody (plate) by about -0.2 to -0.3°C.

The temperature stabilizes at 1.1°C after 150 minutes of heating when only air (78% N2, 21% O2, 0.04% CO2) is used in the container. But when the air is replaced by CO2 (100%), the temperature stabilizes at 0.8°C − a few tenths of a degree cooler. The average cooling when 0.04% CO2 is replaced with 100% CO2 is determined to be -0.22°C.

An observation that shows increasing CO2 by a factor of 2500 elicits cooling in a laboratory is characterized as an “unexpected surprise” by the authors.

Either way, experimental results that show only modest temperature changes occur when CO2 is dramatically increased do not lend support to the “verification” of the CO2 greenhouse effect. And it especially does not validate the popular viewpoint that CO2 is a driving factor in modern global warming.

 

ECS continues to be a problem AGW climate science can't solve.
More on the statistical dispute between Scafetta and Schmidt
Andy May
The argument about the proper way to estimate error in the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecast (ECMWF) ERA5 weather reanalysis dataset between Nicola Scafetta and Gavin…

 

Once again the ECS failure of AGW orthodoxy is exposed.
Our new climate sensitivity paper has been published
September 29th, 2023

If we assume ALL *observed* warming of the deep oceans and land since 1970 has been due to humans, we get an effective climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 of around 1.9 deg. C. This is considerably lower than the official *theoretical* model-based IPCC range of 2.5 to 4.0 deg. C. Here’s the Phys.org news blurb from this morning.

 

Physicists: CO2 Only Affects 10% Of IR In 3% Of The Troposphere
By Kenneth Richard on 19. October 2023

Share this...
There are many scientifically invalid assumptions in the “greenhouse gas hypothesis” that the editors of a journal, Earth System Dynamics (ESD), now insist they will never again allow to be subjected to critical analysis in future publications, as the editors of this journal are committed to only publishing studies agreeing with the “consensus.”
In a editorial comment published in the MDPI journal Entropy responding to an editorial written by the editors of ESD, two Portuguese scientists (Khmelinskii and Woodcock, 2023) identify at least 8 assumptions in the “greenhouse gas hypothesis” that lack scientific validation. Despite the lack of observational evidence supporting their viewpoints, proponents of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis prefer to dismiss and ignore challenges to what they believe is the “consensus” – the opposite of what the scientific method requires.

For brevity’s sake, only a few of the challenges are summarized below.

• CO2 can only absorb 10% of all radiation in the specific IR bands CO2 affects. CO2 “absorbs absolutely nothing at all other IR wavelengths.” Thus, CO2 has no effect on IR in 90% of absorption bands.

• CO2 can only absorb IR in the top 300 m, or 0.3 km, of the surface-troposphere, which is 10 km thick. Thus, CO2 can only affect 10% of the IR in 3% of the surface-troposphere, where climate change occurs.

• Because of its vanishingly small effects, doubling CO2 concentrations could only lead to a 0.015°C surface temperature change, at most. Understatedly, “this effect would not even be measurable.”

• Uncertainty in the Earth’s radiation balance is ±17 W/m². The estimated radiation imbalance is 0.6 W/m², which is “orders of magnitude” smaller than the uncertainty in its derivation. Thus, the “global balance of energy fluxes…cannot be derived from measured fluxes“… and this “profoundly affects our ability to understand how Earth’s climate responds to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases.”

The editors at ESD do not view observational uncertainty – or questions regarding the magnitude of CO2’s effects – as worthy of critical analysis.



Image Source: Khmelinskii and Woodcock, 2023

 

Which certainly explains how the "consensus" has been manufactured....

That misinterprets the paper's statement, which is that as IR is fully absorbed within 300m of the surface, and the troposphere is 10km thick, the slight increase in IR absorption effected by adding CO2 from fossil fuels cannot substantially affect the tropospheric IR absorption regime. It's effectively the blanket analogy again: adding a cotton blanket to the top of a stack of 20 wool blankets and one cotton blanket might make the previous top blanket a bit warmer, but it won't affect the guy in the bed.

 

Do We Really Know That Human Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cause Significant Climate Change?
October 24, 2023/ Francis Menton

• 
  It’s by far the most important scientific question of our age: Do human emissions of CO2 and other such “greenhouse gases” cause significant global warming, aka “climate change”?
  
  
• Based on the belief that an affirmative answer to that question is a universally accepted truth, our government has embarked on a multi-trillion dollar campaign to transform our economy by, among other things, eliminating hydrocarbon fuels from electricity generation (without any demonstrated workable plan for the replacement), outlawing the kinds of vehicles we currently drive, suppressing fossil fuel extraction, banning pipeline construction, making all your appliances work less well, and much more.
  
  
• Express any doubt about the causal connection between human activities and climate change, and you could very well get labeled as a “climate denier,” fired from your academic job, demonetized by Google or Facebook, or even completely ostracized from polite society.
  
  
• But is there actually any real proof of the proposition at issue? In fact, there is not.
  

READ MORE

 

It has risen about 150 PPM since 1880 yet the climate in my entire state is still the same after 143 years.

AGW is a stupid and obvious scam.

 

The AGW paradigm takes another hit.
New Study Finds The Post-1900 CO2 Rise Has Not Discernibly Altered The Greenhouse Effect
By Kenneth Richard on 27. November 2023

Variations in the greenhouse effect are predominantly modulated by water vapor and cloud cover. CO2’s role in the greenhouse effect is so minor it cannot be discerned.
For decades scientists have reported that a CO2 concentration of about 300 ppm can only increase the downwelling longwave radiation (DLWR), or greenhouse effect, by about 1.5 W/m² at the surface. See, for example, the complementary studies by Ramanathan (1981) and Newell and Dopplick (1979).

“The infrared flux dominated by CO₂, as is well known, is only about 10% of that controlled by water vapor. The decrease in infrared flux from the surface to the atmosphere due to the increase in CO₂ ranges from 1.0 – 1.6 W/m².” – Newell and Dopplick, 1979

With the total DLWR value assessed as ~330 W/m² , this means that CO2’s 300 ppm (~1.5 W/m²) impact can only enhance the greenhouse effect by around 0.5%. Nearly all the rest is dominated by water vapor (and cloud). . . .

New research (Koutsoyiannis and Vournas, 2023) published in the Hydrological Sciences Journal serves to further affirm the minor, even non-discernible role of CO2 within the greenhouse effect.
.
Using DLWR data from 71 globally distributed sites, these scientists assesses the post-1900 increase in the CO2 concentration (from 300 ppm to 420 ppm) “has not altered, in a discernible manner, the greenhouse effect.”
.
If CO2 concentration increases were to enhance the greenhouse effect – and thus be considered the driver of modern warming – there should be a change in data point distribution (displacement) in alignment with CO2 increases along the equality line as shown in the DLWR data set chart (Figure 2). This has not occurred.
.
“An enhancement of the greenhouse effect, due to increasing CO2 concentration, through the years would be seen as a gradual displacement of the points from left to right with the progression of time. However, the alignment of the points of the different data sets does not show a gradual displacement from left to right. This means that the effect of the direct CO2 emission at the surface is smaller than the side effects…causing the variability in Figure 2, and thus it is impossible to discern.”


Image Source: Koutsoyiannis and Vournas, 2023
In fact, the opposite of what should happen with an enhanced greenhouse effect has been slightly more discernible in data sets. All-sky (clouds included) DLWR trends at the top of atmosphere (TOA) have actually been shown to be declining in 21st century CERES observations, as they are “slightly negative for all-sky.” In other words, the 2000-present greenhouse effect has been weakening despite increasing CO2 concentrations.


Image Source: Koutsoyiannis and Vournas, 2023
The declining greenhouse effect observed in recent decades has been reported by many other scientists.

“…the negative trend of G [greenhouse effect anomalies] indicates that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is temporarily [1985-1999] decreasing, despite the fact that greenhouse gasses are increasing.” – Cess and Udelhofen, 2003

If the greenhouse effect has not been enhanced since the 1980s, it cannot be responsible for modern warming.

 

The stream of peer-reviewed research has become quite robust.
Another Day, Another Scientific Paper Insists ‘Global Warming Is Not Caused By Increased CO2’
By Kenneth Richard on 7. December 2023

“…the rate of change in CO2 concentration is controlled, not by emissions, but by the global temperature” – Emrén, 2023
A new study published in the International Journal of Global Warming once again questions the popular narrative that says humans can control the temperatures of the ocean and melt the polar ice sheets by engaging in common, everyday activities like talking on their smartphones or driving a pickup truck.

“The observed correlation between global temperature and rate of growth in atmospheric CO2 concentration shows that the global warming is not caused by increased CO2 concentration. Rather the increase in CO2 concentration is caused by the global warming. This in turn means that neither the increase in CO2 concentration nor global warming can be stopped by reducing combustion.”



Image Source: Emrén, 2023

 

Just a quick observation on COPs 1-28