The Test and Failure of the AGW Paradigm

The objection you raised was the first comment posted at NTZ.

spike55 22. December 2022 at 8:09 PM | Permalink | Reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subli...rison_carbon_dioxide_water_phase_diagrams.svg

As atmospheric pressure drops with altitude, the sublimation line get far cooler than -78ºC.. That -78ºC is at atmospheric pressure.

The Phase diagram in the link above shows that at 100Pa, the sublimation temperature is about -140ºC

 

He didn't read the link that is why he remains ignorant on who wrote it.

 

You're getting close to understanding. Let's see if I can get you the rest of the way.

You just stated the freezing/sublimation temp of CO2 at the top of the atmosphere is -140C.

You previously stated the temperature at the top of the atmosphere is about -90C.

Since the temperature is there is _above_ the freezing point, there will be no freezing.

Therefore, the CO2 will remain gaseous.

Therefore, the author's claim and your claim -- that CO2 can not be a gas at the top of the atmosphere -- is wrong.

 

I'm not invested in any answer in this exchange; it does not bear on my overall point of view, and this is a discussion forum. Happy New Year.

 

The AGW paradigm fails again.
Scientist: ‘There Is No Climate Crisis’ And ‘No Particular Correlation Between CO2 And Temperature’
By Kenneth Richard on 2. January 2023

Share this...
The modern notion that human CO2 emissions are equivalent to a “deadly poison” may one day be viewed as “the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world.”
In a new paper published in the Journal of Sustainable Development, Manheimer (2022) summarizes some of the evidence for the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature in the paleoclimate as he rips apart the claim that humans are driving a changing climate.

About 4000 years ago the limit of Northern Hemisphere tree growth extended 322 km (200 miles) farther north than it does today, as it was much warmer back then.

During Medieval times the Vikings were able to grow barley for centuries. Today Greenland is too cold to grow this crop.

The Romans grew wine grapes in northern Britain, indicating the climate was much warmer than today about 2000 years ago. Wine vineyards cannot flourish at these latitudes today (unless the new “hybrid” grapes, bred to survive in colder climates, are used).
Observing paleo temperature and CO2 concentration charts for the last hundreds of millions of years, it can be affirmed there is “no particular correlation between CO2 and temperature.”




Image Source: Manheimer, 2022

 

Yet another published paper showing the lack of direct connection between Temperature changes and CO2 changes on long term time scales.

Meanwhile it is easy to prove that CO2 ALWAYS follows temperature changes at the yearly time scale as CO2 is at its peak for the winter part of year in the atmosphere and lowest in late summer in the atmosphere it is what causes the swing shape in the yearly CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

 

A Glaring Inconsistency In The Claimed Forcing Values Driving Past Versus Present Climate
By Kenneth Richard on 12. January 2023

Share this...
It is claimed that an additional 60-75 W/m² of absorbed solar radiation can only produce a climate warming of 4-5°C. Doubling CO2 since pre-industrial times (280 to 560 ppm) is said to result in an additional 3.7 W/m² increase in radiative forcing. However, it is inconsistently claimed this ~20 times smaller value will also lead to 3-5°C climate warming.
Anthropogenic global warming proponents claim that the addition of an accumulated 1.82 W/m² CO2 surface forcing since 1750 (ensuing from the 280 to 400 ppm CO2 increase) is predominantly responsible for the alleged 1.2°C rise in global surface temperatures in the last 150 years.

But scientists have concluded the Last Interglacial (LIG, about 130,000 to 115,000 years before present) had an additional 60-75 W/m² direct shortwave forcing relative to today (Diamond et al., 2021).

Image Source: Diamond et al., 2021
But despite the additional 60-75 W/m² insolation forcing, it is simultaneously claimed the LIG was only 4-5°C warmer than today with 5 meters higher-than-present global sea levels (Dalton et al., 2022). This is nearly the same amount of warming claimed to ensue from a doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm – despite the roughly 20 times smaller forcing associated with that CO2 increase (3.7 W/m²).



Image Source: Dalton et al., 2022
How is it that a 60-75 W/m² insolation forcing yields about the same relative warming as 3.7 W/m²?

 

This is a useful review of the way the AGW advocates tie themselves in knots trying to make the data say what they want them to say.
A DIY Guide To Demystifying “Greenhouse Gas” Claims…The Science That Cuts Corners
By P Gosselin on 14. January 2023

Share this...
By Fred F. Mueller

Do you feel helpless when trying to assess the veracity of “climate doom is looming” claims we are constantly bombarded with?

For ordinary citizens not having acquired at least a Ph.d. degree in atmospheric physics or comparable climate-relevant sciences, it seems nearly impossible to tell right from wrong when it comes to assess such claims. Do so-called greenhouse gases really reflect infrared energy back to earth in such quantities that this affects earth’s temperature?

Don’t give up trying to understand the relevant basics: there are rather simple ways to get an idea about what this is all about. Even without a scientific background, most people have at least a good common sense. And that’s all it takes to get a grasp of how vigorously and chaotically enormous energy fluxes slosh up and down, back and forth between earth’s surface and the skies. . . .

 

Climate Scientists Using Grossly Simplified, Deplorably Unrealistic Models And Assumptions
By P Gosselin on 18. January 2023

Share this...
Climate science stance amounts to a gross misrepresentation of reality

The DIY way to demystify “greenhouse gas” claims
By Fred F. Mueller
Part 2



Fig. 1. The sun and the clouds – here a thin cover of high clouds and some aviation chemtrails – are the main driving forces for the energy fluxes determining our climate. The “greenhouse gases” are – if ever – just a minor factor.

In Part 1, we looked at the deplorable tendency of climate doomsayers to reduce the factual complexity and variability of parameters influencing our climate by focusing on a single aspect – the so-called “greenhouse gases” – and among these on the declared most odious villain: CO2. Its content in the atmosphere is declared to be the one and only factor 1) that determines our climate and hence earth’s temperature.

The efficiency of this one parameter is attributed to the power to restrain the currently positive planet-wide temperature trend to within + 1.5 °C, thus urging politicians to set a residual CO2 budget 2) of 400 billion tonnes subdivided and allocated to each nation within narrow allowances. These national budgets are then again subdivided and enforced onto the different sectors of industry and the population with grave consequences for the welfare of society, e.g. cement and metal production, building and heating standards or private car use.

Any other variables affecting the energy budget of our planet such as water vapor, actually a much more potent “greenhouse gas” than CO2, are simply ignored by treating them either as constants or as mere amplifying factors. The influence of clouds – the other aggregate states of water in the atmosphere – is simply and willfully suppressed. . . .

 

One way for the IPCC to solve their ECS problem is to fudge the data.
The Climate Feedback Debate
Guest Blogger
Unless somebody has a better explanation, it seems likely that the IPCC needed to keep the 3.0°C ECS for political reasons and simply altered the various feedback parameters to suit. . . .

 

CO2 is exonerated.
New Study: Atmospheric CO2 Residence Time Is Only 5 Years – Too Short To ‘Affect The Climate’
By Kenneth Richard on 23. March 2023

Share this...
Since the early 1990s the conventional assumption, aligned with modeling, has been that a molecule of human CO2 emission stays in the atmosphere – its residence time – for centuries. This fits the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) narrative. But empirical evidence contradicts these model-based assumptions. Residence time is closer to 5-10 years.
In Table 1 of a new study, Stallinga (2023) compiled a list of 36 published estimates of CO2 residence time spanning the decades 1957-1992. All of these scientists determined CO2’s atmospheric residence time is about 5 to 10 years or less.



Image Source: Stallinga, 2023
. . . .

 

It was Segalstad who brought this up 20 years ago in a post he made that I posted in my forum long ago and posted about for a few years by Alan Siddons and others 15 or so years ago.

Here is one of them on my website as I have the only known existing link to this presentation:

Carbon Dioxide: The Houdini of Gases

By Alan Siddons and Joe D’Aleo
September 05, 2007

Excerpt:

How long does carbon dioxide linger in the air? This is actually an important question, a question of so-called residence time. As previously discussed on this blog http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2_study.pdf, studies compiled by geologist Tom Segalstad rather convincingly show that earth’s biological and chemical processes recycle CO2 within a decade, meaning that a CO2 molecule you’re exhaling at the moment is bound to be captured by a plant or a rock or the ocean just a few years from now. Yet the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other authorities insist that carbon dioxide generally remains in the air for up to 200 years. Who to believe? We’ll present some evidence here and you be the judge.

LINK

Please support Wayback Machine which I have as they have generously saved a large part of my old climate forum.

The article is devastating!

This is long known which is one of the reasons why I don't take the IPCC seriously as they are ignoring a lot of published science that doesn't agree with their claims.

 

Emissions and CO2 Concentration: An Evidence Based Approach
Posted on March 24, 2023 by curryja | 31 comments
by Joachim Dengler and John Reid

A new way of looking at the the atmospheric carbon budget.

Continue reading →
". . . Concluding, we can expect a maximum CO2 concentration level of approximately 475 ppm in the second half of this century. At this point, the emissions will be fully balanced by the absorptions, which is by definition the “net zero” situation.

Assuming the unlikely worst case that CO2 concentration is fully responsible for all global temperature changes, the maximum expected rise of global temperature caused by the expected CO2 concentration rise is 0.4 _C from now or 1.4°C from the beginning of industrialisation.

Therefore, if we keep living our lives with the current CO2 emissions – and a 3%/decade efficiency improvement, then the Paris climate goals are fulfilled."

 

Game. Set. Match.
Earth’s Greenhouse Effect Has Not Been Enhanced, But Instead Its Impact Has Declined Since 1983
By Kenneth Richard on 10. April 2023

Share this...
In the satellite era scientists have continued to observe the Earth’s total greenhouse effect (which includes effects from greenhouse gases and clouds) exerting an overall negative impact (cooling) on surface temperatures since the 1980s. This rules out both CO2 and an enhanced greenhouse effect as drivers of global warming.
Earth’s total greenhouse effect impact on climate is realized by the sum of all contributors to it: water vapor, clouds, and the “anthropogenic” greenhouse gases CO2 and CH4.

Given the modern assumption that humans are responsible for global warming due especially to our CO2 and CH4 emissions, it stands to reason that Earth’s downwelling longwave (LWdn) should be increasing and thus the Earth’s greenhouse effect should be enhanced due to the rising greenhouse gases emissions.

But, as Cess and Udelhofen (2003) reported 20 years ago, Earth’s greenhouse effect has not been enhanced in recent decades. Instead, it has been in a state of decline since the 1980s.

“[T]he negative trend in G [greenhouse effect] indicates that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is temporarily [1985-1999] decreasing despite the fact that greenhouse gasses are increasing.”


Image Source: Cess and Udelhofen, 2003
Song et al. (2016) also reported a flat (declining) greenhouse effect trend (shown in red) from 2002 to 2014 when all greenhouse effect factors (“all-sky”), including clouds and water vapor, are considered. The effects of greenhouse gases like CO2 were “offset” by the effects of clouds in producing the “zero-trend greenhouse effect” over this period.



Image Source: Song et al., 2016
A new study (Zhang and Rossow, 2023) employs another data set (FH) and also shows the total greenhouse effect (expressed as downward longwave, or LWdn) declining from 1983 to 2017 (and 2001 to 2020 in the CERES record) even though the data “account for increasing CO2 and CH4” and this “should produce an increase in LWdn”. It doesn’t, of course, as CO2 and CH4 are not influential enough to compete with the greenhouse effect of clouds.

“The LWdn [longwave net at TOA (W/m²)] shows a very large anomaly declining rapidly at the beginning of the record until the late 1990s. … The FH calculations (and previous versions) account for increasing CO2 and CH4 abundances, which should produce an increase in LWdn, all other things being equal; but as Fig 3…shows, the near surface air temperature (Ta) and skin temperatures (Ts) from ISCCP-H used in FH are generally decreasing. … [July 1983 to June 2017] overall downward trend in FH LWdn [longwave net at TOA (W/m²)]”


Image Source: Zhang and Rossow, 2023
The scientists also point out that trends in global mean albedo correspond to an “increase in surface solar radiation” since the 1980s (which can explain the warming over this period). Also, the W/m² trends in shortwave and longwave top-of-atmosphere fluxes are “dominated” by cloud cover changes or “caused almost entirely by cloud effects.”



Image Source: Zhang and Rossow, 2023
In recent years there have been several other studies documenting an observed decreasing greenhouse effect despite the increase in greenhouse gases like CO2 and CH4 (Stephens et al., 2022, Dübal and Vahrenholt, 2021, Swift, 2018, Su et al., 2020). All of them note that natural cloud variations, which have a greenhouse effect impact larger than that resulting from a 100-fold increase in CO2 (Ramanathan et al., 1989), are driving the recent greenhouse effect decline, overriding the anthropogenic emissions impact.



Image Source: Stephens et al., 2022, Dübal and Vahrenholt, 2021, Swift, 2018, Su et al., 2020
The clear implication of these observations is that an enhanced greenhouse effect has not been driving any warming trend since the 1980s.

Further, a decline in the greenhouse effect means the impact of human CO2 emissions on the global climate are too weak to be a driver of total greenhouse effect trends or climate change.

 

Another Day, Another CO2-Is-A-Climate-Driver Inconsistency
By Kenneth Richard on 13. April 2023

Share this...
The global mean surface temperature (GMST) effects of a 1 W/m² radiative forcing, or positive/negative energy imbalance, has been gleaned from the observations from the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption. CO2’s climate effects are claimed to be many times larger than observations indicate.
The observed climate sensitivity (CS) to a perturbation to Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI) is, in a new study (Pauling et al., 2023), defined as -0.4°C per -9 W/m², or 0.044°C per W/m². These values were gleaned from observations from Mt. Pinatubo.



Image Source: Pauling et al., 2023

 

Score another win for the skeptics.
Ross McKitrick: The important climate study you won’t hear about
Guest Blogger
…the atmosphere has warmed at half the average rate predicted by climate models over the same period.

". . . Zou’s team notes that their findings “have strong implications for trends in climate model simulations and other observations” because the atmosphere has warmed at half the average rate predicted by climate models over the same period. They also note that their findings are “consistent with conclusions in McKitrick and Christy (2020),” namely that climate models have a pervasive global warming bias. In other research, Christy and mathematician Richard McNider have shown that the satellite warming rate implies the climate system can only be half as sensitive to GHGs as the average model used by the IPCC for projecting future warming.

Strong implications, indeed, but you won’t learn about it from the IPCC. That group regularly puts on a charade of pretending to review the science before issuing press releases that sound like Greta’s Twitter feed. In the real world the evidence against the alarmist predictions from overheated climate models is becoming unequivocal. One day, even the IPCC might find out."

 

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of Lower Tropospheric warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t fix this 30-year failure quietly.

 

CO2 Budget Model Update Through 2022: Humans Keep Emitting, Nature Keeps Removing
April 13th, 2023
This is an update of my CO2 budget model that explains yearly Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 concentrations since 1959 with three main processes:

1. an anthropogenic source term, primarily from burning of fossil fuels
2. a constant yearly CO2 sink (removal) rate of 2.05% of the atmospheric “excess” over 295 ppm
3. an ENSO term that increases atmospheric CO2 during El Nino years and decreases it during La Nina years

The CO2 Budget Model

I described the CO2 budget model here. The most important new insight gained was that the model showed that the CO2 sink rate has not been declining as has been claimed by carbon cycle modelers after one adjusts for the history of El Nino and La Nina activity.

If the sink rate was really declining, that means the climate system is becoming less able to remove “excess” CO2 from the atmosphere, and future climate change will be (of course) worse than we thought. But I showed the declining sink rate was just an artifact of the history of El Nino and La Nina activity, as shown in the following figure (updated through 2022).


The model also showed how the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo caused a large increase in rate of removal of CO2 from the atmosphere (not a new finding) due to enhanced photosynthesis from more diffuse sunlight. This contradicts the popular perception that volcanoes are a major source of atmospheric CO2.

I attempted to get the results published in Geophysical Research Letters, and was conditionally accepted after one review. But the editor wanted more reviewers, which he found, who then rejected the paper. The model is straightforward, physically consistent, and agrees with the observed Mauna Loa CO2 record, as shown in the following plot.


2022 Update: CO2 continues to Rise Despite Renewable Energy Transition

As I have pointed out before, the global economic downturn from COVID had no measurable impact on the Mauna Loa record of atmospheric CO2, and that is not surprising given the large year-to-year variations in natural sources and sinks of CO2. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations continue to rise, mainly due to emissions from China and India whose economies are rapidly growing.

The following plot zooms in on the 2010-2035 period and shows the Mauna Loa CO2 rise compared to my budget model forced with 3 scenarios from the Energy Information Administration (blue lines), and also compared to the RCP scenarios used by the IPCC in the CMIP5 climate model intercomparison project.


The observations are tracking below the RCP8.5 scenario, which assumes unrealistically high CO2 emissions, yet remains the basis for widespread claims of a “climate crisis”. The observations are running a little above my model for the last 2 years, and only time will tell if this trend continues.

But clearly the international efforts to reduce CO2 emissions are having no obvious impact. This is unsurprising since global energy demand continues to grow faster than new sources of renewable energy can make up the difference.

 

Another blow against the empire.

Is warming accelerating in the troposphere?
Posted on April 19, 2023 by curryja
by Ross McKitrick

I recently published an op-ed in the Financial Post describing the findings of the new JGR paper by NOAA’s Zou et al. NOAA’s STAR series of the MSU satellite-based tropospheric temperatures used to show more warming than UAH or RSS in the mid-troposphere. Zhou et al. recently rebuilt their dataset and now STAR has a slightly lower trend than UAH. This is a big deal because it adds to the evidence that GCMs are warming too much compared to observations, which suggests problems with their climate sensitivity (ECS) values.

Continue reading →

 

ECS remains the problem that AGW theory can't solve.
The Mysterious AR6 ECS, Part 1
Andy May
The climate sensitivity to CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) is arguably the most important number in the climate change debate. AR6[1] claims the sensitivity, which they…

 

Solar Variability Linked To Climate Change…CO2 Not ‘The Primary Driver For Nearly All Of Earth’s History’
By Kenneth Richard on 24. April 2023

Share this...
A new study exposes the uncertainty in solar activity reconstructions, but suggests solar models explain climate changes far better than atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Proxy model estimates of the impact of solar variability on climate are highly uncertain. For example, estimations of the increase in solar irradiance over the last 400 years range anywhere from 0.75 W/m² to 6.3 W/m² (Scafetta and Bianchini, 2023).

Even satellite measurements of recent solar irradiance changes are controversial and conflicting. One composite (ACRIM) shows an increase in solar activity from 1980 to 2000, whereas another (PMOD) depicts a decrease. If even modern-day measurements of solar activity contradict each other, then we cannot assume the estimations of past variations from proxies are any more accurate.

On the other hand, the Northern Hemisphere proxy temperature record (shown in black in the image below, extended to 1999) has been linked to the periodicity of an interplanetary solar activity model devised by Dr. Nicola Scafetta and others. Notice the proxy temperature reconstruction depicts nearly all of the warming in the last 400 years occurring prior to 1950.



Image Source: Scafetta and Bianchini, 2023
In contrast, there is almost no link between CO2 and temperature that could lead to the conclusion CO2 is a driver of climate.

CO2 changes lag behind temperature changes by hundreds of years in paleoclimate reconstructions, and CO2 variations “significantly depend on the surface temperature of the oceans.” If the CO2 variations are dependent upon temperature variations, the CO2 cannot be the driver of temperature variations.

“It is worth noting that the link between atmospheric CO2 content and global temperature has been fairly poor throughout the last 600 million years [2,22,23]. CO2 concentration, for example, has also lagged for centuries behind temperatures during deglaciation and glaciation periods, as occurred during the last 420,000 years, as shown in the Vostok ice core record [24]; although, if the data are processed in some way and some specific places are analyzed, the two variables appears much more tightly coupled [20,25]. Hence, carbon dioxide cannot have typically been the primary driver of climate changes for nearly all of Earth’s history, but rather, it worked as one of the climate (positive) feedback mechanisms in response to solar, astronomical, orbital, and other natural forcings, although it was likely less important than water vapor and clouds. In fact, the atmospheric CO2 concentration significantly depends on the surface temperature of the oceans and on the status of the biosphere, although it might also be suddenly altered by volcanic activity.”

 

AGW theory still stumbling.
The Mysterious AR6 ECS, Part 2, the Impact of Clouds
Andy May
The yearly net impact of clouds on outgoing and incoming radiation varies over one W/m2 from year-to-year, according to CERES satellite data.[1] AR6 tells us that cloud…

 

Another blow against the "consensus".
Alan Longhurst’s “Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science”
Kip Hansen
Unless you have already spent a lifetime studying the complex, complicated and chaotic subjects that comprise climate science, you stand to learn more from this book than from any other…

 

The Mysterious AR6 ECS, Part 3, What is Climate Sensitivity?
Andy May
In part one we discussed various estimates of climate sensitivity (ECS, TCR, and observation-based values) and what they mean, especially those reported in the latest IPCC report,…

 

The Mysterious AR6 ECS, Part 4, converting observations to ECS
Andy May
In part one we discussed various estimates of climate sensitivity (ECS, TCR, and observation-based values) and what they mean, especially those reported in the latest IPCC report,…

Conclusions

The AMO trend and the solar activity trend have been up over the past 170 to 300 years, not flat as explicitly assumed in LC18 and AR6. Thus, their ECS and TCR values are maximum values and not estimates of the actual values. This is generally true of almost all observation-based and model-based estimates of ECS and TCR.

Yet nearly all observation-based estimates of ECS and TCR are below the likely lower bound reported in AR6. The problem with the new AR6 climate sensitivity estimates is not just that they are too high, it is also that they are higher than the maximum possible observation-based estimates. This is a point that is not made often enough.

The bibliography can be downloaded here.