Why CO2 does not govern the earth's surface temperature

And yet the secret ballot is a cornerstone of democracy.
And btw, most dark money goes to Democrats and the anti-fossil fuelers.

 

Nonsense.

 

CO2 remains a tricky topic.
Deliberately Alarmist ‘The Last Time CO2 Was This High’ Claims Are Rooted In Guesswork, Not Science
By Kenneth Richard on 4. April 2022

Share this...
Recent reconstructions suggest CO2 concentrations may have ranged between 150 and 600 ppm (or more) throughout the last 4 million years.
We routinely see screaming headlines such as CO2 in the Atmosphere Climbs to Highest Level in 4.5 Million Years or Carbon Dioxide Levels Reach Highest Point in Human History.

However, these claims that modern CO2 levels are unusual or unprecedented are highly presumptive, resting on assumptions that we can accurately discern the atmospheric CO2 levels from alkenone, stomata, boron isotope…and other proxies.

It is presumed that air bubbles in Antarctic ice cores accurately record the “global” atmospheric CO2 levels for the last 400,000 years even though air bubbles from Greenland ice cores record entirely different CO2 values for the most recent millennia. . . .

 

This review addresses directly the CO2 contribution to warming.
German Physicist: Human CO2 Emissions Responsible For 0.05°C Of The Global Warming Since 1750
By Kenneth Richard on 20. June 2022

Share this...
Professor Herman Harde, an environmental physicist, has authored a new position paper on the follies of assuming humans significantly impact the climate.
As detailed in his 2017 paper, Dr. Harde concludes the “anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3% [a figure derived from IPCC AR5], its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time 4 years.”

The IPCC overestimates the thermal effect of doubling CO2 by a factor of 5, as the consequent surface air temperature increase for a 120 ppm increase in CO2 is less than 0.3°C.

“Since only about 15% of the global CO2 increase is of anthropogenic origin, just 15% of 0.3°C, i.e., less than 0.05°C remains, which can be attributed to humans in the overall balance.”

“Changes of our climate can be traced back to natural interaction processes that exceed our human influence by orders of magnitude.”



Image Source: Harde, 2022

 

Here is a treasure trove of research that undermines the idea of CO2's central position in climate change.
Glaring Inconsistency In Estimating CO2 vs. Solar Forcing Suggests CO2 Impacts Are Wildly Exaggerated
By Kenneth Richard on 23. June 2022

Share this...
From about 11,000 to 9,000 years ago the summer solar irradiance absorbed by the Earth’s surface has been estimated to be 40-60 W/m² greater than today from latitudes 40°N to 70°N (Ullman et al., 2015). These values seriously undermine the claim CO2 is the driver of climate change. . . .

 

CO2 exonerated.
Media Claims CO2 “Traps Heat”! A Big Lie or A Big Stupid ???
Guest Blogger
This video will expose a popular climate myth pushed by the media. Although greenhouse gases warm the earth’s average temperature, CO2 does not trap heat. . . .

 

New Study Affirms Temperatures Determine Greenhouse Gas Forcing Trends, Not The Other Way Around
By Kenneth Richard on 30. June 2022

Share this...
CO2 and water vapor greenhouse effect impacts are not independent climate forcings . A new study affirms the “variance in the radiance in these channels is primarily controlled by…temperature” and “atmospheric absorption is strongly saturated in these [CO2, water vapor] channels”. . . .

Now, a new study (Liu et al., 2022) affirms the overall trends in downwelling longwave radiation (DLR) from CO2 and water vapor are determined by temperature.

“In the opaque portions of the CO2 absorption band (centered at 667 cm−1) and H2O absorption band (1300 – 1800 cm−1), the overall radiance trends are caused by radiance change which is due almost entirely to the increases in the near-surface temperature because the atmosphere is already too opaque to reflect any gas concentration changes.”

This effectively means that greenhouse gases cannot be assumed to be the cause of temperature, but the consequence.



Image Source: Liu et al., 2022

 

Of course the anti-fossil-fuel hysteria mongers tout these effects as "positive feedback," but the prospective and retrospective correlations show no such thing.

 

More evidence.

The Assumption CO2 Drives Climate Change Is Contradicted By Observations
By Kenneth Richard on 6. October 2022

Share this...
Another new study indicates the assumption CO2’s climate impact is not overshadowed by the water vapor impact (because they do not overlap spectrally) is inconsistent with NASA and HITRAN observations.


Smirnov, 2022
“Changes in the Earth’s atmosphere that affect its energetics are analyzed. The results of NASA programs on carbon dioxide monitoring in the atmosphere and the evolution of the global temperature, as well as data on measurements of the evolution of local temperature in the past, are presented. Global power processes are analyzed on the basis of contemporary information both for: natural processes and those resulting from human activity. The channels of establishment of an equilibrium between the change in the mass of atmospheric carbon dioxide and that in global temperature are considered. They include decrease of the total rate of photosynthesis as a result of deforestation, combustion of fossil fuels and the greenhouse effect. Based on current information, it is shown that none of these channels explains the observed accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The inconsistency of climatological models of changes in the global temperature as a result of an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide, which are the basis of the Paris Agreements on Climate, has been demonstrated. The use of these models is based on the assumption that the spectra of carbon dioxide and water molecules do not overlap, which contradicts both the data resulting from measurements with NASA programs and calculations based on the spectroscopic parameters of molecules from the HITRAN data bank. The Pauling concept, which is based on the thermodynamic equilibrium between free atmospheric CO2 molecules in the atmosphere and bound carbon at the Earth’s surface, is presented. Based on this concept, the different nature of the past and current equilibrium is shown. Thus, in the past, the slowest process of oxidation of the bound carbon at the Earth’s surface was the evaporation of carbon dioxide molecules dissolved in the ocean, while the limiting process at present is oxidation of carbonates in the oceans.”
The spectral/greenhouse effect supremacy of water vapor versus CO2 has been known and acknowledged since the 1970s (Newell and Dopplick, 1979).

“Twenty of the spectral intervals are dominated by water vapor and the other two contain CO2 (~15 μm) and O3 (9.6 μm).”


Image Source: Newell and Dopplick, 1979

 

^^^^ @Jack Hays Thanks for the posting. The citations are the proof of what so many of us have argued on these boards. Thanks as always for your diligence in keeping the forum informed.

 

New Studies Suggest Sea Levels Were 2-5 Meters Higher Than Today ~6000 Years Ago
By Kenneth Richard on 13. October 2022

Share this...
During the much-warmer-than-today Mid-Holocene, when CO2 concentrations lingered around 265 ppm, sea levels were multiple meters higher than they are now.
From about 5000 to 7000 years ago, when Earth was several degrees warmer than it is today, there was more water locked up on land as ice. Consequently, relative sea levels were much higher and land areas now well above sea level were submerged beneath the sea.

None of these paleo indicators suggest warmth, ice melt, or relative sea level are consistent with claims CO2 is a climate driver.

1. Hapsari et al., 2022



Image Source: Hapsari et al., 2022
2. Angulo et al., 2022

Image Source: Angulo et al., 2022

 

The reports I have seen indicate it was at most a few degrees warmer, not several, even if you are talking Fahrenheit.

Shouldn't that be less water locked up on land as ice? Otherwise, an explanation is in order.

 

I think "several" and "a few" need not be in conflict.
More vs less? Perhaps.

 

CO2 is not a problem.

GREGORY WRIGHTSTONE: “Reasonable” Concessions to Climate Hysteria Lack Reason
Guest Blogger
Energy sources are not equal, and carbon dioxide poses no threat to the planet.

 

New Study: Shortwave Climate Forcing Increased From 2001-2018, Explaining The Warming
By Kenneth Richard on 15. December 2022

Share this...
Yet another observational study determines changes in Earth’s reflectiveness, or planetary albedo, may be primarily responsible for 21st century climate forcing.
Earth’s radiation budget at the top of atmosphere (TOA) is predominantly controlled by internal changes in cloud cover. A declining albedo – linked to declining cloud cover – corresponds to an increase in the shortwave radiation absorbed by the Earth and thus a positive climate forcing.

More specifically, a change in Earth’s albedo of just -0.01 corresponds to an increase of +3.4 W/m² in absorbed solar radiation (Wielicki et al., 2005). Thus, even tiny variations in the planetary albedo are sufficient to trigger glaciations and deglaciations (Budyko, 1969).

A new study indicates the planetary albedo declined at a rate of -0.002 per decade from 2001-2018, equivalent to approximately +0.7 W/m² per decade of shortwave climate forcing.

When we consider it allegedly takes 10 years and 22 ppm of CO2 increases to produce a total surface forcing of +0.2 W/m² per decade, it is obvious that the increase in absorbed solar radiation, modulated by changes in cloud albedo, has been the dominant forcing factor driving warming in recent decades.



Image Source: Lv et al., 2022

 

Error, Uncertainty In Calculating Natural Climate Forcing Is 24 – 80 Times Larger Than CO2 Forcing
By Kenneth Richard on 19. December 2022

Share this...
If the error and uncertainty associated with determining the extent to which natural factors (aerosol forcing, downwelling shortwave variability) affect climate are factors of ten times larger than the presumed effects of human activity, then we cannot definitively say human activity is driving climate change.
It takes 10 years and 22 ppm for CO2 forcing to allegedly deliver a total additional radiative impact of 0.2 W/m² at the surface (Feldman et al., 2015). So after about 50 years and 110 ppm an additional 1 W/m² climate impact may be assessed for the Earth’s radiation budget.

The direct aerosol radiative effects (ADREs) in a clear-sky atmosphere affecting Earth’s top-of-atmosphere (TOA) and surface radiation imbalances are predominantly derived from natural, not anthropogenic, sources (Kremser et al., 2016, Neely et al., 2013).

And, per a new study, the global-scale errors in calculating these ADREs at the global surface amounts to −4.78 ± 2.2 W/m². This calculation error estimate is thus 24 times larger than the presumed surface forcing from CO2 over a 10-year period (0.2 W/m²). This alone effectively rules out the determination of human activity, or CO2 emissions, as the driver of climate.



Image Source: Shi et al., 2022
It gets worse. Another new study identifies the uncertainty in calculating radiative fluxes at the surface (Arctic) as ranging from 12 to 16 W/m². These uncertainty (overestimating and/or underestimating the forcing) values are about 60 to 80 times larger than the surface forcing from CO2 over a 10-year span.

Once again, this precludes the attribution of CO2 forcing as the driver of climate changes in the Arctic.



Image Source: Huang et al., 2022

 

What If Real-World Physics Do Not Support The Claim Top-Of-Atmosphere CO2 Forcing Exists?
By Kenneth Richard on 22. December 2022

Share this...
The longstanding claim is CO2 (greenhouse gas) top-of-atmosphere (TOA) forcing drives climate change. But it is too cold at the TOA for CO2 (or any greenhouse gas) to exist.


Image Sources: Schneider et al., 2020, NASA, UCAR, CGA
TOA greenhouse gas forcing is a fundamental tenet of the CO2-drives-climate-change belief system. And yet the “global-mean longwave radiative forcing of CO2 at TOA” (Schneider et al., 2020) may not even exist.

It is easily recognized that water vapor (greenhouse gas) forcing cannot occur above a certain temperature threshold because water freezes out the farther away from the surface’s warmth H2O goes.

According to NASA, the TOA is recognized as approximately 100 km above the surface. The temperature near that atmospheric height is about -90°C.

CO2 is in its solid (dry ice) form at -78°C and below.

Therefore, TOA CO2 radiative forcing cannot exist if CO2 cannot be a greenhouse gas at the TOA.

 

This seems to misinterpret the meaning of "top-of-atmosphere." In the earth's radiative heat transfer budget, TOA refers to the typical altitude at which IR radiation emitted upward has a less than 50% chance of being reabsorbed by a higher GHG molecule, and consequently escapes into outer space -- i.e., the altitude where IR emission to outer space reaches equilibrium with absorbed SW radiation from the sun, in accordance with the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. This altitude is far below what is called the "sensible" TOA, the altitude at which there is just enough air to exert a detectable drag on an orbiting object. In fact, depending on the season and latitude, the radiative TOA is often as low as the upper troposphere, <10km up.

 

The 100km TOA is cited in the links.

 

But that's the TOA for astronautical purposes, not radiative heat transfer. It's effectively meaningless in the context of global warming and CO2.

 

It's the TOA cited in the linked papers. That's all I'm going by.

 

The claim that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration results in increasing global average temperature has never been scientifically proven. Ben Santer’s preliminary data which had never been published or peer reviewed was used by him to make the IPCC claim but when the paper was published years later the claim could not be defended. Unfortunately the media and some political entities realized an opportunity to make money and the bogus data was used as justification.

The fundamental problem for alarmists is that natural climate variability has not been defined. It cannot even be established if an average climate even exists due to the chaotic nature of the earth’s weather.

 

The New Pause lengthens: 100 Months with No Warming At All
Guest Blogger
The cold weather on both sides of the Atlantic last month seems to have had its effect on temperature, which fell sharply compared with November, lengthening the New Pause to…

 

Just finished reading this. It's pretty convincing, particularly the chart that shows temp gains at .134K/decade.

 

It was .140C/decade just over a year ago.

I see that Monckton made an error which I will correct in his post. He shows it as .134K/decade when it should be .134C/decade thanks for having me see it.

I see a hot post coming on soon that will get Jack H. really excited as the revelations are embarrassing to the warmist/alarmist cult.