Claim: Greenhouse gas-caused warming felt in just months

Caldeira It seems in the desperation to erase “the pause” in time for Paris, Ken Caldeira has jumped the shark with this claim. Basically he’s claiming that the heat from fossil fuel combustion is a factor, not just the posited slowing of infrared from Earth’s surface to the top of the atmosphere by increased CO2 concentration.

This headline “Greenhouse gas-caused warming felt in just months”  is in contrast to what Caldeira previously said in this Institute of Physics publication saying:

…we find the median time between an emission and maximum warming is 10.1 years, with a 90% probability range of 6.6–30.7 years.

Now whether its months, years, or decades, they still have to get around the problem of “the pause” and climate sensitivity, which so far appears to be low in observations as seen here:

This graph shows the ratio of warming from accumulated atmospheric carbon dioxide to warming from combustion for coal, oil, and gas plants over time. Figure is simplified from Zhang and Caldeira's paper (ERL, 2012)'. Credit Xiaochun Zhang and Ken Caldeira
This graph shows the ratio of warming from accumulated atmospheric carbon dioxide to warming from combustion for coal, oil, and gas plants over time. Figure is simplified from Zhang and Caldeira’s paper (ERL, 2012)’. Credit Xiaochun Zhang and Ken Caldeira

Washington, DC–The heat generated by burning a fossil fuel is surpassed within a few months by the warming caused by the release of its carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, according to new work from Carnegie’s Xiaochun Zhang and Ken Caldeira published in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union. The release of CO2 into the atmosphere contributes to the trapping of heat that would otherwise be emitted into outer space.

When a fossil fuel is combusted, heat is released. Some of this is used to make electricity or heat human-built structures, but eventually all of that energy escapes into the environment and warms the planet. But this combustion process also produces carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas that accumulates in the atmosphere for thousands of years and traps heat that would otherwise escape into space, causing global climate change.

In a modeling study of coal, oil, and natural gas, Zhang and Caldeira compared the warming caused by combustion to the warming caused by the carbon dioxide released by a single instance of burning, such as one lump of coal, and by a power plant that is continuously burning fuel.

They found that the carbon dioxide-caused warming exceeds the amount of heat released by a lump of coal in just 34 days. The same phenomenon is observed in 45 days for an isolated incident of oil combustion, and in 59 days for a single instance of burning natural gas.

“Ultimately, the warming induced by carbon dioxide over the many thousands of years it remains in the atmosphere would exceed the warming from combustion by a factor of 100,000 or more,” Caldeira said.

For a power plant that is continuously burning, the warming caused by atmospheric carbon dioxide exceeded the heat released into the atmosphere by combustion in less than half a year–just three months for coal plants. With this kind of steady continuous combustion, it takes 95 days using coal, 124 days using oil, and 161 days using natural gas.

Caldeira explained: “If a power plant is burning continuously, within 3 to 5 months, depending on the type of power plant, the CO2 from the power plant is doing more to heat the Earth than the fires in its boiler. As time goes on, the rate of burning in the power plant stays the same, but the CO2 accumulates, so by the end of the year, the greenhouse gases will be heating the Earth much more than the direct emissions from the power plant.”

“It’s important to note that heat emissions from combustion are not negligible, particularly in urban areas,” Zhang added. “But carbon dioxide-caused warming is just that much greater. Our results drive home the urgency of cutting emissions immediately.”


Funding for this work was provided by the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (FICER) and the Carnegie Institution for Science.

The data that used to calculate thermal emissions with thermal contents of fossil fuels and estimate CO2 emissions are available from IPCC AR5 ( The historical CO2 emissions data from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) fossil-fuel CO2 emissions dataset, and can be accessed via

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ted G
June 2, 2015 1:08 pm

Paris is waiting at the 50000 yard/rentseekers line, I can hardly wait for the hot woosh of abject failure. Oh well there is always the next climate junket.

Leo Morgan
Reply to  Ted G
June 3, 2015 3:10 am

Don’t be complacent.
A 90 % chance of failure is still a 10 % chance they’ll succeed in their goals. It’s only a few of them who explicitly aim at destroying Industrial Civilisation. The rest of them don’t even realise that’s the probable consequence of their goals, a fact which makes no difference at all to the outcome. And as you say, there’s always the next one.
We must win every time. They have to win just once.

Reply to  Ted G
June 3, 2015 5:19 am

so, according to the graph above, it take 20 years for coal to reach 50x, but 40 years for gas to reach 50x. so, in other words, switching from coal to oil does not change the total amount of warming, only the time that it takes.
in other words, the EPA regulation to end coal and replace it with gas are a waste or time, because for the same amount of electricity produced you will get the same amount of global warming, regardless of whether you use coal or gas. all that will change is the length of time.

Reply to  Ted G
June 3, 2015 5:24 am

“Ultimately, the warming induced by carbon dioxide over the many thousands of years it remains in the atmosphere would exceed the warming from combustion by a factor of 100,000 or more,” Caldeira said.
so the CO2 released today from a single power station will in many thousands of years fry the earth.
so what is the purpose of cutting emissions? they certainly cannot be cut back to zero without returning the survivors to the stone age. if this report is true then all we are doing by cutting emissions if buying time. we are all doomed, so we might as well keep the lights on, heat the house in winter and run the air-con in summer. none of us are getting out of this alive.

Reply to  ferdberple
June 3, 2015 2:18 pm

You aren’t getting it. The heat doesn’t need to increase from the co2, it just doesn’t go away like the heat from combustion. So after many years the total heat summed is a very large factor bigger than the instantaneous heat.

Bruce Cobb
June 2, 2015 1:17 pm

They are making it up as they go along.

george e. smith
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
June 2, 2015 8:28 pm

“””””…..…we find the median time between an emission and maximum warming is 10.1 years, with a 90% probability range of 6.6–30.7 years. …..”””””
Simply wunnerful ! And the 99% probability range is 2.2 -92.1 years, and we predict the 99.9% probability range is 0.7 – 275 years, in fact we’re fairly sure of it.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
June 2, 2015 9:23 pm

Ken’s doctor saw the fetid cognitive dissonance building in his head and lanced it before it exploded. This was the result.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
June 3, 2015 1:00 am

The rune stones models say so.

Kevin Kane
June 2, 2015 1:17 pm

Would be interesting if there was another release of emails just before Paris.

Reply to  Kevin Kane
June 2, 2015 1:21 pm

My thoughts exactly. It’s time for Climategate IV.

Reply to  Scarface
June 2, 2015 6:51 pm

… and Servergate I.

Reply to  Kevin Kane
June 2, 2015 4:12 pm


June 2, 2015 1:19 pm

“In a modeling study …” says it all when it’s about climate models.

Paul Westhaver
June 2, 2015 1:19 pm

But… the earth ain’t warming no mo.
Obfuscation and techno babble to conceal the fact that I am still burning oil to heat my house in bloody June.
It is frigging cold.

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
June 2, 2015 2:04 pm

Right. It isn’t a pause, it is a HALT until it starts moving again, and then expect cooling.

george e. smith
Reply to  E.M.Smith
June 2, 2015 8:30 pm

Just remember that the moving phase is quite benign. It’s that sudden halt in the movement, that does all the damage.

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
June 2, 2015 8:25 pm

It won’t be “frigging cold” anymore once the CRU gang have ‘homogenised’ the temperature data and turned it into catastrophic warming for you. So you can throw your heaters away.

Just an engineer
Reply to  KiwiHeretic
June 3, 2015 5:00 am

So when we get to the year 2100, will the freezing point of pure water be 2 degrees, or 4 degrees Celsius

Paul Mackey
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
June 3, 2015 12:41 am

Actually Paul, it’s too cold to do even that #;-)

Jim Francisco
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
June 4, 2015 10:21 am

In Indiana it is now warm enough for the more efficient heat pump to keep us warm in June. Global warming my ass.

June 2, 2015 1:20 pm

Do alarmists get loonier around the full moon?
Someone needs to perform a study about the effects of the phases of the moon on the bizarreness of the claims by the CO2 obsessed.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
June 2, 2015 2:14 pm

Bob, you may have a valid point with regards to the moon.
The Paris looney tune show will officially begin shortly after the full moon and officially end on a new moon. There will likely be accelerated bizarre claims before the start and hopefully some sanity will have returned with the new moon.
Will Paris be like a school of fish migrating for a spawn?

old construction worker
Reply to  eyesonu
June 2, 2015 6:08 pm

They should meet at Stonehenge dance around for while then sacrifice Big Al to the global warming gods Maybe the pause would end..

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  eyesonu
June 2, 2015 8:35 pm

@old construction worker.
The Gore Effect would ensure sufficient cold and snow to cancel the festivities.

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
June 2, 2015 4:38 pm

I think it’s loonier with temperature, seems like every year, as we move toward the summer months, there’s more and more odd-ball stuff being said and published. Maybe that’s why they’re so afraid of global warming, it will results in massive insanity and widespread lunacy.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
June 2, 2015 5:39 pm

Yes, why yes, they do! Drill here. Drill now. Drill early and often.

Reply to  Babsy
June 2, 2015 6:42 pm

I haven’t heard that said since I worked for the dental college.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
June 2, 2015 8:32 pm

The phases of the Moon is a pet subject of mine. You see, I had to applaud the geezer who is currently cycling around the world “to raise awareness for climate change”. Well he’s doing something like that… cycling somewhere I think, but I got bored listening and felt sick so not all of it registered as I reached for the bucket to puke, as I do with such things. Anyway it was on the TV news yesterday morning and I thought ‘Well done!’. I was so impressed, it inspired me to cycle around my local suburb to ‘raise awareness for the phases of the Moon’ and other perfectly natural phenomena that people forget about. Climate change is one of them because it’s only been happening for the last five billion years so I take my hat off to all the loonie toons who do wonderful things to “raise awareness” for it. I’ll be on my bike tonight raising awareness for the Moon’s phases, lest they be forgotten.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
June 2, 2015 9:07 pm

Yes, it is the tidal effect on the voices they hear.

wayne Job
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
June 3, 2015 6:21 am

Tonight the full moon was my friend, being a silly old male I forgot it was the day the rubbish bins needed to be taken to the road side.Being winter in oz and bloody cold and around a 1/4 mile to the road on the phone my good woman told me to take the bins out, the full moon was my friend. The first second and third day of winter in oz for me has been bloody cold. I am waiting for the promised, or is it the inevitable warming that must arrive soon or I will have been conned into paying to much for my power, and strange green fees, even on my rubbish bins.

Reply to  wayne Job
June 3, 2015 8:03 am

I was out and about travelling by train here in Sydney, and yes, it was very VERY cold yesterday, even in the sun. I had my thick, hooded, fleece jacket on too. Well, it is winter after all.

Richard M
June 2, 2015 1:20 pm

I’m surprised he didn’t calculate the heat from the friction generated by scratching his own behind while breathing out that nasty CO2 (and then multiply it by 7 billion).

Reply to  Richard M
June 2, 2015 2:22 pm

The illusion of competence is greatly enhanced via the application of computers and software.

Reply to  PiperPaul
June 3, 2015 6:19 am

To err is human, to really foul things up requires a computer.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Richard M
June 3, 2015 6:36 am

Let’s see, 70W times 7×10^^9 = 490GW Aaahhhh! We’re all gonna die!

Gary Hladik
June 2, 2015 1:23 pm

So Zhang and Caldiera have announced they’re walking to Paris? No? They’re flying? Um, jet fuel is very oil-like, so in 45 days…

Double on Tundra
June 2, 2015 1:25 pm

When I turn on the heater in my car, it warms me almost immediately. This is what he means, right? He can’t mean that because I drive my car, I don’t need a heater.

June 2, 2015 1:28 pm

The release of CO2 into the atmosphere contributes to the trapping of heat that would otherwise be emitted into outer space.

Heat cannot be emitted into outer space.

Reply to  Mark and two Cats
June 2, 2015 1:38 pm
Reply to  Mark and two Cats
June 2, 2015 1:49 pm

If it can’t be emitted, how is the earth dealing with all the energy absorbed from the sun over the last 4.5billion years?

Reply to  MarkW
June 2, 2015 1:56 pm

It hides it…..
Didn’t you read the memo?

george e. smith
Reply to  MarkW
June 2, 2015 8:38 pm

Well the energy leaves the same way it arrived as EM radiation. It can’t get here as heat, and it can’t leave here as heat.
Just for laughs try connecting a copper rod (suitably guard ringed) from sun to earth, and calculate the W/m^2 of heat conducted from sun to earth, assuming the normal thermal conductivity of copper, and also ignoring the fact that the copper rod, might evaporate at the sun end.
Better yet make the rod out of type IIa diamond, and find the W/m^2 of conducted heat from the sun.
We make all of our heat ourselves, right here on earth; don’t get any of it from any place else.

Reply to  MarkW
June 3, 2015 6:26 am

“as EM radiation”
Then it was emitted.

Reply to  MarkW
June 3, 2015 1:25 pm

“If it can’t be emitted, how is the earth dealing with all the energy absorbed from the sun over the last 4.5billion years?”
Good question. The only culprit seems to be the expanding earth, an idea championed by Australia geologist Sam Carey who took a lot of shtick for having the temerity to question the “settled science” of plate tectonics.

Matt Bergin
Reply to  Mark and two Cats
June 2, 2015 2:51 pm

Heat also cannot be trapped.

Reply to  Matt Bergin
June 2, 2015 6:46 pm

You just need the right bait, that’s all.

Reply to  Matt Bergin
June 2, 2015 6:52 pm

question is- once you trap it, how do you skin it?

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Matt Bergin
June 3, 2015 4:41 am

Yup it can, in the proverbial Black Holes at the center of galaxies.
And some of it could be trapped in all that Dark Matter for all we know.

Reply to  Mark and two Cats
June 2, 2015 3:01 pm

Maybe the Earth is emitting a lack of warmth?
Or, perhaps instead of the Earth undergoing radiational cooling, it is instead absorbing some heat cancelling substance from the cold void of space?
We can call this frigid miasma “Coolth”.
It cancels warmth, being anti-energy, and can also literally suck the heat out of an object.
This is the stuff that blows down on cold winter winds, and descends from the night sky as well.
Ooh hoo, ooooh. That’s very scary, boys and girls!

Reply to  Menicholas
June 3, 2015 1:27 pm

Death eater …!

Reply to  Mark and two Cats
June 2, 2015 4:14 pm

and two Cats
Please elaborate.

george e. smith
Reply to  Brute
June 2, 2015 8:41 pm

Heat requires a physical medium made out of molecules to propagate it.there’s basically none of that between the sun and the earth, or the earth and outer space, so no go on heat loss, or gain.

Reply to  Brute
June 3, 2015 12:03 am

So, according to this theory of yours, the sun does not warm up the earth…?
Also, are you saying that a person could walk through space in the nude and not worry about freezing?
Please also explain why all space artifacts sent to space wastefully insulate the humans aboard. Your take on the problems faced by the Apollo 13 mission promises to be priceless.

Reply to  Brute
June 3, 2015 6:08 am

The problem is not one of transfer of energy to space but of terms describing that transfer. Energy leaves the Earth system as radiation. I’ve long bristled at the use of the word heat to describe the process. It does not matter at what frequency the radiation occurs, but for CO2 and other so-called greenhouse gases it is IR. Gases don’t radiate anything but their natural “color”, another odd concept.
Consider for example, hi-power lasers. Non-IR lasers will burn things quite well. IR isn’t heat – it produces heat when it strikes a great many things, though. So does green or blue or red light. Some colors are more effective at this for some materials than for others.
Here’s the big question. If energy is trapped in the atmosphere then the atmosphere will heat. As it heats it radiates more. That can be observed. Observations show that increase does not match modeled output. Observations apparently show there is no increased radiation for nearly years (that is what satellites measure). Something we’re sure of is wrong. What is it?

Reply to  Brute
June 3, 2015 6:27 am

Some people get caught up in the differences between vibrational energy and EM energy.

Reply to  Brute
June 3, 2015 7:37 am

‘Something we’re sure of is wrong. What is it?’
The total IR emitted to space is not supposed to much increase when Tyndall gases become more abundant. The upper athmosphere is supposed to cool and lower to warm, leaving the TOA IR almost unchanged.
The hot spot in large is missing, so something appears to balance this effect somehow.

Reply to  Brute
June 3, 2015 1:16 pm

There is nothing in space to accept transfer of heat.

Reply to  Brute
June 3, 2015 5:12 pm

and two Cats
So you continue insisting that the sun does not warm up the earth or other objects in the solar system because… “there is nothing in space to accept transfer of heat”.
Please elaborate. As it stands, you sound like a complete lunatic. I don’t mean to disparage. It is just that you make no sense whatsoever. I’m sure that if you used more words, your notions would sound less demented.

Reply to  Brute
June 3, 2015 5:15 pm

“Some people get caught up in the differences between vibrational energy and EM energy.”

george e. smith
Reply to  Mark and two Cats
June 2, 2015 8:32 pm

Right on Bro !

Reply to  Mark and two Cats
June 3, 2015 4:56 am

Yes it can see the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, better yet go outside on a sunny day and feel the heat emitted from the sun that travelled here through outer space

Reply to  Mark and two Cats
June 3, 2015 1:10 pm

There is nothing in space to accept transfer of heat.
They probably meant “The release of CO2 into the atmosphere contributes to the trapping of IR that would otherwise be emitted into outer space.”
IR isn’t heat, it is light. It can be absorbed by CO2 as vibronic energy (aka heat), but IR leaving the earth without molecular interactions is not heat leaving the earth, but light; potential heat, but not heat.
They should say what they mean.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Mark and two Cats
June 4, 2015 9:30 am

Mark and two Cats,

IR isn’t heat, it is light. It can be absorbed by CO2 as vibronic energy (aka heat), but IR leaving the earth without molecular interactions is not heat leaving the earth, but light; potential heat, but not heat.

The opposite of absorb is emit.

They should say what they mean.

They did. Consider a broader definition of the term heat commonly used in thermodynamics texts — net energy transfer — and it might make more sense.

Reply to  Mark and two Cats
June 9, 2015 6:27 pm

What in tarnation is going on here:
Gates said something I agree with!
Heavens to Betsy.

June 2, 2015 1:31 pm

warming caused by the carbon dioxide……No one knows
So he figured all the heat from heaters in the winter, air conditioneers in the summer…
I don’t suppose keeping everything above freezing all winter counts

Reply to  Latitude
June 2, 2015 1:54 pm

I wonder what percentage of the energy we use gets turned into heat?
I suspect it’s a larger percentage. I’m betting it’s insignificant compared to Nature.

Andrew N
Reply to  Paul
June 2, 2015 2:01 pm

100%. At some stage everything ends up as waste heat. The law of conservation of energy dictates this.

Reply to  Paul
June 2, 2015 2:50 pm

Paul, all of global warming is insignificant

Reply to  Paul
June 2, 2015 3:57 pm

Um No Andrew, energy ends up as lots of things, energy does not all degrade to heat it can end up as the energy bound in compounds, it can end up as rock turned into sand, ice to water ( entropy), it can end up as potential, orbital velocity or momentum. Blowing a speck of dust uphill stores energy, It can end up as visible photons whizzing through space from say lightning or our electric lighting, and it can end up as matter. There are probably dozens of other forms – Frozen electricity (Aluminium) springs to mind as rather durable concentrated form of stored energy.
By the way Air conditioners can only transiently warm the air, Air conditioners just move energy, the only energy added is the electricity drawn from the wall plug, so the warm produced outside quickly (within say 24 hours) recombines with the cold air produced inside. Because the A/C is able to take a large amount of diffuse heat and concentrate it into a small space, which because of the cube law of radiation and thermodynamic efficiency is much more able to radiate and convect away, Ill wager that A/C overall results in planetary cooling even though they are capable of causing localised heating.

Reply to  Paul
June 2, 2015 11:30 pm

Um Yes bobl. All of those other things ultimately end up as heat. The satellite orbit decays, the photons are absorbed, the aluminium oxidizes etc etc.

Reply to  Paul
June 3, 2015 4:37 am

Globally it’s still insignificant but locally in developed densely populated countries like Europe it’s comparable to the W/m2 supposedly due to CO2 emission.
Urban heat effect is well documented.

Bruce Cobb
June 2, 2015 1:33 pm

“Greenhouse gas-caused warming” – you feel it when you’re frying.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
June 2, 2015 1:35 pm

These people are just pissing on their own chips.

June 2, 2015 1:36 pm

With that name, I had to check it wasn’t April 1st:

Reply to  scute1133
June 2, 2015 1:42 pm

BTW, Anthony, I clicked on the link to the paper and it is “Caldeira” and not “Caldiera” as you have it in some sentences.
[Fixed, thanks. ~mod.]

Reply to  scute1133
June 2, 2015 3:20 pm

“All right, I’m sorry I tied you to the furnace” What does that mean? Some sort of Portuguese adage?

Reply to  inMAGICn
June 2, 2015 5:43 pm

I wonder if caldeira can also mean cooker like ‘forno’ in Italian so really the translation of the adage shouldn’t have been furnace but oven. It would then be “tied to the oven”……like “chained to the sink” ?

June 2, 2015 1:37 pm

If you can believe this, it sounds like good news to me. Warm is better than cold and CO2 benefits the planet through the plants so it’s a win-win-win we get the energy from the lump of coal, then we get a warmer planet and finally we get more CO2 for the planet. I’m a bit skeptical that burning a lump of coal really has a meaningful long term impact on warming the planet but this article sounds like coal is a miracle substance.

Reply to  DaveH
June 2, 2015 3:09 pm

The search is over! CO2 is the God particle.

Reply to  Menicholas
June 2, 2015 5:43 pm

The Higgs Boson is a CO2 molecule in drag!

Reply to  Menicholas
June 3, 2015 4:47 pm

It is the Caitlyn particle

David Longinotti
June 2, 2015 1:39 pm

There are intervals of thousands of years during past geological eras when CO2 was rising significantly but the planet was cooling. Is that cooling possible if the rising CO2 trapped the equivalent of 100,000 times the amount of heat of combustion that would have been produced had the increased CO2 been the result of burning fossil fuels? Do you think the authors did that calculation?

June 2, 2015 1:42 pm

So. There are at least three different kinds of human-generated carbon dioxide with different properties, from combustion of coal, oil and methane. This is a major breakthrough in chemistry which should earn them a Nobel.

Reply to  Admad
June 2, 2015 1:57 pm

No. Same CO2, but less of it from methane per unit of heat generated by combustion.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Admad
June 3, 2015 4:53 am

The CAGW secret they don’t want you to know.
There is a nasty ole Anthropogenic Global Warming secret about CO2 that the proponents of CAGW are not telling you. Surprise, surprise, there are actually two (2) different types of CO2.
There is both a naturally occurring CO2 molecule and a hybrid CO2 molecule that has a different physical property. The new hybrid CO2 molecule contains an H-pyron which permits one to distinguish it from the naturally occurring CO2 molecules.
The H-pyron or Human-pyron is only attached to and/or can only be detected in CO2 molecules that have been created as a result of human activity. Said H-pyron has a Specific Heat Capacity of one (1) GWC or 1 Global Warming Calorie that is equal to 69 x 10 -37th kJ/kg K or something close to that or maybe farther away.
Thus, said H-pyron is very important to all Climate Scientists that are proponents of CO2 causing Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) because it provides them a quasi-scientific “fact” that serves two (2) important functions: 1) it permits said climate scientists to calculate an estimated percentage of atmospheric CO2 that is “human caused” ……. and 2) it permits said climate scientists to calculate their desired “degree increase” in Average Global Temperatures that are directly attributed to human activity.
As an added note, oftentimes one may hear said climate scientists refer to those two (2) types of CO2 as “urban CO2” and ”rural CO2” because they can’t deny “it is always hotter in the city”.
And there you have it folks, the rest of the story, their secret scientific tool has been revealed to you.
Yours truly, Eritas Fubar

jim hogg
June 2, 2015 1:43 pm

So . . if we’ve got to contend with increased heat generated by combustion and a further increase in heat caused by greenhouse insulation, and over the course of the last 13 years approximately there has been no increase in temperatures, what exactly has been happening to this double whammy of extra heat? . . ‘Twould surely make even a true believer a little bit sceptical . . you would have thought . . . It’s cold enough here in Scotland at the moment . . Thank goodness for AGW . . without it, it would be even colder . .!

June 2, 2015 1:44 pm

Get out your pooper-scoopers and your doggy doo-doo bags. Gonna be a lot more of this kind of thing from the Warmbots the closer we get to Paris.

Reply to  Jim Watson
June 2, 2015 3:14 pm

Remember when ninnies used to get laughed out of science?
Now they get a fat research grant and front page accolades when they spout their drivel.
And, hey, did anyone else notice they seemed to have asserted that there actually is a urban heat island effect, and that it is quite large?
Youch, this is gonna leave a mark!

Reply to  Menicholas
June 3, 2015 12:06 am

I wonder what the folks at BEST would think of this?
Maybe a climate change reporter will ask?

June 2, 2015 1:53 pm

And as everyday goes by, not only does it refuse to warm but alarmists become more stupid.
Who actually believes this stuff?
On a side note, don’t worry about measuring temperatures, just follow water vapour.
Its decreasing, for a good reason.

June 2, 2015 1:53 pm

If warming from CO2 is that quick, it seems to be contradicted by the IPCC’s own claim of long residence times for CO2.

Reply to  dbstealey
June 2, 2015 2:00 pm

No contradiction. They are talking about how long before the effect of the CO2 is greater than the effect of the combustion. Nothing to do with how long the CO2 is resident.

Reply to  JohnB
June 2, 2015 2:16 pm

I understand that, John. Maybe you didn’t get my point. If not, sorry about that.
If, as the IPCC claims, the CO2 residency time is a century, then with all the CO2 emitted over the past 50 – 60 or more years, we certainly should have seen some fast-accelerating global warming by now.
But there isn’t any accelerating global warming — there isn’t even any global warming at all! For many years now, global warming has been stopped.
I think whoever said it upthread was right: at this point, they will SAY ANYTHING. Facts and evidence have nothing to do with it. This is all political spin; pablum for the masses.

Reply to  JohnB
June 2, 2015 3:03 pm

true…my take home from this is that CO2 provides even less heating ( some of it is from getting there in the first place)…and they discovered UHI

Reply to  JohnB
June 2, 2015 9:22 pm

dbstealey, then the consensus of Climate Scientists is necessarily that we’re in a natural ice age, masked only by anthropogenic CO2 sources. At Paris, they will naturally recommend we discontinue all carbon neutral policies so that we can combat the cold and prevent the destruction of biodiversity on this blue marble.
/superfluous sarc tag

Just an engineer
Reply to  JohnB
June 3, 2015 5:18 am

Humm, let me know if I got this right from a physics standpoint. CO2 “back radiation” should be relatively instantaneous, as it is affecting “radiation” as soon as it is emitted. And the heat of combustion is available as soon as the combustion takes place. So perhaps if I look at the real world temperatures around me, and ignore the worthless “model” they use, we can tell that the “effect of CO2” will NEVER be greater than the “effect of combustion”.

Reply to  JohnB
June 3, 2015 1:00 pm

Just an engineer,
Correct. Observations trump models. Always.
The Financial Post describes what’s going on very well:
Since 1990, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen 13%, from 354 parts per million (ppm) to just under 400 ppm. According to the IPCC, estimated “radiative forcing” of greenhouse gases (the term it uses to describe the expected heating effect) increased by 43% after 2005. Climate models all predicted that this should have led to warming of the lower troposphere and surface. Instead, temperatures flatlined and even started declining.
Mr. Caldeira needs to explain the huge discrepancy between observations, and the official narrative. Because they can’t both be right.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  JohnB
June 4, 2015 10:02 am

Just an engineer,

CO2 “back radiation” should be relatively instantaneous, as it is affecting “radiation” as soon as it is emitted.

As an engineer, any discussion of the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship of radiation emission as a function of the fourth power of temperature should be a remedial topic for you.

And the heat of combustion is available as soon as the combustion takes place.

Yes, that follows. It’s also consistent with what the authors of this paper are saying.

So perhaps if I look at the real world temperatures around me, and ignore the worthless “model” they use, we can tell that the “effect of CO2″ will NEVER be greater than the “effect of combustion”.

It’s important to consider as much of the entire system as possible, not just your immediate surroundings. To wit, one would do well to consider observations of the single largest heat sink in the climate system, the oceans:
In this case, it’s constructive to look at it in terms of units of energy:
The linear trend over the entire interval is 4.5 x 10^21 J/yr, accelerating to 7.6 10^21 J/yr for the 20 year interval of 1995-2014. For comparison, worldwide energy consumption is 5.6 x 10^20 J/yr.

June 2, 2015 1:55 pm

And this heat is also missing?

Reply to  Joe
June 2, 2015 1:57 pm

doh, stupid facts!

June 2, 2015 2:00 pm

When I run in place my body heats up and I start to sweat. I also breath faster and release more CO2 into the air. The CO2 I release in just 5 days traps more heat causing catastrophic climate change than he initial workout heat released from my body.
Solution, you must pay carbon credits to be allowed to workout.

Reply to  Jared
June 2, 2015 5:27 pm

Jared, you are spot on!

John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia
Reply to  Jared
June 2, 2015 5:52 pm

Jared, you have given us couch potatoes a good excuse to feel good about ourselves.

Reply to  John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia
June 3, 2015 5:13 am

+1.0000 (+/- 0.1)

Nick Stokes
June 2, 2015 2:00 pm

“Basically he’s claiming that the heat from fossil fuel combustion is a factor, not just the posited slowing of infrared from Earth’s surface to the top of the atmosphere by increased CO2 concentration.”
To me, it sounds like he is saying the opposite – that the radiative heating effect eventually far exceeds combustion heat, and “eventually” can be just a few months. It seems rather a trivial calculation- coal is higher because its fuel content is C only, which hydrocarbons have hydrogen, and so produce less CO2 per joule of combustion heat, because they also produce water. Gas has relatively more hydrogen than oil.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 2, 2015 5:09 pm

I think you’ll find that coal contains other elements apart from carbon (hydrogen, oxygen, sulphur and nitrogen)

Will Nelson
June 2, 2015 2:03 pm

Sometimes I breath C02 on my hands to warm them up. I need to be careful I don’t get burned.

Will Nelson
Reply to  Will Nelson
June 2, 2015 2:06 pm

This is 100,000 times more effective than putting on gloves.

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  Will Nelson
June 2, 2015 4:41 pm

That might be an offense punishable by EPA sanctions, you are supposed to exhale CO2 into an underground storage facility. All other exhaling is forbidden.

June 2, 2015 2:06 pm

Surely, this is excellent news!
If we can burn a lump of coal then get free energy for ever what is not to like?
Is this a source of cheap energy that we somehow have managed to overlook?

Reply to  graphicconception
June 3, 2015 6:33 am

Cheap? I can beat that. Wind is free, free I tell you.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  graphicconception
June 3, 2015 10:32 pm

Right graphic. Some people have always believed in a perpetual motion machine. Now they are translating that wonderful idea into perpetual heat energy from a CO2 molecule. Isn’t cargo cult – science wonderful?

June 2, 2015 2:08 pm

So the warm periods in the past *were* due to man, because man was burning lots of wood fires and heating up the atmosphere. #GreeniesAreStupid

June 2, 2015 2:10 pm

He’s wrong, it cools more at night than it warmed during the prior day, and there’s also no warming preserved through winter.

June 2, 2015 2:10 pm

“he’s claiming that the heat from fossil fuel combustion is a factor, not just the posited slowing of infrared from Earth’s surface to the top of the atmosphere by increased CO2 concentration.”
Come on guys, it’s simple math.
Jared says “Solution, you must pay carbon credits to be allowed to workout.”
Only if your food is coal and oil. Now, on the other hand, your gas…

Just an engineer
Reply to  trafamadore
June 3, 2015 5:37 am

Do vitamin supplements count?

Mickey Reno
June 2, 2015 2:12 pm

Headline: The first true perpetual motion machine has been found as Climate Scientologists, pumping out massive quantities of heat in the form of alarm and panic, in order to insure the 2015 Paris COP doesn’t flop like a dead fish, are actually releasing more heat energy than they’re ingesting. The IMF plans to operate gigantic steam generators in Central Africa, where electricity deserts are most widespread.

Gunga Din
June 2, 2015 2:13 pm

Think of all the heat produced by all those 98.6° F carbon-based lifeforms that are running around! And they emit CO2!!!
Eliminate a bunch of them and everything will be fine!

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  Gunga Din
June 2, 2015 4:43 pm

Not to mention the methane produced by the giant beef and bean burrito that one must occasionally consume, simply because they are so tasty.

June 2, 2015 2:18 pm

The climate hype industry is greatly helped by the scientists who already know the results prior to performing experiments, running the models or doing research.

Ralph Kramden
June 2, 2015 2:31 pm

I’ve said this before. It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn’t matter how smart you are. If the observations don’t support you then you’re wrong.

John F. Hultquist
June 2, 2015 2:33 pm

This explains why Smokey Bear never wears a jacket or sweater.

June 2, 2015 2:46 pm

“Ultimately, the warming induced by carbon dioxide over the many thousands of years it remains in the atmosphere would exceed the warming from combustion by a factor of 100,000 or more,”
They make it sound like it’s going to get really hot out there. Time for us all to get some Pyrotect clothing for daily wear.

Berényi Péter
June 2, 2015 3:13 pm

Ten on the minus hundredth power is ten billion times more than ten on the minus one hundred and tenth power, therefore it must be a huge number.

Paul Elliott
June 2, 2015 3:13 pm

Months is accurate! Every fall we ramp up combustion of fossil fuells. About five months later the temperature begins to rise, peaking in July/August after the peak of combuston in January/February. A few months late without combustion ou temeratures begin to fall again, and the cycle repeats. Cause/effect can easily be confused with seasons, models can show CO2 link in much greator detail!!

Reply to  Paul Elliott
June 3, 2015 5:17 am

Now if you could just prove that with a model and get published…

Reply to  Paul Elliott
June 3, 2015 5:20 am

This seems quite plausible. Good call.,

Gary Pearse
June 2, 2015 3:17 pm

This combustion heat is what is heating up the thermometers around the cities and airports and giving us global warming readings. We already knew this and have become worried about it.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 3, 2015 10:39 pm

Gary. Not so much combustion heat but the influence of asphalt, concrete, steel, etc. absorbing more energy (thus converting it into heat and then radiating IR) than nice trees, shrubs, and grass which transpire and thus are cooler.

June 2, 2015 3:19 pm

That’s fantastic – so all we have to do is burn a bit of coal and its the heat that just keeps on giving
Eye wateringly funny

June 2, 2015 3:22 pm

What about the heat from volcanoes? And lightning-sparked wildfires and forest fires? How does geothermal heat release like geysers factor in? This is only so much “smoke and mirrors” and is another claim that any day now the temperature will “do a double whammy” after hiding in the shadows for a decade or two.

June 2, 2015 3:26 pm

The world’s annual energy use is 0.0101% of annual Solar ToA.

Reply to  nickreality65
June 2, 2015 3:42 pm

That’s why the guy has to claim that the greenhouse is 100,000 times greater than the regular burning because the power of the sun is inconvenient for the story

Reply to  wickedwenchfan
June 2, 2015 3:45 pm

Didn’t you know the greenhouse component of CO2 is 10 times more powerful than the sun itself!? What are they teaching kids in climate school these days for you not to know that!?

Roy A Jensen
June 2, 2015 3:30 pm

Is’nt it time that the Wormest claim victory! Eighteen years ago the heating stopped. They did a great job. What are they going to Paris for. To congratulate themselves for saving the planet.

June 2, 2015 3:38 pm

It warms during the day. It cools at night. Each new day the Sun must repeat the work it did the day before. The same as if I turn off my heater in my house when I go out and must turn it back on again and reheat it when I come home again. The heat is not trapped. If it were possible to turn off the sun completely the planet would cool to that of Uranus within days. Talk of residency times for CO2 of months and years is absurd.

Reply to  wickedwenchfan
June 2, 2015 3:48 pm

Please wwf, talking about the sun turning off is much scarier than the article could have ever been to anybody who’s up on this stuff! We still don’t know why stars become pulsars and it would be a bummer to orbit one. Talk about rapid climate changes….

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
June 3, 2015 6:37 am

It’s all theory until someone can actually observe it in action, but current theory is that pulsars are the rapidly rotating cores of super nova. Because of their powerful magnetic fields, energy can only be released along the magnetic axis. So there is a big blast of energy whenever that axis is pointing towards us.

Bruce Cobb
June 2, 2015 3:50 pm

Speaking of large numbers, according to Warmist doctrine some 3.94 billion hiroshimas worth of heat has accumulated in the oceans since 1990. Whew! We sure dodged a bullet there. Just imagine if all that heat had decided not to go into the oceans, and heated the atmosphere instead. It’s sneaky heat, too, because some apparently has decided to hide in the ocean depths these past 18 years.
Must be trying to get away from all the loony warmists.

June 2, 2015 3:51 pm

“…the rate of burning in the power plant stays the same, but the CO2 accumulates,..”
Actually, it does not. The rate of absorption remains the same. In 14 months most of it goes into the biosphere and the oceans. In 60 months it has all gone. And by the way, termites produce more CO2 than humans.

Reply to  Sasha
June 2, 2015 5:57 pm

Actually, the rate of burning in a present day coal plant does not stay the same. They are the plants with the ability to change load rapidly in order to match demand on the grid without selling or buying power (at a loss) to/from your neighbors. They’re also the cheapest way to pick up the slack when wind and solar fail. They can be throttled down on a nightly basis and then meet peak demand on a cloudy, windless and sultry “dog day”. No other form of power generation gives the same generating versatility for a lower price than pulverised coal and fluidised bed plants do. Current nuclear technology only allows for steady base load generation, and hydro is similar to nuclear.

June 2, 2015 3:52 pm

Surprisingly, the claims are accurate and correct. Let us deconstruct things and see what happens.
1) They claim that the thermal energy from FF combustion warms the planet.
We all agree that this is true, but the total heat involved is many, many orders of magnitude less than the earth’s daily heat budget. And evey day, that heat gets radiated away as part of the daily heating/cooling cycle.
2) They claim that after a daily accumulation effect of 2 to 3 months, the greenhouse contribution from the CO2 is on par with the thermal effect of the combustion. And this is many, many orders of magnitude less than….. (see above).
This, I think, puts the anthropogenic CO2 effect right about where it belongs.
This brings back memories. I recall, way back in the mid 1970’s, the environmental movement was turning from just radicle to militant. They started making the claim that FF combustion was warming the earth through thermal effects (greenhouse warming would come later). It was very easy to show how disasterously foolish the claim was. The enviros quickly dropped the claim when they realised they were getting laughed out of the room with jeers and hoots of derision, every time.
(I seems we had hit on the one tactic which stops enviros dead in their tracks.)
So it is very interesting that this claim has been brought back from the long ago dead.

June 2, 2015 3:52 pm

Do the climate models also generate these brainless climate theories? This theory sounds like the computer program I read about over 15 years ago where you input several complex words and the computer generated a paragraph in correct English using those words that for all practical purposes seemed completely logical.

Reply to  usurbrain
June 2, 2015 8:07 pm

Yes, simulating a googol number of monkeys typing away at random, at least one of them would come up with a few sentences of Shakespeare: “To be or not to be that is the climate question…”

Dave K
June 2, 2015 4:08 pm

I thought I read a study somewhere that the dwell time of CO2 in the atmosphere was less than 30 years for 95% of it and 100 years was an outside limit for total removal. NOT thousands of years.

Reply to  Dave K
June 3, 2015 6:40 am

What are you going to believe, the data, or a million dollar computer model?

Mike Smith
June 2, 2015 4:11 pm

So all of the progressives flying to Paris are gonna fry us?
The idiocy just keeps on comin’.

June 2, 2015 4:17 pm

Interesting the article only talks about heat from fossil fuels.
Are they claiming that burning renewable do not also add to heat on earth? Now that’s really smart fuels.
Nice to know that the ethanol in my gas tank does not heat the engine or the surrounding air.

June 2, 2015 4:24 pm

I burn something, it creates CO2 and heat. The heat warms the atmosphere and the CO2 created by the initial combustion makes the atmosphere warm even more by preventing the heat energy being radiated into space.
The lack of atmospheric warming for almost 19 years would possibly refute this conjecture. Oh wait a minute, I forgot the Laws of Thermodynamics don’t apply to AGW and all of this heat has disappeared into the oceans where it will pop out at some time in the future!
The cretins that actually believe this drivel need to go back to infant school, preferably in the remedial classes to be taught basic science!

Reply to  Andrewmharding
June 3, 2015 1:53 am

How does the heat going into the oceans refute the laws of thermodynamics?

Reply to  Chris
June 3, 2015 5:10 am

Between two thermodynamic systems that are not in equilibrium with each other, NET energy transfer can only move in one direction.
Net energy transfer is from ocean TO atmosphere.
For atmospheric heat to penetrate the ocean bulk and heat the ocean, there would need to be a net energy transfer from atmosphere to ocean.
The ocean is generally 1 to 2 degrees warmer than the atmosphere. Heat always moves to cold.
In addition, LW does not penetrate past the ocean skin.
As DLW is the result of c02 (as AGW theory contends) 18 years of ‘missing’ atmospheric heat cannot of penetrated into the ocean bulk.
There are many other reasons that support net energy transfer is from ocean to atmosphere.

Reply to  Chris
June 3, 2015 5:33 am

Chris, by definition CO2 is a greenhouse gas, therefore as a consequence of an increase in the amount CO2 the atmospheric temperature will rise. Hot air will rise and then cool and fall by convection, if this convection takes place over water a similar process is taking place in the water but the driver is radiant solar heat. Therefore some of the heat energy in both systems is lost (due to movement of air and water, First Law of Thermodynamics), The temperature gradient consists of cool air and relatively warm surface water, which on the face of it should make energy exchange less likely to occur (Second Law of Thermodynamics, entropy will always increase ie temperatures will equalise). BUT the other problems are as follows, the specific heat capacity of water is a great deal more than that of air and the other problem is that the only mechanism whereby heat can transfer from the warmer air is by conduction, which in fluids is highly inefficient because both air and water are very poor conductors.
These factors, in my view make atmospheric heat heading into the depths of the oceans as highly unlikely. Please let me know if I have missed something.

June 2, 2015 4:48 pm

Why do they always skirt around the Pause like it would be something entirely unnatural and impossible, building up problems where there are none?

June 2, 2015 4:53 pm

Thanks, Anthony.
I had a good laugh. Then I thought: people like Caldeira have influence, God save us!
See Perpetual Futility, at (A short history of the search for perpetual motion, by Donald E. Simanek)

June 2, 2015 4:53 pm

Water changes phases at normal Atmospheric temperatures of 0 Degrees and 100 Degrees Centigrade. The vast absorption of heat energy to vaporize water and the vast release of heat energy when water vapor condenses overrides anything else in the atmosphere, even the greenhouse gas effect of Water Vapor itself. With Water Vapor 95% of the greenhouse gasses, this leaves little old CO2, that only changes phases at -109F degrees out in the cold. If there is any temperature effect of burning fossil fuels, it is buried in the overriding effects of the Sun in driving the Water Cycle. See my article with graphs to take this “Unified Field” explanation, all the way to ice ages.

Reply to  paullitely
June 2, 2015 5:25 pm

I was going to remark that for Ken Caldeira to be consistent, he should also do a calculation to demonstrate how much heat is trapped by the water vapor that is formed from the combustion of fuels. For the sake of alarmism, we can just ignore these phase changes, can’t we?

Bill Illis
June 2, 2015 4:57 pm

The energy being trapped or slowed or whatever you want to call it, is happening at the “speed of light” and at the speed of molecular photon absorption/retention/emission.
This process has to work within hours or days not decades.
A very small percentage of the energy can end up being trapped for hundreds of years in the ocean, but on average, the greenhouse effect operates on a scale of just tens of hours.
That is just the physics.

Reply to  Bill Illis
June 2, 2015 6:17 pm

Exactly. Atoms don’t delay their reactions in the real world. In an alarmists model atoms apparently take coffee breaks for up to a thousand years before deciding to do what they do. Think of what all that extra heat emanating from the coffee is doing to the atmosphere!

June 2, 2015 5:04 pm

Water changes phases at normal Atmosheric Temperatures of 0 degrees and 100 degrees C. Water absorbs vast amounts of heat energy when it Evaporates and releases vast amounts of heat energy when it condenses. This energy exchange far surpasses the greenhouse gas effect of water vapor itself. Water Vapor is 95% of the Greenhiuse gas, so it leaves tiny CO2 out in the cold. CO2 changes phases at -109 degrees, a temperature not normal in the atmosphere, even in Antarctica. The heat released by burning fossil fuels is absorbed in the water cycle and is dwarfed by the energy input of the Sun. See my article that explains this as a “Unified Field” explanation all the way to why ice ages occur:

Reply to  paullitely
June 2, 2015 5:36 pm

The link at the end of my post is a twitter link, and may not work without a twitter account.
That link is a Twitter link, and requires a twitter account. Here is a link that works for anyone:

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
June 2, 2015 5:17 pm

This is a continuous process since industrialization. Therefore, the rise in temperature must follow this even with a lag. There must not be any pause. This is not happening. This shows some thing wrong in the argument.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

June 2, 2015 5:22 pm

Wouldn’t the OCO detect and record accumulations like those in the article?

Tom in Florida
June 2, 2015 5:27 pm

Seems like a bunch of hot air to me. (well, somebody had to say it)

June 2, 2015 5:33 pm

This nonsense got published?

June 2, 2015 6:29 pm

Well from memory, annual fossil fuel consumption is about 155,000 TWhr per year. Insolation is 173,000 TW so we get more energy in an hour from the Sun than we get in an entire year from burning fossil fuels.
So the article is quite possibly correct, but it is a shell game. They’ve taken a number which is tiny and said Hey! Look! it is bigger than this other number, which is minuscule. And we’re not going to quantify in the article what the actual numbers are because they are so small that the average reader would LOL and they wouldn’t want that.

Robert Austin
Reply to  dmh
June 2, 2015 7:58 pm

Amen. Even if true, the “revelation” is trivial. One hundred thousand times a vanishingly small quantity is still miniscule.

Mike M.
June 2, 2015 6:37 pm

Anthony Watts wrote: “he’s claiming that the heat from fossil fuel combustion is a factor … This headline “Greenhouse gas-caused warming felt in just months” is in contrast to what Caldeira previously said”
So where are this headline and the claim to be found?

June 2, 2015 6:50 pm


June 2, 2015 7:07 pm

Caldeira explained: “If a power plant is burning continuously, within 3 to 5 months, depending on the type of power plant, the CO2 from the power plant is doing more to heat the Earth than the fires in its boiler.
I guess the British poor who were burning books, because they couldn’t afford coal or gas, should take solace that they’ll get warmer outside their homes. Makes homelessness pretty swell using atmospheric heat for free…
Has this Caldeira exploded its top or what?

Ray Boorman
June 2, 2015 7:54 pm

If this rubbish was true, then we should have no need of blankets at night ever again based on the fossil fuels already burned. Caldeira is an idiot.

Reply to  Ray Boorman
June 3, 2015 1:57 am

Why no need of blankets? The area being heated when fossil fuels are burned (homes, buildings, efficiency losses, etc) is tiny compared to the surface area of the volume of the earth’s atmosphere.

William Astley
June 2, 2015 7:58 pm

Name calling, incorrect models, and the number of papers published using incorrect models does not change the physical reason why there has been no warming for the last 18 years. The cult of CAGW do not understand how to solve scientific problems, do not understand the scientific method. Ignoring anomalies and paradoxes that disprove a cult’s favor theories does not change what is or is not true. The IPCC’s scientific premise is incorrect in its entirety.
The majority of the warming in the last 150 years was due to solar cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover. There are cycles of warming in the paleo record. The cyclic warming in the paleo record has not caused by CO2 changes. The past warming and cooling cycles correlate with solar cycles changes. The solar cycle changes caused the past warming and cooling cycles.
The solar cycle has been interrupted. The planet is going to cool. The cooling has started which is the reason why there is now record sea ice in the Antarctic for every month of the year.
There is now evidence of cooling in the Arctic. The Greenland Ice Sheet yearly spring melt is roughly 1 month late, compared to the 1990 to 2011 mean. Greenland ice sheet snowfall has been above the 1990 to 2011 average for all months this winter. Greenland Ice Sheet temperatures dropped 2C last winter.
This is significant as this is a complete reversal of Greenland ice sheet warming in the last 20 years. Multi-year Arctic sea ice has increased and total Arctic sea ice volume has increased.
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. William: The Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years.
In addition to significant planetary cooling due to the abrupt change in the solar cycle, if Humluum et al and Salby are correct atmospheric CO2 levels will stop rising and will start dropping. Salby calculated using three independent methods that natural sources of CO2 are responsible for no less than 66% of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2. Humluum et al’s phase analysis of CO2 increases which determined there is no correlation of anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the rise in atmospheric CO2, supports Salby’s assertion.
Comment: Phase analysis is a standard analysis technique to determine cause and effect.

The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
From this, changes in atmospheric CO2 appear to be initiated near or a short distance south of the Equator, and from there spread towards the two poles within a year or so. En route, the signal presumable is modulated by local and regional effects, as is indicated by the much larger annual CO2 variation (not shown here) in the High Arctic, compared to that recorded at the South Pole. There is however no indications of the main signal originating at mid-latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere as would be expected from the release pattern shown in Fig. 12.
Summing up, our analysis suggests that changes in atmospheric CO2 appear to occur largely independently of changes in anthropogene emissions. A similar conclusion was reached by Bacastow (1976), suggesting a coupling between atmospheric CO2 and the Southern Oscillation. However, by this we have not demonstrated that CO2 released by burning fossil fuels is without influence on the amount of atmospheric CO2, but merely that the effect is small compared to the effect of other processes. Our previous analyses suggest that such other more important effects are related to temperature, and with ocean surface temperature near or south of the Equator pointing itself out as being of special importance for changes in the global amount of atmospheric CO2.

June 2, 2015 8:15 pm

I know I am going to regret asking this and exposing the shallowness of both my thinking and knowledge of the current state of research, but I am curious enough to ask anyway.
It seems to me that deserts are the best place to look for CO2 warming. Virtually absent the confounding variables of water vapor and clouds, temperature trends would reflect CO2 warming if the theory is correct. Temperatures during the night, particularly, should show a distinct warming if CO2 is reducing the energy lost to space to the extent claimed.
Surely, someone somewhere has been taking actual data at least for a decade, but I have seen no such research. Any attempt at an online search for it brings up a ton of papers postulating what global warming would do to deserts, but no data of actuals.
Does anyone have any info on this? Is my basic premise wrong?

Ray Boorman
Reply to  Jtom
June 2, 2015 8:26 pm

Jtom, you surely cannot expect a simple climate alarmist to check his theory by actually going into the field & observing things do you? And of course, your premise is a very good one. Anywhere with really low humidity is the logical place to test the theory. You could even do it in a laboratory if you really wanted to prove your theory – but then you would also have to be prepared to be proved wrong in short order, & I suspect the alarmists love the fact that not disproving their theory enables them to claim it will all go pear-shaped in “the future”.

William Astley
Reply to  Jtom
June 2, 2015 8:39 pm

See natural experiment 1 and natural experiment 2 in this 1998 peer reviewed published paper that analyzed a natural step change of forcing in a desert climate to determine the earth’s sensitivity to a change in forcing. The same paper analyzes other natural phenomena which supports the same assertion.
The cult of CAGW is not interested in the analysis of natural phenomena step changes as natural phenomena analysis supports the assertion the warming from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will be 0.4 C or less. The explanation for the end of global warming (18 year period with no warming) is that a majority of the warming in the last 150 years was not due to the increase in atmospheric CO2.
Vol. 10: 69–82, 1998 of Climate Research

CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change by Sherwood B. Idso
Over the course of the past 2 decades, I have analyzed a number of natural phenomena that reveal how Earth’s near-surface air temperature responds to surface radiative perturbations. These studies all suggest that a 300 to 600 ppm doubling of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration could raise the planet’s mean surface air temperature by only about 0.4°C.
Even this modicum of warming may never be realized, however, for it could be negated by a number of planetary cooling forces that are intensified by warmer temperatures and by the strengthening of biological processes that are enhanced by the same rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration that drives the warming. Several of these cooling forces have individually been estimated to be of equivalent magnitude, but of opposite sign, to the typically predicted greenhouse effect of a doubling of the air’s CO2 content, which suggests to me that little net temperature change will ultimately result from the ongoing buildup of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere.

EdA the New Yorker
Reply to  Jtom
June 2, 2015 9:09 pm

Also check this one.
http:// watts up with
Be sure to read the various comments. Also note the scale increment on the plot contained therein is 0.1 W/m^2, and that the solar flux at the Earth’s orbit is roughly 1360 W/m^2.
You will understand why you don’t see much experimental support for CAGW.

EdA the New Yorker
Reply to  EdA the New Yorker
June 3, 2015 4:55 am

Darn adaptive typing!
Some day, I’ll start using a real computer for this stuff, and it will keep the site title scrunched.

Reply to  Jtom
June 2, 2015 9:27 pm

Well, you’d need measurements from the exact same location covering enough years of CO2 increase to transcend the uncertainty; that would have to be local CO2, not global, inferred.
Temperatures would have to be exactly matched; relative humidity, specific humidity, cloud cover, atmospheric pressure, wind speed and direction, gases other than CO2, dust…
Easier to model it and publish.

Just an engineer
Reply to  mebbe
June 3, 2015 6:03 am

Yep, the great thing about models is that you can adjust them till output meets expectations.

Reply to  Jtom
June 3, 2015 9:56 am

Thak you all for your replies.
I have looked at all your suggested readings. They attempt to measure everything – radiative forcing, water vapor, dust – except actual meteorological data – temperature, pressure, himidity, wind speed – versus local area CO2 levels. None of them even showed a straight-up temperature graph.
Someone must be collecting the data. Analysis should start with simple temperature and CO2 graphs by year. Then the same data graphed using just daytime temperatures, nightime temperatures, and the daily degree drop between daytime highs and nightime lows. I would hypothesize that the differential between daily highs and lows for equivalent periods in respect to humidity and wind conditions would decrease as CO2 increased if the theory were correct, i.e., I would expect less nightime radiative cooling.
I can’t even find a raw temperature graph.
EdA, I’m afraid your link is still broken (looks like there’ a ‘1988’ missing in it), but you gave me enough information to find it. Thanks.

Reply to  Jtom
June 3, 2015 9:58 am

Thak you all? No, “thank” you all, and I really mean it.

June 2, 2015 8:18 pm

When late spring becomes early winter some,will still claim it is due to warming from CO2.

June 2, 2015 8:25 pm

““Ultimately, the warming induced by carbon dioxide over the many thousands of years it remains in the atmosphere would exceed the warming from combustion by a factor of 100,000 or more,””
Wow. These people really have no intuition at all do they. Its always see an increase and extrapolate it off (in their minds) to oblivion.

June 2, 2015 8:26 pm

Rubbish! what happens to a gas, freely moving molecules when heated?visit: for details. Troposphere is a homogenous mixture of gases. Who can make it layered with gases?

June 2, 2015 8:39 pm

Anything timed to coincide with Paris would have a political component. Timing is a marketing tool, not a scientific one.

June 2, 2015 8:40 pm

With the current level of CO2 and diminishing impact of increased CO2 their conclusion is scientifcily imposable.Outside that point they have still not proven resident time or man-v-nature contribution to total CO2.

June 2, 2015 9:05 pm

Rarely have I seen such trash. This is supposed to be science?
Look. Forget power plants. Surface insolation is around 89,000 TW. World energy production is around 160,000 TW-hours. That is, the Earth receives more surface energy in two hours than all the power plants in the world produce.
How many hours are there in a year, he wonders? A bit of arithmetic and we learn that the answer is a bit over 8760. 2/8760 = 2.28 x 10^{-4}. That is, roughly 0.02% of the energy the Earth’s surface receives in a year is from humans burning stuff. This is so far down in the friggin’ noise that nobody sane could possibly care. It is like the batshit crazy stuff dragonslayers spout about how global warming is caused by internal heat generated by the Earth itself. Sure, all 44 TW of it. At that, the power through the crust is still over twice as great as the total power we generate — the two might even be comparable once waste heat is accounted for — and neither one of them matters compared to solar energy.
Here’s a simple rule. When considering the Earth’s climate, you only need to worry about three things as energy sources. The Sun. The Sun. The Sun.
Oh, wait, that’s only one thing because all of the other sources of power put together don’t even make up 0.1 % of solar input!
So gee, if CO_2 is a greenhouse gas (and it is), and if doubling its concentration can bump effective total surface radiation by a few watts per meter square (and it probably can), and the total BOA insolation is on average a few hundred watts per square meter, then CO_2 could have a much larger effect on the temperature than the energy release of the power plants that release it because to anybody capable of doing arithmetic it is perfectly obvious that the latter is completely negligible in all discussions of climate where the former is probably not.
So unless I’m missing something, this isn’t a “scientific paper”, this is high school science not quite good enough for a science fair. The effect of doubling CO_2 could be as much as a 1-2% of insolation, where power plants are less than 0.03%, some thirty or more times smaller, with both of them are dwarfed by direct solar heating. Which leads one the question — what is the point of this? It certainly isn’t science — Wikipedia contains a better, and more accurate, summation of this sort of thing which is basically simple arithmetic based on some reasonably well known numbers (bookkeeping, in other words). One is tempted to conclude that the point is political — that by making it sound like worldwide energy production is somehow significantly heating the planet and CO_2 released by the energy production plants is going to heat it even more almost immediately, we need to panic and turn off all of our energy production to save the Earth.
Which is absolutely insane. This paper changes nothing, and contributes nothing whatsoever to climate science that wasn’t known and dismissed by anyone capable of adding on their fingers and toes.
Yes, anthropogenic CO_2 almost certainly is warming the planet compared to whatever its temperature might be without it (in some sort of mean-field average sense, since in a chaotic system it is difficult to know what the temperature would be without it). We do not have a good idea of how much of the warming observed is due to CO_2, how much is due to natural causes, how much is due to thumbs on the anomaly computation scales, how much is due to non-natural non-CO_2 causes (like land use changes and UHI effect). Personally I suspect that warming since (say) 1700 has been at most half due to anthropogenic stuff and that if we realized how beneficial CO_2 is to the planetary ecology we might have chosen to burn coal to release it to bring up the concentration to at least 400 ppm even if we’d had fusion energy from (say) 1950 on. I suspect that as people start to realize how beneficial it is, there may be a lot less resistance to letting it go as high as 500 ppm or even 600 ppm without worrying about a planetary meltdown.
Direct greenhouse experiments on the effect of CO_2 concentration on plant growth strongly suggest that almost one billion people ate today thanks to the extra 100 ppm of CO_2 added to our atmosphere over the last century or so. Crops grown in higher CO_2 have smaller stoma, are more drought resistant, and have 10 to 15% higher yield, scaling up with concentration. Trees grow faster and produce more foliage (which confounds tree ring analysis of past climates as well). Growing seasons in the temperate zones are longer.
There are still some good reasons to want to stop burning coal to make energy. And it is quite likely that within the next twenty to forty years, we will. But there is no good reason to panic about future catastrophe and try to stave it off by induce a contemporary one.
Energy released by human activity, however, is not a plausibly significant source of global heating, many orders of magnitude smaller than only direct source of heat that matters, the Sun.

Another Scott
Reply to  rgbatduke
June 3, 2015 11:47 am

“Rarely have I seen such trash. This is supposed to be science?” A rarely mentioned consequence of anthropogenic CO2 is that it completely destroyed the peer review process.

Reply to  rgbatduke
June 7, 2015 9:22 am

bit over 8760. 2/8760 = 2.28 x 10^{-4}
If you are doing research in this field at duke can you please post the links that your #s are based on so others can climb into the details and decide for themselves?
Also please put in all the #’s of your math for 0.02 human to solar insolation ratio.
89,000 TW
per second?
per hour?
per year?
When I know #s and am trying to make a point I tend to miss these details myself. But it does a disservice to those trying to learn the truth. You get stuck without the facts.
Please include them so we can crunch ourselves.
I believe the author is not incorrect in showing the ratio of IR reflection caused by the integrated rising CO2 levels relative to a short term event of burning fuel.
People here are right to be critical when the ratio to solar insolation is not also mentioned.
This is more important ration as many point out. If the author had included this ratio and explained why the small increase in % of heat trapping over time can be a problem then others not in climate science could get a better understanding.

June 2, 2015 9:17 pm

I fear this time in Paris, they may actually succeed. China and India have both already been given a complete pass until 2030. They have to do nothing towards reducing CO2 emissions. The big thing the participants will be doing in Paris is figuring out how to get around the US congress, Obama and Kerry are already on board. Other than that, it is pretty much a done deal I’m afraid. The whole goal has nothing to do with AGW, it is all about bringing an end to capitalism.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Alcheson
June 3, 2015 11:04 pm

Al, thanks.

June 2, 2015 10:03 pm

Warmunists are becoming comical…
First the warmunists emphatically deny “The Pause” is occurring, then they FINALLY admit “The Hiatus” is real and has been going on for 15~17 years (actually now closer to 19 years), but catastrophic warming will resume shortly, and now some warmunists are suggesting that flat/falling global temperature trends could continue for another 20 years, but it’s always been known this was a possibility, but in no way implies CAGW is a disconfirmed hypothesis…
Now we get this garbage paper proposing that thermal radiation emitted from the mere combustion of fossil fuels is “not negligible” (lol) and adds to CO2 induced global warming…. What the heck does “not negligible” actually mean….and what warming over the past 19 years are they referring to?….
Historians will be perplexed how so many people could have been brainwashed into beliiiiieving this CAGW tripe….
I really can’t comprehend how this CAGW hypothesis is still taken seriously given the now overwhelming evidence that CO2 induced warming will be “negligible” at best…

James Fosser
June 3, 2015 12:04 am

And here in Australia it is the coldest start to winter for 40 years.

Reply to  James Fosser
June 3, 2015 1:51 am

The early chill is due to greenhouse gases, which are now known to trap both heat and frost:
“Heads I Win, Tails you Lose!” – Welcome to the world of climate “science.”

Reply to  Khwarizmi
June 3, 2015 8:40 am

Oh good lord! What a load of tripe from the ABC!

Reply to  James Fosser
June 3, 2015 5:28 am

That can’t be correct.
I continue to read in the Sydney Morning Hamas and view on the A(LP)BC that this year (2015) is already the hottest year EVVVAAAAHHHHHH. And the year is not yet half over!

June 3, 2015 12:53 am

I have run across two statements in articles, either here or some other climate blog, that the sum of all energy currently used by all humans in one year is equal to that received by the planet from the sun in a few hours of any day. One post attempted to document this with calculations of solar radiation compared with estimates of energy usage, the other was simply a blank declaration.
If this is anywhere near correct, the yearly energy usage/production of any power plant one decides to select is such a tiny percentage of incoming solar energy that it seems likely to be too far down in the error noise for its heat production to ever make it into any total atmospheric temperature calculations.
Also, isn’t it likely that the major contributor to UHI is the absorbed solar of all the asphalt, concrete, and such materials in the urban environment rather than the human activity therein?

richard verney
Reply to  AndyH
June 3, 2015 2:33 am

I too have seen something similar.
Just consider the surface area of the planet in metres, and the K&T average for solar at TOA and on the ground. There is more than a fair few watts!

Reply to  AndyH
June 3, 2015 5:46 am

I did the actual arithmetic above, enjoy. A tiny percentage that is less than 0.03% and on the same order as geothermal energy, also negligible.
I did a back of the envelope computation once that suggested that if we turned all of our roadways into solar cells, we could easily, easily produce all of our energy needs — if we could store it. Just think about it — outside of your house, your half of the section of road in front of your own yard is probably much larger than your roof, maybe 20-30 meters long, at least 2 meters wide to the halfway point if not three. Call it 50 square meters. That’s easily 5 to 10 kW of capacity right there, all being released as heat as sunlight falls on the blacktop and is mostly absorbed. This doesn’t count the miles and miles of expressway and country roadway and so on. A Wal-Mart parking lot is maybe 30,000+ square meters and would generate 30 to 60 megawatts. We could probably manage if we just turned all of the median in federal interstate and limited access highway into solar cells — maybe a million linear kilometers maybe 50 meters wide, 50 billion square meters, maybe 100 TW of generating capacity (on average) — if we could store and deliver it.
So yes, roadways alone are on the same order as what we need, and land use changes like this are likely responsible for the same order of “extra” heating (compared to virgin timber and grassland) produced by civilization. But this is still negligible compared to CO_2 in the atmosphere which is still very small compared to the Sun itself as far as energy budget goes.
UHI is not a negligible contributor to the global anomaly only because there is enormous bias in the locations of thermometers, and UHI heating produces all sorts of local warming. The local warming is not negligible, it is more like 1 to 2 C, and can be even higher for particularly badly sited weather stations. It is uncompensated by any sort of rural cold island — it doesn’t work that way — and it corrupts the thermal record of civilization from the bottom to the top. It isn’t unlikely that the divergence between LTT and surface record is at least partly because LTT measures a much truer average temperature, while the surface record is hopelessly corrupted with an ever growing UHI bias as civilization grows and weather stations are slowly but surely affected. Affected on average. That’s all it takes.
IMO, UHI alone is likely to be 0.2 to 0.3 C of the warming reported by uncorrected HadCRUT4 over the last 165 years. But if you take it away, CO_2 sensitivity drops to around 1 C or even less, right where the radiative theory predicts it to be, ceteris paribus. No feedback greenhouse warming. How sensible is that?

Reply to  rgbatduke
June 3, 2015 6:48 pm

Imagine if we spent a 1/2 trillion dollars on this. Nah..,better to chase CO2 (pronounced cozy) the magical unicorn of AGW.

Reply to  rgbatduke
June 7, 2015 9:31 am

If someone could invent non fragile solar cells that did not break when driven on by massive weight bearing vehicles this would be a solution.
But that is not easy, perhaps we just need some young curuios person not old and cynical to invent it.
But for now we can put them on our roofs.
Except in Arizona where you get charged a fee for investing in solar panels.
One of, if not the best place to install solar from a ROI standpoint on the planet.

June 3, 2015 1:24 am

It’s hard to imagine a more irrelevant metric than the ratio the radiative heat caused by releasing CO2 into the atmosphere after burning fossil fuels, to the heat directly released when burning those fossil fuels. Do you want to compare sum total of all the heat contemporaneously generated as all our cows fart, to the forcing caused over time by the methane thereby released into the atmosphere? Why? What possible useful information could such a metric convey? What equation would possibly use that value? Would it motivate us to try to capture the heat as they fart so we can generate electricity?
What if we just burned the cows before they could fart? Would we get more usable heat out of the actual burning process while at the same time reducing our carbon footprint, because CO2 is a less potent gas than methane and because not much CO2 is released when burning a cow compared to how much methane a cow farts over a lifetime?
Where were these guys educated?

Reply to  perplexed
June 6, 2015 8:31 pm

Livestock for human consumption release an equivalent amount of methane as open pit coal mines.
~ 10% per EPA estimates for each source (A decade old data now)
That is one of the reasons some people are pleading for a vegan lifestyle.
I would rather put a auto igniter and a gas sensor on there tails so I can enjoy a burger if I want to.
Or a Jimmy Kimil horse pants for cows and a weather balloon capture system to heat your home when the cows come home

richard verney
June 3, 2015 2:30 am

I haven’t read other comments, but are they now just discovering UHI?
Isn’t UHI a combination of change of albedo, material with different latent heat retention properties and waste heat as a by product of human life-style?
If a country consumes say 60gWh or energy and generates (because of power loss) say 90gW/h of energy to provide the required power, surely that energy mainly in the form of heat has to go somewhere? So there is nothing remarkable about the proposition in this paper, but of course it has nothing to do with greenhouse gases and backradiation.
The more the temperature record is the result of UHI, the less effect greenhouse gases have contributed towards any warming observed in the temperature record.

June 3, 2015 2:37 am

Jesus. If “The heat generated by burning a fossil fuel is surpassed within a few months by the warming caused by the release of its carbon dioxide into the atmosphere”, I just cannot imagine the COLDING caused by the absorption of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere since carboniferous period.

Reply to  paqyfelyc
June 3, 2015 2:54 am

In fact I can know imagine the extend of this cooling. Obviously in north hemisphere we are cold in winter because “a few month” before, in spring and summer, plants absorbed so much CO2 that the “warming caused by the release of its carbon dioxide into the atmosphere” reversed.
Thanks Mister Caldeira, know i understand seasons much better.

Reply to  paqyfelyc
June 3, 2015 3:45 am

Levels of CO2 in the Carboniferous period were very low from a geological perspective, very similar to today’s levels.
It was also a period where temperatures plummeted.
So, perhaps you mean some other period?

Reply to  MikeB
June 3, 2015 6:02 am

The Carboniferous was cold because Gondwana was over the South Pole. Southern Africa, Antarctica, India, and Australia had large glaciers for millions of years at a time over about 60 million years in total. It is called an ice age you know.
Glaciers three times larger than Antarctica today, results in more solar energy being reflected to space and, viola, the Earth is colder.

Reply to  MikeB
June 3, 2015 7:58 am

huuuu… really … must I explain ?
I choose carboniferous because of the massive “anti-burning” (coal formation) of the period. Caldera’s argument use an “accumulated heat” that is more or less (burned energy x elapsed time) x some constant, without regards to CO2 level whether initial or final. I guess I can likewise reckon an “accumulated cold” (or “missing heat,” if you have rather) that is more or less (coal formation energy x elapsed time since carboniferous) x same constant, whatever CO2 level, to point the silliness …
Cannot I ?

June 3, 2015 3:41 am

“…The scientists and media know what needs to be done
To protect the developing nations.
Solar powered wind turbines should be built by the score,
Bankrupting all future generations….’
Read more from “Climate Compensation – Alice in Wonderland”

Martin A
June 3, 2015 4:03 am

They make it up as the go along.

Martin A
Reply to  Martin A
June 3, 2015 4:06 am

Oh, I see that that has already been said. ( Bruce Cobb June 2, 2015 at 1:17 pm )

Bruce Cobb
June 3, 2015 4:20 am

I believe the level of Stupid in the Warmosphere has reached a tipping point.

June 3, 2015 5:12 am

‘But this combustion process also produces carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas that accumulates in the atmosphere for thousands of years and traps heat that would otherwise escape into space, causing global climate change.’
So where is this cumulative, runaway, locked-in warming then, chaps? Nowhere to be seen, that’s where, which is rather damaging for their entire theory of man-made catastrophe. No wonder they HATE the bloody pause.

June 3, 2015 6:43 am

Is this paper a joke? Is the Innovative Climate and Energy Research and the Carnegie Institution for Science who are funding this know what science garbage they are funding. This paper sounds stupid and is stupid.
Tell you what, I am thinking of submitting a proposal to the Carnegie Institution on how the “pause” was due to an increase in people using air-conditioning. If I include “soon” the warming will overcome humanities air-conditioning capacity and polar bears will go back to dying in the north pole, I should get instant funding.

Say What?
June 3, 2015 7:09 am

I mistrust any chart that does not reveal the units of heats. A “ratio” looks worse because they can expand the chart. Really, we are discussing fractions of degrees.

William Astley
June 3, 2015 7:15 am

The fact that there has been no surface warming for more than 18 years and almost no warming in the tropical regions (Global warming is not global, the warming has occurred in high latitude regions) supports the assertion that the IPCC general circulation models (GCM) are incorrect.
The analyses of a half dozen natural phenomena and satellite analysis of top of the atmosphere radiation changes vs short term temperature changes all support the assertion that the warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is less than 0.4C which indicates the majority of the 0.7C warming in the last 150 years has not due to the anthropogenic CO2.
The IPCC’s general circulation models assumed the increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in water vapor at all levels in the troposphere which amplifies the CO2 forcing.
That is an assumption. There is no theoretical reason why it would be correct. The water vapor elevation profile assumption is not correct which explains why there has been almost no high altitude warming of the troposphere.
In addition to the incorrect water vapor profile with altitude assumption error, the GCMs assume there is a reduction in cumulus nimbus clouds (cloud cover in general) with increased temperature. Particularly in the tropics there is an increase in cumulus nimbus clouds (the cumulus nimbus clouds form earlier in the day when the surface temperature is warmer) which results in increased reflection of short wave radiation back into space. This strong negative feedback mechanism in the tropics resists temperature changes in the tropics which explains why there has been almost no warming in the tropics.
As CO2 is evenly distributed in the atmosphere and the amount of CO2 greenhouse forcing is proportional to amount of long wave radiation that is emitted at the latitude in question before the CO2 increase, the most amount of warming due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 should have occurred in the tropics not in high latitude regions. As noted below there is almost no tropical region warming. The IPCC general circulation models are incorrect and known to be incorrect.

Crux of AGW’s Flawed Science
(Wrong water-vapor feedback and missing ocean influence (William: This review paper has half the solution. It explains why there has been no warming for 18 years. The warming in the last 150 years has not due to changes in ocean currents and/or changes in planetary wind patterns. The warming in the last 150 years was caused by solar cycle changes. The sun is the dog, the oceans and planetary wind patterns are the tail.)
…We show that there is a very modest degree of negative water-vapor feedback of 0.1 to 0.2oC. With this occurring we should expect that the real amount of global warming that will occur from a doubling of CO2 would be only about 0.2-0.3oC or about 5-10 percent the amount projected by the many global models of 2-4oC. The AGW threat and especially the catastrophic AGW (or CAGW) threat cannot be a realistic assertion of how the planet’s climate system functions. …
… The model simulations (IPCC’s general circulation models (GMCs) have followed the unrealistic physical ideas emanating from the National Academy of Science (NAS), 1979 (or Charney Report). This report speculated that as the troposphere warms from CO2 increases that this warming would be accompanied (follow the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship between temperature and moisture) by a moisture increase such that the relative humidity (RH) of the air would remain near constant as the temperature increased. Implicit in this NAS assumption of CO2 induced warming was the necessity that this increase of moisture would add additional blockage of infrared (IR) radiation to space beyond what the CO2 gas did by itself. The net IR blockage to space from increasing CO2 was thus assumed to occur not only from the CO2 gas itself but also from the extra water-vapor gain needed to keep the RH near constant as the temperature rose. This additional water-vapor gain was shown by the models to have about twice as large an influence on reducing IR blockage to space as the CO2 increase by itself. Thus, any CO2 increase of one unit of IR blockage to space would simultaneously bring along with it an additional two units of water-vapor blockage of IR loss to space. This additional moisture related blockage of IR loss to space (associated with CO2 induced warming) has been designated as ‘positive water-vapor feedback’. All the CO2 climate models have strong amounts of positive water-favor feedback. …
… Observations show that the warming or cooling of the upper troposphere does not occur
with RH (relative humidity) remaining close to constant. Temperature and relative humidity tend to change oppositely from each other and not in unison as the models assume. My project’s study of cumulus convection and tropical cyclone formation over many decades has taught me that the NAS 1979 (Charney) Report assessment that rising CO2 amounts will occur with water-vapor increase is not a realistic assessment of how these parameters change in the upper troposphere. …
… The (William IPCC’s general circulation models) GCM CO2 simulations are also constructed so as to have their moisture simulations arranged such that water-vapor changes occur uniformly at both upper and lower tropospheric levels. By contrast, the observations of moisture change at upper and lower tropospheric levels show them to be little related to each other (Figure 3).
.. Our observation analysis finds that increases in cumulonimbus (Cb) cloud intensity and frequency brings about a decrease in upper tropospheric water-vapor, not an upper tropospheric moistening as the model simulations show. …

Reply to  William Astley
June 6, 2015 8:21 pm

What about the excess heating at higher latitudes melting ice and snow and changing surface reflection and thus higher absorbtion?
Methane release is 20x to 80x more damaging in the decade to century timeframe.
Thawing in the north and south latitudes can be an huge positve feedback mechanism.
You did not cover this in your above otherwise good presentation.
Can you elaborate on these issue and there cumalitve effects going forward?

Reply to  Ron
June 6, 2015 9:10 pm


What about the excess heating at higher latitudes melting ice and snow and changing surface reflection and thus higher absorbtion?

Not happening. The 24 years of ever-greater Antarctic sea ice area between 1991 and 2015 at latitudes closer to the equator than the Arctic ocean (which is now hovering right at only 7% below normal for the past 3 years) is reflecting 1.68 TIMES as much energy back into space as is being absorbed by the exposed Arctic ocean. The darker land albedo between 60 north and 70 north is largely due to the greater growth all arctic trrees, brush, shrubs, and grasses absorbing more heat energy over longer parts of the year due to increase in growth due to CO2 of 15-17%.

June 3, 2015 8:17 am

“Adults” get paid for this dribble? How do I tap into that?

Arno Arrak
June 3, 2015 9:23 am

Interesting fairy tales of warming by carbon dioxide. How do they get away with it while living in the age of the pause/hiatus of warming? Let me tell these pseudo-scientists what they are missing. What the pause does is to prove conclusively that carbon dioxide does not warm the atmosphere. First, the Keeling curve tells us that atmospheric carbon dioxide is constantly increasing. Second, the Arrhenius greenhouse theory tells us that that this carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation and uses its energy to warm the atmosphere. That is called greenhouse warming and is the alleged cause of anthropogenic greenhouse warming, AGW. Third, the existence of the hiatus/pause proves that there is no such warming. Thus, the Arrhenius theory is a scientific theory that has predicted a non-existent greenhouse warming. A theory that makes false predictions is considered to be invalid and belongs in the waste basket of history. That is where the Arrhenius greenhouse theory belongs. And with that,
Anthropogenic greenhouse warming is simply a fairy tale and billions spent trying to stop it are completely wasted. The pseudo-scientific cabal that made this possible is the worst ever case of false science in the world and those who made it possible must be made to answer for it.
P.S.: You have also been cheated by this cabal from knowing that there was another hiatus in the eighties and nineties. It lasted from 1979 to 1997, 18 years, according to satellite temperature measurements. It is over-written in ground based records by a fake warming called late twentieth century warming. GISS, NCDC, and HadCRUT co-operated in bringing this about. They used identical software to mutually adjust their records and the computer, unbeknownst to them, left its footprints in their publicly available temperature curves. See Figures 15 and 24 in “What Warming?”

Reply to  Arno Arrak
June 3, 2015 2:59 pm

Arno, I disagree that 18 years of no warming in any way invalidates the Arrhenius theory (which isn’t correct anyway, so it is a straw man — what it really doesn’t invalidate is Modtran and straight-up no-feedback radiative transfer theory). First of all, the climate is highly multivariate. Just as past warming doesn’t come with a label and hence cannot be proven to be greenhouse gas warming by any means we have available, so the lack of present warming doesn’t come with a label and cannot be proven to be due to the greenhouse effect per se being incorrect.
To put it bluntly, as long as natural variation is the same general order of greenhouse warming and unpredictable if not random, we cannot really arrive at any attribution of causes or lack thereof. Greenhouse gas theory at least loosely explains the average warming observed over the last 165 years. I know you’ve seen this figure because I’ve posted it before, but:
displays a simple one parameter fit of the greenhouse theory against HadCRUT4. The fit is statistically very good and is in good correspondence with a reasonable estimate for the climate sensitivity from radiative theory.
Note well that the “pause” can extremely simply be “explained” in terms of additional phenomena modulating the general greenhouse theory. I’m not suggesting that this is the case — I’m suggesting that neither one of us can rule this out, and this figure in general is not evidence against greenhouse warming caused by CO_2.
What is likely invalidated is indicated above by William Astley — the GCMs. Their computations of warming are in increasing, systematic disagreement with the observed climate. They are almost certainly wrong, which is not surprising because it is unreasonable to think that the methodology used to compute their estimates for climate have the slightest chance of working. William points out a few of many places where they are known at this point to be wrong in detail. He omits still others, some of them quite new, such as the apparent lack of strong cooling from aerosols, so that aerosol cooling is also (critically) over estimated in climate models by a factor of perhaps 3 or 4, which means that (to compensate) they overestimate greenhouse warming by a similar factor.
It is a lot more reasonable to believe that greenhouse warming is responsible for some, but (given objections that I’m sure we share about the probable unreliability of HadCRUT4 and GISS etc) likely not all, of the warming over the last 165 years. At this point we cannot sensibly separate the warming by cause (and may never be able to in a chaotic system) but a climate sensitivity in the range from 0.5 C to as much as 2 C is not really excluded at this point, as long as one allows for decadal natural variability on the scale of 0.1 to 0.4 C. This is obviously not going to be easy to rule out given the fit above and the large and seriously underestimated error bars on past temperatures in all of the major temperature series.

Reply to  Arno Arrak
June 6, 2015 8:12 pm

CO2 reflects Infrared Radiation, it does not absorb it, This is important to understand at a fundamental level if one is actually is attempting to find the truth, not look for things that back up ones beliefs. (This is a problem for both sides of the debate.) .
I have not seen anything that also looks at the delta between IR reflection from above and below the atmosphere, aka heat trapping from downward IR reflection and heat rejection from the suns IR input from entering the atmosphere. Can this explain the 3x to 4x difference in computed downward Ir reflection and #s from real measurements?

Reply to  Arno Arrak
June 6, 2015 8:15 pm

put comment below RGB’s comment below, please read and respond.
Also RGB and others with knowledge about external and internal atmospheric reflection values.

Louis Hunt
June 3, 2015 9:47 am

“They found that the carbon dioxide-caused warming exceeds the amount of heat released by a lump of coal in just 34 days.”
That means I can burn a lump of coal in December and in 34 days enjoy a warmer January. What’s not to like?

June 3, 2015 11:49 am

I wish it would warm up here(New Brunswick, Canada) we are like 15-20 degrees below normal. Yesterday our high was 46. That’s unheard of for June. It should be in the 70-80 degree range. One reason for the cold-strong wind off the cold ocean. Apparently the old Atlantic Ocean hasn’t warmed up much.

June 5, 2015 5:19 am

Just being curious. If I were to fill my micowave oven with carbon dioxide would it cook quicker?

June 6, 2015 7:51 pm

The study left out the release of methane on GHI.
Above about 1% methane release the GHI exceeds the heat release of waste heat/end use of electricty that turns into heat. Open pit coal mines release 10% of the methane, 20 to 30% for NG with a industry admitted 1.5%. This is an under estimate by most reputable sources Between 2 and 3% is probably closer.
If this turns out to be true then NG is worse than coal in terms of GHI.Raw NG release is 20x to 80x worse for GHI depending on the time frame used. It takes up to a century for NG to decompose into CO2.
Important to note it is worse by 1 to 2 orders of magnitude in the short term and it decase to 1 not zero as it becomes CO2. This takes centuries to decay to zero.
NG methane release needs to drop below 1% for it to have any benefit over coal in GHI.
This is relatively simple math if one has had any exposure to math in science prep in college.

June 6, 2015 7:53 pm

Stopping/reducing methane release is the most practical way to stop short term (less than a century) GHI increases.
It also increases profits for the oil and gas industry in the long term as more produce is not lost in production.

June 6, 2015 7:59 pm

Also no studies have been done to estimate the loss of methane through earths cracks not near the well heads. This easily can dwarf the release from collection site, transportation and pipelines, and incomplete combustion. If equal to production releases just using industry estimates we are above 3% to 4% methane release into the atmosphere. This is a real problem and will not ever be talked about without government funded studies. Dont expect the industry to show their dirty underwear and do the study themselves.

June 6, 2015 8:01 pm

We used to dump gasoline into the streams before we found out it was useful.
And people wonder where cancer came from.