By Kenneth Richard on 13. January 2022
We have updated our “Extremely Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity” scientific paper list with new papers added from 2021 and some newly discovered papers from the past.
As of 2016 this list had only 50 papers on it (as indicated by the web address). In less than 6 years the list has grown to 137 (as of today).
Click on the link for the full list.
135+ Papers Find Extremely Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity
A few of the sample papers are shown here.
Coe et al., 2021 (2XCO2 [400 to 800 ppm] = 0.5°C)
The HITRAN database of gaseous absorption spectra enables the absorption of earth radiation at its current temperature of 288K to be accurately determined for each individual atmospheric constituent and also for the combined absorption of the atmosphere as a whole. From this data it is concluded that H2O is responsible for 29.4K of the 33K warming, with CO2 contributing 3.3K and CH4 and N2O combined just 0.3K. Climate sensitivity to future increases in CO2 concentration is calculated to be 0.50K, including the positive feedback effects of H2O, while climate sensitivities to CH4 and N2O are almost undetectable at 0.06K and 0.08K respectively. This result strongly suggests that increasing levels of CO2 will not lead to significant changes in earth temperature and that increases in CH4 and N2O will have very little discernable impact.
Schildknecht, 2020 (2XCO2 = 0.5°C)
Based on new radiative transfer numerical evaluations, we reconsider an argument presented by Schack in 1972 that says that saturation of the absorption of infrared radiation by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere sets in as soon as the relative concentration of carbon dioxide exceeds a lower limit of approximately 300 ppm. We provide a concise brief and explicit representation of the greenhouse effect of the earth’s atmosphere. We find an equilibrium climate sensitivity (temperature increase ∆T due to doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration) of ∆T ≃ 0.5°C. We elaborate on the consistency of these results on ∆T with results observationally obtained by satellite-based measurements of short-time radiation-flux versus surface-temperature changes. … The absorption reaches values close to 100% for a realistic CO2 content of 0.03%, it is concluded that any further increase of (anthropogenic) CO2 cannot lead to an appreciably stronger absorption of radiation, and consequently cannot affect the earth’s climate. … [T]he effect of an anthropogenic CO2 increase on the climate on earth is fairly negligible.
Easterbrook, 2016
CO2 makes up only a tiny portion of the atmosphere (0.040%) and constitutes only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect. The atmospheric content of CO2 has increased only 0.008% since emissions began to soar after 1945. Such a tiny increment of increase in CO2 cannot cause the 10°F increase in temperature predicted by CO2 advocates. Computer climate modelers build into their models a high water vapor component, which they claim is due to increased atmospheric water vapor caused by very small warming from CO2, and since water vapor makes up 90–95% of the greenhouse effect, they claim the result will be warming. The problem is that atmospheric water vapor has actually declined since 1948, not increased as demanded by climate models. If CO2 causes global warming, then CO2 should always precede warming when the Earth’s climate warms up after an ice age. However, in all cases, CO2 lags warming by ∼800 years. Shorter time spans show the same thing—warming always precedes an increase in CO2 and therefore it cannot be the cause of the warming.
Davis, 2017
The correlation between ΔRFCO2 and linearly-detrended T across the Phanerozoic Eon is positive and discernible, but only 2.6% of variance in T is attributable to variance in ΔRFCO2. Of 68 correlation coefficients (half non-parametric) between ΔRFCO2 and T proxies encompassing all known major Phanerozoic climate transitions, 75.0% are non-discernible and 41.2% of discernible correlations are negative. Spectral analysis, auto- and cross-correlation show that proxies for T, atmospheric CO2 concentration and ΔRFCO2 oscillate across the Phanerozoic, and cycles of CO2 and ΔRFCO2 are antiphasic. A prominent 15 million-year CO2 cycle coincides closely with identified mass extinctions of the past, suggesting a pressing need for research on the relationship between CO2, biodiversity extinction, and related carbon policies. This study demonstrates that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not cause temperature change in the ancient climate.
I’ve been saying 0.2 to 0.3C for years.
Lewis and Curry had it at 1.3 or so, but they were using GISS, which is heavily stepped on. I would regard that as the absolute high end of plausible.
Does not matter, because 97% of “scientists” HAVE AGREED, CO2 is at fault!!
All the rest is tra-la-la
The above articles reflect a CO2 “Climate Sensitivity Parameter” (CSP) anywhere from 0.1 to 0.5 K/(W/m2). Is there a best value?
This zombie refuses to go away.
If the slight warming from CO2 caused an increase in water vapour, which in turn caused more warming, then any warming at all, for any reason at all would in turn cause increased warming due to increased water vapour. Even increasing water vapour would increase temperatures which would, by this hypothesis, increase water vapour and cause even more warming.
The fact that we have never had such runaway warming tells us that this hypothesis is complete and utter garbage. Any halfway intelligent and halfway educated person can see this immediately. Climate Scientologists seem to embrace this idiocy fully, which tells you more about Climate Scientologists than anything else.
If adding CO2 to the atmosphere caused warming than the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused at least a measurable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. There is evidence in the paleoclimate record that CO2 has any effect on climate. More CO2 in the atmosphere is a result of global warming and not a cause. The IPCC has been unable to measure the climate sensitivity of CO2 as if it were zero. What would enable any CO2 based warming would be a radiant greenhouse effect but such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed on Earth or on any planet in the solar system with a thick atmosphere. Then there is the issue of H2O feedback. What the AGW conjecture ignores is that besides being the primary greenhouse gas, H2O is also a major coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere moving heat energy from the Earth’s surface most of which involves some form of H2O to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. The overall cooling aspects is evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate Hence H2O must act as a negative feedback, reducing any warming the CO2 might cause Negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for at least the past 500 million years. It has been stable enough for life to evolve as evidenced by the fact that we are here.. My best estimate for the climate sensitivity of CO2 is that it is zero. Good absorbers are also good radiators so for each photon that CO2 absorbs it radiates away a photon of equal energy for a net energy gain of zero. If any gasses in the Earth’s atmosphere are heat energy trapping it would be the non-greenhouse gasses because they are such poor LWIR radiators to space. THe AGW hypothesis is based on only partial science and is all wrong..
I have personally read many such ‘low ECS papers going back to Lindzen and Choi 2011 (0.85). They are ALL methodologically suspect in different ways. That Richards inventories them does not make them right. Nor do they agree amongst themselves.
As commented to WE concerning his last post, there are strong reasons to believe ECS MUST be something appreciably more than 1.2. My own estimates independent of Lewis and Curry about 1.65 suggest about 1.7 using either Bode feedback corrected from IPCC, or Monckton’s equation (both posted previously at Judith’s).
And the old 1938 Guy Callander curve says 1.68.
There are several rigorous ways to derive the ‘no feedbacks’ ECS case. Judith posted one in 2010 that derived 1.1C. Lindzen derived 1.2C in 2011. Monckton’ much later equation yields 1.16C.
Now we know the Cloud feedback is about 0. Dessler’s paper derived it in 2010, although he claimed it was positive. McIntyre posted on Dessler at the time. And IPCC AR4 and 5 WG1 both say the sum of all other feedbacks except water vapor is about 0. That leaves only water vapor feedback (WVF).
The WVF MUST be significantly positive, since the global average absolute humidity is about 2%, with a range from near zero to about 4%. And since Tyndall proved experimentally in 1859 that water vapor was a ‘greenhouse gas’. So the ‘real’ ECS MUST be appreciably above 1.2C. Anything at or below that value is simply wrong, although in different papers for different reasons.
I can’t even believe that CO² even contributes 3.6 % at. .04% of the atmosphere. The magic molecule doesn’t reflect that much. They are being too kind to the climastrologists. I don’t think the CO² effect can even be measured.
I have read a couple of those papers (reading all 135 is going to take a while), but so far they have all been disappointing and methodically wrong. There is so much non sense in there, that really no one needs to take them serious. Like not knowing what the GHE is, like confusing TCS with ECS, dealing with “back radiation”, or aribitrarilly attributing overlapped GHEs to one or another component (for instance vapor instead of CO2 AND vapor).
That is while ECS is indeed somewhere in the 0.5K magnitude. But it is not enough to claim it, you also need to be consistent in explaining why that is. As always, if you want to get it done right, you have to do it yourself.. 😉
https://greenhousedefect.com/the-holy-grail-of-ecs/a-total-synthesis-the-ecs-estimate
Earth is temperature controlled. Sea ice sets the lower temperature to -1.8C by regulating the heat loss once the ocean surface reaches that temperature and a layer f insulating ice forms.
Atmospheric ice regulates ocean heat uptake once open ocean surfaces reach 30C. Open ocean surface cannot exceed 30C because reflective cloud forms to limit further rise.
Globally, land is ALWAYS cooler than oceans. Since 1585, the oceans have been getting less sunlight so are warming up as the net water cycle slows down due to the difference between ocean and land insolation reducing.
Ocean’s retaining more heat is consistent with the oceans having less sunlight resulting in less evaporation and reduced upwelling of cold water. Oceans on average are cold places relative to the surface. Reduced upwelling means more heat is being retained.
Climate models predict that tropical ocean surface will exceed 30C on a sustained basis – that is unphysical fantasy and contradicted by all the evidence:
Climate models predict that precipitation will increase – that is unphysical fantasy and contradicted by the evidence:
Prediction: http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icmip6_pr_mon_ensmean_ssp585_0-360E_-90-90N_n_su.png
Reality: https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/24/3899/2020/
Earth has been in a warming trend since perihelion last occurred before the austral summer solstice in 1585 – ocean insolation is declining.. That trend will continue for a long time yet but it also marks the start of the current glacial cycle. Northern land masses will have warmer summers but cooler winters. So more atmospheric water before the winter chill resulting in increasing snowfall and eventual accumulation.
This fact must be why the climate hoaxers keep referring to CO2 as “carbon pollution”?
sarc.
Global temperature is not controlled by atmospheric CO2, ergo, ECS is a fictitious number.
Global cooling will occur one of these days, it’s just a matter of time before the system returns to a glacial period.
In Australia now television news weather reporters are telling viewers that the hottest day ever was just recorded here, the hottest day anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere the latest scare weather tale claims.
Didn’t Willis just calculate 0.6 also?
But NYC will be under water in 5 years again! Run idiots, run!
So it’s settled then. The unsettling claim that we should settle on 0 to 6C ECS according to settled science turns out to be unsettled.
There is a much larger heat transfer coefficient in the low atmosphere by non-radiation processes than by radiation. Net radiation transport only occurs through the “window” where the greenhouse gas concentration has very little effect.
Gavin Schmidt said, just prior to the new IPCC rpt and the Glasgow cry-in, that models are running away too hot “and we don’t know why”. What is there to know? The hypothesis is simply wrong. Read this new literature and try not to get left holding the bag. Take credit for disowning the models and come out with studies showing the consensus had it wrong.
These unhappy folk in the consensus actually believed their hype until the first decade of the millennium was half over. Then their temperature anomaly forecasts proved to be 200-300% too high compared to observations.
With another year or so of data, they discovered to their horror that warming had actually stalled, eventhough CO2 was galloping ever faster. Another year or two and the UEA email dump revealed cooking of the books, statistical tricks, cherry picking of climate proxies, “hiding the decline” even plotting proxies upside down(!!) too obtain desired results of getting rid of the MWP and LIA, plans to destroy data … by the leading climate scientists.
With the terrible stress of all this among non-leading cli scientists (the more honest ones?) the so-called Climate Blues struck, ending an unknown number of careers. And the ‘Pause’ was unrelenting continuing until manipulated out of existence by Karl on the eve of his retirement (the 2015 el Niño would have interrupted it).
With a new ‘Pause’ immediately following, now 7yrs long, a possible Maunder-type minimum like that of the LIA developing, a long lasting la Niña, a switch over to a cold negative North Atlantic Oscillation, and all coinciding with a 60-70yr quasi cycle in temperatures swinging into a 30yr cooling phase, yeah, life must be a bitch even for the stalwarts of the Clime Syndicate these days.
And you can add to this:
Modulation of Ice Ages by Dust and Albedo.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305
This paper indicates that albedo modulates ice ages, not CO2.
R.
Theory can be fun, I guess. But in the real world, there simply is no evidence that CO2, and specifically man’s contribution of it has had any impact on temperatures, much less climate. That fact alone tells us 1) There is clearly no problem regarding CO2, and in fact, it is completely beneficial, and 2) Whatever slight amount of warming it does contribute is so small as to not matter one iota, and would simply add to the benefits of our added CO2.
Ya hire Gavin Schmidt and Kevin Trenberth and ya fund Michael Mann and Ben Santer, and ya vote for Joe Biden, AOC and Bernie Sanders, and presto-chango, climate sensitivity multiplies by 50 and the 1930s turns into an idyllic period of perfect climate.
Carbon dioxide is to climate as masks are to COVID.