Every now and then, a giant of modern science should be allowed to express himself in language that we all understand. In the informative Climate: The Movie, the 2022 Nobel physics laureate Dr. John Clauser thundered: “I assert there is no connection whatsoever between climate change and CO2 – it’s all a crock of crap, in my opinion.” While not expressing himself in such forthright terms, the Greek scientist Professor Demetris Koutsoyiannis might agree. He recently published a paper that argues it is the recent expansion of a more productive biosphere that has led to increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and greening of the Earth. It is widely argued that changing atmospheric carbon isotopes prove, most if not all, recent warming is caused by the 4% human contribution from burning hydrocarbons, but such anthropogenic involvement is dismissed by Koutsoyiannis as “non-discernible”. Koutsoyiannis is Professor Emeritus of Hydrology and Analysis of Hydrosystems at the National Technical University of Athens.
The isotope argument has been around for some time and has been useful in closing down debate on the role of human-caused CO2 and its supposed effect in causing a ‘climate emergency’. The carbon in living matter has a slightly higher proportion of 12C isotopes, and recent lowering levels of 13C, which accounts for 99% of carbon in the atmosphere, are used to promote the idea that it is caused by burning hydrocarbons. But Koutsoyiannis argues that the more productive biosphere has resulted in “natural amplification of the carbon cycle due to increased temperature”. He suggests this may be a “primary factor for the decrease in the isotopic signature 13C in atmospheric CO2”.
Clauser’s remarks, along with contributions from a number of other distinguished scientists, have led to widespread attempts to shadow-ban Martin Durkin’s Climate: The Movie in mainstream and social media. If Clauser and scientists like Koutsoyiannis are correct, there is no need for the Net Zero global collectivisation. Trillions of dollars can be taken back from the Climate Industrial Network to be used to solve more pressing environmental and social problems. In such circles, the idea that humans control the climate thermostat is regarded as little short of pseudoscience. In the film, the former Princeton professor William Happer says he can live with the descriptive suggestion ‘hoax’, although he prefers the word ‘scam’. Disregarding the role of natural forces and promoting a 50 year-old hypothesis – science speak for ‘opinion’ – that can’t even agree on the degree of warming caused by higher levels of CO2 – holds little attraction for these sceptical science minds.
During the course of the Durkin film, the evidence mounts that the warming ‘opinion’ can’t explain any of the climate change observations seen over the last 500 million years of life on Earth. As the Daily Sceptic has noted on numerous occasions, it would help if there was at least one peer-reviewed paper that proved conclusively that humans caused all or most changes in the climate. A politically-manufactured ‘consensus’ and appeals to UN authority do not count.
Koutsoyiannis provides some of the historical background to the evolution of the isotope story, and its use to promote the ‘settled’ science narrative around CO2. The generally accepted hypothesis “may reflect a dogmatic approach or a postmodern ideological effect, i.e., to blame everything on human actions”, he observes. Hence, he says, the null hypothesis that all observed changes are mostly natural has not seriously been investigated. To add weight to his contention, Koutsoyiannis repeats the infamous claim made recently at a World Economic Forum meeting by Melissa Fleming, Under Secretary-General for Global Communications at the United Nations: “We own the science, and we think that the world should know it.”
The Koutsoyiannis paper is long and detailed and he uses data obtained from the California-based Scripps Institution that has been measuring isotopic signatures since 1978, along with proxy data going back five centuries. The complex workings can be viewed in the full paper with the author concluding that instrumental carbon isotopic data of the last 40 years shows no discernible signs of human hydrocarbon CO2 emissions. He also found that the modern record did not differ in terms of net isotopic signature of atmospheric CO2 sources and sinks from the proxy data, including Antarctica ice cores, going back 500 years.
The lack, or otherwise, of a discernible human-caused carbon isotope signature is an interesting branch of climate science to investigate, although, as we have seen, it is constrained by the political requirements governing the settled science narrative. In 2022, three physics professors led by Kenneth Skrable from the University of Massachusetts broke ranks and examined the atmospheric trail left by the isotopes. They discovered that the amount of CO2 released by hydrocarbon burning since 1750, “was much too low to be the cause of global warming”. The scientists found that claims of the dominance of anthropogenic fossil fuel in the isotope record had involved the “misuse” of statistics. They stated that the assumption that the increase in CO2 is dominated by or equal to the anthropogenic component is “not settled science”.
They warned that “unsupported conclusions” of human involvement “have severe potential societal implications that press the need for very costly remedial actions that may be misdirected, presently unnecessary and ineffective in curbing global warming”.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor
Reported Change = Man Made Change + Natural Change + Measurement Errors
The climate scientists state clearly that they are now very good at the measurement so Measurement Error is effectively zero.
So
Reported Change = Man Made Change + Natural Change
Now the Graphs are all the reported change. Easy to find those.
Can you find the graph of
a) Man Made Change
b) Natural Change
You can’t. That’s because the alarmists what to claim that Reported Change = Man Made Change to big up their alarmism
But that’s the same as saying Natural Change is now zero. It’s stopped. With no explanation.
That’s why I don’t buy it on the science front
In addition the claim is that Man Made Change is increasing and its greater than zero.
Basically, climate “science” has been coopted by politics. Any conclusion or statement brought forth by the climate “scientists” is suspect.
Climate Science has been co-opted by elites who profit bigly and scientists/universities who do the same. Politicians profit from campaign contributions.
Politicians and their families also profit bigly from trading stock equity positions in publicly traded businesses regulated by, or investigated by, government.
The original global warming/climate change initiatives were suppose to study both natural and anthropogenic causes. It only took a couple of years and a lot of behind the scenes politicking to eliminate the natural causes portion and blame everything on anthropogenic.
We need a coordinated effort on establishing the natural causes and variabilities. Maybe WUWT can open a new section?
I’m not sure when “both natural and anthropogenic causes” were the goal. The IPCC was formed in 1988 and it’s charter narrowly focused it on “human-induced climate change” which of course assumes “human-induced” as the starting point. Surprisingly despite this restriction it is regarded as the international “go to” source regarding climate change. The charter states:
I was referring to the IPCC precursor, and I do not remember its name.
When all you have is a hammer…
Preciously, amazing how few people fail to understand that “fair and balanced” is outside the IPCC charter.
There is little money to be had in a search for natural causes. In the search for man-made causes there is a fortune. It’s a simple matter of following the money.
Climate scientists do not understand that “error” is not measurement uncertainty.
Climate scientists are good at measurements?
Since when do the scientists make their own readings?
That should say they are very good at taking homogenized data and make it scream until they get what they want!
They are not physical scientists, so they make zero real measurements.
Computer modelers are not scientists.
I am still looking for a university that offers a degree in climate science.
No luck so far.
IIRC, USC has an undergraduate climate science degree.
I’d love to see the graduation requirements for that “degree”. I bet there is no real science in that list.
https://catalogue.usc.edu/content.php?catoid=2&navoid=383
Read and weep. Nowhere could I find a course of differential equations. The science and calc courses look like something a liberal arts student took I’m my day.
I just read through the course list, and the closest thing I could find to something that looks like actual science was “Environmental geohydrology”, whatever the heck that is.
It is possible to estimate the man-made emissions of CO2. For example, the total anthropogenic emission of CO2 in 2022 was estimated as 36.8 Gigatonnes.
A mass balance over the atmosphere shows that if there were no natural sources or sinks of atmospheric CO2, a 1 ppm increase in CO2 concentration corresponds to about 8.0 Gt of CO2 emissions. If the CO2 emitted in 2022 remained in the atmosphere, the concentration should have increased by 36.8 / 8.0 = 4.6 ppm in 2022.
However, the average rate of increase in CO2 concentration between January 2018 and January 2023 at Mauna Loa was about 2.5 ppm per year. Assuming no “Measurement Errors”, this means that there was a net natural sink of 4.6 – 2.5 = 2.1 ppm/yr, corresponding to a net 16.8 Gt/yr of CO2 removed from the atmosphere by natural processes.
If human CO2 emissions continue at the 2022 rate into the foreseeable future, does this mean that the CO2 concentration will continue to increase at a rate of 2.5 ppm/yr? Not necessarily, because studies have shown that plant growth rates, and CO2 consumption rates by photosynthesis, tend to increase as CO2 concentrations increase.
If this is a first-order dependence (consumption rate proportional to concentration), then the CO2 removal rate will catch up to the emission rate when the CO2 concentration reaches 4.6 / 2.1 = 2.19 times the current concentration of about 425 ppm, which comes out to 931 ppm, after which equilibrium will be reached and CO2 concentrations will no longer increase.
At 2.5 ppm/yr, it would take at least 200 years for the CO2 concentration to reach this level, and if plants will then grow 2.19 times faster than they do now, this would result in crop yields much higher than today’s yields, which are already much higher than in 1960. A slight warming of surface temperatures would also result in slightly longer growing seasons in temperate regions, which would also contribute to increased food production.
Somehow, that seems like a pleasant scenario for our descendants living in the 23rd century!
So do we really have to cut back on CO2 emissions?
“So do we really have to cut back on CO2 emissions?”
Absolutely NO!
SteveZ56,
Yes, that is an old, often mentioned scenario. But it has problems and uncertainty.
Consider a coal burning power station surrounded by hundreds of square km of wheat farms. Some CO2 from the chimney is food for the wheat. What if a fraction of the chimney CO2 is taken up on the day it is made, with only another fraction making it to Mauna Loa to be measured? What size are these fractions?
In other words, it is not a requirement for all atmospheric CO2 to join the well mixed mass before it is included in mass balance studies. And isotope studies. Mauna Loa has an inherent error, magnitude unknown.
There are studies that claim corn takes up surrounding CO2 on a sunny morning, reducing it to low levels by dusk. It never gets to ML.
I know of no tracer studies that define the paths of smokestack CO2. There might be some, links welcomed.
There are fundamental questions still needing answers from the Beck studies of early CO2 analyses. It is too convenient to dismiss them as questionable or inaccurate or irrelevant. I did time at the analytical chemistry bench in the 1960s, when high accuracy was a badge of honour. These early estimates of CO2 are likely to be correct enough to use, but there will be some outliers -there usually are. The Beck work is fruitful to study local sinks and sources as opposed to the monopoly use of global, well mixed Mauna Loa type numbers.
We simply cannot run the numbers as Steve has.
It is the old story again. Show me the raw numbers, spare me the beliefs. Geoff S
I wondered if you had some background in making and analyzing measurements. Everyone should study some analytic chemistry if they want to learn about measurement uncertainty and how to make an uncertainty budget.
The coal plant is putting out CO2 24/7/365, the wheat absorbs from only 3 months while it is growing from 0% to 100%, so that “theory” is more or less bogus
Beyond that, if you measure the mass of the wheat that is grown you will find that it is only a tiny, tiny, fraction of the carbon that was released into the air in the form of CO2, by the power plant. The stalks and leaves are going to be composted so any carbon in them will be returned to the environment in short order.
20%
C4 plants such as corn do not benefit much from the CO2 level increasing. They are 20% of all plants (not 20% of all plant species)
80%
C3 plants have a range of growth improvements from CO2 enrichment to 600 to 800ppm which is typical of the 200 plant studies I have read since 1997
Biomass improvements tend to be in the 10% to 100% range.
I believe the prediction that natural CO2 sinks will stop the CO2 rise in 200 years at 931 ppm is a wild guess and is false
There is no evidence that natural sinks stopped the CO2 rises at 931 ppm in the past
The claim that higher CO2 will speed plant growth by 2.19x is irrelevant unless biomass increases too. That requires several non-CO2 resources.
Average improve plant biomass 2.19x is unsupported by data. With the inclusion of 20% C4 plants, that number is very likely grossly overstated.
Generally, for species with a C3 type of photosynthesis a doubling of the [CO2] results in c. 40% higher rates of photosynthesis (Ainsworth et al., 2002), an increase of c. 40% in plant biomass (Poorter & Navas, 2003), and c. 33% higher yields (Kimball, 1983).
CO2 emissions with modern pollution controls are good news. I avocate for a doubling of CO2 to improve C3 plant growth and support more human and animal life on our plant … thanks to more vegetable food growth.
“such as corn do not benefit much from the CO2 level increasing.”
data says otherwise.
“As the Daily Sceptic has noted on numerous occasions, it would help if there was at least one peer-reviewed paper that proved conclusively that humans caused all or most changes in the climate.”
I didn’t think the scientific method was used for “proof”, more like “preponderance of the evidence”.
Article says:” Dr. John Clauser thundered: “I assert there is no connection whatsoever between climate change and CO2..”
Ditto me.
And although you may not be a Nobel laureate, you MAY have stayed in a Holiday Inn Express.
So I accept your credentials to intelligently concur with that statement.
As to myself, DITTO.
I work for the company that owns the Holiday Inn Express brand. Ditto
At no time am I representing IHG or any of their brands.
El Niños, Hunga Tonga Volcanic Eruption, and the Tropics
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
Also see
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
.
EXCERPT
.
CO2 and WV Molecules
.
CO2 molecules absorb IR photons at four narrow bands of wavelengths, centered on 2.0, 2.7, 4.3 and 14.9 micrometers; the first three have minuscule energy compared to wide bands of WV molecules. See dark areas of Image 11A. CO2 molecules absorb minimal IR photons at frequencies greater than 15 micrometers
.
WV molecules have more bands, and those bands are much wider than of CO2 molecules, especially the bands with shorter wavelengths. See dark areas of Image 11A
WV molecules have up to 6 times wider absorption spectrum than CO2 molecules
IR photons with wavelengths from 0.8 to 70 micrometers (except the 8 – 13 micrometer window) are mostly absorbed by H2O molecules.
Each WV molecule can absorb IR photons at these wavelengths, plus WV molecules are far more abundant than CO2 molecules.
WV molecules likely are more energetic than CO2 molecules, because of their absorption of short wavelength/high energy photons. See Image 11A
The heat of the warmed WV molecules is distributed, by means of mass transfer of energy, and conduction, convection, cloud formation/evaporation, to all molecules in the atmosphere, which mostly are 78% N2, 21% O2, and 1% Argon
That 99.9% neither absorbs nor radiates IR photons. It gets mostly heated by contact with warmed earth surfaces (conduction) and rising warm air (convection)
.
CO2 and WV Vertical Profiles
.
Air contains variable amounts of WV, on average around 1% (10000 ppm) at sea level, and 0.4% (4000 ppm) over the entire atmosphere. The image shows data of two tests:
WV is 11 g WV/kg dry air = 17722 ppm at sea level; 9 g WV/kg dry air = 14500 ppm at 1.6 km.
.
The WV ppm rapidly decreases, due to condensing/freezing on aerosol particles, water droplets, ice crystals, and cloud formation.
WV/CO2 molecule ratio is about 17722/423 = 41.9 near the surface; 14500/423 = 34.3 at 1.6 km.
https://d-nb.info/1142268306/34
.
NOTE: CO2 was 423 ppm at end 2023, but in densely populated, industrial areas, such as eastern China and eastern US, it was about 10% greater, whereas in rural and ocean areas, it was about 10% less.
Inside buildings, CO2 is about 1000 ppm, greenhouses about 1200 ppm, submarines about 5000 ppm
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4990
.
IR Radiation Near the Surface: IR photons, at all wavelengths, thermalize (transfer their energy) by collisions with molecules, aerosol particles, ice crystals and water droplets near the surface.
IR photons, at appropriate wavelengths, thermalize by absorption by WV and CO2 molecules within 150 m from the surface
The “warmed” TS emits: 1) upwards IR radiation at longer wavelengths, part of which escapes to outer space as above described, and 2) downward IR radiation at longer wavelengths, which is outside the absorption bands of CO2, but within the absorption bands of WV.
.
IR Radiation at High Elevation: The atmosphere above the TS is transparent to IR radiation (aka atmospheric window), because it has low WV ppm, and CO2 photon absorption is near zero, because photon wavelengths are too long.
WV is about 3 ppm at 20 km. CO2 is about 390 ppm at 20 km. See below images
Collision rates are less, due to 1) temperature at about -50 C (223 K), 2) molecules moving slower and further apart.
Collision rates are about 4 billion/s at sea level; 1 billion/s at 10 km; 7 million/s at 70 km
Upward IR radiation from the TS, at long wavelengths, becomes the dominant heat transfer/cooling mode.
The radiation flux, W/m^2, varies with cloud cover. See URL and Image 11A
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-pressure-d_462.html
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-greenhouse-model-and-co2-contribution
Roles of Water Vapor and CO2 in Greenhouse Effect
We assume, for simplicity, WV and CO2 molecules have equal energy retention capacity.
.
Worldwide: WV molecules absorb 4037/(4037 + 423) = 90.5%, and CO2 molecules about 9.5%, of the available photons
The 90.5% becomes about 93%, due to overlap of the spectra of WV and CO2. WV molecules are 41.9 times more numerous than CO2 molecules near the surface, and absorb 15 micrometer photons, as do CO2 molecules. See C.6 of above URL
.
Temperate zones: WV molecules absorb 9022/(9022 + 423) = 95.5% and CO2 molecules 4.5%
Tropics: WV molecules absorb 27561/(27561 + 423) = 98.5%, and CO2 molecules 1.5%
CO2 plays almost no energy retention role in the Tropics, where huge quantities of H20 are evaporated, heated, and distributed to the rest of the earth, by circulation processes.
The WV energy retention effect is about 33 C. With WV, the earth is 15 C; without WV, the earth is -18 C
WV molecules are more potent, more numerous and more versatile than CO2 molecules
.
NOTE: When natural forces cause a glaciation period, 1) ice cover increases, 2) ocean water levels decrease, 3) WV ppm decreases, 4) CO2 ppm decreases several hundred years later. The WV energy retention effect decreases from 33 C to as low as 23 C, due to low WV ppm.
.
CO2 and WV IR Radiation Spectra
The absorption spectra of CO2 and WV overlap about 70%. See dark areas of image
WV/CO2 absorption ratio 17722/423 = 41.9, near the surface. See Images 11A and 11B
The WV window is from 8 – 13 micrometer. The arrow of the image is overstretched.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance#:~:text=In%20the%20tropics%20there%20is,the%20amount%20of%20absorbed%20sunlight.
“Roles of Water Vapor and CO2 in Greenhouse Effect
We assume, for simplicity, WV and CO2 molecules have equal energy retention capacity.”
I am not sure what “energy retention capacity” means in this case. It sounds suspiciously like heat capacity, and CO2 has about 1/4 the heat capacity of H20. Water will absorb (and retain) significantly more energy than CO2.
Energy retention = greenhouse effect in my two referenced articles
CO2 has been decreasing for at least the past 10 million years
Many flora and fauna species that like high CO2 have died out, due to too low CO2, and many arid and dessert areas were the result.
Fossil fuels are a blessing, because their CO2 may help increase the earth temperature, increase water vapor, increase fauna and flora
Instruments show the earth temperature has increased about 1.2 C during the past 100 years, which can be due to many causes, including fossil CO2, and flora CO2, and Ocean CO2, and release of permafrost methane which converts to CO2
Can we trust the accuracy of 1850 “global” temperatures, given the thermometer technology, the calibration methods, the gradient marking and eyeball readings, and that there was no global network and a massive deficiency of instrumentation in the southern hemisphere?
Can we trust the CO2 emissions estimates that based primarily on buying and selling of coal, natural gas, and oil? Not all coal emits the same levels and that is true for all carbon based fuels.
I find it incredible that the CO2 emissions prior to Mauna Loa linked up so perfectly with the monitoring records, considering that those were from Antarctica. The differences in temperatures as one factor between the two locations dictates atmospheric density differences and the methods of getting CO2 into ice cores vary greatly.
I find it incredible that the temperature proxies prior to modern and satellite instrumentation linked up so perfectly as well.
.Coincidence? The probabilities of winning the lottery are better.
“Can we trust the accuracy of 1850 “global” temperatures, given the thermometer technology, the calibration methods, the gradient marking and eyeball readings, and that there was no global network and a massive deficiency of instrumentation in the southern hemisphere?”
Doesn’t matter. Temperature is an intensive property, of the point being measured. It has no bearing on any other measurement taken elsewhere, and should not be averaged with them. The result is meaningless.
There is no “Earth temperature”. It’s a fantasy.
Less of a fantasy since 1979
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
Also see
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
EXCERPT:
Many plants require greater CO2 than 400 ppm to survive and thrive, so they became extinct, along with the fauna they supported. As a result, many areas of the world became arid and deserts.
Fossil fuels are a blessing, because their CO2 may help increase the earth temperature, increase water vapor, increase fauna and flora
Earth temperature increased about 1.2 C since 1900, which can be due to many causes, including fossil CO2, flora CO2, ocean CO2, and permafrost methane which converts to CO2
The current CO2 needs to at least double or triple to reinvigorate the world’s flora and fauna.
CO2 has increased from about 280 ppm in 1900 to 423 ppm at end 2023. It increased:
.
1) Greening of the world by at least 10 to 15%, as measured by satellites since 1979.
2) Crop yields per acre.
.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-study-2001-2020-global-greening-is-an-indisputable-fact-and
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-co2-no-life
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-not-pollution-it-s-the-currency-of-life
Dumb and Dumber
Contradicting:
Lindzen
Happer
Spencer
Christy
Curry
Wijngaardenand many more skleptic scientists ON OUR SIDE who have hurt their reputation to fight the consensus and claim AGW is mild and harmless.
But you apparently think it’s smart to contradict them and claim AGW does not exists at all?
That means you think you know better than almost 100% of climate scientists since 1896.
Big ego
Well, what is the connection between climate change and CO2?
You imply that you know the answer. Dr. Clauser and I want to know what it is because we don’t see a connection.
+0.7 to +0.8 degrees C. warming per CO2 x 2 using lab spectroscopy
The estimated water vapor positive feedback amplification ranges from zero to about 6x. That is the debate
Not the effect of CO2 alone.
Question: How much additional warmth is CO2, at 420ppm, responsible for? Answer: Nobody knows.
Question: After all feedbacks are included, does CO2 net warm the atmosphere, or net cool the atmosphere? Answer: Nobody knows.
Those question have to be answered before anyone can claim that CO2 is affecting the way the Earth’s weather and climate unfold.
You don’t have these answers. so claiming CO2 is responsible for a certain percentage of current temperatures is just pure speculation, as are any claims of a connection between CO2 and Earth’s weather or climate.
The Science is not settled.
“positive feedback amplification”
That hurts my head. As a systems engineer with control theory training and a strong analytical background, abusing those terms like that should be a crime.
I can assure you that with “positive feedback amplification“, the feedback would cause unrestrained growth until a source was exhausted. That source would be water vapor itself. Since we have not seen exponential growth in water vapor, I seriously doubt this is a condition that actually occurs.
There is no water vapor feedback. There is a secondary CO2 forcing which drives evaporative cooling. NOAA radiosonde data indicates this counters the CO2 absorption very closely. See Miskolczi 2023.
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Miskolczi-2023-Greenhouse-Gas-Theory.pdf
There is a water vapor feedback, however there is also evaporative cooling affect as well as an increase in cloud cover and precipitation that form negative feedbacks that strongly limit the impact of the initial positive feedback.
The real climate is way more complicated than is any computer model.
Technically you are correct in the point of view that there is absolutely zero anthropogenic contributions to climate.
The specific heat (Cp) of CO2 is slightly different than air without CO2. With CO2 in the mix, there is a miniscule temperature rise given 1 J per mol.
There are other factors affecting climate that have nothing to do with CO2. Urbanization, deforestation, energy production top the list.
Please understand the above to mean climate change is 99.9% natural.
No evidence of any isotopic human CO2 in the atmosphere.
No empirical scientific evidence of warming by CO2, anyway.
Still waiting.
There is local anthropogenic urban/airport warming… that is not global since urban areas are actually a very small part of the surface, but they do comprises most of the highly dubious surface temperature fabrications.
And there is natural solar plus probably ocean volcanic warming that expresses at major El Nino events. This does effect the whole planet, hence is “global”
These are the only measurably, hence scientifically provable, types of warming.
You can prove me incorrect by producing measured evidence of warming by human caused atmospheric CO2.
Science claptrap comment #326
empty mindless comment from RG… #100000
As i said… “You can prove me incorrect by producing measured evidence of warming by human caused atmospheric CO2.”
Still waiting !!
The results of this experiment demonstrates CO2 is a coolant in the atmosphere.
The experiment demonstrates you are a fool
Well the UK did use CO2 as a coolant in it’s AGR reactors
Should have added AGR stands for Advanced Gas cooled Reactors.
Heat capacity at play and that the CO2 likely achieved a somewhat higher temperature for the same energy input probably resulted in a more efficient cooling system.
An interesting experiment. That demonstrates a difference in latency, but it does not address an equilibrium state.
Cv for CO2 versus air with no CO2 indicates air with CO2 will show a slightly higher measured temperature for the same J per mol applied.
Yes, CO2 is a coolant. However, with CO2 increases we also get more IR absorption which counters the cooling.
All IR absorbed in valence bands is ultimately re-emitted. Quantum mechanics 101.
“AGW is mild and harmless.” Vs “AGW does not exists at all” is a matter of semantics – especially since AGW really means CAGW, C as in Catastrophic.
Why don’t you just let it go?
If AGW is mild and harmless then it might also be zero.
Considering past climate, especially with higher temperatures and lower CO2, there is more proof of “AGW does not exists at all” than it’s anything, mild or not.
Various types of AGW are the strongest evidence for the warming after 1975. There is also weaker evidence of natural warning.
Only fools ignore evidence
CAGW is AGW x 3 to AGE x 6 with a consensus of about x4 to x5
Only fools claim humans have no effect on the climate
Only fools claim humans are creating a climate emergency
Those two positions are Dumb and Dumber
They ignore all evidence to take no thinking required extreme positions
Only a fool bases science on opinions and media headlines and political rhetoric.
You continuously forget the third position …. It is perplexing that you, being the poster child for the third position, would not recognize it since you are paying tribute to it every day.
(soon … sooner … ?) they ya go.
“Various types of AGW are the strongest evidence for the warming after 1975. There is also weaker evidence of natural warning.”
As I asked in another thread: Based on what? Global temperature? There is no such thing.
Ditto me.
Ditto stupid
Thank you. I take it as a compliment.
Again, the null hypothesis rears its head. Show me, all you pro AGW guys, the tested null in the (your) data.
I’ll save everyone the suspense – they didn’t.
You forgot to post “spoiler alert”
NO AGW
The Dull Hypothesis
AGW, the unproven conjecture. Un-backed by any empirical evidence.
Better than your fussy pedantic hypothesis where you pester anyone who doesn’t admit that CO2 has some effect. You look at IR absorption in a text book and they look at the actual atmosphere and paleo-climate data.
NET ZERO FOLLY
As most self respecting scientists know, man-made carbon dioxide has virtually no effect on the climate. It is a good gas essential to animals and plant life. Provided dirty emissions are cleaned up, we should be using our substantial store of fossil fuels while we develop a mix of alternatives including nuclear power to generate energy. There is no climate crisis, it has always changed and we have always adapted to it. In the Ordovician ice age atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were 4000 ppm and have been 15 times higher than now. There was no industrial revolution then to be the cause . The present quantity of man-made carbon dioxide is insignificant compared with water vapour or clouds which comprise a vast majority of green-house gases. We have no control over the climate. The sun and our distance from it have by far the most effect. Most importantly, Net Zero (carbon dioxide) Policy will do nothing to change it. Countries like China, Russia and India are sensibly ignoring this and using their fossil fuels. They will be delighted at how the west is letting the power elites, mainstream media and government implement this Policy and the World Order Agenda 21, to needlessly impoverish us as well as causing great hardship and suffering.
Just asking- I’ve heard the claim that the much higher CO2 levels in much earlier geologic eras isn’t as relevant as it seems because the sun’s energy striking the Earth was lower then. That is, the sun is hotter now so much lower CO2 is necessary to balance the hotter sun. I don’t believe it- but I have heard that argument. And, maybe I misunderstood what they were trying to say.
Climate Alarmists can always find a dodge to explain away inconvenient facts.
The ‘Faint Sun Paradox’ was an early example of the Alarmists moving the goal posts in order to scare the women and children re. CO2.
There is a marginal value to the orbital – solar irradiance, but not nearly sufficient to explain anything.
The sun is getting brighter as it ages, something like a percent or two every 100 million years or so.
The sun was dimmer during the times in question, but only by about 1%. Not enough to matter.
This is partially countered by the earth’s orbit was a wee bit closer to the sun back then. Gravity effects slow an orbiting body. Slower velocity leads to higher orbit.
Losing momentum causes the orbit to shrink. The effects you mention would cause the Earth to get closer to the sun, not further away.
Wrong. I am involved in rocket launches. To get to a lower orbit you have to speed up. Lower orbits have stronger gravitational pull and you need faster.
Now I know that you are lying about your knowledge.
If you speed up, you are going too fast for your current orbit, the result is that you go higher. By climbing, you trade momentum for potential energy. Eventually you stabilize in a higher, slower orbit.
When you slow down, you no longer have the energy to stay in your current orbit and drop into a lower orbit. As you fall you gain momentum and eventually have enough speed to settle into new, lower orbit.
This is first year physics kind of stuff.
If all of your claims of knowledge are this faulty, no wonder you’ve gotten feedback theory so wrong.
Since you are so completely convinced that you have to slow down in order to go to a higher orbit, please explain how atmospheric drag causes satellites to re-enter, rather than be thrown back into space.
You know I am lying? Well maybe I am just mistaken but you choose to go with character assassination. Got it.
At a lower orbit the pull of gravity is greater and you need more velocity to keep the orbit.
Unless you wish to transition from an elliptical orbit to parabolic, but that is more of a vector change.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/671179/basic-question-about-orbital-speed
It’s easy, if you actually had the skills you claim to have, you wouldn’t be making such gregious and obvious mistakes.
The point you raise in this post is both true and well known, and utterly unresponsive to the point I was making.
Your claim has been that by slowing down, a craft would rise to a higher orbit.
Here’s how it works, which you would already know if you had the work experiences you claim.
Chemical energy is exchanged for kinetic energy. In other words, rocket motors are used to speed up a space craft.
Because the craft is now moving too fast for it’s current orbit, it starts climbing.
The act of climbing causes the craft to slow as kinetic energy is converted to potential energy. (There’s a reason why aircraft have to increase the power from their engines when climbing.)
Eventually the spacecraft loses enough speed that it no longer needs to rise and settles into a new, stable, orbit.
The reverse happens for dropping to lower orbits. You slow down, start dropping from your current orbit. By dropping, you pick up speed and eventually settle into a new, lower orbit.
BTW, the gravity effects that you mentioned above, are gravity waves. Given your claimed background, I’m really surprised you didn’t know that term.
Also it is by losing energy to these gravity waves that orbiting neutron stars and black holes eventually collide. That is, they lose energy, go into lower and lower orbits, and eventually merge. They don’t go into higher orbits as you claimed. (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/04/09/new-paper-challenges-unproven-claims-effect-of-human-caused-carbon-emissions-on-climate-is-non-discernible/#comment-3894060)
Orbital mechanics are tricky. For example, if you want to speed up, youi first have to slow down.
If you are in orbit, and you want to catch up an object that is ahead of you, you have to slow down, which drops you into a lower, faster orbit. Then when you catch up, you have to speed up, which pushes you into a higher orbit so that you slow down.
An example that is closer to your example. When an object in orbit drops low enough and starts to feel drag from the atmosphere, it does not get kicked up into a higher orbit, but instead starts dropping even more rapidly.
CO2 at 420 ppm has already accomplished 80% to 85% of its maximum warming potential.
That’s why increases do not matter much UNLESS there is a large amplification from a water vapor positive feedback, which is the big climate debate today.
People need to learn some basics of systems engineering, particularly control theory.
The way positive feedback is being used is inherently wrong.
Then there is thermodynamics, once a required engineering course.
Energy cannot be created out of nothing.
I took a thermodynamics course on my way to my BS degree
You obviously did mot
Greenhouse gases are not creating energy
They are impeding earth’s ability to cool itself.
Over 99.9% of incoming energy is from the sun
There can be a positive feedback. It obviously has to ave limits, or offsets, to prevent runaway warming.
A possible limit is that more water vapor in the troposphere leads to more clouds blocking sunlight, offsetting the stronger greenhouse effect from more water vapor in a warmer troposphere..
I didn’t know you could get a degree in Bull S$1t. You did well, I can see that in what you write.
Everybody knows the progression is:
Bull S..t
More S..t
Piled higher and Deeper
Wrong. You make a statement of my education without a shred of data to back it up. I aced thermodynamics.
You may have taken a course, but you seem to have forgotten the basics.
You also claim to be a systems engineer, yet you know nothing about how feedback works.
You claim to be involved in rocket launches yet you get even simple facts of orbital mechanics completely backwards.
Look up.
No even close. The real effect of water vapor was explained by Dr. William Gray a couple decades ago. If only you’d take some time to educate yourself.
“its maximum warming potential.”
85% of zero, is still zero.
I always look forward to a bNasty200o burst of verbal flatulence (aka comment) for the next dose of pure claptrap.
Always rely on RG to make a petulant childish comment containing absolutely ZERO science.
Do you have any evidence of warming by human CO2 yet ??
The big climate debate today is how much burden should be assessed on the general public, and how do we convince the general public to readily accept such an encumbrance.
There is no serious ‘feedback’ debate. Find a feedback adherent that is willing to debate anything….
The problem with the faint sun excuse is CO2 levels were about the same before, during and after the ice age. The faint sun was similar for the entire period.
Eventually, it will be pointed out that you emit carbon dioxide and you (and your words) are a problem. Then, you become like Mao’s sparrows.
He got one thing right, political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
Why disparage Mao? He thought killing the sparrows was a good thing…how was he to know that like 55 million people would starve? Mao managed to not stave himself and maintain his strangle hold of the remaining population….and is still revered by today’s commies……and Mao said that they were gonna die anyways.
Sounds like Keyne’s quote that in the long run we’re all going to die.
He was saying that in order to counter those who were pointing out that in the long run, Keyne’s ideas were going to mess up the economy.
Socialists have a long history of ignoring any possible consequences of their ideas. So long as they get whatever they want today.
Wha? You mean we can’t grow our economy by burying cash in old mines and then paying the unemployed to dig it up? Why wasn’t I told?
“We have no control over the climate.”
And I have no control over you making stupid, wrong comments.
You do have control of you making stupid, wrong comments, but you seem to ignore that innate ability.
You are an angry soul. Just a wanna-be internet bully by that tone.
stupid … stupider …
You certainly have no control over anything you say.
Just a mindless spew of vitriol for anyone who doesn’t agree with your nil-informed, erroneous, scientifically-unsupportable opinions.
Anyone who thinks there is a “greenhouse effect” that somehow alters earth’s energy balance has no understanding of thermodynamics.
500 years ago, the peak solar intensity in the NH hit its lowest in 20,000 years For the past 500 years the peak solar intensity has been increasing. It has a cumulative effect on land through loss of permanent ice and increased biomass. That means the albedo of the land has reduced. It is absorbing more solar radiation so less reflected. The increased surface temperature is resulting in more OLR. Not less as the “greenhouse” fable requires.
The real story condensed into a single chart attached. There are only two places where absorbed sunlight has reduced this century – a small portion of Antarctica and a small band just north of the Equator. The latter because the solar intensity is moving north and the ocean warm pools are moving north. Meaning there is more convective instability north of the Equator with its associated high level cloud than at the start of the century.
Climate models sow the seeds of their own downfall. Relative to measured temperatures, they are warming too much in the high southern latitudes and too little in the high northern latitudes. These changes are driven by the precession cycle no different to what has happened repeatedly in the past. The interglacial is coming to an end with the onset of glaciation. Look at growing permanent ice extent on Greenland. Look at numerous new snowfall records year-on-year. Look at rapidly rising October snow extent and less dramatic rise in maximum snow extent. All trends that were evident decades ago.
Greenhouse gas and greenhouse effect are bogus terms. Better is thermal blanket.
Not much indication of a thermal blanket in the chart. The OLR has increased dramatically apart from a small region near the South Pole and a small region just north of the Equator.
Your blanket analogy fails because there is more sunlight being thermalised and more OLR going out. But the net is more coming in. Mostly going to speeding up the water cycle that moves energy poleward but also adds to snow fall. And it has only just started to warm up. peak sunlight over the northern land mass will increase for the next 9,000 years.
Over the past 500 years there has been permanent land ice melting. The depth of permafrost continues to decline in most locations. The loss of albedo means more sunlight gets thermalised rather than reflected.
Thermal blankets to not isolate heat energy, merely controls the latency.
More to the point, there is too much complexity to the climate as a system to attribute anything exclusively to one element.
Sounds like you studied thermoDUMBnamics, Greenhouse Denier.
I am no longer a “greenhouse” denier. I realise it is a belief system and a great con so you believe because you do not understand thermodynamics or you are conning others.. It exists in some people’s belief system but it does not have influence on earth’s energy balance.
The chart I attached above actually shows why. Why has OL:R decreased and SWR increased so dramatically just north of the Equator? It is due to more NH ocean surface reaching the 30C limit that actually regulates Earth’s incoming energy. The attached chart below shows the trend in TPW. Notice how dramatically the precipitable water is increasing just north of the Equator.
A warm pool regulating at 30C due to cyclic convective instability has a negative correlation between OLR and SWR as seen in the chart but the ratio of SWR increase is twice the reduction in OLR. So a very powerful negative feedback. The chart does not show the actual ratio over a warm pool because the data for the difference is the whole year and the 30C warm pools cannot be sustained for the whole year. The 2X value comes from observing the relationship during the period that the warm pool persists at 30C.
I am certainly not a greenhouse denier.
In fact, one of my friends on the Central Coast has several hectares full of greenhouses.
He uses them, with further enhanced CO2 levels for producing commercial flowers and other crops.
And guess what… they all work by reducing convective loss of energy and moisture.
There is nothing in the atmosphere that does that.
In fact, in the atmosphere, convection is a major form of cooling and upward moisture transfer.
So whatever this “greenhouse effect” you are talking about is…
… it is nothing to do with greenhouses.
No one ever said the greenhouse effect referred to actual greenhouses
Red herring argument.
“they (greenhouses) all work by reducing convective loss of energy and moisture. There is nothing in the atmosphere that does that.”
WRONG AGAIN
The permanent temperature inversion over almost all of Antarctica does exactly that.
A thermal inversion occurs when a layer of warm air is situated over a layer of cooler air. This set up prevents convection from occurring and keeps large clouds from forming. These are commonly seen in air masses with high pressure, with cold fronts, and in areas in the higher latitudes.
A small inversion over a tiny area of the coldest place on the planet.
Even you can, probably not, do better than that.
Also, I said “energy and moisture”.
There is no atmospheric moisture in the Antarctic, so the lack of convection (because of the lack of surface heat, does not block moisture.
Then a copy/paste of what a “thermal inversion” is.
All very funny , in a sad sort of way.
A pristine definition of a greenhouse gas. Thanks.
Hey Richard did you know some 6 year old has taken over your account?
Are those your answers to the two CO2 related climate questions I asked?
good, relevant question.
What on earth is happening with the dooming?
The world has been its hottest on record for 10 months straight. Scientists can’t fully explain why (msn.com)
It’s always the fraudulent and unphysical Global Average Temperature quoted by Alarmists rather than actual measured temperatures in specific locations.
I just came in from working on my garden. I decided to come inside and what for it to warm up a bit, in fact in one hour it’ll exceed a century’s worth of global warming by 300%.
Exactly. The monthly average high in my neck of the woods (NE Arizona) has been below normal for 13 of the last 16 months and appears that it will be 14 of 17 at the end of April. Of those 3 months higher than average 2 were within a 1/2 degree of average and the other was 5 degrees higher but it was in August of last year.
The world is still warming up from the Little Ice Age. We have around a degree more to go before we get back to the temperatures enjoyed during the Medieval Warm Period, and several degrees to go till we get back to the levels of the Holocene Optimum.
There is one argument that every climate skeptic should be making, but no one is. It’s an argument that destroys the warmist’s argument. The argument is this: show me what bad thing have happened over the past 40 years due to increased CO2 and temps. And they will have no answer because nothing bad has happened.
They will show you models that say really, really, really bad things will happen 40 years from now. But they won’t be able to show you any bad things that have happened so far. And then you reply: “You’ve been telling me for 40 years that really bad things were going to happen and all those predictions were wrong. Why should I believe you predictions for the next 40 years?”
But no one is making that argument. Why?
‘And they will have no answer because nothing bad has happened.’
I don’t know about ‘the past 40 years’, but it’s very clear we’ve been on the road to fiscal ruin since the Federal government removed the last impediment against a fully fiat currency in 1971.
Another argument I’ve used with success: how do you know that current warming is not entirely natural rather than anthropogenic?
But, but, we have models and we have the Foote and Tyndall experiments.
Funny but both of those esteemed, dedicated scientists demonstrated the the Cv of 100% CO2 was equal to the Cv of air at ~ 1% humidity.
Neither proved CO2 was a “greenhouse” gas as so many assert today.
Oh, and did you know that Tyndall is credited with using spectroscopy is his studies? Funny that. His sensor was a thermo-electric pile.
That’s where the isotopic argument about an increasing proportion of 12C comes into play. However, as I have noted upstream, the data supporting that argument are incomplete and cherry picked. However, even that could be a spurious correlation or have the cause and effect inverted.
The Vostok ice core data show clearly that changes in CO2 always FOLLOW changes in temperature. Alarmists have causation backwards.
The Vostok ice cores show that CO2 goes up 900 to 1000 years after temperatures start going up.
It’s only been about 200 to 250 years since the coldest period of the Little Ice Age. 900 to 1000 years ago, the planet was starting to cool off at the end of the Medieval Warm Period.
It’s too soon for increasing warmth to be causing an increase in CO2 levels.
Over the last 100 years or so, the amount of fossil fuels that have been burned are more than sufficient to account for all of the increase in CO2 levels. Where do you propose that all that CO2 went?
+4% ok.
4%, year after year. It’s additive.
Who measured the CO2 in 1850? What instruments were used. How many locations were sampled?
I don’t think you can assume that. If its use in the flora world is increased, then it would not be a straight sum.
The ice cores don’t have the resolution to say that with any confidence, all you can say is that it was after temps rose. And Vostok is in the middle of the cap, it’s only going to notice a change when it’s practically affected the whole world first.
That is CO2 as a climate feedback process
No manmade CO2 as a climate forcing process in those data
Your claim is worthless
A dumb argument
dumb … dumber …
https://wattsupwiththat.com/failed-prediction-timeline/
The other side lies, they make things up.
Yes, they do. Their scary human-caused climate change narrative couldn’t survive otherwise.
Remember Nuclear Winter? That is when they learned how to scare the population into submission.
They will tell you about all the sever weather, the tsunami level rising of the oceans, mass migrations, loss of food, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.
They might argue hurricanes (Katrina), forest fires Canada (2023), Arctic ice melt, none of which can be attributed to increased CO2 but those are the typical arguments.
Actually, we have been making that argument, every time we point out that nothing unusual is happening in the weather.
48 years of pleasant warming, mainly colder nations, mainly winters and mainly at nights. No warming of Antarctica. Exactly the pattern expected for greenhouse warming.
44 years of wrong CAGW prediction
48 years of improving climate and greening planet — probably te best climate in 5000 years
I’ve been saying that since 1997
CAGW is a fantasy climate coming in 10 years, for the past 44 years
The goal of CAGW scaremongering is the Transition to Leftist FASCISM.
Rubbish. The climate models all overstate the warming in the southern latitudes and understate the warming in the high northern latitudes. Most also do the impossible and have ocean temperatures sustaining more than 30C.
The only place where oceans are actually retaining heat is in the region of the Ferrel Cells. Even UAH TLT shows heat bumps over the Ferrel Cells in both hemispheres.
I think you fell down and bumped your head.
The timing and pattern of warming from greenhouse gases was the expected pattern, and was reality after 1975
Warmer winter nights in Siberia could be the poster child for global warming.
If you disagree with this reality, then you are living in la la land.
No, wrong again…, URBAN warming is a reality after 1975
Data shows that there has been no atmospheric warming since 1979 except at El Nino events.
There is no evidence that human CO2 has caused any warming…
You have proven that many times..
… and will undoubtedly continue to prove there is no evidence.
Where is the evidence that the ENSO cycle affects the planet’s radiative imbalance? Your assertion is just a conjecture.
They have answers. They point to the terrible, worsening weather that we have been experiencing, the accelerating sea level rise, the famines and wars . . .
Of course, none of that has happened. But the recency effect means people believe it when they’re told that the weather is worse now, that islands are disappearing, that it’s too hot to grow food. Just the same as they believed it when told the world was coming to an end due to overpopulation and resource exhaustion. That canard hasn’t died in the last 50 years despite being disproven repeatedly.
Until the mainstream media and governments start to report facts, they will continue to provide examples for warmists to parrot.
You forgot about the dire prediction of running out of oil a couple decades ago.
One other point is the definition of climate. They hijacked the “micro climate” so climate is now the 30 year average of weather.
So any weather today changes the climate because it replace 30 year old weather from the average.
I have regularly asked the question….
“Apart from a highly beneficial natural warming from the coldest period in 10,000 years, what has actually changed with the global climate?…… produce your evidence.
No takers, because as even the IPCC data shows… basically nothing. !!
But they do make that argument – everything gets blamed on that little bit of CO2, even things like warming that every sane person should be celebrating!
Everyone heads to warmer climates to enjoy themselves in say, 30°C warmer weather, actually 40 – and some act terrified about the possibility 3-5 more spread out over a century.
Funny how the UN Sec.Gen. contradicts the head of the IPCC.
Code Red. Precipice. versus no need for alarmism.
‘The generally accepted hypothesis “may reflect a dogmatic approach or a postmodern ideological effect, i.e., to blame everything on human actions”, he observes.’
Bingo! Climate alarmism, critical race and gender theories, egalitarianism and all the other weapons of today’s Left can trace their origin to the intellectual rot of postmodernism that has almost fully engulfed academia.
Science used to be about objective truth and art used to be about beauty. Today both have been hijacked by political ideology and messaging.
You forgot the primary forces: power and greed.
It would appear that it doesn’t really matter where the CO2 came from.
Kevin Kirchman:
“Why the Greenhouse Gas Theory is Invalid Scientifically” | Tom Nelson Pod #206
At about the 8 minute mark he discusses where the energy absorbed by CO2 goes.
Accurate measurements from 2004 – 2019 show that the slight increase in CO2 atmospheric absorption has been shown to have been translated to the atmospheric window
Since radiatively excited CO2 decays by collision in the troposphere, thereby only adding to the general BB radiation field, including those wavelengths in the atmospheric window, I concur that our emissions have had no demonstrated effect on climate. Maybe I didn’t understand his approach, but I thought his presentation would make a wonderful straw man for any of our in-house alarmists.
The graph shows that the planet is warming and radiating more energy as a result, except in the bands where CO2 is a strong absorber, and in those bands rising CO2 concentration is causing more absorption and less emission. Great job, you just destroyed your own position.
Shows more energy going through the atmospheric window than being absorbed by the tiny amount of CO2 increase.
Get over it. !
OLR continues to increase in line with temperature, showing no energy is being blocked.
Another FAIL from AlanJ..
Again, OLR will increase because the planet is warming, and warm things radiate more intensely than cooler things. As you show in your graph above this one that I initially commented on, OLR is not increasing in the bands where CO2 is a strong absorber, in fact it is decreasing as more CO2 continues to be added.
‘Again, OLR will increase because the planet is warming, and warm things radiate more intensely than cooler things.’
A couple of things: First, I thought the narrative was that the Earth was warming because OLR was decreasing due to our CO2 emissions. If that’s not the case, please reach out to your co-alarmists and set them straight on the revised version of the narrative.
Second, please note that the surface of Venus is purported to be ‘warm’ enough to melt lead, yet that planet radiates much less ‘intensely’ than Earth.
OLR is decreasing in the bands where CO2 is a strong absorber, it will increase across other bands because the planet is warming. No one is saying anything different than this.
Because we don’t see radiation at the surface when we look at Venus from space, we see the radiation as it escapes to space, from a layer of the Venutian atmosphere high enough and thin enough for emission to occur without reabsorption. The earth as seen from space looks like an object at 255 K, not an object at our surface temperature of 288 K. The sun is also radiating as an object colder than its interior temperature.
‘OLR is decreasing in the bands where CO2 is a strong absorber, it will increase across other bands because the planet is warming. No one is saying anything different than this.’
You’ve moved the goal-posts from OLR in total to OLR in the CO2 band(s). Allow me to quote Pat Frank here:
‘The radiant energy is absorbed (by CO₂) and then lost by collisional decay. Right up to the stratosphere, 15 μ vibrationally excited CO₂ decays by collision, not re-radiation. The energy lost to collision is then dispersed into the KE of the atmospheric gases and thereby becomes one with the overall black body radiation field. Then, it gets radiated away into space, but across all the TOA BB wavelengths.’
In other words, adding more CO2 has only a very marginal impact on total outgoing OLR. The question is, has there actually been a decline in total outgoing OLR energy?
‘Because we don’t see radiation at the surface when we look at Venus from space, we see the radiation as it escapes to space, from a layer of the Venutian atmosphere high enough and thin enough for emission to occur without reabsorption.’
No kidding. But the fact remains in this case that a warmer thing (Venus) radiates less LWR that a cooler thing (Earth).
The goalpost remains steadfast. Adding CO2 reduces OLR in the wavelengths where CO2 is a strong absorber because it moves the layer of the atmosphere where OLR in the wavelengths absorbed by CO2 is emitted to space to a higher, colder layer. This is not remotely inconsistent with the picture of energy moving through the atmosphere primarily via collisions, to finally be remitted as radiant energy when it reaches a layer high enough and thin enough for radiation to happen and for that radiation pass through the atmosphere before collision or reabsorption occurs.
Because it radiates to space from a cooler part of the atmosphere. If Venus had less GHGs, this cool part of the atmosphere would be closer to the surface.
‘The goalpost remains steadfast.’
No, it hasn’t. The alarmist narrative is that more CO2 decreases OLR, causing surface temperatures and OLR to rise sequentially until the latter again equals ASR. The shift in the goalposts is that the failure of OLR to decline has been ‘disappeared’ as a prerequisite for warming, while concurrent increases in surface temperatures and OLR, which would be expected to occur even in an atmosphere without a GHE, is held to be ‘evidence’ of the narrative.
‘If Venus had less GHGs, this cool part of the atmosphere would be closer to the surface.’
You’re missing my point, which was pointing out that warmer objects, e.g., Venus, don’t necessarily emit more OLR than cooler objects, e.g., Earth. In fact, the amount of OLR emitted by both planets is exactly equal to the amounts of solar radiation each absorbs, or ASR – which, of course, has nothing to do with GHGs.
The instantaneous response of increasing CO2 is to decrease OLR, but the extended response is to increase total OLR, because the planet warms. Thus, when viewed as a time series, we see OLR increasing overall, except in the bands where CO2 is a strong absorber (because we keep adding more and more CO2). This simply means the atmosphere is not in equilibrium as we continue emitting GHGs.
I agree with this – the radiation emitted by a planetary body is determined by the planet-sun distance. And this requirement to tend toward equilibrium with sunlight determines the temperature of the planet’s “altitude of emission.” Where in the planet’s atmosphere this “altitude of emission” is found, and thus the surface temperature, is a function of GHG concentration.
Well, we’re finally in agreement on the second point that (in equilibrium) planetary OLR = ASR, where ASR is a function of solar intensity and (I’ll add) planetary albedo, but not of GHG presence / concentration.
Back to the first point, I hope we can agree that if we could magically add a quantity of heat to the Earth’s surface, we would see an increase in both surface temperature and OLR, followed by a subsequent decline in both until OLR again equals ASR. Your position, however, is that an increase in CO2 will cause surface temperature and OLR to rise, notwithstanding that the presumed mechanism for surface warming, i.e., a decline in OLR, hasn’t been observed. Moreover, we still don’t observe this decline in OLR despite our continued emissions of CO2.
Again, you’ve moved the goalposts from the narrative that GHGs warm the surface by reducing OLR, which hasn’t been observed, to one that says GHGs warm the surface and increase OLR without any external addition of heat or, apparently, no change in ASR.
You can calculate the instantaneous response of OLR to an increase in CO2 with basic models of radiant transmission like this one from the University of Chicago:
https://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
That increasing the concentration of absorbing gases causes more absorption is beyond dispute. You’re conflating the instantaneous response with the long term result.
Imagine if you instantly dumped a doubled amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. Instantaneously, the outgoing radiation would decrease. There would be more solar radiation coming in that terrestrial radiation going out. After some time, the layer* of the atmosphere where radiation is escaping to space would warm up, and OLR and incoming solar radiation would again be in balance, but the planet would have a higher surface temperature as a result (it would not have a higher emission temperature as seen from space – that would be 255 K. Although at the instant you doubled CO2, the planet would be briefly emitting as an object colder than 255 K).
What you can see in the graphs bnice has posted is the result of this process happening over a protracted time period. Rather than a single big dump of CO2, we keep gradually adding more. So the planet never regains equilibrium. The emission from bands where CO2 is a strong absorber keep getting pushed higher and higher. Meanwhile, the planet is warming (because of reduced OLR in CO2 wavelengths), so overall OLR is increasing, because hot things emit more strongly than cooler things.
*We are conceptualizing it as a single layer, but in reality emission is occurring from many different altitudes across many wavelengths, you can think of this more as a “effective altitude of emission.”
Thanks – I must compliment you on providing one of the clearest and most concise explanations of the ‘radiant heat transfer theory of climate’ I’ve ever encountered. Unfortunately, like modtran, it ignores all other climate processes, particularly convection.
Let me return to Pat Frank’s description of CO2’s radiative / atmospheric properties, above. What I believe he’s saying is that CO2 absorbs IR at 15 micron, but decays by collision with other molecules, primarily O2 and N2, until the tropospause, at which point it can emit directly to space. But increasing the concentration of CO2, even doubling it, has very little effect on the altitude at which the CO2 molecules are initially excited (meters?), hence the process of collisional decay that occurs as CO2 is convected up to the tropopause remains virtually unchanged. The point is that these collisions maintain upward convective heat transport in the troposphere in addition to contributing to the troposphere’s overall black body spectrum, a significant part of which radiates freely to space from much lower altitudes than does CO2.
As the radiative aspects of this process occur very quickly, I think it’s quite likely that our CO2 emissions to date have had no measurable effect on surface temperature, but am willing to go along with many CAGW skeptics that there may be something on the order of a 1C increase in temperature per CO2 doubling. What I find hard to believe is that a doubling, plus assorted ‘positive’ feedbacks, that total 7-8 W/m^2 of forcing causes a surface temperature increase equivalent to 20 W/m^2, which would require changes on the order of 12 W/m^2 in the Earth’s albedo to reconcile. If what you say above re. an initial pulse / imbalance leading to long-term warming is true, there is absolutely no reason, given the extent of the Earths’s oceans, that this process wouldn’t have spiraled out of control to the upside eons ago.
In alignment with the above, there is no evidence that CO2 has driven climate at any time in geological history. Rather, there is ample evidence that changes in orbital mechanics or tectonic plate movements determine climatic set points, around which the same processes that occur today act to maintain stasis.
Yes, it is a simplification. If you start integrating convective equilibrium you are building the foundation of a general circulation model, work first done in the 1960-70s by, e.g. pioneers like Syukoro Manabe. But adding in greater complexity doesn’t alter the truth of the simpler components – the earth is still a planetary body suspended in a vacuum, bathed in sunlight. Its surface temperature ultimately determined by the requirement of balancing incoming vs outgoing radiation at the effective altitude of emission (all the complicated stuff that goes on in between the surface and TOA can be seen as determining how energy moves around within the system, and how large is the temperature gradient between the surface and effective altitude of emission).
As far as that goes, I’m not sure I disagree with Frank’s “collisional decay” framework (I confess I haven’t put a lot of thought into that so maybe he’s wrong, but superficially it seems unobjectionable). But it isn’t clear to me why this would matter. You can spread 15um OLR absorbed by CO2 near the surface across the terrestrial spectrum, but all that energy still has to escape to space as radiation, and some of that radiation still has to be in the wavelengths absorbed by CO2. Thus, it doesn’t matter if all the available 15um energy is absorbed near the surface, adding more CO2 in the upper atmosphere will always cause more absorption, resulting in radiant emission from a higher, colder layer at 15um, which will drive warming.
Much smarter people than I have already done all the math on this (and they factor in all the complications like convection and collisional broadening) and arrive at the roughly 1 degree C give or take per doubling sensitivity to CO2, which I think you and I both find reasonable. The rest is feedbacks which, as you note, are less certain, but they tend to be net positive, so we are likely looking at >1 degree of warming from a doubling of CO2, which is enough for me to say, “hey, we should be cautious.”
I don’t think any climate scientist would disagree with you. There has never been a natural mechanism for injecting CO2 into the atmosphere that isn’t tied to, e.g., a warming of the oceans, which itself must be initiated by an external process like orbital forcing. CO2 has historically been a feedback, it’s only because humans have a way of digging up carbon and burning it that it can independently act as a primary driver.
‘Much smarter people than I have already done all the math on this (and they factor in all the complications like convection and collisional broadening) and arrive at the roughly 1 degree C give or take per doubling sensitivity to CO2, which I think you and I both find reasonable.’
Fair enough. I don’t have much else to impart aside from a few nits, the main one being that there are a lot of climate scientists, and far too many other people, willing to crater the economy / society in an effort to benefit from CAGW. But I’ll leave it here, since I see you’re busy addressing more recent postings on WUWT.
Thanks, this was a refreshingly agreeable discussion and I appreciate your willingness to engage without throwing barbs. I’m glad we found some points of agreement amidst the debate.
Unless you are integrating OLR over a days time from a given location you don’t know what is happening.
The sun comes and the sun goes down. The OLR goes up and down in concert. After sundown OLR decreases until the dew point is reached.
Dealing in averages is simply not scientific.
Yes always at every second, in order to maintain equilibrium the whole earth must emit to space the same amount of energy it receives from the sun, or the temperature will change. You can cook a rotisserie chicken even though the thing is always rotating into and out of view of the heat source.
It seems clear from the revelations of scientists no longer beholden to the Climate Industrial Network, that man made global warming via our CO2 emissions is at best very minor and not catastrophic as claimed. Control of our energy industries, political power, and of course huge wealth are the factors motivating the CIN. It is therefore not surprising that actual empirical evidence of human caused catastrophic global warming is unable to be found, and that non-human causes of the recent gradual warming up of the earth following the little ice age are being found.
You could also make the case that any warming caused by humans, indigenous to planet earth, are every bit as natural as warming caused by our wobbly orbit or changes in the sun’s output. In any event, from what I can see the slight warming and increased atmospheric CO2 since the LIA are good things for human habitation and food production.
There are several extensive lists of quotes from UN, IPCC, WMO, WHO, and others that clearly state the goal is to transform the world economy and establish a One World Order based on socialism with the UN in charge.
Here’s one.
— “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” — Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations.
this website continues to paint disaster as being on the right track. there is no mention of this ruling, which will have profound influence on policy
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68768598
I am beginning to think this is a classical controlled opposition scheme lulling people into complacence and not allowing the formation of real opposition.
With respect to the legal suit, the above statement is really a non sequitur because it still isn’t as warm in March as it is in July and August, so the women are not under any duress in March. What needs to be demonstrated is that the hottest daytime temperatures are increasing. The general consensus, even among alarmists, is that most of the warming contributing to an increased average global temperature is occurring at night and in the Winter.
I have previously demonstrated that there is little evidence for US heat waves increasing:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/06/the-gestalt-of-heat-waves/
Also noted is it is more the low temps are rising, not the high temps.
That is true in Vermont
High temps rose 1 F, and low temps rose 4 F, in 40 years, per NOAA
I have lived in Woodstock, VT since 1986. Winters are warmer!!
That sounds like the Urban Heat Island effect with more people moving to cities, where most of the thermometers are located, from the countryside worldwide and paving with heat-holding asphalt and concrete.
The warming is mainly at night, (TMIN) or just after dawn, mainly in the coldest six months of the year, and mainly in colder nations if it is caused by greenhouse gases.
Warmer summers would most likely be from more sunlight reaching earth’s surface. The stratosphere should also be warming.
Two causes of warming from more sunlight reaching the ground:
Less SO2 emissions
Smaller percentage of cloud cover.
In the USA, people have been indoctrinated to have 1 12 second attention span. It started in the 1960s with TV advertising. As costs went up, the ads became shorter and went to audio visual glitz where an objective observer could not tell what product was being sold. Mesmerized the viewers, though.
My wife has zero attention span when it comes to ads. Her brain goes from watching mode to blank mode.
I have found some ads engaging and funny. If I ask her about the same ad she has no clue what I talking about.
There are often exactly the same ads in the same ad break. I think that is to invoke annoyance and gives the ad more emotional impact.
And good times were had by all.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/un-secretary-generals-climate-adviser-calls-white-stripped-power-revolutionary-fights
However, notably missing from the argument is any discussion of isotopic fractionation, leading to increased 12C when CO2 out-gases from the oceans. Additionally, organic material sequestered in the Tundra is already enriched in 12C and is undoubtedly contributing to increasing 12C in the atmosphere as the permafrost melts. Lastly, warming is probably resulting in increased wintertime respiration from the roots of Boreal trees, which have already enriched the relative amount of 12C for photosynthesis. In short, “the isotope argument” has incomplete data and cherry picked ‘evidence.’
Genuine question: what is the proportion of carbon-14 in current atmospheric CO2? If the extra CO2 is coming from combustion of ancient coal and petroleum it should be depleted in this isotope.
If you talk to any archaeologist about the limits of C-14 dating, they will tell you that it is useless for dating anything after around 1850 because of issues regarding the increased burning of fossil fuels.
I would have thought the problem of dating anything after about 1850 is that this is too short a period for the depletion of 14-C by radioactive decay to be statistically valid.
If that were true, then the minimum resolution of C-14 dating would be over 250 years.
The fact that the author had to insert this non-sequitur in order to support his argument makes me wonder how sound the rest of his arguments could be.
The isotope argument has been used to support arguments over the origin of CO2. It has never been used to support the argument that CO2 is or is not a greenhouse gas.
All good points except there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect and therefore no such thing as a greenhouse gas.
The origins of the term comes from observations in a closed glass lidded box.
The only time CO2 is a greenhouse gas is when it is injected into a hothouse to augment plant growth.
You can ignore the science all you want. Just don’t expect me to join you in your obstinacy.
I am not ignoring science. I am against conflating language. Per Marx, control the language and control the ideas.
The earth’s atmosphere is not a greenhouse. I object to simplifying the complexities by creating an invalid metaphor.
“there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect”
There is such a thing as a stupid comment
We know. We see your stupidity every time you post.
You wish to insult rather than discuss, so be it.
That’s funny.
Is there a measurable difference in the radiative absorption of 12C and 13C?
Yes, for their oxides at very high optical resolution, e.g., via LASER spectroscopy.
How much energy does a photosynthesizing plant absorb (per sq.m)? If there’s imbalance in the incoming and outgoing radiation, is the energy absorbed by plants and stored as hydrocarbons taken into account?
I do not know the answer to your first part.
It seems the only thing trees and plants account for in the climate models is bond albedo.
I read the Koutsoyiannis paper and found its data and conclusions a bit questionable.
Fact: fossil fuels are 12C enhanced because formed by photosynthesis.
Fact: we have burned and are burning significant fossil fuels since industrialization.
Ergo, atmospheric 12C/13C ratio must be increasing. How much depends on the overall carbon cycle, which should be changing a bit as the world naturally warms out of the LIA. K’s claim to find no change at all doesn’t compute for me.
Not claiming to know the answer, but it gets complicated with the fact that sinks that enriched fossil fuels in the first place also operate today and C12’s abundance exceeds C13’s by about 100 to 1. It’s always difficult to measure small changes to big numbers.
More definitively, one member of the View says that the solar eclipse, recent earth quakes, coming cicada invasion, etc., should cast away all doubt that man-made climate change is real.
I spewed my coffee when I read that. It was a politician that said it.
There’s more than enough stupidity to go around on the left.
Female host brain functionality multiplies like fractions less than 1.
When you have two of them ½ x ½ = ¼
three of them ½ x ½ x ½ = ⅛ etc !!
I could only;y watch a few seconds of that.
Shouldn’t there be global warming on the moon too? It is mostly made of gas.
One has to consider that 14C in the atmosphere is absorbed by the ocean and plants (as a minimum) and the ocean re-emits as it warms. Plants re-emit when they decay or are burned. This is not claiming an answer. It is merely exploring other factors.
When human CO2 emissions of CO2 dropped by 6 percent in 2020 due to COVID-19 lockdowns and business closures, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere kept rising at the same rate.
‘Temporary reduction in daily global CO2 emissions during the COVID-19 forced confinement’
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0797-x
Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO2https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/index.html
story tip
Again, this is a problem of detection of small changes to big numbers. Measurement noise is bigger than the signal of change.
Except they would have us believe the CO2 has an immediate effect. Hence we are on the precipice.
CO2 does have an immediate effect, however that affect is quite small.
So small, it is immeasurable.
Hence to all intent or purpose.. does not exist, and cannot be proven to exist.
It is measurable, it is not discernable in the our noisy climate.
In the EM spectrum, the latency is short. In the thermal, the latency is longer.
That aside, it was noted that once the divot cleared, the post level was as high as if the divot never happened. Perhaps that is merely an artifact of the data resolution or the plotting scheme.
If humans are the ones causing the CO2 rise then when human CO2 emissions dropped the increases should have dropped as well.
I would guess that the oceans absorbing less CO2 and releasing more CO2 with warming, are the cause of the CO2 increases.
A change that small is not discernable given the extremely noisy data it’s hiding in.
Not observable does not mean doesn’t exist.
For an example;
We know that as the sun gets higher in the sky due to the changes in the seasons, the Earth warms. However temperatures at a given spot on the planet vary wildly from one day to the next as weather fronts and other short term weather events cause huge changes.
Using your logic, if we can’t spot the additional heat being added by the sun over the course of a week, then we have to assume that the position of the sun has no impact on the Earth’s temperature, outside the daily cycle.
The impact of CO2 is even weaker and slower to show a cumulative effect.
“Not observable does not mean doesn’t exist.”
Makes it impossible to prove it does exist…
Like Goldilocks or the Big Bad Wolf… only in the imagination of fairy tales
The data is insufficient to draw any conclusion from.
So, are you going to stop trying to claim that the lack of proof is proof of lack?
Proving something does not exist is impossible, even if proving it does exist is difficult.
To look at it another way. The amount of increase each year is 2ppm. 6% of 2ppm is 0.12ppm.
The seasonal, variation in CO2 levels is between 3 and 5 ppm every year.
Now with a random change of 3 to 5 ppm, do you really expect a 0.12ppm variation caused by the economic slowdown to be visible?
A 6% drop in human emissions which is ~3% of natural CO2 variability spread over 6 months or a year is too small to be seen in the noise, especially given annual swings in CO2 concentrations that result from seasonal effects.
If it’ll make you feel better, the growth rate for CO2 in 2020 was smaller than in 2019 and 2021, though with uncertainty they were statistically the same.
Then you would be wrong
A separate article reveals that termites produce more CO2 than human respiration.
Humans produce approx 4% of CO2 flux.
A small drop of human emissions will make absolutely no measurable difference in rate of CO2 increase..
Your science is all fluxed up,
as usual
Normal empty content from RG. !
He cannot accept actual science that says humans only produce some 4-5% of CO2 flux, hence it only takes a small change in natural flux to totally negate it.
“In the informative Climate: The Movie, the 2022 Nobel physics laureate Dr. John Clauser thundered: “I assert there is no connection whatsoever between climate change and CO2 – it’s all a crock of crap, in my opinion.”
The movie was awful, filled with myths. Skeptical Science claimed 25 myths. I disagree with about one third of their claims. Other leftists had a field say with this movie that tried to convince viewers that CO2 did nothing and temperature changes always happen before CO2 changes.
Crazy Greek Koutsoyiannis claims instrumental carbon isotopic data of the last 40 years shows no discernible signs of human hydrocarbon CO2 emissions.
That is a lie
The measured C14 trend was down, as expected from large increases in manmade CO2
Humans added at least +250 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere since 1850.
That caused atmospheric CO2 to rise +140 ppm.
That means nature absorbed 110 ppm of CO2 in the same time period.
There are other slightly different estimates, but ALL show humans caused all of the CO2 increase.
Nature was a CO2 absorber as it has been over the past 4.5 billion years.
There is no need for C14 trends or C13 trends. Humans provided lots of CO2 and nature absorbe a large portion of CO2.
There is no need to debate.
There are two question the CO2 is 97% Natural Nutters can never answer. They never even try:
(1) Where did 250 ppm of manmade CO2 emissions since 1850 go to, if not into the atmosphere?
(2) What part of nature caused all, or almost all, of the +140 ppm CO2 rise of CO2 since 1850?
It would be possible to answer each question with just one word
But the AGW Deniers just ignore the questions and often reply with insults. They prefer to remain perpetually ignorant on why atmospheric CO2 increased +50% since 1850. They can not even explain their own beliefs.
Conservatives who will not admit that humans can affect the climate, as almost 100% of climate scientists have claimed since 1896, are fools.
They guarantee the CAGW hoax will never get refuted.
And they contradict the best skeptic scientists ON OUR SIDE, such as Lindzen, Happer and Spencer, who all agree that AGW exists.
The leftists LOVE the fact that conservatives contradict each other on the most basic climate science issues.
The worst quote in the movie was the one above by Clauser making a complete fool of himself
The evidence of manmade warming is much stronger than the evidence of natural warming after 1975
Natural warming evidence is incomplete because accurate measurements of global average annual solar energy blocked by clouds are not available.
We know the percentage of cloudiness has decline. But the temperature effect depends on types of clouds, height of clouds and timing of clouds. Data not available.
Also, if there are fewer clouds in the day, causing warming, there will probably be fewer clouds at night, causing cooling Night clouds contribute more to the greenhouse effect than CO2
Scientists know the increases in carbon dioxide are caused primarily by human activities because carbon produced by burning fossil fuels has a different ratio of heavy-to-light carbon atoms, so it leaves a distinct “fingerprint” that instruments can measure.
The steady downward trend in Δ14C of background air shows that the additional carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere must have a lower Δ14C value than what is already in the atmosphere.
CO2 from burning hydrocarbon fuels has no C14
Therefore, burning hydrocarbon fuels lowers the C14 measurements.
We can precisely calculate how much the Δ14C value in the atmosphere goes down when fossil fuel CO2 is added. It turns out to be about a 3‰ decrease in Δ14C for every 1 ppm of fossil fuel CO2 added to the atmosphere.
Carbon-14, a rare isotope of carbon created largely by cosmic rays, has a half-life of 5,700 years. The carbon in fossil fuels has been buried for millions of years and therefore is completely devoid of carbon-14. Careful laboratory analysis can quantify the reduction of carbon-14 in individual air samples, which in turn reflects the amount of CO2 coming from fossil fuel combustion and cement manufacturing (which also produces no carbon-14). Knowing the location, date and time when the air samples were taken, the research team used a model of atmospheric transport to isolate the fossil CO2 signal and trace it back to sources at the surface.
Figure 1, below
Δ14CO2 measurements of background sites. Blue square: Wellington, Newzealand [52]; black cross: Jungfraujoch, black box: Schauinsland, Europe [53]; semi-filled green circle: La Jolla, green triangle: Niwot Ridge, North America [54,55,56]; purple box: Waliguan, China [57,58]; other red symbols: regional background sites in China, Shangdianzi, Luhuitou, Li’an, Longfengshan [57].
Conservatives disagree with each other sometimes, and this proves conservatives are wrong.
So much better that we all agree on what the truth should be, and stick to the narrative the way you liberals do.
The first thing to do is read Koutsoyiannis’ paper.
For the rest, RG is using a quantity argument. The argument is, there are natural processes which absorb CO2. There are also human emissions of CO2. It turns out that CO2 is rising. Therefore, the argument goes, all the rise must be due to the human emissions. Doesn’t follow logically.
I don’t know whether human emissions are the complete cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2. But this argument is logically not convincing because there are lots of missing premises. Natural processes are a complicated set of different processes. Its not like a bath with one leaky plug and one faucet corresponding to human emissions.
Spell it all out and investigate the natural processes carefully… and you will end up with a variant of Koutsoyiannis’ paper. Maybe coming to the opposite conclusion, who knows? Do the work.
But you cannot get there by simple minded arguments which in effect draw on the bathtub analogy. And you can’t get there by citing consensus. Of course there is a consensus. The point is, Koutsoyiannis’ paper asks whether the consensus is right.
That crazy Greek lied about the C14 trend AS MEASURED.
That is the foundation of his false claim.
He is a science fraud
His nationality is neither here nor there. Neither is yours, mine or anyone else here. Whether right or wrong he is also certainly not crazy.
Would you mind posting a link and a quote to where he ‘lied about the C14 trend as measured’?
Absent that its just that crazy American making stuff up again.
I am a libertarian who voted for Trump in 2020 and will again in 2024
If conservatives can not agree that humans added a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere, then their efforts to refute CAGW are severely compromised
There are two basic climate science facts conservatives must recognize to be taken seriously
(1) Humans increased atmospheric CO2 by about +50% since 1850
(2) More CO2 increases the greenhouse effect
I hope the conclusion that follows will be similar to my own conclusion:
The actual global warming since 1975 has been pleasant for humans and beneficial for plant growth. More CO2 in the atmosphere will be good news, not a climate emergency.
I would not be taken seriously if I repeated these myths
CO2 is 97% natural
CO2 does nothing
There is no AGW
There is no greenhouse effect
Those myths are repeated by some not ver bright commenters here, sure they know more than almost 100% of climate scientists who lived since 1896
There is always an opportunity to debate the actual effects of CO2 in the next 48 years.
I have no logical reason to believe that after 48 years of very pleasant climate change, that the next 48 years of climate change would suddenly reverse to being unpleasant climate change.
Yet that is the leftist claim.
“And they contradict the best skeptic scientists ON OUR SIDE, such as Lindzen, Happer and Spencer, who all agree that AGW exists.”
There is a big difference between thinking AGW exists and thinking AGW has any noticiable effects on the Earth’s weather or climate.
There is no evidence showing CO2 has had any effects on Earth’s weather or climate.
It’s pure speculation to connect CO2 amounts to weather, or climate or temperatures.
I did not connect CO2 with weather
I stated correctly that famous skeptic scientists do not deny AGW.
In fact they estimate the effect of CO2 doubling with specific temperature numbers.
If they denied AGW, why would they bother estimating AGW from CO2?
“In fact they estimate the effect of CO2 doubling with specific temperature numbers.”
Yes, they “estimate”. An estimate is not a fact. And the estimates have a large range from 4.5C per doubling to zero, per doubling.
“If they denied AGW, why would they bother estimating AGW from CO2?”
Who is claiming they deny AGW? Just because CO2 is a greenhouse gas does not mean it is overheating the Earth, or even heating the Earth enough to be detected. Those are assumptions, and are not based on established facts.
Climate Science needs more facts and less speculation. At present, alarmist climate science is pure speculation. They haven’t even nailed down the basics, like whether CO2 net warms or net cools the Earth’s atmosphere after all feedbacks are figured in.
The Climate Science is not settled. Not even close.
A warming ocean emits CO2 and the ocean covers 70% of the planet. Some of the CO2 rise is there.
I have serious doubts about collecting atmospheric CO2 data from atop an active volcano, especially given no close or further offshore ocean temperature measurements.
I also have found nothing that accounts for the multiple vents on the island.
Some of the data has been reported confirmed by balloons.
On the other hand, NASA has confirmed that CO2 mixing in the atmosphere is not homogeneus, there are pockets and eddies and swirls.
I really wish skeptics would try, even once, to actually look things up, rather than thinking that they already know everything.
Believe it or not, the scientists are already aware that they sit on an active volcano, which is why they only collect samples when the wind is coming off the oceans and don’t collect samples when the wind is blowing from over the volcano.
NOAA Baseline Observatories
Global Monitoring Laboratory (GML) measures greenhouse gases at four of the Observatories: Barrow, Alaska; Mauna Loa, Hawaii; American Samoa; and South Pole, Antarctica.
Are they all wrong?
NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory
I never said it was wrong. I said to ask questions.
First of all, calling someone a skeptic is not an insult. All a skeptic is is one who asks questions.
Second, you are wrong about Mauna Loa. They actually mark samples collected when the wind is coming up slope for further evaluation because of CO2 source/sink from plant growth. They do not halt collection to wait for the right wind.
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html#:~:text=At%20Mauna%20Loa%20we%20use,red%20color%20in%20Figure%202.
So you don’t trust CO2 measurements
And you have a theory about volcano and vent CO2 releases with no data
And you have nothing to say about 250 ppm of manmade CO2 emissions since 1850 and the resulting +140 ppm increase of atmospheric CO2 since then?
Are they not connecte in your mind?
CO2 from volcanoes and geothermal vents has been measured. It is not a theory.
The amount of CO2 due to human activities is not zero. I never said that. I said the 250 ppm is a guess.
CO2 from human respiration has no C14.
Our breathing is part of a closed loop of carbon, which passes into and out of the atmosphere as plants and animals absorb and release it.
We do not need any isotope analyses to know that humans increased CO2 +50% since 1850
+50% is a guess, based on estimates of coal and oil purchases and more guesses on the efficiencies of the steam turbine power generator that use those fuels.
We do, actually. Because it is a logically possible alternative that there are many sources and sinks.
Its not like a bath tub with one tap and one waste. If you want to use the bath tub analogy, its like a bath tub with several taps, all independently turning on and off, and several waste ports, all independently opened and closed to varying degrees.
In such a configuration you cannot take one source and attribute change in level to its variations. You are looking at a rise which is the result of changes in several independent sources and sinks.
I agree that the rise in emissions coincides with a rise in the atmospheric ppm, so that certainly makes the rise in emissions a suspect. But to secure a conviction you have to give a complete account of the variations in the other sources and sinks. Is there, for instance, a rise in one of the other sinks that would have taken up all the human contribution were it not for a coincidental rise in another source?
Its not like a bath tub with one source and one sink.
This is the point of the isotope analysis and why we do need it. If valid, it proves the case. K’s argument is that it is not valid.
Excellent comment, Michel (plus several other good ones above). There is a touch of irony here, as the source of your quoted comment separately states: “I consider omitting contrary data to be a lie”.
.
The published paper that is the primary focus of comments here should be (like all hypotheses) assessed in two parts: first identifying the constraints on potential hypotheses that are imposed by the available data/measurements; and, second, on the consideration of potentially valid hypotheses in that context. My comments here relate solely to the former of these two distinct aspects, and these are based entirely on mass balance principles.
The data/measurements in this case are in relation to the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2 and these are measured and reported as δ13C (a term not mentioned once in the comments). (14C is of course not a stable isotope and is in such miniscule quantities that it can be ignored for this purpose, but there are also three stable oxygen isotopes, 16O, 17O and 18O, which leads to a minor overlap of mass for which a small correction is applied. See https://gml.noaa.gov/outreach/isotopes/mass_spec.html for more details.)
Since 12C-based isotopologues of CO2 comprise 98.9% of the total CO2, you can get away with making the approximation of blindly using total CO2 (as long as you are aware of what you are doing, of course), but you cannot ignore the fact that the 13C component must also satisfy mass balance principles (and you obviously would not want to omit any data that might be contrary!). I also note that not a single comment here refers to δ13C or to the application of Keeling plots, which are a key tool in the evaluation of these isotopic components being based on mass balance principles. As you, Michel, actually read the paper, you will understand my interest in the analysis therein (see acknowledgements).
To get straight down to the critical point, it is that the 13C/12C ratio of the incremental CO2 (expressed in the standard nomenclature of δ13C) has been -13‰ ever since direct atmospheric measurements began in the late 1970s. If you accept the Law Dome data, it is the same all the way back to 1760, or thereabouts. Two caveats: the values are the net effect of all the sources and sinks acting on the atmosphere and they are averaged over time periods of a few years, sufficient to compensate for fluctuations related to ENSO and Pinatubo. The first caveat is the most important to understand.
The value of -13‰ is the net effect of all source/sink interactions, so it’s not just the specific value that is important, it is also the consistency through time that must be explained. This remarkable consistency through time is demonstrated by the application of the material balance equations and linear Keeling plots based on direct atmospheric measurements, with the option to add the Law Dome ice core data, is very hard to envisage occurring if fossil fuels are an ever-increasing material contributor with a δ13C estimated at -28‰, especially if the Law Dome data are included.
Here is a Keeling plot of the South Pole data (data source: Scripps CO2 program). The linearity reflects the constant value (on average) of the δ13C of the incremental CO2 and the value itself is given by the intercept of the line (-13.0‰, r2 0.99).
Completely incorrect.
If the plants we eat have C14 in them, and they do, then we have C14 in us, and the air we exhale has C14 in it.
The only way for human respiration to have no C14, would be if you held your breath for a few hundred thousand years.
The oceans have 70 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. That’s where the CO2 went and into plants. That’s why the Sahara desert has greening almost equal to the size of France and Germany combined.
The bigger problem is that when the oceans sucked the CO2 out of the air in the last glacial period the CO2 dropped to 180 ppm.
Land plants need at least 150 ppm of CO2 for photosynthesis and when that stops the land plants die and go extinct and take the land animals down with them.
In the last glacial period, around 11,700 years ago the CO2 levels dropped to 180 ppm, only 30 ppm above the extinction level. The CO2 levels have been dropping in each successive glacial period.
The interglacial periods like the one we are in usually last about 10,000 years. This one has lasted longer than that so another glacial period may start at any time.
The Grand Solar Minimum that has just started may be the trigger to start the next glacial period.
C4 plants, 20% of total vegetation, can survive at 10 ppm CO2
It took +5 to +6 degrees C. of ocean cooling to absorb about 100 ppm of CO2
Inter-glacials are expected t last 10000 to 20000 years
There is no Grand Solar Minimum
Grand science fiction.
Solar cycles have no measured effect on the global average temperature
Make sure you kneel and genuflect to the East.
Thing is, plants preferentially “fix” C14..
…so with a 15% increase in plant life, you naturally get a draw-down in atmospheric C14.
Isotope analyses are not needed to prove humans added a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere; You CO2 is 97% Natural Nutters are fools.
Again, total DENIAL of the fact that humans only create a small amount of the CO2 flux.
RG => Data and fact denier extraordinaire. !
And of course, continues to get a free pass with his petulant insults. !!
Bloomberg’s Green Energy Research Team estimates $US200 trillion to stop warming by 2050, other estimates are similar if not larger.
There are about 2 billion households worldwide which is about $100,000 per household.
At least 90 percent of the households can’t afford anything extra, which means $1 million per household in the developed world.
Ask anyone if they would rather have a degree or two of warming and $1 million in the bank and I would bet that almost everyone would rather have a degree or two of warming and the $1 million in the bank.
Outside the tropics, people spend around 95% of their time indoors in heated buildings and in heated transportation, anyway.
I will donate my copper penny collection, worth about $5, to fight climate change and will refuse to buy a private jet.
Nut Zero is not really about the climate. It’s not even a real engineering project.
Nut Zero is a strategy for The Transition to Leftist Fascism.
We agree.
When you get “Gullible Nonsense” hyperventilating, It’s usually a good indication you’re on to something.
Did you read the paper?
And see the following paras for a discussion of this.
https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/6/1/17
All your arguments about C14 are irrelevant to the arguments in the paper. I don’t know whether Koutsoyiannis is right or wrong, but what is for sure is that you can’t show he is wrong by citing the consensus on C14.
The Crazy Greek falsely claims isotope analyses prove CO2 had almost entirely natural origins
He lied about C14 trends by simply ignoring them
I consider omitting contrary data to be a lie.
C14 trends show the expected decline from additional manmade CO2
If your argument is based on isotopes, it is lying to ignore C14
Mr. K comes up with a consensus of one person with his theory why the expected falling C13 to C12 Ratio does not really mean there is more manmade Co2 in the atmosphere.
But no isotope emissions trends are needed.
There are just two questions t answer that CO2 is Natural Nutters have ignored for the past five years, after I asked them:
(1) Where did 250 ppm of manmade CO2 emissions since 1850 go to, if not into the atmosphere?
(2) What part of nature caused all, or almost all, of the +140 ppm CO2 rise of CO2 since 1850?
These questions are ignored because the CO2 is Natural Nutters get confused and have no answers. They just have false conclusions unsupported by facts, data and logic. Beliefs. Not science. That’s why they are Nutters.
Anyone who claims the huge amount of manmade CO2 emissions did NOT increase atmospheric CO2 is a fool
Greek Mr. K is a fool
Because he claims to be a scientist, he is committing science fraud.
The headline needs to be re-written. From it I can’t tell if “Effect of Human-Caused Carbon Emissions on Climate is “Non-Discernible”” is the title of the paper or it’s the claim that is being challenged.
Another demonstration that air temperature trendology is a completely meaningless and pointless activity.
I don’t think enough attention is paid to the fact that the CAGW crowd has little to no proper scientific evidence to prop up their claims. They are coasting on the same script as they were in the 1990s. It is warmer now than in the 1800s, man is burning more fossil fuel now than in the 1800s, burning fossil fuel releases CO2, there is more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in the 1800s, sea levels are rising, glaciers are melting and we have models we can show you. None of this is science, it is more a history lesson.
We should sit down with the most prestigious scientist the CAGW crowd can produce and ask him/her give us your view of CAGW. When they are finished ask for proper science to back up their view. Once they have finished say okay this is 2024, what was your view and your scientific evidence in 2020? What was your view and evidence in 2010 and 2000 and 1990?
My guess is that their answers would basically be the same with a little added gibberish and fancier models. The point is they don’t have anything more today than they did in 1990 and they have been given trillions of dollars to show us something, anything. They have nothing, they are liars, cheats and robbers.
When doom pixie Greta Thunberg’s dream came true and we had the COVID deindustrialisation, did it show on the idiosyncratic shapes of the Keeling sawtooth? No ! Why not
IPCC use a flawed model of CO2 loss from the atmosphere. They claim several rates operate at once, with a lingering 37% lasting over one century. However, we can see clearly from the 1963 Carbon-14 Bomb Spike data the loss rate is steady over 60 years, corresponding to k_off of -0.062/y, or t_e of 16.1 y, or half-life of 11 y. The elimination of the near doubling of 14-carbon in 1963 should take about 110 years, 99.9% in 2073.
IPCC claim in AR4 Table 2.14, 21.7% of CO2 never leaves the atmosphere; 25.9% has a k_off_1 of -5.78E-03/y, or t_e of 172.9 y, or half-life of 119.8 y; 33.8% has a k_off_2 of -5.4E-02, or t_e of 18.5 y, or half-life of 12.8 y; and finally 18.6% has k_off_3 of -0.843/y, or t_e of 1.19 y, or half-life of 0.822 y. All this boils down to IPCC predicting 37% of CO2 remains after 100 years and 22% remains forever. The Bomb Spike data refute the IPCC model completely. There is no persistence of CO2 observed.
Here we only care about the loss of CO2 that was present in the atmosphere in 1963. We see a steady CO2 loss rate since 1963 without the IPCC predicted persistence. Thus, a single rate model accurately describes the observations. IPCC need some significant fraction of human emissions to persist in order to blame us for the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppmv in 1750 to about 410 ppmv today.
Human emissions cannot be the main cause of the observed CO2 rise. Governments must know these facts, but it is useful to perpetuate the myth of the CO2 monster. Controlling CO2 gives government control over every fossil fuel engine operating in the nation. We also see the control extending into agriculture. Of course, the 15-minute city prisons are justified by needing to reduce CO2.
The IPCC arguments are fully dismissed when we realize we are living in the Quaternary Ice Age, lasting 2.6 million years so far. Why? Because ice ages apparently cause atmospheric CO2 to drop far below average. Earth average CO2 is over 1500 ppmv for the past 600 million years. The last time CO2 dropped to levels comparable to the Quaternary Ice Age was during the Karoo Ice Age 300 million years ago. The CO2 minimum is dangerously close to extinction level for C3 plants during peak glaciation. Normal CO2 on Earth is about 4x higher than what it is now.
X post