by Pat Frank
Multiply not the entities — William of Ockham. paraphrased
This essay starts with a thank-you. Willis Eschenbach has very often been a source of insight or inspiration here at WUWT. Back on 23 February 2024, Willis posted “A Curious Paleo Puzzle,” in which he drew attention to the work of James Rae, et al., (2021) Atmospheric CO2 over the Past 66 Million Years from Marine Archives.” Rae, et al., had compiled benthic d11B and alkenone proxies to produce 66-million-year proxy record of Paleocene to Holocene atmospheric CO2 (ppm). Willis’ introduction set the present study in motion. So — thank-you, Willis.
Rae, et al., (2021) also included a 66-million-year record of d18O proxy global average sea surface temperature (SST), which Jim Hansen and colleagues had published in 2013. The usual CO2 –> T interpretation was advanced in both papers.
The solubility of CO2 is temperature-dependent. The existence of both a paleo-SST record and a paleo-CO2 record brought to mind the possibly that the rise and fall of SST was natural variation and atmospheric CO2 just followed — the Null Hypothesis.
The Null Hypothesis
The idea is that some independent natural process drove SST. The partial pressure of atmospheric CO2, P(CO2), followed SST-driven solubility. The Null Hypothesis proposes a minimalist explanation for Cenozoic SST and P(CO2). It requires no additional entity; namely the radiative forcing of CO2. A preliminary analysis looked favorable.
The idea is worked out in Cenozoic Carbon Dioxide: the 66 Ma Solution, just published and open access in MDPI Geosciences. The state of the field requires attention to the basics of the typical criticism. Two anonymous reviewers asked for extensive revisions and clarifications. The highly qualified academic editors evaluated the revised manuscript. Submission-to-acceptance took just over a month. The whole process was completely professional. MDPI Geosciences was the second submission journal. The first submission journal held the manuscript for 3.5 months, but could not find a manuscript editor. So, that submission was stillborn.
This post sketches the results; details in the paper.
SST, CO2, and Henry’s Law
Flood Basalt Volcanism: The first step was to find whether the oceans can warm without recourse to CO2 forcing. Meet the North Atlantic Igneous Province (NAIP). The NAIP, Figure 1, contains the crustal remains of the flood basalts that erupted 56 to 52 million years before the present (MYr BP), when Greenland split off from the Eurasian land mass.
The eruptions of the NAIP produced about 6.6 million km3 of basaltic magma over a period of 3-4 million years. Typically, the main phase of flood basaltic eruptions occurred over about half the time of the full duration.
Liquid basaltic magma emerges at about 1620 K and crystallizes at 1470 K. Taking into account the heat capacity and the heat of fusion of basalt, each 1 million km3 of magma releases enough heat to warm the entire 1.338 billion km3 of the global ocean by about 0.97 C. If the thermal plume rises to occupy just the top 1 km of the world ocean, the temperature change is about 3.6 C. These numbers assume the ocean captures all the released heat, which may not be the case.
Nevertheless, the thermal impact of the 6.6 million km3 of NAIP basaltic magma alone can account for the entire increase in SST entering the post-Cretaceous Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) (discussed below). Although the NAIP eruption was accompanied by large emissions of CO2 and other gases, there is no need to invoke CO2 forcing to account for the increased SST of the PETM.
Figure 1: Map of the North Atlantic Igneous Province (from Horni, et al., (2017))
The Miocene Climate Optimum is associated with the Columbia River flood volcanism. Evidence of flood basalt volcanism occurs throughout the Phanerozoic. Correlation of climate and submarine flood basalt magmatism across deep time is outside the scope of the paper, but would seem to be a fruitful area of research.
Henry’s Law: The next order of business was to derive the relation between SST and the atmospheric partial pressure of CO2, P(CO2), across the 66 million years of the Cenozoic. Figure 2 illustrates Henry’s Law, which describes the partition of CO2, as a soluble gas, between the gas phase and the solution phase.
Typically, most dissolved CO2 is the neutral molecule. However, a small fraction of the dissolved CO2 reacts with water to produce carbonic acid (H2CO3). At the alkaline pH of the upper ocean, H2CO3 is converted into bicarbonate (HCO3−) and carbonate (CO32−). Removal of H2CO3 into carbonate means additional CO2 converts into carbonic acid (Le Chatelier).
Current oceanic ratios are: CO2, 0.5%; HCO3−, 87.4%, and; CO32−, 12.1%. In Figure 2, right, the thin aqua vertical bar shows the anticipated impact of so-called “ocean acidification” from doubled CO2: slightly less carbonate, slightly more bicarbonate, and a hair more neutral CO2. The change is pH 8.1 to pH 7.9. The surface waters remain alkaline. They will not have been acidificationized.
Figure 2: Left, Henry’s Law governs the equilibration of CO2 between gas and solution phases (paired vertical blue arrows across the aqua-white interface). Right, the distribution of CO2 and carbonate with pH in sea-water-like salt solution.
Henry’s Law is deceptively simple. In words:
Gas-phase Partial Pressure = solution-phase concentration x the Henry’s Law Constant. 1
Henry’s Law constants vary with the molecule, with temperature, with the solvent, and with the presence of other solutes. Knowledge of any two Henry’s Law factors allows calculation of the third. Figure 3 shows the correspondence of the temperature-dependent Henry’s Law constants for CO2 in sea water (HS) with the trend of d18O proxy Cenozoic SSTs.
The temperature-dependent Henry’s Law constants for CO2 plus sea water closely track the d18O proxy Cenozoic SST.
Cenozoic CO2: The paper shows that Cenozoic P(CO2) can be reconstructed as:
P(CO2) = (fractional change in HS) x (total change in P(CO2)) + baseline offset 2
at each point across the Cenozoic.
The Rae, et al., (2021) proxy construct gave a mean P(CO2) ~1093 ppm at 66 MYr BP. At the end of the Cenozoic, the mean P(CO2) was 231 ppm during the Quaternary glacial/interglacial cycles. The Cenozoic P(CO2) = 1093 – 231 = 862 ppm.
The trend in Cenozoic P(CO2) can then be calculated using the value-added equation 2. Specifically:
P(CO2)i = [(dH0,i/dH0,t)x 862 ppm] +231 ppm, 3
where (dH0,i/dH0,t) is just the fractional change in the temperature-dependent Henry’s Law constant.
Figure 3: Blue line, d18O proxy estimate of Cenozoic SSTs (Hansen et al., (2013)). Red line, trend in Henry’s Law constant for equilibration of CO2 across the atmosphere/sea surface interface during the Cenozoic. The right ordinate is descending upwards.
The proxy reconstruction of Cenozoic P(CO2) proxy points of (Rae, et al., (2021)) provided a baseline reference series for the P(CO2) trends calculated from Henry’s Law. Figure 4 shows the comparison.
Figure 4: (yellow points), proxy P(CO2) over the Cenozoic from (Rae, et al., 2021)); (purple line), 15% weighted Lowess smooth. (blue line), Cenozoic P(CO2) calculated using equation 3; red line, weighted Lowess smooth. Inset: expansion of the most recent 7.5 Ma.
Two proxy SSTs for the PETM are available. The PETM maximum SST reported by Bijl, et al. (2009) is 35 C, while the Hansen, et al., 2013 reported a PETM maximum of 28 C.
The Bijl SSTs (blue line) gave a much better match to the P(CO2) proxy points. The PETM SSTs of Hansen, et al., (Figure 3), yielded PETM P(CO2) levels generally too low.
The calculated P(CO2) trend goes through the proxy CO2 points across the first 36 MYr BP of the Cenozoic. After that, P(CO2) declined all across the Cenozoic. At 30 MYr BP, the proxy suddenly dips about 300 ppm below the Henry’s Law line. However, after 22 MYr BP, the calculated and proxy slopes are nearly parallel.
At about 3 MYr BP, (inset), the proxy points and the Henry’s Law trend merge once again while P(CO2) dereases precipitously through the Pleistocene.
[CO2]ocean of the Paleocene
Of further interest, at the beginning of the Cenozoic the mean proxy estimates of SST, 297 K, and of P(CO2), 1093 ppm, allow a Henry’s Law estimate of the equilibrium concentration of CO2 in the ocean 66 million years ago. This estimate is [CO2]ocean = 3.41×10-5 Molar (M).
If the [CO2]ocean had remained constant at 3.41×10-5 M up through the present, then Henry’s Law equation 4 can reveal how atmospheric P(CO2) would have evolved through the Cenozoic given the variation in SST and under the condition of constant marine CO2.
P(CO2) = Hi x 3.41x10-5 M 4
where Hi is the temperature dependent Henry’s Law constant. Figure 5 shows the result.
Figure 5: (points), proxy estimate of Cenozoic P(CO2) from Rae, et al., (2021); (purple line), Lowess smooth; (blue line), evolution of Cenozoic P(CO2) driven only by SST at constant [CO2]ocean = 3.41×10-5 M; (red line), Lowess smooth. Inset: the most recent 7.5 Ma.
At the PETM maximum (52 MYr BP), the calculated line is close to the proxy smooth, but passes through the lower region of the proxy CO2 points. This means SST alone seems unable to account for the full PETM increase in P(CO2). The volcanic activity of the NAIP probably released considerable CO2.
Heading into the Eocene and Oligocene (50-35 MYr BP), the constant [CO2]ocean trend is close to the proxy points. But after 30 MYr BP, the constant CO2 line is much higher than the proxy P(CO2) smooth. This result shows that [CO2]ocean was not constant across the Cenozoic.
An interesting revelation is that if [CO2]ocean had remained constant at 3.41×10-5 M, the post-glacial Holocene atmospheric CO2 would have been about 775 ppm. This assumes the same decreasing trend in SST to its modern value. In the Null Hypothesis, cooling would have occurred because tectonic magmatism was generally low, apart from episodic excursions such as during the MCO.
Under this scenario, industrial emissions would have increased atmospheric CO2 to about 900 ppm. There would have been no conceivable rationale at all for climate alarm, or for a war against fossil fuels. The world would also have been much greener, and the more prolific agriculture would have required conversion of far less arable wildland.
In any case, the decreasing SST alone clearly cannot account for the decline in P(CO2) after 35 MYr BP.
The modern [CO2]ocean: Henry’ Law applied to the observed post-glacial mean Holocene SST (292 K) and P(CO2) (295 ppm), yields the modern [CO2]ocean = 0.998×10-5 M.
That is, the Cenozoic has seen a loss of [(3.41 – 0.998)/3.41]x100 = 71% of the equilibrating CO2 that was present in the ocean of the Paleocene.
At constant pH, Le Chatelier says the concentration of oceanic CO2 cannot decline without a loss of bicarbonate and carbonate (Figure 2).
Therefore, the 775 – 295 = 480 ppm difference, between the a modern P(CO2) at constant [CO2]ocean, and the observed P(CO2) of the pre-industrial Holocene, quantifies the known massive Cenozoic draw-down of carbonate, which is discussed in Bestland, 2020, Dutkiewicz, et al, 2018, von Strandmann, et al., 2021, and Rae, et al., 2021.
This process began around 30 MYr BP and continued right through the Pleistocene (Figure 5).
It is unlikely that the pH of the ocean has changed much. But the modern buffer capacity is greatly diminished relative to the deep past.
Quaternary Glaciation and CO2
The falls and rises of P(CO2) across the Quaternary glacial/interglacial cycles were driven by changes in SST alone, because they occurred without any significant change in [CO2]ocean.
The 420 kYr VOSTOK ice core records the ~100 ppm range of the global average P(CO2) cycle during the last four glacial/inter-glacial periods.
Knowing the present [CO2]ocean (0.998×10–5 M), and the d18O proxy SST over the 420 kYr period (Hansen, et al., (2013)), permits a direct calculation of the glacial/interglacial P(CO2) cycle of the Quaternary.
If the proxy SSTs are correct, the Henry’s Law P(CO2) should reproduce the VOSTOK record. The direct Henry’s Law calculation is:
P(CO2) = Hi x 0.998x10-5 M, 5
where Hi is the temperature-dependent Henry’s Law constant.
Figure 6a shows that the d18O proxy SSTs yielded P(CO2) cycles that are compressed relative to the point-range of the VOSTOK record (Figure 6a, red line).
This means the temperature-dependent Henry’s Law constants were not correct. Therefore, the d18O proxy SSTs are not correct.
Figure 6: a. (points), 420 kYr of P(CO2) from the VOSTOK ice core (Petit, et al., (1999); VOSTOK data). (red line), Henry’s Law P(CO2) calculated using the d18O proxy SSTs of Hansen, et al, 2013, and the mean Quaternary [CO2]ocean = 0.998×10-5 M. b. (points), VOSTOK ice core CO2; (blue line), P(CO2) calculated using equation 2; (green line), P(CO2) directly calculated using [CO2]ocean = 0.998×10-5 M, and Henry’s Law reflecting the SST adjusted to have an 11 C glacial/interglacial range.
The accepted global average glacial/interglacial d18O proxy SST range is 4-5 C. But this range is clearly too small to reproduce the VOSTOK P(CO2) record.
Testing alternatives, only an SST with an 11 C glacial/interglacial range did a good job of reproducing the VOSTOK record (Figure 6b).
Also, only 11 C cycles yielded the correct 280 ppm P(CO2) of the pre-industrial Holocene at 0 kYr BP.
In support of this result, Cuffey et al. 2015 reported an 11.3 ±1.8 C glacial/interglacial range for West Antarctica, which they described as, “two to three times the global average.“
However, it was the Cuffey West Antarctica 11 C range that reproduced the VOSTOK global P(CO2) series (Figure 6b). This implies that 11 C is a global average range of glacial/interglacial SST, rather than confined to Antarctica.
Figure 6b shows two calculated lines. The blue line was calculated under the Null Hypothesis, equation 6
P(CO2)i = [(dH0,i/dH0,t)x 116.5 ppm] +182 ppm 6
where 116.5 ppm is the VOSTOK P(CO2) range and 182.5 ppm is the VOSTOK offset minimum.
The green line used equation 7 — the direct Henry’s Law calculation, with the modern value of [CO2]ocean = 0.998×10-5 M and Henry’s Law constants reflecting SSTs with a global average 11 C glacial/interglacial range:
P(CO2)i = Hi x 0.998x10-5 M, 7
where Hi is the temperature-dependent Henry’s Law constant.
The lines of the alternative calculations almost superimpose.
An aside
The Quaternary ice ages began only after about 45 million years of ocean cooling. Equivalently large Milankovitch orbital forcing must have been present in the Cretaceous and throughout the Cenozoic, but did not produce glaciations.
Possibly, glaciations appeared because the cooling ocean eventually entered a potential energy surface that includes a bifurcation of climate states. In this view, Milankovitch orbital forcing with a lower energy flux produces a glacial icehouse climate. When orbital forcing moves to a higher energy flux, an interglacial cool-house climate is produced. The energy transition causing the climate state shift can be 100 Wm–2 at northern latitudes, and the sensitivity to the flux change appears to have been brought into being by the low SST of the Quaternary. Extended ocean cooling due to long-term quiescence of submarine flood basalt magmatism may also explain snowball Earth events.
Conclusion
The behavior of P(CO2) across the 66 million years of the Cenozoic is consistent with the Null Hypothesis.
High SSTs are produced by large scale submarine flood basalt magmatic events capable of warming the entire global ocean — about 1 C for each million km3 of eruptive basaltic magma. When an extreme magmatic event warmed the global ocean, marine CO2 outgassed into the atmosphere. When flood basaltic magmatism was quiescent, the global ocean cooled and atmospheric CO2 was absorbed.
The rises and falls of P(CO2) can be understood as physical re-equilibrations across the ocean surface in response to variations in SST, and changes in the concentrations of oxides of carbon caused by volcanism or carbonate drawdown.
Although extreme volcanic events released copious CO2, radiative forcing by CO2 is not needed to explain the high SSTs of the PETM, or of the Oligocene warm period, or of the Miocene Climate Optimum.
During the Quaternary, the cycling of P(CO2) is entirely consistent with Henry’s Law re-equilibration, as SST varied over an 11 C glacial/interglacial range.
For the past 66 million years, atmospheric CO2 can be understood as a neutral spectator molecule, right up through the present.
A short commentary
What current research reveals about consensus climatology:
1. Climate models cannot predict air temperature: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
2. Absent climate models, there is no evidence whatever that CO2 emissions have done, are doing, will do, or can do, anything to global air temperature.
3. The surface air temperature record is climatologically useless: here, and here, and the published field calibration experiments referenced in those papers.
4. Absent a reliable historical air temperature record, the rate or magnitude of modern climate warming are unknowable. Only the poleward migration of the northern tree line and a lengthened growing season indicate a recently warmed climate.
5. The record of the past 66 million years shows that atmospheric CO2 is driven, not a driver. This work.
As a general and unavoidable conclusion: the dogma that the radiative forcing of CO2 controls global mean surface air temperature should be set aside.
The party’s over.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
My deep thanks to Anthony and Charles for posting my essay. I don’t know what we would do without them.
I also don’t mind publicly admitting my admiration to both of them for their courage to stand up in the face of a hostile culture. A culture intent on enforcing ignorance.
Also Charles was remarkably patient in resolving some special character glitches. A special thanks for that.
Pat,
Please allow me to second that and to endorse your appreciation of the good work of Charles & Anthony.
I am working through your article, wearing my aged Geochemist hat. It read OK on the first quick pass, but there is some detail I have yet to ponder.
Some readers might try to claim that Man-made CO2 is different to volcanic, but Nature might not find any difference.
A weakness of some competing models is their comparative lack of attention to global surface warming from the rather hot rock masses of volcanic eruptions into oceans. These happen somewhere on earth most of the time, from tiny to significantly large and there is good reason to accept that they will warm oceans and affect atmospheric CO2 levels. (There is no known offsetting cooling process). One cannot leave them out of the mix of factors affecting CO2.
Geoff S
Thanks, Geoff. Looking forward to your thoughts.
“The idea is that some independent natural process drove SST. The partial pressure of atmospheric CO2, P(CO2), followed SST-driven solubility. The Null Hypothesis proposes a minimalist explanation for Cenozoic SST and P(CO2).”
Yes,of course. The only thing that can disturb that null is if some entity independently puts a whole lot of new CO2 into the atmosphere. In the past, that sometimes happened with spurts of volcanic activity, as is well documented. The other thing, that is happening now, is that some entity digs up and burns many Gtons of carbon. That is the unique situation we have now, and it is what we have to deal with.
The new CO₂ that entered the atmosphere during the PETM didn’t appear to have any impact on SST. Just the opposite. SST had an impact on CO₂.
There’s no reason to think that CO₂ now has obtained powers it lacked 56 million years ago. Powers that cannot, by any known physical theory, be ascribed to it.
“The new CO₂ that entered the atmosphere during the PETM didn’t appear to have any impact on SST. Just the opposite. SST had an impact on CO₂.”
You have no way of telling that. CO₂ went up; SST went up. CO₂ pushing SST is fine by Ockham.
If the PETM did put vast amounts of CO₂ into the air, and you say SST outgassing was responsible, then what happened to the volcanic CO₂?
The proxy points show more PETM CO₂ than can be reproduced by SST outgassing. But the increase in CO₂ partial pressure, caused by SST, is very close to the Lowess smooth of the PETM proxy points.
The amount of increase in CO₂ partial pressure beyond SST outgassing remains ambiguous.
The NAIP flood magmatism that occurred coincidentally, provided sufficient energy to have heated the global ocean. CO2 forcing is unnecessary and therefore causally superfluous.
By the way correspondence of the partial pressure of CO₂ with the Henry’s Law calculation directly makes SST the prime causal suspect.
If CO₂ radiative forcing was the cause of increased SST, then the total increase in CO₂ partial pressure would be the volcanic emitted CO₂ plus the SST-outgassed CO₂.
Total CO₂ partial pressure should then greatly exceed the partial pressure of CO₂ predicted from the Henry’s Law calculation alone, across the entire Cenozoic. But it doesn’t.
Therefore, CO₂ radiative forcing is causally excluded. It is superfluous to the explanation.
“By the way correspondence of the partial pressure of CO₂ with the Henry’s Law calculation directly makes SST the prime causal suspect.”
But you actually say, in the article:
“This means SST alone seems unable to account for the full PETM increase in P(CO2). The volcanic activity of the NAIP probably released considerable CO2.”
And even in the previous comment
“The proxy points show more PETM CO₂ than can be reproduced by SST outgassing.”
Guess what “prime” means.
The CO₂ proxy points include considerable scatter. I’ve no inclination to decide which are valid and which not. However, my language is careful so as to not exclude possible excursions.
If you want to make hay quoting out of context, be my guest.
Figure 6 in the paper shows proxy SSTs and the P(CO₂) calculated from them. Where is the evidence for extraneous radiative forcing? Recall heating by the NAIP flood magmatism.
“Recall heating by the NAIP flood magmatism.”
I don’t believe the story about NAIP magma as a significant global heating force. We’re told that it would raise the 1.338e18 m^3 of ocean by 6.6*0.97C over, say, 3 million years. That is 1.338e18*6.6*0.97*4.2e6(=SH)=3.6e25 Joules, which sounds like a lot.
But over 3e6 years=3e6*365*24*3600=9.5e+13 secs. That is 3.8e11W, or 380 GW. But the US electrical grid generates about 550 GW, which is a mighty effort, but does very little to heat the Earth.
Or, put another way, it is about 0.00076 W/m2 for the Earth. Normal geothermal heating is about 0.1 W/m2. Solar is about 240 W/m2.
The calculation from heat capacity is straightforward. Submarine flood basalts release all their heat directly to the ocean, where the heat is captured.
So far as I know, the US is not submerged.
In any case, the US grid capacity is about 550 GWhr, not GW. 1 GWhr = 1E9 Joules/sec*3600 sec = 3.6E12 J. Per year that’s 3.2E16 J.
1 million km³ of basaltic magma is worth about 5.4E24 J. Spread over 3E6 years that’s 1.8E18 J/yr. For ~3E6 km³ of magma that’s ~169x the US output per year, every year, for 3 million years, at the bottom of the ocean.
Much of the magma emerges during more vigorous eruptions over about half the time of the full event..
You’re free to not believe any of that.
“In any case, the US grid capacity is about 550 GWhr, not GW”
What does that mean? It’s an amount of energy, not power. Do you mean 550 GWhr/day?
Capacity is about 1200 GW. 550 GW is average production.
“release all their heat directly to the ocean, where the heat is captured”
That is no use for increasing SST then.
“169x the US output per year”
On your figures, it is 5.4e18 J/yr, or 1.5e15 WHr/year, or 1500 TWh/year. US produces about 4.2 TWh/year.
As for bottom of the ocean, geothermal adds there roughly 0.1*3e14W=3e13W, or 31e21 J/yr, far larger than your magma.
energy is the potential to do work measured in joules
power is the rate at which work is done measured in joules/time
a Whr is how much energy is produced during an hour, i.e. (joule/hr) * hr = joules
The proper measure for the US grid capacity is how much energy it can produce over an hour (GWhr), not its instantaneous production possibility in joules/sec (watt).
Climate science is pretty much enamored of “averages”. Therefore the average production of energy *should* be proper metric.
“As for bottom of the ocean, geothermal adds there roughly 0.1*3e14W=3e13W, or 31e21 J/yr, far larger than your magma.”
Uhhhh, the impact of CO2 is far less than the impact of the sun’s insolation. If you are going to say something is insignificant then apply the same logic to everything.
W-sec = J.
Whr/day is only useful in billing customers.
Heat from flood basalt magmatism is in addition to geothermal flow. The analysis is in Section 3.5, equations 11, 12 and 13.
∆T (K) = (Joules liberated)/(sea water heat capacity × mass of the ocean)
= (5.4E24 J)/(3.991E3J/kg-K × 1.386E21 kg) = 0.98 K
The time range for release of the bulk of that energy is unknown, but is a good deal less than the 3-4 Ma time-range of the full NAIP magmatism event.
Geothermal heat loss through the ocean crust is about 0.12 W/m². Over 1 million years, that’s,
0.12 W/m²×3.57E14 km²×3.15E13 sec/1MYr = 1.27E27 J.
This background thermal input is about 254 times the NAIP release.
However, the NAIP production would have been in addition to background, assuming the modern mean crustal heat flow can be applied to the PETM.
But let’s go further. How much does 1.27E27 J heat the ocean (neglecting the heat capacity and heat of fusion of ice)?
(1.27E27 J)/(3.991E3J/kg-K × 1.386E21 kg) = 230 K.
That’s 43 K below freezing.
Assuming that this is a uniform mean ocean temperature in equilibrium with radiant heat loss to space, and the world ocean heated only from below by geothermal flow, therefore with an inverted vertical thermal gradient, the ocean would be frozen over (see snowball Earth).
Today’s mean ocean temperature (benthos to SS) is about 278 K; some 5 K above freezing and 48 K above the estimated temperature achievable from geothermal flow alone.
Presumably the additional energy needed to keep the ocean liquid is provided by the sun.
Nevertheless, the 5.4E24 J provided by the NAIP flood basalt is over and above the mean geothermal flow plus the heat provided by the sun.
So, it’s quite reasonable to suppose the NAIP flood basalt could have raised ocean temperature ~1 K or SST ~3.5 K.
An interesting aside, if the extra 48 K represents the thermal input of solar irradiance, then the geothermal heat flow need only fall by 2.7E26 J = 19% to negate solar input and lead eventually to a freezing ocean.
“How much does 1.27E27 J heat the ocean (neglecting the heat capacity and heat of fusion of ice)?”
That is a pointless calculation. It assumes the ocean started at 0K, which didn’t happen. It started at a temperature not much below where it finished.
“This background thermal input is about 254 times the NAIP release.”
I think you have low-balled the 254, but even so, it’s tiny. And geothermal is tiny too, relative to insolation.
Often you and others here want to say that the heat is released deep down, so would last longer. But you then want to say that it explains a high SST. You can’t have it both ways. SST is determined by the sum of incoming SW and downwelling IR. Geothermal is about 3 orders of magnitude smaller. And this lava heating is about 3 orders of magnitude smaller again.
” 48 K above the estimated temperature achievable from geothermal flow alone”
That is the nonsense of your calculation, which was how much would geothermal heat the ocean starting at -273C, over a million years. But it didn’t start at -273, and has been going for thousands of millions of years.
“So, it’s quite reasonable to suppose the NAIP flood basalt could have raised ocean temperature ~1 K or SST ~3.5 K.”
Why? That is a figure totally plucked out of the air, and ridiculously high.
“That is a pointless calculation.”
Rather, it estimates the ocean temperature that may be maintained by geothermal heat flux alone.
“SST is determined by the sum of incoming SW and downwelling IR.”
When the deep ocean is liquid. How is the liquid state maintained? Not from solar. Snowball Earth demonstrates that.
“That is the nonsense of your calculation, which was how much would geothermal heat the ocean starting at -273C, over a million years.”
Not necessarily. Excluding solar, one would suppose the ocean to come into thermal equilibrium. A steady geothermal heat flux from the crust, compensated by heat loss from the ocean surface. Liquid at the bottom, frozen at the surface; mean temperature 230 K.
“totally plucked out of the air,”
The temperature rise is based on released energy and sea water heat capacity.
Starting with your first equation
0.12 W/m²×3.57E14 km²×3.15E13 sec/1MYr = 1.27E27 J.
that is geothermal flux density*area of ocean*1 million years=Heat added.
Well, the area is actually 3.57E14 m² and there is no basis for dividing by 1MYr (which makes the units wrong), but in fact the numbers come out right.
“But let’s go further. How much does 1.27E27 J heat the ocean (neglecting the heat capacity and heat of fusion of ice)?
(1.27E27 J)/(3.991E3J/kg-K × 1.386E21 kg) = 230 K.”
That is just the calorimeter equation, assuming no losses
Heat input rate * Δtime = SHC *Mass * Δ T where SHC=Specific Heat Capacity
You’ve identified Δ T with T, which means you are starting from T=0. Your heat input rate is just the geothermal heat flux of 0.12 W/m2.
If you let it run for 2 million years, the temperature would have been 460 K. This is no way to relate flux and temperature.
The right way is to do a flux balance at the surface
Influx = SW + DWLWIR (down IR) + geothermal = upflux(SST)
The upflux is a currently unknown function of SST, but we know about it from experience, since SW at least varies (diurnal and seasonal). Geothermal is usually not mentioned, because it is so much smaller (about 1/2000 of SW)it makes a tiny difference to SST through d(upflux)/dT. And the magma makes a difference three orders of magnitude smaller.
“Well, the area is actually 3.57E14 m² and there is no basis for dividing by 1MYr”
Sorry about using km rather than m. Sometimes my fingers add units automatically. 3.15E13 sec is the number of seconds per 1 million years. Dimensional analysis requires keeping track of units.
“Your heat input rate is just the geothermal heat flux of 0.12 W/m2.”
Yes, so? The heat capacity is for sea water at 15 C, actually, not 0 K.
“If you let it run for 2 million years, the temperature would have been 460 K. This is no way to relate flux and temperature.”
The comparison of geothermal energy is with the energy liberated by the 1 million cubic km of basaltic magma, over 1 MYr, which approximates the time of the vigorous NAIP eruption. The time range is set..
There’s no point to 2 million years. Why didn’t you choose 60 million years? You could have then claimed the calculation produces an ocean with more than twice the temperature of the solar surface.
The calculations ignore equilibrium heat loss at the surface. The comparative time frame sets the limit.
“The right way is to do a flux balance at the surface”
No, it’s not. Solar flux has nothing to do with geothermal heat or the NAIP energetic release.
“And the magma makes a difference three orders of magnitude smaller.”
And yet, the temperature rise comes directly from the calculation specifying released energy and sea water heat capacity. The point is not to calculate SST. It is to calculate the temperature effect of the added energy.
“The heat capacity is for sea water at 15 C, actually, not 0 K.”
You are completely missing this very elementary point. We learnt the equation you are using at school. The heat capacity is a property of the water; the specific heat capacity (SHC) 3.991E3J/kg/K that you used is largely independent of temperature in normal climate range. The heat content is proportional to T. The equation that you have used says:
ΔHeat = HeatInputRate * Δt /*1.27E27 J/Millionyrs*/
=SHC*Mass*ΔT /*3.991E3J/kg/K *1.386E21 kg*ΔT */
It tells you that if you pump a certain amount of heat in, and it stays there, then the temperature will rise by a certain increment : 230K.
But you have used it to say the temperature will reach 230K. Only if it started at 0K.
Now of course the ocean is not insulated; the heat won’t stay there. But you’ve even misinterpreted the elementary calc that you did.
“And yet, the temperature rise comes directly from the calculation specifying released energy and sea water heat capacity. The point is not to calculate SST.”
It is to calculate SST. As you said at the start
“The Null Hypothesis sets sea surface temperature (SST) as the baseline driver for Cenozoic P(CO2).”
And you can only calculate SST by balancing fluxes at the surface. SW is the big influx, with DWLWIR. Geothermal heat from below is a tiny addition. And heat from this magma is a tiny fraction of that.
“But you have used it to say the temperature will reach 230K. Only if it started at 0K. ”
No. 230 K is the equilibrium ocean temperature maintained by geothermal heat. Heat will be lost from the surface.
“Now of course the ocean is not insulated; the heat won’t stay there.”
Your point 2, which negates your point 1.
“It is to calculate SST. As you said at the start”
“The Null Hypothesis sets sea surface temperature (SST) as the baseline driver for Cenozoic P(CO2).”
No SST is calculated. The SST is provided by the 𝛅¹⁸O proxy series published by Hansen, et al., (2013), There’s no SST calculation in the paper.
The impact of the NAIP flood basalt is to add heat to the existent SST, in this case as derived from the proxy.
“No. 230 K is the equilibrium ocean temperature maintained by geothermal heat.”
You have actually used this equation correctly in your paper, and identified the result is ΔT:
And of course it is two orders of magnitude less. Your concepts are so wrong that I haven’t bothered about the arithmetic, but in the paper your heat added is
1320*997*2.7e18+1.82e24=5.37e+24 J per million km^3, and so for 8.78 km^3, the total is 4.6 e^25 J.
But in your calc above yielding 230K, you have used 1.27e^27 J. If you had used the correct heat you would have a final temperature of 85K, which is even more absurd.
“You have actually used this equation correctly in your paper, and identified the result is ΔT”
The increase in ocean temperature from 1 M km³ of magma. So what?
“And of course it is two orders of magnitude less.”
What’s two orders of magnitude less? And less than what?
“so for 8.78 km^3, the total is 4.6 e^25 J.”
You mean for 8.78 million km³? The entire volume of the NAIP flood basalt? Why would that be of thermal interest?
For one thing, no more than about 3.35 million km³ might have been in contact with the ocean. Not the entire volume. The rest was likely continental.
Continental flood basalt volcanism will not heat the ocean. It may indeed cool the climate (cue Pinatubo).
Of the part that was in contact with the ocean, the efficiency of heat transfer is not known.
My point was to establish that the NAIP is a reasonable source of heat for the PETM. Large amounts of heat could be transferred to the ocean, per million km³ of marine flood basalt. That’s it.
“But in your calc above yielding 230K, you have used 1.27e^27 J.”
Look at the calculation again. It concerns the totality of global geothermal heat flux, not the maximum possible number of Joules of the NAIP.
Here’s what I wrote, “Geothermal heat loss through the ocean crust is about 0.12 W/m². Over 1 million years, that’s,
“0.12 W/m²×3.57E14 m²×3.15E13 sec/1MYr = 1.27E27 J.”
Recall that you’re the one who first raised the issue of normal geothermal heating. I eventually decided to follow it a bit.
Look, Nick, let me explain something. The Null Hypothesis in the paper is the opening of an argument showing a physically reasonable case can be made to pursue the line of inquiry.
It’s not the be-all and end-all of the topic. Very much remains unknown. Such as how much heat exactly, the NAIP flood magmatic event transferred to the oceans. Or how the heat was distributed.
All I show here is that it’s physically reasonable that significant thermal transfer from the NAIP magmatic event could have happened. And that a reasonable volume of NAIP magma could have heated the global ocean significantly — even to PETM levels.
It also shows that the PETM P(CO₂) is consistent with ocean thermal outgassing as the primary mechanism of production.
Science proceeds one small step at a time. No one leaps from inception to a final theory.
That’s what the paper is: one small step. The opening of a door to an alternative explanation; one that evidently had been overlooked.
“What’s two orders of magnitude less? And less than what?”
The 0.97K here vs the 230K derived with the same formula above
You can see the absurdity of the latter if you ask what would be the temperature after adding 0 J? 0 K?
“All I show here is that it’s physically reasonable that significant thermal transfer from the NAIP magmatic event could have happened. And that a reasonable volume of NAIP magma could have heated the global ocean significantly — even to PETM levels.”
And all I’m showing, with a bit of quantification, is that there is far too little NAIP magma heat to do that, by several orders of magnitude.
Equations 11-13 quantify that you’re wrong.
Eq 11-13 are the ones that say if you added a million km^3 lava you would heat the ocean 1K. That assumes all the heat remains, which won’t happen on a million year time scale. You then calculated in the same way that geothermal over a million year would heat the ocean 230 K. Obviously that didn’t happen either, but it gives an idea of the relative effectiveness.
“That assumes all the heat remains, which won’t happen on a million year time scale.”
How do you know the time scale was a million years? And how do you know heat loss wasn’t attenuated by solar heating of the ocean surface?
“Obviously that didn’t happen either,…”
Obviously? How do you know that steady geothermal heat doesn’t warm the ocean?
“How do you know the time scale was a million years?”
That was your postulate.
“And how do you know heat loss wasn’t attenuated by solar heating of the ocean surface?”
Solar heating, down IR, up IR and evap are the big fluxes that determine SST. Geothermal is next to nothing, and NAIP lava is about threew orders of magnitude less.
“Obviously?”
Obviously the ocean didn’t heat by 230 K.
You can do these calcs of what would happen if various heat fluxes went into the ocean, and stayed there, with mixing. Solar takes about a year to warm the ocean 1K. Geothermal takes about 3000 years. Your calc says the NAIP lava takes about a million years.
None of that means anything. The heat doesn’t stay there. You can’t get a useful result that way. You have to do a proper thermal analysis with flux balances.
Solar is not capable of warming the deep oceans. Maximum the sun delivers to the surface is ~30 MJ/m^2 over a 24hr period.
https://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/properties-of-sunlight/isoflux-contour-plots
This is enough to increase the temperature of the upper ~7m 1K.
At the end of the night the added energy is lost again to the atmosphere/space. Due to the seasonal warming/cooling this surface heat does not reach much below ~500m (mixing/conduction)
Notable exception the very salty outflow waters of the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf.
https://www.ewoce.org/gallery/Map_Indian.html
SST do NOT show radiative balance temperatures like on our moon.
https://www.diviner.ucla.edu/science
The reason the average surface temperature on Earth is >90K higher than on the moon are our geothermally heated oceans.
Although the isolation is not complete, the solar heated mixed layer prevents water warmed at the ocean floor to rise to the surface, except mostly around Antarctica where the surface temps are low enough.
The atmosphere does play a role by reducing the energy loss to space,
but NOT by increasing the surface temperatures.
“That was your postulate.”
No, it was not. My calculation was for 1 million km³. Time-range was unspecified.
“Geothermal is next to nothing, …”
So your position is that geothermal heating has played no role in maintaining the liquid state of the ocean.
“Obviously the ocean didn’t heat by 230 K.”
That wasn’t the question.
“Geothermal takes about 3000 years.”
A <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1999)0292.0.CO;2” target=”_blank”>good estimate is about 20000 years. Climate model estimates range up to 7000 years.
“Your calc says the NAIP lava takes about a million years.”
No, it doesn’t. Time range is unspecified and left open.
“None of that means anything.”
It means 1 M km³ of basaltic magma provides enough thermal energy (Joules) to heat the entire ocean by about 1 K.
“The heat doesn’t stay there.”
The PETM did cool, it’s true; over about 5 M Yr,
“You have to do a proper thermal analysis with flux balances.”
Solar flux heats ~15% (top 500 m) of the total ocean volume. Alone, it is insufficient to keep the ocean liquid. Geothermal heating does that.
Simple calculation with the average geothermal flux vs the average depth of the oceans results in ~5000 year for 1K warming potential.
No compensation for the ocean floor not being flat etc.
Another source is the magma erupting at the spreading ridges. Depending on the numbers used this can add up to ~10 km^3 per year.
Also a reasonably steady energy source.
The proposed mechanism can explain the temperature swings in Earths history, including the Faint Young Sun Paradox.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/ben-wouters-influence-of-geothermal-heat-on-past-and-present-climate/
Very interesting and provocative analysis at TallBloke’s Ben. I thought I’d had an insight and you had it all worked out in much more detail 10 years ago. 🙂
Was quite a learning proces 😉
Guess I’m pretty good in distinguishing between “need to know” and “nice to know” knowledge. Too many subjects to know everything about them all.
Imo this setup is far superior to the GHE in explaining our current and past climate. So far little progress in attracting the attention of the right people.
Actually you’re the first one to show the ability to think outside the GHE box.
I’m guessing you have a geology background?
I’m wondering about the ~150 MY cycle that is visible in the warming/cooling during the Phanerozoic.
I’m thinking pulsating mantle Plumes, much like pulsating thermals.
Once a Plume has left the core edge, it takes some time to reheat the magma and create the next Plume.
I’m a chemist. Come to this from afar, perhaps like you.
You seem to have a pretty comprehensive idea about the physical mechanism.
I’d encourage you to write it up and get it published. A good idea always gets picked up, even if not immediately.
Courtillot and Renne “On the ages of flood basalt events” provides a complete list, and will be worth having to provide timing. It’s open access. Your list of events at Tallbloke’s, doesn’t include the NAIP or the Columbia River flood basalt, both associated with warm periods.
One might expect the continental flood basalts to cool the climate, and the oceanic FBs to warm it. Meanwhile, the oceans are maintained in the liquid state by steady geothermal heat, as you describe it.
It seems like a complete and explanatory theory. Someone will eventually propose it in print. Why not you?
I have an aviation background. Seems the good ideas about climate have to come from outside climate science 😉
In the > 10 year since my post I did have discussions with relevant people. But the counter argument has always been the very small geothermal flux relative to the solar flux.
Mentioning the hot deep mines in eg South Africa where the continental geothermal flux is much smaller than the oceanic one makes no difference.
I’ve ran out of ideas to explain the mechanism to unwilling people.
Too much prestige and money invested in this GHE industry.
The list I used is this one:
http://www.largeigneousprovinces.org/0events
Both these events are listed as C(ontinental), so I did not include them.
Thanks, I’m glad to know about that site. Very informative.
Nearly half the NAIP was oceanic, apparently. One has to read the geological evaluations to get the necessary detail.
It looks like LIP.org generalizes the dominant (C,O) mode. But LIPs apparently can be multimodal.
You’ve made a good case that geothermal is significant over wide areas and long times. Also that solar heating affects only the surface, and affects the depths by slowing heat loss.
If I can offer advice, don’t worry about getting agreement from professionals. Read the literature, evaluate the data, do the calculations. If they work out, write them up, find a journal and publish.
Post a summary at some science site. It’ll get noticed.
If the subject is politically invested, it may well take a while to find an editor with moral courage. I’ve run into quite a lot of that. Persistence is the only viable road in such cases.
But you seem to have a very good case. It’s worth the running.
“No, it was not. My calculation was for 1 million km³. Time-range was unspecified”.
You said\;
“The comparison of geothermal energy is with the energy liberated by the 1 million cubic km of basaltic magma, over 1 MYr, which approximates the time of the vigorous NAIP eruption.”
You’ve shifted your ground. That quote is not from the paper.
It was from a comparison of NAIP energy with geothermal energy, over a convenient 1 M Yr range.
It looks like it is stated that in the 3 million year period global SST increased by 5degC. What happened to the top of atmosphere emitted energy flux? How much did it increase by? It looks like you are treating the earth as a closed system.
The high PETM temperatures persisted for upwards of 10 million years. Earth, which is open to space, has performed your experiment.
Evidently radiation at the TOA took its own good long time to bring temperatures down.
To match the geothermal flux it takes ~200 km^3 magma erupting into the deep oceans every year. Is not happening and probably has not happened. Point you miss is that solar only heats a very shallow surface layer a bit. This layer isolates the deep oceans almost completely from the atmosphere. Cooling of the deep oceans can only happen at very high latitudes, where no warm surface layer is present and ice forms creating brine. If this cooling is smaller than the geothermal warming, the deep oceans warm and subsequently the sun increases the SST’s to a higher level.
Good point. Also, heating from the surface (solar) is not comparable in effect to heating from below (geothermal).
They are comparable as both have to deal with the enormous heat capacity of water. Solar only increases temperature of the top layer of the oceans a bit, maybe 10-15K on top of the geothermally created energy content of the deep(er) oceans.
This way the ~50% of solar that actually reaches the surface can still cause the observed surface temperatures. No need for DWLWIR heating or other improbable mechanisms. Atmosphere only has to reduce energy loss to space. Talking averages this would be from ~395 W/m^2 at the surface to ~240 W/m^2 at TOA. In this process the trace gas CO2 has no relevance.
I just read through R. X. Huang, (1999) <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1999)0292.0.CO;2” target=”_blank”>Mixing and Energetics of the Oceanic Thermohaline Circulation
From the mixing rates he discusses, a reasonable estimate of the mean time of ocean turnover is about 20,000 years — twice the duration of the entire Holocene.
It seems that warmed SST waters can mix with cold bottom waters, but only very slowly.
Given the enormous volume difference, the added warmth of surface waters will do little to benthic heat content.
You do not know the difference between a joule and a watt.
Would you care to point out where I got that wrong? I don’t believe I did.
You assert that CO2 pushing sea surface temperature up is compatible with Occam. This would inevitably lead to thermal runaway, which has never been observed.
Hi Nick
If you look at the CO2 stations in the airflow paths from eruptions after an event there is NO signal of increased CO2 at all in the atmosphere. The same for large scale bush fires.
So where does this CO2 go to ??
Regards
Do you have data on that?
The Null Hypothesis can’t be rejected so it must be accepted, paraphrase a famous trial attorney.
The magmatic provinces’ eruptions heated the ocean, not the CO2 they released into the air, or the warmer water caused to bubble out, like beer going flat, according to Henry.
That is the entire reasoning for the scientific method.
Who will not accept that conclusion? Step right up and put foot in mouth.
Oh, Hi Nick.
See my reply above. Magma cannot provide anything like enough heat to have global effect over millions of years.
and CO2 most certainly cannot provide any heat AT AL. !!
Any moron thinking magma cannot heat the oceans is either brain-dead or a DENIER of reality.
“The Null Hypothesis can’t be rejected so it must be accepted”
That’s not how it works. You never accept the Null Hypothesis, only fail to reject it.
Nonsense.
“The sky is blue during the daytime”
Have fun in life not accepting that null hypothesis.
He has a special talent here.
Not only do I not accept it, I positively reject it. From personal observations the sky can be all sorts of colours during the daytime.
“That is the unique situation we have now, and it is what we have to deal with.”
The only ‘situation’ we are dealing with now are people who make it a problem when it isn’t.
The null hypothesis has not been ‘disturbed’ by man-made emissions. The null hypothesis this article addressed still stands, as CO2 still follows SST in modern times, as it did for the past 800K years, and now with Pat Frank’s work, for over 66 million years. Our emissions have not halted nor overwhelmed this mechanism, thus our emissions didn’t change the null hypothesis.
The Mauna Loa Keeling curve annual cycle follows the annual insolation cycle’s ocean warming effect, followed by the ocean’s CO2 solubility effect, like clockwork, every year.
Bob, can you compose a post for WUWT, with a step-wise outline of the full analysis? I’d like to read it, and I’m sure many here would do, too.
You might also like this , Pat.
Mid 2024 More Proof Temp Changes Drive CO2 Changes | Science Matters (rclutz.com)
And my own graph showing the same thing… “rate of CO2 increase” follows ocean atmospheric temperatures…
Yes.
How many significant influences determine how all the hundreds / thousands of unique climates around the world work, yet THE SCIENCE developed a fixation / obsession with a walk-on bit part player like CO2.
It makes no sense any way you look at it.
It’s ideology / religion / blind belief in a “package” of CO2 = Climate Catastrophe, therefore windmills + sunshine catchers = Salvation.
The UN has the loudest voice on the planet and their IPCC are the main ones pushing so-called “climate change” caused by CO2.
Which then gets amplified by the MSM and leftist parties.
Add WEF, WMO, WHO
All that “carbon” used to be in the atmosphere.
Human emissions are only a small percentage of total CO2 flux, and swamped by natural variability.
The only “unique” situation we have now, is having a bunch of scientifically illiterate computer hacks (like Nick) trying to use anti-science models with erroneous assumptions to control every aspect of human life.
Yes, they need dealing with !!
Nick, please explain why the worldwide covid shutdown of human activities had no effect on CO2 levels.
Why should it? Quantify, please.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/22/anthropogenic-co2-and-the-expected-results-from-eliminating-it/
CO2 levels in 2020 increased slightly less than expected from a 6% decline of emissions.
The difference between the actual CO2 increase and pre-Covid expected icrease minus the 6% was insignificant.
Yep a 6% decrease from only 4% of the total flux…. 0.24%
Of course it didn’t register.
What does register in the data is the close match, with a slight lag, of “rate of CO2 increase”, to ocean atmospheric temperatures..
:Yep a 6% decrease from only 4% of the total flux…. 0.24%: BENASTY
The climate buffoon blasts yet ani other ignorant burst of verbal flatulence!
Expected atmospheric CO2 increase in 2020
about +2.5 ppm
Expected increase minus 6%
+2.35 ppm
Measured CO2 increase in 2020 versus 2019
+2.56 ppm, 9% higher than expected.
Not even close to enough evidence to refute the fact that manmade CO2 was responsible for all of the +140 ppm CO2 increase since 1850
2019 411.65 ppm
2020 414.21 ppm
Increase: +2.56 ppm
You left out the rest of the carbon cycle.
Six to 10% over the full year! However, data are available at a finer temporal resolution with the decline being about 14-18% during the ramp-up phase when the change should be more sensitive to a decline in emissions.
“The other thing, that is happening now, is that some entity digs up and burns many Gtons of carbon. That is the unique situation we have now, and it is what we have to deal with.”
The increased atmospheric CO2 due to fossil fuels is not remotely unique. In the past, CO2 was far higher than today and life then was even more abundant than today.
There is no climate crisis. During the modern global warming, human welfare has dramatically increased (e.g. the OECD human welfare index). Deaths from extreme weather have dramatically fallen. Food productivity (e.g. wheat and corn) has dramatically increased.
The planet is dramatically greening. The causes of this greening, according to a major NASA study? Increased CO2 and – oh, the irony – global warming.
Today the rate of sea level rise is no greater than it was during the Boer War – the same is true of glacier retreat. Both of these started in the early nineteenth century, at the end of the Little Ice Age, and have been remarkably constant since then.
Speaking of the Little Ice Age, storms were far, far worse during the LIA compared to today (e.g. H.H.Lamb). We are incredibly lucky to have lived in such relatively benign conditions. During the LIA storms were so extreme that people thought they must be caused by people. Many “witches” were judicially murdered after being accused of the crime of “weather cooking”. Seems we haven’t evolved much since then….
It seems clear that the warming effect of CO2 is very small. The ice cores clearly show that CO2 follows the temperature and therefore cannot be the main driver of temperature. The planet is warming as it emerges from the Little Ice Age, and any modest warming added by CO2 is a huge benefit. Of course, cold kills far, far more people than heat, so the warming has certainly saved lives.
So what exactly is it we have to “deal with”?
Chris
One thing is a concise definition of CO2 being a “forcing function.”
None of the multiple definitions revealed in a Google search were anything close to the way it is used by the Climate Syndicate.
Increase CO2 in the atmosphere increases the partial pressure at the water air interface and more CO2 is dissolved. Much of that CO2 is chemically changed to carbonic acid, calcium carbonate, and others, meaning the ocean makes room for more CO2 to dissolve based on natural ocean processes.
You just want to argue.
I agree with this essay and the inevitable conclusion is that the ice core record fails to capture large short term ocean driven variations in atmospheric CO2.
The ice core cycles were 100,000 years long with ocean temperature changes of 1 degree C. causing changes in atmospheric CO2 of 15 pp to 20 ppm
A one degree C. change might have taken 20,000 years. That means short term fluctuations are almost irrelevant
Might have? Thanks for the SWAG.
And if CO2 goes up 400ppm for 100 years and falls back to 280 ppm over the next 500 years we’re does that show up?
VOSTOK glacial/interglacial temperature cycles are 11 C, and the corresponding swing in atmospheric CO₂ is ~100 ppm.
The VOSTOK 11 C is air temperature, but was the range necessary to reconcile the Henry’s Law calculation (paper Figure 8)
Makes sense that an earth based, massive event(s) spurred global change. I have always doubted that automobile exhaust, although plentiful in crowded cities, really makes up a small percentage of the global gas budget. Gas budget being oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, etc.
H20
Couldn’t agree more with this.
Calculated the same 1K warming potential of the entire oceans for every 1 million km^3 magma.
Also have a look at the Ontong-Java event, some 80 million km^3 magma erupting in the deep oceans.
The often dismissed geothermal flux (~100 mW/m^2) has an even larger warming potential:
1K every ~5000 year. It takes ~200 km^3 magma erupting every year to match this.
Once you accept that the temperature of the deep oceans is the result of geothermal warming in all its forms vs the cooling at (very) high latitudes, it becomes possible for the sun to increase the temperature of the mixed surface layer some to the observed values.
This means that the atmosphere is not increasing the surface temperature (GHE) but only has to reduce the energy loss to space. This is done using accepted science, while the GHE must use unrealistic methods to have the atmosphere increase the temperature of the deep oceans.
Interested in discussing the underlying mechanism.
Ocean heat has increased most at 45S in the region of the Southern Hemisphere Ferrel cells. Ocean heat retained in the NH is also in the region go the NH Ferrel cells.
The only way that ocean heat can increase at depth in decades is to increase net precipitation either to slow upwelling or hasten downwelling. This is consistent with ocean heart increasing in the region of the Ferrel cells because they are zones of positive net precipitation over an annual cycle and the precipitation is increasing due to more atmospheric water as the shifting peak sunlight and y warms the NH and increasing solar activity warms everywhere.
The latitudes that are gaining the most ocean heart are the same latitudes with net radiation loss. That means the ocean heat uptake is a result of increased heat advection from the tropics; nothing to do with CO2.
If CO2 did what it is supposed to do then the entire ocean surface would be warmer and there would be no way to get the surface heat transported to depth because the change in heat at depth is a function of changes in upwelling or downwelling,
RicWill,
(Thinking aloud, always fraught).
It seems that Hadley and Ferrel cells form spontaneously in the atmosphere and stay there, although with some positional change. Can we assume the same with ocean upwelling/downwelling? If so, this requires some energy input for continued water movement which eventually will lead to cooling (energy subtraction) somewhere. Is this in your balances?
Pat Frank does not deal much with ocean heating from sunlight that also has positional change. In a sense, there is competition as to which form of change dominates, in simple, reduced terms, the cloud cover/sunlight change hypothesis or the volcanic ocean warming/Henry’s Law hypothesis.
Do you have a feel for relative importance?
Pat, you also?
Geoff S
The significance depends on time frame.
There can be rapid and significant atmospheric changes of geological origin such as volcanoes and earthquakes. We deduce that asteroid impacts have been significant through geological tiemscales but would have been rapid and catastrophic climate events.
More subtle changes in decadal range are caused by ocean oscillations.
The change in solar activity has an impact over century scale. The precession cycle from century to millennia can have enormous impact because it is the dominant driver of glaciation and interglacials.
Then there are the slower or compounding geological processes of plate movements causing changes in ocean circulations.
The precession cycle will have growing impact on Earth’s climate over the coming centuries as the peak sunlight in the NH accelerates from its lowest around 1500, Summer solstice zenith at 45N has risen 0.8W/m^2 since bottom. Will rise 2W/m^2 in the next 5 years, 3W/m^2 in the following 500 years to top out 80W/m^2 above the 1500 level in 9,000 years. Massive increase in peak sunlight. That will result in dramatic increase in snowfall.
In the near future, the most rapid changes will be observed around the Mediterranean as it continues to warm up. I expect to see Northern Africa to experience increasing monsoon conditions. The atmosphere over Red Sea does not go into cyclic instability but the rising temperature of the Mediterranean may trigger convective instability over the Red Sea that will increase the extent of the monsoon,
I am also watching the development of permafrost along the Arctic coastline, Greenland and Iceland. So far Greenland is the only region with clear gains in permafrost. There are few northern slopes on the Arctic coast of Alaska also showing rising permafrost. These are the early signs that the present interglacial is terminating.
100%
We are nearing the peak of the current grand solar maximum and will soon be experiencing a transition to a grand solar minimum.
I’ll just add, Geoff, that heating from flood magmatism will likely be much greater than heating from insolation.
Note the slow cooling of the ocean after about 35 MYr BP, with the catastrophic cooling during the Pleistocene. Whatever mechanism caused that cooling, solar irradiance could not overcome it.
So, there doesn’t seem to be any guarantee that the physical processes influencing the climate now are the same as those that operated in the past.
Solar only heats the upper few hundred meters of the oceans. At depth no more solar heating at all, only geothermal flux plus magma erupting.
Cooling is mostly by brine sinking into the deep oceans.
Apparently the balance between the two has been negative on average for the last 80 MY.
See this image from this study:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011JC007255
Shows a reconstruction of the ocean bottom temperatures.
Some cooling rates:
Thank-you. That is a very useful paper.
Pat,
I get confused when folk try to estimate flood maga heating of the ocean and compare it with geothermal heat.
Flood magma IS geothermal heat brought closer to the surface. It should not be assessed with static math because the process is dynamic. After the intitial flood, the hot rock remains connected to the deeper magma and presumanbly some form of customary thermal conductivity math can be applied to show it stays hotter longer than if it was isolated after emplacement.
Geoff S
Agreed, Geoff. Ocean temperature will come into equilibrium with a constant flux of geothermal heat. Heat loss from the surface will balance heat influx from the bottom.
The static calculation was just to ballpark a reasonable thermal outcome from mean geothermal heat flux. It doesn’t include any dynamics.
These cells are driven by the uneven heating between equator and poles plus the rotation of the Earth (Coriolis effect)
Downwelling (to depth) is mostly brine that is created when ice forms at the surface.
Upwelling happens when surface winds blow away warm surface water and expose the underlying colder water (El Nino/La Nina)
I see no way at all to transport surface heated water deeper than ~500m. All the ocean water below that is not touched by whatever does the warming at the surface.
Sun provides max ~30 MJ/m^2 over a 24 hr period in the tropics. Just enough to warm the upper ~7m 1K. Typical seasonal warming/cooling looks like this example at OWSP.
The deep oceans are a world in itself, warmed by the warm(er) crust plus magma erupting into them ans isolated from the atmosphere by the warm surface layer.
Only water that moves from the surface to the ocean floor I’m aware of is the brine that forms during ice creation, eg AntArctic Bottom Water.
The Atlantic circulation has water sinking up north and flowing sound near the ocean bottom. That is a heat transport mechanism.
Another example of bottom water forming. Point is that esp. AABW is the coldest, densest water in the oceans. These waters only sink after they have lost energy to the atmosphere/space and are cold(dense) enough to sink.
They do not carry energy acquired at the surface to the ocean floor and are thus not a mechanism to warm the deep oceans.
So there are no “critical desalination points” after all.
I think the increase in cloud cover in the northern hemisphere slows the loss of heat from the ocean in winter, which is also related to perihelion in January.
> The behavior of P(CO2) across the 66 million years of the Cenozoic is consistent with the Null Hypothesis.
Thousands of climate scientists across the planet suffocate under their lack of funding.
Very nice piece of work. Some supporting observations, and arguments against a predictable alarmist counter.
We know the climate models are wrong.
The counter that this post covers slow change over many thousands of millennia, while the AGW concern is the ‘rapid’ anthropogenic change past five decades. That counter-argument is false for three reasons.
Thanks, Rud, It’s good to get help with preparation. 🙂
The ~ 100-year resolution of the VOSTOK record and the success of Henry’s Law seems a pretty good indication that ∆SST drove ∆P(CO₂) across that 420 kyr.
Also, the fact that Henry’s Law, using SST as the driver, does a good job tracking much of the paleo P(CO₂) record leaves no evident room for exogenous radiative forcing.
Submarine flood magmatic heating raises SST, P(CO₂) follows. Nothing else in view. That story seems to play out.
About the models, specifically hindcasting as it is known. That is merely curve fitting.
If the plan is to “Multiply not the entities” it seems strange to start with a hypothesis about what besides CO2 could have caused ocean warming. In addition to volcanism, ocean warming can also be caused by decreased cloudiness, allowing more solar shortwave to penetrate down. Isn’t the idea here to abstract from what the source might be?
What is unique about the “consensus” view that ocean warming has been caused by CO2 is that it can only be true if some other source of ocean warming is also at work.
That’s from the old argument that a colder thing can’t warm a hotter thing: “back radiation can’t warm the surface when the surface is hotter than the upper troposphere that is supposedly causing the warming.”
Yes, but the heat trapping gases in the atmosphere can slow down the rate at which energy is lost from the surface. It can slow down the cooling.
This also applies to the oceans. Atmospheric heat trapping can only slow down the rate at which heat is lost from the oceans. It cannot directly transfer energy to the oceans. It cannot be the source of the heat, the loss of which it is slowing down.
Something else has to be the source of the heat, with volcanism and solar penetration of the top hundred feet of the ocean being two known sources of ocean heating.
There is no evidence that CO2 alters the lapse rate or the natural temperature gradient.
H2O.. yes… CO2.. nope.
Early Cenozoic global SST was about 25 C, rising to about 35 C at the PETM, relative to about 19 C now. These high thermal states could not have been caused by insolation.
If so, that means the SST rise also could not have been caused by CO2, which has no capacity on its own to heat anything. It can only slow the rate of heat loss.
But can solar heating really be as clearly capped as you are saying? Are you sure you are not just looking at the magnitude of variation in total solar insulation?
Because I was suggesting a much bigger source of possible variation: the amount of TSI that reaches the oceans, instead of being blocked by clouds.
Do the calculation. See what drops out. Let us know.
“It can only slow the rate of heat loss.”
There is no evidence it does that.
CO2 does not slow the heat loss. CO2 scatters IR and that is a thermally neutral procees.
How does CO2 “scatter” IR? Does it also thermalize heat to other molecules? How would thermalizing heat be a thermally neutral process?
IR is electromagnetic.
Thermalize means to achieve thermal equilibrium.
The IR energy inserted into the valence electrons does not alter the kinetic energy or momentum of the molecule. Base on quantum probability, the electron emits a quantum of IR but because it is, in simple terms, orbiting the nucleus, the energy can be emitted in any direction of a spherical geometry. The IR emission occurs between 80 pito seconds and 1 nanosecond.
A photon is not a particle. It is not some bullet that is fired, although many visualize it as such.
So half of the time, the photon energy is emitted upwards but with a random angle and half downwards. Than neither is purely up or down is the definition of scattering.
It is also significant that the radiated photon is likely a single point emission. That means it creates a spherical EM wave front, half of which reflects off the molecule creating a hemispherical wave front.
The collision with other molecules can transfer kinetic energy to the CO2 molecule. So CO2 does thermalize heat.
CO2 scatters IR and that is a thermally neutral process.
IR is not thermal energy. One has to be certain which is being discussed as the two are much often conflated.
“IR is not thermal energy. One has to be certain which is being discussed as the two are much often conflated.”
Radiative flux is a flow of energy via electromagnetic radiation. If IR is an electromagnetic radiation then it is transferring energy. Microwave frequencies can heat a potato in a microwave oven – that *is* a transfer of thermal energy. An IR heater in your living room can heat your body sitting in a nearby chair. That *is* a transfer of thermal energy.
I think you are trying to differentiate between the radiation itself and its effect. Radiation itself has no temperature even though its energy level is determined by the temperature of the radiating body. That energy level can have thermal impacts on an absorbing body.
Wrong.
Microwaves effects on water are different. The EM causes the molecule to rotate faster.
We feel heat from IR not because IR is heat, but because of the skin depth penetration of the EM.
Yes, EM has its effects, but it is not a transfer of thermal energy. The interaction of EM is varied based on materials involved and that interaction has thermal effects, but it is not a transfer of thermal energy.
“Wrong.
Microwaves effects on water are different. The EM causes the molecule to rotate faster.”
Huh? It is ALL transfer of energy.
Radiant flux is measured in joules/sec, i.e. energy per time
You are trying to say that rotational movement is somehow different than elastic movement or translational movement.
They are all the same. Rotating faster means the angular kinetic energy of that molecule has increased. Some of that angular rotational energy can be transferred to another body in a collision.
Heat is not just translational movement. Heat is the total energy of a molecule, rotational, translational, and elastic.
Translational movement only defines *temperature*. Temperature and heat are not the same thing.
Radiation physics says that vibrationally excited CO₂ collisionally transfers translational (kinetic) energy to nitrogen and oxygen, That process slightly increases the intensity of the black body radiation bath.
However, no one knows how the climate responds to the increased K.E. Cloud response may mean no discernible increase in sensible heat.
I’ve read that. It fails the logic test. IR is sinusoidal. Any vibration effects are sinusoidal, meaning a net zero in change of momentum of kinetic energy of the entire molecule. There are lots of hypothesis out there, many of which are fabrications. They sound good but on closer examination are not reflective of reality.
Thermally, a collision exchanges kinetic energy between molecules. That is how heat the transfer of thermal (i.e., kinetic energy) energy works in a gas..
IR adds energy to the valence electrons. Again, that does not alter the momentum or kinetic energy of the molecule and is not thermal.
I have no idea what a “black body radiation bath” is.
CO₂ is vibrationally excited by absorption of a 15μ photon. It relaxes back to ground state on collision with N₂ or O₂. Transfer of the vibrational energy on collision increases the N₂ or O₂ K.E.
John Houghton discussed that in his 1995, Comment on The roles of carbon dioxide and water vapour in warming and cooling the Earth’s troposphere.
“For absorption and emission of radiation to couple with the kinetic energy of the molecules and hence with the thermal regime it is necessary for the collisional de-activation time of the molecular vibrations to be very much shorter than the radiative lifetime. This is the case in the lower atmosphere…”
By black body radiation bath I just mean the black body radiation field of the atmosphere.
“Thermally, a collision exchanges kinetic energy between molecules.”
Rotational movement *IS* kinetic energy. Vibrational movement *is* kinetic energy. Translational movement *is* kinetic energy.
You seem to be trying to limit “heat” (i.e. thermal energy) transfer to only translational kinetic energy. As Pat has pointed out that isn’t the case. Translational movement only determines temperature, not total heat.
Ocean warming puts more water vapor in the air and increases cloudiness. That is a self-regulating process.
One cannot trap heat. By definition heat is the flow of thermal energy from a higher temperature to a lower. If it is trapped, it does not move. If it does not move it is not heat.
Stop using social language and start using science. Assuming back radiation is real, that is electromagnetic energy, not thermal. Differentiate between thermal and EM energy. Consult Eunice Foote.
Aside from those nits, you have a good contribution.
I only read the conclusion, and it was immediately obvious the author is a climate crackpot.
The logical error is to use very rough estimates of historical climates with ZERO manmade CO2 emissions, to jump to false conclusions about the long term effects of manmade CO2 emissions.
Until the 1960s, changes in atmospheric CO2 were mainly a feedback to changes in ocean temperatures.
Starting in the 1960s, manmade CO2 gradually became a climate forcing that could impede Earth’s ability to cool itself, mainly causing warmer winters.
” … there is no evidence whatever that CO2 emissions have done, are doing, will do, or can do, anything to global air temperature.”
PAT FRANK
Pat Frank is a fool who apparently believes almost 100% of scientists since 1896 have been wrong. Articles with conclusions like this one make the website into a laughingstock.
RG , yet again, produces absolutely nothing to back up his AGW-cult mantra.
Scientific empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2. ?????
We are still waiting… RG is still empty..
The only crackpot around here… is you. RG !!
…
And still going on with the fake and erroneous 100% consensus garbage… hilarious! :-).
“… there is no evidence whatever that CO2 emissions have done, are doing, will do, or can do, anything to global air temperature.””
Where is your counter evidence, RG !!
bleating and ranting… is not evidence of anything… but seems to be all you have.
His evidence if a lot of laptop jockeys in white lab coats nodding at each other.
He gave it his all … and was found wanting.
Great argument by insulting dismissal, Richard. You’ve qualified yourself for employment by a green NGO or for a position in government.
My comment was about your conclusion
The article was obviously about wild guesses of historical climates with ZERO manmade emissions of CO2.
Your conclusions about manmade CO2 could not be supported by historical climate guesses that do not include manmade CO2
There is a 127 year old consensus that there is a greenhouse effect and CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 by 50% and that should cause some amount of global warming.
The most famous skeptic scientists with science Ph.D.’s, such as Lindzen, Happer, Spencer, Christy, Curry and many others all agree that CO2 causes a small amount of global warming.
You seem to think they are all fools.
I’ve got news for you:
You are the fool.
And it is a public service for me to point that fact out: You are an AGW denier — the type of person leftists love to laugh at. You make it tough for conservative to refute CAGW scaremongering. Denying AGW is the wrong argument.
EL Nino Nutter BeNasty2000 will soon be here to falsely claim there is no AGW and manmade CO2 is only 4% of atmospheric CO2. When BeNasty agrees with you, that means you have gone off the deep end.
“wild guesses of historical climates with ZERO manmade emissions of CO2.”
Where are those guesses? In fact, the paper doesn’t discuss historical climates at all.
The conclusion comes from the Null Hypothesis analysis of 66 million years of P(CO₂) and SST. CO₂ appears to have done nothing but respond. Are you suggesting that CO₂ gained some power over climate in the recent past, that it did not exhibit over the prior 66 million years?
Science is not a democracy. Consensus carries no weight.
“that should cause some amount of global warming.” No physical theory is in hand to credit that claim.
Your opinion of Lindzen et al., is critically worthless. So is your opinion of me.
“You are an AGW denier”
Actually, I’m an AGW no-one-has-any-idea-er. The difference of that with your take will be obvious to any science-minded person.
I’ve come to suppose that people like you just want the argument. Your invariable recourse to violent diatribe gives you away. Some people just need an enemy. Their life has no meaning without an enemy. So, they manufacture one, and indulge in abuse.
You are part of the reason Wikipedia can claim: “Watts Up With That? (WUWT) is a blog promoting climate change denial”
CO2 is involved in three main processes
(1) A climate feedback
(2) A climate forcing
(3) The annual seasonal carbon cycle
You are implying (2) is a fantasy
That’s why you are a fool
There is also a much longer carbon cycle over billions of years, with nature gradually absorbing CO2, and storing it as carbon in rocks, shells, oil, gas and coal. Volcanoes, vents, and forest fires did not stop the gradual reduction of atmospheric CO2
Burning hydrocarbon fuels is the first time the gradual decline of atmospheric CO2 has been reversed.
The fact that no one knows exactly how much manmade CO2 will affect the climate in 100 to 200 years does NOT refute the 127 year-old consensus that CO2 DOES affect the climate.
You are implying all evidence of the effects of CO2 collected since 1896 are worthless.
That’s why I correctly identify you as a climate crackpot whose beliefs tarnish the reputation of this website.
Why not write another article that actually supports the conclusions in this article: All the reasons you believe AGW is a fantasy.
There are many good articles here. I recommend some of them every morning on my climate and energy blog. This and other AGW denier articles are rare exceptions.
The Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog
Wikipedia? bwahahaha
“Burning hydrocarbon fuels is the first time the gradual decline of atmospheric CO2 has been reversed.”
False.
You didn’t read the article and then you insult the author. You are a disgrace.
Bingo.
“Actually, I’m an AGW no-one-has-any-idea-er.”
This is what so many of us are. The measurement uncertainties are such that what is actually happening is part of the Great Unknown. CAGW is nothing more than seeing something in a cloudy crystal ball without even knowing exactly what is making the cloud in the ball!
If there truly is warming then *what* is causing it is, to me at least, more important than trying to quantify it down to the milli-kelvin with data that doesn’t support that level of resolution.
You have advanced our knowledge of possible causes with this investigation. Thank you.
Glad you’re there, Tim, thanks.
Jim, too. 🙂
“My comment was about your conclusion”
And that conclusion was totally correct and based on actual science.
Something you are incapable of doing.
Yapping mindlessly is not science.. Try harder. !!
Oh… and we are STILL waiting for your empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
Or are you saying it is immeasurable. ! 😉
“CO2 causes a small amount of global warming.”
Waiting for you to show measurement that tell us how much.
Waiting… waiting… yawn !! zzzz !
Waiting for you to show us the warming in UAH data other than at El Nino events…
Waiting… waiting… yawn !! zzzz !
127 years of evidence by tens of thousands of scientists, and perhaps 100.000 scientific studies. None of interest to AGW denier BENASTY who even “thinks” Lindzen, Happer, Spencer, Christy and Curry, all Ph.D. scientists. are fools, and he knows better!
A climate buffoon with a huge ego!
The temperature increase due to CO2 is due to the mixing of Cp and yes, CO2 will cause a minute increase in temperature. However, that is like so many small numbers legitimately omitted.
Says the child-minded wanker. To repeat…..There is no evidence whatever that CO2 emissions have done, are doing, will do, or can do, anything to global air temperature.
IPCC quote….We have not detected the expected signal.
Conclusion. Greene believes an hypothesis/theory is evidence. He is a legend in his own mind.
Certainly forcing something…
I still am at a loss to understand how CO2 forces anything.
The Climate Syndicate has hijacked a term and redefined it for the purpose of pushing a narrative.
When they can’t explain something, the create new physics, such as positive feedback in clouds.
It is not the temperature that drives weather. It is energy. The earth is an energy system and until it is addressed that way, we will be lemmings pushed off the cliff (aka tipping point).
CO2 is *NOT* a forcing. The CAGW advocates like to equate CO2 to being a blanket or clothes that you wear that can *raise* your temperature. First, the blanket or clothes are not a heat source, they can’t “raise” anything. Put clothes on a statue of George Washington in the winter at Washington, DC and see if the temp of the statue goes up.
CO2 *can* act as an insulator which changes the heat loss gradient but there must be a heat source for the gradient to exist at all. All CO2 could possibly do is raise minimum temperatures by changing the heat loss gradient and the asymptotic level of the exponential decay at night. But minimum temps going up doesn’t raise maximum temps, the sun is what generates maximum temps, not the starting temp at sunrise.
“But minimum temps going up doesn’t raise maximum temps, the sun is what generates maximum temps, not the starting temp at sunrise.”
Solar input is computable for a location given the time of year and meteorological conditions.
That was my job among many others when an on the bench meteorologist.
I computed it in one way by adding the depth of lower atmosphere that the solar energy that day would heat such that a DALR is constructed, after averaging out the ELR (environment LR) to an isotherm. A tephigram is a diagram whereby area=energy.
The averaging of the depth of solar heating of the ELR to an isotherm obviously entails the addition of the extra warmth that a location has due its extra GHG content added at dawn.
Ergo the daily maximum will be higher.
It just is.
NB: However the depth of that solar heating+warmth acquired by less o/n cooling is then most often spread through a deep atmosphere layer and lost in the measurement.
What does accumulate is in regions of static weather where this build up of extra heat continues for days under Anticyclonic subsidence and becomes apparent when advected to higher latitudes.
A prime example is for the UK on the 18/19th July 2022.
Thus are max temps increasing due to AGW, noticeable really at the extremes, whereas increases in min temps involving a thin boundary layer are much more evident.
The common-sense analogy
So you have (say) a pan of water at 20C and a pan of water at 0C.
Then add to both an equal measure of heat.
Which one will end up at the higher temp?
Answers on a postcard folks.
And no TKS all the same …. I am not going to be lured into one of your habitual rabbit-holes of illogic Mr Gorman.
“max temps increasing due to AGW,”
There’s no evidence CO₂ emissions are causal.
Tim,
We are totally on the same page.
Speaking of crackpots …!
The stupid AGW deniers get another member.
Go tell William Happer and Richard Lindzen that they are fools for making AGW predictions.
RG, yet another brain-washed AGW-apologist.
Unable to back up anything he yaps about with anything remotely resembling science.
A FAILURE even in his own mind.
Happer actually agrees that any affect of CO2 is immeasurable…
We are still waiting for your empirical scientific evidence..
… that you keep FAILING to produce.
Einstein: 1000 scientists can agree, but that does not make me right. 1 experiment can prove me wrong.
This is exactly why consensus is nonsense.
Study the history and you will find most of those scientists did not seek a null hypothesis, but accept the previous research and built on that.
“1 experiment can prove me wrong.”
ΟΚ, then link to one.
That was a A. Einstein quote.
Sparta here’s a credible experiment proving the null hypothesis regarding CO2
https://rclutz.com/2024/08/04/experimental-proof-nil-warming-from-ghgs/
Splendid.
A lot of what is in that research I had independently arrived at, especially the abuse of the Stefan/Boltzmann ideal model. I have yet to see a calculation that adheres to Kirchhoff’s law.
Snowball earth is best explained by atmospheric mass.
The atmosphere needs enough mass to hold sufficient water vapour to create a level of free convection such that convective instability can ensue. Without convective instability, the atmosphere over oceans will reach 100% humidity; the cloud will be persistent with little sunlight making it to the surface to warm the surface. The cloud descends to cover the surface with ice. The required level of moisture to produce a level of free convection is around 30mm.
The critical surface pressure is around 450hPa. But it changes somewhat depending on the specific heat of the non-condensing constituents.
https://www.washington.edu/news/2016/05/09/early-earths-air-weighed-less-than-half-of-todays-atmosphere/
The sustainable temperature of warm pools is also a function of atmospheric mass. The higher surface temperature of the Cretaceous period is well explained by the higher atmospheric mass.
If the atmospheric pressure was rapidly reduced below 450hPa then the initial phase would be the pea soup conditions similar to what is now observed at Macquarie Island per attached. There is not enough moisture in the atmosphere to support convective instability.
As the surface cools to freezing, the conditions would look more like the top of the Himalayas now at 340hPa or Mount Kilimanjaro at 400hPa. Both in the tropical zone and both with permanent ice cover.
Atmospheric mass is the surface temperature control knob. But it is a non-linear function. The ability to establish a level of free convection the most critical feature.
The cloud formation over 30C warm pools has a cooling gain factor of 2. OLR reduces at half the rate that SWR increases. Very powerful and very tight surface temperature control range. The notion that atmospheric CO2 has any direct influence over radiation balance on Earth is carp to the highest order.
But good effort at arriving at this obvious conclusion using a more tedious pathway.
Worth a mulling over.
Merely a question. 99% of the atmosphere is nitrogen and oxygen. If the mass back then was ~50% where did the added mass come from?
dont send a chemist to do time series analysis.
Frank is not even wrong.
here is ONE of the problems with looking at c02 and paleo temps.
Don’t send a FAILED Eng-lit student to do anything !!
And like Economics is so great at time series analysis. 😉
Especially not one that “plays” in the climate arena to get grants from the climate trough, using the fakery of “climate models” integrated into “Economic models” 🙂
The paper does not include a statistical time-series analysis. Try again.
Also best not couch your criticism in academic training.
Notice the graphic at 8:26. The VOSTOK glacial/interglacial temperatures show a ~11 C range, just as were found necessary to reproduce the P(CO₂) record.
And the P(CO₂) trend-line reconstructed using Henry’s Law is a close match to the VOSTOK record.
So, thank-you Steve, you pointed to data that support my result. Which solves the chicken and egg problem. The Henry’s Law correspondence indicates SST drove CO₂.
My guess is that SM didn’t even bother to watch the entire video let alone understand it.
1. Climate models cannot predict air temperature: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
they can and do predict air temperature.
you might think the predictions are inaccurate, but they DO output air temps as predictions
tday the air temp is about 15C. i predict in 10 years it will be about 16 C
there! i predicted it. models CAN and do prdict air temps.
2. Absent climate models, there is no evidence whatever that CO2 emissions have done, are doing, will do, or can do, anything to global air temperature.
wrong. before any climate models in 1896, basic physics predicted more c02 woul lead to higher temps. that prediction is correct. not very precise, but it hasnt cooled since 1896
3. The surface air temperature record is climatologically useless: here, and here, and the published field calibration experiments referenced in those papers.
wrong again.
4. Absent a reliable historical air temperature record, the rate or magnitude of modern climate warming are unknowable. Only the poleward migration of the northern tree line and a lengthened growing season indicate a recently warmed climate.
if its getting warmer we expect migration of the tree line. yes it hapens.
migration of many species. trees and fish know more about metrology than frank
melting ice. yup
rising seas. yup
increased borehole temps. yup.
icreased lake temperature. yup
in short EVERY independent sign of increased temps agrees with the temperature record
every ONE!.
if ou deny this dont be offended by having our views adwequately described by the D word
5. The record of the past 66 million years shows that atmospheric CO2 is driven, not a driver. This work.
another “not even wrong” chemist does data bad.
As a general and unavoidable conclusion: the dogma that the radiative forcing of CO2 controls global mean surface air temperature should be set aside.
The party’s over.
as and unavoidable conclusion when someone cites themselves and declares the debate is done.
its true.
if you try to referee our own fight or debate, you have lost.
roflmao.
Another anti-english, anti-science post from mosh.
So incoherent that it says absolutely NOTHING !
1.. crystal ball gazing.
2.. based on simplistic and erroneous science.
3.. surface temperatures are massively corrupted by non-climatic factors.
4.. tree lines and all those other items show was warmer in the MWP than now.
5.. an incoherent gibberish sentence.
Mosh was WRONG with every point he tried to make with his incoherent garbage
You have NOTHING mosh, and do not remotely understand anything Pat has put forward.
Steven,
In that Nordhauus lecture that you link, Nordhaus says that he does not know the Zee variable, so he cannot quantify the magnitude of the causation direction T to CO2.
This is the direction that Pat is trying to explore. Why do you not encorage advancement like this?
Geoff S
I observe that the first person to cast the “denier” term loses the debate.
Just the same as Godwins Law says that the first person to inject “Hitler” or “Nazis” into a debate automatically loses.
I wonder if some of the old and not so old guys would not be surprised.
Essenhigh, R. H. 2001. Does CO2 really drive global warming? Chemical Innovation. 31(5):41-46. Last paragraph “The outcome is that the conclusions of the advocates of the CO2–driver theory are evidently back to front. If there are flaws in these propositions, I’m listening; but if there are objections, let’s have them with the numbers. ”
Krogh, A. 1904 .On the tension of carbonic acid in natural waters and especially in the sea.
“….. Meddelelser om Grønland “….Summary of the Results.11. The CO2 tension of the ocean-surface often differs from that of the atmosphere and may cause considerable absortion or elimination of the gas (pp. 401-403)”
All this reminds me of a fisheries meeting where I heard something like this from a modeler with not much success. “Well, it’s still caused by humans.” Keep listening to the party.
“Study ties global warming to silver levels in ocean.” Pollution. Krogh had read Arrhenius and was not impressed.
This would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic.
“they can and do predict air temperature.”
In science, predictions from a physical theory are unique enough to threaten its falsification. The physical uncertainty bounds of climate model projections are gigantic. The models are unfalsifiable. They do not make predictions.
A personal guess is not a prediction in any sense of physical science. Even if the future observable is near your guess, you didn’t make a prediction. Fiat speculations have no place.
“basic physics predicted more c02 woul lead to higher temps.”
A very common misunderstanding. Basic physics predicted that certain gases would convert radiant energy to kinetic energy. That’s radiation physics. There is no physical theory from which one can predict how the climate responds to that K.E.
Back in 1963 Fritz Möller pointed out that a small change in cloud fraction could obviate the increased K.E. produced by CO₂ radiation physics, making any change in sensible heat indistinguishable from zero. His observation remains valid today. There is no physical theory to say otherwise.
Your 4) ‘yups [and] “in short EVERY independent sign of increased temps agrees with the temperature record
every ONE!.”
No one denies the climate has warmed out of the LIA. So what?
How the temperature record behaves, and what it means, are two separate considerations. Knowing that distinction and recognizing its importance is central to being a scientist or an engineer. Rather similar to the same professionals recognizing that precision is not accuracy.
You claim the cause is GHG emissions, but are uninformed by any valid physical theory. Fiat judgment again. Or maybe, God’s lips to your ear?; a delusion widespread in consensus climatology.
Just to be clear, are you denying the systematic temperature measurement error found in every single field calibration experiment — extending back into the 19th century?
And how about the Joule drift of 19th century LiG thermometers? Denied?
Your 5) is mere dismissal.
Your 6) is ludicrous, given that your prior text aggressively bugles your own views. You criticize me for owning my work product. If I don’t own it, who will?
Nothing you’ve posted thus far expresses anything critically valid. .
“Back in 1963 Fritz Möller pointed out that a small change in cloud fraction could obviate the increased K.E. produced by CO₂ radiation physics, making any change in sensible heat indistinguishable from zero. His observation remains valid today. There is no physical theory to say otherwise.”
Gotta love, Möller!
That is the state of climate science today.
“Nothing you’ve posted thus far expresses anything critically valid. .”
That’s the Mosher Troll in a nutshell.
I am pretty sure Richard Greene and Steven Mosher only comment for the purpose of keeping us all mindful of the abject buffoonery of the average Warmista.
I comment to present data and report foolish junk science, such as this article.
The AGW deniers who comment here are the fools who make it impossible for more intelligent conservatives to refute CAGW scaremongering.
The AGW deniers start with the false assumption that 100% of the climate consensus since 1896 is wrong. Their science becomes us or them, a logical fallacy. All evidence of a stronger greenhouse effect are ignored.
Leftist fools:
CO2 does everything
Conservative fools:
CO2 does nothing
Climate Scientists
— CO2 greens the planet and improves plant growth
— CO2 causes warmer winters which are very pleasant
— Long term (100 to 200 years) effects of manmade CO2 emissions are unknown
Poor RG,
“to present data and report foolish junk science”
You have presented ZERO data.. all you have is your foolish junk AGW science.
Report your own comments.. dolt !!
You still cannot provide any empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
You are one of the most foolish and science-free AGW-trolls on the block.
Down there with fungal and luser.
ps.. You have yet to show us the AGW in the UAH data…. Waiting, waiting !
Or do you think that El Nino events, which give the only warming in that data, are human caused..
… that would mark you as even more stupid than your other comments do.
“The AGW deniers who comment here are the fools who make it impossible for more intelligent conservatives to refute CAGW scaremongering.”
How so? What do you care what a few people say, if you have the evidence to refute them?
You appear to think that if some conservatives don’t agree with you, that this invalidates your arguments when trying to convince others that CO2 is harmless. So, it appears you seem to think you need a consensus of conservatives or you are not going to be successful at arguing your case to those who are not conservative.
It doesn’t matter how many people agree or disagree, if they are wrong, they are wrong.
Your AGW arguments should not be dependent on what others think. If you have the facts, you don’t need their agreement.
So you should quit whining when people don’t agree with your view of CO2 and temperatures. They have room to disagree with you because you don’t have any evidence that CO2 is doing what you think it is doing.
Conservative fools:
CO2 does nothing
Correction. It hasn’t been observed to anything measurable. “The temperature” (there is no “the temperature”) going up is not proof of CO2 induced warming.
100%
Once again, you open with insults so I skip to the next post.
Co2 has not been observed to do anything. Just saying ”it does something” is like saying one worm will eventually overturn all the soil in my garden. You are an obvious idiot.
Perhaps he should have said “accurate air temperature.” Any fool can make a prediction. However, a prediction without a tight constraint on when said event will take place is of little value in the real world. A prediction without an interval of uncertainty is likewise worthless. Unless one can get their prediction down to something an engineer can live with, say +/- 10%, then the prediction does not have much utility. Lastly, if one is in the business of offering up predictions, there should also be an associated probability, with error bars.
I can promise you with 100% confidence that you will die. However, most people already understand that and would like to know when. Likewise, I can predict, with high confidence, that it will be hot next Summer. However, for that information to be unique and valuable, I have to be able to give you a maximum temperature, and the number and duration of heat waves, all with tolerances that provide something that is better than what statistical averages provide. Playing like Arrhenius and saying that the Earth will warm is similarly useless information for which the quantitative accuracy is not in evidence. Unless the question is, “Will the slope of future temperature change be positive, or negative?”, getting the sign of the slope right is again useless information that one isn’t justified in claiming that the answer is accurate; it is accurate only if one uses a very narrow, trivial definition of accuracy. Have you been taking lessons in sophistry from Stokes?
“You will meet a tall, dark stranger and come into a lot of money,” is the language of a con artist who doesn’t provide definitions, not the language of a scientist who strives to use words (and punctuation) precisely.
It has been magicked away but the original record indicated considerable cooling between the late 1930s and 1980, variously estimated as between .7C and 1C.
“they can and do predict air temperature.”
No, they do *NOT* predict temperatures. They predict temperature ANOMALIES based on average temperatures (actually mid-range temperatures) which are not a valid metric for either maximum or minimum temperatures.
The models start off with garbage inputs and put out garbage results. The mid-range temp metric can’t even distinguish between different climates so how can the results be anything but garbage when it comes to CLIMATE?
They do not predict. The project. It is a nuance, but that nuance is significant.
* They project….
typo
“but it hasnt cooled since 1896”
Wrong! It has cooled, and then warmed, and then cooled, and then warmed again, since 1896. And the difference between the warmest and the coolest points in the cycle is about 2.0C.
Hansen 1999:
Hasn’t cooled since 1896? Wow.
CO2 factoidz from the libtarded website, wikipedia.com:
need to click on that weird looking chart to see it properly..
Its actually words and numbers
WordPress does some strange things with graphics. !
It reminds me of some of the unpredictable artifacting that one sometimes encountered with Atari computer graphics.
Might as well repeat here my conclusion that the cause of the so called greenhouse effect is actually convective overturning and not atmospheric composition.
If the latter changes then any thermal consequence is neutralised by a change in the rate of overturning.
The time taken for surface kinetic energy to convert to atmospheric potential energy and back again is the only relevant cause of a decrease in the rate of loss of solar energy out to space leading to a rise in system temperature.
See my previous work with Philip Mulholland published here and elsewhere.
Some radiation is absorbed and re-emitted by IR active gases up to the tropopause.
Calculations of the free mean path for CO2 show that energy passes from surface to tropopause in less than 5 milliseconds.
This is almost the speed of light, so delay is negligible and immeasurable…
IR in air travels at c, ~ 300,000,000 m/sec.
Multiply by 5 msec, gives an altitude of ~ 1500 km.
Seems close enough.
MLO doesn’t even break out of the Cenozoic noise level…
Marine pCO2 (foram boron δ11B, alkenone δ13C), atmospheric CO2 from plant stomata (green and yellow diamonds with red outlines), Mauna Loa instrumental CO2 (thick red line) and Cenozoic temperature change from benthic foram δ18O (light gray line).
Flood Basalt Volcanism: The first step was to find whether the oceans can warm without recourse to CO2 forcing.
this is known as ABC reasoning. anthing but c02.
why start an open skeptical approach with this kind of bias?
fundamental misunderstanding of scientific resoning
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/
but if all you know is henrys law, then it has to explain everything!.
Spoken like a true pseudo intellectual.
A never-was-an-intellectual. !
Your position requires denying the simultaneity of the NAIP magmatic eruptions and the PETM, Steve. And denying that 4.5 million km³ of molten magma could have heated the ocean.
In the paper I propose “that the elevated SST of the PETM was caused by thermal contact
with NAIP magma.” Why isn’t that reasonable?
“In the paper I propose “that the elevated SST of the PETM was caused by thermal contact
with NAIP magma.” Why isn’t that reasonable?”
Because, as I calculated above, there is far too little heat flux. Instantaneously, it might heat the ocean by a few degrees. But in fact it was produced over a few million years. That is a heat flux 3-4 orders of magnitude less than ordinary global geothermal heating.
And several magnitudes, at least, MORE than any possible warming from a tiny change in a feeble atmospheric trace gas.
You did not bother to read the post that corrected you calculations and assumptions.
Which was that? I have seen very few calculations.
It was right after you first posted that nonsense.
The energy of the NAIP flood basalt was in addition to geothermal heating. Why wouldn’t additional energy raise temperature?
The calculation is in section 3.5, equations 11-13. Nothing you’ve posted falsifies it.
The fact that PETM CO2 proxies wildly disagree with one another means that something other than CO2 has to at least be considered. Stomata indicate barely elevated CO2, while forams indicate brief spikes >2,000 ppm.
There’s also the Mid-Miocene Climatic Optimum (MMCO). This is often attributed to CO2 from the Columbia River Basalt Group eruptions. One small problem…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/03/miocene-volcanism-carbon-dioxide-and-climate/
The foremost flaw with IPCC is ZERO analysis of alternatives and weighting of those possibilities. They started out with the answer and have wasted decades and billions attempting to create the right question.
I’ve come to call if Critical Global Warming Theory, for exactly that reason.
So-called Critical Theory is rife in academia. The academics always assume their conclusion.
The invariable technique is, assume what should be demonstrated, grant the assumptions the status of evidence, every study is confirmatory.
The IPCC and consensus climatology in full regalia.
Again with the incoherent un-punctuated gibberish, containing zero scientific value.
Mosh proves yet again that he has ZERO comprehension of rational reasoning or scientific thought processes.
Why start with CO2 is the control knob?
Why start a scientific study with an assumed answer?
Scientific method.
Formulate a hypothesis.
Do research and perform analysis to strengthen/alter/ or dismiss.
If sufficient supporting data, create a null hypothesis and test.
Starting with a decision point to determine if oceans can warm without CO2 is formulating a hypotheses.
And I still have not gotten a concise definition of how a CO2 molecule can force anything.
Many thanks for this very interesting post.
Perhaps the Henry’s law and SST don’t explain all the [CO2] increase :
1) SST increase also increases (via atmosphere heat transfer) the soils temperature which will then emit more CO2.
2) Also, temperature (and [CO2] ?) increase may enhance mainly marine but also (with increased moisture and vegetation) terrestrial (animal) biomass and its respiration.
Seems to be a chain reaction with a shifting ocean + soils equilibrium wrt CO2 initially caused by SST and then enhanced by soils warming and (animal) biomass (respiration) increase.
The focus was on SST and P(CO₂). I’m sure there were other sources and sinks, but one lacks the 66 million years of necessary data.
Within the resolution of the data, SST seems to be the primary driver of P(CO₂), with the notable exception of carbonate draw-down.
Yes indeed, SST seems to be the main current driver of [CO2] as many studies based on modern data show (Humlum 2013, Yndestad 2022, Endersbee 2010, etc.), so this might also be true in former periods as shown in your post.
Pat states that
“The eruptions of the NAIP produced about 6.6 million km3 of basaltic magma over a period of 3-4 million years. Typically, the main phase of flood basaltic eruptions occurred over about half the time of the full duration.
Liquid basaltic magma emerges at about 1620 K and crystallizes at 1470 K. Taking into account the heat capacity and the heat of fusion of basalt, each 1 million km3 of magma releases enough heat to warm the entire 1.338 billion km3 of the global ocean by about 0.97 C. If the thermal plume rises to occupy just the top 1 km of the world ocean, the temperature change is about 3.6 C.”
However he neglects any thermal dissipation that would have occurred during that time. Over a million years there would have been about 0.5 million km3 of magma released on average raising the ocean’s temperature by 0.97C but also over one million years most of that extra energy would have been radiated out into space meaning that total temperature change due to direct ocean heating would be so close to zero as to be not worth worrying about.
Given your hand waving objection, Izaak, how on Earth did the extreme of the PETM SSTs last some 10 million years?
It’s ~1 million km³ per 0.97 C.
It is not hand waving. The amount of heat coming and going in the Earth is vastly greater than the heat content of this magma, which I calculate at about 3.6e25 J. That is about global insolation for 9.5 years. But the magma was emitted over about 3 million years. As a heat source, it is 3-4 orders of magnitude less than geothermal.
But still many, many magnitude more than any possible feeble warming from a small change in an atmospheric trace gas.
oh dearie me, some juvenile twerp thinks magma isn’t hot
The ignorance of these fools is passed being a joke.
An oxy acetylene flame is very hot. But it won’t heat the Earth.
The acetylene flame is in OPEN air thus quickly dissipate, but Magma until it reaches the surface stays very hot while warming up the surrounding rocks for a long time.
Try again……
I gave the arithmetic. You just have to calculate the heat budget. I did. No-one else, including Pat, has tried to. It’s no use just saying that lava is hot, or big, or something. How hot, how big, where does it go?
1 million km^3 of oxy acetylene?
The bulk of the NAIP magma emerged in much less time than the 3-4 million years of the full magmatic event.
As noted above, the NAIP energy pulse was in addition to the geothermal background. More energy = higher temperature. The heat capacity estimate makes the case.
“Given your hand waving objection, Izaak, how on Earth did the extreme of the PETM SSTs last some 10 million years?”
The answer is almost certainly an increased greenhouse effect. If you trap more of the sun’s incident energy and store it as heat then the sea surface temperatures will rise accordingly.
If that were correct, the PETM P(CO₂) would be higher than predicted by SST. However, the proxy data say it was not.
Poor Izzy dumb… still trying to heat water for his tea by blowing on it from above.
All that magma at over 1000C cannot cause heating, but a tiny change in a trace atmospheric molecule at atmospheric temperature can…
How much dumber can he get !!
Nobody is disputing whether or not magma can heat water. The question is how do you maintain it at a higher temperature for several million years. Keeping something warm for millions of years takes vastly more energy than warming it up in first place.
Izzy,
Please calculate the total energy for ALL Large Igneous Provinces and submarine volcanoes! Don’t forget to include all those that have been recently subducted, like Siletzia at the North American plate’s western margin!
We’re using Pat’s figures. The heat flux is tiny compared to normal geothermal.
It’s on top of geothermal. See paper section 3.5.
Disagree. Earths interior is still very hot after billions of years.
Once it was hot and at the surface a crust had formed to maintain the interior temperature one only has to compensate for the energy loss through the crust.
More or less the same for the oceans. When they formed the surface was more molten than not. Water may very well have been in the form of steam, and the initial oceans (close to) boiling. Once things cooled down some, the sun provided a shallow warmer surface layer isolating the deep oceans from the atmosphere, vastly reducing the energy loss to atmosphere / space.
Compare to a water boiler. Once the water is warm, one only has to compensate the energy loss trough the insulation.
Ben,
the earth’s interior is still hot due to radioactive decay which keeps it warm. Kelvin for example famously estimated that the earth was only about 24 million years old by calculating how long it would take to cool down to its present temperature. And he was wrong by several billion years.
Compare to a water boiler. Once the water is warm, one only has to compensate the energy loss trough the insulation.
Again the question is how much energy will you need to keep the boiler warm for a million years. And almost no matter how good your insulation is that is going to come to more energy than was required to heat it up in the first place.
Ok, your pont is that maintaining a very small flux over very long periods adds up to huge sums of energy. Agree.
But while the small geothermal flux is more or less able to maintain the deep ocean temperature, it can not increase its temperature given a constant opposite cooling. Some additional heating is required.
Speculative talk, Izaak.
Not when the surface is also warmed by solar.
“and crystallizes at 1470 K”
So still EXTREMELY HOT… and at the bottom of the ocean.
I wonder what effect that could possibly have 😉
C’mon, man!
Izzy doesn’t heat his tea by blowing on it; like all good Warmunist true believers, he uses his electric hair dryer!
Next they will be explaining away the MMCO as being caused by the release of heat from the friction of bipedal powered early hominid vehicles as chronicled in The Flintstones!
Nice meaty article, Pat! There’s enough here that I may be able fast for the next week!
Thanks, a. m. 🙂
Observations indicate that the global sea surface temperature anomaly stably varies from about 0.4 C under El Niño conditions to about 0.2 C under La Niña conditions. It is currently declining.
There is now another problem. The elevated temperature of the troposphere over the equator from an altitude of about 1 km, can impede convection over the equator. It is important to explain the cause of the anomaly, starting with the stratosphere.
Studies have shown that water vapor exhibits structural absorption bands in the near-UV range, particularly in the 290-350 nm range. In this range, water vapor can absorb UVB radiation, which is important for understanding its role in the atmosphere.
Atmospheric impact:
Water vapor is one of the main components of the atmosphere that absorbs solar radiation, which has important implications for the Earth’s energy balance and climate modeling. As the water vapor content of the atmosphere increases, increased absorption of UV radiation is observed, which can affect local atmospheric conditions and ecological health.
CO2 exhibits absorption of radiation in the UV range, especially with wavelengths below 230 nm. Studies have shown that CO2 has absorption bands between 115 and 230 nm, which means it can absorb UVC radiation that does not reach the troposphere. Radiation up to 242 nm is absorbed by diatomic oxygen in the Chapman cycle in the stratosphere.
Ultraviolet (UV) radiation is divided into three main sub-bands:
UVA: 320-400 nm
UVB: 280-320 nm
UVC: 100-280 nm
From the article: “For the past 66 million years, atmospheric CO2 can be understood as a neutral spectator molecule, right up through the present.”
My sentiment exactly! CO2 is just along for the ride. 🙂
Pat,
Apologies for a delay in commemnting. (I have been most unwell).
I downloaded and read your paper and several of its references that I thought were key.
What I found was a good deal of research and documentation on your part. You seem to have wanted to cover many bases. Top marks for scholarship.
…….
The paper is a difficult one for reader comments. The main difficulty I found was that several of the factors behind the hypothesis were historically poorly measured over tens of millions of years. This produces a general uncertaint that readers have to accept because there is no alternative except more future work.
The hypothesis that (broadly) temperature of water drives CO2 partial pressure over this term relies on acceptance of past sparse measurements and the hope that past measurements have captured the important events such as changes in the major factors.
For a minor example, there is a widely used relation in climate research that calculates sea temperatures from oxygen isotopes measured in melted ice cores. One reference briefly explains “Water containing the lighter isotope 16O evaporates more readily than 18O in the warmer subtropical regions. As this water vapor (which is enriched with 16O) moves toward the poles, the heavier 18O condenses and precipitates out first at lower latitudes, leaving progressively more 16O in the water vapor reaching the poles. The water vapor that reaches the polar regions precipitates as snow, eventually becoming ice.”
https://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-3/how-is-temperature-measured/isotopes.php
There is a wekness with this mechanism because it assumes completion of a process of isotope fractionation. While the conversion factor from delta180 to T is commonly used, it might be commonly wrong for the particular application under discussion. However, the difficulty of answering this objection is appreciated.
Overall, if one accepts the valididity of the data used in your paper, one is forced to accept the hypothjesis as possible. Some readers object that existing mechanisms affecting past temperatures, such as the GHG effect, are adequate and more established. Forget the more established argument, science does not proceed by consensus. I downplay the dominant GHG mechanism because there is scope for several mechanisms to operate at any given time, maybe with periods when one dominates over another, but I have not seen enough comparative data to decide. The work that Richard Willoughby and Willis Eschenbach and others are reporting,sdome based on orbital changes to locations of heating on the globe, some to changes to incoming solar energy levels through cloud effects and so on are also in that category of being able to coexist.
The mere mention of one mechanism like greenhouse effects with CO2 radiation mechanisms, does not disallow other mechanisms. (I still cannot swallow CO2 acting to “heat” by delaying “cooling”. Something does not gel with me.)
If readers want to disagree with your paper, they have to select what exactly causes their disagreement, show why it is disagreeable and demonstrate an alternative.
I suggest that this will be hard to do, since your paper is carefully and widely supported by other research that you reference.
…
In short,FWIW, I have no particular disagreement. I have overall acceptance of thenull hypothesis and congrats on a nice piece of high standard research.
Geoff S
Hi Geoff,
Thanks for the comprehensive review! 🙂 Checking references is to professional standard.
You’re right about the proxy data being chancy. I proceeded with the assumption it is valid. Otherwise, there’d be nothing to do and nowhere to go.
Sentence 2 under Sources and Methods admits this. The relevance of the work is confined to the state of published knowledge.
The problems with 𝛅¹⁸O are well known. The early researchers (Dansgaard, Lorius, etc.), especially, were very careful. They found some linear correlations of 𝛅¹⁸O and air temperature, but the slopes varied with the location of the ice.
The Hansen (2013) estimates of SST and deep ocean temps using 𝛅¹⁸O, discuss choosing among different relational expressions. So, there is considerable uncertainty in T. And the large scatter of the CO₂ proxy points is obvious.
Truly accurate reconstructions of Cenozoic CO₂ and temperature are still to come. They might falsify this work, but, as usual in science, that’s a possibility I accept.
I agree with you about the possibility of multiple explanations. Consensus climatology is plagued with these, while the practitioners choose the one that suits them and exclude all others. To my knowledge no other field of science operates in this manner (though it is rife in other academic schools).
Thanks for going through with such care Geoff. I’m relieved to receive a passing grade. 🙂
“(I still cannot swallow CO2 acting to “heat” by delaying “cooling”. Something does not gel with me.)”
This requires the assumption that higher minimum temps (due to a decreased temp decay at night) “force” higher maximum temps during the following day. I have yet to see any physical theory to support this assumption. The earth continues to radiate even during the day. As the sun raises the temp that radiation from the earth goes up as the temp goes up. How high the temp will go during the day is driven by the difference between the sun insolation and the radiation of heat by the earth. That difference will be pretty much the same at the peak sun insolation no matter what temp the earth started at.
Also, Geoff, best wishes for a quick return to health.
Mr Frank, when will we see your paper published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, such as Nature or Science?
After reading Nick Stokes debunking of Franks article, the likely answer to my question above would be “never”.
How would you know Nick’s attempted debunk was successful, Warren? You don’t understand any of it.
How would you know? You’re a crackpot that doesn’t even know that the relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature was identified 128 years ago, and confirmed by subsequent research throughout the last 128 years. How is it that you deny that relationship? And then attempt to muddy the waters with scientific gobbledygook that earns adoring comments from the rest of the scientific illiterates on WUWT.
So again, when will you submit your “analysis “ to a peer reviewed journal? I don’t think you have the cojones. Certainly not the competence.
You presume too much, Warren. It’s all just radiation physics, which I have read.
Radiation physics is not a theory of the climate.
Arrhenius did not include cloud response, or the response of Hadley circulation, or the response of other climate subsystems to the small increase in K.E. produced by our CO₂ emissions. Neither did anyone else back then.
Their calculations were not wrong, but not relevant to the physical climate.
Even today, cloud response is modeled poorly. Consequently, air temperature projections are physically meaningless.
“confirmed by subsequent research”
No one can confirm what has never been demonstrated.
MDPI Geosciences is a peer-reviewed journal. Do you have the integrity to admit that?
The editors of Nature and Science are biased against analyses that challenge the preferred climate narrative. John Kennedy was the first to exclude narrative-busting submissions when he was editor of Science. Since then, the diseased state has become widespread.
My earlier papers were sent to mainline climate journals. Editors invented reasons to reject them. I have 45 MB of letters and reviews evidencing this. Given the object example of editors being attacked because they followed standard protocols and allowed publication of successfully reviewed narrative-falsifying papers, journal editors today are gun-shy.
For that reason, papers critical of the consensus narrative go to journals not corrupted by mainline prejudices.
“My earlier papers were sent to mainline climate journals. Editors invented reasons to reject them. “
The typical excuse used by Deniers, when in reality their work products are incompetent. No journal editor will accept such trash.
An example of my professional accomplishments, Warren. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Your every comment here shows no reticence to indulge an oracular ignorance; a true personal failing.
Have you read the post? I summarized the process of the article peer-review.
MDPI Geosciences is a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
You should understand, Warren, that your question is typical of the polemical hack, who doesn’t understand the work but has a partisan opposition to the conclusions of it. You’ll want to be more careful about giving yourself away.
Missed this article when it was first posted. It is outside of my training, but figure 6 is striking (which all the trendologists and debunkers have ignored).