Chris Martz posted an excellent summation on X
Here is the complete post.
I am picky with terminology, so let me explain. . .
I strongly urge people to stop calling anthropogenic global warming a “hoax” or “scam.” It’s not. There is indeed a legitimate underlying scientific basis.
While a consensus of scientific opinion is irrelevant, as Dr. Judith Curry and Dr. Roy Spencer have pointed out, there is general agreement within the scientific literature on these three things:
➊ Global mean surface temperature (GMST) has risen about 1.2°C since 1850. The warming since 1980 is about as equal in magnitude and rate as the early 20th century warming from 1910 to 1945. In general, it has been warming for >250 years. 📈
🔗https://metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut5/
➋ Burning of coal, oil and natural gas for energy has increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels by ~51% since 1850. We know this because there is an isotopic fingerprint in the decrease of C13/C12 ratios. While this is not uniquely indicative of anthropogenic origin, it is a pretty solid indicator. 🏭
🔗https://gml.noaa.gov/education/isotopes/stable.html
➌ Earth’s average surface temperature is a function of energy gain versus energy loss. Given there is a radiation spectrum on CO₂ in the infrared (IR) band of the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum, all else constant, adding more of it to the atmosphere should reduce the rate of cooling by emission of IR to space. In effect, it induces a cooling tendency in the stratosphere and a warming tendency in the troposphere. This has in fact been observed. 🌈
Beyond this, there is no agreement on:
➊ How much warming is man-made? The claim that virtually all of the warming is anthropogenic is based squarely on modeling studies. The IPCC’s “best estimate” of greenhouse gas (GHG) contribution to GMST change since 1850 is +1.5°C ± 44%, and their “best estimate” of aerosol forcing is -0.5°C ± 100%. That doesn’t sound like “settled science” to me.
🔗https://ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter03.pdf (pp. 439-441)
➋ The exact equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) — a measure of how much warming results from doubling CO₂ concentrations once a new local equilibrium is achieved — and amount of warming left in pipeline for the 21st century. 🌡️
➌ Is warming dangerous for humanity and life on Earth as a whole? Is it a net benefit or a net drawback? This is not a settled matter, regardless of what experts say. The findings in the body of literature are mixed. It does not unequivocally support their notion that warming is catastrophic or even bad. 🤷♂️
➍ What are the best measures for adaptation and/or mitigation? How should energy policy be handled? Do we change zoning codes? Do we construct seawalls to combat creeping sea level rise? What is the cost-benefit analysis of decarbonization efforts?
So, there is in fact a legitimate scientific basis behind global warming theory. The basics are pretty well understood; the devil is in the details and the science is far from settled. ❌
The case isn’t closed. That book remains wide open on the table. 📖
However, what is indeed a scam is the push for “Net Zero” CO₂ emissions by 2050.
A legitimate scientific issue has become captive of a Malthusian religion by power-hungry elected officials and unelected bureaucrats. Climate policy is an anti-capitalist, anti-human movement. These people push for one-world governance where you are told what you can and cannot eat, what appliances you can and cannot buy, where you can or cannot travel and want to force us to adopt a carbon credit cap and trade system in a cashless society. The policy is the scam, not the basic underlying scientific theory.
https://twitter.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1858615282086146262
If the human contribution to the warming since the little ice age is zero or near zero, then yes, AGW is a scam and a fraud. Can you prove to me that even 50% of the warming is due to human activity?
Scroll up and read my reply to Richard Greene.
It is quite likely that the warming in the surface data since 1970 is due to humans, be it urban warming or data adjustment.
There is very little possibility that any of the atmospheric warming is caused by humans, because it nearly all happens at El Nino events, with long periods of near zero warming between.
We only have reasonable atmospheric data since 1979, and there is no sign of any CO2 warming in that atmospheric data.
Adjusted and selected Global mean surface temperature (GMST) has appeared to rise about 1.2°C since 1850.
The Hoax and Scam survives.
”I strongly urge people to stop calling anthropogenic global warming a “hoax” or “scam.” It’s not. There is indeed a legitimate underlying scientific basis.”
The Hoax/scam, is in the Trillions of $$$$$ maneuvered around the planet, based on the assertions that this AGW is a crisis.
As it refers to ”average temperatures” to support it, then it does indeed deserve to be labeled as a Hoax. A statistical construct with no physical meaning in the real world, other than to facilitate the phony concept of a Climate crisis and all the baggage it implies.
Just to throw a spanner into it, Cooling less, is not Warming. – I guess, ”Global cooling less” is not as scary as ”Global warming” Maybe, I’m just being picky.
I agree with a lot of this article but the above quote is false. And, this misunderstanding of how the atmosphere actually works has led us to where we are today. The quote ignores the effect of the turbulent boundary layer and a forced decrease in high altitude water vapor. This effect increases the emission of IR to space essentially canceling out the claim in the quote.
The net effect of increasing CO2 becomes zero (or so close as to be trivial in the overall scheme of things).
This ‘knowledge’ is based on the unstated assumption that the only thing impacting the isotopic ratio is the CO2 generated by the burning of fossil fuels, which is about 4% of the total CO2 flux.
However, a significant contribution to the seasonal ramp-up of atmospheric CO2 is respiration from the roots of boreal trees in the Winter. Another contribution is the bacterial/fungal decomposition of the leaves from deciduous trees (and other plants) south of the boreal evergreens. The CO2 coming from vegetation has been enriched in 12C by the photosynthetic process that constructed the trees. Furthermore, the melting Arctic tundra contains a lot of 12C-enriched organic material, which has been sequestered for tens or thousands of years, that is being oxidized today as the permafrost melts.
Similarly, photosynthetic plankton will select for 12C. When they die, they will fall down through the water column, be decomposed by bacteria, and the resulting CO2 will be dissolved, mostly in the deep, cold bottom of the oceans. When up-welling brings that low-pH, 1,000-year-old water to the surface, it will out-gas 12C enriched CO2. Additionally, the slightly lower molecular weight CO2 made with 12C will experience isotopic fractionation because it will take less energy for the light CO2 to cross the water/air boundary.
Lastly, I don’t think that there is any way to be sure that volcanic out-gassing doesn’t have changing carbon isotope ratios over time, dependent on the kind of rocks that are subducted at plate boundaries.
We know that Earth is warming, which speeds up the metabolism of decomposers, and NASA has documented widespread ‘greening’ of Earth. The only thing missing in all of this is a detailed study of how the carbon isotopes are parsed in this complex subcycle of the overarching Carbon Cycle.
Accepts much of the dogma but the truth is hiding in plain sight…
Which it has never been, is not now, and will never be. The feedbacks will reduce the PURELY HYPOTHETICAL 1 degree per doubling to something indistinguishable from ZERO.
But he reaches the right conclusions about climate policy, at least.
Amusing how this sensible article attracted the CO2 Does Nothing science deniers out of the dark like cheese in a mousetrap.
The armchair non-scientists who claim over 99% of scientists since 1896 have been wrong?
The leaders of 190 nations that joined the Paris Agreement are all fools?
These non-scientists know the whole world has been hoaxed about CO2 since 1896 and only they know “the truth”?
All the evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas was faked?
Even the most famous skeptic scientists such as William Happer, Richard Lindzen, John Christy. Roy Spencer add Judith Curry have been fooled?
What the WUWT science deniers lack is not just intelligence — they lack an official title for their resumes.
I will call them the WUWT Peanut Gallery.
And appoint BeNasty as the official WUWT Court Jester.
.
“All the evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas was faked?”
Nobody I know claims CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. What’s that called, a “Red Herring”? I looked it up, and that’s what your question is: a Red Herring.
The dispute is over whether CO2 has any discernable effect on atmospheric temperatures or the Earth’s weather. Got any evidence for that? Do any of those scientists since 1896 have any evidence for that? Do the leaders of 190 nations have any evidence for that? Do William Happer, Richard Lindzen, John Christy. Roy Spencer and Judith Curry have any evidence for that?
I don’t think so.
You could prove me wrong by providing some evidence.
I won’t hold my breath waiting for any from you or anyone else on Earth, because there is no evidence for any discernable effect from CO2 on the Earth’s atmosphere or the Earth’s weather.
Roger Pielke Sr. asked me to add this comment.
Bullet point two. The claim that burning fossil fuels has increased atmospheric CO2 by ~51% cannot be true. Harde1 analyzes this in great detail with results that match the data, while Man-made Climate Change Theory and computer models do not match data.
The increased atmospheric CO2 is mostly a response to ocean warming because CO2 is less soluble at warmer temperatures. The change in atmospheric CO2 isotope ratio is because more C12 CO2 evaporates from the ocean than the heavier C13 CO2.
Atmospheric CO2 has increased from 280 ppm in 1880 to 420 ppm in 2022 (50% increase). If the increase of 140 ppm were all Human, the atmosphere would be 33% Human (140/420). But this is not possible.
IPCC data3 shows total CO2 emissions are now about 95% Natural and only 5% Human4.
Human and Natural CO2 mix in the atmosphere and the ocean and plants absorb the mixture. The same Natural and Human CO2 isotopes must be absorbed at the same rates so the atmosphere now can be no more than 5% human.
With the total atmospheric CO2 now at about 420 ppm, the amount of Human CO2 is not more than 5% of 420 ppm or 21 ppm. Harde calculates 17 ppm using emission data available in 2019.
The Man-Made Climate Change Theory assumes that the increase is all from Humans but that cannot be true.
To get the assumed desired result, Climate models assume Natural CO2 has an atmospheric residence time of about 4 years which is true. But they assume Human CO2 stays in the atmosphere for hundreds or thousands of years or more which cannot be true. Molecules of the same isotope must act the same.
Bullet point three. The claim that CO2 has a cooling effect because of the CO2 infrared radiation band(s) is true but the effect is very limited. The warming effect decreases logarithmically as CO2 concentration increases. The radiation bands that absorb CO2 are very limited. Analysis by Wijngaarden and Happer2 shows that the preindustrial 280 ppm CO2 is more than enough to absorb all the CO2-sensitive wave bands. More CO2 has little effect. Their analyses match satellite observations.
Combining Harde and Wijngaarden and Happer analyses with IPCC Natural3 and “Our World in Data” Human4 emissions data makes it possible to calculate the small effect of Human CO2 emissions as 0.04OF for the USA and 0.25 OF for the Rest of the World.
If it were possible to completely eliminate World Human CO2 emissions, the effect would be less than 0.3 OF or 0.16 OC.
Demands that the World stop using fossil fuels at enormous cost and harm to human welfare to try to avoid 0.16 OC temperature rise should rightly be called a hoax and a scam.
1. Hermann Harde. “What Humans Contribute to Atmospheric CO2: Comparison of Carbon Cycle Models with Observations.” Earth Sciences. Vol. 8, No. 3, 2019, pp. 139-159. Doi: 10.11648/j.earth.20190803.13
2. W. A. van Wijngaarden and W. Happer, 2020, Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098
3. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/carbon-and-other-biogeochemical-cycles/rough_1-3/
4. Our world in data. https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2022#emissions_table
John E. Greer, Jr., P.E. (ret.) Nov. 22, 2024
Author of “Real Climate Science shows Human CO2 Cannot Cause a Climate Crisis!” on Amazon.