Science Shock: CO2 is Good for the Planet, Peer-Reviewed Studies Suggest

From THE DAILY SCEPTIC

by Chris Morrison

Dramatic evidence has been published in a number of recent science papers that carbon dioxide levels are already ‘saturated’, meaning little or no further warming is to be expected and rising CO2 levels are all beneficial.

Half of human emissions are being quickly pushed back into the biosphere, the scientists say, causing substantial, famine-busting plant growth, while the rest is entering a ‘saturated’ atmosphere and having a minimal effect on global temperatures. One of the papers accepting the human involvement in rising CO2 is published by the CO2 Coalition, which notes: “We like CO2, so should you.”

None of this work will be reported in the mainstream since it disrupts a ‘settled’ climate science narrative tied to the political Net Zero fantasy. But the opinion that humans control the climate thermostat by releasing CO2, leading to runaway temperatures, belongs to a dark period in science when it was captured to promote political aims. However, work continues in sceptical climate circles to understand how a number of gases with warming properties behave in a chaotic, non-linear atmosphere. Two recently-published papers found that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere led to minimal temperature increases. The calculated figures can be considered to be in margin of error territory and on past observational evidence they pose no threat to the climate on Earth. They also destroy the shaky scientific foundation upon which Net Zero rests.

Eight Taiwanese scientists led by Professor Peng-Sheng Wei found that the sensitivity of the climate to a rise in CO2 atmospheric levels from 100 to 400 parts per million (ppm) was “negligibly small” at 0.3°C. The paper is complex and examines heat transfers as a function of longitude, latitude and altitude “as well as diffuse radiation determined by absorption bands based on wavelength, temperature and the concentration or pressure of carbon dioxide vapour”. What the scientists are looking at here is the narrow absorption bands within the infrared (IR) spectrum that allow ‘greenhouse’ gases to trap heat and warm the planet. Many argue that after a certain level the gases ‘saturate’ and lose most of their warming properties. One simple way to understand this is to observe that doubling insulation in a loft will not trap twice as much heat. The saturation hypothesis would appear to explain how CO2 has been 10-15 times higher in the past without runaway temperatures, while the anthropogenic warming opinion does little more than provide scientific cover for a dodgy but fashionable extreme eco scare.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims a climate sensitivity number based on doubling CO2 levels of around 3°C. But many climate models ramp up mass public hysteria by using ‘pathways’ with much larger and highly improbably estimates. The latter form the basis of numerous ‘scientists say’ stories faithfully reported by unquestioning mainstream media. The Taiwanese scientists found that ground temperature warming of 0.3°C was associated with the increase from 100 ppm to 350 ppm and there was no additional warming at all as CO2 rose further from 350 ppm to 400 ppm. The current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 420 ppm.

Seven Austrian scientists have also recently concentrated on CO2 and the infrared spectrum, noting that a future doubling of the gas up to 800 ppm “shows no increase in the IR absorption for the 15 u-central peak”. It is concluded that this can lead to 0.5°C warming at most. The scientists argue that climate models and their CO2 influences should be revised. Much more experimental evidence about IR radiation should be collected “before appointing current warming trends and climate change mechanisms monocausal to greenhouse gas theories”.

The recent papers on CO2 saturation are not the only ones to have been published lately. Earlier this year a group of Polish scientists led by Dr. Jan Kubicki supplied three papers arguing that above 400 ppm, “the CO2 concentration can no longer cause any increase in temperature”. In 2023, three scientists including Atmospheric Professor Yi Huang of McGill University stated that: “Transmission in the CO2 band centre is unchanged by increased CO2 as the absorption is already saturated.” In Chen et al. 2023, it is reported that CO2 had a severely reduced warming effect past pre-industrial concentrations. It was also noted that water vapour and cloud influences overlap and thus dominate absorption in the CO2 IR band. In 2022, the German Physics Professor Dieter Schildnecht set the CO2 saturation level at just 300 ppm.

The CO2 Coalition is an educational foundation that says it provides facts, resources and information about the “vital role” CO2 plays in the environment. It recently published a detailed paper that accepted humans had contributed most of the CO2 that has entered the atmosphere in industrial times. The paper is sub-titled: “How human emissions are restoring vital atmospheric CO2.” The coalition has long promoted the role that saturation plays in tempering the effect of a number of gases with warming properties. Attention is often drawn in its work to the part played by water vapour that makes up around 4% of the atmosphere and contributes as much as 80% of the Earth’s vital warming. It saturates over large parts of the IR spectrum, reducing the effect of other gases in their own specific bands. The coalition’s board includes the distinguished Professor William Happer, who has long argued the merits of the saturation hypothesis, and it was recently joined by the 2022 Nobel Physics Laureate Dr. John Clauser.

Levels of CO2 have been much higher in the past, with evidence of vibrant animal and plant life. Many plants evolved to thrive with higher levels than they feed on today, a period some scientists argue is one of CO2 denudation. In its recently published paper, the coalition observes that the higher the CO2 content in the atmosphere, the greater the pressure from physical processes to drive CO2 into the oceans and vegetation.

This is borne out by considerable evidence, although the recent substantial ‘greening’ of the planet is largely hidden from readers reliant on mainstream media. In fact the new ‘green revolution’ is feeding the world. The authors of a recent science paper, Charles Taylor and Wolfram Schlenker, state: “We consistently find a large fertilisation effect; a 1 ppm increase in CO2 equates to a 0.4%, 0.6%, 1% yield increase for corn, soybean and wheat respectively.” The heavy greening of the Earth can be seen in a map first published in Donohue/CSIRO 2015 and republished in another recent paper from the CO2 Coalition. This examined the nutritive value of plants growing in enhanced CO2 concentrations.

The map was produced from satellite leaf data and shows that greening between 1982-2012 grew by 20-30% in India, West Australia, the Sahel and the Anatolian highlands. A more recent paper Chen et al. 2024 found that greening had actually accelerated in the last two decades. The increase in CO2 was found to be the dominant driver of the positive trend of the Leaf Area Index over most of the global land surface.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.

4.6 37 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

286 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
J Boles
December 24, 2024 10:06 am

I just knew it! Take that carbon trapped underground and bring it back in to circulation, grow the trees and food, and green the deserts.

Scissor
Reply to  J Boles
December 24, 2024 2:17 pm

CO2 been very very good to me.

Reply to  Scissor
December 24, 2024 5:39 pm

To all of us!

Reply to  Scissor
December 24, 2024 6:57 pm

CO2 been very very good to me.”

So has the use of hydrocarbon fuels.

In fact, just like everyone else in western civilisation, I totally rely on them every minute of every day.

I doubt I could find one thing in this house that wasn’t there without some input from hydrocarbon fuels.

Derg
Reply to  bnice2000
December 25, 2024 5:01 am

+1,000

December 24, 2024 10:25 am

97% of all scientists disagree with these findings. You can read all about it on my climate blog that I just created. Everyone who is right thinking about carbon pollution knows that 350 ppm of CO2 is the absolute maximum safe concentration and that windmills and carbon taxes are needed to return us to a safe environment for polar bears.

Reply to  doonman
December 24, 2024 11:11 am

That has to be subtle mix of mockery and sarcasm ! 🙂

Scissor
Reply to  bnice2000
December 24, 2024 12:20 pm

350.000001 ppm is deadly.

Reply to  Scissor
December 24, 2024 12:50 pm

If you fund my “scientific organization” to the tune of $10,000,000 per year, I will teach the world how to round to only five digits after the decimal point … thereby saving us all from certain death!

Bill Toland
Reply to  doonman
December 24, 2024 11:58 am

I actually know people who think like that.

Reply to  Bill Toland
December 24, 2024 12:50 pm

For certain definitions of “think”.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Bill Toland
December 26, 2024 10:20 am

“think like” = believe, a religious concept.

captainjtiberius
December 24, 2024 10:27 am

Meanwhile one political party’s members spend millions of dollars to convince judges that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant that need regulating.
When asked if CO2 should be totally eliminated from the atmosphere, many of them answer, “of course.”

mrjleex
Reply to  captainjtiberius
December 27, 2024 6:44 am

Do they realize that below 150 ppm, the planet dies? I guess not. W/O CO2, no photosynthesis which implies no food which implies no living thing survives. The 150 ppm level is also improbable. Trust the planet…

GeorgeInSanDiego
December 24, 2024 10:31 am

Weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa; week of December 15, 2024: 424.96ppm
The climate alarmists try to use any inaccuracy in our arguments to impugn our motives, so let’s always strive for accuracy.

Reply to  GeorgeInSanDiego
December 24, 2024 10:38 am

At any point in time- how much does it vary across the planet?

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 24, 2024 2:12 pm

This image sourced from NASA here gives us some idea of both seasonal and north/south variations in atmospheric CO2 as estimated from satellites. Pity it stops at 45 deg south.
Seasonal and latitude variations are clearly visible.

XCO2
kwinterkorn
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 24, 2024 2:49 pm

As well as varying as an annual cycle.

Richard Greene
Reply to  GeorgeInSanDiego
December 24, 2024 11:50 am

Week from December 15, 2024:  
424.96 ppm CO2
UP 6.4% in past 10 years

Weekly value from 1 year ago:  
422.40 ppm CO2

Weekly value from 10 years ago:  
399.32 ppm CO2
Last updated: December 24, 202

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 12:50 pm

Who cares?

Richard Greene
Reply to  mkelly
December 24, 2024 3:35 pm

A serious discussion of CO2 starts with measurements

Go back to your comic books

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 5:00 pm

A serious discussion of CO2 starts with you being absent from it.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 5:16 pm

A serious discussion of CO2 starts with measurements”

We are waiting..

Show us empirical measurements for CO2 warming in the atmosphere.

Richard Greene
Reply to  bnice2000
December 24, 2024 10:06 pm

Show us the net temperature effect of the entire ENSO cycle over the past 50 years (it is temperature neutral).

Then explain why the ENSO cycle was accompanied by global cooling from 1940 to 1975 and by global warming from 1975 to 2024. Mr. El Nio Nutter.

And tell us why you ignore La Ninas too.

There may be over 100,000 studies on the effects of CO2
Read one.
Get someone to explain it to you.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 10:52 pm

Poor KPG, again RUNS AWAY.. and in doing so back up everything I have said.. Well done and Thank you.

You certainly couldn’t explain anything even to a 5-year-old.. It would be the other way round.

You are so interested in measurements then…

Show us empirical measurements for CO2 warming in the atmosphere.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 10:57 pm

And nobody can explain to you that the El Nino events in the last have caused a step change after a spike..

Even though It is totally obvious in the actual UAH data.

You say you care about data, then just ignore it because it doesn’t fit your ideo-illogical lack of understanding..

I am still waiting for you to produce one of these studies showing, by measurement, that CO2 has caused any warming in the last 45 years.

Where is it ??

Don’t keep failing, it makes you look like a total idiot.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 25, 2024 12:52 am

Read one.”

Waiting. for you to post one.

Seems you have major issues in that department.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 25, 2024 12:56 am

El-Nino-and-La-Nina-effects
Anthony Banton
Reply to  bnice2000
December 25, 2024 5:40 am

How’s about we update that graph with last 27 years or so, as for some strange reason you’ve omitted them ….

comment image

It seems that by your logic we should have been cooling, eh what?
(far more LNs that ENs in that period).
But then again your cognitive disonance will explain that away as fitting with your unphysical delusion that ENs are causing warming.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 25, 2024 1:19 am

And just for the lonely king of the peanuts….

Reply to  bnice2000
December 25, 2024 1:20 am

darn.. wrong graph got attached and you can’t change it via edit

El-Ninos-Warm
2hotel9
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 25, 2024 4:27 am

Again, CO2 is a positive, all your crying is meaningless.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 26, 2024 10:24 am

Insults aside, and I forgive you, what is the distance from the observatory to Kilauea?

10 miles lateral, 15 miles downslope, per Google maps.

And Kilauea is one of the most active volcanos on the planet, according to reports.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/24/us/kilauea-volcano-erupts-hawaii-island/index.html

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
December 26, 2024 12:08 pm

ISTR the CO2 observatory had to move or shut down temporarily when Mauna Loa itself erupted.

Reply to  karlomonte
December 27, 2024 8:50 am

IASTR that they specifically put the observatory next to the volcano not to artificially boost CO2 levels by reading the volcano’s output directly, but rather (so they claim) to take advantage of the vertical thermal loop resulting from the volcano’s heat, meaning that the air next to the volcano is descending from the stratosphere as the volcano’s thermal ascends. This way they try to sample “high” air with a ground-based observatory. Does that work? I don’t know, but I think that was the idea.

Rich Davis
Reply to  mkelly
December 24, 2024 3:42 pm

Wow. That’s exactly what I was going to say.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 1:25 pm

See my comment above. One cubic meter of this dry air contains only a mere 0.839 grams of CO2 and has a mass of 1.29 kg at STP.

How is the recent winter weather? Are burning FF to keep warm?

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 2:12 pm

Great news for the planet that CO2 levels continue to increase.

Totally beneficial.

No evidence of any downside. !

Richard Greene
Reply to  bnice2000
December 24, 2024 3:38 pm

Coal ash is a pollutant

Burning hydrocarbons without modern pollution controls creates air pollution that offsets the benefits of CO2 emissions. Mainly a problem in Asia these days.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 4:17 pm

KPG saying yet again that he has no evidence. 🙂

Switching from CO2 to coal ash.. .. petty little FAILED ploy. !

Coal ash is all around you, KPG, used in many products that you use every day.

Richard Greene
Reply to  bnice2000
December 24, 2024 10:17 pm

Coal ash contains heavy metals and other hazardous pollutants like arsenic, mercury, cadmium, chromium, and lead. These contaminants can cause serious health effects, including cancer, heart and thyroid disease, reproductive failure, and neurological harm.

You may be a victim.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 11:01 pm

see below”

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 11:20 pm

Concrete production, as a substitute material for Portland cement, sand.
Corrosion control in reinforced concrete (RC) structures

Fly-ash pellets which can replace normal aggregate in concrete mixture.

Embankments and other structural fills (usually for road construction)

Grout and Flowable fill production

Waste stabilization and solidification

Cement clinker production (as a substitute material for clay)

Mine reclamation

Stabilization of soft soils

Road subbase construction

As aggregate substitute material (e.g. for brick production)

Mineral filler in asphaltic concrete

Agricultural uses: soil amendment, fertilizer, cattle feeders, soil stabilization in stock feed yards, and agricultural stakes

Loose application on rivers to melt ice

Loose application on roads and parking lots for ice control

Other applications include cosmetics, toothpaste, kitchen counter tops, floor and ceiling tiles, wallboard, bowling balls, flotation devices, stucco, utensils, tool handles, picture frames, auto bodies, vinyl flooring, PVC pipe, structural insulated panels, paints and undercoats

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 5:02 pm

Coal ash is a pollutant

Where are all the corpses?

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 26, 2024 10:26 am

That is true and that is the real purpose the EPA was addressing decades ago.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 2:28 pm

It is really wonderful CO2 ppm is steadily increasing
Flora and fauna love it
Unfortunately, we have not enough fossil fuel left over to double CO2

We Are in a CO2 Famine
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/we-are-in-a-co2-famine
By Willem Post
.
Atmospheric CO2 ppm, human plus natural, it is near the lowest level in 600 million years.
Highly subsidized CO2 sequestering schemes and Net Zero by 2050 schemes are super-expensive, ineffective suicide programs.
Crops in open fields, with CO2 at 420 ppm, require fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and much machinery to have high yields/acre.
Crops in greenhouses, with CO2 at 1200 ppm, require minimal chemicals, have 2 to 3 times higher yields/acre
https://www.masterresource.org/carbon-dioxide/increased-plant-productivity-the-first-key-benefit-of-atmospheric-co2-enrichment/
.
Plants are on a starvation diet with CO2 at 420 ppm
The image shows plant growth at 420 ppm; at 420 +150; at 420 +300; at 420+450
.
Many plants have become weak or extinct, along with the fauna they support, due to CO2 at 420 ppm, or less.
As a result, many areas of the world lost resilience, became arid and deserts.
Current CO2 ppm needs to at least double or triple. Unfortunately, not enough fossil fuel is left over to make that CO2 increase happen.
Earth temperature increased about 1.2 C since 1900, due to many causes, such as long-term cycles, fossil CO2, and permafrost methane which converts to CO2.
.
CO2 ppm increase from 1979 to 2023 was 421/336 = 1.25, greening increase about 12%, per NASA.
CO2 ppm increase from 1900 to 2023 was 421/296 = 1.42, greening increase about 19%
.
Increased greening: 1) Produces oxygen by photosynthesis; 2) Increases world flora and fauna; 3) Increases crop yields per acre; 4) Reduces world desert areas
The ozone layer absorbs 200 to 315 nm UV wavelengths, which would genetically damage exposed lifeforms.

Reply to  wilpost
December 24, 2024 2:37 pm

Here is the image mentioned above

Picture2-Eldarica-Pine-Trees
Richard Greene
Reply to  wilpost
December 24, 2024 3:53 pm

Plants at 420 ppm CO2 in 2024 are keeping 8 billion people alive so they can not be starving for CO2

About 70% of food crops are C3 — they could use double to triple the ambient CO2.

30% are C4, which benefit much less with CO2 doubling

If CO2 doubles, C4 plants generally increase in size by 10-25% compared to their size under normal CO2 levels, with some studies showing a potential increase up to 40% in biomass; however, this increase is significantly smaller than the growth observed in C3 plants which can see a 40-100% increase under doubled CO2 concentrations.

Doubling the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere could increase crop yields by an average of one-third. The impact of increased CO2 levels on crop yields varies by region and crop type: 

One acre of greenhouses can produce up to 6x more tomatoes than one acre outside. But hey taste like cardboard to me.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 5:30 pm

In Dutch greenhouses, tomato production is tripled/acre with CO2 at 1200 ppm.

We eat a toasted tomato and Cheddar cheese sandwich every day for breakfast, plus other goodies. It tastes wonderful, already for 3 decades.

Reply to  wilpost
December 24, 2024 9:03 pm

That sounds like a British diet. I thought that you lived in Woodstock, Vermont.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 25, 2024 5:56 pm

I was born in the Netherlands and brought my eating habits with me

My wife was born in Norway. She eats the same as I, plus some very salty Norwegian fare I cannot digest.

Hotel 2 Oscar
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 25, 2024 6:11 am

What do you mean by “normal CO2 levels” and what exactly is the normal CO2 level in ppm?

Reply to  Hotel 2 Oscar
December 25, 2024 10:26 am

Normal is anything between about 10^2 and 10^3 PPMv.

SwedeTex
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 25, 2024 9:13 am

I wonder how he knows what cardboard tastes like. I bet his parents bought him books and sent him to school and he chewed on the covers.

kwinterkorn
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 2:53 pm

Yes. After trillions spent on climate alarmism, CO2 continues to rise unabated.

Meanwhile, the Earth greens, growing seasons lengthen a little, food production continues to rise, and more people continue to die from cold weather than hot weather.

Richard Greene
Reply to  kwinterkorn
December 24, 2024 4:00 pm

About $5 trillion spent on wind and solar since 2010. Not including EV spending

2010 global primary energy
84% hydrocarbon

2024 global primary energy
81.5% hydrocarbon

Annual CO2 increases have been rising since the first COP meeting in 1995

The obvious solution is to stop the COPs

We must stop the rise of CO2 because scientists say CO2 will kill your dog.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 26, 2024 10:31 am

Ok. Post a link to the research that quantifies the CO2 level that will kill my dog. (Hint: I do not have a dog.)

/humor

2hotel9
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 25, 2024 4:26 am

CO2 is a positive, you can cry about that all you want.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  2hotel9
December 26, 2024 10:30 am

Everything Richard Greene posted was CO2 positive.

Reply to  GeorgeInSanDiego
December 24, 2024 1:17 pm

For a CO2 concentration of 424.96 ppmv in dry air, one cubic meter of this air contains a mere 0.835 grams of CO2 and has a mass of 1.29 kg. This small amount of CO2 can heat
up such a large mass of air by only a very small amount if at all.

In air with a temperature of 70 deg. F and with 70% RH, the concentration of H20 is
14,780 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has 11.9 g of H20 and 0.78 g of CO2, and has a mass of 1.20 kg. To the first approximation and all things being equal, the proportion of the
greenhouse effect (GHE) due to water is given by:

GHE for H20 = moles H2O / moles H2O + moles CO2 = 0.66/ 0.66 + 0.018 = 0.97 or 97%.

Based on the above data and calculations, I have concluded that the claim that CO2 (i.e., the control knob) is the cause of global warming is a lie. The purpose of this lie is to provide UN the justification o distribute funds from the rich donor countries, via the UNFCCC and the UN COP, to the poor countries to help them cope with global warming and climate change. At the recent COP29 conference in Baku, the poor countries came clamoring not for billions but trillions of funds.

Hopefully, president-elect Donald Trump will put an end to the greatest scientific fraud since the Piltdown man.

Scissor
Reply to  Harold Pierce
December 24, 2024 2:22 pm

Perhaps Covid-19 came from a bat or two weeks to flatten the curve are greater frauds.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Harold Pierce
December 24, 2024 10:40 pm

CO2 does not heat anything
It deflects some upwelling long wave infrared radiation, preventing it from reaching space. It impedes cooling

The net radiative cooling of earth is the upwelling radiation minus the downwelling (back) radiation. Back radiation is caused by water vapor, CO2 and clouds.

Clouds seem to be decreasing in recent decades. That allows more solar heating in the day but increases cooling at night

Water vapor is a dependent variable, correlated with any cause of atmospheric warming.

The direct cause of more back radiation is more CO2 in the atmosphere from manmade CO2 emissions.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 11:03 pm

Not a single thing you said was back by any science.

Net radiation depends on the temperature gradient

CO2 does not alter the temperature gradient, so it can’t alter the net radiation.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  bnice2000
December 26, 2024 10:36 am

Excuse me? I do not like defending someone with a predilection for insults, but this time I must.

“Not a single thing you said was back by any science.”

CO2 does not heat anything – true.

“Net radiation depends on the temperature gradient”

False. De-conflating IR radiation from heat (thermal energy flows).
Heat depends on the temperature gradient.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 25, 2024 12:57 am

CO2 does not heat anything”

Yes, we know that !!

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  bnice2000
December 26, 2024 10:36 am

So you admit your previous post was in error?

“Not a single thing you said was back by any science.”

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 25, 2024 1:00 am

“preventing it from reaching space”

Rubbish !

“but increases cooling at night”

Do you have evidence of that ?

Or are you saying that H2O is the only real GHG. !

rckkrgrd
Reply to  GeorgeInSanDiego
December 25, 2024 7:57 am

The increase in CO2 is very nearly linear. I wonder why I cannot find any blips to correspond to all the efforts by nations to reduce the concentration. Could it be that we are not actually contributing enough CO2 to matter or do we just need to spend a few trillion more?

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  rckkrgrd
December 26, 2024 10:37 am

You understand.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  GeorgeInSanDiego
December 26, 2024 10:21 am

Dry mol concentration. In the atmosphere with water vapor ~10% lower, per Mauna Loa literature.

Rud Istvan
December 24, 2024 10:33 am

I disagree with the numbers but not the conclusions of this post.

The best estimates of the zero feedbacks ECS are 1.1C (Curry, 2010), 1.2C (Lindzen 2011), and using Monckton’s irreducible equation and his paper’s inputs, more precisely 1.16C.

The best empirical estimate of cloud feedback (Dessler 2010) is ~0—redone and confirmed by McIntyre in 2011. Even the IPCC AR5 says the sum of all else except water vapor feedback (WVF) is about zero.

That leaves WVF, which via the Clausius-Clapeyron equation must be something positive. So the net feedbacks ECS must be something above 1.2C, not below. The best empirical estimates using EBM are about 1.65-1.7C. That is in almost in exact agreement with the estimate derived from Guy Callendar’s 1938 curve of 1.68C. That is also in very good agreement with the INM CM5 model from CMIP6 (the only one without a spurious tropical troposphere hotspot) that has ECS at 1.8C

No cause for alarm.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
December 24, 2024 10:58 am

That leaves WVF, which via the Clausius-Clapeyron equation must be something positive.

And I disagree with your reasoning.

You’ve only considered the radiative/physical impact of clouds but ignored feedback from water vapour transporting energy from the surface to the cloud layer like an evaporative cooler.

Reply to  TimTheToolMan
December 24, 2024 11:16 am

And ignoring all the other ways energy is moved in the atmosphere.

ECS is effectively zero

Reply to  bnice2000
December 24, 2024 1:36 pm

Exactly. The hydrological cycle and convection utterly swamps the radiative cooling by many orders of magnitude. It’s insane to believe that cooling by radiation and the miniscule effects of adding 0.5% of greenhouse gases can control the temperature to any measurable extent.

Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
December 24, 2024 2:01 pm

Energy transfer by conduction or radiation is governed by the temperature difference between two points, ie the temperature gradient

Convection and other air movement is governed by the pressure/density gradient (with relation to gravity pressure/density gradient in the vertical direction)

CO2 cannot and does not change either the thermal or pressure gradients.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Rud Istvan
December 24, 2024 12:22 pm

Happer and Lindzen working together have guessed an ECS of CO2 of 1.0 degrees C.

Happer alone has guessed 0.75 degrees C. in recent years.

The net effect of three feedbacks is unknown:

(1) Clausius-Clapeyron equation positive feedback

(2) Stefan-Boltzmann Law negative feedback

(3) Evapotranspiration negative feedback

The only settled since 1896 climate science is the existence of a greenhouse effect and that manmade CO2 emissions increase it by some amount.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 1:10 pm

The net effect of three feedbacks is unknown:”

ROFLMAO.!

So you have absolutely ZERO idea if there is any warming from CO2 or not.

WELL DONE !!

Explains why you are totally incapable of producing any empirical measurements.

btw, So you get the science correct for a change, What was shown in 1896 was that CO2 was a radiatively active gas.

Anything further was pure conjecture based on a totally irrelevant and nonsensical simple model, using formulas that didn’t even have dimensional coherency.

Richard Greene
Reply to  bnice2000
December 24, 2024 4:05 pm

It is pure conjecture that your IQ exceeds 100

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 4:19 pm

KPG saying, yet again, that he has no evidence

It really is a pitiful headless chook routine.

Sorry you don’t have the ability to read and understand Arrhenius’s paper.

If my IQ was 100, It would be triple yours.

Actually did an IQ test once, way back when I was about 11 years old.

Came back as 150+… Above what the test could measure.

So yours could be, maybe, 50… although I doubt it is that high. !.

2hotel9
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 25, 2024 4:35 am

Yours is clearly below 80.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 5:05 pm

some amount.

That is not the claim you have been making. Changing your tune?

Reply to  Mike
December 24, 2024 5:17 pm

The “some amount” could be basically zero… or totally tiny and insignificant

Richard Greene
Reply to  Mike
December 24, 2024 10:50 pm

My claim has been some amount with a logical starting point of 0.7 degrees C. based on lab spectroscopy with no feedbacks.

Sometimes I round to 1 degree C.
I have not changed my tune in 28 years.
The IPCC likes 3 degrees C.

I can’t write more — still laughing too hardat BeNasty;s claim of a 150 IQ.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 25, 2024 12:30 am

Based on a closed jar, ignoring everything else that happens in the atmosphere.

Thinks there are no feedbacks that cancel out the “theoretical” radiative warming

Very funny !!

CO2 does not alter the temperature gradient.. so can’t alter the net radiative transfer..

Don’t you accept basic thermodynamics?

Yes, You are still just a crack record… stuck in “repeat garbage”.

Still overestimating your IQ at 50. !

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 25, 2024 1:04 am

The only settled since 1896 climate science is the existence of a greenhouse effect

My claim has been some amount with a logical starting point of 0.7 degrees

Lol. Twonk.

Reply to  Mike
December 25, 2024 1:24 am

Arrhenius DID NOT prove the greenhouse effect…

… he showed that CO2 was a radiatively active molecule.

FFS, King Peanut, get your science right !!

Reply to  bnice2000
December 25, 2024 1:48 am

Sorry Mike, that was meant to be a reply to the Peanut King.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 26, 2024 10:42 am

And the settled science of the hypothesis of a greenhouse effect is still challenged.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
December 24, 2024 1:43 pm

The proposed “positive water feedback” is nonsense. 71% of earth’s surface is covered with
H2O and it doesn’t need any help from CO2.

The major force for transporting H20 from the oceans and from the land surface waters
(i.e., lake, ponds and rivers) is the wind. In a essay at Science of Climate Change 4(1),
Roy Clark reviews research papers on the effects of the wind on transport of water into the air.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Rud Istvan
December 26, 2024 10:40 am

Except a positive feedback requires either the creation of energy or an external energy source.
Kirchhoff’s law eliminates the creation of energy. The only external energy source of any magnitude is the sun and that was already at play.

All feedbacks in the earth energy system are negative or we would not be here debating the topic.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
December 26, 2024 1:03 pm

I’ve never understood how people don’t understand this. If a portion of the output is routed back as positive feedback in order to increase the output higher, the new energy must come from somewhere. Otherwise you end up with the same output.

December 24, 2024 10:58 am

Studies suggest..well, call me shocked!😄

Reply to  ballynally
December 24, 2024 12:03 pm

“peer reviewed studies” no less!

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 24, 2024 1:47 pm

Peer reviewed and published studies for the win!

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 24, 2024 5:07 pm

Where’s Banton?

Reply to  Mike
December 25, 2024 2:00 am

If you look at his comment further down.. He is saturated., !!

old cocky
Reply to  bnice2000
December 25, 2024 1:28 pm

He is saturated

Well, it is Christmas.

Mr.
December 24, 2024 11:13 am

If papers with conclusions like this keep appearing, woke governments will start pulling grants funding from climate research.

For fear that the “settled science” gig will come under too much scrutiny by the proles in general.

GeorgeInSanDiego
Reply to  Mr.
December 24, 2024 11:30 am

Saturation is where we hold them!
Saturation is where we fight!
Saturation is where the lie dies!

Reply to  GeorgeInSanDiego
December 24, 2024 12:00 pm

Where exactly is Saturation.. can you show us on a map ? 🙂

Sounds sort of like the Alamo !

GeorgeInSanDiego
Reply to  bnice2000
December 24, 2024 6:43 pm

Thermopylae, as depicted in the film “300”

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  GeorgeInSanDiego
December 26, 2024 10:45 am

The saturation of arrows blocking the sun so the Spartans fought in the shade?

Reply to  bnice2000
December 24, 2024 6:49 pm

Ok, that joke went over like a flat balloon. 🙁 🙁

Ron Long
December 24, 2024 11:30 am

I knew it! I’m going to include a CO2 subsidy deduction on my next tax forms. It should at least offset the federal road tax included in gasoline.

Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 11:33 am

This is a rare biased article from The Sceptic

The ECS of CO2 with feedbacks is a wild guess with very few scientists claiming less than the lab spectroscopy measurement of +0.7 degrees C. per CO2 x 2

This article presents the lowest estimate I’ve seen in 28 years of climate reading:

(Taiwanese) “scientists found that ground temperature warming of 0.3°C was associated with the increase from 100 ppm to 350 ppm and there was no additional warming at all as CO2 rose further from 350 ppm to 400 ppm. The current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 420 ppm.”

This very low wild guess contradicts the well known higher guesses of William Happer, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christy and Judith Curry, all science Ph.D.’s, contradict all lab spectroscopy measurements, and the spectroscopy data in HITRAN and MODTRAN.

Estimates of +0.7 or less ignore the fact that atmospheric absolute humidity has increased since 1980, amplifying the atmospheric warming (although global average water vapor data are not very accurate).

CO2’s warming effect does not stop at 350ppm. It never reaches saturation.
That is what a logarithmic effect means

In lab spectroscopy a CO2 doubling from 100 to 200 ppm, and then again from 200 to 400 ppm, would cause +1.4 degrees warming, assuming no feedbacks and assuming lab measurements are a decent proxy for CO2s effect in the atmosphere.

I will now wait for comments by the WUWT Peanut Gallery that ignore 128 years of CO2 evidence to claim CO2 Does Nothing … they are obviously being paid by leftists to post junk science comments that make conservatives look like science deniers.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 12:05 pm

OMG , RG has another Tourettes attack !!

There has been less cloud, more absorbed solar radiation.

Absolutely nothing to do with CO2.

And you proven that you have absolutely no scientific evidence that it is.

Absorbed-solar-radiation
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 12:07 pm

There are few here that says it does nothing. You seem fixated on those few in the peanut gallery.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 24, 2024 1:04 pm

RG shall henceforth be known as “the King of the peanut gallery.”

KPG for short. !

Richard Greene
Reply to  bnice2000
December 24, 2024 10:56 pm

I always wanted to be a King
Now I’m King of the Peanut Gallery?
But you and your Peanut Gallery are nothing.
That makes me The King of Nothing

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 11:31 pm

Yep, you are the only one in the Peanut Gallery

How introspective of you. !

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 26, 2024 10:48 am

“That makes me The King of Nothing”

LOL. You said it, not me.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 24, 2024 4:11 pm

THE PEANUT GALLERY DOES EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO EMBARRASS CONSERVATIVES WITH CLIMATE SCIENCE FANTASIES. THEY ARE WHY LEFTISTS ARE WINING THE CLIMATE DEBATES.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 4:38 pm

No need for all caps. Looks juvenile. No, that’s not why leftists are winning- it’s because too many people who should or do know better are enriching themselves from the green scam- or, they are told to follow the party line (those in burro-ocracies and academia) or else. None of those people know about the peanut gallery- nor do they know of very rational skeptics like Stephen Koonin. Nor do they know about you. Even people like you who admit to CO2 being a greenhouse gas- do they listen to you? Of course not- to them, you too are a denier- thus not worth listening to. I know how the climatistas are- Wokeachusetts is loaded with them. They’re all trying to figure out how to tap into the trillions of dollars going into the climate scam- they’re blinded by it- like the people who rushed into CA during the gold rush.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 26, 2024 10:49 am

Follow the money.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 5:13 pm

CLIMATE SCIENCE FANTASIES.

All of climate science is fantasy.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 5:20 pm

KPG saying yet again.. he has no evidence.

So goes the mindless rant route.

Sorry, KPG, it is people who cow-tow to the AGW-cult memes, without any evidence that are losing the reality non-debate.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 6:48 pm

Only embarrassment here, is YOU, KPG !!

2hotel9
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 25, 2024 4:37 am

You are losing, idiot.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 25, 2024 7:18 am

BULLSHIT!!!

With help from smart people here and elsewhere I among other climate realists have driven most warmist/alarmists from forums where they have been reduced to little more than the stupid authority fallacy in their increasingly fewer replies with the rare useless broad IPCC link reference…

NONE of them can explain why the Lower Tropospheric Hot Spot is STILL not observable and why there is still no Positive Feedback Loop in existence.

I have greatly reduced my postings in the last year as warmist/Alarmists have mostly vanished from forums covering climate stuff.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
December 25, 2024 10:57 am

The usual suspects here are doggedly trying to keep the hoax alive.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 12:09 pm

Logarithmic is the IPCC meme approximation.

Actual measured path length calculations show it actually levels out at around 200ppm

This explains why the Taiwanese engineers found…

… there was no additional warming at all as CO2 rose further from 350 ppm to 400 ppm

eggert
Richard Greene
Reply to  bnice2000
December 24, 2024 12:33 pm

BeNasty200 contributes chapter 126 of his epic BeNasty’s Reign of Climate Science Error

CO2 exhibits logarithmic behavior in lab spectroscopy at 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, and 3200 ppm

CO2 is not saturated at 200 ppm == seems that you have now added even more junk science to your impressive collection of junk science … which ignores the past 128 years of scientific data collected about CO2.

You remain the Court Jester of the WUWT website

.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 12:54 pm

RG, The King of the peanut gallery, returns to bless us with his presence.

Ignoring actual measured science, and thinking that a glass jar represents the atmosphere.

KPG has yet to present one single bit of that scientific data from 128 years ago.

He RUNS AWAY every time he are asked to.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 1:27 pm

Without a link to your spectroscopy info have to call BS. Attached an emissivity graph for CO2 at various temperatures and pressures. At atmospheric conditions CO2 cannot do what is claimed.

IMG_0319
Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  mkelly
December 26, 2024 10:51 am

That is well supported by electro-optics, IR seeker technologies.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 4:00 pm

Would you please just give it a rest, Richard?

Give us a little Christmas miracle.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Rich Davis
December 24, 2024 11:01 pm

Will you give the same advice to BeNasty2000 who attacks every science comment I make?
Or do you ONLY want people you disagree with to take all the insults and never fight back? Those you agree with get a free pass for insults? Hypocrite.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 11:33 pm

yawn, more peanut gallery arm flapping from KPG. !

You have yet to fight back with any actual science.

Care to try

1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.

2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.

Reply to  bnice2000
December 25, 2024 12:24 am

Red thumb can’t show any evidence… can’t answer the data questions.

OK.. we know that already.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 25, 2024 5:14 am

Ah Richard, sigh!

Yes, I do disagree with a lot of what bnice2000 says, and we sometimes go back and forth. But remarkably we seem to be able to do it without rancor. And I often agree with things that you say, but as you know, I criticize your gormless grasp of diplomacy.

It’s remarkable to me that in the face of repeated failure to persuade others, indeed in the face of obvious rejection of even your most reasonable posts, you do not take a moment for reflection.

Am I a hypocrite? How so? I am an advocate for a political position, for joining together all voices who oppose the destruction of western civilization, part of which is the NetZero fraud/delusion.

I am not wedded to any particular scientific hypothesis about the weather, even if I have some opinions. What I believe is that continuing to burn fossil fuels does not threaten to cause a catastrophe. There is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY! Everyone who agrees with me on that point is a potential ally to be respected. You make my task harder by fomenting dissension in the ranks of climate skepticism.

Having said that, I still wish you and yours a very joyful Christmas. And the same to all WUWT readers and commenters.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 4:41 pm

What happens in the lab doesn’t necessarily happen in the atmosphere.

128 years of data about CO2- but not 128 years of evidence that it’s the thermostat for the planet’s climate- therefore, whether it has no impact on the climate or only a modest one, makes little difference

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 24, 2024 5:23 pm

I think he is referring to Arrhenius, who, along with others, showed that CO2 is a radiatively active gas.

Arrhenius should have stopped there, instead of making an erroneous and simplistic model of a non-existent atmosphere and making scientifically unsupportable conjectures.

Reply to  bnice2000
December 24, 2024 6:15 pm

“Dr Erroneous” is his nickname in reliability circles — has to do with a common activation energy assumption (forget the details).

Richard Greene
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 24, 2024 11:09 pm

Data is evidence
Science is theories supported by evidence

Ther is a 99.9% consensus for 128 years, based on evidence, that CO2 has an effect on the climate. The evidence , should not be ignored.

The Peanut Gallery here knows how to ignore evidence they do not like.

Closed minds

They are the “YOU CAN’T PROVE IT children of climate change

They seem to have no idea that science does not prove or disprove anything.

Science collects data to reach conclusions called theories.

The evidence is never perfect
So the Conservative Peanut Gallery claims CO2 Does Nothing. That’s why they will never be taken seriously on the subject of climate science.

There are two Climate Peanut Galleries:

Leftist Peanut Gallery:
CO2 Does Everything

Conservative Peanut Gallery
CO2 Does Nothing

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 11:36 pm

“Data is evidence
Science is theories supported by evidence”

OK , then PRODUCE IT.. so far all you have done is squirm. !

1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.

2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.

—-
The evidence is never perfect”

The evidence doesn’t even exist, you keep proving that.

2hotel9
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 25, 2024 4:38 am

And yet you keep denying science. Funny how that is.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 25, 2024 4:54 am

You’re still hallucinating a peanut gallery. There are few here who say CO2 has no effect on the climate- and for all we know, they may be right. Most here think it has SOME effect but not much- not enough to panic over- so if you don’t like the peanut gallery, you’ll prove your intelligence by avoiding it. I think of Stephen Koonin, who says there is SOME climate change- but nothing to worry about. I don’t see him whining over the few people who totally dismiss CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 25, 2024 7:55 am

Is CO2 a greenhouse gas is the wrong question anyway, and I don’t understand why posters on here keep forgetting that. Any correctly stated question on human-caused CO2 effects starts at 280ppm.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 26, 2024 10:53 am

I forgive you.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 12:16 pm

And we still await some empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2, and an indication of where this warming is in the UAH atmospheric data.

We would also like to know how much heat CO2 has added in the last 45 years, backed by actual measurements.

The self proclaimed “king” of the peanut gallery, must be able to tells us, surely.

Where is this 128 years of “evidence”? The peanut king surely doesn’t class Arrhenius’s simplistic model as actually “scientific” does he !

Richard Greene
Reply to  bnice2000
December 24, 2024 12:38 pm

One reason my climate and energy blog has over 1,000,000 lifetime page views is because I can differentiate between real science and junk science. You can’t.

Honest Climate Science and Energy

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 12:57 pm

Ah… the nebulous nothingmess.

Just one paper will do, KPG. Surely you must be able find, just one???

We still await some empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2,

..and an indication of where this warming is in the UAH atmospheric data.

We would also like to know how much heat CO2 has added in the last 45 years, backed by actual measurements.

Mr.
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 1:02 pm

A good bot filter would have blocked 990,900 of those “visitors”.

Reply to  Mr.
December 24, 2024 2:53 pm

Most of those page views will be his own !! 🙂

Reply to  bnice2000
December 24, 2024 4:44 pm

and the rest, just google indexing the site

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 1:02 pm

There are 15 y.o. girls giving out mascara advice that have 15,000,000 views.

Does that mean their science is 15x more rigorous than your science?

Reply to  pillageidiot
December 25, 2024 7:56 am

Probably

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 2:43 pm

You even don’t know what science mean and is.
Even in front of your eyes you can’t recogise it

Greytide
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 4:39 pm

I think people just visit for a laugh!

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 4:43 pm

so, how much influence are you actually having on national climate policy? That’s what counts- not how many hits you get.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 5:16 pm

my climate and energy blog has over 1,000,000 lifetime page views

Do you even realize how pathetic you sound?

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 1:57 pm

RE: …to claim CO2 does nothing…

How often do I have to remind you that CO2 does not cause heating of air as shown in the graphic of the temperatures at the Furnace Creek weather station in Death Valley. In 1922, the concentration of CO2 was 303 ppmv (0.6 g of CO2/cu. m. of air) and by 2001, it had increased to 371 ppmv (0.7 g of CO2/cu. m. of air.), but there was no corresponding increases of the air temperatures.

There is too little CO2 in the air to cause warming.

death-vy
Richard Greene
Reply to  Harold Pierce
December 24, 2024 4:19 pm

Fake data from a fake scientists

According to current records, the highest temperature recorded in Death Valley after 1913 is 130 degrees Fahrenheit, which was reached on both August 16, 2020, and July 9, 2021; these are considered the hottest reliably measured temperatures on Earth since the 1913 record of 134 degrees Fahrenheit, which some climatologists question the accuracy of. 

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 4:46 pm

climatologists climatistas question the accuracy of

fixed it

Rich Davis
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 25, 2024 5:29 am

Climastrologers is my preferred term

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 5:25 pm

Fake and brain-washed comment from a scientific non-entity who is self-installed king of the peanut gallery

There is nothing in the chart that says anything about record temperatures. !

Richard Greene
Reply to  bnice2000
December 24, 2024 11:22 pm

The charts show a rising trend and stops in 2001, long before the current TMAX records set a few years ago.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 25, 2024 12:23 am

These are not daily data, twit !

We know the only warming in the US since 2005 is from the El Nino in 2015/16 and 2023.

No warming from 2005 until that 2016 El Nino.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 11:25 pm

The temperature data was obtained from the GISS database and is not fake.

Reply to  Harold Pierce
December 24, 2024 11:23 pm

The graphic of the Death Valley temperatures was obtained from the late
John Daly’s is website: “Still Waiting For Greenhouse” available at:
http://www.John-Daly.com. From the home page scroll down to the end and click on
“Station Temperature Data”. On the “World Map”, click on “NA” and then on “Pacific”. Finally, scroll down and click on ” Death Valley”. John Daly found many sites around the world that showed no warming. Go to Oz and check
out the charts for Alice Springs and Brisbane.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Harold Pierce
December 24, 2024 11:47 pm

”….. but there was no corresponding increases of the air temperatures.”

comment image

Reply to  Anthony Banton
December 25, 2024 12:20 am

Great illustration of the effect of El Nino events, Banton !! 🙂

Even then, Current temp essentially the same as 1931.

Great to have you on the realist side. !

Anthony Banton
Reply to  bnice2000
December 25, 2024 6:13 am

You seem to be a little over excited ….

The last 27 years have been dominated by LNs and that graph is of Furnace Creek temperatures not global temperatures….

comment image

And we know that ’30s were the time of the dust bowl when Pacific SSTs and crap farming practices desertified much of the western US.

comment image?itok=rPIDKKxN

Reply to  Anthony Banton
December 25, 2024 6:45 am

And because of the this Fake Data hockey stick, Blanton and his accomplices want to shut down Western Civ.

Reply to  karlomonte
December 25, 2024 8:01 am

He’s just a useful idiot in the US Taxation Economy scheme of things.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 4:37 pm

Hi Richard,
Its pleasant to see a comment that is actual science here. The early days of WUWT were filled with people like yourself. I find that the peanut gallery seems to dominate now, with little intervention from the moderators.

A couple of things from this paper stood out to me. First, they are talking about temps at near ground level (5 meters, which would be roughly 288K) instead of against the black body temperature of the earth at 255K. +3.7 w/m2 and Stephan Boltzmann Law delivers an temp increase of (from memory) about 1.1 deg K at 255K, but only about 0.7 deg K at 288. So they get a much smaller number by calculating at near ground level instead of black body.

The second trick they play is to only run their model out 5 years. It is quite absurd in my mind to build a model and then only run it 5 years out. Equilibrium doesn’t happen on a 5 year time scale. they’d have gotten (assuming their model is anywhere close to realistic) a much higher number had they let it run to 50 or 100 years.

Then they make the “saturated” argument which is just silly.

That’s from a quick skim prompted by Bnasty2000’s comment in a different thread where he cited it to falsify his own claims about CO2 without realizing it. I was very amused. I have resolved not to engage with the nasty little troll as it doesn’t matter what facts you put in front of him, he simply declares them to be not facts with a magic wave of his arms. But I couldn’t resist pointing this out to him which resulted in the usual name calling and insults which are his go to when he’s been completely pummeled.

I’m in agreement with you and Rud. Happer, Spencer, Chirsty, Curry and many others are coming to much lower numbers than the IPCC, but far higher than this rather flawed paper.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 24, 2024 5:26 pm

Poor Hoff ,

Still thinks a glass jar is the atmosphere.. hilarious. !

Still thinks radiation is the only form of energy transfer in the atmosphere… D’OH !!

Self-imposed Dunning Kruger. !

Still doesn’t know what ” and includes no additional warming as CO2 rises from 350 ppm to 400 ppm.” means for a level currently about 420ppm

Thinks it somehow contradicts the no warming reality……. bizarre !!

—–

“Its pleasant to see a comment that is actual science here”

Except it wasn’t KPG’s !!

If you think it was, your level of science is down there in the cellar with his, which is quite sad.

Perhaps you would like to use measurements (not in glass bottles, not theory or models)…

… to show how much warming by CO2 there has been in the last 45 years.

Richard Greene
Reply to  bnice2000
December 24, 2024 11:27 pm

BeNasty burst of climate junk science verbal flatulence #127

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 25, 2024 12:17 am

poor lonely Peanut King..

Still no evidence. ! 🙂

Thanks for proving me correct, yet again.

Perhaps you would like to use measurements (not in glass bottles, not theory or models)…

… to show how much warming by CO2 there has been in the last 45 years.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 24, 2024 6:39 pm

“against the black body temperature of the earth”

WOW. Hoff thinks the Earth is black body.. That is quite funny ! 🙂

Ground level is where it matters, not somewhere way up in the atmosphere.

Have you been getting tutelage from Tim Walz in “arm flapping”, because that is all you have done.

Reply to  bnice2000
December 24, 2024 8:24 pm

I specifically said in my comment that the glass tube in the Heinze Hug experiment was NOT representative of the atmosphere and I explained why. Further, the Hug experiment was designed to measure the direct effects of a doubling of CO2 and so was purpose built to eliminate feedback and other effects. I am truly sorry that your reading comprehension is so low that you cannot even get your insults correct.

Further, I never said the earth was a black body. Again, your reading comprehension is downright amazing. Not in a good way. I was making a comparison of how the IPCC expresses sensitivity versus the way your precious engineers were expressing it. They are not directly comparable.

You are clearly a very angry person who seizes on any small error he thinks he sees in order to lambaste the author with insults and sarcasm to make himself feel powerful and superior. All while hiding behind the anonymity of a screen name because he just doesn’t have what it takes to hurl his invective under his own name.

I truly feel sorry for you. You are a coward in need of professional help.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 24, 2024 9:10 pm

So you use a glass tube and pretend it is the atmosphere. dumb !!

“to eliminate feedback and other effects”

So nothing remotely like the real atmosphere.. Thanks for clearing that up. 😉

The whole idea is that the REAL atmosphere has masses of feedbacks and that radiation is just one of many energy movers.

I feel really sorry for your near zero level of atmospheric understanding.

You seem to be a very confused and pathetic little man.

Now answer the questions .. or keep babbling like a kamal imitation.!!

1… Use measurements (not in glass bottles, not theory or models)… to show how much warming by CO2 there has been in the last 45 years.

2… Use empirical scientific measurement to show much warming causes in an open atmosphere.

Reply to  bnice2000
December 24, 2024 9:21 pm

I stipulated that it was not like the real atmosphere, was not intended to be like the real atmosphere, and what some of its shortcomings were in regard to what it purports to measure. Three times. Again, your lack of reading comprehension is not something to be admired.

Seriously, your anger had gotten ahold of you to the point that it blinds you. Get some help.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 24, 2024 9:26 pm

” was not intended to be like the real atmosphere”

If you know it is not remotely like the atmosphere… why are you even bothering to mention it, and keep yapping on about it ?

Your evasion tactics are petty to say the least.

1… Use measurements (not in glass bottles, not theory or models)… to show how much warming by CO2 there has been in the last 45 years.

2… Use empirical scientific measurement to show much warming CO2 causes in an open atmosphere.

And no, not angry at all, roflmao would be a far better description.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 24, 2024 9:53 pm

Get some help.”

I’ve been asking for help for a long time, trying to find some actual real measured scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.

Care to assist ?? 😉 You know the questions.

—-

“your lack of reading comprehension is not something to be admired.”

My reading comprehension is just fine….. you said.. and I quote…

“was NOT representative of the atmosphere” (emphasis yours)

“was purpose built to eliminate feedback and other effects

Reply to  bnice2000
December 25, 2024 12:15 am

poor Hoff. is that you with the red thumb

still flapping your arms in the dark.

So funny! 🙂

Reply to  bnice2000
December 25, 2024 8:01 am

You’ve made it quite clear that you don’t want any help.

The first step in getting help is admitting you need help.

But unless your reading comprehension is even lower than I thought, that’s not the kind of help I meant. You’re a very angry old man railing at the world from the comfort of an anonymous screen name shouting the same precise arguments over and over, contributing nothing. You’ve not changed a single mind about a single thing in your entire time here, but it feels oh so good to tell other people they’re stupid, doesn’t it?

Derg
Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 25, 2024 5:18 am

Can you show which climate model will accurately predict the temperature in 20 years?

Reply to  Derg
December 25, 2024 7:47 am

There aren’t any.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 5:09 pm

 28 years of climate reading:

And still don’t get it. Lol.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 5:11 pm

This very low wild guess contradicts the well known higher guesses of William Happer, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christy and Judith Curry, all science Ph.D.’s,

Lol.

Reply to  Mike
December 24, 2024 6:42 pm

It is called scientific progress. !! 🙂

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 8:11 pm

ASSuming lab measurements are a decent proxy for CO2s effect in the atmosphere.”

Which is probably the most idiotic and anti-science thing you could possibly do !!

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 26, 2024 4:55 am

(Taiwanese) “scientists found that ground temperature warming 

Please reread this again and again until you get the correct picture. It says “ground temperature”. It doesn’t say air temperature.

What do you think absorbs the sun’s radiation? I’ll assure you it isn’t CO2 at 1.5 meters above the surface. That means the surface warms the air. If the surface warming is only 0.3°C to even 1°C, then the air warming further needs to be examined with a jaundiced eye. Where is the energy coming from to warm the air beyond that? Perhaps a higher absorption caused by less dense clouds? Maybe the sun? I think we’ll find it is not due to increasing CO2!

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 26, 2024 10:47 am

Certain frequencies of EM radiation find the atmosphere is opaque to those frequencies. Increasing the responsible gas concentration does not make it more opaque.

Nick Stokes
December 24, 2024 12:19 pm

Earlier this year a group of Polish scientists led by Dr. Jan Kubicki supplied three papers arguing that above 400 ppm, “the CO2 concentration can no longer cause any increase in temperature”.”

The most recent has already been retracted.

hdhoese
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 24, 2024 12:47 pm

Simple question, what are the specifics used by the Editor-in-Chief for the retraction?
“ After review by additional expert referees, the Editor-in-Chief has lost confidence in the validity of the paper and has decided to retract.” Elsevier Policy gives a mass of reasons including “concern.” There has been a great deal of apparently unprecedented lost confidence about science in general, fair or not, but includes enough statistically justified to be concerned.

Reply to  hdhoese
December 24, 2024 12:54 pm

“Subsequent to acceptance of this paper, the rigor and quality of the peer-review process for this paper was investigated and confirmed to fall beneath the high standards expected by Applications in Engineering Science. After review by additional expert referees, the Editor-in-Chief has lost confidence in the validity of the paper and has decided to retract.”

IOW, we didn’t like it so found some of the usual suspects to re-review it negatively.

Reply to  StuM
December 24, 2024 5:22 pm

fall beneath the high standards expected 

What the hell does that mean?

Reply to  hdhoese
December 24, 2024 4:52 pm

So, only when a paper has total confidence in its validity- is it OK to publish it? That’s crazy. The authors are presenting their ideas- they should be available for others to see. It wasn’t written by coal miners in Poland – but scientists. Clearly, the climatista ruling elite didn’t like it. Probably half or more of all peer reviewed published papers are bullshit.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 24, 2024 5:54 pm

The main reason for journal peer-review is to decide if they want it published in that magazine.

Someone, ie the “climate experts“.. did not want this paper published ..

I wonder why 😉

Reply to  bnice2000
December 24, 2024 6:17 pm

They are corrupt?

Reply to  karlomonte
December 24, 2024 6:44 pm

They have a “story” they cannot allow to be countered. !

Their whole income, status and credibility depends on maintaining that “story”.

Reply to  karlomonte
December 25, 2024 12:34 am

And yes, it could be described as corruption.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 24, 2024 1:00 pm

“Subsequent to acceptance of this paper, the rigor and quality of the peer-review process for this paper was investigated and confirmed to fall beneath the high standards expected by Applications in Engineering Science. After review by additional expert referees, the Editor-in-Chief has lost confidence in the validity of the paper and has decided to retract.”

That is like all of the censorship and shadow-banning notifications on old Twitter.

If their methodologies were flawed, publish how they were flawed!

Based on the journal’s retraction notice, “We didn’t like the implications of their conclusions.” remains viable as a possible reason/motive for the retraction … with zero evidence to the contrary.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 24, 2024 1:02 pm

And yet Mann’s papers , full of errors and deliberate data torture and fabrication, endure. !

Poor editor crumbled to pressure from a group of “climate experts.”

Would be interesting to know who they were.

Was Mann one of them. !

Reply to  bnice2000
December 24, 2024 5:20 pm

I would not be surprised in the least. The bloke is a goblin.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 24, 2024 1:03 pm

Perhaps Nick would like to provide measured evidence of warming by CO2 in the last 45 years.

Or NOT. !!

Reply to  bnice2000
December 24, 2024 7:25 pm

Nick has had plenty of time to answer, so obviously he agrees with me that there is no measured evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2 in the last 45 years.

Reply to  bnice2000
December 25, 2024 12:14 am

Still nothing.. Maybe he doesn’t have any evidence.!

Reply to  bnice2000
December 25, 2024 1:22 am

bn. You should stop asking for measurement of warming by human co2 because there isn’t any. The IPCC admitted that in their first assessment report and nothing has changed since then. IPCC quote…… We have not detected the expected signal”
You cannot get more plain than that. If there is a signal, it will never be measured because it’s too small and impossible to extract from the natural noise. (The GAT was the same in 1997 as it was in 1958). That is the current level of climate science and it will remain so. All the conjecture is purely for entertainment purposes…. Enter Greene et.al.

Reply to  Mike
December 25, 2024 8:30 am

This is an under-appreciated comment Mike, although not by me.

I would suggest that you post it early on any appropriate thread on this site. It really should be more visible.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 24, 2024 1:44 pm

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

—Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, July 8, 2004.

So little has changed, eh?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 24, 2024 2:02 pm

Censored is the correct term to use when publishing Editors in Chief change their minds about a paper after initial peer review and acceptance.

Of course, the authors, who obviously were informed of the issues after the fact, have not retracted, which is good form when logical reasoning is not used as a basis.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  doonman
December 25, 2024 1:26 am

Censored is the correct term”

Actually not. There is notjing to stop you reading the paper,even at the Journal’s website. All that has happened is that the Journal has withdrawn its endorsement. That isn’t censorship. They don’t have to say they commend it if they don’t.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 25, 2024 1:53 am

You KNOW it was the climate glitterati that FORCED the editor to retract the paper.

You are a LIAR and a disingenuous prat.

There was nothing in the paper they could argue against, so they had to get it dumped.

And yes, it most certainly is censorship.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  bnice2000
December 25, 2024 6:23 am

I know you cannot grok anything if it contradicts yu ideological bigotray re climate scince but …

There is nothing to stop you reading the paper,even at the Journal’s website.”

So it cannot be ” it most certainly is censorship.” then.

the action of preventing part or the whole of a bookfilmwork of artdocument, or other kind of communication from being seen or made available to the public, because it is considered to be offensive or harmful, or because it contains information that someone wishes to keep secret, often for political reasons:”

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/censorship

IE: as Nick says it is still available to read and not censored

Reply to  bnice2000
December 25, 2024 9:32 am

It clearly is not and by your ranting we can see why Nick has you blocked!

December 24, 2024 12:23 pm

We know CO2 is essentially saturated, but isn’t the alarmist argument now more based around any additional CO2 changing the top of atmosphere affective radiation height and the impact of that?

D Sandberg
Reply to  diggs
December 24, 2024 3:03 pm

But no one has reported an attempt to quantity the amount of ATM affective radiation height increase. A coupe meters? a kilometer?

Richard M
Reply to  diggs
December 24, 2024 9:08 pm

Increasing CO2 cannot increase the effective radiation height. That particular error arises from assuming a constant emission of energy. Of course, when you increase CO2 it MUST also increase emissivity. There is no constant emission.

If you assume both increasing emission and absorption instead, the effective radiation height stays constant. There is no enhanced greenhouse effect.

The only increase in energy absorption is due to broadening of the CO2 primary spectral window. This is probably small and wouldn’t be surprised if it was in the .2 – .3 C range.

Reply to  Richard M
December 25, 2024 12:13 am

If there is an increase in height, there is a similar increase in area, but to the power 2. !

This is basic geometry you learn in primary school or very early junior high school.

Bob
December 24, 2024 12:37 pm

Very nice Chris, clearly written in plain English.

Icepilot
December 24, 2024 12:50 pm

Photosynthesis: Plants/Plankton turning Sunlight/CO2/H2O into Food/O2; neither animal nor blade of grass would exist, absent CO2. CO2 helps plants resist drought/damage/disease, extends growing seasons, lets plants move higher in altitude & Latitudes, shrinks deserts & reduces the spread of fire, plants using & retaining H2O more efficiently. As CO2 rises, photosynthesis flourishes & plants take in more CO2, sparking more growth, photosynthesis & CO2 uptake (recent studies indicate +20% absorption by 2100). Rising temperatures also extend growing seasons, help babies survive, increase net rainfall & save lives. We are in the short period (glacial interstitial) between long Ice Ages, the norm (where I sit) being a half mile of ice. Warm is good, cold is bad. This Cradle of Life is greener, more fertile & life sustaining than it was 200 years ago, because adding food to the base of the food-chain supports all of Nature, including humans. “It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.” R Lindzen

Reply to  Icepilot
December 24, 2024 6:19 pm
strativarius
December 24, 2024 12:56 pm

Narrative Shock – bah humbug edition

Average Briton causes 23 times more CO2 on Christmas Day, study reveals

Emissions generated by each adult by all the travel, gifts, energy, decorations, food, drink and waste associated with the climax of the annual carnival of consumerism
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/24/average-briton-causes-23-times-more-co2-on-christmas-day-study-reveals

Reply to  strativarius
December 24, 2024 2:09 pm

Its called “doing their bit” for the world’s plant life. 🙂

But don’t let Minibrain know….. he will cancel Christmas !!

Now there’s one turkey that needs to be got rid of. !!

kwinterkorn
December 24, 2024 2:47 pm

A key additional point: if you have a big open window in your roof, no matter how you insulate the rest of your roof, much heat will escape.

The “open window” in our atmosphere is the rising convection of moist air in thunderstorms to altitudes well above 99% of the CO2 in our air. This is a huge daily process ongoing over our tropical seas.

Adding more CO2, at most, and separate from the saturation issue, can only slightly trap more heat in the troposphere—-above which thunderstorms rise.

And as Willis E has described here, as the seas warm a little the thunderstorms strengthen, start earlier in the day, and carry even more heat above the CO2 each day, putting an upper limit on Earth’s warming.

Reply to  kwinterkorn
December 24, 2024 3:09 pm

IF CO2 has any warming effect (never actually been able to be measured) it would be mostly in the first 10 to 20m.

Reply to  bnice2000
December 24, 2024 7:44 pm

Shown in Fig. 7 is the IR absorption spectrum of Philadelphia city air from 400 to 4,000 wavenumbers (wns). The gas cell was a 7 cm aluminum cylinder with KCl windows. The absorbance of the CO2 peak at 654 wn is 0.025. For a cell with a length of 700 cm (7 m, ca. 23 ft) the absorbance would 2.5 and 99.9% of the IR light would be absorbed.

For the CO2 peak at 2308 wn the absorbance is 0.035. For the 700 cm cell, the absorbance would be 3.5 and 99.9+ % of the light would be absorbed.

Integration of the spectrum determined that H2O absorbed 92% of the IR light and CO2 only 8%.

The Fig. 7 spectrum was taken from the essay: “Climate Change Reexamined” by Joel M. Kauffman The essay is 26 pages and be downloaded for free. Fig. 7 was prepared by the Australian sherro01.

If everybody could see this spectrum, all this alleged CO2-caused global warming nonsense would vanish overnight.

Reply to  Harold Pierce
December 24, 2024 7:52 pm

I forgot to add Fig. 7. Here it is:

kaufman
Reply to  bnice2000
December 24, 2024 8:04 pm

bnice2000, you should download Fig. 7 and use it whack some sense into warmers.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  bnice2000
December 25, 2024 1:16 am

Err, Oxy:

If that were the case my nice climate science imbecile, the atmosphere would be permanently unstable ( warmer at bottom. Warm air rises. WV condenses. Produces clouds. Clouds often rain).
It isn’t/doesn’t.
So the neutral LR (on average) must be maintained by your putative warmer in the “first 10-20m) NOT being warmed to beyond that limit.
Else the world would be mostly cloudy and wet (where WV is available – 71% ocean).

Thing is Oxy.
You talk bollocks – just so long as you perceive yourself to be spouting against whatever any physical scientist would consider to be a basic common-sense given and hence as if by FIAT they must be wrong.
You’ve not noticed, obviously, but the world doesn’t work like that.
Your premise is demonstrably wrong.
The atmospheric cannot be permanently warmed “mostly in the first 10-20m”

But carry on, as I find it *hilarious*.
And you destroy any credibility this site has as a result.

Oh, and merry Christmas to you, and your lap-dog when he chimes in.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
December 25, 2024 1:28 am

Great Walz arm-flapping routine, combined nicely with totally incoherent kamal-speak,,

Well done, Banton, but try to drink less when commenting.. !

As I said “IF”… You seem to be saying that CO2 doesn’t have any warming effect at all. 🙂

Great that you finally realise that the gravity based thermal gradient is in control, though. (I think that is what you were trying to say, behind the booze)

1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.

2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.

You are certainly the MORON part..

You are stuck on minus 100% credibility. !

Anthony Banton
Reply to  bnice2000
December 25, 2024 6:31 am

You are stuck on minus 100% credibility. !”

Whopee!
Success!
(measured here by the red marks and by the deluded rants of mr oxymoron …. (usually) closly followed in echo by his bromance partner.

Been meaning to ask:
What profession did you have in order to earn a living?
Because I would sure like to tell you that you were doing it wrong.
Because as we know, merely by hand-waving denial I would be correct.
I would be just emulaing your good self afterall.

Please oblige

Reply to  Anthony Banton
December 25, 2024 6:50 am

Typical Blanton word salad, unreadable.

December 24, 2024 3:17 pm

The carbon dioxide spectrum is not saturated

IMG_4156
Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 3:29 pm

CO2 Recycling, from underground back into the atmosphere, where it once was located … is the best thing humans have ever done to improve the ecology of our planet. This was not a plan — it was inadvertant, but so what?

Promote CO2 Recycling to a leftist and watch their head spin (more than usual). I have done that many times in the past few decades. Tell them you love global warming. I sure do.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 4:22 pm

Both are great.….

Except there is no empirical evidence that CO2 causes that warming.

You have shown that multiple times.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 24, 2024 4:58 pm

Better to tell them that you love fossil fuels and nuclear. The real story isn’t about warming- it’s about an attempt to kill off the ff industries and by doing that, most other industries.

ferdberple
December 24, 2024 4:08 pm

With all the watts per meter squared radiated back to earth by CO2 we should have solar panels that work at night.

No? Then explain how you can add watts per meter squared from daytime and nighttime.

Reply to  ferdberple
December 24, 2024 6:21 pm

The same way “albedo” is a single number.

Reply to  ferdberple
December 24, 2024 6:41 pm

Solar PV panels need visible light.

Reply to  Harold Pierce
December 25, 2024 6:53 am

The bandgap of silicon is 1.2 eV, which translates to a wavelength of about 1150nm. Silicon PV modules respond very strongly to near-infrared.

Reply to  ferdberple
December 27, 2024 9:14 am

And not just solar panels either. All those W/m^2 could be used to perform any type of thermal work, such as driving steam engines to produce electricity. No one is doing that, though. Why not?

CFM
December 24, 2024 4:53 pm

Considering the likely arrival of the next glacial period I previously felt almost as gloomy as Ehrlich probably felt while writing The Population Bomb.

However, the more I consider the progress since the Industrial Revolution, the more optimistic I become.
Whenever I feel down or worried I start listing ….
Planet Greening, More food on less land, Medical Equipment, Power Tools, Warm Houses, Clean Water, Sewage systems, Electricity, Power Cords, Airplanes, Nuclear Power ….

Ridiculous people with their ignorant beliefs will not stop human ingenuity.

Reply to  CFM
December 24, 2024 6:22 pm

But the AGW hoaxers are trying their darnedest to reverse it all.

December 24, 2024 7:59 pm

The ‘Guest Blogger’ does not understand the ghe. Professor Raymond Pierrehumbert of Oxford explains the saturation fallacy here: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

Richard M
Reply to  Warren Beeton
December 24, 2024 9:55 pm

As I indicated in my recent comment, their argument is nonsense. They assume the amount of energy moving upward stays constant as CO2 absorption increases. In reality, more energy absorption does occur, but that is offset by more energy emission. They both increase symmetrically.

When this better view is used we see a similar effect as increasing force and resistance on an object. If done equally, the object continues to move at the same speed. In our atmosphere, emission is the force and absorption is the resistance.

I believe the wrong view initially came about before it was realized that almost all the surface energy gets thermalized low in the atmosphere. The energy loses all identity at that time. There is no fixed CO2 spectral band anymore. It is just CO2 molecules interacting with the bulk energy of the atmosphere.

Now you know better.

Reply to  Richard M
December 25, 2024 12:42 am

Now you know better.”

Sorry Richard, but the beetroot is totally incapable of learning.

Reply to  Richard M
December 25, 2024 6:44 am

First, You’ve made a conceptual error, and it’s a whopper. Outgoing thermal radiation generally decreases with increasing altitude because the temperature of the atmosphere typically decreases with altitude, meaning less thermal energy is available to radiate outwards at higher levels.
Second, the empirical example of Venus — with an atmosphere consisting of 95% CO2 and a surface temperature hot enough to melt lead — falsifies your hypothesis.

Richard M
Reply to  Warren Beeton
December 25, 2024 12:03 pm

No error here. I’ve been telling people for a long time that energy is lost to space at all altitudes. Hence, there’s less being reabsorbed/reemitted as you move upward. That doesn’t change with more CO2.

It appears you can’t put two concepts together. Emission and absorption have the opposite effects. When CO2 increases, the emission increase is trying to radiate more energy to space and the absorption increase is trying to prevent it.

The net effect is …. no change. You get more photons emitted which are absorbed sooner. The rate of energy flux doesn’t change at any layer of the atmosphere.

This means the energy flux provided by CO2 is independent of CO2 concentration.

PS. Venus has a much thicker atmosphere.
PSS. This is not difficult if you’d stop denying basic science.

Reply to  Richard M
December 25, 2024 3:42 pm

When CO2 increases there is an emission increase? there is no magical energy source for this. The earth doesnt radiate any more as co2 is increased , and if you move to a higher altitude, that layer of the atmosphere is emitting less than before, because the increased co2 concentration in that layer is returning more radiation to earth. And if that layer is returning more energy to earth than before, it will be cooler as a result because there is no energy source from the added co2 that can offset the cooling effect.so as co2 is added, the outer layers of the atmosphere become cooler, and the amount f ir from toa is reduced. This process continues no matter how much co2 is added to the atmosphere.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
December 25, 2024 4:32 pm

Correction: the higher altitude layer warms, does not cool. However:
as we add more CO2, “In the layers so high and thin that much of the heat radiation from lower down slips through, adding more greenhouse gas molecules means the layer will absorb more of the rays. So the place from which most of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as well. The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the higher levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up. The imbalance must continue until the high levels get hot enough to radiate as much energy back out as the planet is receiving.
Any saturation at lower levels would not change this, since it is the layers from which radiation does escape that determine the planet’s heat balance. The basic logic was neatly explained by John Tyndall back in 1862: “As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial [infrared] rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at the Earth’s surface.”

Reply to  Richard M
December 25, 2024 4:22 pm

what is the Relevance of the thicker Venusian atmosphere? Doesn’t change the fact that Venus falsifies your claim.

Richard M
Reply to  Warren Beeton
December 25, 2024 6:16 pm

When CO2 increases there is an emission increase? there is no magical energy source for this. The earth doesnt radiate any more as co2 is increased

It’s nice to see you are trying to understand. You made an attempt to understand the emission height hoax at a more detailed level. Too bad you made no attempt to truly understand what I told you.

So, let’s dig in a little deeper. There is a lot more energy in the atmosphere than what CO2 absorbs. Every heard of water vapor? Ever heard of that 33C added warmth? Once we get into the reemission/reabsorption mode of moving energy upward through atmosphere, all that other energy is available. There’s your “magical energy”.

More of the energy starts moving around due to CO2 molecule emissions. However, due to the increased CO2 absorption the average pathlength is decreased. This slows down the larger photon count. As I stated before, the energy flux stays constant.

So, you do get more CO2 molecules emitting at higher/colder altitudes AND you have more energy from the increased emissions at lower altitudes compensating for it. You add it all together, and the total energy flux does not change.

Kirchhoff’s Law is the key. You can’t have an increase in absorptivity without and equal increase in emissivity.

PS. Venus surface is warmer for the same reason Death Valley is warm. the lapse rate. The thicker atmosphere causes the lapse rate to start at a much higher altitude.

Reply to  Richard M
December 25, 2024 7:12 pm

Your attempt to ‘dig deeper’ results in a violation of the 1st Law. Water vapor is not an energy input into earths system, Its merely a vehicle by which energy may be exchanged from one part of earth’s system to another. This conceptual error (again) is what causes you to reach the wrong conclusion The scientific world is right and you are wrong.
And Venus remains the example that falsifies your bogus claim of saturation.

Richard M
Reply to  Warren Beeton
December 25, 2024 7:54 pm

 Water vapor is not an energy input into earths system

Oh my, you really don’t understand much about how the atmosphere is energized. Water vapor is the strongest surface radiation absorbing gas. Even your priests estimate about 75% of the surface energy is absorbed by water vapor. It provides access into the atmosphere for more energy than just about anything else.

How many more completely idiotic things are you going to come up with in order to support your cult beliefs?

Reply to  Richard M
December 25, 2024 8:06 pm

Good grief.did you hear yourself? : “Water vapor provides access for energy into the atmosphere”. I.e., water vapor is not an energy source. Further, You don’t even understand the 1st law. Water vapor acts as a FEEDBACK, not an energy source, in the warming of the climate.

Richard M
Reply to  Warren Beeton
December 25, 2024 8:28 pm

It just occurred to me you don’t understand the analogy you referenced earlier. Quite hilarious, really. I thought Tyndall’s analogy was good, but you need to understand it.

The water is analogous to energy. Radiative gases such as CO2 and H2O are the dam which is blocking the energy. Atmospheric molecules are the reservoir where the energy is stored.

When talking about CO2 within the atmosphere, the molecules are dealing with energy within the reservoir. It is huge and CO2 is just moving energy around (reabsorption/reemission ) up until the final emission.

I’m not talking about the energy coming into the reservoir. That happens low in the atmosphere and 99.999% of the energy gets thermalized, that is, stored in the reservoir. After that, CO2 molecules are interacting with the reservoir of energy. Just like with a dammed river, the input and output are small compared to the reservoir.

That’s why there is plenty of energy for CO2 molecules to work with no matter what the concentration

Reply to  Richard M
December 25, 2024 6:58 am

He doesn’t care; his job is to keep the hoax alive, by whatever means necessary.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
December 24, 2024 10:48 pm

You you most certainly do not understand, . otherwise you would see it was complete tosh. and fantasy gobbldygoop.

PettyHumbert has been wrong on so many things he has become an illegendary figure.

iirc correctly, it was his rectum where the 2C warming limit (later changed to 1.5C) came from.

Basically ALL CO2 wavelength radiation is absorbed in the first 10-20m, any further absorption is so small it is total trival, ..(like your comments)

…and does not lead to warming anyway.

Richard M
December 24, 2024 9:29 pm

The saturation argument fails due to broadening of the CO2 spectral window as concentration of CO2 increases. However, it does tell us that the amount of energy available is smaller than people have been led to believe. It’s just not zero.

OTOH, the other claims for how CO2 warms the planet are much easier to debunk. The claim that the emission height increases is based on keeping emissivity constant. Pure nonsense. The claims that downwelling IR warms the surface are debunked by the fact the energy must be conducted back into the atmosphere due to the 2nd Law.

The other thing downwelling IR does do is enhance evaporation. This leads to stronger convective currents and eventually a reduction in high altitude water vapor. This actually reduces the emission height for water vapor which is a cooling effect and about the same as the broadening warming effect mentioned first.

The net change produced from all these factors is darn close to zero.

I think a lot of skeptics fall into the same class as many alarmists. They have their own theories and they really aren’t interested in anything else. As a result they dismiss the real science which I laid out above.

Reply to  Richard M
December 25, 2024 7:02 am

So sorry to inform you that Uneducated word salads do not overturn decades of scientific research.

Richard M
Reply to  Warren Beeton
December 25, 2024 8:36 am

It really is very simple once you accept the reality that emission increases at the same rate as absorption and conduction exists. Of course, you don’t want to understand the truth. That is obvious.

Reply to  Richard M
December 25, 2024 10:51 am

It is simple. But you have it backwards. At higher altitudes, the temperature is lower, and radiative emissions drop according to T^4. So emissions fall as altitude increases. That is so obvious even Deniers should be able to grasp it.

Richard M
Reply to  Warren Beeton
December 26, 2024 8:53 am

Hopefully, I educated Warren above on how atmospheric CO2 radiative effects work. But, just in case let me summarize.

1) CO2 absorbs surface radiation very low in the atmosphere (10-20 meters absorbs 99.95%). That energy is thermalized, that is, transferred to other molecules via collisions.

2) CO2 also can be excited by collisions. As a result a 15 µm photon will be emitted in a random direction. For most of the lower atmosphere the photon will be reabsorbed and once again thermalized within a very short distance.

3) A few photons make it the surface where the energy either results in evaporation of a water molecule or is conducted back into the atmosphere. This is a separate issue. The rest of the energy moves upward in the atmosphere via continued emission-absorption pairs in a gravitational field.

4) At every altitude some of the emitted photons avoid absorption and make their way directly to space. This is why the atmosphere gets colder as you get higher. The change in density means there are fewer CO2 molecules available. It’s a little like musical chairs. There are fewer and fewer spots for a photon to get absorbed.

5) The density decrease and energy loss continues to the top of the atmosphere.

This is the background for what’s called The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect (eGHE). This became the main source of warming after it was discovered surface energy absorption had reached saturation.

The eGHE claims the average emission height for CO2 radiation to space moves higher in the atmosphere as CO2 concentration increases. Since this is colder, the result is less energy is emitted. This forces the surface to warm to increase the energy flux.

The way eGHE is described keeps energy content the same as the initial energy captured in 1), but increases the amount of absorption at every higher altitude. This causes more of the energy to make it those colder altitudes. If this was really true it would cause warming.

The actual science requires CO2 emissions to increase as well as absorption (Kirchhoff’s Law). In fact, both processes increase at the same rate. That leads to more energy moving upward which compensates for the increased absorption. The net effect is energy continues to flow upward at the exact same rate.

Warren denies this basic physics in his comment while calling those who accept it “Deniers”.

Reply to  Richard M
December 26, 2024 9:02 am

“The actual science requires CO2 emissions to increase as well as absorption (Kirchhoff’s Law). In fact, both processes increase at the same rate. That leads to more energy moving upward which compensates for the increased absorption. The net effect is energy continues to flow upward at the exact same rate.”

In bold, you’ve made an assertion without substantiation.. And every scientist in the world has proven you wrong. I don’t think you’re going to make it into the Royal Society.

Richard M
Reply to  Warren Beeton
December 26, 2024 11:00 am

What part of Kirchhoff’s Law escapes you? Absorptivity must be less than or equal to emissivity. So, I’m being nice by saying they are equal. The only other possibility is that the emissions rate is higher. That would cause cooling.

The “substantiation” is inherent in a physical law. The enhanced greenhouse effect is effectively debunked.

Reply to  Richard M
December 26, 2024 11:06 am

I’m being nice by not calling you an absurd excuse for an amateur scientist. You can’t even understand what thousands of your betters have concluded from 125 years of research – and they have published their findings in detailed scientific papers, while you have only blogged on a denier website. No kudos to you from anyone other than denizens of wuwt.
.

Richard M
Reply to  Warren Beeton
December 26, 2024 11:38 am

So, all you have left is a personal attack. Not surprised. Kind of hard to overcome physical laws.

You still have one branch to hang on to. As I’ve mentioned before, there is a warming influence coming from broadening of the 15 µm absorption window.

I’ve also debunked this with a cooling influence from … downwelling IR -> evaporation -> enhanced convection -> reduced high altitude water vapor … chain of events. But at least the complexity makes it harder for people to understand.

Reply to  Richard M
December 26, 2024 11:41 am

I always love it when an amateur imagines he’s found a fundamental flaw in the work of thousands of scientists over 125 years of dedicated research. I bet you guys couldn’t pass freshman physics.

Richard M
Reply to  Warren Beeton
December 26, 2024 12:17 pm

You mean like the recent research where it appears there’s no need for dark energy?

I always get a good laugh when I see anti-science comments like Warren’s. Old views have been overturned constantly across history. Climate change pseudoscience will follow the same course.

Reply to  Richard M
December 26, 2024 12:33 pm

You guys are a laugh riot. You now dream that having upturned a century of climate science, you will soon be recognized by Scientists around the world for your incredible ground breaking work! Why I can even imagine that Oxford University is getting ready to offer you new positions and awards — eg, as Deniers of the Year — who with a simple mental exercise cancelled the Greenhouse Effect, reversed the warming trend, and sent the world into another ice age.
And in breaking news, I just sent Potholer54 an email nominating you for the Golden Crockoduck award. You’ve earned it!! 🤣

Richard M
Reply to  Warren Beeton
December 26, 2024 1:33 pm

Your century of pseudoscience was falsified 15-20 years ago. The papers were denied and successfully hidden from the world.

The analysis of NOAA radiosonde data by Miskolczi provided solid observational evidence for this cooling process. The work by Gray/Schwartz confirmed the process using different data.

Lots of papers are starting to appear which point to something wrong in the climate field. It’s only going to get worse now that the effects of Hunga-Tonga are starting to dissipate.

Reply to  Richard M
December 26, 2024 1:36 pm

Your junk science is the perfect example of why one always goes to the peer reviewed science for the most reliable science. Your post is one long conspiracy theory.

Richard M
Reply to  Warren Beeton
December 26, 2024 2:56 pm

More denial. So typical of religious followers. As we saw in our little debate, you are clueless when it comes to actual science. As a result you “believe” everything you are told to believe and have complete “faith” in your climate priests. Hallelujah.

What you also accomplished is demonstrating a complete lack of integrity. Also common among climate cultists.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
December 26, 2024 12:52 pm

The actual science requires CO2 emissions to increase as well as absorption (Kirchhoff’s Law).

You are misconstruing Kirchhoff’s Law. This law applies at equilibrium.

From: https://modern-physics.org/kirchhoffs-law-of-thermal-radiation/

Kirchhoff’s Law is deeply rooted in thermodynamic principles. It is derived from the concept of thermal equilibrium, where a system’s energy distribution remains constant over time. Kirchhoff conceptualized that in equilibrium, the amount of energy a body emits must equal the amount it absorbs, ensuring energy conservation.

Once CO2 absorbs all the radiation at its fundamental frequency, additional CO2 has no radiation available to absorb. Saturation is reached.

Show us a paper where CO2 absorbs radiation that is not there.

Don’t show a model. The models turn into a linear projection of CO2 absorbing more and more forever raising temperature continually as additional CO2 concentration increases.

Reply to  Jim Gorman
December 26, 2024 1:09 pm

Your explanation of absorption is incorrect, and therefore your conclusion about saturation is also incorrect (as every scientist since Angstrom has figured out):
“The rate of absorption is a very intricately varying function of the wavelength of the light. At any given wavelength, the amount of light surviving goes down like the exponential of the number of molecules of CO2encountered by the beam of light. The rate of exponential decay is the absorption factor. 
When the product of the absorption factor times the amount of CO2 encountered equals one, then the amount of light is reduced by a factor of 1/e, i.e. 1/2.71282… . For this, or larger, amounts of CO2,the atmosphere is optically thick at the corresponding wavelength. If you double the amount of CO2, you reduce the proportion of surviving light by an additional factor of 1/e, reducing the proportion surviving to about a tenth; if you instead halve the amount of CO2, the proportion surviving is the reciprocal of the square root of e , or about 60% , and the atmosphere is optically thin. Precisely where we draw the line between “thick” and “thin” is somewhat arbitrary, given that the absorption shades smoothly from small values to large values as the product of absorption factor with amount of CO2 increases.”
 
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

Reply to  Warren Beeton
December 26, 2024 3:41 pm

“real climate”. The gathering place for real climate science! Right. ROTFLMAO.

Created by
Gavin Schmidt
Michael E. Mann
Raymond S. Bradley
Eric Steig
Caspar Ammann

Reply to  Jim Gorman
December 26, 2024 3:49 pm

Yep. Real scientists. Someday, you might be one. But only after at least six years at university.

Richard M
Reply to  Warren Beeton
December 26, 2024 8:14 pm

There’s video that’s interesting. The premise is the greenhouse effect is more complex than we’ve been told, so they clear up the confusion. It’s really admitting that previously believed causes of warming have been found to be wrong.

The final version just happens to be what I’ve been saying for a long time, the only potential cause of warming comes from broadening.

Reply to  Jim Gorman
December 29, 2024 9:22 am

So by your definition CO2 absorption is not saturated!
comment image

Reply to  Phil.
December 29, 2024 9:28 am

not by Phil’s definition, and not by mine. But by the extensive body of scientific literature, published from Arrhenius’ time of the late 19th century until today. The false idea that CO2 absorption bands throughout the earths atmosphere are saturated, or can become so, is called ‘the saturation fallacy’.

December 24, 2024 11:52 pm

Where it would be most important to say it would be the classroom.
Most kids in school don’t even know about photosynthesis anymore
or haven’t been told the role CO2 has in that process.

Reply to  Eric Vieira
December 25, 2024 7:00 am

They aren’t even told how to add numbers anymore.

Editor
December 25, 2024 12:16 am

I suggest that CO2 levels are going to give us severe problems. Plankton have been steadily removing CO2 from the atmosphere for a very long time. When the Holocene ends and we go into a new glacial period (I have seen no convincing argument that we won’t), there will be a severe cooling and an acceleration of CO2 absorption by the oceans, with ever more sequestration by those plankton. IOW, it’s one-way travel for the CO2. Even if we manage to find ways of getting more CO2 into the atmosphere, it isn’t going to stay there long – in just a few years it will be in the ocean and from there it goes to the sea bed and doesn’t come back. Burning fossil fuels isn’t going to work because there simply aren’t enough fossil fuels. I think we will have to set about breaking down limestones and chalk, much as we do for making cement, but this time purely for the purpose of getting desperately-needed CO2 into the atmosphere. That will take a lot of energy, but hopefully nuclear fusion will be able to supply it.

Humanity has interesting times ahead, if we don’t all kill each other first (unfortunately, given the timescale, that’s a big ‘if’). Hopefully, by the time these actions are needed, the “climate crisis” scientific fraud will have passed through recorded history into oblivion, and people will be trusting scientists again.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
December 25, 2024 12:41 am

Yes, the planet has been SAVED by the slight increase in atmospheric CO2 since the LIA.

And yes, using nuclear power to release CO2 from limestone could be a very important part of future human survival… Plenty of limestone 🙂

Human populations will have to move to warmer areas to survive.. like a lot of older people do now. !

North part of Australia has a huge amount of unused land.

Richard M
Reply to  Mike Jonas
December 25, 2024 4:59 am

Yes, that’s a big “if”, but if we do I think humanity will figure out how to avoid the next ice age. At that time we really will be having a major climate impact.

I suspect there exists areas that we can keep warm and prevent the glacial buildup. One of them is probably Hudson Bay. Keep it from freezing over in the summer.

December 25, 2024 5:18 am

A few things to add:
1:the SB equation in regards to blackbodies does not pair well with a sphere like the Earth.
2: the precise % of influence on temperature between radiation and other processes like convection remains uncertain. Given that we are talking small changes we cannot properly assess causal patterns. We can guess but we cannot separate the signals
3: H20 is the main ‘mover’ of energy helped by other factors like wind.
4: coupled, it is highly unlikely given both the physics properties, the context in the atmosphere in relation to every other molecule that Co2 plays an important role in regards to temperature in the troposphere, if any.

In conclusion: we are now talking very small numbers. To make a point how small that small number is is if course a moot point but highly debated here. People get angry and upset but it is an exercise in futility.
The main point of contention should be w the likes of the IPCC. It looks like the politics of forcing the issue is increasing, much like all the other important political issues. Doubling, tripling down when confronted by contrasting data not in line w the mainstream narrative.
That is the sad reality of the world we are living in.

Merry Christmas..

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  ballynally
December 26, 2024 11:05 am

Spot on.

Verified by MonsterInsights