The journal is finally becoming an internationally recognized scientific peer reviewed journal, with a 141 % page view growth during the previous month. The journal is open for scientific contributions which contradict the IPCC’s climate hypotheses, is open access and has very modest author fees. Authors include Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Hermann Harde, Murray Salby, Francois Gervais, Nils-Axel Mørner, Ronan Connolly, Susan Crockford, Ed Berry, Roy Clark, Antero Olilla, Demetris Koutsoyiannis, William Happer and William van Wijngaarden and more.
A Review Article about the role of CO2 in Global Warming marked a historic milestone. It’s the first peer-reviewed climate science paper with an Artificial Intelligence system as the lead author. Grok 3 spearheaded the research, drafting the manuscript with the human co-authors J. Cohler, D. Legates, F. Soon and W. Soon providing critical guidance. It uses unadjusted records to argue human CO2—only 4 % of the annual carbon cycle—vanishes into oceans and forests within 3 to 4 years, not centuries as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims. The authors conclude that the anthropogenic CO₂-Global Warming hypothesis lacks empirical substantiation, overshadowed by natural drivers such as temperature feedbacks and solar variability, necessitating a fundamental re-evaluation of current climate paradigms: To read the article see https://doi.org/10.53234/SCC202501/06
The journal Science of Climate Change (SCC) was established in summer 2020, hosted by the Norwegian Climate Realists. Unfortunately, the first Chief Editor, Prof Nils-Axel Mörner, passed away before the regular publication process could be started. Nevertheless, thanks to the dedicated commitment of Dr. Geir Hasnes as interims Chief Editor a first issue of SCC could be published in August 2021.
From October 2022 until December 2023, Professor Jan-Erik Solheim acted as Chief Editor strongly supported by senior researcher Stein Storlie Bergsmark. Since that time, due to the unprecedented engagement of both, SCC developed rapidly. In 2021 SCC published two volumes (271 pages), in 2022 three volumes (309 pages) and in 2023 five volumes (600 pages). In total, we have now published 18 volumes, 65 original articles, 12 review papers and 55 conference abstracts.
Since January 2024, the Editorial board consisted of Chief Editor Professor Hermann Harde, and 9 other members, as well as an Extended Editorial board with 6 members. We seek to strengthen the journal with co-editors within the important scientific fields of climate change like, e.g., astrophysics, palaeontology, carbon cycles, atmospheric processes/meteorology, the impact of greenhouse gases, oceanographic processes/sea level, biosphere, modelling, geology, temperature measurements and data series, energy supply etc. Members may also have supplemental perspectives linked to their country and organization.
From 2025, the journal is hosted by the SCC Publishing Association, with a 3-member board and some 25 supportive members. The SCC Publishing board has come to an agreement with Professor Nikolaos (Nikos) Malamos (Greece) to take over the role as Chief Editor on January 1, 2026. We are confident that Professor Malamos will continue the good work by his predecessor and further develop the journal by expanding the board of editors, bringing in new reviewers and last but not least, strengthen the journal’s scientific profile and attracting new authors.
Do visit the journal on https://scienceofclimatechange.org
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
_________________________________________________________________________
The annual saw tooth pattern on the Keeling curve tells you that.
It is 30 years
It’s hundreds of years
Doesn’t explain the upward slope, though.
Maybe this does –
the world population in 1900 was 1.6 billion.
In 2024 it was 8.2 billion.
Just think about the vast vegetated land areas that have been cleared and covered with asphalt, concrete, metal, glass, masonry, lumber, etc over that time frame to accommodate such a population increase.
At the same time, adaptation to weather has reduced human mortalities by > 90%.
What’s your call on weather adaptation vs diminishing human living standards?
The upward slope is because we are emitting CO2 faster than the earth through it’s various sinks, can absorb it.
It says absolutely nothing about how long CO2 will remain in the atmosphere if man were to stop burning fossil fuels.
It also tells you nothing about how the CO2 slope will change (if at all) if man were to stop burning coal and hydrocarbons.
We are still apes in the dark at understanding how things work in reality.
That atmospheric concentration of CO2 is increasing is due to an imbalance of CO2 emitted versus CO2 absorption.
True, but there is no singular cause. No control knob, which is your point.
We harvest deciduous trees and replant with pine. We deforest for building housings for population growth, highways, etc. Those make differences in the CO2 sinks.
Primary energy production emits CO2. Not the sole cause.
Henry’s Law. Oceans are emitting more as they warm. Not the sole cause.
Concrete. Not the sole cause.
Blacktop. Not the sole cause.
8.2 billion people breathing out CO2. Not the sole cause.
The planet is responding by “greening” to create additional sinking.
Once again, the issue has been dumbed down to convince people there is a control knob, which there is not.
The imbalance has been weaponized to assault primary energy production (coal and hydrocarbons).A tragic mistake.
Eliminate humanity and the weather will still happen, climate change as it is called will still happen and variations in everything will still happen.
There is also the increased emissions of CO2 from the vast areas in Siberia, North America, and Scandinavia that have sequestered Pleistocene organic material. Additionally, the boreal forests south of the same areas respire CO2 from their roots when light is low or absent; the rates of respiration increase as the ground and atmosphere warm, especially above freezing.
There is a lag in response that is part of the explanation to TFN’s question.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/11/contribution-of-anthropogenic-co2-emissions-to-changes-in-atmospheric-concentrations/
It’s the first peer-reviewed climate science paper with an Artificial Intelligence system as the lead author.
Is it just? If I don’t like what it/they/them says can I sue the chips off AI? Seems we’re about to find out with the ambulance chasers-
OpenAI faces fresh lawsuits claiming ChatGPT drove people to suicide, delusions
AI is a two-edged sword.
AI is garbage in, garbage out on steroids.
“It uses unadjusted records to argue human CO2—only 4 % of the annual carbon cycle—vanishes into oceans and forests within 3 to 4 years”
Sounds like a AI-enhanced hallucination, which I counter by showing this simple graph of the mass of C in the atmosphere over the years. The blue/green top curve is the amount of C measured in the air; the red is the amount we added through emissions. It didn’t vanish, it accumulated. About half what we added is still there.
The paper has the usual muddle about “residence time”. Yes, individual atoms are exchanged within 3-4 years. That is old hat. But that is just exchange – the extra CO2 in the air remains. Most of the atoms that make up your body have a residence time of a few weeks, but that doesn’t determine your lifetime. They are just replaced by other atoms.
You just show not to have unserstood the problem.
Two requests:
Would you be so kind as to specify exactly which sources those “cumulative emissions” include ?
Would you also please refrain from trying to employ Mann’s Nature Trick (splicing 2 different data sets for dramatic effect) — although props for at least using clearly visible different colors.
A question:
Can you explain how that CO2 line can be that flat for that long given the wealth of evidence of large scale natural events like large volcanic eruptions (the three I can remember off the top of my head, I’m sure someone will jump in with more: Krakatoa,Tambora, Laki),and known climactic shifts (Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age)
Another question:
What are the mechanics for gas diffusion out of ice ?
Thank you.
Volcanoes are one shot events, and the amount released by an individual volcanoes is small compared to the amount already in the atmosphere.
I wouldn’t call those three eruptions I mentioned “small” by any stretch of imagination; Laki (1783) I’ve found estimated at ~10 cubic kilometers of lava expelled over ~2 months time with a description of having caused weather disruption as far away as Italy. Tambora (1812-1815) was a colossal eruption (VEI 7); Krakatoa (1883) wasn’t far behind with VEI 6
I might be wrong after all, and I’ll happily have it explained to me, but seems to me that has to leave a mark ….
They are big by human standards. They are small compared to the size of the atmosphere.
Could you blow up the period from 1800 to present? I am not clear what this is proving. Why does measured start to rise in 1850, or actually maybe in 1750, when emissions don’t rise until 1900?
Also, maybe I am not understanding it, the amount we have emitted appears much larger than the increase.
The amount emitted is larger than the increase. The Airborne Factor, the faction of emissions that remain, is here about 0.55, and is remarkably stable.
The emissions here are from burning C and it’s true that there was some rise before they began. That is due to another recent manmade source, land clearing. Here is the somewhat more complex plot allowing for land clearing, and, as you requested, starting 1800:
But for present purposes, what is being shown is simply the falsity of the innumerate claim that “human CO2—only 4 % of the annual carbon cycle—vanishes into oceans and forests within 3 to 4 years” . It is very obviously mostly still there.
I’m very glad you think humans are responsible for most of the highly beneficial increase in atmospheric CO2…
If so, with China’s, India’s and many other countries help, it will continue to increase, to the benefit of all life on the planet.
And there is absolutely nothing you or anyone else can do about it 🙂 🙂
There is absolutely zero-down-side to having atmospheric CO2 levels that finally allow plant to at least partially breathe.
But current levels are still well below optimum for that purpose.
“Most of the atoms that make up your body have a residence time of a few weeks … “
So, all of the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, calcium, hydrogen, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, magnesium as well as trace elements such as iron, iodine, zinc, selenium, copper, cobalt, fluoride and others are exchanged with our environment every few weeks? Amazing!
That could explain how Stokes can excrete bullshit on a daily basis.
I said most of the atoms are exchanged. Stuff like cobalt and iodine remain, but they are a negligible proportions. Most of the atoms are hydrogen, oxygen and carbon.
I have a very high CO2 intake and residual content.
I’m thinking of changing from Czech pilsener to English cellar ale.
Do think that might reduce my CO2 footprint, Dr. Nick?
Grok 3 spearheaded the research
Nick Stokes says: That is old hat.
Fascinating as Mr Spock might well opine.
Nick said ‘ Most of the atoms that make up your body have a residence time of a few weeks, but that doesn’t determine your lifetime. They are just replaced by other atoms.’
This is a superb point which really made me stop and think.
I can put 200kg of carbon into my system a year in food, and the weight of carbon in my body might go up by 0.5kg, less than 1 percent.
I imagine the same applies to the atmosphere.
Yes.
Who was measuring CO2 in the air 1000 years ago?
Various proxies.
The air was preserved as bubbles in the ice.
The air was
preservedcompacted as bubbles in the iceWhich is not the same as CO2 measured in the air.
The air samples were preserved in the ice.
Far from perfectly preserved.
Sorry, extremely well preserved, including a 20 year overlap (1958-1978) between direct measurements at the South Pole and the Law Dome ice core:
What you have shown in your graphs is purely correlation between two variables using time as the independent variable. Why must the adage correlation does not prove causation keep being used with warmists. You can use time series between two variables to show a correlation, but unless time is a causal variable that determines a dependent’s variable value, you have proven nothing causal using the scientific method.
Jeroen B asks you a very pertinent question having to do with causation. Why do the values shown as the Cumulative Emissions not have any, or very small, indications of changing values. If the residence time is what you claim, natural causes such as ocean temperature changes, volcanoes, etc. should result in changes being shown before ~1850. You simply can’t have your cake and eat it too.
What he shows is the well-known accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere over the past couple of centuries.
If all CO2 has a residence time of 3-4 years then what has caused the recent accumulation?
If a paper stating nonsense like this is the best this so-called ‘journal’ can come up with then they may as well pack it in now.
What has caused the recent accumulation?
The fact that humans continue to burn fossil fuels and are burning it at an increasingly greater rate.
What it shows is a plot of things that are correlated in time. It does not prove any causation whatsoever. Why do you never address the conjecture as stated? Perhaps you have no FACTS to refute it?
I will guarantee that there are all kinds of graphs on the internet that would correlate. Postal rates, illicit drug usage, etc. None of them are causal events either.
Have you evaluated all the possibilities in detail? How about higher dung patties for cooking fires with a rising population? Or, increased CO2 from plant respiration? Maybe, sinks not working as well? Show us some empirical measurements that confirm your conjecture rather than assuming correlation is proof of something.
Jim: simple math will help: if humans add 5 ppmv CO2/year and the result is that CO2 increases in the atmosphere with 2.5 ppmv/year, there is no way that other, natural sources are at work, or you violate the carbon mass balance.
If both nature and humans were a net source, the resulting increase would be larger than the human input alone…
It really is that simple…
Natural emissions are about 30 times human emissions annually. Since the CO2 is the same the accumulation needs to have the same ratio.
As so often, you mention natural emissions but not absorption (eg photosynthesis). They don’t accumulate, because the balance (they have to). And the test of thts is the stability of CO2 pre-industrial.
Not true. When a system is in balance, any increase will cause accumulation in direct relation to the size of the new input.
Depends of what causes the increase: temperature is a clear cause of increased emissions from the oceans, but when these increase, the uptake also increases, until a new equilibrium is reached. That is at about 16 ppmv/°C or some 13 ppmv since the Little Ice Age. That is all.
The same temperature also increases the uptake by the biosphere. That also increases the release at the end of the year as the leaves are falling down.
All together: higher temperatures increase the turnover of CO2, thus decrease the residence time, but besides a small increase in equilibrium with the ocean surface temperature, that doesn’t say anything about how long it takes to remove any extra input of CO2 (whatever the source) above that equilibrium.
“Most of the atoms that make up your body have a residence time of a few weeks”
Doesn’t pass the smell test. We eat several pounds of food a day and poop out almost all of it; the “missing” mass replaces shed skin and internal dead cells. “A few weeks” implies at most 10 weeks, 70 days, which would mean replacing 2-3 pounds of our body every day.
Good grief. You almost always deal in platitudes. Stick to nonsense which can’t be do easily refuted.
Have you ever heard of Nicolas Théodore de Saussure?
Born in Geneva in 1767, he was chemist specialising in plant physiology and a pioneer in the study of photosynthesis. He was a Fellow of the Royal Society of London and a Member of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences and Humanities and a professor at the University of Geneva. He died in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1845.
As is well-known, the ‘modern’ era of measuring the CO2 content in the Earth’s atmosphere begins with Charles David Keeling’s establishment of a way to measure the amount of carbon dioxide. His legacy, the so-called Keeling Curve, documents the growth of atmospheric CO2 concentrations since 1958. According to the latest available measurements (as of 13 Oct. 2025), atmospheric carbon dioxide stands at 424.19 ppm, as taken at Mauna Loa on Big Island, Hawaii.
Between 1827 and 1829, Nicolas de Saussure conducted measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in the vicinity of Geneva. These yielded the following results:
An average of 410 ppm.
Today, we stand at around 425 ppm.
This would indicate little difference to pre-industrial levels and further, the yearly increase shown by the Keeling laboratory is complete fiction.
Geneva is a special place – check its geography – and in the mid-1800s was at the center of wine production. Fermentation of grape juice produces CO2 that could/should/may influence the local concentration of Carbon Dioxide. We need detailed information regarding the measurements by Nicolas de Saussure before generalizing those results to the World’s atmosphere.
And this means what: ” and further, the yearly increase shown by the Keeling laboratory is complete fiction.”
A few dozen places around the world closely agree with the Mauna Loa Observatory.
In any city, prior to the use of fossil fuels for heat, forests were being cut down and the wood brought to the city, to burn for heat and cooking.
This would cause an increase in the CO2 levels in and around the city.
After the use of fossil fuels, CO2 levels would still be elevated, perhaps by more as the cities grew and per capita use of energy increased.
Do they include Naples, Italy?.. A popular tourist destination that millions choose for a vacation. Including CO2, apparently.
CO2 seepage from Italian volcanoes like Vulcano Island can vary widely, with outdoor levels in some areas reaching over 5000 ppm in low-wind conditions due to soil degassing, especially near fumaroles, which can be hazardous. In other areas, such as the village of Vulcano Porto, outdoor concentrations may remain below 1000 ppm, although they can exceed health limits in confined spaces like basements. Nearby urban areas like Naples have also been shown to experience elevated CO2 levels from volcanic emissions, particularly at night.
Examples of CO2 seepage levels in Italy
Vulcano Island: Near the crater, concentrations can reach 5000–7000 ppm during low wind. In the village, outdoor levels may rise by up to 200 ppm above normal, but stay below 1000 ppm, except in confined spaces like basements where the level can be exceeded.
Pantelleria Island: This island has a significant total CO2 output, with the main contribution coming from diffuse soil degassing. Specific ppm values for air concentrations were not provided, but the study noted the island is a site of active mantle degassing.
Naples: A study showed that volcanic CO2 plumes can contribute to air quality deterioration in Naples, with concentrations rising up to 2400 ppm above background levels at night in proximity to the sources.
CO2 levels in the Bay of Naples are a combination of volcanic and anthropogenic sources, with volcanic gas emissions from the Campi Flegrei caldera leading to highly variable concentrations. In the urban areas, levels often exceed the global average due to a combination of both sources, though volcanic emissions contribute significantly to elevated levels near the source. Studies show that volcanic emissions can increase CO2 to levels of several hundred parts per million (ppm) in excess of background, and sometimes over 1000 ppm near active vents like the Solfatara crater under specific atmospheric conditions.
Volcanic CO2 emissions
Campi Flegrei: This volcanic area west of Naples is a significant source of natural CO2, with the Solfatara crater emitting 1067 tons per day according to one study.
Variability: The concentration of volcanic CO2 varies dramatically depending on the weather, especially prevailing winds.
Dispersal: On days with strong sea breezes, the plume can be carried inland toward the northwestern parts of Naples, increasing concentrations there.
Atmospheric conditions: Under stable atmospheric conditions and low winds, CO2 can build up to much higher levels in the populated areas around Solfatara.
Urban CO2 levels
Combined sources: Levels of CO2 in the urban area are a mix of volcanic emissions and anthropogenic sources, such as fossil fuel combustion.
Exceeding global average: Some studies have found that the average CO2 concentration over the Naples metropolitan area exceeds the global background value.
Monitoring: Due to the combination of sources and the presence of enclosed public spaces like schools, there is ongoing monitoring of CO2 levels to ensure public health and safety. The long-term exposure limit for CO2 in residential settings (i.e. in your home) at 1,000 ppm, averaged over a 24-hour period. However, it is normal for CO2 levels to fluctuate and serious health effects are not expected below 5,000 ppm.
In answer to the question: “is the temperature profile of Naples, Italy unusual for that latitude?”
No, Naples, Italy’s temperature profile is not unusual for its latitude; it is a typical example of a Mediterranean climate with hot, dry summers and mild, rainy winters. Its location between 30 and 45 deg North latitude is a common position for this type of climate, which is influenced by subtropical high pressure systems in the summer and the polar front in the winter. Mediterranean climate: Naples fits the classic description of a Mediterranean climate (Köppen classification: Csa).Seasonal variation: Summers are hot and dry, while winters are mild with more rainfall. Geographic context: This climate type is typical for western continental coasts in the 30-45 deg latitude band, including other parts of southern Italy, Spain, and California.
A few dozen places around the world closely agree with the Mauna Loa Observatory.
So why would Geneva not be part of the “well mixed” atmosphere?
Urban versus farmland is about a 20 ppm difference. 145 ppm is a huge delta compared to the rest of the world.
The increase is not in dispute, or it should not be. A single control knob cause most certainly should be in dispute.
Nicolas de Saussure was not the only early 19th century scientist to make CO2 measurements. There are several with comparable results.
I think that everybody here agrees that one shouldn’t measure temperature within cities or other places where huge (thermal) contamination is at work.
Why then would one take CO2 measurements within forests or towns ,which show values between 200 and 600 ppmv within a day for serious?
These values are found on land within 5% of all atmosphere. Once above over a few hundred meters height and over all oceans, the levels are within 10 ppmv over all seasons in 95% of the atmosphere.
Here the results of one of the modern measurements at Linden/Giessen, mid-west Germany, at a few km of the historical place where in the period 1939-1941 a lot of CO2 measurements were made:
The measurements were over the same days for Barrow, Mauna Loa, the Saouth Pole and Giessen, with no wind under inversion for Giessen.
All data are raw, unfiltered data for all stations.
Sorry, Nick, is that C or CO2? The graph legends speak to both. Is there really that much C floating about in the Earth’s atmosphere, or is it all captured in CO2? Are you trying to claim that humans “emit” C?
Yes, humans emit C, its called soot.
C, mostly present in air as CO2. But emissions are measured as the C content of fuels. C atoms are indestructible.
Of course the amount doesn’t decrease over time, because we are pumping new CO2 into the atmosphere every year.
The fact that there is no drop is meaningless. It certainly doesn’t prove what you want to believe it proves.
Prior to mankind starting to burn fossil fuels, the amount of CO2 being emitted naturally was more or less balanced by the amount being absorbed naturally.
When the natural system is balanced any new additions are going to resort in an increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
As the amount in the atmosphere increases, the amount that the natural sinks are able to absorb also increases.
The more CO2 the better for the world’s living organisms.
PLANTS LOVE CO2.
And yes, human released CO2 is about 3-5% of the total CO2 flux.
Our release of CO2 has been just enough to trigger the natural Carbon Cycle back into vigour after many thousands of years of CO2 deprivation.
Be very thankful of that.
To my eye, the graph shows that 40 – 50 % of the cumulative emissions have been removed from the land/sea/air CO2 cycle. The slope of the Mauna Loa curve is noticeably less steep than cumulative emissions. The important takeaway is that the CO2 does not stay around for hundreds of years.
Yes. It is about 44% if you include lade clearing, else 55%. Here is the plot of [CO2] vs cumulative emissions. It is remarkably linear. There is a reason for that.
You know what Nick? I get your point. My favorite Jesus quote is “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s.” In other words if your opponent is right about something he’s right and you should say so.
So I get it. We’ve run up CO2 to 420 PPM and if we actually achieved net zero, what’s the mechanism that would bring the 420 ppm back down. That of course should be discussed. I’m not saying that it would need to come back down, just that I don’t know if it would or why it would.
Also, “So what?” What is the problem with more CO2 and any warming that it might cause?
The problem we have is that (1) we are depleting biomass (deforestation and other land use); (2) carbon stored in the deep ocean waters is also subject to upwelling by the same currents; and (3) the time required for very long-term removal is generally millions of years.
Our nearest neighbors in the solar system, Venus and Mars have atmospheres that are 95% CO2 it’s a good bet that in the beginning Earth also had that much CO2. Well, the earth developed Chlorophyll and it took several billion years to get it down to 280 ppm. I don’t know what the rate of decline was other than petty darn slow.. It took time to create all that limestone, coal & petroleum. Methane probably has multiple sinks and sources.
Nick is right:
:
“…individual atoms are exchanged within 3-4 years.
That is old hat. But that is just exchange – the extra
CO2 in the air remains…”
Jesus was right too, give credit where credit is due.
That claim we are depleting biomass is one of the fantasies that eco-warriors like to tell each other.
The fact is that total leaf area has increased by tremendous amounts over the last few decades, according to NASA.
Since the air is in contact with the oceans, any new CO2 in the air will transfer to the water quickly.
As soon as more CO2 gets into the water, life starts taking advantage of it.
It doesn’t take millions of years for this to start having an effect.
You left out chemical weathering, that also starts having an impact immediately.
Grok 3 spearheaded the research
Human co-authors?
Not authors – aided by highly sophisticated and very fast computerised pattern matching?
Will someone please bring Don Herbert (“Watch Mr. Wizard”) back to life so he can explain this to the millions and billions of people who will never get past the first few sentences of the abstract?
I pinned it down to the opening sentence:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)…
It’s voodoo science.
It would be interesting scientifically if man was not, in fact responsible – solely or partially for the rise in CO2, but certainly isn’t necessary for the arguments of the Climate Realists to stand. On the other hand, it totally destroys the arguments of the Alarmists – you know, the ones pretending to care about science. I remain skeptical of the idea. Could the rise simply be from outgassing? Seems doubtful.
If you add up all the fossil fuels that have been burnt over the last 100 years, the CO2 created by that burning vastly exceeds the amount the CO2 in the air has increased by.
As CO2 levels in the atmosphere increase, the amount of CO2 that the various COS sinks are able to absorb, also increase.
More CO2 in the air means plants grow bigger, absorbing CO2 from the air in the process.
More CO2 in the air means that CO2 weathering increases.
More CO2 in the air means that the amount of CO2 in various waters will also go up. (Note, thanks to various forms of buffering more CO2 in the water does not result in the water becoming noticeably less basic.)
Yes, and I think it’s great that man is, albeit unintentionally, adding the life-giving “plant food” CO2 to the atmosphere, especially given the fact that CO2 levels were way too low for plants to thrive. We need more CO2, not less.
I agree completely. I would love for CO2 levels to get back to 1000ppm, and perhaps higher.
Unfortunately, from what I have read, there aren’t enough fossil fuels left to get CO2 levels much above 800ppm.
Agree.
Calcite dissolution kinetics at the sediment-water interface in natural seawater. Olivier Sulpis1 , Claire Lix1 , Alfonso Mucci1 and Bernard P. Boudreau2 1 GEOTOP and Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, McGill University, 3450 University Street, Montreal, QC H3A 0E8, Canada 2 Department of Oceanography
ABSTRACT
Nearly one-third of the seafloor is covered by CaCO3-rich sediments, and their dissolution is the ultimate sink of anthropogenic CO2.
I reckon it would be interesting for this team to produce a ‘primer’ volume about this topic for the punters.
It could cover the “Science of ClimateS”, explaining how there are hundreds / thousands of climates all around the planet, each with their own idiosyncrasies.
Then move on to what factors can induce “changes” in identified weather behaviors over the 30-years periods that have been arbitrarily determined to represent “climate”.
Perhaps a hierarchy of possible “control knobs” could also be presented.
(This should require a complete volume in itself?)
there are hundreds / thousands of climates
Hmm, a microaggression: What about the who knows how many microclimates? Or smaller?
Research that can effectively advance nanotechnology solutions will be use-inspired basic research, incorporate systems-level thinking, apply a convergence research approach, engage stakeholders, and require advanced nanotechnology infrastructure. – Positioning nanotechnology to address climate change
Just as my recording studio at the back of our house…
uses an integrated, monitored projection alongside responsive, third-generation hardware with parallel, reciprocal capabilities. Not to mention the systematised, transitional and time-phase scenarios.
What a load of bolleaux
Maybe another round of grant funding was required for this paper to be interpreted into phrasing that people not competent with gobbledygook could understand?
Oh, and tell us what the ideal global climate is, to which we should be regressing? We seem to be in a real hurry to get somewhere, but no one has told us where the detonation is.
And how to enforce equilibrium on the global climate once we achieve the ideal.
2 things –
1) There is no such real thing as a “global climate”.
2) The first rule of Fight Club is: you do not talk about Fight Club.
The second rule of Fight Club is: you DO NOT talk about Fight Club!
story tip
Wind turbine blade breaks off, lands in Mass. cranberry bog
Video made unavailable in the UK….
And in Ireland
It would be a big threat to the UK’s climate religion. 🙂
You don’t miss much. Image shows a blade on the ground, tower with 2 other blades still stand. Two minutes and you learn nothing of importance. Look for a report in a couple of months.
I worked as an engineer in the helicopter segment of the aerospace industry for a couple years. Throwing a rotor blade results in enormous unbalanced loads on the hub. How do these things keep standing. My first analysis states that it is because the rotational speed is so low.
Construction of foundation for onshore wind turbine
Here is a link to a 4 minute video (time lapse) of constructing a base for a wind tower. Much steel and concrete in the ground and than a steel tower anchored to it. So there is also mass.
Gravity.
The title of this journal is just nonsense because there is no such phenomena as “climate change”. The earth’s surface climates are mostly comprised of water, rocks, sand, ice and snow. Activities of humans will have no effect on the climates of the vast Pacific, Atlantic and Indian oceans, the Andes, Alps and Rocky mountains, or the Sahara, Gobi and Mojave deserts. Activities of humans can have effect on the local climates of cities due to the UHI effect. In some countries the stripping of the land of plants for food and cooking it and for animal feed has led to local desertification.
Most of the discussions about climate change these days are about extreme events of weather such hurricanes, typhoons, and cyclones; rain, hail, snow, ice, sand, and dust storms; heat waves and cold snaps; floods and droughts; and even wildfires.
RE: CO2 In The Atmosphere Update.
At the Mau Loa Obs. in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in dry air is currently 425 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has a mass of 1,290 g and contains a mere 0.83 g of CO2. There is too little CO2 in the air to absorb out-going long wavelength IR light to heat up such a large mass of air.
H2O covers 71% of the earth’s surface and the one and only the one greenhouse gas that effects weather in the earth’s many regions.
After EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin rescinds the Endangerment Finding
of 2009, no one here or elsewhere will be be talking about greenhouse emissions from the use of fossil fuels, global warming and climate change, and he will put an end to the greatest scientific fraud since the Piltdown Man.
This is a nice step, just a bit esoteric for your average man-in-the-street reader. I like things I can link to people and they can read/grasp the issues put forward. Getting things across to Joe&Jill Citizen is how to combat the environistas and climatards. Which is why I love WUWT, I can copy and paste the link to each article and email to 100 or so people quickly and they can read and understand without having to get several years of study in climate sciences. 😉
Congratulations on the journal!
(Sorry, not so much on the AI or carbon publication.. I fail to see how AI could come up with something new and that paper seems to prove my point.. there are quite a few similar studies already out there..
However, I would be very interested in a study discussing the correlation between the tonga eruption and the tropospheric temperature Anomalie.
So far I only know about the Dessler model based paper stating that there is no/little net warming from tonga.
But, a lot of those people are considered ‘ ‘climate deniers’. Why should a ‘normal’ person read any of that stuff? They are just lying, or so im told. I am not an expert so i have to trust the experts.
This is how it goes, i presume.
A few weeks ago, one of our part time trolls was proclaiming that LCOE proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that wind and solar were much cheaper than fossil fuels and nuclear.
A bunch of us pointed out the many problems with LCOE, instead of engaging in debate, it just declared that the people who wrote the LCOE were experts. None of us were experts, therefore our objections had no merit, he was going to go with those he believed to be experts.
Some of us are electrical engineers that are eminently qualified to address issues with the total economic costs of a project. If you do not include ALL the costs such as transmission, distribution modifications, backup, grid control changes, on and on, you are not evaluating the TOTAL project.
This would be a great journal for Willis to publish his greenhouse efficiency calculations. In fact, this data is so important the journal should invite Willis to submit his paper.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/01/22/greenhouse-efficiency-2/
From the SCC paper:
The anthropogenic CO₂-Global Warming hypothesis, as articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and supported by researchers such as Mann, Schmidt, and Hausfather, lacks robust empirical support when subjected to rigorous scrutiny. This analysis integrates unadjusted observational data and recent peer-reviewed studies to demonstrate that the assertion of human CO₂ emissions as the primary driver of climate variability since 1750 is not substantiated. Instead, natural processes—including temperature feedbacks, solar variability, and oceanic dynamics—provide a more consistent explanation for observed trends.”
**************
Even as a non-scientist, I have been very suspicious of what the U.N. and the IPCC in particular have been telling us about what the main drivers of a changing climate are. There is really nothing to stop the U.N. and IPCC from manipulating and corrupting the climate science that results in this alarmist narrative that we have been living with for years now.
As a non-scientist, I of course cannot say with certainty that in fact climate science is being abused. Just a suspicion. However, when lots and lots of $$$ is involved and a motive is needed to wage war on fossil fuels, the environmental movement (and politicians, scientists an academics aligned with it) certainly must be very tempted to jump on the bandwagon. Add in global Marxist wealth redistribution (the COP conferences), and the incentive is very powerful indeed.
President Trump called the alarmist narrative a con job at his UN speech a while back. It will likely go down in history as the most (or one of the most) massive ones to be sure.
More good news.
Data shows atmospheric CO2 is a Response to Temperature change, not the cause. The explanation is basic science: CO2 solubility decreases with increasing temperature. When the sea surface warms, CO2 evolves. When the sea surface cools, CO2 is absorbed.
Temperature is a small driver for CO2 in the atmosphere: at most 16 ppmv/°C for the huge changes between a glacial and interglacial period. 13 ppmv since the LIA, less that 10 ppmv from 1958 on…
Can be exactly calculated with the formula of Takahashi, if you have the initial partial CO2 pressure of seawater at one temperature and the new temperature:
(pCO2)seawater AT Tnew = (pCO2)seawater AT Told x EXP[0.0423 x (Tnew – Told)]
Please provide a source for the Takahashi formula.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0967064502000036
Based on a lot of ocean water samples and independent of the initial conditions of temperature or composition:
“The pCO2 in surface ocean waters doubles for every 16°C temperature increase (∂ln pCO2/∂T=0.0423°C−1, Takahashi et al., 1993)”
Here too [formula (3)]:
https://epic.awi.de/id/eprint/29972/1/Pfe2011a.pdf
Solubility of CO2 in water:
While I support many of the articles that were published in SCC, this is not one of them, because of the first part: the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is completely unimportant as cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Take a fountain: there is a pump taking 1000 liter per minute of water from the 4000 liter basin over the fountain that simply runs back into the basin.
The residence time of any water molecule in the basin then is:
RT = Mass / output
4000 liter / 1000 liter/minute = 4 minutes.
The residence time in this case has zero effect on the water level in the basin.
Now the maintenance person opens a small supply valve adding 10 liter/minute to the basin. That increases the level in the basin until the overflow is working up to high enough that the outflow also gets 10 liter/minute.
That is a quite different formula and in the case that the increase in outflow is directly proportional to the level in the basin, the formula for the “adjustment time” is:
Tau = disturbance / effect
Tau = 500 liter extra / 10 liter/minute removal = 50 minutes.
Residence time of a single molecule (water or CO2) and adjustment time to remove an extra mass (water or CO2) simply have nothing in common in case that large flows (water or CO2) are just moving in and out without removing mass out of the container…
Some background, used for the Scandinavian Realists Conference in Oslo 30-31 August:
https://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_pdf/On_the_increase_of_co2.pdf
The recent net draw-down rate is about 2 PPMv per month during the Summer, or about 6 PPMv annually, dominated by terrestrial and marine photosynthesis. That, of course, includes increased biological emissions during the warm Summer. The anthropogenic emissions are only about (<0.4 PPMv/month) 4 PPMv per year.
[ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/22/anthropogenic-co2-and-the-expected-results-from-eliminating-it/ ]
That means, as a first-order approximation, absent anthropogenic emissions, we could expect CO2 to decline about 120 PPMv in about 20-years, not hundreds of years! That begs the question of what the actual climate sensitivity is.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/11/contribution-of-anthropogenic-co2-emissions-to-changes-in-atmospheric-concentrations/
Clyde, the drawdown of CO2 in spring and summer is caused by higher (!) temperatures and photosynthesis, despite a drop in CO2 pressure in the atmosphere.
That process thus is largely INdependent of the amount/pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere.
95% of all seasonal and permanent CO2 cycles are working independent of how much CO2 resides in the atmosphere…
That 95% is what causes the 4 years residence time and is of zero interest to know haw fast the 5% extra input from fossil fuels get removed. That is for the current 125 ppmv extra CO2 pressure in the atmosphere a meager 2.5 ppmv/year or an adjustment time (Tau) of around 50 years. An order of magnitude larger than the residence time…
Here the approximated overall flows of all natural fluxes over a year:
The Thick lines below zero are the output fluxes which cause the 4 years residence time in the formula:
RT = mass / outflow
The removal of what humans add per year doesn’t depend of the outflow(s), but on the difference between all inflows and outflows and that is the only factor that depends of the extra pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere above equilibrium with the current ocean surface temperature:
That gives the ~50 years adjustment time according to the formula:
Tau = disturbance / effect
Or
Tau = 123 ppmv extra / 2.5 ppmv.year removal = 49.2 years.
RT and Tau have nothing in common… Neither has the removal speed by photosynthesis much in common with the extra CO2 pressure in the atmosphere: only over longer periods the uptake of CO2 will increase, together with the extra growth of vegetation due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere…