CO2 and Temperature | Climate Chronicles

[Editor’s note] I received an email from the CO2 coalition stating: “we have ID’d some things that are not quite right in our recent Climate Chronicles video on CO2 and Temperature that we need to correct….Could you please remove it from your site, and we will send along our new and improved version soon. Thank you.”

We’ll update this post when the new version is available. [/Editor’s note]

https://youtu.be/RACEfUoRQXM?si=TaFrjLKQC7-C7Kng

.
CO2 Coalition

This short video from the CO2 Coalition walks through the geological record, ice-core data, and basic physics to examine the relationship. Over hundreds of millions of years, CO2 and temperature have often moved independently or even in opposite directions. In ice cores covering the last several glacial cycles, temperature typically rises first; CO2 follows hundreds of years later. That sequence is the opposite of the cause-and-effect story commonly presented.

The video also covers why additional CO2 produces diminishing warming (saturation of the relevant infrared bands) and why water vapor and clouds dominate Earth’s greenhouse effect. CO2 remains essential plant food that has contributed to global greening and higher crop yields.

The CO2 Coalition presents data and analysis that challenge the claim of a CO2-controlled climate crisis.

Learn more and read the supporting papers at co2coalition.org.

#CO2 #Temperature #ClimateChronicles #ClimateScience #CO2Coalition

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 15 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
70 Comments
September 22, 2026 10:33 pm

CO2 warm forcing at the 430 ppm doesn’t do much of anything as most of it occurred in the first 60-80 ppm.

It is time to get on with life celebration that the planet is loving all the increase in atmospheric CO2 in the air as the greening Earth is well in evidence.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
September 22, 2026 10:45 pm

Talk about uneducated…

Mario Barbafiera
Reply to  Eldrosion
September 22, 2026 11:18 pm

Don’t be so hard on your self….

Reply to  Mario Barbafiera
September 23, 2026 8:28 am

Nice Elderision there, Mario 😉

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Eldrosion
September 23, 2026 12:48 am

Talk about uneducated…

OK, let’s do that.
Uneducated is someone who comes a scientific discussion and makes some presumably critical comment without critising anything at all; without making any counter point; without saying anything we can either verify or falsify to see whether they actually know isht about anything.

Talk about uneducated.

Reply to  Greg Goodman
September 23, 2026 7:35 am

BRAVO!

Scarecrow Repair
Reply to  Eldrosion
September 23, 2026 2:10 am

No one’s interested in your life story.

Reply to  Eldrosion
September 23, 2026 7:23 am

Ad hominem attack.

Does not rebut or even address any of the points made in the post that drew your response.

Excellent work, Eldrosion. You scored a perfect 10 on the anti-intellectual scale!

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  pillageidiot
September 23, 2026 8:58 am

Another applicable word is sophistry.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Eldrosion
September 23, 2026 8:58 am

As expected.

The notorious Flame Warrior makes his entrance.

I suppose I should open a new bag of catnip.

We are laughing at your idiocies.

MarkW
Reply to  Eldrosion
September 23, 2026 8:59 am

Basic science, something you have never understood.

Reply to  MarkW
September 24, 2026 7:25 am

Speaking of “basic science” that “you have never understood”, Professor, I’m still waiting for your exposition of the “real” Second Law of Thermodynamics. You know, the one that isn’t written at a “kindergarten” level – like all the physics textbooks in the world. The one that consists of all those “pages of dense math”? Where is it, please?

Reply to  Eldrosion
September 23, 2026 6:50 pm

You spelled unindoctrinated incorrectly.

Reply to  Eldrosion
September 24, 2026 6:29 am

You mean unindoctrinated, still slightly indoctrinated when mentioning saturation.
Why I say this?
Carbon dioxide does not capture heat above 12 micro-meter wavelengths.
And fully captures at 15 micro-meters wavelength.
What are micro-meter wavelength?
Of 1 meter is the wave that has a length of 1/12=0.083 x 10,000= 833 wavenumbers in 1m.
Earth emits at 10.41 micro-meter wavelengths. 1/10 =0.10410 x 10,410 wavenumbers.
CO2 at captures heat at 15 micro-meter wavelengths 1/15 = 0.0666 x 10,000 = 666 wavenumbers.
Wiens law determines temperature based on wavelength.
2898/10= 273.38K (-273.15) = 5.38C
2898/15= 194K (-273.15) = -80C
That’s 5.38C – 85.38C (heat loss) to -80C (trapped heat).
But as CO2 starts greater than 12 micro-meters it is reduced to 71.5C (11 x 6.5C/km).
5.38 – 71.5 = -66.12C and not -80C.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  slindsayyulegmailcom
September 24, 2026 9:26 am

Technical nit.
Heat (thermal energy flow) and IR (EM energy) are not the same.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
September 24, 2026 9:59 am

In the troposphere conduction, convection and evaporation dominate heat transport. Heat is total integrated energy T^4 x 5.67^-8. IR (EM energy) photons increase when heat rises, and vice versa. But the ratio of photon vs molecule is 1 photon for every 5500 molecules. Molecules rise and become further apart, carrying the heat, solar IR comes in heats surface and escapes. Only the far infrared (above 15 micro-meter wavelengths), emitted by the snow or glaciers do not escape and are absorbed. Humans live in houses that are heated to 20C. Thermal energy flow is heated molecules, water or air, moving in a direction (north, south, east or west). As they make contact with the ground (hot or cold), the ground effects the heat level of the flow. A thermal image camera shows you what is hot and what is cold. But they are set at wavelengths 8-14 micro-meter. This is the transparent part of the infrared spectrum. Known as the infrared window. This window allows IR to escape to space. In my first reply, I discussed how temperatures is related to this far infrared(above 15 micro-meters). These temperatures are not what humans really experience. They experience total integrated energy, mostly molecules but also infrared.

Reply to  slindsayyulegmailcom
September 24, 2026 7:37 pm

You misunderstand Wien’s law, Wien’s Law says that the peak wavelength emitted by a blackbody is inversely proportional to its absolute temperature. A blackbody at -80ºC will have its peak emission at ~15μm, however a blackbody at ~25ºC will emit significantly more ~15μm radiation.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Sunsettommy
September 23, 2026 12:22 am

https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/24/6375/2024/

“We present a direct measurement of the impact of increased atmospheric CO2 on the spectra of the Earth’s longwave radiation obtained from space. The goal of this study is to experimentally confirm that the direct effects of CO2 increase on the Earth’s outgoing longwave spectra follow theoretical estimates, by developing a methodology that allows for a direct and more precise comparison between theory and observations. In this methodology, a search is performed to find selected ensembles of observed atmospheric vertical profiles of temperature and water vapor that are as close as possible to each other in terms of their values. By analyzing the spectral radiances measured from space by the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS), corresponding to the selected ensembles of profiles, the effects of increased CO2 on the spectra can be isolated from the temperature and water vapor effects. The results illustrate the impact of the increase in CO2 on the longwave spectra and compare well with theoretical estimates. As far as the authors are aware, this is the first time that the spectral signature of the increase in CO2 (isolated from temperature and water vapor changes) has been directly observed from space.

leefor
Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 23, 2026 1:46 am

So “selected ensembles” can do something. Anything there about the unselected ensembles?

Reply to  leefor
September 23, 2026 3:50 am

nice!

Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 23, 2026 4:50 am

Nice.
My paraphrase: “We filtered out the huge number of data points in which the spectral signature of rising CO2 is undetectable for reasons we know about, so as to concentrate on the tiny remaining sample in which the highly detailed spectral profile fits the theory about the wavelength-specific incremental IR absorbing power of rising concentrations of CO2.”

Wonderful. The method and results do not tell us anything about whether a rising concentration of CO2 suppresses the overall full-spectrum, time-integrated, and location-integrated longwave emission to space.

There is a good reason why the valid null hypothesis – “no effect on the overall longwave result” – has not been rejected in all the decades of modeling and observation. More here. Stop the video to read the text description.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yarzo13_TSE

Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.

Reply to  David Dibbell
September 23, 2026 6:06 am

“ so as to concentrate on the tiny remaining sample in which the highly detailed spectral profile fits the theory about the wavelength-specific incremental IR absorbing power”

As you say, you cannot infer the full-spectrum effect by looking only at the specific spectrum of CO2. That requires assuming that CO2 affects the entire Planck spectrum equally. It doesn’t.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  David Dibbell
September 23, 2026 6:20 am

“We filtered out the huge number of data points in which the spectral signature of rising CO2 is undetectable”

The usual and expected response.
And no…..

The recent studies of Strow and DeSouza-Machado (2020) and Huang et al. (2022) investigate in detail the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) instrument radiance trends over the last several years and highlight the remarkable stability of the AIRS radiance record while also discussing the role of temperature, water vapor, CO2, and other gases in framing the nature of the AIRS radiances. However, they only isolate these effects using modeling/theoretical approaches. These studies do not attempt to disentangle the impact of CO2 (or other gases) from temperature and water vapor in the observational data directly.
In the present study, a new methodology is proposed for a more direct measurement of the effect of CO2 increase on longwave spectral radiances in such a way as to provide a direct and more precise comparison to theoretically derived radiances. The goal of this approach is to isolate the effects of CO2 from the effects of temperature and water vapor. This is achieved by searching for atmospheric profiles of temperature and water vapor that are as close to each other as possible (referred to as analogues) but that have CO2 concentrations that are significantly different. Measuring from space the spectral radiances that correspond to these analogues allows us to detect, given the right circumstances, the unique impact of CO2 on the radiances with enough precision and accuracy in key spectral regions. Specifically, in this work, 1000 temperature and water vapor reference profiles are selected and a search is performed for analogue profiles that are close to the reference profiles to within a specified uncertainty range.

So no “ensembles/models” are used. In fact that methodoligy was specifically rejected.
And profiles HAVE to be selected that have least WV content …. as that is what they want/have to exclude in order to find the CO2 signal!

For you peeps here (most) whose only aim is to find something that they can hang onto comfortably (or often not it seems) in order to leave their confirmation bias unbruised and conveniently parrot “where’s the evidence” …. this is the ONLY way it an be produced. By filtering out the radiative forcing of WV and thus isolating that of non-condensing GHGs, chiefly CO2.

But then again I didn’t post this with the expectation that I would get hugs and kisses.
Try and think of something more original and not wrongly inferring what the studies’ methodology was.

Cue scrambling to protect the denial meme.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 23, 2026 6:30 am

AB – thank you so much for confirming my sense of the method and its implications.
Be well.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  David Dibbell
September 23, 2026 12:11 pm

“We filtered out the huge number of data points”

And

”Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.”

Thanks:
And I did above but you chose to double down with your , ahem, misinterpretation of the paper’s methodology.
I shall,repeat again so you can do it for a 2nd time …

”This is achieved by searching for atmospheric profiles of temperature and water vapor that are as close to each other as possible (referred to as analogues) but that have CO2 concentrations that are significantly different”

So no “ensembles/models” are used. In fact that methodology was specifically rejected.
And profiles HAVE to be selected that have least WV content …. as that is what they want/have to exclude in order to find the CO2 signal!

Can you illuminate me/us on how exactly we can determine the radiative forcing of anything unless we isolate it from other things that do the same?
It’s obvious – but asking for answers on a postcard to a certain officer Dibbell please.

As I’ve said, you lot ask for proof, but there is none that you’ll accept and when provided with a clear a cut example out come the attack-dogs with the usual.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 23, 2026 1:03 pm

Hello again, AB.
“So no “ensembles/models” are used.”
Agreed. I did not say they were used in the Teixeira et al 2024 study. I did mention “decades of modeling” in my reply to you, but that is in reference to the overall CMIP/IPCC program.

So yes, I understood the method, which you helpfully reiterated. Thank you again for reaffirming my sense of how it worked and why it was necessary.

Where we disagree is in whether a change in the absorption signature for CO2, isolated by selection from within the radiation blur that reaches space, must be understood to have revealed a “forcing” which operates to influence the overall result. You think “yes.” I think no, that does not follow logically, because the remainder of the spectrum and the full extent of the time- and location-integrated longwave emission to space remains available for minor adjustment.

Be well.

Reply to  David Dibbell
September 23, 2026 2:33 pm

“ You think “yes.” I think no, that does not follow logically, because the remainder of the spectrum and the full extent of the time- and location-integrated longwave emission to space remains available for minor adjustment.”

Banton thinks that if the earth receives 15um radiation it can only emit at that frequency. The earth emits a Planck curve. You would have to measure all changes at all frequencies to find the CO2 forcing. And those changes would be lost in the measurement uncertainty.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 23, 2026 3:28 pm

Oh, one more thing, AB. If “a certain officer Dibbell” alludes to “officer Dibble” on the old cartoon, “Top Cat” – then I say “well played” for remembering that from so long ago! 🙂

Reply to  David Dibbell
September 26, 2026 9:28 pm

I have an on-the-air digital TV channel the specializes in old cartoons. Banton may have just seen Top Cat. You may be giving him undo credit.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 23, 2026 8:56 am
  • Which should I believe – the highly slanted, theoretical study of atmospheric radiative processes or direct observation of the relationship between CO2 and temperatures (e.g. the Vostok and Law Dome ice core observations, which show that T always changes BEFORE CO2, with a lag of 800-1000 years)?

Go on Bunter, we all want to know!

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Graemethecat
September 23, 2026 12:22 pm

Do try to be original.

Not that tired old “temperature leads CO2 and not follows”
Dear oh dear that was conjured from the fevered brows of *contrarians* decades ago.

You know exactly what the physics of it is to boot.

Before modern warming that is precisely what the natural carbon cycle did (bar events like the PETM when volcanoes injected a *pulse* of CO2, leading to the planet warming in response.

Modern warming is similarly following that effect.
CO2 is a GHG which we have increased by 50% in 150 years from pre-industrial.
It both leads or follows warming, depending on which comes first.

So there you are – you’ve been presented with the science once more so you can deny it again, and add to the dozens of times you’ve denied of it before.

Mario Barbafiera
Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 23, 2026 2:06 pm

So you refute Happer et al? They argue that doubling co2 realises a 1 deg warming. Further doubling, another 1 deg. To get to 3 deg we need over 3200ppm. After that good luck finding any CO2 hanging about to get released into the atmosphere. Of course, if we look at other sources of warming such as reduced cloud cover resulting in warmer ocean temperatures, it follows that those oceans will release more CO2. Why do we insist on finding human based forcing when there is a lot of natural variability?

Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 26, 2026 9:32 pm

Why are you telling us how much the CO2 has increased when it it accepted that temperature follows the Log of the concentration?

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 23, 2026 9:16 am

So your counter argument is a resort to ad hominem attacks.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
September 23, 2026 12:32 pm

Oh how ironic.
Did you apply the TL;DR technique here?

There was no AD HOM and plenty of counter argument.
But then you have to get a “kick” in somehow eh?
If you want ad hom, see (in this case) mr sunsett …

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/09/22/book-review-a-very-convenient-warming/#comment-4244482

“Still the nutter, bob.”

Just another case of the hypocrisy on here as in *it’s alright for me but not for you*.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 23, 2026 4:34 pm

Oh look, Banton has an enemies’ list, how quaint. Did you learn this from bgx?

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
September 23, 2026 4:31 pm

After he whined about me calling b-o-b a nutter.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
September 26, 2026 9:33 pm

What else is one going to do when the facts aren’t on their side?

Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 23, 2026 10:46 am

“ By filtering out the radiative forcing of WV and thus isolating that of non-condensing GHGs, chiefly CO2.”

What is Pete’s name did they expect to find? The way this reads they filtered out ALL other wavelengths besides CO2, especially by excluding WV as much as they could.

The issue is that CO2 EMITS AT ONE SPECIFIC FREQUENCY. It does *not* affect the entire Planck curve. Looking only at CO2 tells you NOTHING about the overall cooling of the earth via radiation!

CO2 warms Earth by sending back one specific frequency. Earth re-emits that heat according to the wideband Planck curve! Not just at the CO2 frequency, but *all* Planck frequencies. You cannot measure CO2 radiation and apply it to *all* frequencies!

This is the operative phrasing:
“ a more direct measurement of the effect of CO2 increase on longwave spectral radiances in such a way as to provide a direct and more precise comparison to theoretically derived radiances.”

CO2 changes do *NOT* apply to *all* longwave spectral radiances! This is the common assumption made by climate science. It’s the same type of garbage assumption as assuming “all measurement uncertainty is random, Gaussian, and cancels”.

Here’s the logic by climate science:

  1. We filtered out every thing but CO2
  2. We than applied CO2 changes to *all longwave spectral radiances”

Just one more load of bullshite from climate science.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 23, 2026 12:44 pm

“Here’s the logic by climate science:

  1. We filtered out every thing but CO2
  2. We than applied CO2 changes to *all longwave spectral radiances”

Just one more load of bullshite from climate science.”

Classic Gorman logic (which ever one).

With 1.) you have therefore dismissed the only way we can ascertain the radiative forcing of CO2 – to divorce it from the radiative forcing of WV/H2O ! Which is the primary GHG.

Your 2.) Is twisted. They analysed the resulting forcing within the CO2/WV band of most effect (~ 15 micron) by a time-series of profiles where WV is most absent ( ie the driest profiles available).
The resultant found forcing over that time-series is the forcing of CO2 alone divorced from that of WV.

But then you never will accept anything that does not fit your ideologically motivated opinion.

Just one more load of desperate hypocritical bullshite from *sceptics* on here.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 23, 2026 1:07 pm

“With 1.) you have therefore dismissed the only way we can ascertain the radiative forcing of CO2 – to divorce it from the radiative forcing of WV/H2O ! Which is the primary GHG”

The radiative forcing of CO2 gets spread across the ENTIRE SPECTRUM THAT THE EARTH EMITS. That means it’s impact is a percentage of the entire power emitted by the Earth. Which is so small that it can’t be measured!

If CO2 sends back 3 W/m^2 that 3 W/m^2 gets spread across the entire spectrum that the earth emits. That’s from about 4um to 100um.

“where WV is most absent “

Yeah, they filtered out WV. So what?

“Just one more load of desperate hypocritical bullshite from *sceptics* on here.”

You haven’t refuted on single thing I posted. Just a load of gaslighting.

The dip in radiation at 15 microns does *NOT* mean that it the entire dip is not being re-radiated by Earth at other frequencies!!!! There is no proof of “forcing” the earth to retain heat and increase its temperature.

If that dip at 15um is being re-radiated by the earth at 4 – 14um and 16-100um the earth will *NOT* warm because the heat isn’t being retained, it is being re-radiated!

Just because the earth receives 15um radiation it is *NOT* required to emit it all at the same 15um frequency. It can radiate it back out over the entire longwave spectrum!

Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 23, 2026 4:34 pm

You haven’t refuted on single thing I posted. Just a load of gaslighting.

And meaningless word salad.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 27, 2026 6:51 am

“The dip in radiation at 15 microns does *NOT* mean that it the entire dip is not being re-radiated by Earth at other frequencies!!!! There is no proof of “forcing” the earth to retain heat and increase its temperature.”

In order for a black body to radiate more radiation at other frequencies after absorbing the CO2 radiation it must increase in temperature!

“If that dip at 15um is being re-radiated by the earth at 4 – 14um and 16-100um the earth will *NOT* warm because the heat isn’t being retained, it is being re-radiated!”

Apparently you do not understand black body radiation!

Reply to  Phil.
September 28, 2026 3:52 am

I understand it fine. I understand that the reflected heat has already been lost FIRST. That means that the temperature went DOWN *first*. Since only a portion of the already lost heat is returned there is no way for the reflected heat to drive the earth’s temperature HIGHER over time. The best it can do is slow the cooling of the earth.

Climate science’s radiative balance treats reflected heat as being from an independent SOURCE so that it *adds* more heat than is being lost. That is just one more garbage assumption from climate science. The sky is *not* burning. CO2 is *not* on fire. CO2 is *not* a heat source. It is a reflector. Reflectors cannot add back more heat than was originally emitted.

Mr.
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 23, 2026 7:27 pm

Sounds like a “usual suspects” line-up in a scene from a B crime movie where they rule out all the suspects one by one until only one is left, and the witness yells-
“it was him who done it, guvna!”

Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 23, 2026 4:28 pm

you peeps here (most)

protect the denial meme.

Hypocrite.

leefor
Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 23, 2026 10:01 pm

“So no “ensembles/models” are used.” But your top post specifically mentions “selected ensembles”. 😉

MarkW
Reply to  David Dibbell
September 23, 2026 9:01 am

We selected those proxies that showed the signal we were looking for. When averaged together, the resulting graph proves that we were right all along.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 23, 2026 9:13 am

Reading that report, one can identify several unstated, unidentified assumptions.

There was no analysis of alternatives.

In other words, they determined in advance what they were looking for and found what they expected. For example, the range of surface temperature of water introduces a variable much larger than their claimed results.

An interesting approach. Too bad it involved a lack of scientific method.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
September 23, 2026 12:53 pm

“There was no analysis of alternatives”.

What “alternatives”would you like?

Please explain how one could determine the radiative forcing of increasing atmospheric CO2 content – other than by divorcing it from the one thing that confounds its calculation?
I’m all ears!

”they determined in advance what they were looking for and found what they expected”

FFS – of course – they were looking for the forcing due just to CO2 and not CO2+WV.
And they happened to find that increasing CO2 is producing increased radiative forcing.
That it complies with what climate science knows already is not a reason to pander to the likes of you and dismiss it.

“Too bad it involved a lack of scientific method.”

In what way exactly?

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 23, 2026 1:28 pm

You said it right there. They decided that they “could determine the radiative forcing” by CO2 in advance.

The did not consider anything else. No analysis of alternatives.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
September 23, 2026 4:36 pm

He has a real talent for self-slapping.

Mr.
Reply to  karlomonte
September 23, 2026 7:30 pm

is that a posh term for – “wanker”?

Reply to  Mr.
September 23, 2026 9:53 pm

Was attempting to be non-harsh…

leefor
Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 23, 2026 10:11 pm

“I’m all ears!” Ah the nub of the problem.

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Sunsettommy
September 23, 2026 1:23 am

CO2 warm forcing at the 430 ppm doesn’t do much of anything.

In 1960s it 320ppm. That’s 100ppm rise. That’s a rise of about 1/3 and is already on the insensitive flattening part of the logarithmic curve.

We struggle separate the expected warming signal from the noise of natural variation of a non-linear, chaotic climate system.

The next doubling will produce about the same warming at that last rise.
The least of our future problems is atmosphric CO2 concentration

Reply to  Greg Goodman
September 23, 2026 8:16 am

Basic picture is this below,

280 ppm to 560ppm = 3.8 W/m2 increase

560ppm to 1120ppm = 3.8 W/m2 increase

LOL, the change is so small to have negligible effect.

Current Total Global Average Downwelling radiation is 508 W/m2

The current warming phase began around 1700 and warmed for around 180 years BEFORE CO2 began to increase in the atmosphere.

CO2 isn’t driving the temperature trend.

Climate Cultists are living in the Twilight Zone.

Dave Burton
September 22, 2026 10:41 pm

Folks, I want to apologize for the mistakes in this video. I thought we were going to hold it, to address them, but there was obviously some miscommunication.

The Chemist
Reply to  Dave Burton
September 22, 2026 11:31 pm

What mistakes?

Scarecrow Repair
Reply to  The Chemist
September 23, 2026 2:11 am

Shhhh!

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Dave Burton
September 23, 2026 12:50 am

Talk about uneducated

Greg Goodman
September 23, 2026 1:03 am

They should have mentioned geological proxies studies which show a 200-800 year time LAG between rising temps and rising CO2 in the swings between glaciation and interglacial periods like the present.

Reversed causation is a hard idea to sell.

They should have highlit the early 20th c. warming which was just as rapid as the late 20th c. warming but before the post 1960 economic development that the IPCC says is the cause of the warming. The is NO consistent correlation, what is why all the alarmists focus exclusively on one period of the data, where reducing all the available DAILY data into two straight lines simply shows both are positive. That is not what “correlation” means , it is a contrived result.

If you want to look for correlation you need to find VARIABILITY of different signs and magnitudes that match over time.

They should have mentioned the “canary in the coal mine” of global warming: Arctic sea ice.

We never hear about it any more , and for good reason: the last two years’ minimum ice extent were 10% GREATER than in 2007 when all the hysterical claims of “imminent ice-free summers” began.

The last two years’ minimum ice extent were 35% GREATER than in 2012, the recorded lowest extent in the 45y record.

35% RECOVERY !! Why did they hide such good news ?!

comment image

More detail here:
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/chartic-2007-2026/

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Greg Goodman
September 23, 2026 9:21 am

They also cancelled Nicolas Théodore de Saussur.
https://fackel.substack.com/p/the-quite-unknown-story-of-co2-measurements-f6b

CO2 concentrations in the first 2 decades of the 19th century were comparable to today.

They also cancelled the temperature declines from the early 1800s to the bench mark decided to be 1860. Funny. The coldest temperatures on record were from 1850 to 1860. First oil well was in 1858.

September 23, 2026 2:43 am

The GHE loop 396 BB/333 “back”/63 net duplicate is 100% imaginary & 0.04% CO2 contributes nothing of consequence to the thermal behavior of the atmosphere.

Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
September 24, 2026 9:13 am

Again Nicholas, for the umpteenth time, there is no 63 “duplicate”, so in a sense you are correct, the “duplicate” is “imaginary” in your mind. Fortunately you have come to the generally correct conclusion “nothing of consequence” however your methodology makes all of us who are on the “hold-the-crisis-hype” side look bad….
Here’s a nice update to your 1890’s knowledge level.
https://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/black_body_radiation.html

September 23, 2026 3:48 am

In logic there is “necessary and sufficient”. The lag of hundreds of years shows CO2 is neither. Temperature goes up before CO2 (unnecessary) and elevated CO2 is not sufficient to keep temperate from going down.

Reply to  mkelly
September 23, 2026 6:25 am

mkelly – While you are active here, I just wanted to reply to say thank you for pointing out to me – probably a few years ago now – that the operating principle of FLIR optical gas imaging cameras for leak detection of IR-active gases relies on absorption – not emission – in the wavelengths relevant to the particular gas involved. This made me think more carefully when describing the expected influence of incremental CO2 in the atmosphere, e.g. when posting about the Band 16 visualizations from the GOES satellites.

Reply to  David Dibbell
September 24, 2026 8:12 am

You’re most welcome. I operated FLIR on ASW aircraft.

Reply to  mkelly
September 23, 2026 9:00 am

This is the stake through the heart of the CO2 hypothesis of the whole CC narrative, yet its acolytes desperately try to turn this observational fact to their advantage.

Reply to  Graemethecat
September 26, 2026 9:45 pm

You have to give them points for trying to make do with a bad hand dealt to them.