CO2 Concentration Changes
Do Not Drive Sea Levels
From about 7000 years ago to 2000 years ago, or from the Mid- to Late-Holocene, atmospheric CO2 concentrations varied between only about 260 and 270 parts per million, or ppm. Such low CO2 concentrations are believed to be “safe” for the planet, as they are significantly lower than today’s levels, which have eclipsed 400 ppm in recent years. These high CO2 concentrations are believed to cause dangerous warming, rapid glacier melt, and catastrophic sea level rise.
And yet, despite the surge in anthropogenic CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 since the 20th century began, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that global sea levels only rose by 1.7 mm/yr during the entire 1901-2010 period, which is a rate of less than 7 inches (17 cm) per century. A new paper even suggests the global trend is better represented as closer to 1.3 mm/yr, or about 5 inches per century:
McAneney et al., 2017 “Global averaged sea-level rise is estimated at about 1.7 ± 0.2 mm year−1 (Rhein et al. 2013), however, this global average rise ignores any local land movements. Church et al. (2006) and J. A. Church (2016; personal communication) suggest a long-term average rate of relative (ocean relative to land) sea-level rise of ∼1.3 mm year.”
According to Wenzel and Schröter (2014), the acceleration rate for the sea level rise trend since 1900 has been just +0.0042 mm/yr, which is acknowledged by the authors to be “not significant” and well within the range of uncertainty (+ or – 0.0092 mm/yr) to put the overall 20th/21st century sea level rise acceleration rate at zero.
Further complicating the paradigm that contends changes in CO2 concentrations drive sea levels is the fact that ice core evidence affirms CO2 levels remained remarkably constant (fluctuating around 255 to 260 ppm) during the same period that there was an explosively fast rate of sea level rise — between 1 and 2 meters per century (about 10 times today’s rates) — between 12,000 to 8,000 years ago. Sea levels rose by ~60 meters during those 4,000 years while CO2 levels effectively remained constant.
And casting even more doubt on the assertion that variations in CO2 drive sea level rise is the fact that there is robust paleoclimate evidence to suggest that today’s mean sea levels as well as today’s sea level rise rates are both relatively low (from a historical standpoint) and also well within the range of natural variability. Nothing unusual is happening to sea levels today. For even though we have evidence that modern CO2 concentrations (~405 ppm) are historically high relative to the last 10,000 years, we also possess a growing body of evidence that modern sea levels are still about 1 to 2 meters lower than they have been for most of the last 7,000 years.
The fundamental problem for the CO2-rise-causes-sea-level-rise paradigm, then, is that rising CO2 concentrations have not been correlated with rising sea levels for nearly all of the last 12,000 years. In fact, the opposite has been observed during the last 2,000 years, or during the Late Holocene: CO2 levels have risen (gradually, then rapidly) while sea levels have fallen overall, with recent changes so modest (inches per century) that they do not override the overall trend. In the 8,000 years before that, sea levels rose rapidly while CO2 concentrations remained flat. Simply put, the supposed anthropogenic “signal” in sea level rise trends has largely gone undetected — a point that has been affirmed by more and more scientists.
Listed below are a collection of 35 scientific papers published since 2014 that indicate sea levels were, on average, about 1 to 2 meters higher than they are now throughout the Mid-Holocene (7,000-2,000 years ago) and even into the last millennium, with lower-than-now sea levels largely confined to the Little Ice Age period (~1300 to 1900 AD). Links to the papers are embedded in the authors’ names and the regional locations for mean sea level are notated.
Dechnik et al., 2017 (Tropical Western Pacific)
[I]t is generally accepted that relative sea level reached a maximum of 1–1.5 m above present mean sea level (pmsl) by ~7 ka [7,000 years ago] (Lewis et al., 2013)
Zondervan, 2016 (Great Barrier Reef, Australia)
Preserved fossil coral heads as indicators of Holocene high sea level on One Tree Island [GBR, Australia] … Complete in-situ fossil coral heads have been found on beach rock of One Tree Island, a small cay in the Capricorn Group on the Great Barrier Reef. Measurements against the present low-tide mark provide a [Holocene] high stand of at least +2.85 m [above present sea levels], which can be determined in great accuracy compared to other common paleo sea-level record types like mangrove facies. The sea level recorded here is higher than most recent findings, but supports predictions by isostatic adjustment models. … Although the late Holocene high stand has been debated in the past (e.g. Belperio 1979, Thom et al. 1968), more evidence now supports a sea level high stand of at least + 1- 2 m relative to present sea levels (Baker & Haworth 1997, 2000, Collins et al. 2006, Larcombe et al. 1995, Lewis et al. 2008, Sloss et al. 2007).
Prieto et al., 2016 (Argentina, Uruguay)
Analysis of the RSL [relative sea level] database revealed that the RSL [relative sea level] rose to reach the present level at or before c. 7000 cal yr BP, with the peak of the sea-level highstand c. +4 m [above present] between c. 6000 and 5500 cal yr BP [calendar years before present] … This RSL [relative sea level] curve was re-plotted by Gyllencreutz et al. (2010) using the same index points and qualitative approach but using the calibrated ages. It shows rising sea-levels following the Last Glacial Termination (LGT), reaching a RSL [relative sea level] maximum of +6.5 m above present at c. 6500 cal yr BP [calendar years before present], followed by a stepped regressive trend towards the present.
Hodgson et al., 2016 (East Antarctica)
Rapid early Holocene sea-level rise in Prydz Bay, East Antarctica … The field data show rapid increases in rates of relative sea level rise of 12–48 mm/yr [1.2 to 4.8 meters per century] between 10,473 (or 9678) and 9411 cal yr BP in the Vestfold Hills and of 8.8 mm/yr between 8882 and 8563 cal yr BP in the Larsemann Hills. … The geological data imply a regional RSL [relative sea level] high stand of c. 8 m [above present levels], which persisted between 9411 cal yr BP and 7564 cal yr BP [calendar years before present], and was followed by a period when deglacial sea-level rise was almost exactly cancelled out by local rebound.
Dura et al., 2016 (Vancouver)
In northern and western Sumatra, GIA models predict high rates (>5 mm/year) of RSL [relative sea level] rise from ∼12 to ∼7 ka [12000 to 7000 years ago], followed by slowing rates of rise (<1 mm/year) to an RSL [relative sea level] highstand of <1 m (northern Sumatra) and ∼3 m (western Sumatra) between 6 and 3 ka [6,000-3,000 years ago], and then gradual (<1 mm/ year) RSL fall until present.
Spotorno-Oliveira et al., 2016 (Brazil)
At ~7000 cal. years BP the sea level in the bay was approximately 4 m below the present sea level and the upper subtidal benthic community was characterised by fruticose corallines on coarse soft substrate, composed mainly of quartz grains from continental runoff input. The transgressing sea rapidly rose until reaching the ~ +4 m highstand [above present] level around 5000 years BP.
Lee et al., 2016 (Southeast Australia)
The configuration suggests surface inundation of the upper sediments by marine water during the mid-Holocene (c. 2–8 kyr BP), when sea level was 1–2 m above today’s level.
Yokoyama et al., 2016 (Japan)
The Holocene-high-stand (HHS) inferred from oyster fossils (Saccostrea echinata and Saccostrea malaboensis) is 2.7 m [above present sea level] at ca. 3500 years ago, after which sea level gradually fell to present level.
May et al., 2016 (Western Australia)
Beach ridge evolution over a millennial time scale is also indicated by the landward rise of the sequence possibly corresponding to the mid-Holocene sea-level highstand of WA [Western Australia] of at least 1-2 m above present mean sea level.
Mann et al., 2016 (Indonesia)
Radiometrically calibrated ages from emergent fossil microatolls on Pulau Panambungan indicate a relative sea-level highstand not exceeding 0.5 m above present at ca. 5600 cal. yr BP [calendar years before present].
Clement et al., 2016 (New Zealand)
In North Island locations the early-Holocene sea-level highstand was quite pronounced, with RSL [relative sea level] up to 2.75 m higher than present. In the South Island the onset of highstand conditions was later, with the first attainment of PMSL being between 7000–6400 cal yr BP. In the mid-Holocene the northern North Island experienced the largest sea-level highstand, with RSL up to 3.00 m higher than present.
Long et al., 2016 (Scotland)
RSL [relative sea level] data from Loch Eriboll and the Wick River Valley show that RSL [relative sea level] was <1 m above present for several thousand years during the mid and late Holocene before it fell to present.
Chiba et al., 2016 (Japan)
Highlights: We reconstruct Holocene paleoenvironmental changes and sea levels by diatom analysis. Average rates of sea-level rise and fall are estimated during the Holocene. Relative sea level during Holocene highstand reached 1.9 m [higher than today] during 6400–6500 cal yr BP [calendar years before present]. The timing of this sea-level rise is at least 1000 years earlier in the Lake Inba area by Holocene uplift than previous studies. The decline of sea-level after 4000 cal yr BP may correspond to the end of melting of the Antarctic ice sheet.
Leonard et al., 2016 (Great Barrier Reef, Australia)
Holocene sea level instability in the southern Great Barrier Reef, Australia … Three emergent subfossil reef flats from the inshore Keppel Islands, Great Barrier Reef (GBR), Australia, were used to reconstruct relative sea level (RSL). Forty-two high-precision uranium–thorium (U–Th) dates obtained from coral microatolls and coral colonies (2σ age errors from ±8 to 37 yr) in conjunction with elevation surveys provide evidence in support of a nonlinear RSL regression throughout the Holocene. RSL [relative sea level] was at least 0.75 m above present from ~6500 to 5500 yr before present (yr BP; where “present” is 1950). Following this highstand, two sites indicated a coeval lowering of RSL of at least 0.4 m from 5500 to 5300 yr BP which was maintained for ~200 yr. After the lowstand, RSL returned to higher levels before a 2000-yr hiatus in reef flat corals after 4600 yr BP at all three sites. A second possible RSL lowering event of ~0.3 m from ~2800 to 1600 yr BP was detected before RSL stabilised ~0.2 m above present levels by 900 yr BP. While the mechanism of the RSL instability is still uncertain, the alignment with previously reported RSL oscillations, rapid global climate changes and mid-Holocene reef “turn-off” on the GBR are discussed.
Sander et al., 2016 (Denmark)
The data show a period of RSL [relative sea level] highstand at c. 2.2 m above present MSL [mean sea level] between c. 5.0 and 4.0 ka BP [5,000 to 4,000 years before present]. After that, RSL drops by c. 1.3 m between c. 4.0 and 3.4 ka BP to an elevation roughly 1 m above present MSL. Since then, RSL has been falling at more or less even rates. … Yu et al. (2007) present evidence for a sea-level ‘jump’ of several meters occurring at 7.6 ka bp [7600 years before present] in SE Sweden, and data suggesting RSL changes with a similar timing and magnitude were obtained for a field site in the southern Gulf of Finland (Rosentau et al., 2013). The suddenness of the RSL change has been attributed to the collapse of parts of the Laurentide Ice Sheet (Blanchon and Shaw, 1995; Carlson et al., 2007), though the global indications and the potential triggers of such a eustatic event remain inconclusive (Törnqvist and Hijma, 2012).
Bradley et al., 2016 (China)
In general, the data indicate a marked slowdown between 7 and 8 kyr BP, with sea level rising steadily to form a highstand of ~2-4 m [above present sea level] between 6 and 4 kyr BP [6000 and 4000 years before present]. This is followed by a steady fall, reaching present day levels by ~1 kyr BP.
Accordi and Carbone, 2016 (Africa)
Then, the skeletal carbonate storage on the shelf reached its maximum 5 to 4 ka BP [5000 to 4000 years before present] (Ramsay, 1995) during a highstand about 3.5 m above the present sea level, when shallow marine accommodation space was greater than at present. … A detailed sea level curve of the last 9 ka BP is reported for the Southern African coastline by Ramsay (1995), who indicates a sea level similar to that of the present (at about 6.5 ka). Ramsay also indicates successive, frequent oscillations below and above the present sea level, between a maximum of +3.5 and a minimum of -2 m. Sea level positive pulses since 7 ka BP are also documented in Siesser (1974), Jaritz et al. (1977) and Norstrom et al. (2012) for the Mozambique coast. Along the Kenyan coast, a sea level stand above the present one during the mid-Holocene is documented in many places along the coast by various authors (Hori, 1970; Toyah et al., 1973; Åse, 1981, 1987; Oosterom, 1988), where the sea level might have reached +6 m above the Kenyan Datum between 2 and 3 ka BP [2000 and 3000 years before present].
Hansen et al., 2016 (Denmark)
Continuous record of Holocene sea-level changes … (4900 years BP to present). … The curve reveals eight centennial sea-level oscillations of 0.5-1.1 m superimposed on the general trend of the RSL [relative sea level] curve [relative sea levels ~1.5 m higher than present from 1400 to 1000 years ago].
Macreadie et al., 2015 (Austalia, Eastern)
[R]esults from other studies … suggest that high-stand, at perhaps 2 m above present msl [mean sea level] was achieved as early as 7000 radiocarbon years BP [before present] (7800 cal. years BP) and that sea-level has exceeded the present value for much of the mid- to late-Holocene [~7000 to ~1000 years ago].
Lewis et al., 2015 (Australia, Northeastern)
Thick (> 10 cm) fossil oyster visors above the equivalent modern growth suggest higher relative sea-levels in the past (i.e. > 1200 cal. yr BP [prior to 1,200 years before present]). … [D]ata show a Holocene sea-level highstand of 1–2 m higher than present which extended from ca. 7500 to 2000 yr ago (Woodroffe, 2003; Sloss et al., 2007; Lewis et al., 2013). The hydro-isostatic adjustment is thought to account for these 1–2 m sea-level changes [falling] to present levels over the past 2000 yr (Lambeck and Nakada, 1990; Lambeck, 2002). … [R]eliable SLI data such as coral pavements and tubeworms from Western Australia suggest that relative sea-level was 0.86 m and 0.80 m above present at 1060 ± 10 and 1110 ± 170 cal. yr BP [~1100 calendar years before present], respectively (Baker et al., 2005; Collins et al., 2006).
Lokier et al., 2015 (Persian Gulf)
Late Quaternary reflooding of the Persian Gulf climaxed with the mid-Holocene highstand previously variously dated between 6 and 3.4 ka. Examination of the stratigraphic and paleoenvironmental context of a mid-Holocene whale beaching allows us to accurately constrain the timing of the transgressive, highstand and regressive phases of the mid- to late Holocene sea-level highstand in the Persian Gulf. Mid-Holocene transgression of the Gulf surpassed today’s sea level by 7100–6890 cal yr BP, attaining a highstand of > 1 m above current sea level shortly after 5290–4570 cal yr BP before falling back to current levels by 1440–1170 cal yr BP. These new ages refine previously reported timings for the mid- to late Holocene sea-level highstand published for other regions. By so doing, they allow us to constrain the timing of this correlatable global eustatic event more accurately.
Harris et al., 2015 (Great Barrier Reef, Australia)
This hiatus in sediment infill coincides with a sea-level fall of ∼1–1.3 m during the late Holocene (ca. 2000 cal. yr B.P.), which would have caused the turn-off of highly productive live coral growth on the reef flats currently dominated by less productive rubble and algal flats, resulting in a reduced sediment input to back-reef environments and the cessation in sand apron accretion. Given that relative sea-level variations of ∼1 m were common throughout the Holocene, we suggest that this mode of sand apron development and carbonate production is applicable to most reef systems.
Microatoll death was most likely caused by a fall in sea level that stranded the microatolls on the reef flat due to their location in open-water unmoated environments. This suggests that paleo–sea level between 3900 and 2200 cal. yr B.P. was 1–1.3 m higher than present (based on an offset from MLWS tidal level to fossil microatoll elevation; Fig. 2). This paleo–sealevel elevation is similar to the ranges of 1–1.5 m suggested by Lewis et al. (2013) and Sloss et al. (2007) and data from Moreton Bay in southern Queensland of an elevation of 1.3 m (Leonard et al., 2013).
Hein et al., 2015 (Brazil)
In southern Brazil, falling RSL [relative sea level] following a 2–4 m [above present sea level] highstand at 5 to 6 ka [5,000 to 6,000 years ago] forced coastal progradation. … Relative SL [sea level] along the southern Brazil coast reached a highstand elevation of 1–4 m above MSL [mean sea leve] at ca. 5.8 ka [5800 years ago].
Barnett et al., 2015 (Arctic Norway)
Relative sea-level fell at −0.7 to −0.9 mm yr−1 over the past 3300 years in NW Norway. … Prior to 3000 cal yr BP the marine limiting date represents an important constraint for the late Holocene sea-level trend and yields a minimum RSL [relative sea level] decline of approximately 2.2 m over 3200 years when assuming a linear trend. The maximum possible linear decline constrained by the data is approximately 2.6 m in 2800 years, providing an estimated late Holocene sea-level trend of 0.7 to 0.9 mm yr (shown by the grey shaded region in Fig. 8A). [Relative sea level was 2.2 to 2.8 m higher ~3,000 years ago in Arctic Norway]
Engel et al., 2015 (Western Australia)
The foredunes overlie upper beach deposits located up to >2 m above the present upper beach level and provide evidence for a higher mid-Holocene RSL [relative sea level]. … [O]bservations made near Broome by Lessa and Masselink (2006) [indicate] the deposition of backshore deposits up to c. 1.5 m above present MHW [mean high water] between c. 2100–800 cal BP [2100-800 calendar years before present].
Reinink-Smith, 2015 (Kuwait)
[B]ased on bottle characteristics, glass bottles within the debris zonemwere manufactured mostly between 1940 and 1960 (some as early as the 1920s), indicating high tides were more common in the recent past. … The normal tidal cycle affects only a narrow 0.6–0.7 km-wide band parallel to the coast when the prevailing wind (the Shamal) is from the northwest (Gunatilaka, 1986). Within this narrow zone, washed-up glass bottles were manufactured more recently than ~1960 and are not frosted. None of these new [made after 1960] bottles were found near the beach ridges … [A]ssuming the tidal ranges were similar in the middle Holocene, a rough estimate of the MSL [mean sea level] during the middle Holocene highstand is 5.2 m − 1.7 m = +3.5 m above the present MSL [mean sea level]. … The +3.5 m highstand estimate in northeastern Kuwait derived in this study is also higher than the previously reported maximum estimates of +2 to +2.5 m responsible for other Holocene beach ridges in the Arabian Gulf (Gunatilaka, 1986; Lambeck, 1996; Kennett and Kennett, 2007; Jameson and Strohmenger, 2012). Some beach ridges in Qatar and Abu Dhabi are at elevations of 2–4 m above MSL [present mean sea level] as far as 5-15 km inland (Alsharhan and Kendall, 2003).
Rashid et al., 2014 (French Polynesia)
Upon correction for isostatic island subsidence, we find that local relative sea level was at least ~1.5±0.4 m higher than present at ~5,400 years ago.
Strachan et al., 2014 (South Africa)
During the last 7000 years, southern African sea levels have fluctuated by no more than ±3 m. Sea-level curves based on observational data for southern Africa indicate that Holocene highstands occurred at 6000 and again at 4000 cal years BP, followed by a lowstand from 3000 to 2000 cal years B P. The mid-Holocene highstands culminated in a sea-level maximum of approximately 3 m above mean sea level (MSL) from 7300 to 6500 cal years BP [calendar years before present] and of 2 m above MSL at around 4000 cal years BP. Thereafter, RSL dropped to slightly below the present level between 3500 and 2800 cal years BP. Sea-level fluctuations during the late Holocene in southern Africa were relatively small (1-2 m); however, these fluctuations had a major impact on past coastal environments. Evidence from the west coast suggests that there was a highstand of 0.5 m above MSL from 1500 to 1300 cal years BP [calendar years before present] or possibly earlier (1800 cal years BP), followed by a lowstand (-0.5 m above MSL) from 700 to 400 cal years BP [during the Little Ice Age].
Yamano et al., 2014 (Southwest Pacific Ocean)
Mba Island initially formed around ~ 4500 cal yr B.P. [4500 calendar years before present], when sea level was ~ 1.1 m higher than at present.
Kench et al., 2014 (Central Pacific Ocean)
[T]he mid-Holocene [sea level] highstand is reported to have peaked at approximately +1.1 m above present and was sustained until approximately 2000 years B.P. [before present] in the Marshall Islands.
Hein et al., 2014 (Brazil)
Along the eastern and southern Brazilian coasts of South America, 6000 years of sea-level fall have preserved late-stage transgressive and sea-level highstand features 1–4 m above present mean sea level and several kilometers landward of modern shorelines.
Bracco et al., 2014 (Uruguay)
Highlights: We present a sea level change curve for mid Holocene in Uruguay. Sea level reached 4 m amsl [above present mean sea level] between 6000 and 5500 yr BP [before present]. A rapid sea level fall to about 1 m amsl [above present mean sea level] was inferred for 4700-4300 yr BP. A further sea level increase to about 3 m amsl [above present mean sea level] was inferred after 4300 yr BP. After 4300 yr BP there was a constant sea level a decline.
Holocene Sea Levels Rose Much Faster With Stable CO2 Levels
Khan et al., 2017 (Caribbean)
Only Suriname and Guyana [Caribbean] exhibited higher RSL [relative sea level] than present (82% probability), reaching a maximum height of ∼1 m at 5.2 ka [5,200 years ago]. … Because of meltwater input, the rates of RSL change were highest during the early Holocene, with a maximum of 10.9 ± 0.6 m/ka [10.9 meters per 1000 years, 1.9 meters per century] in Suriname and Guyana and minimum of 7.4 ± 0.7 m/ka [7.4 meters per 1000 years, 0.74 meters per century] in south Florida from 12 to 8 ka [12,000 to 8,000 years ago].
Zecchin et al., 2015 (Mediterranean)
Episodic, rapid sea-level rises on the central Mediterranean shelves after the Last Glacial Maximum: A review … The evidence presented here confirms drowned shorelines documented elsewhere at similar water depths and shows that melt-water pulses have punctuated the post-glacial relative sea-level rise with rates up to 60 mm/yr. [6 meters per century] for a few centuries.
Boski et al., 2015 (Brazil)
[…] the richest nations on Earth. The facts of history are clear. Robert W. Like this: Like Loading… 35 Scientific Papers: Global Sea Levels Were 1 – 2 Meters Higher Than Now For Most Of The Last 7,0…. CO2 Concentration Changes Do Not Drive Sea Levels From about 7000 years ago to 2000 years ago, or […]
From your linked IPCC draft:
Figure 13.3 indeed illustrates that and if the acceleration continues it wont be just 17 cm per century.
An acceleration of 0.0042 mm/yr² (or 0-0.013 mm/yr² as in the IPCC draft) isn’t zero. Starting with a sea level of 0 and an increase of 0 mm/yr you’d end up with a sea level of 20,79 mm after 100 years. When starting with a 3 mm/yr increase you end up with 320,79 mm after 100 years. As with the human contribution to CO2 levels you underestimate the effect of small amounts over many years.
Sea level is obviously influenced by many variables. Isn’t it possible that changing any of those variables has an effect? Could more than one effect be at work at the same time? Warming decreases land ice and warm water slighty expands. Pollution causes ice to melt (“black snow”) and to increase (sulfur dioxides or vulcanic ash blocking solar radiation). Warmer climate increases evaporation, etc … lots of variables.
So CO2 isn’t the only thing that can change sea levels, but all other things staying equal it would be the only thing (through increased warming of the surface).
SebastianH, why are you cherry-picking a 17-year trend (1993-2010) out of an 110-year trend and claiming that that 17-year trend is the only one that counts and the other 90-some years that contributed to that trend should be ignored? We’ve had rates of over 3 mm/yr before…that lasted for 25 years:
—
Klige, 1990
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-009-0701-0_10#page-1
“During the recent century the rate of sea-level rise has reached 1.5 mm per year. The most intensive rise at a rate of more than 3 mm per year occurred from 1924 to 1948 (Fig. 2).”
—
Actually, in compiling the 1.7 mm/yr composite, it is well known that the early 20th century had a greater rate of rise than the post-1950 trend:
—
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL028492/abstract
Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003).
—
Just because we had 25 years of sea level rise of more than 3 mm/yr during the 1920s to 1940s and 1990s to 2010s (according to satellite altimetry modeling, not actual measurements from tide gauges) doesn’t mean that rate is going to continue, or that the overall rate for the entire period should be ignored. The 1920s to 1940s 3+ mm/yr didn’t continue as the climate cooled in the 1950s to 1990s. In fact, as of 1990, there were scientists who wrote that there had been no sea level rise in the last 40 years:
—
Pirazzoli, 1990
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-009-0701-0_9
“during the last 40 years there has probably been no global sea-level rise at all”
—
Besides, if we are cherry-picking short-term years, we could look at the 2004/5-2012 trend:
—
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113002397
It is found that the GMSL [Global Mean Sea Level] rises with the rate of 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr during 1993–2003 and started decelerating since 2004 to a rate of 1.8 ± 0.9 mm/yr in 2012.
—
http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/sod/lsa/SeaLevelRise/documents/NOAA_NESDIS_Sea_Level_Rise_Budget_Report_2012.pdf
In this analysis, the global sea level rise budget for 2005–2012 is closed when the Paulson GIA correction is applied (Table 1). The sum of steric sea level rise and the ocean mass component has a trend of 1.1 ± 0.8 mm/a over the period when the Paulson GIA mass correction is applied, well overlapping total sea level rise observed by Jason-1 and Jason-2 (1.3 ± 0.9 mm/a) within a 95% confidence interval.
—
And you haven’t even addressed the main question in this article, SebastianH. If sea level rise and fall has not been correlated with CO2 concentrations for the last 12,000 years, and you can only find a “correlation” for ~20 years (or less) out of the last 115 years, and even that rate was matched in the early 20th century, when anthropogenic CO2 emissions were flat…why do you nonetheless believe that CO2 concentrations are the driving factor in ocean heat changes, glacier melt, and sea level changes? What caused all that far-more-explosive sea level rise during the Holocene, SebastianH? Can you answer this question, or will you, once again, run away from it?
As I actually wrote, did you notice that the uncertainty range for that “acceleration” was more than two times greater (+ or – 0.0092 mm/yr) than the claimed acceleration itself (0.0042 mm/yr)? In other words, we really don’t know whether there’s any acceleration or if there isn’t. And even if it is 0.0042 mm/yr, that is “not significant” according to the authors of that paper. That’s why I wrote that it is indeed effectively zero.
“So CO2 isn’t the only thing that can change sea levels”
ROFLMAO.. now you are just getting RIDICULOUS.
Please provide a paper that proves CO₂ causes changes in sea levels….
This will be hiLIARious watching you squirm and worm your way out of that piece of NONSENSE….. ROFLMAO !!!
Yes, I would also like to see SebastianH provide a paper that affirms the “basic physics” of CO2 variations in volumes of 0.000001 (part per million) causing the sea levels to rise or fall if increased or decreased. Surely, since he calls those who disagree with his beliefs “deniers” of these scientific “truths” he can produce such evidence.
Let’s see what you have, SebastianH.
He now has THREE papers to provide.
None of which exist.
Seb is so hilariously funny, and so totally INEPT ! 🙂
Hi, Andy
Think we should be grateful for Seb persevering here, whatever the merits or otherwise of his challenge.
I actually think that Kenneth’s approach, laboriously researched and very well presented, is about as good as the sceptic community gets in presenting the case that the science IS NOT SETTLED and the consensus is NOTHING LIKE 97%.
Right now Pierre’s blog is not as well attended as it might be in view of the relevance of the subject matter, and Kenneth’s efforts are not getting a wide recognition. So critical outside comment is to be welcomed. (Okay, Seb’s comments could be more focussed and coherent than is his natural style, but I’ll live with that).
I’d like to see Kenneth’s assembly of contrary evidence subjected to very wide scrutiny indeed. Right now I think the big guns of the alarmist camp are ignoring this because they don’t want it given too high a profile. Likewise the media has yet to notice (or yet to acknowledge they’ve noticed).
Bring it on!
And Seb: specifics aside, don’t you yourself think that the volume and depth of Kenneth’s work deserves some recognition by the establishment camp? Don’t just knee-jerk this. What do you really think?
I recognize the enormous amount of work Kenneth puts into his quest. I imagine that to be a full time job and I am impressed.
Nevertheless the collections are always compiled to support a specific view while other skeptic viewpoints are often not represented in those papers, e.g. it’s cherry picking (from the papers as well as all available papers).
I do not think this effort is not noticed by the media and “big guns of the alarmist camp”. The arguments against AGW often presented here, especially by commentators, are just to ridiculous to be taken seriously. That is not helping your cause at all.
The only reasonable argument I have seen presented here is that global warming might not get as extreme as the estimates suggest. This may very well be the case. Another one might be that it could turn out that doing something to limit global warming is more expensive then adapting to it. I’d disagree, but nevertheless it would be reasonable to discuss this.
Instead basic physics is questioned here. There is indeed some kind of “settlement” in the science community of wheter the basic laws of thermodynamics, heat transfer, etc are correct or not 😉
P.S.: my personal challenge is to I recognize the enormous amount of work Kenneth puts into his quest. I imagine that to be a full time job and I am impressed.
Nevertheless the collections are always compiled to support a specific view while other skeptic viewpoints are often not represented in those papers, e.g. it’s cherry picking (from the papers as well as all available papers).
I do not think this effort is not noticed by the media and “big guns of the alarmist camp”. The arguments against AGW often presented here, especially by commentators, are just to ridiculous to be taken seriously. That is not helping your cause at all.
The only reasonable argument I have seen presented here is that global warming might not get as extreme as the estimates suggest. This may very well be the case. Another one might be that it could turn out that doing something to limit global warming is more expensive then adapting to it. I’d disagree, but nevertheless it would be reasonable to discuss this.
Instead basic physics is questioned here. There is indeed some kind of “settlement” in the science community of wheter the basic laws of thermodynamics, heat transfer, etc are correct or not 😉
P.S.: I challenged myself a month ago to learn more about the world outside of my filter bubble. That is my motivation and the easiest starting point for me was immersing myself in the filter bubble that is extreme climate scepticism.
Kenneths listed papers papers merely show that there is in fact broad disagreement among climate scientists and that the notion of consensus is fantasy. The argument works both ways: alarmists use the same tactic of relying only on papers that support the alarmist scenario. What is emerging is that alarmist predictions and scenarios are fantasy and not based on real observation.
I agree, extreme climate alarmists use the very same tactic. But not everyone out there who thinks humans are causing global warming say that we are all going to die, do they? That is just the perception of extreme skeptics … the overhelming majority (“the consensus” if you want) is unsure about the total extent of this mess.
P.S.: speaking about predictions … anything to say about this bold prediction? https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/22/contributorblogger-prognostications-of-future-temperature-trends/#comment-50996
SebastianH: “The arguments against AGW often presented here, especially by commentators, are just to ridiculous to be taken seriously.”
Please specifically identify the arguments that are “just to[o] ridiculous to be taken seriously.” Will you accurately state the arguments, or make up your own and claim we are arguing something we are not, in fact, arguing?
Answer this fundamental question: What year did atmospheric CO2 concentration take over from natural variation as the predominant cause of net ocean heat changes? How would one so clearly distinguish the anthropogenic forcing from natural variability given that ocean heat changes look like this for the last several thousand years:
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Holocene-Cooling-Pacific-Ocean-Rosenthal-13-CO2.jpg
SebastianH, you still have yet to answer the fundamental question posed by this article. I’ll ask again. Will you be ignoring it again?
If sea level rise and fall has not been correlated with CO2 concentrations for the last 12,000 years, and you can only find a “correlation” for ~20 years (or less) out of the last 115 years, and even that rate was matched in the early 20th century, when anthropogenic CO2 emissions were flat…why do you nonetheless believe that CO2 concentrations are the driving factor in ocean heat changes, glacier melt, and sea level changes? What caused all that far-more-explosive sea level rise during the Holocene, SebastianH?
Why do you believe a natural cause drives it? What natural cause? And isn’t the ocean currently increasing in heat content? I wouldn’t be surprised if most of the recent sea level rise is due to thermal expansion rather then melting glaciers/ice.
Arguments by skeptics against AGW:
– the greenhouse effect does not exist
– the greenhouse effect does exist but it has nothing to do with CO2
– the greenhouse effect would describe a perpetuum mobile
– cold stuff can not heat warm stuff therefor a cold atmosphere can not cause warming of the surface
– the effect of CO2 is a cooling effect only
– the atmosphere is warmer near the surface because of gravity
Should I go on? These arguments are basically denying science in a believe that laws of physics somehow not apply to the very special situation of Earth with its atmosphere.
As I suspected you would do, you’ve just made up your own straw-man “arguments” and then attributed them to “skeptics”.
For example, I and nearly all skeptics that I know of have consistently pointed out that the modeled greenhouse effect has CO2 playing a role, but a modest one that is largely overwhelmed by natural variations in, for example, cloud cover. Instead of acknowledging this nuanced position, you have (dishonestly) claimed that the skeptic argument is actually that the GHE (a) “doesn’t exist”, and (b) CO2 “has nothing to do with it” if it does exist. What you have carefully avoided acknowledging is that CO2 may play a role within the GHE, but its role is quite minimal in affecting climatic changes relative to other variable constituents. I understand why you have to make up your own straw man arguments to slay, but no one here is impressed by your ability to dismiss as ridiculous arguments that you have made up yourself.
I have asked you two questions above that you have refused to answer. We know why you are avoiding them, of course. Why do you call the skeptic arguments “ridiculous” if you can’t even answer questions fundamental to your own position? Here they are again:
1) What year did atmospheric CO2 concentration take over from natural variation as the predominant cause of net ocean heat changes? How would one so clearly distinguish the anthropogenic forcing from natural variability given that ocean heat changes look like this for the last several thousand years:
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Holocene-Cooling-Pacific-Ocean-Rosenthal-13-CO2.jpg
2) If sea level rise and fall has not been correlated with CO2 concentrations for the last 12,000 years, and you can only find a “correlation” for ~20 years (or less) out of the last 115 years, and even that rate was matched in the early 20th century, when anthropogenic CO2 emissions were flat…why do you nonetheless believe that CO2 concentrations are the driving factor in ocean heat changes, glacier melt, and sea level changes? What caused all that far-more-explosive sea level rise during the Holocene, SebastianH?
“These arguments are basically denying science”
The only one DENYING science here is YOU, sebtroll.
You are unable to produce ONE SINGLE PAPER to back up your MORONIC ANTI-SCIENCE CLAIMS that CO₂ warms the convective atmosphere, or that CO₂ warms the oceans.
All you post is your anti-science AGW propaganda BS, and a load of unsupported rhetoric that shows you have very little understanding of atmospheric processes.
Quite PATHETIC really, but it is rather funny to watch flapping about like a stunned mullet !!
Kenneth, I did answer your questions, but sometimes when I click “Post Comment” the site just reloads. In some cases those comments appear later on in others not.
You didn’t answer my questions … I get that a skeptic doesn’t need to explain what he/she thinks the alternative is. Book critics do not need to be great story tellers either. But why are you so obsessed that the recent changes in climate might all be caused by natural processes? Yes, there have been big variations of sea level and heat content in times with no human activity. But that’s no argument against humans being the cause now. That answers both of your questions. There is no real evidence that conclusively demonstrates that this is just natural variations.
The arguments listed are actual arguments made in comments here and on other skeptic websites. Every skeptic is different, so it is not “the skeptic argument” that CO2 plays no role.
And there comes AndyG55, the atmosphere-whisperer …
I don’t see any where on this comment thread where you answered either one of these questions. I suspect you didn’t, as you have continued to avoid answering questions that you know may undermine the paradigm you ascribe to.
WordPress web hosting has a strong filter that puts every comment with certain key words in it into abeyance before approval/publishing. That’s because about 75% of the comment traffic is spam/ads. Sometimes your comment seems to disappear (it doesn’t, it’s just being held), sometimes you get a “This comment is under moderation” message, and occasionally the comment goes straight through. It’s WordPress. Will you please try to answer the above questions specifically?
What questions might those be? Unlike you, I do try to respond to challenges/questions posed. If you’re asking for an explanation for what could be the main driver(s) in causing the ocean heat content/climate to change if not 0.00001 variations in atmospheric CO2 (as you believe), I will gladly provide explanatory examples. Here are a few links to get you started:
1. 14 Scientists Affirm Solar Forcing, Not CO2, Is ‘Dominant Control’ For Modern Climate Change:
https://notrickszone.com/2017/01/23/new-paper-14-scientists-affirm-solar-forcing-not-co2-is-dominant-control-for-modern-climate-change/
—
2. 3 New Papers Reveal Dominance Of Solar, Cloud Climate Forcing Since The 1980s … With CO2 Only A Bit Player:
https://notrickszone.com/2016/10/27/3-new-papers-reveal-dominance-of-solar-cloud-forcing-since-the-1980s-with-co2-only-a-bit-player/
—
3. Scientists Find Climate’s ‘Cause Of Causes’…Highest Solar Activity In 4000 Years Just Ended…Cooling Begins In 2025
https://notrickszone.com/2017/01/12/scientists-find-climates-cause-of-causes-highest-solar-activity-in-4000-years-just-ended-cooling-begins-in-2025/
—
4. 18 New Papers Link High Solar Activity To Medieval And Modern Warmth, Low Solar Activity To Little Ice Age Cooling: https://notrickszone.com/2016/10/17/18-new-papers-link-high-solar-activity-to-medieval-and-modern-warmth-low-solar-activity-to-little-ice-age-cooling/
—
5. 35 New Scientific Publications Confirm Ocean Cycles, Sun Are Main Climate Drivers:
https://notrickszone.com/2016/08/11/35-new-scientific-publications-confirm-ocean-cycles-sun-are-main-climate-drivers/
—
6. 60 papers on very low CO2 climate sensitivity:
https://notrickszone.com/50-papers-low-sensitivity/
—
So if humans are the cause “now”, what year did that “now” actually begin? In other words, in what year did humans supplant the Sun, clouds, natural oceanic/atmospheric oscillations (ENSO, NAO, AMOC), volcanic forcing…in modulating the climate, or in causing ocean heat content changes? What year did natural factors stop causing/driving climate changes? Please be specific with the year or span of years, as I will then have several follow-up questions to challenge you with (that you’ll likely not answer either).
And here is Sebtroll, who can’t even find a paper to support the very basis of his baseless worthless child-minded AGW religion.. very sad.
And has shown he has zero comprehension of any real science to do with the atmosphere, only able to regurgitate the anti-science pap thrown at his by his AGW priests.
So sad to see such a GULLIBLE, WEAK-MINDED non-entity, a product of modern junior high education (no further, that’s for sure)
“Between 1993 and 2010, the rate was very likely higher at 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm yr–1”
That is done by attaching heavily adjusted satellite based sea level (error +/- 3mm data) a scientific no-no until they are proven concurrent, which they aren’t. (sorry if the concept is too much for your barista brain)
We can see the adjustments starting to occur between 2000 and 2003
https://s19.postimg.org/p42wgwtir/comparison.jpg
Tide gauge data STILL shows around 1.5 – 2 mm/yr sea level rise, No acceleration
Even NOAA agrees:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/globalregional.htm
“the absolute global sea level rise is believed to be 1.7-1.8 millimeters/year”
—
Svendsen et al., 2016
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016JC011685/abstract
Stable reconstruction of Arctic sea level for the 1950–2010 period
From our reconstruction, we found that the Arctic mean sea level trend is around 1.5 mm +/- 0.3 mm/y for the period 1950 to 2010, between 68ºN and 82ºN. This value is in good agreement with the global mean trend of 1.8 +/- 0.3 mm/y over the same period as found by Church and White (2004).
—
Thompson et al., 2016
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL070552/abstract
Ocean dynamics, land motion, and changes in Earth’s gravitational and rotational fields cause local sea level change to deviate from the rate of global mean sea level rise. Here, we use observations and simulations of spatial structure in sea level change to estimate the likelihood that these processes cause sea level trends in the longest and highest-quality tide gauge records to be systematically biased relative to the true global mean rate. The analyzed records have an average 20th century rate of approximately 1.6 mm/yr, but based on the locations of these gauges, we show the simple average underestimates the 20th century global mean rate by 0.1 ± 0.2 mm/yr. Given the distribution of potential sampling biases, we find < 1% probability that observed trends from the longest and highest-quality TG [tide gauge] records are consistent with global mean rates less than 1.4 mm/yr
I’m glad you have all these links at your fingertips.
It really leaves the AGW trolls in no man’s land, sinking in a fetid ooze of their own creation. 🙂
Sebastian,
how can CO2 which is a trace gas in the ATMOSPHERE,with postulated warm forcing effect IN THE ATMOSPHERE area,can strongly effect sea level changes,which are bodies of water,OUTSIDE of the Atmosphere area,which is hardly effected by CO2 level in the Atmosphere?
The ENTIRE AGW conjecture is all about the effect on the ATMOSPHERE,has negligible to nothing to do with Oceans and land surfaces.
The Hot Spot conjecture,in the Atmosphere area.
The Back Radiation effect,in the Atmosphere area.
The Positive Feedback Loop conjecture,in the Atmosphere area.
What source of energy pours massive amounts of energy into the worlds oceans every day? The SUN is the dominant source of energy,that pours a few hundred feet deep in the waters,around 99% of the total amount.
CO2 is at best a negligible player.
Wake up,Sebastian!
You have not understood how the greenhouse effect works or what it is. The sun is warming everything, correct. There is no increase in energy by any atmospheric effect, only the temperatures of different layers change according to the Stefan-Boltzmann-law. This is not an atmosphere-only law of physics, it is applicable to any radiative heat exchange.
If you add constant energy (the sun) to some object it will get warmer until it reaches a temperature where it emits all incoming energy to its surroundings (in case of Earth conduction, convection and evaporation reduce the final temperature). If you add a layer around that object that does not block the outside energy source, but absorbs the radiative heat from the object, this layer will too reach a temperature where it can radiate all energy coming from below to its surroundings.
This should be a fairly simple to grasp concept. If you heat your home with constant 3 kW to keep the temperature constant than this means your home also loses 3 kW to its surroundings.
Now comes the part that seem to be hard to understand. Imagine you improve the isolation of your home. What happens when you continue to heat with 3 kW? It will get warmer inside … to the point where it is warm enough so the improved isolation is again losing those 3 kW to its surroundings.
The greenhouse effect works in the same way. The surface warms until the isolation (atmosphere) emits the same energy out to space as before. This also works in the other direction.
The heat storage of the oceans work as buffer in this process, otherwise we would have pretty extreme temperature changes from day to night or between seasons …
I think you might be referring to insulation, not “isolation” here, Sebastian. Isolation is the state of being isolated, alone.
The problem with your insulation analogy (heat is retained with more insulation, heat is lost with less) is that you must assume that the only variable subject to change with regard to the insulation is CO2. You must assume that everything else, such as cloud cover variations, stay the same, and only CO2 concentrations change. This is not how it works. Even tiny changes in cloud cover dominate as the determinant of how much heat is retained or lost, or how insulated (or non-insulated) that home is. Cloud cover variations largely determine the radiation budget net changes. CO2 variations, no matter how large, are dwarfed relative to natural variations in clouds. Even RealClimate (blog) agrees: “Of course the range of net infrared forcing caused by changing cloud conditions (~100W/m2) is much greater than that caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases (e.g. doubling pre-industrial CO2 levels will increase the net forcing by ~4W/m2)“
Your entire case is predicated on the false notion that “everything else stays the same”, and only CO2 changes. Everything else does not stay the same, SebastianH.
Kenneth, my reply – again – was lost in moderation (or a bug? sometimes the page just reloads when i press “Post Comment”).
My case is not predicated on “everything else stays the same”. Everything else is obviously changing too. Hell, the day and night cycle dominates over whatever GHGs are doing, but still … a 1°C increase in average temperature will make it 1°C warmer in the night as well as day (on average).
You could argue that every change due to CO2 is offset by some feedback mechanism. If you know of some mechanism that offsets every effect due to an increase of CO2, I would be eager to learn more about it.
P.S.: Insulation, thank you. I knew something was off translating this word 1:1 to the English language.
Despite your claims that they have been “lost” in moderation (I’m a moderator here, and I never saw them), you still haven’t answered these most basic, fundamental questions despite ample opportunity and an invitation to repeat yourself (despite the “lost” post). I’ll list the same unanswered questions at the bottom of this post (in case you actually decided to answer them).
You keep on “forgetting” to address the cloud issue. I’ve pointed out many times how the tiniest cloud cover changes alone easily overwhelm 0.000001 changes in CO2 concentrations, rendering them relatively inconsequential…the magnitude problem that keeps popping up as a giant hole in your position that you obviously prefer to pretend isn’t there.
You seem to have adopted Dr. Spencer as someone with whom you agree with on several points. Did you realize he and Dr. Brazwelll have published two papers with conclusions that the climate’s sensitivity to doubled CO2 is just 0.7 C — the same as Dr. Lindzen’s IPCC-endorsed ECS value?
Also, as Dr. Roy Spencer notes (in his book):
“The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.”
Is Spencer right or wrong about cloud cover changes dominating as as the determinants of cooling or warming?
——————————————-
1) What year did atmospheric CO2 concentration take over from natural variation as the predominant cause of net ocean heat changes? How would one so clearly distinguish the anthropogenic forcing from natural variability given that ocean heat changes look like this for the last several thousand years:
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Holocene-Cooling-Pacific-Ocean-Rosenthal-13-CO2.jpg
2) If sea level rise and fall has not been correlated with CO2 concentrations for the last 12,000 years, and you can only find a “correlation” for ~20 years (or less) out of the last 115 years, and even that rate was matched in the early 20th century, when anthropogenic CO2 emissions were flat…why do you nonetheless believe that CO2 concentrations are the driving factor in ocean heat changes, glacier melt, and sea level changes? What caused all that far-more-explosive sea level rise during the Holocene, SebastianH?
I don’t think the comments are lost in moderation, they don’t even appear when this happens. Usually I copy my text to the clipboard before posting and then try to repost, sometimes I forget to do that or just dont notice that the comment was lost.
About magnitudes: an increase in CO2 is causing an increase in radiative heat from the atmosphere at the bottom end. This in turn reduces the difference of temperature between the atmosphere and the surface and the surface temperature will increase until the differential allows all incoming energy to be emitted again.
Other effects may be bigger in magnitude, but they happen in addition to CO2 induced warming/cooling. Is that so hard to understand? It doesn’t matter that an increased cloud cover could completely negate the effect, the effect itself is still there.
The big question is: what do you think it is that caused warming since the beginning of the industrial age? All natural? Then please quantify what amount of forcing each of those effects has. Does it add up to the observed changes in temperature and ocean heat content?
About your two questions:
1) There probably is no specific year as natural variations are always present (El Nino is a cause of major heat release from the oceans). Heat content of the oceans is increaing, isn’t it? This could be something natural, but what would be the natural cause in your opinion? What do you think about content of the the following link: https://earthdata.nasa.gov/user-resources/sensing-our-planet/missing-heat
2) Same answer as above. Other variables causing the same thing doesn’t imply that it is not caused by the increased greenhouse effect due to increase of CO2 concentration. Before you answer with “the pause” … there are other greenhouses gases in the atmosphere, aren’t there. Please demonstrate that the same natural events as in the past cause the recently observed changes in sea level, etc.
P.S.: The sea level rise could become explosive pretty fast. There must be a point where a lot of land ice melts into the oceans … up until now it basically is just thermal expansion.
SebastianH: “It doesn’t matter that an increased cloud cover could completely negate the [CO2] effect, the effect itself is still there.”
Sebastian, if the CO2 effect is “completely negated” by cloud cover changes, then how is it that you simultaneously believe that the CO2 effect not only is “still there”, but is the dominant cause of climatic changes anyway?
To use your preferred means of conveying your thought process, that’s like saying it doesn’t matter that it was cloudy for the past 3 days, and therefore the swimming pool cooled by 1.5 degrees over this 72 hour period; the extra 0.0001 of CO2 (10 ppm) gained since 2005 kept the pool from cooling down by -1.50001 degrees, not -1.5 degrees (it kept the pool from losing 0.00001 C of warmth). So the CO2 effect is “still there”, but if it only affects a change in the ten thousandths of a degree, how is it that it can be said that CO2 controls the pool’s temperature? This is the magnitude problem you keep glossing over, and I keep harping on. Your ideology has a crater-sized hole in it.
—
SebastianH: “The big question is: what do you think it is that caused warming since the beginning of the industrial age? All natural? Then please quantify what amount of forcing each of those effects has.”
Did you decide to completely ignore the SIX links I provided you above that detail forcing mechanisms? Apparently so. See if you can locate them and look at them…and then get back to me. It’s rather pointless to take the time to go over this again if you’re not going to even read the responses.
—
Since you acknowledge that cloud cover variations can and do completely overwhelm/negate the CO2 effect on temperatures, what are the cloud cover measurements from the 1920s to 1940s period, when temperatures rose explosively and glaciers melted faster and sea levels rose faster than today? Do you know? Of course you don’t. And yet you think it’s perfectly acceptable to ignore cloud forcing and just focus on the model-based CO2 forcing instead anyway.
—
I asked you for a specific year or span of years that humans took over from natural variation in causing climate change. You didn’t answer that question. I asked you to identify what caused glaciers to melt worldwide and sea levels to rise at rates of 1 to 6 meters per century since CO2 levels remained stable throughout…and you didn’t answer that question either.
You say you want to “debate”, but when you are challenged, you duck, dodge, and weave. This isn’t helping your cause, SebastianH. Not that I expected any different. I have never met someone with your beliefs about CO2 who is willing to answer these questions.
You never answer my questions either. The skeptic may questions everything and doesn’t have to provide alternative explanations … I get it. But it is you who provides past data and claims that the same causes as in the past are influencing climate today and in a dominating manner. What six links do you mean? The comment system here is very confusing …
Do we have reliable data about cloud cover before the satellite age? Did it change considerably? Is it really so hard to understand what I mean? The seasons cause big changes in temperature, day and night cycles, etc … those temperature changes are all magnitudes bigger then what the increased greenhouse effect caused. Do they change the effect? No.
To get to your pool analogy: imagine the next 3 days you pool heats up by 1.5 degrees and the GHE makes that 1.50001 degrees. Further imagine there are millions of pools all around the globe with a certain average cloud cover resulting in an average temperature over longer periods of time. This average has increased by 0.00001 degrees in your example. That is what I mean by “still there”. Was that any clearer?
Should I repeat the interest analogy?
I did answer your questions. You are either ignoring the answer or don’t understand it. You are focused on the past and think nothing but past causes could possible change the climate. You can not demonstrate what natural cause is responsible today, can you?
P.S.: You used 0.00001 degrees for a 10 ppm change since 2005. If the pool was originally at 20°C that would equal a change of 0.000057 W/m² in backradiation for this change. I presented you with a way to calculate the influence of CO2 (roughly 7.5 W/m² increase for a 10 ppm change if CO2 would be 100% of the greenhouse effect) earlier, so this means you think CO2’s part in the GHE is just 0.00076% … this is far from the truth, but hey … you don’t believe what others are measuring, so whatever. If the CO2 role were 5% your 20°C pool would have warmed 0.066 degrees by a 10 ppm change.
I already did. You just didn’t read them, or claimed they got lost, or that your replies are being held up in moderation, or some such other excuse. Fine. I’ll take the time to copy/paste these very same links from the thread above and post them again. Read each article, then get back to me with more complaints.
—
1. 14 Scientists Affirm Solar Forcing, Not CO2, Is ‘Dominant Control’ For Modern Climate Change:
https://notrickszone.com/2017/01/23/new-paper-14-scientists-affirm-solar-forcing-not-co2-is-dominant-control-for-modern-climate-change/
—
2. 3 New Papers Reveal Dominance Of Solar, Cloud Climate Forcing Since The 1980s … With CO2 Only A Bit Player:
https://notrickszone.com/2016/10/27/3-new-papers-reveal-dominance-of-solar-cloud-forcing-since-the-1980s-with-co2-only-a-bit-player/
—
3. Scientists Find Climate’s ‘Cause Of Causes’…Highest Solar Activity In 4000 Years Just Ended…Cooling Begins In 2025
https://notrickszone.com/2017/01/12/scientists-find-climates-cause-of-causes-highest-solar-activity-in-4000-years-just-ended-cooling-begins-in-2025/
—
4. 18 New Papers Link High Solar Activity To Medieval And Modern Warmth, Low Solar Activity To Little Ice Age Cooling: https://notrickszone.com/2016/10/17/18-new-papers-link-high-solar-activity-to-medieval-and-modern-warmth-low-solar-activity-to-little-ice-age-cooling/
—
5. 35 New Scientific Publications Confirm Ocean Cycles, Sun Are Main Climate Drivers:
https://notrickszone.com/2016/08/11/35-new-scientific-publications-confirm-ocean-cycles-sun-are-main-climate-drivers/
—
6. 60 papers on very low CO2 climate sensitivity:
https://notrickszone.com/50-papers-low-sensitivity/
—
No. Which is entirely the point. Since we know that even the tiniest changes in cloud cover overwhelm CO2 within the greenhouse effect and cause warming/cooling, you nonentheless wish to completely dismiss clouds as forcing agents in both recent decades and the last century or two. Why? Because then you can just pretend that clouds remain constant, and the only variable that has changed is CO2. That way, only CO2 can heat up the ocean depths and cause climate changes.
So the Sun and its shortwave modulators (clouds, aerosols) control seasons, diurnal cycles, ice melt/gain, etc., but when it comes to causing net warming over the course of decades to centuries, CO2 takes over and those other natural agents no longer exert much influence. Well, they used to. But that all changed when the the atmospheric CO2 concentration changed by 1/100th of a percentage point. After that happened, all those natural factors that used to cause net ocean heat and climate changes stopped doing so. Climate change is now caused by CO2. Got it.
Here’s a paper that shows that cloud radiative forcing melts glaciers (by 90 Gt in 2 months) and caused 1.2 C of warming on the Greenland Ice Sheet from 2007 to 2010. How much warming did CO2 cause during that span, SebastianH, since there was a pause in the greenhouse effect during this time?
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160112/ncomms10266/pdf/ncomms10266.pdf
Clouds are known to play a pivotal role in regulating the local SEB [Surface Energy Balance, Greenland Ice Sheet], with competing warming and cooling effects on the surface. … The satellite-based cloud observations allow to estimate the cloud impact on the SEB [Surface Energy Balance]. … The annual mean CRE [Cloud Radiative Effect] of 29.5 (±5.2) W m 2 provides enough energy to melt 90 Gt of ice in the GrIS [Greenland Ice Sheet] ablation area during July and August. … The snow model simulations, which capture the evolution of the GrIS SMB [Surface Mass Balance] from 2007 to 2010, indicate that clouds warm the GrIS [Greenland Ice Sheet] surface by 1.2 (±0.1) C on average over the entire period [2007-2010]. … These results further indicate that not only liquid-bearing clouds but also clouds composed exclusively of ice significantly increase radiative fluxes into the surface and decrease GrIS SMB [Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Balance]
What year did “past causes” stop causing climate changes, or heating the oceans? Please identify the point at which natural climate change stopped happening, allowing the 1/100ths of a percentage point change in atmospheric CO2 to heat the oceans and change the climate instead. Please be specific with the year or range of years. I’ve asked you this before…and you couldn’t do it.
Scientists have already done so, and continue to do so. We already have 23 Sun-Climate papers published this year, and another 10 ENSO/AMOC/natural variability papers that acknowledge recent warming can be explained by natural factors. I’ve provided links to recent articles with extensive references to the scientific literature (the 6 links above). I’ve also pointed out that cloud variations overwhelm CO2 variations both within the GHE and especially in the SW (Ramanathan et al., 1989). You just don’t want to consider that CO2 variations in volumes of 0.000001 might not be the dominant cause of net changes in ocean heat…even though it’s never even been observed (you have yourself written that CO2-caused ocean-warming is a “theory”).
“Everything else does not stay the same, SebastianH.”
The only unchanging thing is Sebtroll’s TOTAL INABILITY to support the very foundation of his baseless AGW religion.
Unable to produce a single paper showing that CO₂ warms either the convective atmosphere or the oceans, because neither actually happens.
All he is able to produce is non-thinking, basic AGW anti-science propaganda suppositories. Its is all he seems to comprehend. He needs to unlearn all that crap and open his mind to real facts before he can even hope to make any progress towards the basic comprehension of the FACT that CO₂ is NOTHING BUT BENEFICIAL to ALL LIFE ON EARTH.
What is it that actually happens? Gravity warms the atmosphere, right? 😉 Lets build a gravity based engine then … free energy for everyone!
Where’s the paper, sebtroll, have you been using it to wipe your a**e?
Is that why you can’t provide it ?????
Or are you still searching for something, ANYTHING to support your baseless AGW religion.
CO2 does not and can not warm a convective atmosphere…. end of story.
Because of lightspeed convection, right? It’s so fast that nothing can radiate back to the surface.
This is ridiculous.
SebastionH and your isolation [insulation??] analogy.
Do you understand INSULATION works both ways? So your house might be warmer when you add heat inside it from an inside source. It will also be COOLER inside when the temp outside is warmer for short times, as in daytime in summer. The Earth does not have a small [ or large ] heater to keep it warm under your super efficient layer of co2 isolation [ insulation] , does it? And if your super efficient insulation was in place, then the earth would be cooler, wouldn’t it?
May I remind you that the atmosphere and its greenhouse gases work as a one way insulator. The atmosphere is mostly transparent to visible light but GHGs absorb IR …
If the atmosphere would absorb visible light then yes, it would be cooler at the surface (this happens when vulcanos errupt).
The EMPTY one returns..
without a paper to support his baseless religion.
You haven’t explained your alternate reality version of how the atmosphere works yet, have you?
You question about the influence of CO2 in a convective atmosphere makes no sense. Why would convection change any greenhouse gas effect? It’s just an additional way to transport energy from the surface to the top of the atmosphere.
Seems your reality is EMPTY of anything…
..just a whisper with NOTHING to back it up
Paper, Paper, wherefore art thou, paper !!!
“It’s just an additional way to transport energy from the surface to the top of the atmosphere.”
You are talking about CO₂, aren’t you.
You have FINALLY figured it out !!
Well done, sebtroll!! 🙂
Nope, I am not talking about CO2. Read the sentence just before the one you quoted.
Yet you described CO₂’s task perfectly.
Just another conduit for cooling.
And here I thought you had learnt something, and you go and ruin it.
DOH !!! Silly sebtroll
roflmao
The same old total mis-representation and mis-understanding of how the atmosphere works.
You have been sadly MIS-EDUCATED , sebtroll.
Go back to primary school and START AGAIN !!
Ha ha,
Sebastian you didn’t really address what I said. Just babble on and on…… Zzzz….
The point I made about the greenhouse effect is in the ATMOSPHERE arena still stands. There is little effect on Ocean temperatures, which is dominantly caused by the sun, modulated by clouds, wind,water currents,salinity,biological and other forces.
The trivial temperature effect of CO2, is mostly in the AIR! It doesn’t have any demonstrated effect on sea level changes.
You are embarrassing yourself here.
That is a fundamentally wrong assumption. An increase in heat radiation of the atmosphere is countered by an increase in heat radiation of the surface no matter what material it is made of. The surface becomes warmer.
This can be demonstrated by very simple experiments (cover a lightbulp with insulating material and measure its temperature before and after).
“This can be demonstrated by very simple experiments (cover a lightbulp with insulating material and measure its temperature before and after).”
Please provide a paper that demonstrates via simple experiment that varying CO2 concentrations over a body of water causes cooling or warming. We’ve been asking for this ever since you arrived here, and you can’t produce it. Why?
And I’ll repeat: it doesn’t matter what the surface is made of, what matters is its temperature and its emissivity. You are asking for a paper that confirms a physics law for one special case. It’s a law derived from a theory, but still … find one case where it doesn’t hold and you’d cause a real sensation in the science world.
What you are asking for is basically the same as asking for a paper that confirms that a weight dropped over an ocean accelerates as fast as if it were dropped over land. As if that would change anything in the equation, because water is special. What really baffels me is that your constant questioning about this implies that you are comfortable with the notion that the S-B-law is describing reality over other surfaces, but somehow does not apply for water.
There are papers describing the effect of GHGs (IR absorbtion), there sure is a paper by Mr. Stefan and Mr. Boltzmann that describes their theory and resulting law. What more do you need?
Just as I thought, you once again posted drivel.
Here is a link to a comment Gail Goombs posted,with a chart at the bottom showing that CO2 main area of radiative importance is way above the surface of the planet.
This is why I keep telling people that CO2 doesn’t influence Sea Level or Surface temperature changes. It can’t because it is not in the right place to do so.
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/02/nasa-noaa-climate-data-is-fake-data/#comment-39446
SebastianH: “It’s a law derived from a theory, but still … find one case where it doesn’t hold and you’d cause a real sensation in the science world.”
It’s a theory (actually, it’s not even an hypothesis, but you’re making progress), not a law. Good job. Thanks for admitting that your beliefs aren’t rooted in observational evidence.
One case where the theory/hypothesis/assumption that raising or lowering CO2 doesn’t heat or cool the oceans doesn’t fit? Um, SebastianH, have you considered graphs that look like the 20 or so in this very article? Why were sea levels up to 8 m higher than now when CO2 was in the 260 ppm range? Why did sea levels rise at rates of 6 meters per century? Or even look at a graph like this:
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Holocene-Cooling-Pacific-Ocean-Rosenthal-13-CO2.jpg
Or are you planning on continuing to ignore these?
Paper, Paper wherefore aren’t thou paper.
Sorry sebtroll.
CO₂ DOES NOT cause warming in a convective atmosphere.
You are welcome to produce a paper proving otherwise…. waiting….. waiting….
The ball has been in your court for a LONG time, yet you are UNABLE to hit it.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law is … a law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law
You can disprove it by one experiment where it doesn’t hold and I will shut up. Until then this law describes radiative heat transfer everywhere and only depends on temperatures and emissivity.
What is your obsession with the past? In those times the sun was the only source of light. Then mankind learned how to use fire … people like you still claimed the light from fires must come from the sun, since it always has been the sun in the past.
Many things cause light nowadays and many things cause a change in sea level and even more things cause a change in temperature. New things like CO2 emissions for example. I don’t know how to convey this any clearer …
P.S.: About the cloud cover thing: have you considered that the cloud cover is an effect of temperature and not the cause? A negative feedback if you will?
Paper, Paper wherefore aren’t thou paper.
Sorry sebtroll.
CO₂ DOES NOT cause warming in a convective atmosphere.
You are welcome to produce a paper proving otherwise you can continue to make an abject fool of yourself.
But you KNOW that such a paper DOES NOT EXIST, don’t you sebtroll.. 🙂
wormy, squirmy… duck and weave… poor sebtroll.
Remember sebtroll
NO warming in the satellite era apart from ElNino events
No acceleration of sea level rise
NO CO₂ SIGNAL ANYWHERE….
… except in plant growth. highly beneficial for feeding the world.
CO₂ DOES NOT cause warming in a convective atmosphere.
There has been no CO₂ warming for 40 year while CO₂ levels have climbed to a rather beneficial 400ppm
I repeat, since sebtroll is having real problems grasping this FACT
NO CO₂ WARMING SIGNAL IN 40 YEARS OF SATELLITE DATA.
NONE, NADA, ZIP…..
The rock shelves around the Australian coast show that sea level was 1-1.5m at sometime in the not too distant past.
Sea levels have probably dropped from the massive build-up of glacial, Antarctic and Greenland Ice mass during the Neoglaciation period.
AGWers really HAVE to DENY that this period existed.
They are actually the real Climate Change Deniers.
Turn off the caps, Pierre !! 🙂
the bold.. doh !!
“HH Lamb in his book, Climate, History and the Modern World, offers many examples of this, eg:
“1) The most rapid phases [of sea level rise] were between 8000 and 5000 BC, and that the rise of general water level was effectively over by about 2000 BC, when it may have stood a metre or two higher than today.”
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/05/13/sea-levels-in-the-holocene/
Yes, I still own (and long ago read) that excellent book. Here are a few more excerpts:
Dr. H.H. Lamb Climate, History, and the Modern World
The most rapid phases [of sea level rise] were between 8000 and 5000 BC, and … the rise of general water level was effectively over by about 2000 BC, when it may have stood a metre or two higher than today … [T]he most rapid post-glacial rise of mean sea level averag[ed] between one and five metres per century…
The water level may have dropped by 2 metres or more between 2000 and 500 BC. What does seem certain is that there was a tendency for world sea level to rise progressively during the time of the Roman Empire, finally reaching a high stand around 400 AD comparable with, or slightly above, present.
But many later saltpans are known in the area, also on the sea-banks, standing up to 3 metre above the present mean sea level
Close study by Sylvia Hallam, over many years of the history of human settlement near the coast of the Wash in eastern England has indicated that sea level was rising from some centuries before up to a maximum attained in the last century BC. There was then some recession of the water until about 200 AD, followed by a major high stand and incursion of the sea around 300 – 400 AD. Sea level was again rather lower in the 7th and 8th centuries, but seems to have been again high in the late 13th to 15th centuries.
Our survey of the European scene during the warmer centuries of the Middle Ages would not be complete without mention of the things that suggest a higher stand of the sea level, which may have been rising globally during that warm time as glaciers melted – and particularly in the area around the southern North Sea where the land-sinking due to the folding of the Earth’s crust in that basin was presumably going on then as now.
Sebastian,
you need to read this again,that Kenneth drives home the point that CO2 has little to no influence on sea level changes.
“Further complicating the paradigm that contends changes in CO2 concentrations drive sea levels is the fact that ice core evidence affirms CO2 levels remained remarkably constant (fluctuating around 255 to 260 ppm) during the same period that there was an explosively fast rate of sea level rise — between 1 and 2 meters per century (about 10 times today’s rates) — between 12,000 to 8,000 years ago. Sea levels rose by ~60 meters during those 4,000 years while CO2 levels effectively remained constant.
And casting even more doubt on the assertion that variations in CO2 drive sea level rise is the fact that there is robust paleoclimate evidence to suggest that today’s mean sea levels as well as today’s sea level rise rates are both relatively low (from a historical standpoint) and also well within the range of natural variability. Nothing unusual is happening to sea levels today. For even though we have evidence that modern CO2 concentrations (~405 ppm) are historically high relative to the last 10,000 years, we also possess a growing body of evidence that modern sea levels are still about 1 to 2 meters lower than they have been for most of the last 7,000 years.
The fundamental problem for the CO2-rise-causes-sea-level-rise paradigm, then, is that rising CO2 concentrations have not been correlated with rising sea levels for nearly all of the last 12,000 years. In fact, the opposite has been observed during the last 2,000 years, or during the Late Holocene: CO2 levels have risen (gradually, then rapidly) while sea levels have fallen overall, with recent changes so modest (inches per century) that they do not override the overall trend). In the 8,000 years before that, sea levels rose rapidly while CO2 concentrations remained flat. Simply put, the supposed anthropogenic “signal” in sea level rise trends has largely gone undetected — a point that has been affirmed by more and more scientists.”
Kenneth, backs it up with many published science papers,the ones you seem to be ignoring,while AGW cultists have for over 25 years long argued that CO2 levels stayed about the same up the late 1800’s.
Here is what I mean:
http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/12/are-modern-temperatures-unprecedented-us-govt-greenland-ice-core-research-finds-theyre-not-even-clos.html
Wake up Sebastian!
Why do you keep refering to the past? Obviously human influence didn’t exist back then, but it does now. Please demonstrate how the same mechanism as in the past are the driving force today?
The climate on this planet doesn’t only depend on the CO2 level. Multiple variables influence the temperatures, sea level, etc. Your argument is that those variables are responsible for changes today (please demonstrate), mine is that CO2 plays a part (pyhsics, demonstrated in a multitude of papers, some have been even linked to in Kenneth’s big overviews). Accumulated over time our small influence amount to a rather big one.
Believe what you want, but ignoring the laws of physics and inventing some fantasy physics is not the way to argument your point of view.
Your reply is absurd,Sebastian. You drone on and on with directionless babble. I didn’t push any physics argument at all. That is YOUR strawman crap you pushed,kindly bugger off pal!
I showed that atmosphere CO2 level,hardly changed for 10,000 years,while there were large swings in temperature in the ICE CORE data. Backed by several decades of science research,that clearly show for 10,000 years, that NATURAL climate changes has nothing to do with Mankind’s existence on the planet.
This is what NATURE has been doing for a long time,long before Mankind started adding additional CO2 into the air. The large temperature changes are well documented to happen long before Man could have influenced it to a degree that it can be measured.
Your ignorance of CO2 effects are well noticed here, since even many warmist scientists knows that CO2 by itself as a molecule, has a very small warm forcing effect. It is the Positive Feedback Loop crap they push, is why they think there will be a lot of warming in the future.
The AGW conjecture is dead, long dead,Sebastian.
Sebastion H says,
May I remind you that the atmosphere and its greenhouse gases work as a one way insulator. The atmosphere is mostly transparent to visible light but GHGs absorb IR …
A one way insulator? A bit like an electrical diode then!!!
I think you will find visible water vapour insulates/reflects, quite well in all directions.
If you are right about a one way atmosphere, then your home insulation analogy fails, doesn’t it.
Analogies need to be consistent with the concept they relate to.
Perhaps better to simply explain the concept, I think.
“May I remind you that the atmosphere and its greenhouse gases work as a one way insulator”
And the utter anti-science idiocy from sebtroll continues !!
Probably one of the most STUPID things you have yet said…..
….and that is one WHOLE LOT OF STUPID !
http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/02760a756c916bde76950302a246a1c0?width=1024
Which is seb… which is sob !!
Did you know….
92 percent of left-wing activists in Berlin, Germany, live with their parents, while one in three are unemployed. 84% of those investigated were men, while 73% were between the ages of 18 and 29.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/tim-blair/berlins-bolshevik-babies/news-story/511deb70fc5acc300209a16200a97515
ENJOY !!!
http://www.xyz.net.au/dear-climate-alarmists-will-never-forget-forgive/
That’s really funny and the typical bullshit alt-right members think and say/write. “We will never forget” … and in 10 years it will still be warmer, more CO2 in the air, the ocean heat content will still increase and sea levels too.
The rest of us will most likely forget what anti-science groups claim to be reality today, like we all apparently forgot past stupidity and currently are in auto-repeat mode.
CO2, doesn’t warm water or the planet surfaces.
You are so dumb,Sabastian!
Yeah right, physical laws make an exception there. That is why stuff is also weightless in water, right? Also the speed of light in water is different than in a vacuum … must have something to do with that.
But the physical laws DO APPLY…
That is why CO₂ DOESN’T warm water or the lower convective atmosphere.
That is why there are NO papers proving that CO₂ causes warming in the lower atmosphere.
and NO papers proving CO₂ warms oceans.
NONE, NADA….. Zippo
“The rest of us will most likely forget what anti-science groups claim to be reality today”
Yep in 10 years time the anti-CO2 scam will be crushed, dead, gone.
As you have aptly shown, the very basis of the scam cannot be scientifically supported
Where’s that paper, sebtroll?
CO₂ DOES NOT and CAN NOT cause warming in a convective atmosphere.
End of story.. END OF SCAM.
Here is the original (French) document of Mr. Stefan:
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/jpa-00237795/document
The formula has since been verified and can be mathematically derived from quantum mechanics and thermodynamics.
The effect of CO2 is well known too, just search Google scholar.
Convection is not fast enough to stop radiative heat transfer in a certain direction and your theory of gravity performing work to heat up the lower atmosphere is just bullcr*p. Sorry.
Your baseless UNPROVEN assumption that CO₂ causes warming in the lower atmosphere is a JOKE.
NO CO₂ warming in 40 years while the CO₂ level climbs and climbs to help plant life.
You have NOTHING, sebtroll, until you can PROVE the very basis of your zealotry. And you CAN’T because it isn’t true.
Odd that convection is fast enough to get rid of heat from fires, hey sebtroll, you mindless twerp. 😉
Testing …
Here is the original (French) document of the law for radiative heat transfer
Do you know the definition of insanity? It’s only necessary to post once. Doing so 9 times will not fix the hold-up.
There seems to be a bug in posting comments…
One more time … Link to Stefan’s paper: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/jpa-00237795/document
Find the effect of CO2 in Google Scholar. Convection doesn’t stop anything.
Still trying IN VAIN to get something to work for you, hey sebtroll.
You poor, incompetent twerp, you have been brain-washed until only sludge is left.
“Convection doesn’t stop anything.”
NO.. It OVER-RIDES everything.
The pressure gradient CONTROLS the lower atmosphere by CONVECTION and other movement between pressure differences.
Didn’t you know that, seb..
have you never seen the wind.?????
never seen convective uplift.?????
You really do have to get out of your dank, dark granny’s basement and back to REALITY, sebtroll.
Good one,Andy!
Since,the warmist troll will not open the link,that has two many times published scientists in it,saying that CO2 is a minor player in the heat budget.will post a part of Gail Coombs (Retired Chemist) comment here:
“Paraphrasing Dr. Brown, physist @ Duke University:
“When CO2 near the earth’s surface absorbs back radiation, the lifetime of the excited state caused by the absorption of the photon is much longer than the mean free time between molecular collisions between the CO_2 molecule and other molecules in the surrounding gas. That means that the radiative energy absorbed by the molecule is almost never resonantly re-emitted, it is transferred to the surrounding gas, warming not just the CO_2 but the oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, argon as well as the other CO_2 molecules around.”
In other words near the surface back radiation, aka a ‘resonantly re-emitted’ photon is a RARE EVENT.
Dr Happer in his lecture for physics grad students at NCU agreed and further stated that the time to radiate is about ten times slower than the time to the next collision in the troposphere.
That means the IR energy from the earth is absorbed by CO2 and PASSED to other molecules via collision. Then VIA CONVECTION (hot air rises) the energy is transported up.”
and,
“Experimental data shows barely any radiation at 11 KM and that radiating is in the stratosphere ~ 47 KM above the surface.
The take away from his UNC lecture (9/2014) was the CO2 ‘modeling’ is a mish-mash of theoretical equations and experimentally derived data. Where the Climate alarmists missed the boat is in using equations for ‘line broadening’ aka the ‘wings’ where the additional CO2 absorption ( at 400 ppm) is supposedly taking place. These equations produce results that do not match up to the experimental data. The lines are not as broad as theory would have it. This means you take the exponential curve Tony showed at his old website CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is Very Small and squash it even flatter at 400 ppm and above. This means the CO2 sensitivity is much smaller than calculated by the IPCC.
Dr Happer’s information is illustrated by the image below the Warmists use to say ozone is a greenhouse gas. The Figure is from Uherek, 2006. They even say it “show how carbon dioxide is cooling the stratosphere.” The black dotted line is the tropopause and you can see water is dumping energy just under the tropopause (the pink splotches surrounded by dark blue) while CO2 is dumping energy from just above the tropopause and up (the big yellow streak on the left) just as Dr. Happer and Dr Brown stated. Ozone is the smaller yellow streak on the right.”
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/02/nasa-noaa-climate-data-is-fake-data/#comment-39446
Ehem … and you imagine the warmed up lower atmosphere does not in any way radiate heat in every direction? It has a temperature, so it radiates … simple as that. Also your two citations seem to contradict each other … one says there is not CO2 greenhouse effect the other one says it is minor.
“the warmed up lower atmosphere ”
NO WARMING in 40 years from CO₂.
End of story. End of sebtroll.