New Paper: CO2 Has ‘Negligible’ Influence On Earth’s Temperature

Water Vapour  Climate Forcing

Up To 200 Times’ Greater,

‘Overrides Any Effect By CO2’

H. Douglas Lightfoot profile PDF


Lightfoot and Mamer, 2017

(1) Robust scientific evidence shows the sun angle controls water vapour content of the atmosphere, the main component of back radiation, as it cycles annually.

Back radiation, water vapour concentration and atmospheric temperature follow the sun angle daily and over the seasons, increasing as the sun angle increases and falling as it decreases. Water vapour concentration is measured as parts per million by volume (ppmv) or by the ratio of the number of water vapour molecules for each CO2 molecule (H2O/CO2 ratio).
The purpose of this study is to present robust evidence that the sun is working with water vapour to control the Earth’s climate and to show that the influence of CO2 on atmospheric temperature is so small as to be negligible.

(2) Water vapour content measured as the ratio of the number of water molecules to CO2 molecules varies from 1:1 near the Poles to 97:1 in the Tropics.

The H2O/CO2 ratio along the top of the plot is based on a CO2 concentration of 400 ppmv. Because water vapour is the most abundant GHG, it is reasonable to plot water vapour concentration against back radiation.  … It is evident from Figure 1 that (1) the upper limit to the back radiation of GHGs is approximately 420 W m2 at water vapour concentration of approximately 32,000 ppmv, or an H2O/CO2 ratio of 80 [to 1]; (2) the lowest back radiation is 97 W m2 at the South Pole and (3) small increases in water vapour give the most increase in back radiation above the Arctic and Antarctic circles because of the steepness of the curve. These [polar] areas together are only 8.4% of the Earth’s surface and have little effect on the Earth’s average atmospheric temperature.
The CO2 baseline concentration of approximately 400 ppmv at the time of the calculation is equivalent to 0.0138 mole/kg of dry air. Thus, the H2O/CO2 ratio is 0.601/0.0138 or 43.5 molecules of water vapour for each molecule of CO2.  [17,400 ppm water vapour vs. 400 ppmv CO2.]
The sun angle determines the H2O/CO2 ratio … There is little sunlight in winter above the Arctic Circle, such as at Inuvik, Canada, and the average H2O/CO2 ratio is as low as 1:1. In summer it rises to an average maximum of 29:1.  … The highest sun angle corresponds to the highest H2O/CO2 ratio of 29:1 and the lowest angle to the lowest of 1:1. The H2O/CO2 values for Singapore and Nairobi also show the highest ratios occur at the highest sun angles.  The difference in H2O/CO2 ratios between summer and winter is larger towards the Poles and smaller towards the equator. The levels of both the summer and winter ratios depend on whether or not there is a relatively warm ocean nearby to provide the water vapour.

(3) The effect of back radiation [water vapour] on Earth’s atmosphere is up to 200 times larger than that of CO2 and works in the opposite direction.

The actual CO2 concentration experienced at any specific location is determined by the physical gas laws discovered by Boyle and Charles. For example, the elevation of Boulder, Colorado, is 1655 m, the average July high temperature is 33°C and the average low in January is 2°C. The calculated CO2 concentrations based on 407.9 ppmv in dry air are 298.0 and 336.4 ppmv, respectively. The RF [radiative forcing] of CO2 in July at 298.0 ppmv is 5.22ln(336.4/298.0) ¼ 0.63W m2 lower than in January at 336.4 ppmv. While the RF of CO2 was falling by 0.63W m2 from January to July, the back radiation was increasing by 110 W m2 from 240 to 350 W m2. From July to January the situation reverses. This shows back radiation [water vapour] acts in opposition to the warming effect of the CO2, is larger by (110/0.63) = 174 times at the peak and overrides any effect by CO2 on atmospheric temperature.
If there is a warming effect by CO2 on the atmosphere, it is too small to measure and can be considered as being negligible. In fact, it is fair to say there is virtually a complete disconnect between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and atmospheric temperature.


A Selection of Supporting Scientific Papers


Curtin, 2012

We show that a comprehensive analysis results in relegating [CO2] to insignificance as a determinant of climate change, and that atmospheric water vapour arising almost exclusively from nonhuman sources is by far the largest source of radiative forcing and temperature change.  … The failure of the regression to reveal any contribution of changes in [GHG] to changes in Gistemp’s GMT anomalies is obvious both from Figure 1 and from Table 2, which shows total statistical insignificance because with t < 2.0, and 𝑃>0.05, the critical values are not attained. These results validate the null hypothesis from Hegerl et al. that there is no discernible and statistically significant causation of global temperature change attributable to the radiative forcing from anthropogenic changes in noncondensing GHGs. … [O]nly the [H2O] variable is statistically significant, accounting for more than 90 per cent of the changes in mean maximum temperature over the period 1960–2006. …  [H2O] accounts for more than 90 per cent of temperature change near where C. D. Keeling began his measurements of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 back in 1958.
[W]ater vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas because it absorbs strongly in the infra-red region of the light spectrum, first demonstrated by Tyndall (1861), despite the conventional view that because the water vapor content of the atmosphere will increase in response to warmer temperatures, water vapor is only a feedback that merely amplifies the climate warming effect due to increased carbon dioxide alone. In reality, the [H2O] variable in the NOAA’s database proves to be a remarkably powerful determinant of climate variability over the period from 1960 to 2006 not only at Barrow but across all USA, as it is always highly statistically significant at better than the 95% level of confidence for both annual mean minimum and maximum annual temperatures. This is hardly surprising, if only because in reality, as Tans has noted, “global annual evaporation equals ~500,000 billion metric tons. Compare that to fossil CO2 emissions of ~8.5 billion ton C/year,” and even the total level of [CO2] is only 827 billion tonnes of carbon equivalent. It would seem to be a case of the tail wagging the dog if the additions to [CO2] from human burning of hydrocarbon fuels have raised global temperatures enough (just 0.0125°C p.a. [per year] since 1950) to generate annual evaporation of 500,000 billion tonnes of [H2O].

Newell and Dopplick, 1979

Estimates of the atmospheric temperature changes due to a doubling of CO2 concentration have be with a standard radiative flux model.  They yield temperature changes of >0.25 K.  It appears that the much larger changes predicted by other models arise from additional water vapor evaporated into the atmosphere and not from the CO2 itself. … It is important to stress…that CO2 is not the main constituent involved in infrared transfer.  Water vapor plays the major role and ozone is also of importance.  … Twenty of the spectral intervals are dominated by water vapor and the other two contain CO2 (~15 µm) and O3 (~9.6 µm), although overlap with water vapor is also included. Calculations were performed for CO2 concentrations of 330 and 600 ppmv, taking care to include the changed CO2 concentrations also in the near-infrared solar absorption (cf. Newell et al., 1972). Both sets of computations were also repeated with cloud absent.   The infrared flux dominated by CO2, as is well known, is only about 10% of that controlled by water vapor. 

Ollila, 2012

Scientists are still debating the reasons for “global warming”. The author questions the validity of the calculations for the models published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and especially the future scenarios. Through spectral calculations, the author finds that water vapour accounts for approximately 87% of the greenhouse (GH) effect and only 10% of CO2.  A doubling of the present level of CO2 would increase the global temperature by only 0.51 °C without water feedback.

Singer, 1976

The distribution of the radiating gases is largely responsible for the layering of the Earth’s atmosphere.  The troposphere extends from sea level up to approximately 12 km at which point the temperature has dropped to approximately -60°C.  Water vapor is about 10 times more important than carbon dioxide, both for radiative heating by absorbing solar radiation and for radiative cooling.  In the stratosphere, however, radiative heating by the absorption of solar radiation by ozone is dominant.

Kauppinen et al., 2014

The explanation for climate change is still searching for an experimental proof and the most important question is whether climate change is anthropogenic. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC global warming is mostly man made due to the increasing CO2 concentration. In this work we study the contributions of humidity and clouds to the surface temperature. We will show that changes of relative humidity or low cloud cover explain the major changes in the global mean temperature. We will present the evidence of this argument using the observed relative humidity between years 1970 and 2011 and the observed low cloud cover between years 1983 and 2008. One percent increase in relative humidity or in low cloud cover decreases the temperature by 0.15 °C and 0.11 °C, respectively. In the time periods mentioned before the contribution of the CO2 increase was less than 10% to the total temperature change.

Kondratiev and Niilisk, 1960

As it is known, CO2 has intensive absorption bands in the infrared region of spectra, but only one of them (about 15 µm) is of considerable importance in transferring heat radiation. … When water vapour is present in large quantity (w > 2 cm), absorption of radiaton is almost quite independent from CO2 content.

104 responses to “New Paper: CO2 Has ‘Negligible’ Influence On Earth’s Temperature”

  1. AndyG55

    Gees, no wonder no-one has ever been able to present any evidence of CO2 warming !!

    Its all H20, which gets into the atmosphere by evaporation and convection

    WOW.. who woulda known !! 😉

  2. SebastianH

    How could this paper (Lightfoot and Mamer, 2017) get pass any peer review?

    It looks like the author hasn’t considered that the amount of back radiation of greenhouse gases is a function of the surface temperature because … you know … it is radiating back.

    Every conclusion of this paper is based on this mistake and therefore worthless.

    Regarding water vapor as the dominant greenhouse gas (it is): what causes water vapor concentration to increase? Higher temperatures? And more water vapor causes higher temperatures? Why is this not causing a runaway greenhouse effect?

    1. AndyG55

      The mistake is yours seb.

      You basically have zero understanding of how the atmosphere actually works.

      You show no intention of ever trying to learn even the basics.

      H20 is basically the only gas that has re-emits in the lower atmosphere.

      CO2 does not emit until above 11km.

      There is also magnitudes more H2O than CO2

      Its basic physics, seb.. but obviously WAY beyond you.

      1. SebastianH

        I guess you are referring to this graph again, AndyG55?https://postimg.org/image/91gp4lmcv/

        Do you need someone to explain it to you again?

        1. AndyG55

          You obviously won’t be able to, except by some Fantasy mumbo you dream up.

          Lower atmosphere is TOTALLY h2O.

          Get over it, seb.

          and stop your child-minded attention seeking.

        2. tom0mason

          seb,

          “Do you need someone to explain it to you again?”

          Go on then.
          I need more material for the comedy routine you are (inadvertently) providing me with.

          😉

    2. saboga

      A couple of points about your questions at the end: the curve is logarithmic, so increasing levels of atmospheric H20 produce smaller and smaller rises in temperature. That’s one thing that keeps it from becoming a runaway greenhouse effect.

      Another is that H2O evaporation cools the surface. That latent heat is then released high up in the troposphere when the H2O condenses back into water, as fluffy white clouds. Those white clouds also reflect incoming solar radiation. The iris effect, if you will.

      There is no danger of a runaway greenhouse effect – it’s a self-regulating system of negative feedbacks that keeps everything in check.

      1. AndyG55

        Eggert showed that it wasn’t actually logarithmic , but actually levelled off after about 280ppm

        https://s19.postimg.org/xxq6mgpkj/eggert-co2.png

        “it’s a self-regulating system of negative feedbacks that keeps everything in check”

        All controlled by the gravity based pressure/temperature gradient

    3. tom0mason

      seb,

      Just consider when 1kg of water vapor condenses it releases approximately 3000 times more heat energy than 1kg of warm CO2 cooling by 1°C.

    4. Mark Pawelek

      “Why is this [H2O] not causing a runaway greenhouse effect?”

      That’s an assumption. The paper above is science. Please take your assumptions elsewhere and answer the scientific points raised in the above paper. Perhaps the answer is because the climate scientist’s models and assumptions behind the models are wrong?

      1. SebastianH

        The paper above is science.

        Oh please … the author is aiming for a specific conclusion and intentionally or not confuses seasonal forcing variations with the overall change in forcing from increased CO2 year over year. I’d very much like to read the peer reviews for this paper.

        The author writes that from January to July CO2 back radiation/forcing changed by 0.63 W/m² while water vapor back radiation changed by 110 W/m² and thereby declared that both forcing work against each other. That’s playbook anti-science . The real question would be what the forcings from January to January in the following year are or better yet, the average forcing for the whole year and the next one. Does water vapor back radiation decrease by more than the CO2 forcing increases when you look at these timespans?

        1. SebastianH

          Sorry, meant to write 110 W/m² in the other direction.

  3. The Dude

    Lightfoot isn’t credible…he’s a mechanical engineer. What’s that you say, Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer? I rest my case.

    1. David Reich

      I would suggest that you are employing the use of the genetic fallacy as is the argument against Bill Nye.

    2. sunsettommy

      Dude,

      What has that “mechanical engineer said that was scientifically constructive?

  4. Icarus62

    This is clearly incorrect. Water vapour content of the atmosphere is a function of temperature. Non-condensing GHGs (e.g. CO2) set the temperature.

    https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/

    1. John

      Not quite.
      The ‘absolute’ amount of water vapor in a parcel of air depends on the ambient temperature. Note the word absolute. There does not need to be any water vapor in the air at all.

      The temperature of the air is set by the incoming solar radiation which heats up the ground and the air/atmosphere is warmed from the bottom up by convection, radiation etc.
      Greenhouse gases (of those are less than 0,05 % in the atmosphere) do not determine the temperature of the air in any measurable or noticeable way.

      Water vapor, visible in cloud form, can block incoming warmth from the sun and block outgoing warmth from the earth to space at night.

      A meteorology course will teach you this.

      1. SebastianH

        Water vapor, visible in cloud form, can block incoming warmth from the sun and block outgoing warmth from the earth to space at night.

        I see, and what about the invisible form? What about the other non-condensing greenhouse gases? You seem to be certain that IR absorbing gases don’t have a measurable effect. Where does this certainty come from? Any experiment you’d like to share? Is there any basis in physics that this claim might have?

        1. AndyG55

          The effect of water vapour is easily measureable, and easily sensed, because it happens in the lower atmosphere.

          As you have proven many times, even to yourself, there is NO provable, or measureable warming from CO2 in the lower atmosphere.

          If there is , it is entirely swamped by the other essential for all life on Earth, H2O

          Them’s the facts, seb.. GET OVER IT

    2. AndyG55

      “Non-condensing GHGs (e.g. CO2) set the temperature.”

      ROFLMAO..

      High FARCE from the GISS crew.

      CO2 has nothing to do with the Earth’s temperature.

    3. tom0mason

      @Icarus62

      So is there a peer reviewed proof that this statement from Singer, 1976 is incorrect?

      “The distribution of the radiating gases is largely responsible for the layering of the Earth’s atmosphere. The troposphere extends from sea level up to approximately 12 km at which point the temperature has dropped to approximately -60°C. Water vapor is about 10 times more important than carbon dioxide, both for radiative heating by absorbing solar radiation and for radiative cooling. In the stratosphere, however, radiative heating by the absorption of solar radiation by ozone is dominant.”

      Or have you only that pile of GISS assumptions and wild guesses?

  5. Tom

    Man the trolls here try and debunk this – but here is there reasoning – BUT c02 causes back radiation – of course he considered this. It’s as if they don’t even read the paper – I guess it goes against the cannon of the AGW faith, therefore is heretical and must be wrong – of COURSE water vapor cancels out any impact by .02% of our atmosphere – it’s you IPCC grovelers that recognize this and try to turn it into a positive feedback loop to get your runaway effect – in fact without considering water vapor, AGW theory as defined by the IPCC and MIKE hockey stick MANN would not be trying to say that man’s 3.75% addition to natural c02 will kill us all!!! Give your credentials and a clear refutation, or you are simply a troll

    1. SebastianH

      I can only read the parts that are quoted here, the whole paper is behind a paywall.

      From those quotes, it is clear that the author thinks that water vapor content is a function of the angle towards the Sun and secondly the amount of back radiation depends on the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and not the temperature of the surface (water vapor content being a function of that) together with the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This leads to his ridiculous conclusions.

      P.S.: Nobody is saying that CO2 will kill us all!? Wth!?

      1. DMA

        It seems to me you have rebutted your own contention. The back radiation is a function of the water vapor. It does not mater if the surface is hot or cold, the back radiation is dependent on the water vapor. If the surface is hot and the WV is high there will be more back radiation than if the surface is the same temperature and the WV is low. The cause of the WV is not important to this relationship as I see it.

        1. SebastianH

          The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere depends on the temperature. Back radiation is a function of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the surface temperature. A cold surface doesn’t emit as much as a hot surface, so less energy can be retained by greenhouse gases.

          1. AndyG55

            No, WRONG again

            CO2 does not re-emit below 11km.

            Why do you constantly just ignore any REAL science, seb.

            Is your AGW brain-washing that deep ???

            Nothing left but sludge !!!

          2. AndyG55

            “Back radiation is a function of all greenhouse gases”

            And H2O is MAGNITUDES more than anything CO2 could do, even if it did re-emit below 11km.

      2. AndyG55

        “This leads to his ridiculous conclusions.”

        Its sad isn’t it seb..

        The CORRECT conclusion, that CO2 is basically a non-entity in the atmospheric control game, is reached.

        You know that because you KNOW that there is no provable warming effect from CO2 of oceans or the atmosphere.

        You really have to dump the nonsense AGW anti-science fantasies that your mind is brain-washed with, and get back to REALITY.

      3. tom0mason

        Seb,

        “P.S.: Nobody is saying that CO2 will kill us all!? Wth!?”

        Oh, yes they are —

        Professor Frank Fenner, emeritus professor of microbiology at the Australian National University, has predicted that the human race will be extinct within the next 100 years. Fenner told The Australian newspaper that ‘homo sapiens will become extinct, perhaps within 100 years.’
        ‘A lot of other animals will, too,’ he added.
        ‘It’s an irreversible situation. I think it’s too late. I try not to express that because people are trying to do something, but they keep putting it off.’
        Since humans entered an unofficial scientific period known as the Anthropocene – the time since industrialisation – we have had an effect on the planet that rivals any ice age or comet impact, he said. Fenner blames the onset of climate change for the human race’s imminent demise.

  6. Tom

    To the guy that says he did not consider c02 “back” radiation – the entire paper is based on c02’s back radiation potential vs. water vapor’s, that happens to work in the opposite direction as c02 “back radiation” – you did not even read the damn intro or you would have understood this!! As far as his engineering credentials, any scientist can be credible addressing this subject (in fact most “climate scientists come from a very wide range of disciplines)- Bill Nye never was a scientists, he was an actor first, that happens to have an engineering degree. Your argument is simply a typical troll.. “This shows back radiation [water vapour] acts in opposition to the warming effect of the CO2, is larger by (110/0.63) = 174 times at the peak and overrides any effect by CO2 on atmospheric temperature.”

    1. SebastianH

      “This shows back radiation [water vapour] acts in opposition to the warming effect of the CO2, is larger by (110/0.63) = 174 times at the peak and overrides any effect by CO2 on atmospheric temperature.”

      No, it doesn’t show that. To be able to compare those two values the author should have calculated the additional forcing from increased water vapor from some baseline (as has been done for CO2). Even then it would not be comparable since these are seasonal variations. Comparing year over year could make sense.

      It’s a nonsense paper without proper peer review (is the review process visible behind the paywall?)

      1. AndyG55

        You KNOW you have been totally unable to show even the slightest warming effect from the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

        You are a miserable FAILURE at that.

        You have also shown that your grasp of atmospheric physics is more from FANTASY land than anywhere else.

        The effect of H2O is clear and measurable, you just can’t accept the FACTS, because your brain-washed, anti-science, AGW stupor won’t allow you to.

        The PANIC you are experiencing is because you KNOW your zombie religion is on its last legs.

      2. tom0mason

        seb,

        “It’s a nonsense paper without proper peer review (is the review process visible behind the paywall?)”

        Pay the man and find out instead of making wild and spurious accusations.

  7. tom0mason

    Kauppinen et al., 2014
    The explanation for climate change is still searching for an experimental proof and the most important question is whether climate change is anthropogenic. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC global warming is mostly man made due to the increasing CO2 concentration. In this work we study the contributions of humidity and clouds to the surface temperature. We will show that changes of relative humidity or low cloud cover explain the major changes in the global mean temperature.

    And that is the point “still searching for an experimental proof”.

    STILL SEARCHING!

  8. yonason

    Sorry, but as I’ve posted before on what I’ve found on water vapor, it appears to give negative feedback.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2K1uHvfaek

    It’s why deserts get much warmer during the day, and much colder at night, than humid locations at comparable altitudes and the same latitude.

    The effect is no doubt due to the fact that the processes involved are not so simplistic as merely absorbing and re-radiating incoming or outgoing radiation.

    I have a feeling that CO2 probably also gives a similar, though MUCH weaker negative feedback response.

    Focusing just on absorption/radiation effects is a distraction, IMO. If CO2 were effective at keeping things warm, it would probably be used in place of the vacuum in a thermos, but it isn’t due to conduction and convection vastly overwhelming any radiation effects.

    1. AndyG55

      H2O is just part of the surface cooling mechanisms of the atmosphere,

      Just like CO2 is. High concentrations of CO2 actually transfers energy better than normal air. The tiny changes in the atmosphere make essentially zero difference.

      Its the function of the atmosphere, to regulate the surface temperature via the pressure temperature gradient.

    2. SebastianH

      Replies like these really show you craziness, thank you 😉

      If CO2 were effective at keeping things warm, it would probably be used in place of the vacuum in a thermos

      I believe this needs no further comment.

      1. AndyG55

        Then don’t .

        You are nothing but an attention seeking little anti-science pest, anyway.

      2. AndyG55

        And replies like yours, show you ignorance.

        In Fact, every reply from you shows your brain-washed AGW religious ignorance

      3. tom0mason

        And I repeat myself seb,

        “Kauppinen et al., 2014
        The explanation for climate change is still searching for an experimental proof and the most important question is whether climate change is anthropogenic. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC global warming is mostly man made due to the increasing CO2 concentration. In this work we study the contributions of humidity and clouds to the surface temperature. We will show that changes of relative humidity or low cloud cover explain the major changes in the global mean temperature.

        And that is the point “still searching for an experimental proof”.

        STILL SEARCHING!

        1. sunsettommy

          Tomomason writes,

          “According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC global warming is mostly man made due to the increasing CO2 concentration.”

          It gets even worse when they are confronted by the Logarithmic effect of a doubled CO2 level,since only around 3% of the yearly emissions comes from humans,there is actually a dribble of possible postulated CO2 warming efect to brag about in the future.

          Since most of the postulated CO2 warming effect was already set in around 700 million years ago,there is actually very little postulated warming effect left today.

        2. yonason

          I repeat myself, as well.

          You can lead a chatbot like SebH to data, but you can’t make it think.

          1. SebastianH

            Oh come one, you just compared the vacuum in a thermos with the greenhouse effect.

          2. AndyG55

            Poor seb

            Ignorant as always.

            A vacuum actually BLOCKS conduction and convection

            Something that CO2 can never do, yet conduction and convection RULE the lower atmosphere (controlled by the gravity enforce pressure/temperature gradient

            CO2 actually aids energy transfer.. like a wire aids electron transfer.

            (seeing you love your analogies so much) . 😉

            Given time (and LOTS of it) you might actually figure it out. Or not.

          3. AndyG55

            “Oh come one, you just compared the vacuum in a thermos with the greenhouse effect.”

            And you have, in the past, compared the atmosphere that COOLS the surface, to a blanket.

            DOH !!!!

            You are, without a doubt, the champion of HIGH FARCE.

          4. AndyG55

            ““Oh come one, you just compared the vacuum in a thermos with the greenhouse effect.””

            AHHH…. so you are saying that CO2 DOESN’T emit back-radiation to keep things warm.

            Poor seb.. your IN-BUILT cognitive dissonance is hilarious. ! 🙂

          5. SebastianH

            AndyG55, please continue to show the world your misunderstanding of reality by posting comments like these … great work!

          6. yonason

            Oh come one, you just compared the vacuum in a thermos with the greenhouse effect.

            – chatbot SebH

            OK, SebH, you have two planets, one with an atmosphere and one without.

            Which warms fastest during the day, and cools fastest at night, and why?

            Which, if any, warms most and which cools most, and why?

            From what you learned in the video on water vapor that I posted the link to a few days ago, does the presence of an atmosphere result in a positive, negative or no feedback?

          7. AndyG55

            Only person showing ignorance of reality, is you seb.

            Its your stock in trolling…. continued wilful ignorance mixed with plaintive attention -seeking.

      4. yonason

        You’re the one who believes that CO2 can heat things by back-radiation, not me.

        1. SebastianH

          Question for clarification: do you agree that objects radiate back towards the source of the radiation? Or is that also something you “have a feeling” about that it works differently than what physicists say?

          1. AndyG55

            Still, absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE that CO2 cause ANY warming in a convective atmosphere.

            Why, oh why are you SO EMPTY, seb. !!

            Perhaps you just FEEEEEEEL that it should.

            Physicists KNOW, and they LAUGH at the CO2 warming farce.

          2. yonason

            IR is scattered by CO2.

            The earth, heated by solar radiation, emits IR photons, which results in cooling the surface. SOME of those photons are scattered back toward their source. Those that are re-absorbed by the surface result in RE-warming it. The back-scattered IR will NEVER make the surface hotter than it was originally, or even return it to the same temperature. In the absence of an external source of surface heating, the surface will cool.

            So, can CO2 cause the earth to cool more slowly in an atmosphere where it is present than where it is absent? Probably. But… All empirical evidence indicates that it is a VERY weak effect, at best.

  9. AndyG55
    1. tom0mason

      Indeed more evidence (if any more was needed) that the whole AGW scam runs on deceit and little else. If AGW were truly scientific all adjustments to raw data would be explained.
      Also see http://joannenova.com.au/2017/08/scandal-australian-bureau-of-meteorology-caught-erasing-cold-temperatures/

  10. Nathanelads

    Little is known about Africa’s elusive aardvarks, but new research says they are vulnerable to climate change like many other species.

    Hotter temperatures are taking their toll on the aardvark, whose diet of ants and termites is becoming scarcer in some areas because of reduced rainfall, according to a study released Monday.

    Drought in the Kalahari desert killed five out of six aardvarks that were being monitored for a year, as well as 11 others in the area, said researchers at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg.

    The aardvarks’ body temperatures plummeted during the night because they were not getting enough energy from diminished food sources, said physiology professor Andrea Fuller. She said they tried to conserve energy by looking for insects during the warmer daytime, but their efforts to adapt could not save them.

    The body temperatures of the ones that died had dropped to as low as 25 degrees Celsius (77 Fahrenheit), compared to a normal temperature of a little below 37 degrees Celsius (98.6 Fahrenheit).

    Researchers, who monitored the aardvarks with tiny sensors attached to implanted computer chips, said some birds, reptiles and other animals use aardvark burrows to escape extreme temperatures, reproduce and hide from predators. They could have fewer refuges available if aardvark populations shrink because of rising temperatures, they said.

    The aardvark, which lives in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa, is identified as an animal of “least concern” on an international “red list” of threatened species. The list, compiled by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, said there are no indications that the population is changing significantly in southern Africa, though it speculated that numbers may be declining elsewhere because of habitat destruction, the bushmeat trade and other factors.

    Estimating aardvark populations is guesswork, Fuller said.

    “Very little is known about them because people hardly ever see them,” she said.

    (booklet printing, printing in China).

    1. tom0mason

      I also understand that roast aardvark is darn good eating!

      1. tom0mason

        Further to that if the aardvark has evolved to stay in one place despite it’s major food source moving it deserves the same fate as all the Iberian big cats that are now extinct.
        Subfossil records that indicate that Lynx pardinus occurred in central and western France until c. 3000 years ago. Surprisingly, with reservations on the determination of the bones (by J. Altuna), both lions and cave lions seem to be recorded in the Iberian Peninsula in the Late Glacial. There are published records of the lion (Panthera leo) in the northern Iberian Peninsula from the early Holocene. However, its presence in Europe on the basis of subfossil records was proven initially from the Atlantic period. In Ponto-Mediterranean regions of Europe, the lion is recorded from the Atlantic to the younger sub-Atlantic.
        However the ongoing natural climate variation that ensued (that they these big cats failed to properly adjusted to) ensured their demise.

        Extinctions are a natural process, whether humans cause them or not.

        1. AndyG55

          “that they these big cats failed to properly adjusted to”

          Big Al and his mates have done ok, from this climate change malarkey, don’t you worry about that.

          Survival of the scumist !!

      2. AndyG55

        “I also understand that roast aardvark is darn good eating!”

        Crust would be a bit chewy 😉

        1. tom0mason

          You mean the supplied cooking container?

          1. AndyG55

            Crow bar supplied ??

          2. tom0mason

            No only hockey sticks 😆

  11. Water Vapour Climate Forcing 'Up To 200 Times' Greater, 'Overrides Any Effect By CO2' | Un hobby...

    […] H. Douglas Lightfoot and Orval A. Mamet, July 31, 2017 in […]

  12. AndyG55

    Another FUN and FACT filled post on WUWT.

    ENJOY…… everyone 😉 !! 😉

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/31/global-ev-and-related-climate-alarmist-colossal-messes/

  13. AndyG55

    So much for the demise of coal 🙂

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/08/01/coal-to-dominate-in-india-through-2047-says-report/

    Plenty of enhanced atmospheric CO2 for decade, probably centuries, to come.

    And there is NOTHING the CO2 HATERS can do about it. 🙂 🙂 🙂

    They can fiddle around the edges with unreliable expensive environment polluting so-called renewables, destroying their local energy supply systems, like Germany has (with basically zero CO2 reduction impact), or they can realise that coal(with gas and oil) are, and until some miracle of energy supply occurs, will ALWAYS be the preferred source of RELIABLE, CHEAP, LIFE-GIVING energy.

    1. AndyG55

      Oh Dear.. this is gunna hurt the resident CO2 haters…

      What a PITY 😉

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/01/coal-is-1-again/

      1. yonason

        WINNING! MAKING THE WORLD LIVABLE AGAIN!

    2. tom0mason

      But Andy India is not a rich Western democracy with many miseducated sheeple, so for the UN they can burn as much fossil fuel as they like for as long as they want.

  14. H. Douglas Lightfoot

    Some facts about “Back radiation versus CO2 as the cause of climate change” that can be verified by careful reading of the document.

    The science used is based firmly on the physical properties of carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapour and measurements of their action and interaction in the atmosphere in the presence of the sun.

    The paper makes unique and innovative connections between several branches of science. As an example, the paper states there is a connection between back radiation and water vapour. The specific relationship appears to be new to the scientific community.

    That the warming effects of CO2 and water vapour work against each other under the influence of the sun appears to be new to the scientific community. This happens even though the warming effects of both increase with concentration. (Page 10)

    Hope this helps the current discussion.

    1. tom0mason

      @H. Douglas Lightfoot 2,
      Thank-you for your contribution.

      You have validated the point I tried to make some years ago (about the massive inequalities in energy requirements between water and CO2). IIRC it was either on WUWT or stevengoddard (the old original stevengoddard realScience website). At the time I was roundly criticized for not looking at the IR spectrum and such-like (IMO the touchstone of over-complecated AGW science).
      I am heartened to see you stayed within the realms of normal observable, verifiable physics, and also that my ball-park figure of 3000 times the energy difference between evaporating water and CO2 was reasonably close.

    2. SebastianH

      As an example, the paper states there is a connection between back radiation and water vapour. The specific relationship appears to be new to the scientific community.

      That’s new? I thought everyone agrees that back radiation comes from infrared absorbing gases in the atmosphere one of which is water vapor? Would you agree or disagree that back radiation also depends on the surface temperature?

      That the warming effects of CO2 and water vapour work against each other under the influence of the sun appears to be new to the scientific community.

      Because your way of comparing both is “new”. Nobody would actually do something like that, particularly because the amount of back radiation also depends on surface temperatures. You compared seasonal data and seem to be inferring that this means that both effects work against each other. Try comparing year over year data and what effects increases in both water vapor concentration and CO2 concentration have year over year. Then we are talking.

      1. AndyG55

        H2O MASSIVELY outweighs any feeble amount CO2 could possibly do, even if CO2 did emit below 11km. !

        That is why CO2 warming, if there is any, is totally undetectable.

        That is why you continue to TOTALLY UNABLE to produce one single paper showing that CO2 causes warming in a gravity controlled convective atmosphere.

      2. sunsettommy

        Sebastian, it is clear you have no idea what Mr. Lightfoot is talking about.

      3. AndyG55

        “Try comparing year over year data and what effects increases in both water vapor concentration and CO2 concentration have year over year. “

        CO2 has had absolutely ZERO measurable effect in the last 40 years.

        And real physics is totally against it having any effect, ever..

  15. Hivemind

    This completely destroys the global warming argument.

    Completely.

    1. SebastianH

      If you believe in fairies, yes …

      1. AndyG55

        It is TOTALY OBVIOUS that YOU believe in FANTASY,

        Your WHOLE feeble existence appears to be dependant on it.

        You probably think you are a FAIRY rather than a TROLL.

        TOTALLY ABSENT when it come to even the remotest piece of evidence of CO2 warming

        But your hallucinogenic FANTASIES just keeps on yapping and yapping.

        Even a demented Chihuahua would have more credibility than you do, seb

        Are you getting enough ATTENTION, seb ????

        Is your pre-pubescent, child-minded attention seeking, satisfied ??

        Were your formative years of mental anguish really that unkind to you ?

        1. SebastianH

          Easily triggered, are we? Why do you “waste time” (as you put it) with commenting something like this? It’s not good for your blood pressure.

          1. AndyG55

            Why do you waste your time, and ours, with unsupportable GARBAG.

            Is your life really that PATHETIC?

      2. yonason

        RE – belief in fairies…

        Stay on topic, chatbot. You get triggered, and you start spouting unrelated nonsense.

        Sir Hugh Dowding believed in fairies,…
        http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/nov/26/20051126-115231-6910r/
        …which proves that just because someone is super talented and indispensable in one area (without him Britain would probably have been defeated by Germany), he can be totally off the rails in another.

        Take yourself, for example. Just because you haven’t a clue about science in general, or climate science in particular, doesn’t mean you might not be good at something else. Anything’s possible.

  16. AndyG55

    Just updated the Japanese temperatures to July.

    They ain’t going anywhere

    https://s19.postimg.org/wjjauouer/Japan_temps.png

  17. AndyG55

    Japan, one of the most industrial countries, and downwind from China, the MASSIVE atmospheric CO2 supplier.

    ….. and ABSOLUTELY ZERO signature of any sort of warming from any influence, let alone CO2.

  18. BillyHill

    Why not:

    All controlled by the sun. Volume=(4π/3)*r³

    TSI/(4/3)=4/3*8g²
    Emissive power tropopause=4/3*g²
    Emissive power surface=4g²
    Effective temperature=(TSI-4g²)/4

    Works on Mars and Venus, although with different relationships. And the moon.
    g²=units Nm² for stress, pressure and thermal resistance.

    Gauss law for gravity. And this:http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elesph.html#c3

  19. Raveendran Narayanan

    https://theconversation.com/inaction-on-climate-change-risks-leaving-future-generations-530-trillion-in-debt-81134
    “Sea Levels Rising At Alarming Rate! CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACT! WATCH THIS” on YouTube

    https://youtu.be/qHOSAc5u6H0
    https://raveendrannarayanan.wordpress.com/2014/12/06/nominate-for-nobel-peace-prize-2015/ ” NOMINATE FOR NOBEL PEACE PRIZE 🏆 2017″
    “NOT CARBON DIOXIDE”.
    ONE SHOT MANY BIRDS: http://wp.me/p25H2W-dB via @Raveendrannaray. By strictest regulations and strictest enforcement CAPTURE Concentrated DEICERS by erecting ZERO DISCHARGE SYSTEMS ( Z.D.S.) in Desalination Systems and build more ice masses & glaciers –>>>> ONE SHOT MANY BIRDS —->>>>> 3° C TEMPERATURE REDUCTION IS POSSIBLE + NO MORE ESCAPING OF METHANE FROM ICE SHELVES + NO MORE OZONE HOLES + NO MORE SEA RISE + NOT MUCH STRONGER HURRICANES + NOT MUCH CALAMITIES+ NO MORE EXTREME WEATHER + PLENTY OF DRINKING WATER FROM SEA WATER + MORE FOOD & VEGGIES + WORLD ECONOMY WILL BE GOOD –>>>>> ” AIR CONDITIONING OF MOTHER EARTH ” = WORLD PEACE.
    Raveendran Narayanan USA