Ex-NOAA Climate Scientist: ‘No Role Of CO2 In Any Significant Change Of The Earth’s Climate’

Solar Magnetic Field, Cosmic Rays/Clouds → Climate

CO2 Has A ‘Zero Net Effect’

Dr. Rex J. Fleming, a former  NOAA climate scientist who earned both his Master’s and Ph.D in meteorology, has published a new paper in the Environmental Earth Sciences journal that details the lack of an identifiable causal relationship between CO2 concentration changes and Earth’s temperature changes.  He suggests “there is no propensity for CO2 to store heat in a systematic way over time to produce a climate change effect”.

Image Source: American Meteorological Society

Dr. Fleming introduces an alternative “theory of climate change—due to the Sun’s magnetic field interacting with cosmic rays”.   He theorizes that the Earth’s temperature has warmed in the modern era as a consequence of the strong solar activity during the 20th century  (the Modern Maximum) shielding cosmic ray intensification and thus reducing decadal-scale cloud cover, which leads to warming via an increase in absorbed surface solar radiation (as illustrated here by Ogurtsov et al., 2012 and detailed by Avakyan, 2013McLean, 2014, and others).

Dr. Fleming further proposes that the Earth may cool as it slides into a Solar Grand Minimum in the coming few decades (~2030) due to a predicted decline in the solar magnetic field and concomitant cloud cover increases seeded by cosmic ray intensification.

Key points from the paper are categorized below.


An Updated Review About Carbon

Dioxide and Climate Change

Fleming, 2018

Summary

“The results of this review point to the extreme value of  CO2 to all life forms, but no role of  CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate. … There is no correlation of CO2 with temperature in any historical data set that was reviewed. The climate-change cooling over the 1940–1975 time period of the Modern Warming period was shown to be influenced by a combination of solar factors. The cause of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age climate changes was the solar magnetic field and cosmic ray connection.  When the solar magnetic field is strong, it acts as a barrier to cosmic rays entering the Earth’s atmosphere, clouds decrease and the Earth warms. Conversely when the solar magnetic field is weak, there is no barrier to cosmic rays—they greatly increase large areas of low-level clouds, increasing the Earth’s albedo and the planet cools. The factors that affect these climate changes were reviewed in “Solar magnetic field/cosmic ray factors affecting climate change” section. The calculations of “H2O and CO2 in the radiation package” section revealed that there is no net impact of CO2 on the net heating of the atmosphere. The received heat is simply redistributed within the atmospheric column. This result is consistent and explains the lack of CO2 correlations with observations in the past. The current Modern Warming will continue until the solar magnetic field decreases in strength. If one adds the 350-year cycle from the McCracken result to the center of the Maunder Minimum which was centered in 1680, one would have a Grand Minimum centered in the year 2030.”

It’s Not CO2

CO2 Changes Lag Temperature Changes

“Ice cores with sufficient vertical resolution (time resolution) have provided 420,000 years of data from Antarctica indicating that the temperature changes preceded the corresponding CO2 changes. An American team found the time lag (due to ocean mixing) of CO2 behind temperature of several hundred years. The oceanic reservoir of CO2 is far greater than that of the atmosphere. When the oceans are warm, they outgas CO2, and when the oceans are cold atmospheric CO2 dissolves into the oceans (Fisher et al. 1999).”

“A subsequent study in 2003 by a French team indicating that deglaciation was not caused by CO2 which lagged the temperature by 200–800 years (Caillon et al. 2003). A third efort by Russian scientists arrived at the same conclusion, where the estimated delay was 500–600 years (Monin and Sonechkin 2005). This was claimed to be 420,000 years of data with indisputable evidence that CO2 concentrations of the atmosphere are the effect of global temperature changes and not their cause (Chilingar et al. 2008).”

Water Vapor Dominates

“The concentration of CO2 is considered to be uniform over the atmosphere at 400 ppmv. The concentration of water vapor varies from a maximum of 40,000 ppmv (Hong Kong) to the lowest measured value of 4 ppmv in the upper stratosphere. A value for water vapor at one km is estimated to be 11,000 ppmv, so the ratio of mass of H2O/CO2 at one km is approximately 11,000/400=27.5. Comparison of the absorption coefficients over the full range of 1.5–18 µm gave the result: CO2/H2O=~5.5. Thus, water vapor dominates by the ratio of 27.5/5.5=5. … The volume of H2O at the one km level alone is capable of absorbing all the available solar heat at the surface, and does absorb five times that of CO2. All the heat adsorbed at the surface was fully redistributed vertically by all the molecules with the help of all the coefficients.”

CO2 ‘No Impact’, ‘Zero Net Effect’ On Temperature

“One can summarize these calculations as follows: whatever the “climate-change regime,” whatever surface heat from the Sun on any given day within that regime, that heat is fully absorbed and fully vertically redistributed throughout the troposphere—there is no propensity for CO2 to store heat in a systematic way over time to produce a climate change effect (as defined in the introduction).”

“Why does the integrated effect of CO2 have so little effect on the total temperature profile? The reason is that the Planck function change with height (temperature) is very strong in reducing the intensity of those relatively few lines with large absorption coefficients. Another reason is that the longwave radiation is diffuse which depletes the intensity rapidly over distance. The diffuse nature of the radiation also leads to the fact that the net radiation for a given level (that sent upward at the bottom of a layer, minus that sent downward at the top of a layer) further reduces the adsorbed CO2 radiation intensity.”

“Other so-called “greenhouse gases” (some with larger absorption coefcients, but all with signifcantly less concentration)  have their intensity quickly transferred upward and depleted by the same strong Planck function intensity change that applies to CO2 and H2O.  From the historical record and from these calculations one sees that the CO2 concentration had no impact on temperature It contributes low-level heating and allows upper level cooling for a zero net effect.”

It’s Solar/Cosmic Ray/Cloud Cover Changes

Solar Minimum, Maximum Periods And Climate

“A significant improvement in determining which Grand Minima are important for climate change came with the work of Sharpe (2008) using Jet Propulsion Laboratory DE405 ephemeris data providing the results in Figs. 10 and 11. His C-14 data from Stuiver et al. (1998). The results confirm the reason for the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age (1300–1850) with its three separate Grand Minima (Spörer Maunder, and Dalton).”

“Since the Little Ice Age, a strong Sun is revealed by both Be-10 and C-14 decreases. The total magnetic flux leaving the Sun (dragged out by the solar wind) has risen by a factor of 2.3 since 1901 (Lockwood et al. 1999). The strong solar magnetic field has shielded the Earth from cosmic rays and is the cause of the Modern Warming that has occurred through to the current time.”

Planetary Positions Determine Solar Grand Minima

“The synodic period (TS—two successive conjunctions of the same bodies) of two planets 1 and 2 is given by 1/TS=1/T1−1/T2 (with T1<T2). The sidereal periods for Uranus and Neptune are 84.02 and 164.79 years, respectively.  This gives TUN =172 years. This is the main driver seen in the angular momentum of the Sun about the SSB.  The relationship of when a solar Grand Minima occurs always involves these four giant planets in their relationship with the Sun and as depicted in Fig. 11—Uranus, Neptune and Jupiter together and Saturn opposite the Sun.”

Solar Cycle Length And Temperature

“The sunspot cycle has an average period of 11.2 years, but the length varies from 8 to 14 years. The length of a sunspot cycle (LSC) is an indicator of the Sun’s eruptional activity.  The Gleissberg (1965) cycle resulted from his smoothing of the time series of the length of the sunspot cycles (LSC) and a secular cycle of 80–90 years emerged.”

“Figure  7 is from Landscheidt (2003) where Gleissberg’s smoothed data were displayed. The heavy line is the smoothed LSC line and the light line is the land air temperature in the Northern Hemisphere. The heavy line agrees very well with the temperature and also with the temperature record […] with the cooling from 1940 to 1975. It appears that the atmospheric temperature is oblivious to CO2 concentration.”

“The range of the Sun’s orbital angular momentum about the SSB varies from near zero to only 25% of the Sun’s differential angular momentum driving the solar dynamo (Landscheidt 2003). Thus, the strength of the solar dynamo can outweigh the effect of the Sun/planet positions. Nevertheless, these results over this long period strongly suggest that the solar magnetic feld/cosmic ray interaction is the primary cause of major climate-change events over the past 9400 years of the interglacial period. The 35-year cool period within the current Modern Warming was an example where the Gleissberg cycle imposed only a modest impact on the existing strength of the magnetic feld that was in place. The current Modern Warming will continue until the strength of the Sun’s magnetic field declines.”

116 responses to “Ex-NOAA Climate Scientist: ‘No Role Of CO2 In Any Significant Change Of The Earth’s Climate’”

  1. Philip Clarke

    How embarrassing.

    1. Newminster

      For whom?

      I wonder of Pierre’s new policy — much welcomed — includes gnomic remarks.

      Have you considered actually addressing the content of the paper? It may well be wrong but Dr Fleming’s qualifications would seem sufficient for his views to be taken seriously — a meteorologist and ex-NOAA.

      I know that the climate establishment prefers not to hear divergent views but that’s what makes for genuine debate, wouldn’t you say?

      1. SebastianH

        Have you considered actually addressing the content of the paper?

        It should be fairly obvious why this author has it wrong. I don’t know why the skeptic community demands that the other side addresses everything they come up with or else it’s true.

        The qualifications aside – not much to find about this author – someone who writes “there is no propensity for CO2 to store heat in a systematic way over time to produce a climate change effect” [-snip…again you are only calling foul because it disagrees with your side. Please get off the arrogant high horse of believing you are the keeper of the truth. You are not. You’re always upset about people having a different opinion. Get. Over. It. -PG]

        Divergent views are one thing, making something up is a whole other story. Has this paper received proper peer review? 😉 [Yes, we’ve seen the quality of “proper peer review” in climate science. That’s why the science has lost its reputation. -PG]

        1. SebastianH

          [-snip…again you are only calling foul because it disagrees with your side. Please get off the arrogant high horse of believing you are the keeper of the truth. You are not. You’re always upset about people having a different opinion. Get. Over. It. -PG]

          Pierre, I thought you were going to censor foul language and not pointing out contradictions to scientific facts? [the word facts here should have qualifying quotes around it]

          The part you snipped was about this [snip] from that paper:

          From the historical record and from these calculations one sees that the CO2 concentration had no impact on temperature. It contributes low-level heating and allows upper level cooling for a zero net effect.

          I am not the keeper of the truth, but this is obviously wrong. Do I really need to explain why?

          1. Steve Francis

            Yes you do need to explain why it is wrong. There have been multiple studies that show CO2 does not affect temperature, and CO2/temperature have never corresponded in the past but now all of the sudden because we are adding a fraction of CO2 to the atmosphere historical levels it’s causing temperatures to rise (laughable). Not being able to see how governments are pushing the CO2/climate change/global warming agenda as a means for more taxation and wealth transfer just shows ones inability to see the overall picture. Stop being a sheep and wake up.

          2. Ed Caryl

            “I am not the keeper of the truth, but this is obviously wrong. Do I really need to explain why?”
            Yes, Seb, you do really need to explain why!
            Kenneth has supplied many supporting documents. You need to supply refutation.

          3. SebastianH

            <blockquoteOther atmospheric scientists have also proposed this (assuming one agrees that a 0.02°C change in temperature upon CO2 doubling is the equivalent of a “zero net effect”). After all, these are all just theoretical conceptualizations of what occurs in the atmosphere, with the current popularized conceptualization regarding dominant CO2-heating considered “fact” because a much higher percentage of theorists happen to agree with it.

            You are misunderstanding what I am saying is a fact. Suppose Co2 would cause net zero warming because it cools the upper part of the atmosphere exactly as much as it warms the surface part. Considering the different density of air, would you be so kind an calculate (a rough estimate is ok) how much cooler the upper part would have to be to compensate for say a 1°C warming of the surface?

            The second part of this fact thing is that Earth will on average emit as much energy as it receives. We are measuring a decrease of radiation towards space in the relevant CO2 bands. That means Earth is indeed radiating away less energy than it receives (this is what is called CO2 forcing). This means (and that is a fact) that the heat content increases until this imbalance seizes to exist. One could argue that his can be called “cooling at the upper-level” and warming at the lower-level, but in reality this doesn’t cancel out at all …

            That should have been obvious to any peer reviewer.

            Regarding “Florides and Christodoulides, 2009″. You seem to have a tendency to pick out the real good papers. No comment. ” Different Opinion” as Pierre put it above is a good description.

          4. AndyG55

            “We are measuring a decrease of radiation towards space in the relevant CO2 bands. That means Earth is indeed radiating away less energy than it receives “

            Except its not.

            https://s19.postimg.org/3lfhmz5lv/OLR_62.jpg

            “• Rising Outgoing Long-wave radiation with more than 3.7 W/m^2 per ºC SST cannot be the effect of rising CO2 or of the increase of other “greenhouse” gases. Rising OLR/SST with 8.6 W/m^2K means that the atmosphere has become more transparent to IR radiation in the past 60 years. The “greenhouse effect” has become less.”

            Energy is just transferred to other bands.

            You have yet again produced zero science, just your mantra driven imaginings of how thing work. And its WRONG.

            There is NO empirical evidence that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes anything but enhanced plant growth.

          5. AndyG55
          6. AndyG55

            Anyone notice a TREND at all 😉

            https://s19.postimg.org/wsak2og8z/Climate-_Sensitivity-_Value-_Estimates-_Update2.jpg

            Seems they are starting to get somewhere near reality now that the initial AGW anti-science is gradually being superseded.

            Not far to go to ZERO!

          7. SebastianH

            “We are measuring a decrease of radiation towards space in the relevant CO2 bands. That means Earth is indeed radiating away less energy than it receives “

            Except its not.

            https://s19.postimg.org/3lfhmz5lv/OLR_62.jpg

            Wherever you dug up this graph …

            https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/enso/indicators/olr/

          8. AndyG55

            OLR matches Enso, as would be expected.

            You have no point to make.

            You seem to think a tiny change in a tiny slice of the OLR makes a difference when it is just redirected to other frequencies.

            https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/ArcticOLR_ToaTemp.jpg

            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/asr-vs-olr.png

            Watch how there is an excess of incoming over outgoing during and after La Niñas (2000-2001, 2008-2009, 2011-2012), and an excess of outgoing over incoming during and after El Niños (2010). At other times the two more or less balance.

            Maybe its time to drop the AGW mantra, seb.

          9. AndyG55

            A post disappears, trying again, maybe a repeat.

            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/asr-vs-olr.png

            Incoming radiant heat (ASR, “absorbed solar radiation”) (gold) vs. outgoing radiant heat (OLR, “outgoing longwave radiation”) (red) at the global ToA, from March 2000 to July 2015.

            Watch how there is an excess of incoming over outgoing during and after La Niñas (2000-2001, 2008-2009, 2011-2012), and an excess of outgoing over incoming during and after El Niños (2010). At other times the two more or less balance.

            NH OLR, keeping up with temperatures, as expected

            https://sunshinehours.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/noaa-northern-hemisphere-olr-monthly-anomalies.png

            Global OLR increasing

            https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/olr3.png

            CERES, downwelling LWR DECREASING

            https://s19.postimg.org/aam12xls3/ceres_dwlwir_decreasing.png

        2. AndyG55

          “It should be fairly obvious why this author has it wrong”

          Except he doesn’t have much wrong, if anything.

          He is totally correct when he says there is no propensity for CO2 to store heat.. BECAUSE IT DOESN’T

          If you think there is any warming from enhanced atmospheric CO2, then bring the empirical evidence.

          You have FAILED miserably on the scientific front, seb.

          There is no facet of Dr Fleming’s paper that you can counter with actual science..

          “but this is obviously wrong.Do I really need to explain why”

          You will be UNABLE to explain why. It goes to the gravity thermal gradient,/convection effects that regulate the atmosphere. You have shown you do not understand this.

          1. SebastianH

            He is totally correct when he says there is no propensity for CO2 to store heat.. BECAUSE IT DOESN’T

            Any idea how the author even came up with the idea that CO2 could be storing heat? It’s a weird claim, since nobody is claiming that it does. It rather indicates that the author has a different understanding of what CO2 is supposed to do (according to climate science) than climate science has.

            There is no facet of Dr Fleming’s paper that you can counter with actual science..

            Well, please highlight were one of those facets is actual science that needs countering.

            It goes to the gravity thermal gradient,/convection effects that regulate the atmosphere. You have shown you do not understand this.

            You are right, I do not understand the way you think stuff works. Maybe you should publish a paper about it?

          2. AndyG55

            “Any idea how the author even came up with the idea that CO2 could be storing heat”

            Sorry you are unable to comprehend what he is saying. Your problem.

            “Well, please highlight were one of those facets is actual science that needs countering.”

            So, you concur that you cannot counter.
            OK, We knew that.

            “I do not understand….”

            Not unexpected.

        3. AndyG55

          “making something up is a whole other story”

          Then STOP doing it. !

  2. Philip Clarke

    “We have said many times over the years that peer review, while necessary, is not a sufficient condition for a paper to be a positive contribution. Anomalies will get published – and the techniques used by Harde are the usual route. Add in the technique of submitting to journals that aren’t really in the field at all, or, more recently, submitting to predatory journals that perform only perfunctory review (if any).

    Indeed, there is another example that just appeared by Rex Fleming in “Environmental Earth Science” which, despite the name is not a climate science journal.”

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/04/harde-times/#ITEM-21237-3

    1. AndyG55

      Come of Philip, surly you can actually argue the CONTENT, rather than trying to ad-hom the writer.

      Or NOT !

  3. AndyG55

    Well said, Dr Fleming.

    Pretty much all of it is “spot-on” 🙂

    “there is no net impact of CO2 on the net heating of the atmosphere. The received heat is simply redistributed within the atmospheric column”

    “that heat is fully absorbed and fully vertically redistributed throughout the troposphere”

    Regulated by the gravity thermal gradient.

    CO2 is a valuable asset: providing the input to the plant world for the food ALL creatures require”

    The simple UNDENIABLE TRUTH. !

    1. AndyG55

      oops, my closing of italics didn’t work, sorry.

      1. AndyG55

        Thanks for the fix 🙂

  4. Paul Stevens

    Much of this is well known, but the explanation here of the impact of water vapor, and the effect of the large planets in a particular and recurring alignment is new to me. It will be interesting to see the response of other experts in the field.

  5. Jim

    Still, excellent paper. A lot closer to the truth then fiction. It seems as many years ago, while in high school, science was taught a a many faced idol. But, the the facts were true. Now, they can not add 2 plus 2 without a qualifier or error bar larger the the supposed result. But, still hearing crickets.

    1. SebastianH

      Still, excellent paper. A lot closer to the truth then fiction

      I’d not be so fast with an assessment like that.

      1. AndyG55

        We are waiting for you to bring any actual science to counter anything said by Dr Fleming.

        So far you have been totally unable to bring any empirical science to show that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes ANYTHING but enhanced plant growth.

        AGW mantra, is NOT science.

  6. Philip Clarke

    “There is no correlation of CO2 with temperature in any historical data set that was reviewed”

    But then

    ““Ice cores with sufficient vertical resolution (time resolution) have provided 420,000 years of data from Antarctica indicating that the temperature changes preceded the corresponding CO2 changes. ”

    So there IS a correlation then? The CO2 lagging temperature phenomenon is well known and understood, it occurs because the initial temperature rise (usually from a change in insolation) gets amplified by released CO2. Heck, this was even predicted by a 1990 paper

    “Changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by amplifying, together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak orbital forcing”

    Lorius et al 1990.

    1. AndyG55

      And at no point in time in the Vostok core was peak CO2 EVER able to maintain peak temperature.

      In fact, peak CO2 was ALWAYS as the temperature was cooling.

      Doesn’t say much about the “heat-trapping” (lol) capability of atmospheric CO2 , does it. 😉

      1. SebastianH

        The CO2 data in that core indicates that CO2 concentration changed between 200 and 280 ppm. Mostly as a result of temperature change (outgasing of the oceans, that mechanism is well known). This time around it is slightly different, isn’t it?

        1. AndyG55

          “This time around it is slightly different, isn’t it?”

          Yep, plants can now breathe properly.

          There is NO scientific proof that enhanced atmospheric CO2 has ANY affect apart from enhanced plant growth.

  7. Philip Clarke

    “The qualifications aside – not much to find about this author – ”

    http://www.rexfleming.com/RexFlemingResume.html

    Nothing wrong with his bona fides, Doctorate in Atmospheric Science, employed by the NOAA. Currently president of an aviation insurance company, and novelist.

    1. AndyG55

      Not bothering to even look for your qualifications, Philip.

  8. Art Viterito

    Here is the latest on mid-ocean geothermal flux and global temperatures

    https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/have-global-temperatures-reached-a-tipping-point-2573-458X-1000149.pdf

    1. SebastianH

      Is there a web service that one can post predictions to and get automatically reminded when the date went by so it can be checked if it was accurate?

      “In other words, there is a 95% probability that 2019 temperatures will drop to levels not seen since the mid-1990s. ”

      I bet against your prediction.

      1. AndyG55

        “Is there a web service that one can post predictions “

        We could start with Wadhams, Gore, etc etc … and basically every self-aggrandised climate scientist.

        It would be a LONG, LONG list !!

  9. Philip Clarke

    Solar cycle length correlates well with global temperature.

    Proposed by Eigil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen in 1991 who in a paper in Science demonstrated a ‘strikingly good agreement” between solar cycle lengths and land temperatures over the period 1860–1990. But Peter Laut demonstrated the correlation was due to poor data handling

    http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf

    and Lassen himself in 1999 published a later paper showing the correlation broke down after 1990.

    And oh look – the graph in the paper – sourced to Landscheit 2003, a paper in Energy & Environment – is truncated in 1990.

    What nonsense.

    1. AndyG55

      “The temperature series is obtained by combining
      the reconstruction of Mann et al. (1998)…….”

      And the paper IMMEDIATELY breaks down.

      The problem is not with the correlation, its with the FABRICATED temperatures used.

      The temperature series in Fig 4 is total nonsense.

      There was basically ZERO warming from 1980-1997.

  10. sunsettommy

    I see that Sebastian and Philip, have no cogent reply to the paper.

    Waiting, waiting for something beyond veiled ad homs and empty paragraphs,

    “It should be fairly obvious why this author has it wrong. I don’t know why the skeptic community demands that the other side addresses everything they come up with or else it’s true.

    The qualifications aside – not much to find about this author – someone who writes “there is no propensity for CO2 to store heat in a systematic way over time to produce a climate change effect”

    Yawn………Zzzz…….

    Come on you guys!

    1. SebastianH

      It should have been enough to point your attention to the author thinking that he is arguing against “CO2 stores heat”. Further, the author claims that CO2 warming is net zero because any warming at the bottom gets compensated by cooling at the top.

      This is Harde (or Khan from last week) all over again. Maybe we are lucky and someone does a write up of what is wrong with that paper. If not, then nobody wanted to waste his/her time enough for you guys.

      1. AndyG55

        So, zero science from seb, yet again.

        And the rude interjection at the end.

        Expected.

        CO2 does not store heat…. period.

        1. SebastianH

          And the rude interjection at the end.

          Expected.

          Coming from you, that remark is really weird …

      2. AndyG55

        “This is Harde (or Khan from last week)”

        Which you had zero scientific response to.

        Nothing has changed.

      3. sunsettommy

        Sebastian,

        You go on and on about CO2 storage heat, which is actually is quite similar to CO2 is TRAPPING heat which warmists, media and ecoloonies say many times.

        Come on, is that the best you got?

        1. AndyG55

          “which is actually is quite similar to CO2 is TRAPPING heat “

          CO2 doesn’t TRAP heat, either.

          Its a radiative gas, so it acts as a conduit for radiative energy. Basic physics.

          And because some people like analogies,

          ….. its like using copper wire for passing electricity, rather than horse hair.

          Shocking analogy, I know 😉

          1. sunsettommy

            I know Andy.

            Just pointing out the similarities to the meaning of the phrases.

          2. AndyG55

            I know you know.

            And you know I know you know.

        2. SebastianH

          You go on and on about CO2 storage heat

          No, I am not and neither is anyone in climate science. Literally nobody is claiming that CO2 stores heat.

          So it’s pretty telling if someone argues against this. One could almost call it a straw man …

          Arguing this is similar to those arguments that try to explain that the greenhouse effect isn’t at all how a real greenhouse works and therefore it would be not real or something. That’s barking at the wrong tree and a sign that the author hasn’t understood what he/she is opposed to.

          Come on, is that the best you got?

          What are you trying to accomplish with this tactic? Posting something obviously false and then trying to waste peoples time by claiming that without a “scientific” reply the authors’ claims would be true because they stayed unrefuted?

          So if I claim 23092039580349582 is a prime number and nobody can be bothered with replying in a scientific manner (no, saying it can be divided by 2 doesn’t cut it), this claim will hold and everyone in my community will now celebrate and use this number as evidence that mathematicians are all wrong because the claim has not been refuted in a blog’s comment section despite obviously being false? Is that how it works? 😉

          1. AndyG55

            “So if I claim 23092039580349582 is a prime number and nobody can be bothered with replying in a scientific manner”

            OMG, yet another mindless analogy to try to distract from your incompetence.

            You obviously have zero comprehension of what constitutes REAL science.

            “Posting something obviously false and then trying to waste peoples time ……”

            So STOP DOING IT !!

            ” a sign that the author hasn’t understood”

            No, its a sign that YOU haven’t understood.

          2. SebastianH

            Is there a difference between the claim that CO2 stores heat and CO2 holds heat long enough to keep us warm?

            Yes

            but the greenhouse gases hold it in long enough to generate a greenhouse effect in the planet’s atmosphere and keep us at a toasty 15°C.”

            Is this a scientist quote? “Holding it in long enough” in this context is a simplification, it doesn’t mean that each CO2 molecule holds the heat, waits long enough, and then releases it again.

            If CO2 acts like a blanket, absorbing heat energy, and prevents the heat from escaping, is this different than CO2 stores heat?

            Yes

            Do you agree or disagree that greenhouse gases retain heat before re-emitting it?

            Greenhouse gases retain heat in the system, not in the molecules they consist of.

            What’s the definition of retain?

            https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/retain

          3. AndyG55

            More zero-science, anti-fact rhetoric from seb.

            “Greenhouse gases retain heat in the system”

            RUBBISH.

            Lets call CO2 what it actually is, a LWIR radiative gas….. nothing to do with a greenhouse. That anti-science nonsense has to stop.

            Radiative gases DO NOT retain heat in the system, they get rid of it out of the system at altitude.

            Energy in the lower atmosphere is passed immediately to the other 99.96% of the atmosphere and dealt with by convection and conduction.

            There is ZERO science that allows anything but H2O to retain heat in the system and only then through its properties of latent heat and phase, and only for short periods.

            There is NO empirical evidence that enhanced atmospheric CO2 does ANYTHING except enhance plant growth.

  11. Entropic man

    There is a problem when one tries to link solar output with temperature. Over the last 600 million years the Sun has increased its output by 6% while temperatures have dropped by 5C.

    According to Fleming’s logic the increased solar output should have made the climate warmer and the resulting decrease in cosmic rays should also have made the climate warmer.

    There is a technical term for a hypothesis like Fleming’s, which predicts the opposite of what happens. It is wrong.

  12. Entropic man

    I beg your pardon. That should have read

    “Over the last 600 million years the Sun has increased its output by 6% while temperatures have dropped by 15C.”

  13. Entropic man

    The forcing equation used to predict the change in temperature due to changes in CO2 is

    ∆T = 5.35ln(final CO2/initial CO2) climate sensitivity/ warming rate due to forcing

    Using the mid-range IPCC values and CO2 from Figure 2

    5.35ln(280/7000)3/3.7 = -12.7C

    Climate science produced a theoretical prediction of 12.7C cooling over 600 million years, compared with observed cooling of 15C This is much better than Fleming managed.

    1. AndyG55

      roflmao.

      Anyone who can see CO2 v temp correlation in this is having major hallucinations

      http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Climate%20Change/CO2_Phanerozoic.png

    2. AndyG55

      Now apply your little imaginary formula to 200M years ago when the temperature was the same as 550M years ago, and CO2 levels were 1000ppm

      OOPS !!

      What’s the comment about a stopped clock ?

  14. Entropic man

    Kenneth Richard 5

    Stop changing the subject.

    I was discussing the data in Figure 2, which covers 600 million years.

    You are complaining that the equation I used was theoretical. These equations are based on existing physics and tested by comparing prediction with observation.

    Lacking duplicate planets on which to do controlled trials,that is the best one can do.

    What I would like from you is an equation using physics which does not involve CO2 and correctly predicts the observed cooling over the last 600 million years.

    1. AndyG55

      http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Climate%20Change/CO2_Phanerozoic.png

      Spot any correlation between CO2 and temperature.

      Using Fig 2, have you done a calculation between 550M year when CO2 was 7000ppm, and 200M years, when CO2 was about 1000ppm.. but Earth was the SAME temperature.

      Your little exercise is totally meaningless.

      But its all you have.

    2. AndyG55

      “comparing prediction with observation.”

      ….. not just for one pair of points. !!

      A formula has to hold for all points.

      AND YOUR’S DOESN’T.

  15. Philip Clarke

    Those are measurements at over half a kilometre depth; it takes a long time for the heat to penetrate that deep, so there’s a substantial lag in the response. As the paper notes:

    “The current response of surface temperatures to the ongoing radiative perturbation is substantially higher than the response of the ocean’s interior, due to the long whole-ocean equilibration time. ”

    And, as the Press Release for Rosenthal stated

    ” The authors attribute the cooling from 7,000 years ago until the Medieval Warm Period to changes in Earth’s orientation toward the sun, which affected how much sunlight fell on both poles. In 1600 or so, temperatures started gradually going back up. Then, over the last 60 years, water column temperatures, averaged from the surface to 2,200 feet, increased 0.18 degrees C, or .32 degrees F. That might seem small in the scheme of things, but it’s a rate of warming 15 times faster than at any period in the last 10,000 years,”

    http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/3130

    1. AndyG55

      “it takes a long time for the heat to penetrate that deep, so there’s a substantial lag in the response.”

      You say that, and then you expect the solar energy from the Grand Solar Maximum of the latter half of last century to magically dissipate over night?

      Cognitive dissonance. !

      ARGO from 2003, pre-adjustment.

      https://s19.postimg.org/7h5rb639f/ARGO_NH.png

      Before 2003, was based on AGW Agenda driven models, data was sparse, infilling and fabrication was rife. (like the current surface temperature farce)

      And again, why are people SO SCARE of a slight warming out of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.

      CRAZY !!

  16. J Martin

    @Entropic. I would be looking to know what ranges of radiation the sun has increased by and whether some bands had decreased, less solar wind perhaps, allowing more cosmic days through. Also I would be keen to know by how much the atmosphere had thinned over that time. I don’t think you can dismiss the argument by saying that the suns output has increased by 6% yet temoersfures have devlined. co2 over the last 600 million years won’t account for tempsture changes. A more nuanced understanding of solar and magnetic effects may well do.

  17. Ex-NOAA Climate Scientist: ‘No Role Of CO2 In Any Significant Change Of The Earth’s Climate’ – Newsfeed – Hasslefree allsorts

    […] Ref.: http://notrickszone.com/2018/04/05/ex-noaa-climate-scientist-no-role-of-co2-in-any-signi%EF%AC%81can… […]

  18. Entropic man

    Kenneth Richard 5

    Your link was paywalled. Please give me the numbers.

    I hope you are aware that Ocean Heat Content is measured in Joules, not degrees centigrade. The oceans are currently gaining energy at 3×10^22 Joules/ year,equivalent to an imbalance of 0.7watts/sq. M. and a warming of 0.05C/year

    I have done a number of OHC calculations over the years and the numbers you quote are ridiculously large.

    1. AndyG55

      OHC is modelled before 2003. (very sparse measurements, Southern ocean “mostly made up”)

      https://s19.postimg.org/ixs2bgg1f/OceanHeat.jpg

      And WHY do all AGW sympathisers seem to want everyone to go back to the cold bleak period of the LIA.

      Quite bizarre !!!

    2. AndyG55

      Show us how and where measurements of OHC were taken before 2003..

      Funny how much measure OHC has changed recently

      http://i55.tinypic.com/2i7qn9y.jpg

      https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png

      If you can’t see the problem where the measured OHC level has suddenly become adjusted to the same trend as Agenda based pre-2003 models, then you obviously have both eyes blinded by too much AGW kool-aide.

      1. SebastianH

        Funny how you managed to compare 0-700m to 0-2000m OHC …

        https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png is the correct NOAA graph … your “flat” area is visible, isn’t it?

        1. AndyG55

          Yes we know they splice on new data and very sparse data in an attempt to hide the non-warming in the 0-700m layer.

          Meanwhile to placate seb’s utter panic at a tiny rise in heat content out of the coldest period in 10,000 years.

          https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/rosenthal-2013-figure-2c-annotated.png

    3. AndyG55

      Let’s put it in perspective

      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Holocene-Cooling-Pacific-Ocean-Rosenthal-13-CO2.jpg

      Rosenthal in degrees C, cooling to the COLDEST period in 10,000 years

      recent in joules x 10⁻­­²², ie fractions of degree C

  19. cementafriend

    In the article Dr Fleming has the absorption of radiation by H2O and CO2 the wrong way around. Look at the NASA diagram in this article (ref included but I do not know how to post the diagram here) https://cementafriend.wordpress.com/2011/10/. My estimate is that the H20/CO2 ratio is around 10 and not 5. The graph included by Sunsettommy to the article is another indication. I would have thought everyone knows that CO2 only absorbs radiation in a very small wavelength range (around 14.8 micron) while H2O (gas or water vapor) absorbs over a much larger range. This is in addition to there being a much higher partial pressure of water vapor ( up to 2.5%)in the atmosphere than that of CO2 (400ppm which varies with height)
    It should also be noted that the absorptivity and emissivity of liquid water is close to unity across the full range of wavelength from UV to microwaves. The emissivity of solid water (ice) varies from about 0.3 (reflecting much light and other radiation) to about 0.8 depending on its crystal structure. The effect of clouds particularly in the tropic determines and controls much of the weather which in turn determines climate.

  20. Gus

    Honestly, Svensmark should get Nobel Prize for his explanation of climate change. It’s well enough confirmed by palaeoclimate data, and by CERN measurements.

    1. SebastianH

      You mean these CERN measurements? https://home.cern/about/updates/2016/10/cloud-experiment-sharpens-climate-predictions

      “The results also show that ionisation of the atmosphere by cosmic rays accounts for nearly one-third of all particles formed, although small changes in cosmic rays over the solar cycle do not affect aerosols enough to influence today’s polluted climate significantly.”

      That’s no confirmation …

  21. Pochas

    Excellent work. But leaves aside the ozone layer. The amount of ozone depends on the Ultraviolet component of sunlight. Recent intrusions of cold arctic air into the continents may be caused by aberrant behavior of the polar vortex. What is the cause? I speculate it is due to formation of an arctic inversion layer (strong UV) when the sun is active, with a stable polar vortex, and a weakening of the inversion when the sun is quiet, leading to the cold air incursions we have been seeing. This behavior may contribute to the cooling of land areas of the northern hemisphere, in addition to the cloud effects discussed by Dr. Fleming.

  22. Ulric Lyons

    “The relationship of when a solar Grand Minima occurs always involves these four giant planets in their relationship with the Sun”

    Solar cycles, including solar minima, grand or otherwise, are finely ordered by Earth and Venus in combination with Jupiter and Uranus, and Jupiter and Neptune during a solar minimum. Configurations of the Jovian bodies only have nothing to do with solar minima.

    “The length of a sunspot cycle (LSC) is an indicator of the Sun’s eruptional activity.”

    The shortest sunspot cycles occur during longer solar minima, because the Jupiter-Earth-Venus triplet return faster to Neptune than they do with Uranus because Uranus orbits faster than Neptune.

  23. Das klägliche Versagen der IPCC-Klimamodelle – Die Sonne bestimmt Wetter und Klima, nicht das lebensnotwendige CO2! – wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung

    […] Ex-NOAA Climate Scientist: ‘No Role Of CO2 In Any Significant Change Of The Earth’s Climate’ […]

  24. #GrandSolarMinimum: Planetary Positions Determine Grand Solar Minima – Infinite Unknown

    […] – Ex-NOAA Climate Scientist: ‘No Role Of CO2 In Any Significant Change Of The Earth’s Climate’: […]

  25. silver 7

    I don’t understand how anyone can say that the science is settled, or that there is 99.9% agreement on AGW (David Pakman) after reading these articles and comments. And no one addresses the concern that .04 of .1% of the atmosphere cannot be the main driver of world climate.

    1. SebastianH

      If you really try to argue that something can’t be the driver of the current warming (not world climate) because of the small concentration, you’ve already lost the argument.

      Never undererstimated small things.

      @Kenneth: it’s not a belief, you can easily disprove a theory by bringing up just one example where it doesn’t work. So far … nothing. What you can’t do is actually proving that a theory (in physics) is correct. The popular skeptics argument that it can’t be correct unless there is proof is just a troll attempt.

Leave a Reply