The List Grows – Now 85 Scientific Papers Assert CO2 Has A Minuscule Effect On The Climate

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

Within the last few years, over 30 papers have been added to our compilation of scientific papers that find the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 concentration changes is low to negligible.

Link: 85 Scientific Papers – Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity

A few of the papers published in 2018 that were added to the list are provided below.


Fleming, 2018

“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. … Many believe and/or support the notion that the Earth’s atmosphere is a ‘greenhouse’ with CO2 as the primary “greenhouse” gas warming Earth. That this concept seems acceptable is understandable—the modern heating of the Earth’s atmosphere began at the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850. The industrial revolution took hold about the same time. It would be natural to believe that these two events could be the reason for the rise in temperature. There is now a much clearer picture of an alternative reason for why the Earth’s surface temperature has risen since 1850.”
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.”

Smirnov, 2018  

From this, it follows for the change of the global temperature as a result at doubling of the concentration of atmospheric CO2 molecules [is] ∆T = (0.4 ± 0.1) K, where the error accounts for the accuracy of used values, whereas the result depends on processes included in the above scheme. Indeed, we assume the atmospheric and Earth’s albedo, as well as another interaction of solar radiation with the atmosphere and Earth, to be unvaried in the course of the change of the concentration of CO2 molecules, and also the content of atmospheric water is conserved. Because anthropogenic fluxes of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulted from combustion of fossil fuels is about 5% [Kaufman, 2007], the contribution of the human activity to ECS (the temperature change as a result of doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide amount) is ∆T = 0.02 K, i.e. injections of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of combustion of fossil fuels is not important for the greenhouse effect.”

Davis et al., 2018

“[T]he contemporary global warming increase of ~0.8 °C recorded since 1850 has been attributed widely to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. Recent research has shown, however, that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has been decoupled from global temperature for the last 425 million years [Davis, 2017owing to well-established diminishing returns in marginal radiative forcing (ΔRF) as atmospheric CO2 concentration increases. Marginal forcing of temperature from increasing CO2 emissions declined by half from 1850 to 1980, and by nearly two-thirds from 1850 to 1999 [Davis, 2017]. Changes in atmospheric CO2 therefore affect global temperature weakly at most.”

Holmes, 2018 

“Calculate for a doubling of CO2 from the pre-industrial level of 0.03% [300 ppm]: [formula found in text] Calculated temperature after doubling of CO2 to 0.06% [600 ppm] ≈ 288.11 K. Climate sensitivity to CO2 is ≈ 288.14 – 288.11 ≈ – 0.03 K.”
“The change would in fact be extremely small and difficult to estimate exactly, but would be of the order -0.03°C. That is, a hundred times smaller than the ‘likely’ climate sensitivity of 3°C cited in the IPCC’s reports, and also probably of the opposite sign [cooling]. Even that small number would likely be a maximum change, since if fossil fuels are burned to create the emitted CO2, then atmospheric O2 will also be consumed, reducing that gas in the atmosphere – and offsetting any temperature change generated by the extra CO2. This climate sensitivity is already so low that it would be impossible to detect or measure in the real atmosphere, even before any allowance is made for the consumption of atmospheric O2.”

Allmendinger, 2018

Knowledge about thermal radiation of the atmosphere is rich in hypotheses and theories but poor in empiric evidence. Thereby, the Stefan-Boltzmann relation is of central importance in atmosphere physics, and holds the status of a natural law. However, its empirical foundation is little, tracing back to experiments made by Dulong and Petit two hundred years ago. … For studying the pressure dependency, the experiments were carried out at locations with different altitudes. For the so-called atmospheric emission constant A an approximate value of 22 Wm−2 bar−1 K−0.5 was found. In the non-steady-state, the total thermal emission power of the soil is given by the difference between its blackbody radiation and the counter-radiation of the atmosphere. This relation explains to a considerable part the fact that on mountains the atmospheric temperature is lower than on lowlands, in spite of the enhanced sunlight intensity. Thereto, the so-called greenhouse gases such as carbon-dioxide do not have any influence.”
“While a theoretical calculation of such an absorption coefficient was not feasible, at least a principal explanation may be given: There is no good reason to assume that absorbed IR-radiation will be entirely transformed into heat. Instead, it is conceivable that a part of it is re-emitted, i.e. to say in all directions, before having induced a temperature enhancement.”
“This approach contradicts in many ways the conventional greenhouse theory: Firstly, the boundary processes at the Earth surface and at the lowest layer of the atmosphere are predominant, while the conventional greenhouse theory regards the whole atmosphere; and secondly—even more crucial—the radiation budget is solely determined by the air conditions of the atmosphere such as pressure and temperature while so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ such as carbon-dioxide do not have the slightest influence on the climate. Besides, the atmosphere cannot really be compared to a greenhouse, not least due to the absence of a glass-roof which absorbs IR-radiation, and which inhibits considerable air convection.”

Laubereau and Iglev, 2018

“Using a simple 1-dimensional model the global warming of the surface is computed that is generated by the increase of GHG and the albedo change. A modest effect by the GHG of 0.08 K is calculated for the period 1880 to 1955 with a further increase by 0.18 K for 1955 to 2015. A larger contribution of 0.55 ± 0.05 K is estimated for the melting of polar sea ice (MSI) in the latter period, i.e. it notably exceeds that of the GHG and may be compared with the observed global temperature rise of 1.0 ± 0.1 K during the past 60 years.”
“In conclusion we wish to say that we have performed a study of the infrared properties of carbon dioxide, methane, dinitrogen-oxide and water to estimate their contribution to the global warming in 1880 – 2015. Our results suggest that the IR properties of the CO2 are responsible for ~ 20% of the mean temperature increase of the surface [during 1880-2015] and notably less for CH4 and N2O.”

Liu and Chen, 2018

“CO2 and temperature records at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and other observation stations show that the correlation between CO2 and temperature is not significant. These stations are located away from big cities, and in various latitudes and hemispheres. But the correlation is significant in global mean data. Over the last five decades, CO2 has grown at an accelerating rate with no corresponding rise in temperature in the stations. This discrepancy indicates that CO2 probably is not the driving force of temperature change globally but only locally(mainly in big cities). We suggest that the Earth’s atmospheric concentration of CO2 is too low to drive global temperature change.”
“Our empirical perception of the global warming record is due to the urban heat island effect: temperature rises in areas with rising population density and rising industrial activity. This effect mainly occurs in the areas with high population and intense human activities, and is not representative of global warming. Regions far from cities, such as the Mauna Loa highland, show no evident warming trend. The global monthly mean temperature calculated by record data, widely used by academic researchers, shows R~2=0.765, a high degree of correlation with CO2. However, the R~2 shows much less significance (mean R~2=0.024) if calculated by each record for 188 selected stations over the world. This test suggests that the inflated high correlation between CO2 and temperature (mean R~2=0.765-0.024=0.741) used in reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was very likely produced during data correction and processing. This untrue global monthly mean temperature has created a picture: human emission drives global warming.”

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

37 responses to “The List Grows – Now 85 Scientific Papers Assert CO2 Has A Minuscule Effect On The Climate”

  1. David

    solar cycles are expected to regulate earth climate.
    What causes solar cycles? Planet orbits it is assumed.
    What causes our climate ? Ocean streams.
    Now, suppose that planet orbits influence earth’s ocean streams. Solar cycles and earth climate being both the result of the same forces.
    This is just a suggestion.

    1. Skeptik

      There is a major problem facing us if we wish to ascribe global warming to solar effects. The plot of total solar irradiation against time shows a very pronounced eleven year cycle/oscillation. The amplitude of this oscillation completely dwarfs any longer term changes that there might be – at least to the mark 1 eyeball. Given this, if the sun were largely responsible for climate change, we would expect this oscillation to be strongly reflected in any plot of temperature versus time. Yet, for all practical purposes, it is virtually undetectable therein.

      This is not all that surprising. Standard radiation physics would indicate that the changes in TSI would have to be a substantial multiple of what they actually are in order to have any noticeable effect on the earth’s temperature. Moreover, if we apply an eleven year smoothing to the TSI data we find that the sun’s energy output has been decreasing from soon after 1976 when it was first measured. This is in contrast to temperatures which appear to have risen.

      Prior to 1976, we have to rely on proxies or models – which is hardly satisfactory. If we use Lockwood’s geomagnetic proxy for TSI for the period 1910-1999 and apply an eleven year smoothing both to this and global temperatures, we do, indeed, find that the covariance is of the order of 67%. At first sight, this looks encouraging. However a more detailed analysis shows that the cooling in the middle of this period starts some thirteen years before TSI starts to decline. Moreover, when is does decline, it does so at a faster rate than the cooling when compared to what we would expect from the warming periods.

      I would suggest that we have to look elsewhere.

      1. tom0mason

        Skeptik,

        You say “This is not all that surprising. Standard radiation physics would indicate that the changes in TSI would have to be a substantial multiple of what they actually are in order to have any noticeable effect on the earth’s temperature. Moreover, if we apply an eleven year smoothing to the TSI data we find that the sun’s energy output …”

        No, you are wrong!
        Now go away and find out why, instead of regurgitating the same BS. The same old BS that you groak-up has been effectively countered before.
        150 years to get about 1°C of ‘warming’ — that is the current rate of solar mediated warming. Unless people take an unrealistic and ridiculously short time span to judge the solar warming rate it is neither alarming nor unusual.

        If you didn’t get it then to put it easily for you, there is NO major problem facing anyone in ascribing global warming to solar effects. History dear boy, history!

        1. SebastianH

          If you didn’t get it then to put it easily for you, there is NO major problem facing anyone in ascribing global warming to solar effects. History dear boy, history!

          Yes there is, solar activity has been declining for decades now …

          1. tom0mason

            Sorry SebastianH but I fail to see how you have anything logical or rational to (ever) offer, lost as you are in the cAGW paradigm.

          2. P Gosselin

            Same old broken record.

      2. Yonason

        If the “CO2 Theory” is all we have, then we have nothing. I.e., if there is not alternative to lies, we are NOT obligated to believe the lies, because “that’s the best we have.”

        Here’s a recent piece that elaborates on that and related themes.
        https://edberry.com/blog/climate-politics/climate-deception/the-fourth-national-climate-assessment-violates-scientific-integrity/

        In particular, it highlights the fact that there is an alternative and that is good science, of which we have a fair amount and none if it has anything to do with CO2. It also shows what we are up against, which is a global cadre of billionaires who want to pilfer your resources and run your life.

        Ending on a political note, he makes clear what is the real threat to the future of mankind. It’s not CO2, but human greed and lust for power.

    2. Don from OZ

      ‘What causes solar cycles? Planet orbits it is assumed.’
      David – Planet orbits may have some influence but the heat emissions from old SOL varies as evidenced by sunspots or lack thereof.

  2. Scott

    Excellent work again Kenneth.

    This gets to the root of the problem. to me there are two issues

    1. how much if anything does CO2 effect the temperature and the important point How? because there are two streams of conversations on this
    a. back radiation from CO2 blocking outgoing LWIR
    b. CO2 raises the emission height for heat to escape to the top of atmosphere thereby increasing the heat below TOA.

    2. how much of the increase in CO2 is due to man

    I struggle with the back radiation concept as CO2 IR is virtually no different from H20 except for some small minor bands. plus any reflected LWIR would struggle to warm anything below and just delay the escape to TOA.

    The raising the emission level is dependant upon using a uniform level of water vapour across the globe which we know is incorrect. Oculars site shows the calculations for outgoing radiation differences between high and low water content.

    As for the increases in CO2 due to man I struggle to reconcile the CERES satellite data that shows such a massive increase in CO2 in the NH in Autumn over the forests resulting in the increase in CO2 peak in the Keeling curve in May. there are no CO2 hot spots over any population centre anywhere.

    Then after this massive Natual increase in CO2 abates the CO2 level drops again from the Keeling curve. So man’s emmisions of CO2 cannot overcome the CO2 sinks in operation and CO2 levels drop.

    Yes I understand the carbon isotope ratio is changing but why is this attributed to petroleum products only?

    Add this to the fact that CO2 has been in the thousands of ppm in the past and we have seen no evidence of this hypothesised effect.

    The argument that is used to counter this is the Sun was weaker back then, (something I find funny that the sun can be weaker and effect the climate, but now its stronger there is no effect)

    This last point brings me to a question I hope you can answer. somewhere on either here, WUWT or maybe Delingpole, someone provided the calculation for the actual CO2 level given the decreased incoming W/m2 and worked out that the equivalent level of CO2 would be around 500 odd ppm versus the current 400 ppm and in no way accounts for thousands of ppm we had in the past.

    unfortunately I never grabbed the equation and would love it if anyone could point me in the right direction. Thanks.

  3. Yonason

    @Scott

    As to your… 1.b. – “b. CO2 raises the emission height for heat to escape to the top of atmosphere thereby increasing the heat below TOA.”

    …I’m going to go out on a limb here and explain why I think that’s a nothing burger. If anyone KNOWS that I am wrong and why, please explain. I will not even read comments by trolls, not even for a laugh. So, here’s how I see it.
    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

    That might be true if all the IR had to pass through CO2 to be emitted to space. But that can’t be the case. To much IR, and not enough CO2.

    Imagine a window that’s completely transparent. Now, add opaque spots sparsely but uniformly over the surface of the window. When light shines on the window the photons that don’t fall on the spots pass through. Those that fall on the spots are absorbed, but as soon as one does, the spot becomes transparent to other photons and they now pass through. There are a lot more photons than spots. The colder the window is, the longer before the spot becomes opaque again, and so the more time light has to pass through the window. The brighter the light, the less effect the spots can have.

    CO2 can only stop the light it absorbs, and only after emitting can it then stop another photon by absorbing it. There are far more IR photons than CO2 can absorb, so most should pass unaffected. Furthermore, the colder the CO2, not only the slower it will emit, but the slower it will absorb, and so the longer it will remain transparent and the more IR will pass through from below. The slower emission is cancelled by the longer transparency, so the effect cancels itself out at low photon flux, but is completely irrelevant for high flux rates, ultimately stopping only a fixed but very tiny fraction of the IR. At high fluxes CO2 will be almost always in a transparent state.
    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

    To be sure, one should try to do some accounting of photons, molecules, and times involved. I haven’t done that, but if someone wants to show me I’m wrong (or correct), that would be the best way to do it.

    Anyway, it looks to me like the height of the atmosphere isn’t a problem, and that it’s just something else to distract us with.

    1. Scott

      Hi Yonason,

      I don’t disagree and have used a similar analogy using fly screen wire where one in every 2500 openings is a CO2 molecule.

      1. Yonason

        Nice. Thanks Scott!

    2. SebastianH

      I will not even read comments by trolls, not even for a laugh. So, here’s how I see it.

      I am guessing you mean me by this remark. Well Yonason, and this is part of the problem. You guys shut yourself out of every serious discussion. Imagining stuff at one time that contradicts what you guys claimed in another instance.

      Anyway …

      CO2 can only stop the light it absorbs, and only after emitting can it then stop another photon by absorbing it. There are far more IR photons than CO2 can absorb, so most should pass unaffected.

      Well, the common climate skeptic lore is that the existing amount of CO2 already absorbs all IR in the respective wavelength so more CO2 would not have any effect. Isn’t that kind of contradicting what you are trying to tell people here?

      And you know what your fellow skeptic Kenneth thinks about analogies, especially when they don’t apply specifically to the problem 😉

  4. Skeptik

    This is a sort of composite response to the various objections raised to my points above. First, though, an observation. According to both the Berkeley Earth and the Cowtan & Way series, more than half of all the warming that we have seen globally since 1850 has occurred since 1979: 59.6% for BEST and 62.6% for C&W. This makes it unlikely that any factor or factors which have made a substantial contribution to the warming prior to around 1979 would not also make a substantial contribution afterwards. To a considerable extent, therefore we can restrict much of our analysis to this relatively short period.

    This is particularly relevant in the case of the alleged role of the sun. It is a bit silly to claim that this period is ridiculously short and unrealistic. As I argue above, the satellite measurements of TSI as made by the NOAA do not correlate well with any of the temperature series. This makes comments like “150 years to produce 1°C of warming” somewhat irrelevant. Ex cathedra statements about my knowledge of radiation physics and that “history” shows me to be wrong are also rather stupid and insulting. Nobody really knows what happened to the sun’s output prior to 1976 and, prior to 1900, all that we have is models supplemented by sunspot counts.

    Turning to long term data and the effect of clouds. My analysis is largely based on the period 1978 – 2016 and makes use of the cloud cover data from CRU and compares it with CRUTem4. This is of course only land data in each case, but it seems to me that this is more likely to give a quick response than data that includes the oceans with their enormous thermal capacity and hence potentially very long term time lags. My figure of 7% for the covariance was based upon global data, whereas the supposed rebuttal appears to be based on data from the tropics. Just to give a flavour on a more local scale, here are the covariances between cloud cover and temperatures for five different 5X5 degree grid locations all at the same latitude as London, i.e. 50-55° and cover Northern Europe and Northern Asia. For the longitude -5 to 0°, the covariance is only 1.20%; for the longitude range 25-30 it is 9.57%; for the range 55-60 it is 1.39%; for 85-90 it is 0.01% and for 115-120 it is 7.64%. All the above figures are based on standard linear regression techniques. The reasons for this poor fit are twofold. First, the effect of clouds depends upon the seasons, (as I stated above). This means that annual temperatures are less affected than seasonal ones. Second the correlation coefficients for cloud trends are very much less than for temperature trends. For the cells described above, the maximum correlation coefficient for the temperature trend is 0.656 and the lowest is 0.356, whereas for cloud cover trends the figures are =-o.324 and -0.180.

    Actually whereas the seasonal variation is much less in the tropics than in more Northerly latitudes, so is the amount of warming observed. This produces two countervailing effects.

    I would have thought that the reason why local consistency in temperatures compared with local inconsistencies in cloud cover rather argue against the cloud cover theory were rather self-evident. If there is a good correlation between temperatures in neighbouring areas but a poor correlation between cloud cover, it is very unlikely that there would be a good correlation between cloud cover and temperatures.

    As for “established physics”, so far as I am aware none of the of the physics involved in GHG theory is exactly new or proven to be wrong. Of course, like all theories GHG theory is an abstraction from reality which is much more complicated. However, in an idealised windless, waterless world I calculate that a change in CO2 concentration from 300 ppm to 600 ppm would raise global temperatures by 1.07°C. This is somewhat over-precise not least because of the approximations necessary to make the maths of the theory tractable. Nevertheless it is very close to what other physicists have concluded.

    If I have any readers left at this point, I would like to remind them that on 2nd December 2018 at 4.15 am wrote: “If CO2 were almost entirely responsible for the warming, we would expect to see a reasonable positive correlation between the rate of warming and the rate of increase in the log of the CO2 concentration. What we see, however, is the exact opposite.” This should put to rest any idea that I am arguing for CO2 having a strong effect too.

    Finally, I don’t want to get into a citation battle with anyone. Appeals to authority have no role in science. I prefer my own calculations because I know their provenance.

    I don’t want to browbeat anyone with my supposed “authority” either. However, I do have a long list of peer reviewed papers in theoretical physics which have been published in the world’s most prestigious scientific journals. Climate science has been my retirement hobby for most of the past ten years.

  5. Al D

    CO2 is perhaps a little over 0.04% of our atmosphere and methane is a little under 0.002% of our atmosphere. Who needs anything beyond an elementary math education and common sense to realize such tiny amounts can’t possibly have a significant warming effect in an open ecosphere. I don’t believe man can possibly produce more CO2 than synthetic bacteria and plants can easily reduce in time. When you consider the enormous amount of CO2 cyanobacteria alone consumed in the earth’s early atmosphere, you begin to realize how easy it will be for photosynthetic life to consume all the CO2 industry can create. Methane has a lifespan of a decade once released and most of it is produced naturally.

    1. tom0mason

      Indeed Al D, you are correct. Also I note that termites are rather good at producing these life enhancing gases.

    2. SebastianH

      Who needs anything beyond an elementary math education and common sense to realize such tiny amounts can’t possibly have a significant warming effect in an open ecosphere

      Some education in other fields would have helped you to realize that tiny amounts can have great effects easily.

      I don’t believe man can possibly produce more CO2 than synthetic bacteria and plants can easily reduce in time.

      Define “in time”. If it is 100 years after mankind stopped emitting CO2, then you are technically right.

      @termites:
      Unless termite CO2 output has increased massively in recent times, they are not responsible for the CO2 concentration increase.

      1. tom0mason

        You SebastianH, as usual, are pontificating your authoritative ignorance.
        Nobody has any evidence as to whether termite populations have increased or decreased since 1950, or even 1850.

        Also it’s not just elementary math (basic arithmetic) that shows CO2 is not this planet’s climate driver, so do observations– CO2 levels are still climbing while ‘global temperature’ falls.

        1. SebastianH

          Nobody has any evidence as to whether termite populations have increased or decreased since 1950, or even 1850.

          Exactly, so why are you vaguely suggesting that they play are role?

          Also it’s not just elementary math (basic arithmetic) that shows CO2 is not this planet’s climate driver

          It’s mainly climate skeptics imagination that shows this.

          so do observations– CO2 levels are still climbing while ‘global temperature’ falls.

          Seriously, that’s your observation that tell you CO2 is not the driver of global warming? And you tell me to not have anything logical or rational to offer? 😉

          1. tom0mason

            More of your twisted ignorance from you SebastianH?

            You said “@termites:
            Unless termite CO2 output has increased massively in recent times, they are not responsible for the CO2 concentration increase.”

            Which I take to mean you believe termite are not responsible for the recent (last 100 years) CO2 concentration increase.
            I say you are wrong, as you are arguing from ignorance! You have no evidence that termites have or have not, increased CO2 concentrations. It is just another of your illogical assumption “…they are not responsible for the CO2 concentration increase.”

            Same twisted ignorance from the cAGW advocate again.
            SebastianH statements carry no logic, no sense just wild parroting of a popular but failed supposition that CO2 causes climate change.

          2. tom0mason

            Finally found it again just for you SebastianH!

            And here’s some termites the UN-IPCC have not factored into there calculations as they’ve only just been found.

            https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-11/cp-4tm111318.php

            As they say “4,000-year-old termite mounds found in Brazil are visible from space”

            Researchers reporting in Current Biology on November 19 have found that a vast array of regularly spaced, still-inhabited termite mounds in northeastern Brazil–covering an area the size of Great Britain–are up to about 4,000 years old.

            The mounds, which are easily visible on Google Earth, are not nests. Rather, they are the result of the insects’ slow and steady excavation of a network of interconnected underground tunnels. The termites’ activities over thousands of years has resulted in huge quantities of soil deposited in approximately 200 million cone-shaped mounds, each about 2.5 meters tall and 9 meters across.

            “These mounds were formed by a single termite species that excavated a massive network of tunnels to allow them to access dead leaves to eat safely and directly from the forest floor,” says Stephen Martin of the University of Salford in the UK. “The amount of soil excavated is over 10 cubic kilometers, equivalent to 4,000 great pyramids of Giza, and represents one of the biggest structures built by a single insect species.”

            So SebastianH, do you still believe that the rest of the natural world has no more surprises up it’s sleeve, or is it all still just human’s fault and that CO2 controls the weather/climate system.
            A cooling globe says you’re wrong again SebastianH!

  6. The List Grows – Now 85 Scientific Papers Assert CO2 Has A Minuscule Effect On The Climate | Un hobby...

    […] by K. Richard, December 10, 2018 in NoTricksZone […]

  7. P Gosselin

    You automatically assume and convince yourself that the skeptics are wrong and you’re right. Not how an enlightening discussion works.

  8. Warren Wankelman

    Great to have this info for more proof that the global warming caused by CO2 emissions is the biggest hoax ever used by governments and leftists to fleece the citizens of their money.

  9. tom0mason

    Kenneth Richards,

    You may be interested to read this paper called Air‐Sea CO2 Flux Estimates in Stratified Arctic Coastal Waters: How Wrong Can We Be? from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018GL080099

    Where they say —

    Plain‐Language Summary

    Large quantities of sea‐ice melt and river runoff in the Arctic Ocean form thin layers of fresh water at the surface that are isolated from deeper water. However, standard methods of sampling surface waters from ships draw water from 2‐7 m below the surface, which can cause errors in air‐sea CO2 fluxes calculated from measured seawater CO2 concentrations. We have quantified that potential error for waters of the coastal Arctic Ocean by measuring CO2 concentrations in samples collected near the surface using different methods from both large ships and small boats. We found that large errors could result from shipboard sampling at some stations. In particular, measuring the CO2 concentration from automated instruments that draw water from below the ship’s hull systematically overestimated atmospheric CO2 absorption by the ocean.

    So, CO2 and seawater values not quite as straightforward as originally thought.

  10. The Broken Greenhouse – why CO2 is a minor player in global climate | wryheat

    […] In the graph, the numbers shown in parentheses are the estimated temperature increase from quadrupling carbon dioxide concentration. Many climate models use much higher values for the sensitivity. That’s why most climate models run much hotter than measured temperatures. Recent research suggests that sensitivity could be as low as -0.03°C, i.e., cooling. (Source) […]

  11. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #340 | Watts Up With That?
  12. John Andrews

    From Holmes, “Calculate for a doubling of CO2 from the pre-industrial level of 0.03% [300 ppm]: [formula found in text] Calculated temperature after doubling of CO2 to 0.06% [600 ppm] ≈ 288.11 K. Climate sensitivity to CO2 is ≈ 288.14 – 288.11 ≈ – 0.03 K.”

    It looks like the math is wrong here in the original document. The resultant temp and the original temp are reversed in the equation making the sign of the result wrong. The correct sign is used in the final result.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close