Ph.D. Climate Scientist: Modern Warming Natural…CO2 Changes Affect Climate ‘Weakly At Most’

New Paper Spurns Anthropogenic CO2 Warming,

Unveils Natural Explanation For Climate Change

University of California (Santa Cruz) Professor W. Jackson Davis (Ph.D.), President of the Environmental Studies Institute, has published a new paper with colleagues in the journal Climate that thoroughly undermines the conceptualization of a dominant role for anthropogenic CO2 in the global warming since 1850.

Davis points out that CO2 and global temperature have been “decoupled” throughout much of geological history, and that the amplification of CO2 concentrations yields increasingly smaller radiative effects, meaning that the higher the CO2 concentration rises, the weaker its influence.

He even suggests that the reason why the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis (it has not reached theoretical status) has been popularized is because there are reputed to be no convincing alternative explanations.

But Davis and two other University of California (SC) scientists have proposed a newly-termed alternative explanation for the 0.8°C global temperature change since 1850.  The Antarctic Centennial Oscillation (ACO) has been identified as varying in sync with solar cycles (orbital), and correlates with glacial-interglacial transitions, the 1,500-year abrupt, global-scale temperature changes (Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles), and, as the name suggests, century-scale fluctuations in global temperature.

Consequently, as the authors conclude, properties of the ACO “can explain the current global warming signal”.

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, 2017] owing 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.

The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis has been embraced partly because “…there is no convincing alternative explanation” [USGCRP, 2017] (p. 12).

The ACO provides a possible alternative explanation in the form of a natural climate cycle that arises in Antarctica, propagates northward to influence global temperature, and peaks on a predictable centennial timetable.


We report a previously-unexplored natural temperature cycle recorded in ice cores from Antarctica—the Antarctic Centennial Oscillation (ACO)—that has oscillated for at least the last 226 millennia. Here we document the properties of the ACO and provide an initial assessment of its role in global climate. We analyzed open-source databases of stable isotopes of oxygen and hydrogen as proxies for paleo-temperatures. We find that centennial-scale spectral peaks from temperature-proxy records at Vostok over the last 10,000 years occur at the same frequencies (±2.4%) in three other paleoclimate records from drill sites distributed widely across the East Antarctic Plateau (EAP), and >98% of individual ACOs evaluated at Vostok match 1:1 with homologous cycles at the other three EAP drill sites and conversely.

The period and amplitude of ACOs oscillate in phase with glacial cycles and related surface insolation associated with planetary orbital forces. We conclude that the ACO: encompasses at least the EAP; is the proximate source of D-O oscillations in the Northern Hemisphere; therefore affects global temperature; propagates with increased velocity as temperature increases; doubled in intensity over geologic time; is modulated by global temperature variations associated with planetary orbital cycles; and is the probable paleoclimate precursor of the contemporary Antarctic Oscillation (AAO). Properties of the ACO/AAO are capable of explaining the current global warming signal.

40 responses to “Ph.D. Climate Scientist: Modern Warming Natural…CO2 Changes Affect Climate ‘Weakly At Most’”

  1. Paul Stevens

    Last paragraph of the conclusion they state that, even though CO2 has nothing to do with global warming, the close correlation between CO2 spikes and mass extinctions (possibly from ocean acidification) suggests that humanity should pursue ways of limiting growth of CO2 release. I wondered how they managed to get their paper published.

    1. SebastianH

      Interesting that you guys (Kenneth below) see mentions of CO2 as a problem or calling the warming what it is as necessary in todays scientific world to get published and those phrases not really being the opinion of those scientists.

      That borders on conspiracy thinking … and you wonder why nobody takes you serious?

      1. AndyG55

        “CO2 as a problem or calling the warming what it is”

        CO2 is ONLY a problem because there needs to be more of it.

        And we do call the warming what it is.

        Totally natural, and highly beneficial.

        It is the continued lies and mistruth of the AGW Agenda, and its loudly spoken one-world totalitarianism that is the problem.

      2. AndyG55

        “and you wonder why nobody takes you serious?”

        You really are hurting, aren’t you, seb

        You know you are irrelevant.

  2. Bitter&twisted

    So not much room left for the CO2 “thermostat”.
    That is a surprise (not)!
    Now let’s listen to the ad-hominems and liberal head explosions.

  3. dennisambler

    “in the global warming since 1850.”

    Shouldn’t that be “the recovery from the Little Ice Age since 1850”

  4. MIG

    I’m always curious about the reputation of any study’s authors, so I went to the Environmental Studies Institute website and found this interesting tidbit regarding their AGW stance:

    “ESI analyzed the same paleoclimate records that formed the evidentiary basis of Vice President and Nobel Laureate Al Gore’s award-winning documentary “Inconvenient Truth” and discovered that the relation between carbon dioxide and global warming is more nuanced than previously thought.”

    They say further study is warranted. Should be interesting.

  5. CO2isLife

    Understand the Oceans, Understand the Climate, NO CO2 Needed
    I’m not a climate “scientist,” never have been, never will be, but countless times on this blog I’ve pointed out that to understand the climate you must understand the oceans. The oceans are the thermostat of the earth, they are by far the largest heat sinks, and contain greater than 2,000x the energy trapped in … Continue reading

  6. Steve

    99% of Warmists will not read any scientific paper that does not support their position.

    1. Ed Caryl

      Too true!

    2. tom0mason

      Which is why it is so important that sites like this, and a growing number of others, keep showing these scientific papers. Papers that without Pierre’s and Kenneth’s hard work would not see the light of day and be drowned out by the nonsense proposed by the likes of the ever litigious Michael (hide the decline) Mann, Kevin (we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty) Trenberth, Phil (Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.)Jones, or ever quotable nonsense of James (runaway greenhouse gas effect, boiling oceans, NY will drown by 20whenever, etc.) Hansen, and of course the ready chorus of noisy “me too” ‘idiots with a Doctorate’ offering nothing to the advancement of science.
      Thank-you Pierre and Kenneth for keep questioning the science, keep questioning the misanthropes message.

      1. Steve

        Hear Hear !!

    3. Curious George

      It is only 97%.

  7. SebastianH

    Davis points out that CO2 and global temperature have been “decoupled” throughout much of geological history

    By citing a paper written by the author himself which has only this one citation. Hmm … pretty weak when you consider that it is well established that CO2 concentration varied with temperature. Something which one would expect considering the physics at the ocean/atmosphere interface regarding CO2 concentrations.

    and that the amplification of CO2 concentrations yields increasingly smaller radiative effects, meaning that the higher the CO2 concentration rises, the weaker its influence.

    And the author ignores that it is a cumulative effect. When you get a RF of x W/m² from 280 to 340 ppm and y W/m² (with y being smaller than x) from 340 ppm to 400 ppm, those x W/m² don’t just disappear. And your intepretation is lacking too … “diminishing returns in marginal radiative forcing” don’t mean that the influence gets weaker as the concentration rises. But maybe that was just poor wording on your side?

    He even suggests that the reason why the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis (it has not reached theoretical status) has been popularized is because there are reputed to be no convincing alternative explanations.

    Which is a weak argumnent. There also has not been a better explanation than the big bang having started it all. You can try find a better explanation, but you can’t argue that it is wrong because there has been not better explanation yet.

    Also, the physics are sound. Mankind discovered the properties of certain gases a long time ago. Closing your eyes and imagining a different physical reality where every change is just a periodic one that always has been there and ignoring the one big change in the last few decades, is pretty ignorant and not what I would expect of someone who calls himself/herself skeptical 😉

    Kenneth, I’d very much like to know how do you discover these papers? You can’t possible be reading every paper out there. So do you have some favorite authors? Search terms for paper titles that need to match? And then, what is the process of determining if it would make a case for AGW not being real? What’s the minimum barrier?

  8. SebastianH

    One comment vanished …

    1. AndyG55

      Only room for one total void.

      Your comments are EMPTY baseless rhetoric, ALWAYS, seb.

      And as you well know, there is absolutely NO empirical evidence that CO2 causes any warming WHAT-SO-EVER, in our convective atmosphere.

  9. Don

    I can only speak for myself but I am becoming bored and occasionally distracted by the meaningless ramblings from Seb.

    Would it be possible to have a vote on whether we should continue to be distracted in this way?

    1. Steve

      Don, simply do as I do and do not read the SebH ramblings because he is suffering from Idee fixe.
      No amount of pointing out the false notion of AGW will change his opinion.
      He is of course entitled to an opinion, right or wrong.
      He reminds me of the anti-Vaccers,( no evidence of harm) and alternative health groups for which there is absolutely no evidence of efficacy.

      As a side note : as I look from my back deck in suburban Bondi, I can count 19 trees. All are looking green,strong and healthy.

  10. BruceC

    Why is it that the ramblings of ‘SebastianH’ remind me of David Appell?

    Have the two ever been seen in the same room together?

    1. yonason (from my cell phone)

      If they were ever in the same head together, they would have PLENTY of room to spare.

  11. The Antarctic Centennial Oscillation: A Natural Paleoclimate Cycle in the Southern Hemisphere That Influences Global Temperature | Un hobby...

    […] See also here […]

  12. Frederick Colbourne

    When I was an undergraduate studying physical geography I was taught a theory of mountain building that I believed was non-physical. The theory was that isostacy could produce mountains.

    When I began graduate studies, I started using plate movements to interpret landforms but had to be very cautious about how I did so. The reason was that anyone who hoped to teach at a North American University had to conceal his/her interest in continental mobility (aka continental drift).

    By the time I had shifted to economic geography most scientists had accepted the theory of plate tectonics. That scientific revolution occurred in about 5 years.

    My experience in the 1950s with continental mobility is what enables me to reject the anthropogenic global-warming hypothesis, which I view as based mostly on confirmation bias.

    However, my position is that what needs to be explored as an alternative hypothesis is the role of water vapour in cloud formation that leads to variable Bond albedo.

    The leading hypothesis is that of Svensmark and others who attribute variable cloud formation to galactic cosmic rays (actually particles).

    When will Voyager 1 and 2 cross the termination shock?
    Izmodenov, Gloeckler, and Malama, Geophysical Research Letters, 2003.

    [1] Our Solar System moves through a warm (∼6,500 K), partly ionized local interstellar cloud (LIC) with a relative speed of ∼26 km/s. The solar wind interacts with the LIC to form a cavity around the Sun called the heliosphere. The solar wind meets the interstellar charged component at the heliopause, where solar wind pressure balances the pressure of the LIC. Before reaching the heliopause, the supersonic solar wind is decelerated at an extended shock wave, the heliospheric termination shock (TS). The two Voyager spacecraft are cruising away from the Sun and approaching the termination shock. Here we present predictions of when the Voyagers will encounter the termination shock by calculating the position of the TS using a numerical multi-component model of the heliospheric interface and improved measurements of interstellar H atoms. Interstellar atoms penetrate into the heliosphere where they are ionized and detected as pickup ions by the SWICS instrument on Ulysses. We conclude that the most probable crossing of the termination shock by Voyager 1 will occur between 2007 and 2012. End of abstract.

    The spacecraft have already met the LIC which the solar system is passing through and has been passing through for an undetermined time.

    Shaviv and Veizer, Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?, 2003

    Further discussion and explanation of the physics

    Jasper Kirkby designed the CLOUD experiment at CERN to test the hypothesis that GPR particles are capable of forming clumps large enough to act as cloud condensation nuclei.

  13. Interested

    There are so many holes in the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) hypothesis I’m constantly amazed it has persisted for so long.
    I’m sure it wouldn’t have done so without the complicity of the media and the successful dumbing down of our children in math/science over the last few decades.

    Based on his inability to understand the diminishing warming effect of additional CO2 in the atmosphere, SebastianH is likely a product of this dumbing down of the populace.
    The numerical series he uses in his argument, “1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + …..”, does indeed trend higher and higher as long as you keep adding terms. However, in the real world, you can’t keep on adding manmade CO2 to the atmosphere indefinitely because there simply isn’t enough fossil fuel available.

    Scientists argue over something called Climate Sensitivity, by which they mean how much the global temperature rises for each doubling of CO2 in the air.
    Figures anywhere from 0.5 deg.C to 6.0 deg.C have been bandied about – with CAGW alarmists tending toward the higher end.
    Most rational analysts (at least from my reading of the subject) seem to be settling on a figure between 1 and 1.5 deg.C. The Michael Manns and Kevin Trenberths of this world keep telling us it’s double that amount. For some reason no one has yet explained, a temperature rise of 2 deg.C is touted as disastrous, although for most of the last 600 million years Earth’s temperature has averaged around 6 deg.C warmer than today.
    Doesn’t this strike ANYONE in the media as somewhat odd?!

    But if we look at the actual data, we get a much better idea of the practicalities of the situation.
    According to most sources, Earth’s temperature has risen 0.8 deg.C since the middle of the 19th century, i.e. during essentially all the years in which humans have burned coal, oil, and gas. [Remember though that this number derives from surface temperature measurements which have been ‘smoothed’, homogenised’ and otherwise manipulated. Many believe these adjustments have disingenuously exaggerated the apparent temperature increase.]

    During the same time, atmospheric CO2 has risen from 280 parts per million (ppm) to 400 ppm – a rise of 120 ppm, or 43%
    According to most sources, again, we are approaching ‘peak oil’, a point at which production will tail off rapidly. Gas supplies will follow, and coal too.

    So, even if we extract all the fossil fuels we can reach over the next 100 years, it’s just not conceivable we will be able to double atmospheric CO2 to 800 ppm. That would require us to add over 3 times more CO2 to the air than we’ve (purportedly) managed to add in the last 168 years!
    And even if we managed to do it, against all logic, it’s doubtful that Climate Sensitivity would cause temperatures to rise by more than 1.5 deg.C anyhow!

    And don’t forget, Earth’s land plants evolved 400 million years ago, when there were over 2000 ppm CO2 in our atmosphere. Since then, Earth’s photosynthesising vegetation has enjoyed CO2 levels averaging 1500 ppm – nearly 4 times what we have today.
    In fact, horticulturists routinely raise the CO2 in their greenhouses to around 1500 ppm because the crops LOVE IT and thrive on it.

    So you can see, that even at 800 ppm (impossible anyway), the air would have much less CO2 in it than at almost any other period in our planet’s history, and only half what green plants prefer.

    The logic is inescapable. We don’t need less CO2; we need more.

    1. AndyG55

      ““1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + …..”, does indeed trend higher and higher as long as you keep adding terms”

      but the trend gets more and more shallow

      The sequence actually has a limiting sum of 2

  14. Energy & Environmental Newsletter: January 29, 2018 - Master Resource

    […] Study: Spurns Anthropogenic CO2 Warming […]

  15. Energy And Environmental Newsletter – January 29th 2018 | PA Pundits - International

    […] Study: Spurns Anthropogenic CO2 Warming […]

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