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.
“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.”
“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, 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.”
“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.”
“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
37 responses to “The List Grows – Now 85 Scientific Papers Assert CO2 Has A Minuscule Effect On The Climate”
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.
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.
The last time you wrote something about there not being any plausible explanation for climate change other than CO2, there were substantive replies…but either you didn’t see the responses or you decided not to reply to them. Here, again, is the response to your statement above:
You also commented recently that the CO2 greenhouse effect is rooted in “established physics”. There were replies to that too…but nothing from you in response:
Perhaps you should check back after you post a comment and engage in a conversation rather than commenting and then leaving it at that. There are, by the way, several other examples of when you have posted a comment…and then left without engaging the responses.
I presume that you are referring to my comment on 2 December at 4.15 a.m. where I wrote: “Nobody has, as yet, come up with an even vaguely plausible alternative or supplementary explanation for the temperature changes that we have actually seen. Such an additional explanation is badly needed.”
Your own response to this suggested that cloud cover was an alternative explanation. As it happens, I had already written on 26 November at 8.42 p.m.: “Temperature pre ~1970 is very dependent on cloud cover and possibly, to a lesser extent, humidity.” Actually, if you look at cloud cover in detail, you will find that whereas it gives a reasonable explanation for some of the short term fluctuations in temperature it does not show much of a correlation in so far as the longer term trends are concerned. In fact, according to my analysis, the covariance is only about 7%.
Seasons are also important. In summer, increased cloud cover leads to reduced temperatures whereas, in winter, it leads to increased ones. The overall effect is small, with summer normally, but not always, prevailing over winter insofar as annual temperatures are concerned.
It is also worth noting that annual cloud cover varies by much more in neighbouring locations than annual temperatures do.
These are the reasons why I do not regard cloud cover as a plausible explanation for the longer term changes.
Another “explanation” offered was that of Lorenz. This is not really an explanation at all, since it makes no predictions. It is simply an example of the well known effect that in chaotic systems there will be a number of metastable states and transitions between one and another can occur quite quickly and last for long periods of time. Weather may well be a quasi chaotic system but longer term temperature changes do not look like transitions between metastable states.
I hope that this helps.
I’m not sure what you might be referring to with the “long-term” data, as we have very little to dubiously reliable cloud data that can be traced back to the pre-satellite era. But satellites do indeed provide reliable observations of cloud cover, and the correlation between declining tropical cloud cover and the temperature variations for the last 3-4 decades is quite a bit better than 7% – a figure you provide no source/citation for. (You need to support your claims with evidence here. That’s what skeptics do.)
For example, see the graphical illustration that goes along with the GCR-cloud-climate link (indirectly “forced” by changes in solar activity):
And here’s another from this year: Veretenenko et al., 2018
“In short; there is unlikely to be any significant net warming from the greenhouse effect on any planetary body in the parts of atmospheres which are >10kPa. Instead, it is proposed that the residual temperature difference between the effective temperature and the measured near-surface temperature, is a thermal enhancement caused by gravitationally-induced adiabatic auto compression, powered by convection. A new null hypothesis of global warming or climate change is therefore proposed and argued for; one which does not include any anomalous or net warming from greenhouse gases in the tropospheric atmospheres of any planetary body. … A decline of 6% in lower tropospheric tropical cloud cover (15°N–15°S) occurred 1984 – 2000 according to the international satellite cloud climatology project’s data . These years are contained well with the 1975-2000 period of warming, and an observed 0.4°C rise in global temperatures occurred over the same period. Scatter diagrams  of low cloud cover vs global surface air temperatures indicate that a 1% fall in low clouds equates to a 0.07°C rise in surface air temperatures – hence this change in cloudiness accounts for the entire observed rise in global temperatures during the 1975-2000 period, leaving no room for any effect from growing greenhouse gases.”
“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 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.”
And why would this undermine the contention that more/less solar heat is absorbed by the oceans on decadal scales? We’re not talking about annual, or monthly variations here. We’re talking about decades-long trends.
You’re welcome to your opinions, but I disagree that cloud cover changes are not even plausible. Do you regard CO2 as more plausible an explanation for the heating and cooling of the oceans than decadal-scale low cloud cover changes? I assume so, as you call it “established physics”. So you are invited to provide the real-world mechanism whereby changes in atmospheric CO2 heat up the oceans. What real-world experiment tells us how much change (physically measured) is caused in water body heat by varying the CO2 concentration above it in volumes of ppmv? Let’s see what you have. Cite your sources, not your own calculated results.
Latest from Judith Curry
Projected catastrophes due to humans and their evil CO2 are utter nonsense.
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!
Yes there is, solar activity has been declining for decades now …
Solar activity has been declining since the early 2000s, as the Modern Grand Maximum drew to a close.
Solar activity since the 1700s: https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Total-Solar-Irradiance-1700-2013-Yndestad-and-Solheim-2017.jpg
Yndestad and Solheim, 2017
“Periods with few sunspots are associated with low solar activity and cold climate periods. Periods with many sunspots are associated with high solar activity and warm climate periods. … Deterministic models based on the stationary periods confirm the results through a close relation to known long solar minima since 1000 A.D. and suggest a modern maximum period from 1940 to 2015. The conclusion is that the activity level of the Modern Maximum (1940–2000) is a relatively rare event, with the previous similarly high levels of solar activity observed 4 and 8 millennia ago (Usoskin et al., 2003).”
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.
Same old broken record.
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.
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.
‘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.
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.
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.
I don’t disagree and have used a similar analogy using fly screen wire where one in every 2500 openings is a CO2 molecule.
Nice. Thanks Scott!
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.
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 😉
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.
I’ll assume you’re of the belief that the Berkeley Earth data set is not afflicted with artificial warming via infilling and cool-the-past-and-warm-the-present “adjustments”…which is why you’ve claimed in the past that the instrumental record does not align with paleo proxy data, which shows that the post-1970s warming peak is of the same magnitude as the 1930s-1940s peak warmth. Without spending too much time on your lack of skepticism in this regard, here’s a global-scale instrumental data set (450 temperature stations) unaffected by urbanization and artificial heat/adjustments that clearly shows an oscillation in global surface temperature…that closely aligns with the proxy data.
But, as I’ve explained before, when it comes to global warming, we need to focus on ocean heat — where 90-some percent of the overall heat changes in the Earth system occur. The surface temperature data found in instrumental records accounts for just 1% of the heat changes (according to the IPCC), so when it comes to explaining the reasons for “global warming”, it’s in the oceans where we need to look.
Graphs of ocean heat content do not support the contention that the last few decades are unusual when it comes to heat changes.
The near-surface (0-20 m) heat changes were far larger during the 1910-1945 period than anytime since: http://icdc.cen.uni-hamburg.de/uploads/pics/hc_fig2.jpeg
The whole-ocean heat content change was just 0.02 C for the 1994-2013 period: Wunsch, 2018
And when looking at the millennial-scale, modern heat changes are barely above detectability: https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/rosenthal-2013-figure-2c-annotated.png
How does one “prove” that a hypothetical conceptualization, rooted in assumption and modeling, is wrong? Wouldn’t we first need to establish (i.e., prove) that something is physically real (i.e., empirical, observed) before setting about to prove that it isn’t?
It’s your belief that the CO2 greenhouse effect heats up the oceans, hence your allegiance to the standard 1.1 K no-feedback climate sensitivity model for doubled 300 ppm CO2. So, since you believe this is “established physics”, let me ask you about the real-world physical measurements. By how much (measurements) does a body of water heat up when the air above it has its CO2 concentration increased by 0.00001 (10 ppm)? Do you have an answer to this question? Is it 0.000001 K? 0.00001 K? 0.1 K? What do you have? I ask because we need these results to derive actual measurements of climate sensitivity. All you are relying upon is modeled assumptions, not “established physics”. Do you disagree? If so, let’s see those measurements.
RE – The Berkeley Earth data laundering.
More from Tony Heller
Muller claims that he was a skeptic, and that working on this project converted him to being a warmist. That’s like claiming the Clintons used to be Consrvatives, but only after Trump was elected did they become Democrats.
If I can’t trust these guys to tell the truth on their resumes, how can I trust them to tell the truth about temperatures?
I’d also very much like my reply to this to appear … do I need to repost it because you found it inconvenient that the comment strategies of climate skeptics get some exposure?
Looks like you’ll need to re-post if the comment you’re thinking of hasn’t appeared. Some comments have certain words that automatically send them to the junk bin(s) which means they don’t show up as needing to be moderated – they just vanish from your view and then are discarded with the rest of the trash when quickly clearing each bin out. It happens to everyone.
On the other hand, if the comment contained ad homs, bigotry, or utilized words deemed unacceptable (as your comments too often do), it could have been deleted for those reasons.
Contrary to your apparent beliefs, your comments are not deleted because they contain such brilliant rebuttals that we find them inconvenient or because they expose our “strategies”. You flatter yourself.
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.
Indeed Al D, you are correct. Also I note that termites are rather good at producing these life enhancing gases.
Some education in other fields would have helped you to realize that tiny amounts can have great effects easily.
Define “in time”. If it is 100 years after mankind stopped emitting CO2, then you are technically right.
Unless termite CO2 output has increased massively in recent times, they are not responsible for the CO2 concentration increase.
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.
Exactly, so why are you vaguely suggesting that they play are role?
It’s mainly climate skeptics imagination that shows this.
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? 😉
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.
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.
As they say “4,000-year-old termite mounds found in Brazil are visible from space”
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!
[…] by K. Richard, December 10, 2018 in NoTricksZone […]
You automatically assume and convince yourself that the skeptics are wrong and you’re right. Not how an enlightening discussion works.
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.
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 —
So, CO2 and seawater values not quite as straightforward as originally thought.
[…] 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) […]
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2018/12/10/the-list-grows-now-85-scientific-papers-assert-co2-has-a-minuscul… […]
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.