It’s been acknowledged by mainstream scientists for years now that at certain locations on planet Earth, rising carbon dioxide levels cause cooling. It’s now been determined that rising CO2 also causes “negligible” cooling (or warming) depending on the season.
A few years ago a seminal paper (Schmithüsen et al., 2015) was published in Geophysical Research Letters that indicated raising the concentration of CO2 causes a negative greenhouse effect, or cooling, in central Antarctica.
The forcing from the CO2 greenhouse effect ranges from -2.9 W/m² to +1 W/m², and the forcing for the Arctic (central Greenland) is said to be “comparably weak”.
Image Source: Schmithüsen et al., 2015
Now scientists have found that CO2 – to the extent that it has a “negligible” influence on temperature – causes the climate to cool from winter to summer and to warm from summer to winter.
Image Source: Lightfoot and Mamer, 2018
For the most part, CO2 varies due to temperature and water vapour level changes. The variance can range from 403 ppm during the drier winter to 377 ppm during the summer.
Image Source: Lightfoot and Mamer, 2018
Similar seasonal CO2 variability can be found in pristine cave environments.
A paper published earlier this year (Al-Manmi et al., 2019) also finds CO2 rises to 756 ppm in winter but drops to 484 ppm in summer.
So observations indicate higher CO2 concentrations are linked to cooler temperatures, not warmer temperatures.
Image Source: Al-Manmi et al., 2019
Nowhere do these observations support the paradigm that says real-world temperature (and water vapour) changes are driven by variations in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
If anything, it’s the other way around.
This seems to be consistent with the cross-correlation between CO2 concentration (measured at Mauna Loa) and global temperatures (UAH V6), presented by Prof. Murry Salby :
https://youtu.be/2ROw_cDKwc0?t=560
In this diagram, there is a positive correlation between T and CO2 concentration (which exhibits a lag some 10 months on temperature variations). So the assumption that T is a driver of CO2 concentrations can be made (for example, the Henry’s law applies to Oceans. See Murry Salby’s presentation for further explanation).
Conversely, CO2 is not a driver of temperatures :
– indeed, according to the left part of the diagram, first there is a positive correlation (the first months) and then there is a negative correlation, with a max negative correlation for a lag of some 16 months between CO2 concentration and T. The algebric sum of the aeras in the left part of the diagram (the integral of the X correlation for a negative lag) is near zero, slightly negative. This means that there is NO positive correlation between CO2 and T, and if any, a very weak negative one.
Thus, from this observation, with respect to the left part of the X-correlation diagram :
– any assumption that in the actual Earth’s atmosphere the CO2 is a positive driver of temperatures is baseless, since this hypothesis is contradicted by data which shows NO positive correlation from CO2 towards T,
– therefore, any theory based on this assumption is necessarily wrong or incomplete,
– if any assumption had to be done, it would be that CO2 may act as a (very weak) negative feedback with respect to T variations.
Imagine you are driving a car at constant speed. The distance driven increases. Now you slow down. Clearly you velocity got smaller, but you distance driven is still increasing. No positive correlation, right? So one is not influencing the other, right?
Your understanding of physics shows.
But the ability to pick the correct analogy lacks big time.
Try again.
Two can play at this game.
Imagine a troll diving a car towards a cliff. Then he slows down, but doesn’t turn around. How many times does he have to drive off the cliff before it dawns on him that he’s not only (1) traveling in the wrong direction, but that (2) slowing down without turning around isn’t enough to avert disaster.
HINT – He’s a troll, and trolls never ______ .
You try again. The analogy is correct. If not, explain why you think it isn’t.
@Yonason: thanks for explaining your situation, I guess.
Nice try.
Explain why it would!
The data shows that CO2 increase goes along with a decrease in temperature.
In your analogy it would amount of going backwards.
@ John Brown
The troll has a history. It goes something like this…
https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-08-13
Well NASA have shown that increasing CO2 increasing heat losses in the Upper Atmosphere.
Now it looks like they are saying any Heat Gain is cancelled by a Heat Loss.
CO2 is not the Climate control knob.
👍!!
There is polar amplification, except at the pole where there isn’t… funny how they can explain/rationalize those things post hoc, but cannot predict them…
Also their rationalization in one of their articles was rather hilarious, explaining how a cold system can pseudo-warm a warm one, but a warm system cannot pseudo-warm a cool one.
I think you don’t understanding what is meant by negative GHE and polar amplification. Otherwise you wouldn’t equate those two terms.
Can you link to that one? I think you are misinterpreting whatever was written there as well …
@Kenneth:
It’s funny how you still use this in a way that demonstrates you have no clue about the physics of the GHE.
Well, the paper is a very weird one. How exactly can backradiation act as a cooling effect in Hamburg? You never have the constellation that sometimes happens in Antarctica. Backradiation is always positive year round. It is equally puzzling that they are comparing backradiation warming (which depends on temperature as well as concentration of GHGs) with the CO2 GHE alone. Somehow suggesting that the temperature at any point on this planet is directly influences by the local CO2 concentration.
It’s strange. And you fell for it because you still have no clue and just read about something you feel sounds right because you agree with it 😉 So you repeat it here.
Well, one doesn’t have to search long to find out who H. Douglas Lightfood is and what publications he authored. Of course he would come to conclusions like that with “just applying the ideal gas laws” 😉
Have a nice weekend and good to know you haven’t changed a bit, Kenneth. Still spreading disinformation and imagining a retired mechanical engineer can never be wrong.
P.S.: You wrote about this guy 2 years ago and people adamantly defended this author back then. Remember? https://notrickszone.com/2017/07/31/new-paper-co2-has-negligible-influence-on-earths-temperature/
So lets get this straight:
SebH when you say:
It is equally puzzling that they are comparing backradiation warming (which depends on temperature as well as concentration of GHGs) with the CO2 GHE alone. Somehow suggesting that the temperature at any point on this planet is directly influences by the local CO2 concentration.
Are you suggesting that this is not so? How equally puzzling as a statement from your side.
Are you finally waking up to reality by ignoring the mantras and actually thinking logically? Its seems so.
Since a long time you argue here, that CO2 concentration does indeed have a direct impact on temperature on any location of this planet. By now, being puzzled over the same argument, you turn my believe of what you know onto its head. There is maybe still hope with you after all.
In this context I do not understand your comment about the ideal gas law. There is gas in the atmosphere, right? The gas laws can up to the degree of were reality disagrees be used in the atmosphere, right? So where is your argument that it should not?
John Brown,
Why is that puzzling to you? Are you suggesting more backradiation when it’s warm (e.g. in Summer) should somehow be connected to more CO2 in the air?
Nope. Where did I argue that? Or where is anyone arguing that this would be how the influence of CO2 works affects temperature?
Of course you don’t. Just search for other publications of Mr. Lightfood. E.g. this beauty that got withdrawn: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969719310952
He is a retired mechanical engineer with a strange aversion against CO2 being what it is. That’s all.
Tell me then,
if CO2 is not the control knob as you say, why do you constantly argue that it is?
Are you seriously telling me now that CO2 has no impact on temperature? But yet it still has some ominous effect on temperature?
What is it? Explain! No impact, no direct impact but it still has one. It is the control knob? Which one is it and why?
And please ask yourself if you are not being dishonest in your argumentation.
I paper by a scientist withdrawn or not published, particularly in the very political space of climate science, is the argument of people who do neither understand the science nor the politics.
If you was to point out at least one false statement, it would show your understanding. Otherwise it is a non-argument.
And I am asking you again:
Do you think that the ideal gas law can NOT be applied to the atmosphere and why?
@Kenneth:
It’s funny how you still use this in a way that demonstrates you have no clue about the physics of the GHE.
Well, the paper is a very weird one. How exactly can backradiation act as a cooling effect in Hamburg? You never have the constellation that sometimes happens in Antarctica. Backradiation is always positive year round. It is equally puzzling that they are comparing backradiation warming (which depends on temperature as well as concentration of GHGs) with the CO2 GHE alone. Somehow suggesting that the temperature at any point on this planet is directly influences by the local CO2 concentration.
It’s strange. And you fell for it because you still have no clue and just read about something you feel sounds right because you agree with it 😉 So you repeat it here.
Well, one doesn’t have to search long to find out who H. Douglas Lightfood is and what publications he authored. Of course he would come to conclusions like that with “just applying the ideal gas laws” 😉
Have a nice weekend and good to know you haven’t changed a bit, Kenneth. Still spreading disinformation and imagining a retired mechanical engineer can never be wrong.
P.S.: You wrote about this guy 2 years ago and people adamantly defended this author back then. Remember? https://notrickszone.com/2017/07/31/new-paper-co2-has-negligible-influence-on-earths-temperature/
Nobody with any sense could possibly think that atmospheric CO2 at a mere 0.04% of the atmosphere (by volume) controls the climate. Only a half-wit could think such nonsense is how the real world works.
It doesn’t because it is just a supposition without real world evidence.
If you would have “any sense” you would recognize what controls what. The real world obeys the laws of physics. Your wishful thinking does not …
The Earth has been gradually cooling since the peak temperature 6,000 years ago during the Holocene Climate Optimum. Greenland ice core and many lake and ocean sediment core studies have established this irrefutably. Tree lines were farther north and at higher altitudes then, and coral mounds evidence that sea level was up to five feet higher. Atmospheric CO2 then was 285 ppm yet all objective measures indicate a much warmer Earth than now. The present obsession on the variations of a trace gas that comprises 0.04% of the atmosphere are ludicrous in the context of climate change history. Much ado about nothing.
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2019/11/14/scientists-co2-causes-cooling-when-not-causing-warming-and-its-a… […]
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2019/11/14/scientists-co2-causes-cooling-when-not-causing-warming-and-its-a… […]
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2019/11/14/scientists-co2-causes-cooling-when-not-causing-warming-and-its-a… […]