Study Recalculates New Greenhouse Effect Values And Sharply Minimizes CO2’s Contribution And Climate Sensitivity

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

Another study finds CO2’s greenhouse effect contribution and climate sensitivity are much smaller than claimed by the IPCC and proponents of anthropogenic global warming.

Ollila (2019) reconfigures the “consensus”-derived greenhouse effect radiation values and finds (a) LW absorption only adds 45% to Earth’s present atmospheric greenhouse effect, (b) water vapor dominates (76.4%) the total greenhouse effect whereas CO2’s contribution is minimal (7.3%), and (c) CO2 climate sensitivity is just 0.6°C upon doubling.

Image Source: Ollila (2019)

The reconfiguration eliminates the “physical contradiction” of having a 155.6 W/m² create an energy flux of 345.6 W/m² by rejecting the claim that the entire longwave energy flux is from greenhouse gases.

Further, CO2’s total temperature contribution to the greenhouse effect is reduced from 7.2°C to 2.4°C, which better aligns with the climate sensitivity (doubled CO2) estimate of 0.6°C.

Image Source: Ollila (2019)
Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

13 responses to “Study Recalculates New Greenhouse Effect Values And Sharply Minimizes CO2’s Contribution And Climate Sensitivity”

  1. Philip Meyer

    The IPCC models have been pretty accurate: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL064888

    More support can be found at philipsphilosophy.wordpress.com.

    1. Chris Hanley

      Ross McKitrick looks at Hausfather et al. and concludes that it is not informative as an exercise in climate model evaluation:
      “It is, however, informative with regards to past IPCC emission/concentration projections and shows that the IPCC has for a long time been relying on exaggerated forecasts of global greenhouse gas emissions”.
      https://judithcurry.com/2020/01/17/explaining-the-discrepancies-between-hausfather-et-al-2019-and-lewiscurry-2018/

  2. Jeffrey Morton

    The IPCC models have been pretty accurate? Surely you’re kidding!

  3. JimK

    Oh Really?
    I must have missed the report that the New York freeway that Hansen predicted to be under water by now is actually under water.

    1. DocSiders

      Yeah…they’ve been using amphibious taxi’s the last 10 years on the west side.

  4. Zoe Phin
  5. Gerald the Mole

    I have just been reading a book, published in 1962, by the then head of the UK Met Office. Regarding the green house effect, water vapour is discussed but CO2 hardly gets a mention.

  6. DocSiders

    Claims from all sides are questionable (Re: Climate Model Skill) because the level of *uncertainty* in the cloud effect is still an order of magnitude greater than the entire anthropogenic CO2 effect.

    Using data over the limited 32 year time frame of reliable data, the warming effect of Anthro CO2 is from 0.6 C° to 1.4 C° per doubling (but uncertainty is still too high…not enough time yet). But the claimed Hydrological positive multiplier 3X’s effect is likely way too high…and could actually be negative!

    But so far, actual data indicates that the median IPCC projections are 200%-300% too high.

    And the AMDO has begun turning negative over the last decade which is strongly predictive of increasing Arctic Ice Extents and declining GAT’s (citations everywhere…common knowledge until 1980 when government funding started incentivizing Activism for AGW results).

    Science funding sources almost always determines the results…and it’s obvious that Most Climate Scientists are willing Activists whose “income levels and income security” = f(results)…and that’s all amplified by their Socialist political leanings.

  7. Rob

    It’s been known for years that CO2 is a bit player as a greenhouse gas,https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html and that water vapor is the major greenhouse gas. The way they’ve tricked people since the global warming scam began was to remove water vapor as a greenhouse gas.

  8. DocSiders

    Claims from all sides are questionable (Re: Climate Model Skill) because the level of *uncertainty* in the cloud effect is still an order of magnitude greater than the entire anthropogenic CO2 effect.

    Using data over the limited 32 year time frame of reliable data, the warming effect of Anthro CO2 is from 0.6 C° to 1.4 C° per doubling (but uncertainty is still too high…not enough time yet). But the claimed Hydrological positive multiplier 3X’s effect is likely way too high…and could actually be negative!

    But so far, actual data indicates that the median IPCC projections are 200%-300% too high.

    And the AMDO has begun turning negative over the last decade which is strongly predictive of increasing Arctic Ice Extents and declining GAT’s (citations everywhere…common knowledge until 1980 when government funding started incentivizing Activism for AGW results).

    Science funding sources almost always determines the results…and it’s obvious that Most Climate Scientists are willing Activists whose “income levels and income security” = f(results)…and that’s all amplified by their Socialist political leanings.

  9. Weekly Local weather and Power Information Roundup #397 – Daily News
  10. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #397 | Watts Up With That?

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