Physics Professor: CO2’s 0.5°C Impact After Rising To 700 ppm Is So Negligible It’s ‘Effectively Unmeasurable’

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

A new study (Stallinga, 2020) assesses the climate sensitivity to rising CO2 concentrations is just 0.0014°C per ppm. 

Dr. Peter Stallinga has published a comprehensive analysis of the Earth’s greenhouse effect. He finds an inconsequential role for CO2.

Doubling CO2 from 350 to 700 ppm yields a warming of less than 0.5°C (500 mK).

Feedbacks to warming are likely negative, as adding CO2 may only serve to speed up natural return-to-equilibrium processes.

As for absorption-reemission perturbation from CO2, “there is nothing CO2 would add to the current heat balance in the atmosphere.”

Image Source: Stallinga, 2020

A portion of Dr. Stallinga’s paper worth highlighting – which he mentions only in passing – refers to the early history of the Earth’s greenhouse effect paradigm.

K. Ångström receives little attention as a pioneer of the conceptualization that warming and cooling resul from radiative imbalances within a planetary greenhouse effect.

About 120 years ago, Ångström (1900) contradicted the oft-cited Arrhenius (1896) – the atmospheric physicist referred to by proponents of anthropogenic global warming.

Ångström suggested Earth’s greenhouse effect is already saturated in its current (1900) state, and therefore increasing CO2 will have “no effect whatsoever” on climate (Stallinga, 2020).

Ångström’s conclusions were largely ignored.

Image Source: Arrhenius, 1896 and Stallinga, 2020
Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

29 responses to “Physics Professor: CO2’s 0.5°C Impact After Rising To 700 ppm Is So Negligible It’s ‘Effectively Unmeasurable’”

  1. BobW in NC

    This is rich. Note that a post by Dr. Tim Ball on WUWT recently* showed that water vapor comprised 95% of earth’s greenhouse gasses; CO2 only 4%. Then—of that 4%, only 3.4% CO2 originated from human activity. So, now that its greenhouse effect has been shown to be immeasurable / negligible by Dr. Stalinga in this post, our trivial human contribution is even more meaningless (if that’s possible), despite what politicians scream about.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/01/a-story-of-co2-data-manipulation/ (see last graphic)

    1. drumphish

      400/1000000=.0004, 2-6=-4 exponent.

      0.0004×100=.04 percent CO2 gas rattling around in the atmosphere.

    2. David Appell

      BobW: water vapor is condensable; CO2 is not.

      Do you know what this means?

  2. Physics Professor: CO2’s 0.5°C Impact After Rising To 700 ppm Is So Negligible It’s ‘Effectively Unmeasurable’ — NoTricksZone – Climate- Science.press

    […] über Physics Professor: CO2’s 0.5°C Impact After Rising To 700 ppm Is So Negligible It’s ‘Effectiv… […]

  3. Zoe Phin

    I’m thinking the sensitivity is ZERO for the surface, and almost zero for 2 meters above it.

    https://phzoe.wordpress.com/2020/02/13/measuring-geothermal-a-revolutionary-hypothesis/

    1. David Appell

      Increased downward radiation at the surface from CO2 has been *measured*:

      “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015).
      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

      1. John Brown

        The effect is still Zero!

  4. William Haas

    The initial calculations of the climate sensitivity of CO2 without considering feedbacks, based of radiametric considerations, came up with a maximum value of 1.2 degrees C for a doubling of CO2. A researcher from Japan pointed out that these initial calculations did not take into consideration that the doubling of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere will cause a slight decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere which is a cooling effect. Such a decrease in the dry lapse rate would decrease the climate sensitivity of CO2 by more than a factor of 20, reducing the maximum climate sensitivity of CO2 from 1.2 degrees C to .06 degrees C which is trivial. Then there is the issue of H2O feedback which is actually negative as evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate in the troposphere. So rather then amplifying the climate sensitivity of CO2 by a factor of 3, H2O decreases the climate sensitivity of CO2 by roughly a factor of 3 yielding a climate sensitivity of CO2 of less than .02 degrees C which is too small to measure.

    A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the warming effect of heat trapping so called greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass limits cooling by convection. It is a convective greenhouse effect that is entirely responsible for keeping a real greenhouse warm. There is no radiant greenhouse effect. So to on Earth where instead of glass we have gravity and the heat capacity of the atmosphere. As derived from first principals, the Earth’s convective greenhouse effect keeps the surface of the Earth on average, 33 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be. 33 degrees C is the amount derived from first principals and 33 degrees C is what has been measured. Additional warming caused by an additional radiant greenhouse effect has not been detected on Earth or any where else in the solar system for that matter. With the radiant greenhouse effect being non-existent, 0.0 degrees C would be a good estimate for the climate sensitivity of CO2. If CO2 really affected climate then the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused at least a measurable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened.

    1. David Appell

      Here is your additional warming from the greenhouse effect:

      “Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,” R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004).
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract

  5. John F. Hultquist

    Having determined several years ago that “global warming” wasn’t happening, and isn’t about to happen, and stocks in 2019 had a nice uptick we have chosen 2020 to upgrade our house’s heat holding characteristics. Our house is 100% electric and that cost will continue it rise – people expect to be paid more and material cost goes up too.
    In addition, it is conceivable that the atmosphere will not get to 700ppm CO2. Further, whether it does or doesn’t, I won’t be around to experience it.

    1. Zoe Phin

      Not just distance, but geothermal.

      https://phzoe.wordpress.com/2019/12/25/why-is-venus-so-hot/

      High geothermal => Thick high pressure atmosphere

  6. Al Shelton
  7. New Study shows that impact of carbon dioxide rising to 700 ppm is about 0.5°C | wryheat

    […] reported by Kenneth Richard, NoTricksZone, a new study (Stallinga, 2020 Comprehensive Analytical Study of the Greenhouse Effect of the […]

  8. Study: CO2 Has Negligible Role In Warming, ‘Effectively Unmeasurable’ – Menopausal Mother Nature

    […] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]

  9. Physics Professor: CO2's 0.5°C Impact After Rising To 700 ppm Is So Negligible It's 'Effectively Unmeasurable' | Un hobby...

    […] by P. Stallinga, February 13, 2020 in NoTricksZone […]

  10. Phil Salmon

    The negligible role of CO2 IR interactions in the atmosphere was explained by Einstein in 1917:

    https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/02/16/albert-einstein-said-no-to-co2-radiative-warming-of-the-atmosphere/

    1. David Appell

      What exactly do you think Einstein said about “the negligible role of CO2?”

      Your link quotes a lot, but doesn’t say.

    2. David Appell

      No reply on his blog, either. Censored. Too bad — I am genuinely interested in a reply.

      1. John Brown

        David Appell,

        you are genuinely interested in what? A reply to a post that claims he is censored, but yet the post is there?

        Following the link above you can read what Einstein said:

        “During absorption and emission of radiation there is also present a transfer of momentum to the molecules. This means that just the interaction of radiation and molecules leads to a velocity distribution of the latter. This must surely be the same as the velocity distribution which molecules acquire as the result of their mutual interaction by collisions, that is, it must coincide with the Maxwell distribution. We must require that the mean kinetic energy which a molecule per degree of freedom acquires in a Plank radiation field of temperature T be

        kT / 2

        this must be valid regardless of the nature of the molecules and independent of frequencies which the molecules absorb and emit.”

        Now I have the feeling that this does not compute with your bias but essentially what it says is what was being claimed:

        “The negligible role of CO2 IR interactions in the atmosphere was explained by Einstein in 1917”

        Nobody would expect that everybody understands Einstein.

        You apparently dont!

  11. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #399 | Watts Up With That?
  12. Chaswarnertoo

    Ha! So nice to have my back of the envelope calculations confirmed. Lord Monkton of Brenchley will have to apologise to me, now.
    I stated 0.85 tops, maybe 0.00, chaswarner rocks!

  13. Weekly Local weather and Power Information Roundup #399 – Daily News
  14. David Appell

    Huffman’s calculations assume planetary albedoes are zero.

Leave a Reply

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