Paradigm-Busting New Study Affirms CO2 Doesn’t Drive Climate – Water, Clouds Do

A professor of hydrology from the University of Athens eviscerates the “naïve” paradigm that says the natural state of Earth’s climate is constancy and stability, only changing when an “external agent” (i.e., a rapid increase in fossil fuel emissions ) acts upon it. Instead, (a) water is the main element driving climate and (b) the alleged human contribution to heat exchange is 2100 times smaller than Earth’s natural energy fluxes.

Koutsoyiannis, 2021

Selected key points from Dr. Koutsiannis’ new paper in the journal Water.

1. The “naïve idea” or “wrong perception” that climate is generally constant unless an external agent changes it is the  consequence of the “white noise paradigm” that has “misled climatologists” for the last two centuries. The “linear causality chain of the type: human CO2 emissions → increasing concentration of atmospheric CO2 → increasing temperature → changes in hydrological processes and water balance” does not “correspond to physical reality”.

2. The scientifically vacuous term “climate change” is a political construct designed to suggest climate variability has not occurred until last few centuries and therefore what is occurring in the modern era is unnatural.

3. Water is easily the main element driving Earth’s climate. CO2 is but a tiny bit player by comparison.

• The mass of the ocean is 260 times greater than the mass of the atmosphere and the ocean encapsulates 94% of the Earth’s accumulated heat energy (versus just 1% for the atmosphere). This is why water is the “thermodynamic regulator of climate”.

• Latent heat transfer from the surface to atmosphere is described as “the Earth’s natural locomotive”. The total energy involved in Earth’s hydrological cycle amounts to 1290 ZJ/year. Compare this to just 0.6 ZJ/year for the “human energy production” from greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the “natural locomotive is 2100 times higher than that of the human locomotive”.

• A hypothetical 1/1000ths (1‰) change in the reflecting properties (albedo) of the water formations snow, ice, and clouds elicits an “imbalance” in the Earth’s energy budget of 0.34 W/m². This is effectively equivalent to the energy imbalance necessary to explain the 0.1°C ocean warming (0-2000 m) in the last 50 years (Levitus et al., 2012). Actually , in the last 40 years, albedo-forcing from cloud variability was 10 times greater than the hypothetical 1‰ change.

4. “Another misconception, common in nonexperts, is that atmospheric CO2; is the product of human emissions, while in fact the latter contribute only 3.8% to the global carbon cycle.”

5. “[U]sing reliable instrumental measurements of global T and CO2 concentration covering the time interval 1980–2019, a recent study found that in the relationship of CO2 and temperature, the dominant causality direction is T → CO2, rather than the other way round, despite the latter being the common perception.”

106 responses to “Paradigm-Busting New Study Affirms CO2 Doesn’t Drive Climate – Water, Clouds Do”

  1. EPA Climate Change Indicators – Newsfeed Hasslefree Allsort

    […] Paradigm-Busting New Study Affirms CO2 Doesn’t Drive Climate – Water, Clouds Do […]

  2. tom0mason

    The bottom line is that the fools promulgating the ‘climate change’ and ‘climate crisis’ believe that humans are apart from nature and not a part of nature. From this very basic stupidity these fools believe that whatever happen with the weather and the climate is fundamentally caused by human actions.
    This is the gross error.
    Nature and the chaotic changes that happen are what nature requires to ensure maximal life on the planet. Virtually nothing we do will change this, as humans are not the major lifeforms on the planet, insects and microbes easily outnumber us. If we are stupid enough to exile ourselves to a pathway to extinction then so be it, nature will adjust and survive.

    1. tom0mason

      Believers in AGW also have the deranged idea that this planet is a closed system (Thermally) and from that they say that the energy reaching the earth is in balance (Energy in = Energy out. This is a logical error, this planet is not a closed system this planet is NOT in energy balance!
      This error is compounded by saying that the Sun can only heat the planet surface to -18C on average. This too is a gross error, as in reality the sun warms the equatorial area the most (to over 100°C), and the solar rays warming the planet tapers off as they spread to the poles (solar rays hitting the planet at a more oblique angle as it heads to the poles).
      This large temperature differential (from equatorial to poles), plus all oceanic temperature effect, pressure effects, etc., caused by the the sun, is what sustains the weather and climate variability.
      CO2 can not do these things, CO2 is a ridiculously minor part of weather/climate.

      1. tom0mason

        Yet another thing AGW believers get wrong is the basics of how photons interact. This video explains the very basic difference …
        https://youtu.be/P-RdbLOwlIg

  3. David Allen Appell

    This paper by a nonexpert in a trivial journal means nothing and will be completely ignored by all the experts.

    1. spike55

      That comment from a failed backyard journalist hack, means absolutely nothing and will be ignored by everyone as being a petty tantrum.
      .

      1. Richard Greene

        What is a “backyard journalist”?
        Does that mean the same as “desk jockey”?

    2. P Gosselin

      Strange how “nonexperts” are often the ones who turn out to be correct.

      1. David Appell

        Define “correct,” and prove it here.

        Don’t look so silly on purpose, Pierre. This is about science.

        1. Richard Greene

          You forgot to demand a pal-reviewed article, published in a reputable, legitimate journal … that you happen to agree with. You’re slipping. Must be that drifting Chinese air pollution?

        2. Yonason

          Sorry, David, but us usual you are mistaken. – David Appell

          Too bad you prefer hysteria to science.

          ”The empirical evidence from government agency cannot be more clear: dangerous, rapid global warming from human CO2 is without any merit.”
          https://www.c3headlines.com/2021/04/noaa-debunks-bidens-administration-basis-for-the-green-new-deal-global-temperatures-are-in-decline.html

          Feel free to stop embarrassing yourself anytime, David.

        3. Yonason

          Don’t look so silly on purpose, Pierre. This is about science. – David Appell

          Too bad you prefer hysteria to science, David.

          ”The empirical evidence from government agency cannot be more clear: dangerous, rapid global warming from human CO2 is without any merit.”
          https://www.c3headlines.com/2021/04/noaa-debunks-bidens-administration-basis-for-the-green-new-deal-global-temperatures-are-in-decline.html

          Feel free to stop embarrassing yourself anytime, David.

      2. Richard Greene

        Strange how often no one is right except the person who says “I don’t know”, or “No one knows”

  4. David Appell

    “We illustrate the definition by real-world data, which also exemplify the large climatic variability. Given this variability, the term “climate change” turns out to be scientifically unjustified.”

    So “variability” means “change” isn’t justified.

    So sad.

    1. spike55

      No evidence that change is anything but natural variability.

      So sad the failed journalist hack doesn’t realise that.

      1. Richard Greene

        Please show some respect:
        That’s “MISTER failed journalist hack:”

      2. Yonason

        Extreme temperature records disprove the broken record if climate extremist’s tedious repetitions.
        https://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0263e98ca8b9200b-pi

  5. John Shewchuk

    Agree. My own independent analysis of ice core data shows that Temperature changed before CO2 changed 85% of the time. CO2 is a temperature control knob … http://www.climatecraze.com/pix/FLIP.jpg

    1. David Appell

      1) And the other 15% of the time?

      2) Would the change of temperature been as large without the corresponding change in CO2?

  6. UN NUOVO STUDIO ATTACCA IL PARADIGMA AFFERMANDO CHE LA CO2 NON GUIDA IL CLIMA - MA ACQUA E NUVOLE SI

    […] Fonte: No Tricks Zone […]

  7. Petter Tuvnes

    OK, but what drives water and clouds?
    It’s the sun, see:
    How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing
    debate.
    http://www.raa-journal.org/docs/papers_accepted/2020-0449.pdf

    1. David Appell

      No, it’s not a debate. The climate simply isn’t that sensitive to changes in solar irradiance. It’s a pretty simple calculation, actually, from simple energy balance:

      dT/dS = t/4S = 0.05 K/(W/m2)

      See Chapter 1 of any climate science textbook.

      This is based on energy conservation, which rules above all else.

      1. The Indomitable Snowman, Ph.D.

        Let’s do some real science – as opposed to a propagandist merely quoting other people while possessing no knowledge of how they reached their conclusions (or showing even interest in doing so)…

        “The climate simply isn’t that sensitive to changes in solar irradiance.”

        This amounts to accidentally stumbling across an important truth. The climate simply isn’t that sensitive to changes in ANYTHING. That’s why WATER is the key factor in the Earth’s climate and weather – because it is a water planet, and water is easily taken-up as vapor into the N2/O2 atmosphere; it is the water vapor that is the determining factor in the behavior of the atmosphere, not the gases themselves. By mass, water has a specific heat that is 3200 times that of air.

        (N.b. – When someone makes a claim that “it’s a simple calculation” for a complex, operating-far-from-equilibrium system like the Earth’s atmosphere… well, let’s just say that those of us who actually have some understanding of non-equilibrium thermodynamics get a chuckle.)

        Meanwhile, even if we accept the “simple” equation as written, it implies that a 2% change in solar insolation will induce a 1 degree C (= 1 degree K) change in the Earth’s temperature. If we take the case of regarding only half of areal solar insolation actually making it through the atmosphere to reach the surface, then 2% corresponds to a 0.5 degree change, or 4% to a 1 degree change. Given that we’ve been told that even a half degree change is a huge climate disaster problem, I’d say that that equation indicates that even small changes in solar insolation cause notable changes in the Earth’s temperature. (N.b. – Just for clarity, as stated above, I regard that equation as grossly oversimplified for the system in question – which is extraordinarily complex.)

        Free bonus – As solar insolation is reduced by clouds, that equation clearly states that clouds reduce surface warming.

        1. David Appell

          Meanwhile, even if we accept the “simple” equation as written, it implies that a 2% change in solar insolation will induce a 1 degree C (= 1 degree K) change in the Earth’s temperature.

          When was the last time there was a 2% change in solar irradiance??

          Do you know what that is in W/m2?

          Do you know the change over a solar cycle?

          1. The Indomitable Snowman, Ph.D.

            ** Yawn. **

            I know those things – as was demonstrated by my reported calculations that would not be possible without knowing them.

            But as expected, you missed the point entirely. Notice that I used the word “insolation” rather than “irradiance” – they are two different things, and the former is the one that really matters.

            Since you’re a propagandist, not a scientist, you don’t actually know anything about this stuff and are just regurgitating marketing talking points.

            (And the real issue is that that “equation” is meaningless since it doesn’t have much to do with the real Earth. I’ve tried to explain to you – twice – the behavior of the specific heat of water and its implications, but you won’t listen. The “climate science” types for the most part play around with freshman-level stuff and don’t know anything about things like non-equilibrium thermodynamics. The system is much richer than the laughably-oversimplified stuff that they churn out indicates.)

            I’ll stop there since I’ve had enough entertainment for a Friday morning and need to get back to real work. Better luck next time!

          2. P Gosselin

            David misses a lot of stuff

          3. David Allen Appell

            Snowman:

            Where are your numbers? Your equations? In short, your science.

            You provided nothing but yawns. Just words.

            No substance. If S is the TOA solar irradiance, then trivial energy balance, derived in every climate science textbook Chapter 1, shows that a planet’s brightness temperature T varies as

            dT/dS = T/4S

            For Earth T=255 K, S=1365 W/m2, so dT/dS=0.05 K/(W/m2).

            Tiny.

            That’s the first-order calculation. Refute it.

          4. The Indomitable Snowman, Ph.D.

            ** Double yawn…**

            Let me see if I can stay awake long enough to try to deal with sociopathy trying to impersonate science…

            This is all pretty rich coming from someone who still hasn’t been able to figure out the difference between “irradiance” and “insolation.” I just used the equation *you* threw in and commonly-known (measured) numbers (you claim to know everything, but you don’t seem to know those) to show that in the real world it predicts the exact opposite of what you claimed for it.

            Further, despite being offered numerous chances to provide a source for this “equation” you have not done so. You dumped it out there and made unsupported claims about it. Instead, when anyone has asked questions, you stomp around like some jackbooted gauleiter demanding obedience and concurrence. This is a new form of non-logic “logic” that could rightly be called an attempt to “prove” a contention – “proof by lack of social skills.”

            Anyone who knows anything about complex systems and non-equilibrium thermodynamics knows that the Earth/atmosphere system is a highly-complex, highly inter-coupled non-linear system operating far from equilibrium – and that any distillation to some very simple linear equation is a farce.

            This is why “climate science” has become a laughing-stock that no one with any actual scientific ability (and integrity) takes seriously. As others have pointed out, to make the “models” “work” (that last meaning to produce results that agree with the political agenda), a positive-feedback mechanism involving CO2 and H2O has to be invoked; not only has this “mechanism” never been observed in nature – anyone who knows anything about stability criteria (in any setting) knows that positive feedback is very destabilizing and must be transitory (or the system in question will blow up or similar – which is the transient terminus of any positive feedback situation). Adding it as a long-term aspect is just an unscientific farce – just as pretending that some linear equation will describe a complex non-linear system.

            If you put “equations” into a crackpot paleolithic cult, it’s still a crackpot paleolithic cult.

            Better luck next time!

          5. Yonason

            ”That’s the first-order calculation. Refute it.” – DA

            You set S=1366W/m^2

            According to Nir Shaviv that’s incorrect. It should be Fo~1366W/m2, where S is Fo/4.
            The solution for a Black Body is 0.21W/m^2, and for a Gray Body it’s 0.3W/m^2.

            I’m guessing that you arrived at 0.05W/m^2 by forgetting that…
            The earth isn’t a Black Body, and…
            You set S to 4x its actual value.

            See here for the correct answers, as well as a more in depth analysis of the topic,
            http://www.sciencebits.com/OnClimateSensitivity

        2. tom0mason

          The Indomitable Snowman, some people believe that because they have some mathematical equations and can configure them to give them approximately the answer they believe is required, they have done science.
          NO they haven’t! They have floated a supposition to be tested. They have not checked the math against what is actually happening, what real climate change truly is. They live in cloud delusions 😉 .
          As Professor Richard P Feynman …
          “If it disagrees with experience, the guess is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t matter how beautiful your guess is or how smart you are or what your name is. If it disagrees with experience, it’s wrong.”

    2. tom0mason

      And all those clouds. Clouds the great unknown factor. Of course foolish modelers cover over their ignorance anby just adding any old guess to their computerized virtual and unreal models of this planet to give the result they wish.

      For a better look at clouds see Dr. Henrik Svensmark, DTU space, Lead author of the study and Professor Nir Shaviv video at https://www.climateclips.com/the-cloud-factor/

      1. tom0mason
  8. RoHa

    We must ban water, NOW!

    1. P Gosselin

      We have to dewaterize our lives!

    2. bonbon

      As the old sea shanty goes : ¨Water, water, everywhere, and not a drop to drink¨.

      1. RoHa

        Actually, that’s a line from Coleridge’s “Rime of the Ancient Mariner”.

        https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43997/the-rime-of-the-ancient-mariner-text-of-1834

    3. Yonason

      Put an end to Hydrogen pollution, now!

  9. Petit_Barde

    Beware, the usual suspects will very soon tax the water vapor we breathe out …

  10. Harry Dale Huffman

    I have not read Dr. Koutsiannis’s work presented here (I am, in fact, guessing at the spelling of his name after one brief look at it — and I’m 73 years old now, ho-ho), nor the post above in its entirety.

    Because it is not scientific, to me. You have to be careful, and explicit, in your use of the word “climate”.

    Global climate, as defined solely by the GMST (Global Mean Surface Temperature — the dragon they all want to scare you with) IS in a “natural state…of constancy and stability”. So the good doctor, and this post, has already fallen off the balance beam, and down the drain in my eyes.

    The global temperature records are incompetent, the climate theories are garbage, the “experts” simply are not. The temperature lapse rate of the troposphere rules the GMST, on EVERY PLANET in the system.

    Water and clouds have no more to do with it than does CO2.

    Get that straight, troops. This is war (they, not just the politicians but the institutional scientists, are too corrupt and blinded by their consensus dogmas to do real science), and about time you grokked the fact.

    1. David Appell

      The global temperature records are incompetent

      Why?

      (Bet he has no scientific answer.)

      1. Richard Greene

        The global average temperature statistic’s accuracy is in doubt, before the use of satellite data in 1979.

        Even post-1979 satellite data require some infilling over the poles, but are at least measured in a consistent environment, where the much of the greenhouse effect happens.

        And measuring in the troposphere is not measuring near the planet’s surface.

        All measurement methodologies do report global warming since 1979, with slightly different numbers.

        As we go back in time, the global average temperature numbers become more guessing (infilled, or proxy reconstructions), and less actual measurements.

        Before approximately 1920, there was sparse surface coverage of the Southern Hemisphere.

        Before approximately 1880, the numbers are nearly worthless, due to sparse surface coverage everywhere.

        Before 1880, we usually resort to climate proxy reconstructions, such as ice cores, that are very rough estimates.

        So, out of 4.5 billion years of earth’s history, we have only 42 years of what could be reasonably accurate global average temperature compilations based on real-time measurements.

        That is a very incomplete record.
        Incompetent is not the right word.

      2. Yonason

        “(Bet he has no scientific answer.)” – David Appell

        Dr. Richard Keen does.
        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmc5w2I-FCA

        Also, consider that temperature anomalies are one data set warmists are using to try to frighten us, and then look at them for the US, for which we have some of the best data.
        https://www.c3headlines.com/2021/03/are-us-climate-temps-accelerating-to-new-highs.html

        I love posting this next one on anomalies in context daily temperature change.
        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kwIixU1JyDU

        Anomalies don’t show warming, and even if they did, it would be meaningless noise.

  11. The Indomitable Snowman, Ph.D.

    It should be added that by mass water has a specific heat (heat capacity) that is **3200 times that of “air”** (air being basically a nitrogen/oxygen mix). That’s actually one of the most remarkable properties of water – and one that is a prime reason why weather and climate on this planet are mostly driven by water and water vapor.

  12. David Appell

    If “water is the main element driving climate,” how does he explain the ice ages? Extremely naïve.

    1. Yonason

      Of course there are factors other than water vapor driving long and short term climate variability. It’s just that CO2 by itself ain’t one of ‘em.

      1. David Appell

        So then water *isn’t* the main element driving climate, contrary to this paper’s claims.

        Enough said.

        1. Yonason

          You don’t get to “win” on a semantics technicality.

          Water vapor may be, along with the atmosphere as a whole, the main vehicle for distributing solar energy that drives weather. CO2 is most likely not more than a bit player.

          Here’s more data that show that CO2 has no effect on temperatures.
          https://www.c3headlines.com/2021/03/the-changing-us-maximum-temperatures-existential-threat.html

          1. David Allen Appell

            Water vapor is a feedback on climate change, not a forcing.

            Every climate science textbook says this. Do you know what it means?

          2. Yonason

            Water vapor does cause feedback, but it’s negative,
            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2K1uHvfaek

    2. spike55

      Yes, you are proving just how naïve and ignorant you really are, David.

      Water, in its varied forms has a huge impact on weather and climate.

      Only a scientific illiterate would deny that fact.

      CO2 has no impact whatsoever.

      1. David Appell

        CO2 has no impact whatsoever.

        Do you think the Earth doesn’t emit infrared radiation, or do you think CO2 doesn’t absorb it?

        Answer please.

      2. Richard Greene

        CO@ is one of many possible causes of climate change.

        Lab science suggests CO2 would cause mild, harmless warming of the troposphere.

        Our planet HAS had mild,harmless warming for the past 45 years.

        Unfortunately, warming from natural causes could be exactly the same, so no one can prove CO2 caused x percentage of that ACTUAL warming.

        My own list of the usual suspects of climate change, that I regularly publish on my climate science and energy blog follows.

        I’m sure Mr. Appleman will disagree, but that is expected. If an Appleman comment ever agreed with a skeptic’s comment, we’d know he had hired a ghostwriter … soon to be fired:

        The following variables are known to influence Earth’s climate:

        1) Earth’s orbital and orientation variations

        2) Changes in ocean circulation,
        ENSO and others

        3) Solar Irradiance and activity

        4) Volcanic aerosol emissions

        5) Greenhouse gas emissions

        (6) Land use changes
        (cities growing, crop irrigation, etc.)

        (7) Stochastic variations of a
        complex, non-linear system

        (8) Unknown causes of climate change

        The variables above are not all independent.

        1. David Appell

          Richard GreeneNewDeal wrote:
          Lab science suggests CO2 would cause mild, harmless warming of the troposphere.

          Which lab science is that?

          Cite it. I’d like to download those papers and read them.

          1. Richard Greene

            Infrared gas spectroscopy.

            You know perfectly well the lab experiments do not suggest more than mild, harmless global warming.

            Which is exactly what this planet has had since the mid-1970s.

            The claim of rapid dangerous global warming, not seen in any observations, along with the “invisible” tropics “hot spot”, requires a lot of amplification.

            That amplification was created (OUT OF THIN AIR) by inventing an unproven water vapor positive feedback theory, to roughly triple the expected warming effect of CO2 alone.

            Of course a positive feedback would result in runaway global warming.

            But that never happened, millions or billions of years ago, when the atmospheric CO2 level was higher than today — sometimes much higher.

            If there had been runaway warming in the past, from such a positive feedback, none of us would be here today reading your obnoxious comments.

            So I suppose the water vapor positive feedback suddenly appeared in the 20th century — BY MAGIC — although there is no evidence in global average temperature measurements that we have had the rapid dangerous warming predicted by the imaginary water vapor positive feedback theory.

            Richard Greene
            Bingham Farms, Michigan
            Where we love global warming, and want more!

          2. David Appell

            Richard Greenie, you cited no papers, despite claiming “lab science.”

            I don’t want your interpretations of the science, I want science. When you say “lab experiments do not suggest more than mild, harmless global warming,” I want to know WHICH lab experiments, I want to read those published papers, and I want to know the definition of “mild” and “harmless,” and who made them.

            You’re writing a lot of subjective bullsh!t, which is not science.

        2. David Appell

          Richard GreeneEnergy wrote:
          Our planet HAS had mild,harmless warming for the past 45 years.

          Define “harmless,” and justify why 1 C — 20% of an inverse ice age — is “harmless.” Note that the 5 C warming from the bottom of the last glacial period took about 11,000 years. Compare that rate to today’s rate of warming.

          Unfortunately, warming from natural causes could be exactly the same, so no one can prove CO2 caused x percentage of that ACTUAL warming.

          Explain why climate scientists attribute the warming to human GHGs and not to natural factors. Then explain why they are wrong and why it’s natural factors instead. Show the details.

          1. Richard Greene

            You are an expert at being ob-nox-ious, Mr. Appleman.

            The explanation of how and why 4.5 billion years of climate change from natural causes suddenly ended in the 20th century, and natural causes became “noise” (IPCC, 1995) … and then suddenly man made CO2 became the ‘climate control knob’ … is exactly what has to be explained and proven.

            The ‘CO2 control knob’ is currently asserted, but not proven.

            The actual warming in the past 140 years has been beneficial — harmless at worst — and not unusual in climate history.

            Even if you focus on the past 45 years of global warming.

            Our planet is greening from more CO2 in the air.

            That’s good news.

            The actual warming since the mid-1970s was mainly in the colder higher latitudes, mainly in the coldest six months of the year, and mainly at night (T-MIN).

            That’s good news too.

            Not mainly in the tropics.
            Not mainly in the summer.
            Not mainly in daytime (T-MAX),

            For the global warming has been harmless claim, I have about seven billion witnesses, who have lived with some, or ALL, of the ACTUAL global warming since the 1970s.

            And their real life experiences are FAR more important than what any climate scientist imagines, or any computer game imagines.

            You can live in the fantasy world or rapid dangerous global warming that is always coming in the future, but never shows up.

            A predicted climate crisis has been “coming” for 64 years, since oceanographer Roger Revelle made his prediction, with uncertainty, back when scientists used to have uncertainty.

            I prefer to live in the real world — actual experience living with global warming TRUMPS climate computer games and always wrong predictions of a coming climate crisis that never shows up.

            I used the word “TRUMPS” to make you go berserk — that word tends to have such an effect on leftist climate zealots … like you!

          2. David Allen Appell

            Richard GND, yet again all you have are your opinions, no science, no citations, no literature, no definitions, just your opinions. Nothing to debate.

            Enough said.

  13. David Appell

    “Another misconception, common in nonexperts, is that atmospheric CO2; is the product of human emissions, while in fact the latter contribute only 3.8% to the global carbon cycle.”

    This is a great example of this hydrologist’s naiveite — every climate scientist in the world knows this. So why doesn’t he stop to ask himself what HE doesn’t understand that they do? The answer is that the natural carbon cycle balances and it’s the human emissions that throw it out of balance and lead to the buildup in the atmosphere and ocean. Saying it’s “only 3.8%” says nothing per se, it’s a question of the effect of that imbalance year after year.

    Don’t any of you understand this?

    1. Yonason

      “ – every climate scientist in the world knows this.”

      You do know that the 97% Consensus has been thoroughly debunked, don’t you?
      https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/category/97-scam/

      You do also realize that that CO2 trapped in the oil and coal had to come from somewhere, don’t you? As Patrick Moore explained, it was sequestered from the atmosphere by animals and plants.
      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sXxktLAsBPo

      By burning the fossil fuels, we are merely contributing to restoration of the earth’s CO2 to it’s original state(**). And, if we don’t, the CO2 WILL eventually run out, at which point most or all CO2 and O2 dependent life dies. Is that the kind of “balance” you want to achieve?

      Oh, and after all but perhaps the simplest bacterial life perish, there will still be “climate change.” But I guess that’s OK, since no one would be around to see it.

      (**) – Actually, our current rate of fuel consumption is too pathetically low to accomplish this by itself, so at some point humanity will have to find more efficient methods to get CO2 back into the atmosphere, if we don’t want to become extinct,

      1. David Appell

        By burning the fossil fuels, we are merely contributing to restoration of the earth’s CO2 to it’s original state

        When was Earth’s “original state,” relative to today?

        What was its CO2 level then?

        Why does that matter to us today?

        1. Yonason

          “When was Earth’s “original state,” relative to today?

          What was its CO2 level then?

          Why does that matter to us today?” – D. A.

          Seriously, David? Too lazy to view the Patrick Moore link I provided?

          Here’s another, in which call those questions are answered in Figue 1, if you can understand it.
          http://ecosense.me/ecosense-wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/CO2-Emissions.pdf

          1. David Appell

            You didn’t answer the questions.

            What was Earth’s “original state?”

            What was its CO2 level then?

            Why does that matter today? Do you expect us to live on a molten Earth with noxious gases streaming out of its surface that couldn’t even support single celled life??

          2. Yonason

            I’m sorry you are so easily confused, David. I’m using the Cambrian as the starting point, since we’re concerned about temperature and CO2 effects on life, and that’s where the data tell us complex life began. The rest is all in the links I provided.

      2. David Appell

        I didn’t mention anything about 97% of anything — I’m talking about a trivial piece of climate science knowledge.

        You should be ashamed that YOU don’t know it. How can you not?

        1. Yonason

          “the natural carbon cycle balances and it’s the human emissions that throw it out of balance and lead to the buildup in the atmosphere and ocean.“ -DA

          Humans don’t “throw [CO2] out of balance.” We may(?) shift it to a higher amount, which natural processes will redistribute, … e.g., most will dissolve in the ocean, feeding ocean plants, and some will enter the atmosphere and feed terrestrial plants, to name two sinks. There is no magic CO2 “balance” that humans are capable of disrupting.

          I think Murry Salby has it right, and he isn’t one of those who subscribe to your fiction. As to my comment invoking the false 97% consensus, I was being a bit snarky. Feel free to interpret that sentence as “ just because some, or even most, scientists believe an unproven statement (I.e., that humans are responsible for all the increase) doesn’t make it true.

          I don’t know why CO2 is rising, but I’m convinced it probably isn’t due to humans, nor will it be harmful.

          Speaking of science trivia… You recently asked if anyone could provide experimental evidence for plate tectonics. I did. But, like your belief that most scientists “know” humans are responsible for all the increase in CO2, most scientists prior to 1966 “ knew” that plate tectonics was wrong. Consensus has no place in science.

    2. AC Osborn

      Yes of course, we can see that by the shutdown of most of the worlds society due to the pandemic, oh wait Atmospheric CO2 went up even more.

      1. David Appell

        Yes of course, we can see that by the shutdown of most of the worlds society due to the pandemic, oh wait Atmospheric CO2 went up even more.

        1) Did it? Show that data.

        2) Show the increase in both natural and manmade sources, minus sinks.

        I doubt you can.

        1. Yonason

          Why don’t YOU show that it dropped, instead of just making snide unsupported remarks!

          1. tom0mason

            Snide remarks is all this religious believer has.
            References are missing as he is just an annoying fool offering sophistry, sophistry that pretends it must be a true view of this planet’s climate because he believes his version of a modeled world appears to give the results he wants.
            He is of course completely wrong. Still he does provide some sour amusement.

    3. Scott

      If the natural balance of CO2 is in perfect balance then explain how CO2 rose and fell in the past before suv’s.

      I’ll help you out natures CO2 emissions are not in balance and never have been.

    4. spike55

      WRONG as always David.

      CO2 is driven by ocean and surface temperature.

      The amount has absolutely ZERO effect on climate, never has and never will.

      Be very glad that we live in a period that is somewhat warmer than during an ice age.

      And be very glad that there is now just enough atmospheric CO2 to allow the growth of food sustain human populations around the world. More required. !

      Sorry that that scientific illiteracy of a failed science-fiction journalist hack, doesn’t reach to that basic understanding.

      1. David Appell

        spike55 wrote:
        CO2 is driven by ocean and surface temperature.
        The amount has absolutely ZERO effect on climate, never has and never will.

        Do you think the Earth doesn’t emit infrared radiation, or do you think gaseous CO2 doesn’t absorb it?

        Both, neither, or just one or the other?

        Please let me know.

        1. Yonason

          As CO2 goes up, despite human emissions forced down by horrendous restrictions on travel and damage to the economy, temperatures have gone down for 2 months in a row…
          https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_April_2021_v6.jpg
          …and are now the lowest they’ve been since 2015.

          That’s based on the data, not wild speculation.

          How much havoc must be wreaked, with no resulting change in the weather, in order to satisfy the appetite of climate hysterics for destruction?

          1. David Appell

            Yonason wrote:
            As CO2 goes up, despite human emissions forced down by horrendous restrictions on travel and damage to the economy

            What damage to the economy? World GDP has climbed tremendously over the decades:

            https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MKTGDP1WA646NWDB

          2. Yonason

            ”What damage to the economy?” – David Appell

            This damage…
            https://blogs.imf.org/2020/04/14/the-great-lockdown-worst-economic-downturn-since-the-great-depression/

            David wants us to believe in the fantasy of catastrophic human caused global warming, for which there is no evidence. At the same time he denies the very real and well documented harm that has resulted from COVID-19 response policies far less drastic than warmists claim are needed to prevent the fictitious negative effects of beneficial increases in CO2.

            There is no reasoning with people who want us to flee in terror from shadows, and want us to think it’s safe to play in the equivalent of heavy expressway traffic.

          3. P Gosselin

            Some people are bent on creating fear, because they know this is how you get people to give up their freedoms.

          4. David Allen Appell

            Some people are bent on creating fear, because they know this is how you get people to give up their freedoms.

            Pierre is afraid of losing the “freedom” to pollute.

          5. David Allen Appell

            Yonason, you think a couple of months of temperatures disproves CO2’s effect on temperature??

            That’s just too laughable to even reply to. You simply have no clue and need to learn basic climate science. Learn about ENSOs and learn that CO2 is not the only factor that determines global temperature. This is trivial stuff and I don’t understand how you can possibly not know it.

        2. David Allen Appell

          You’re conflating the consequences of a global pandemic with those of global climate change.

          I don’t see any need to comment on that — it’s just absurd.

          Equally absurd is your lack of comparison to the economic consequences of a lack of a lockdown over the last year. How can you not even think to ask that question??

          1. Yonason

            David Appell completely missed the point, as usual.

          2. Yonason

            ”You’re conflating the consequences of a global pandemic with those of global climate change.” – DA

            First of all, it isn’t the consequence of the pandemic and the fantasy of human caused disastrous “climate change” that I was comparing. That’s your shtick. It was the consequences of a totally botched response to COVID that I’m comparing to the utter disaster that warmists would cause if their “solutions” to the fictional problem of “climate change” were implemented.

            Second, if you want to know who’s conflating what you accused me of, here’s your answer. It’s your warmist palls.
            https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/04/1062752
            ”In planning the coronavirus pandemic recovery, there is “a profound opportunity” to steer the world on “a path that tackles climate change,”

            They want to use their destructive response to COVID as a model for a far more destructive response to the phony dangers of anthropogenic “climate change.”

          3. Yonason

            Update on “conflating” COVID and Climate Fantasy

            https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/06/shocking-speech-2010-document-exposes-rockefeller-foundation-globalist-scheme-video/

            The “pandemic” and it’s restrictions have been planned for over a decade, complete with it starting in China.

            Globalists have been pushing Climate change/AGW for a lot longer, with the same goal in mind; essentially the enslavement of the world, with them in control.

            No, David, it’s not me who is “conflating” anything. In fact, I was only pointing out how destructive the “solutions “ to both non-problems were. Thanks for pushing me to look deeper, and see that they are, indeed, connected.

          4. Yonason
    5. Richard Greene

      I give Mr. Applemen credit when he is right.

      The increase in CO2 concentration is best explained by CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels. that is the simple, most likely explanation.

      And added CO2 has the potential for some amount of global warming, with the amount unknown. I believe the science is solid for those two statements.

      But there is no science behind the claim of a “climate emergency”:
      Or to claim that past global warming, since the 1970s, was harmful.
      Or to claim that future global warming will be rapid and dangerous, completely unlike the mild and harmless warming in the past 45 years.
      A small amount of real science, plus wild guess predictions of the future climate = a fake “climate emergency”.

      I’m sure Mr. Appleman and I would completely disagree on whether CO2 enrichment of the atmosphere is good news or bad news. He would think extra CO2 is a climate emergency.

      I consider adding CO2, when modern pollution controls are used, to be very good news for our planet. Without pollution controls the negative effects of real air pollution overwhelm the positive effects of cO2 enrichment, which is NOT pollution.

      The air pollution over many Asian cities is a serious problem. Usually ignored by so-called environmentalists. But more CO2 in the atmosphere is not a problem at all — it is good news.

      As evidence, I submit the past 45 years of ACTUAL mild, harmless global warming, most affecting cold Northern Hemisphere areas, mainly in the coldest six months of the year, and mainly at night.

      I don’t see how warmer winter nights in Siberia are bad news.

      And I love global warming here in Michigan USA. I was very disappointed that the first 4.5 months of 2021 were unusually cool, here in Michigan.

      1. David Appell

        Richard GreeneNewDeal wrote:
        But more CO2 in the atmosphere is not a problem at all — it is good news.

        Of course he offers no proof of this. None whatsoever. He never has.

        1. Richard Greene

          Mr. Appleman:
          I like the moniker Richard GreenNewDeal

          And I object to people here character attacking you as a “failed journalist hack”, and worse.

          If you have had articles published in magazines, then you are not “failed”, whether we agree with the articles, or not.

          You are also extremely talented at getting logical ‘a climate change crisis is coming’ skeptics riled up, without typing too many words.

          Your comments seem to significantly increase total website comments, and page views, with the “counterattacks”, which are often entertaining. For me, not for you.

          Proof that past global warming has been GOOD news is from anecdotes of roughly seven billion real people who lived with some, or all, of the ACTUAL mild global warming since the mid-1970s.

          People who consider the ACTUAL locations with the most warming (northern half of the Northern Hemisphere), and the timing of the most warming ( mainly warming in the coldest six months of the year, and mainly warming at night (T-MIN), rather than warming during the day (T-MAX) ).

          Also, the average tide gauge is not showing any acceleration of sea level rise in the past 150 years, which is good news too.

          The air pollution over Chinese cities, from burning fossil fuels without modern pollution controls, however, is a disgrace.

          There is so much air pollution that it drifts over to the left coast of the US.

          It is said to cause people living there to lose one IQ point every year (Source: Truman Capote).

          Based on your comments, Mr. Appleman, do you live close to the western coast of the US?

          ACTUAL experience living with global warming is real — not imagined dangerous global warming, off in the future, in some undisclosed year.

          ACTUAL experience living with global warming is real — not imaginary computer game predictions of rapid, dangerous future global warming, in some undisclosed year.

          ACTUAL global warming HAS ALREADY HAPPENED, at roughly half the rate predicted by the computer games, on average — an average that represent the “government bureaucrat climate science consensus”.

          Which is obviously wrong, and NOT settled science.

          Except in your biased mind, wrong predictions of climate doom for the past 64 years, starting with oceanographer Roger Revelle in 1957, plus the consistently wrong average computer game climate predictions for the past 40 years, adds up to “settled science” … and we are doomed from that “devil in the sky’ CO2?

          That’s not settled science — it’s unsettled science.
          But you love it !

          PS: I know automatically that the world is not going to end in 9 years. Real science requires three decimal places! If perfesser John Kerry, obviously your hero, had predicted the world would end in 9.375 years, rather than 9 years, that would be a fact. But I know any number with less than three decimal places is not real science — it is just malarkey … like your attack comments here.
          Have a nice day.

          Richard Greene
          Bingham Farms, Michigan
          Where we love global warming, and want more!

          1. David Appell

            This site is blocking my comments. Dirty pool.

            Here is the tide gauge data, posted previously, that shows the acceleration in sea level rise:

            https://www.globalchange.gov/sites/globalchange/files/global_average_sea_level_change.png

          2. tom0mason
  14. Nieuws 26.5.2021 - Leefbewust.com - nieuws gezondheid, voeding en milieu

    […] Abruptly Reverses Course, Says Employers Will Not Be Liable for COVID Vaccine Injuries After All Paradigm-Busting New Study Affirms CO2 Doesn’t Drive Climate – Water, Clouds Do Peaceful Relaxing Instrumental Music Photo of mom working in bathtub leads to reflection on child […]

  15. Phil Salmon

    Koutsiannis is essentially elaborating on the “Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow” discovered and published by Ed Lorenz in 1963.

  16. David Appell

    Richard GreeneNewDeal:

    Tide gauge data shows acceleration:

    https://bit.ly/2R4gQ5y

    1. tom0mason
      1. tom0mason
    2. Yonason
  17. Rolf Eckertz

    Friederike Otto has written in her dissertation “Modelling the earth’s climate –
    an epistemic perspective”:
    page 48:The whole scale of convective motions is basically beyond the grid scale of models but on that scale nearly all processes determining precipitation take place, which in turn is not to be neglected when considering temperature development. Thus individual clouds and other convective motions are important factors considering especially the impacts of green house effect and temperature development but they are not resolvable in climate models.
    She then points out: precipition and clouds are parametrized and not calculated.
    page 123: The degree of uncertainty in climate modelling steps and approaches varies enormously from virtually certain knowledge concerning the physical basis and thermodynamic projections to high uncertainty in the prediction of regional precipitation changes or cloud physics. If these differences in the certainty of climatological findings were communicated adequately, confidence in modelling results could be much increased.
    For me the variation in the CO2 sensitivity factor is a proof of uncertainty regarding the CO2 impact – there is no laboratory experiment prooving a relevant CO2 impact.

    1. David Allen Appell

      For me the variation in the CO2 sensitivity factor is a proof of uncertainty regarding the CO2 impact – there is no laboratory experiment prooving a relevant CO2 impact.

      Why does there have to be?

      Can you point to a laboratory experiment proving the existence of plate tectonics?

      1. Yonason

        ”Can you point to a laboratory experiment proving the existence of plate tectonics?” – DA

        We can measure plate movement directly.
        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S1m1tAGbfL4

        There is NO comparable measure of CO2 effect on temperature.

        Why do you suppose that is, David?

        Why do you warmists always pretend that, because there are known scientific phenomena, that your pet fantasy must also be true,?

  18. De aanraders van week 21 - Leefbewust.com - nieuws gezondheid, voeding en milieu

    […] Nieuwe studie bevestigt dat CO2 het klimaat niet stuurt – water, wolken wel https://notrickszone.com/2021/05/24/paradigm-busting-new-study-affirms-co2-doesnt-drive-climate-wat… […]

  19. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #457 – Watts Up With That?

    […] Paradigm-Busting New Study Affirms CO2 Doesn’t Drive Climate – Water, Clouds Do […]

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