2 More New Studies Reaffirm The CO2-Drives-Climate-Change Paradigm Has A Magnitude Problem

It takes 10 years and 22 ppm for CO2 to amass just 0.2 W/m² in total surface energy flux. In contrast, short-wave cloud radiative forcing fluctuations vary in amplitude by ±300 W/m² within hours.

Earth’s surface energy imbalance is said to have been positive, +0.6 W/m², during the first decade of this century (Stephens et al., 2012). Problematically, the uncertainty in this assumptive estimation is ±17 W/m², which means the imbalance could be anywhere from -16.4 W/m² to +17.6 W/m².

Image Source: Stephens et al., 2012

As Sedlar and colleagues emphasize in a new study, clouds “directly modify the solar and infrared radiation reaching the surface,” and the “net result of these energy fluxes determines the warming and cooling processes at the surface.”

Quantitatively, shortwave cloud forcing modulates Earth’s surface radiative flux in magnitudes that vary by ±300 W/m² and up to 600 W/m².

“As clouds typically attenuate shortwave radiation, CRFSW at the surface is negative, resulting in a relative cloud cooling effect (e.g., Ramanathan et al., 1989). The CRFSW observed for the two low cloud types shows a wide range, from quite strong, −600 W/m², to quite modest near 0 W/m² (Figure 10a). Subsequently, THFs respond to the modification of SWD by the cloud type. Under low stratiform periods, individual scatter points of Hs + Hl were frequently observed between 0 and 300 W/m² and correspond to a median CRFSW (black square within blue scatter) approximately −300 W/m².”

Image Source: Sedlar et al., 2022

Another new study (Padmakumari et al., 2022) suggests the amplitude of shortwave cloud radiative forcing perturbs the surface energy imbalance in magnitudes reaching 1000 W/m².

“CES induced positive shortwave cloud radiative forcing (CRF) varied up to +400 W/m² (warming effect), while negative CRF varied up to −1000 W/m² (cooling effect).”

Image Source: Padmakumari et al., 2022

Meanwhile, it takes about 22 ppm of CO2 concentration changes to impact Earth’s surface energy budget by a grand total of 0.2 W/m² (Feldman et al., 2015). Extrapolated, it would take a 110 ppm CO2 concentration change to affect the surface energy imbalance by 1 W/m².

Image Source: Feldman et al., 2015

For advocates of the position that CO2 is the primary driver of changes to Earth’s highly uncertain surface energy imbalance (and, therefore, climate change), it must be assumed that cloud properties remain static over time, allowing cloud shortwave radiative effects to perpetually cancel out to zero over decades and centuries.

Given the shortwave cloud radiative forcing magnitudes identified in the scientific literature, this assumption is extremely unrealistic.

3 responses to “2 More New Studies Reaffirm The CO2-Drives-Climate-Change Paradigm Has A Magnitude Problem”

  1. drumphish

    Carbon schmarbon, dioxide schmioxide.

    A blizzard hit the area, there is three feet of new snow. The impact of the storm has created an emergency with no travel and temporary closings of businesses and government offices.

    The temp is at 25 degrees F, there is a four-foot snowdrift on the hood of the truck. The drifts on the downtown streets are eight feet tall. Heavy snow moving equipment has a big job to do. The melt will help the most, fear of localized flooding is real.

    There is more snow predicted for Saturday to Sunday, anywhere from three to six inches in the forecast.

    Not an out of the ordinary situation, in 1980, April 21, there was a snowfall of 22 inches. Not as crippling as three feet of snow with 50 mph winds.

    The weather this time of year is unpredictable for what it does, can be, with some accuracy, correctly forecast nowadays. However, the springtime weather more or less remains the same, it doesn’t really change that much from year to year.

    Sort of rips a big hole in the climate change scam.

    You can call it global warming. Some may argue.

  2. 2 More New Studies Reaffirm the CO2-Drives-Climate-Change Paradigm Has a Magnitude Problem – Climate- Science.press

    […] 2 More New Studies Reaffirm The CO2-Drives-Climate-Change Paradigm Has A Magnitude Problem […]

  3. Tom Anderson

    As usual, the CAGW hypothesis mushrooms and propagates – even more remarkable considering its continued non-affiliation with reality. Carbon dioxide is a cooling gas.

    1. Its concentrations follow temperature change, both in the fossil record (Vostok Law Dome, by 800 years +/- 200 years) and currently (Humlum & al., 2013 by 9 to 12 months). Remember, causes must precede effects. CO2 causes nothing.

    2. Whether cause or not, two NASA scientists Rasool and Schneider nonetheless concluded in 1971 during global cooling scare, that fossil fuels were unacceptable coolants. Aerosols from burning fossil fuels offset warming by screening out and reflecting away solar energy, and thus providing condensation nucleides for cloud.
    3. Witteman emeritus professor of physics, determined in 2020 that the major
    spectral band of CO2 (he says 99.83% of it) at a selected average tropospheric altitude and pressure radiated at the 15μm wavelength, which Wien’s Displacement Law shows as 193K or -80°C. A warmer 9.6μm band exits the atmospheric window with other 8-13 μm emissions to the ozone layer (Salby, 2012).

    4. Satellite confirmation of increased plant growth provides more evapotranspiration globally for increased cloud albedo. (Wu, J., 2022.)

    5. CO2’s observed removal of incoming solar energy at the 15μm wavelength visible as observed outgoing terrestrial emission.

    None of the above suggest a warming effect. Skeptics seem averse, however, outright denial of the hypothesis.

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