Professor Herman Harde, an environmental physicist, has authored a new position paper on the follies of assuming humans significantly impact the climate.
As detailed in his 2017 paper, Dr. Harde concludes the “anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3% [a figure derived from IPCC AR5], its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time 4 years.”
The IPCC overestimates the thermal effect of doubling CO2 by a factor of 5, as the consequent surface air temperature increase for a 120 ppm increase in CO2 is less than 0.3°C.
“Since only about 15% of the global CO2 increase is of anthropogenic origin, just 15% of 0.3°C, i.e., less than 0.05°C remains, which can be attributed to humans in the overall balance.”
“Changes of our climate can be traced back to natural interaction processes that exceed our human influence by orders of magnitude.”
The right answer is no one knows.
This so called professor is wild guessing.
His “study” is a waste of bandwidth and/or paper.
No one really cares what you believe, Richard.
Mr Greene seems to want certainty, rather than a well thought out hypothesis, which could turn out to be incorrect, though with a far lower probability than any hysterical warmist hypothesis. He writes “The right answer is no one knows.” …but doesn’t seem to realize that no one ever will, if they don’t bother to make and test hypotheses.
Interesting that Mr Greene too often attacks those trying to get the facts, while leaving the purveyors of falsehoods untouched. So, yeah, count me among those who’ve stopped caring about his activist anti-science opinions.
No one knows the global average temperature in 1750.
So it is impossible to know how much of the warming since then
was natural, certainly not to the nearest tenth of a degree C.
Therefore, anyone claiming to know is publishing a meaningless guess.
The author could not possibly know what he claims to know.
I certainly do not leave the “purveyors of falsehoods” untouched.
Those falsehoods (predictions of climate doom) are not presented here for me to comment on.
I spend many hours reading every day and publish the best articles I’ve read on climate and energy on my blog. 100% of the articles try to refute the climate scaremongering and Nut Zero. I’ve had over 323,000 page views and hopefully these articles have convinced some people to stop believing the mainstream media climate scaremongering.
I rarely write my own articles for my blogs because I wrote articles for 43 years for my newsletter ECONOMIC LOGIC, and that was enough writing for a lifetime. We tell leftist friends that we love global warming here in Michigan USA, and they go berserk. Cheap entertainment.
“No one knows the global average temperature in 1750.”
True. And I would add that no one knows it now, at least not to the precision that’s claimed for what little data we have. And even if they did, it wouldn’t matter, because there’s no such physically meaningful concept as “average temperature,” (with a few mostly trivial exceptions).
The reference to 1750 is because that’s when everyone agrees is the beginning of the industrial age. It is dealt with in the first paper.
https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/Ronan-2018withBob-d/HardeHermann17-March6-CarbonCycle-ResidenceTime.pdf
“… under the IPCC’s interpretation, before 1750 and in good approximation also before 1850 the rate between naturally produced and absorbed CO2 is assumed to have been in balance…”
NOTE – the paper reads “…under the IPCC’s interpretation…is assumed…” Note also that it’s the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere that’s the subject there, not temperature. Under the heading
“…falsehoods (predictions of climate doom) are not presented here for me to comment on.”
The whole purpose of the two papers was to address warmists’ falsehoods. There’s plenty to comment on, especially in the second paper.
http://hharde.de/index_htm_files/Opinion-Draft-Law%20-%20Reduction%20GHG%20Emissions.pdf
In section 3.1, subsection “Natural and Anthropogenic Contributions” we read that less than 0.05% of the temperature increase, since industrialization began, can be attributed to humans. That’s not based on data, bit on theoretical calculations, which contradict the IPCC’s less rigorous approach.
To sum up, Prof., Harde seems to be saying, in paper 1, that if you take what the IPCC is purveying as true, you arrive at contradictions that falsify it. And in paper 2, that the consequences of basing national policies on such garbage science can only lead to disaster. At least that’s how I read them.
===================
My criticism of you, R.G., is that you seem to want perfection. But none of us are. As a result, unless we agree with you 100%, your message to us all, friendly or not, is the same: KEEP OFF MY LAWN! It’s tiresome, especially when you are no more perfect than we.
////////:::::////////:::::://////:::::::///:::///////
“No one knows the global average temperature in 1750.” – RG
True. And I would add that no one knows it now, at least not to the precision that’s claimed for what little data we have. And even if they did, it wouldn’t matter, because there’s no such physically meaningful concept as “average temperature,” (with a few mostly trivial exceptions).
The reference to 1750 is because that’s when everyone agrees is the beginning of the industrial age. It is dealt with in the first paper.
https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/Ronan-2018withBob-d/HardeHermann17-March6-CarbonCycle-ResidenceTime.pdf
“… under the IPCC’s interpretation, before 1750 and in good approximation also before 1850 the rate between naturally produced and absorbed CO2 is assumed to have been in balance…”
NOTE – the paper reads “…under the IPCC’s interpretation…is assumed…” Note also that it’s the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere that’s the subject there, not temperature.
“…falsehoods (predictions of climate doom) are not presented here for me to comment on.” – RG
The whole purpose of the two papers was to address warmists’ falsehoods. There’s plenty to comment on, especially in the second paper.
http://hharde.de/index_htm_files/Opinion-Draft-Law%20-%20Reduction%20GHG%20Emissions.pdf
In section 3.1, subsection “Natural and Anthropogenic Contributions” we read that less than 0.05% of the temperature increase, since industrialization began, can be attributed to humans. That’s not based on data, bit on theoretical calculations, which contradict the IPCC’s less rigorous approach.
To sum up, Prof., Harde seems to be saying, in paper 1, that if you take what the IPCC is purveying as true, you arrive at contradictions that falsify it. And in paper 2, that the consequences of basing national policies on such garbage science can only lead to disaster. (That would be true of implementing the garbage “solutions,” even if they were right about our effect on climate). At least that’s how I read them.
===================
My criticism of you, R.G., is that you seem to want perfection. But none of us are. As a result, unless we agree with you 100%, your message to us all, friendly or not, is the same: KEEP OFF MY LAWN! It’s tiresome, especially when you are no more perfect than we.
Chill out. Save your ire for the enemies of civilization, of which there are all too many.
@ Pierre
Sorry about the one in moderation. It’s my last two drafts. If you can reject it, that would be great. If too much trouble, too bad for me.
I’d better hold off posting until i can do it from my computer rather than my phone. Thx in advance for whatever you ddcide.
The global average temperature was not known in 1750.
It is a guess based on very few thermometers.
The CO2 level for 1750 is a guess based on ice cores.
Any professor who claims to know temperature changes
in tenths of a degree C. since 1750, and claims to be able
to attribute those changes to manmade or natural causes,
to the nearest tenth of a degree C., is a charlatan.
Anyone who publishes such claims is gullible.
This is not a meaningful study — it is science fraud.
To the person who claimed what I want is “perfection”.
That is a complete opposite of what I want.
I reject the claims in this article of a scientist
who claimis to know the exact effect of CO2 since 1750.
That is impossible to know.
The correct answer is no one knows
the exact effect of CO2 since 1750.
We don’t know is the opposite of perfection.
Much of modern climate science is claims
to know the future climate and future effects
of CO2 enrichment. Those predictions have been
wrong for over 50 years, yet are still being made
and being used to justify Nut Zero.
We’ve got to refute those climate predictions of doom.
That can’t be done with false claims about the
exact effect of CO2 since 1750 or local climate reconstructions
of Nowheresville, Antarctica thousands of years ago.
Kenneth Richard repeatedly publishes posts on those
subjects, which do nothing to stop the march to Nut Zero.
The climate reconstructions are rough guesses
based on some climate proxy data.
This article is baloney
— the author could not know
what he claims to know.
And I object to that.
If the right answer is “No one knows”, aren’t existing climate change policies also based on wild guessing?
Exactly right !
Always wrong wild guesses of the future climate.
That’s what “climate change”: has become.
Predictions, not climate reality.
Increasingly hysterical predictions of doom.
We don’t know how much warming since the 1770s
was man made. Or since 1975.
We do know that warming was good news.
We don’t know how much warming is ahead.
We don’t even know whether the climate will
be warmer or colder in 100 years.
[…] German Physicist: Human CO2 Emissions Responsible For 0.05°C Of The Global Warming Since 1750 – And in the real world human CO2 emissions is responsible for exactly ZERO warming mainly because of – convection! […]
I think Harde’s linear technique is simplistic, but it’s much more realistic than the IPCC, which I assume was the point of the post.
Thanks
Kenneth, are you really qualified to speak on behalf of all others?
Does sound somewhat arrogant.
When someone writes “His ‘study’ is a waste of bandwidth and/or paper” and fails to explain the reasons for such a smear-and-dismissal, it’s likely very few (agreed – perhaps there are some) people find such comments meaningful. Richard has a long history of replying to the presentation of scientific papers in this very same hit-and-run manner. Others have expressed similar sentiments as I did. But, again, you’re right. Perhaps someone appreciates this comment.
My previous comments on studies tried to make an important point that completely escaped Mr. Richards, so I will state it again:
The Climate Howlers have made claims of a coming climate crisis for decades and now are starting to spend huge amounts of money on Nut Zero to allegedly prevent a climate crisis they have predicted for half a century (but it never shows up).
Those of us who disagree with always wrong climate predictions and Nut Zero spending try to fight back. Presenting climate reconstructions of local climates in Nowheresville, Antarctica does NOTHING to refute the climate scaremongering in the mass media and social media.
There are hundreds of “scientific studies” claiming bad things will happen from CO2 emissions. In the past 47 years of actual global warming, nothing bad actually happened, unless you consider warmer winter nights in Siberia to be bad news.
What are we doing to refute those wild guess studies?
From Mr. Richards’ point of view, presenting a study here claiming, for one example, to know the sea level thousands of years ago near Antarctica (which can never be verified) is fighting back. I disagree.
The huge amount of money for Nut Zero will come out of our pockets.
The result of the spending will be a less reliable electric grid.
What are we doing to stop the climate hysteria and Nut Zero?
It is my opinion that Mr. Richards’ climate reconstruction
articles are doing very little in that regard.
No amount of insults will silence me.
Refuting climate alarmism is too important.
Richard Greene says, “no one knows.”
In a sane world trillions would not be spent on an issue where “no one knows” is the right answer.
However, I vote for “no climate emergency.”
Although climate reconstructions are rough estimates of local climates in the past, based on them I believe the current climate is the best climate for humans, animals and especially plants, since the Holocene Climate Optimum from 5000 to 9000 years ago. We should be CELEBRATING the current climate !
The “climate emergency” has been “coming” in 10 to 20 years for at least the past 50 years … and will probably be “coming” in 10 or 20 years for the next 50 years. The imaginary coming climate crisis just never shows up.
This paper: (https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Abstract/2022/02000/World_Atmospheric_CO2,_Its_14C_Specific_Activity,.2.aspx) tends to support Harde’s reasoning; suggesting that no more than 12% (i.e., 120ppmv is of natural origin. Hardly surprising, when over 95% of annual global CO2 emissions are from natural sources that humanity has no means of controlling.
“Hardly surprising, when over 95% of annual global CO2 emissions are from natural sources that humanity has no means of controlling.”
WRONG
All of +100 ppm increase of atmospheric CO2 can be explained by
CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels.
There is no other explanation.
There is no “natural increase” in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Nature is removing CO2 from the atmosphere, each year, not adding it. Mankind has added about 180% of the measured increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere since 1959.
We know from reliable measurements that every year since 1959 the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by less than the amount of CO2 which mankind has added to the atmosphere (with the arguable exception of 1973, a year in which the two numbers were very similar).
Mankind increases the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, and nature reduces it (since 1959, at least). That means the only reason that the atmospheric CO2 level continues to rise is that mankind is adding CO2 faster than nature is removing it.
This perception is not sufficiently supported by the evidence. As explained here: https://notrickszone.com/2022/06/02/royal-society-scientific-method-application-shows-the-perception-co2-causes-global-warming-can-be-excluded/
https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/2/4/83/htm
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257343053_The_phase_relation_between_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature
https://doi.org/10.1260/095830509789876772
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1219683110
https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/fulltext/2022/02000/world_atmospheric_co2,_its_14c_specific_activity,.2.aspx
Yes, there is. But your mind is closed and there is literally no point “debating” with someone who is not the least bit skeptical.
“I reject the claims in this article of a scientist
who claimis to know the exact effect of CO2 since 1750.” – R.G.
That from the person who asserts, w/o any evidence, that…
“All of +100 ppm increase of atmospheric CO2 can be explained by
CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels.”
Seriously, R.G.? Well, I guess Murry Salby is right – “…it’s a subject upon which nearly everyone has an opinion.”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O8niiyDn2FI
No doubt you think he’s wrong, as well?
You are even more closed minded than you falsely accuse Dr Harde of being.
ALSO – I repeat: as i read Dr Harde’s first paper, he is claiming that if temperatures and the effect on them are as the IPCC asserts, the IPCC can’t be correct. His analysis, as i wrote above, is more rigorous and more in line with reality than the IPCC’s, which in turn is more careful than yours (which doesn’t say much for yours).
ALSO – Your answer to Senex is incorrect, because even if the IPCC was correct about CO2 and it’s effects on temperature, the response to that would still be wrong in spite of their being right about the problem, which they are not. So the IPCC being wrong about human effects on temperatures and climate is not what makes their recommended response wrong. It’s just wrong.
This is why it’s pointless to try to “debate” with Richard Greene. He accuses others of ascribing to the same thought crimes that he has just committed himself…and he hasn’t the self-awareness to recognize that this is exactly what he has done.
You may be interested in Dr. Salby’s work on this subject is not just on YouTube, but in text form – a graduate-level atmospheric physics textbook. Here’s a link to it: http://agwn.homeip.net/++-PDF/++-PhysicsoftheAtmosphere.and.Climate-MurrySalby.pdf
Some quotes with page numbers:
“Together, emission from ocean and land sources (∼150 GtC/yr) is two orders of magnitude greater than CO2 emission from combustion of fossil fuel. These natural sources are offset by natural sinks, of comparable strength. However, because they are so much stronger, even a minor imbalance between natural sources and sinks can overshadow the anthropogenic component of CO2 emission.” pg. 546
“Revealed by natural perturbations to the Earth-atmosphere system, the sensitivity accounts for much of the observed variation of CO2 emission on interannual time scales (Fig. 1.43). It establishes that GMT cannot increase without simultaneously increasing CO2 emission – from natural sources.” pg. 253
“The results for the two periods are in broad agreement. Together with the strong dependence of CO2 emission on temperature (Fig. 1.43), they imply that a significant portion of the observed increase in r˙CO2 derives from a gradual increase in surface temperature.” pg. 253
“Warming of SST (by any mechanism) will increase the outgassing of CO2 while reducing its absorption. Owing to the magnitude of transfers with the ocean, even a minor increase of SST can lead to increased emission of CO2 that rivals other sources.” pg. 546
Yes.
Also, thanks for the link to Salby’s textbook. I’ll need it for when I finally get my computer up and running.
Kenneth, unfortunately, Dr. Salby never discussed his theories with anybody, as he made – in my opinion – several errors in his lectures…
Here again:
“even a minor imbalance between natural sources and sinks can overshadow the anthropogenic component of CO2 emission”
“can”, but didn’t in the past 60+ years of recent accurate measurements:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em8.jpg
Even since 1900, human emissions were average 80% higher than what was observed in ice cores and firn…
“It establishes that GMT cannot increase without simultaneously increasing CO2 emission – from natural sources.”
Indeed, but the effect, as measured in the Vostok ice core and in several million of seawater samples is very modest: about 12-16 ppmv/K. That is all. That means that the warming of the SST since the LIA would give an atmospheric increase from around 280 ppmv to 295 ppmv. That is all.
We are currently at 415 ppmv, 120 ppmv higher than equilibrium. With over 200 ppmv of human emissions over the same time span… What could be the source?
And 15 ppmv extra due to temperature is significant, but by far not the bulk of the increase…
“Warming of SST (by any mechanism) will increase the outgassing of CO2 while reducing its absorption.”
Yes, but increasing the CO2 pressure in the atmosphere with 120 μatm (~ppmv) above the equilibrium will decrease the outgassing and increase the absorption far more…
One observation about any conclusion of how much CO2 warms or warms over time is that it possibly does not warm at all. That was Freeman Dyson’s opinion and I have seen it elsewhere. Warming seems to be an embedded assumption never questioned but critical to the discussion. On investigation, radiant activity by any element or molecule is at spectral bands of radiation determined by its quantum number or multiple thereof, by which it radiates at different temperatures. Einstein and Planck noted this.
Carbon dioxide has been shown to radiate overwhelmingly (99.83% in one experiment) at the 15-micron wavelength, which by Wien’s Displacement law is about 193K or 80°C. Some physicists seem to know this, but the information isn’t very widespread.
In satellite images you can see the large missing wedge of outgoing terrestrial radiation at the 15μm wavelength, where higher-altitude CO2 has absorbed and radiated away that band of incoming solar radiation (at 80°C). Lightfoot & Mamer noted CO2’s interaction at that wavelength in the Antarctic plateau during the southern winter. The ratio of water vapor to CO2 is 1:1 at the poles.
The next larger radiant band is at 9.6 microns which many agree goes direct through the atmospheric window to space with other 8-12μm radiation. Dr. Salby says that it goes to warm the ozone layer with other -12 μm emissions through the window to space. The searingly hot CO2 bands 1100-800°C are apparently only one photon per ~158 million molecules.
Remember, too that CO2 from burning fossil fuels is significantly offset by aerosols, smoke and soot, which screen out sunlight and reflect solar energy back to space. Rasool & Schneider (1971) advised against using them to hold off the 1970s “ice age threat” because fossil fuels were coolants. Probably still are.
I wish to point out that according to Wien’s deplacement law, 15µm wavelength corresponds to a body’s temperature of -80°C (minus 80°C).
With respect to the Antartic, indeed, the spectral analysis shows an increase in radiation rather than a decrease, in the CO2 emission band around 15µm.
See for instance Wijngaarden and Happer 2020 (see f- Antarctica observations) :
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/09/21/the-greenhouse-effect-a-summary-of-wijngaarden-and-happer/
Regards
Tom,
Gases don’t follow the same rules of energy emissions and absorption as solid and liquid materials.
Wien’s depacement law doesn’t apply to gases, as that are not black or grey bodies, they are nobodies like for N2 or O2, which don’t intercept or emit anything in the IR band, or they are intercepting and emitting in very molecular specific wavelengths like water vapor, CO2, CH4,…
The emission and absorption bands by CO2 are (near) completely independent of its own temperature or of the surrounding gases. It is only a package of energy at very specific wavelengths that is absorbed and emitted, whatever its own temperature or that of the sender.
Reason why a CO2 laser at maximum 100°C with a beam of around 10 micron can melt steel at 1200°C:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-dioxide_laser
The probably best explanation why gases are not black/grey bodies, as I have found:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/222092/blackbody-or-characteristic-emission-of-radiation
[…] Fonte : NoTricksZone […]
[…] Read the Full Article […]
It is all there in hitran and modtran, if they are correct. It does not even take a lot of research to find out. The problem is they can easily be misunderstood. And Harde is no (positive) exception there.
How much radiation GHGs absorb is irrelevant. What matters is by how much they reduce emissions TOA. Also you can not simply model “66% clouds”. Clouds have different optical depths and if you assume 66% opaque cloud cover, you nuke the fridge. Also cloud altitude is pivotal.
It is regrettable he made all these mistakes on assessing climate sensitivity, when avoiding them would have yielded not a much different outcome. Because indeed overlaps make all the difference. 3.7W/m2 CO2 forcing and 1.8W/m2 in WV feedback are theoretical figures EXCLUDING any overlaps.
If you allow for overlaps (and realistic surface emissions), you only get about 2W/m2 for 2xCO2, and merely 0.65W/m2 for WV feedback. Clouds have much larger overlaps with WV than with CO2 btw. since the emission altitude of CO2 is higher.
https://greenhousedefect.com/the-holy-grail-of-ecs/a-total-synthesis-the-ecs-estimate
CO2 and other greenhouse gases
interfere with earth’s ability to cool itself.
That is described as “warming”,
which can be confusing.
The actual pollution (not the CO2)
from burning fossil fuels without
modern pollution controls is a problem.
Air pollution can be severe over
environmental problem.
There is no doubt that air pollution
can block some sunlight.
Air pollution was the original excuse
for why there was significant
global cooling from 1940 to 1975
as CO2 levels rose.
That excuse fell apart like a cheap suitcase in 1975.
With very little change in the air pollution
(which was not significantly reduced until 2000),
the 1940 to 1975 global cooling trend ended,
and a global warming trend began in 1975.
The air pollution did not suddenly fall out
of the sky in 1975, allowing global warming to begin.
So we had a contradiction:
Air pollution allegedly caused global cooling
from 1940 to 1975, but air pollution also caused
global warming after 1975 ??
That made no sense.
The “solution” to that contradiction:
The global cooling from 1940 to 1975 was
“revised away” — that inconvenient cooling
trend never happened, we are now told.
Never forget that historical
global average temperature numbers
are whatever government bureaucrats
tell you they are.
And those bureaucrats are biased
to show more warming. Remember that
they have predicted rapid, dangerous
global warming since the 1970s.
And they want their predictions
to look good.
The laws relating radiation and temperature come from the 19th Century cavity oven experiments and relate to a continuous emission spectrum observed.
No gas emits a continuous emission spectrum and using the blackbody radiation laws in postulating any sort of warming attributable to doubling of CO2 concentrations is totally unsubstantiated scientific gobbledygook.
[…] German Physicist: Human CO2 Emissions Responsible For 0.05°C Of The Global Warming Since 1750 […]
Sorry, a little late in this discussion, of which I heard only recently…
I have reacted on Harde 2017 and his newer work is not any different.
The residence time only shows how much CO2 is moving through the atmosphere, not how much is REmoved out of the atmosphere… In the case of the seasonal cycles, that is the bulk of the natural fluxes, half a year a lot of CO2 is moving from the ocean surface to the biosphere through the atmosphere and the other half it is moving from the biosphere to the ocean surface in the other direction, again through the atmosphere…
Thus moving a lot of CO2 through the atmosphere and thus reducing the residence time (which takes into account the height of the fluxes, whatever the direction of these fluxes). But that REmoves near zero CO2 out of the atmosphere…
Only an extra pressure above the dynamic equilibrium between ocean surface temperature and atmosphere (currently 295 ppmv) removes CO2 out of the atmosphere, and that is around 50 years e-fold decay rate or 37 years half life time, not 4 years…
Thus there are three points where Harde’s (2017) work was fundamentally wrong:
Using the residence time, or even the decay rate of the 14C bomb tests excess, doesn’t say anything about the time needed to reduce an extra bulk CO2 injection – whatever the source – above the temperature controlled steady state of the oceans with the atmosphere.
Using the total concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere as base implies a steady state of zero CO2 in the atmosphere, which is not realistic.
Using only natural emissions without taking into account the natural sinks violates the mass balance.
See the full critique at:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/Harde.pdf
And the full explanation why humans are responsible for (near) all CO2 increase in the atmosphere:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html
Which doesn’t imply a huge impact on temperatures, which is a quite different discussion…