Another Day, Another Scientific Paper Insists ‘Global Warming Is Not Caused By Increased CO2’

“…the rate of change in CO2 concentration is controlled, not by emissions, but by the global temperature” – Emrén, 2023

A new study published in the International Journal of Global Warming once again questions the popular narrative that says humans can control the temperatures of the ocean and melt the polar ice sheets by engaging in common, everyday activities like talking on their smartphones or driving a pickup truck.

“The observed correlation between global temperature and rate of growth in atmospheric CO2 concentration shows that the global warming is not caused by increased CO2 concentration. Rather the increase in CO2 concentration is caused by the global warming. This in turn means that neither the increase in CO2 concentration nor global warming can be stopped by reducing combustion.”

Image Source: Emrén, 2023

14 responses to “Another Day, Another Scientific Paper Insists ‘Global Warming Is Not Caused By Increased CO2’”

  1. val

    Since the actual composition of the atmosphere, in terms of CO2, is 0.04%, the whole CO2 issue is moot to begin with.

  2. val

    Another aspect of all of this is that due to the cyclical behavior of the Sun, the galactic current sheet and other cyclical factors, between 2030 and 2040 the planet will cool down significantly, together with the historical temperature record over a period of eons, means the whole concept of global warming as a ‘problem’ is also moot.

    1. Shimpling Chadacre

      I wonder how they’ll manage to spin global cooling as all our fault, and our duty to fix with deranged schemes that have nothing to do with it and won’t work.

    2. Anton Bakker

      The CO2 concentration in the air is caused by Henry’s Law. There is 98% of the CO2 in the oceans and 2 % in the air. Henry’s law states that the 98% versus 2% will stay the same by increasing CO2 in the air. So all the extra CO2 in the air will be absorbed by the oceans.

      1. Ben

        Agree on that law but how to explain the up to 8000 ppm atmospheric concentration in the past?

        1. JoshC

          That’s pretty easy. It is a ratio. At that time there was a lot more CO2 in the water also. The ratio changes with temperature. But the base amount back then had far more co2 residing in the ocean as a total.

  3. val

    More recent (Dec 5th-6th) related articles which you can search for by title:

    “Leading Russian Polar Scientist: Cooling Begins In 2030…Climate Crisis A ‘Globalist Scam’” | “The Absurdity Of Global Mean Temperature Metrics” | “Two New Studies Show ‘Net Zero’ Fails Cost-Benefit Test Miserably’” | “A Critical Analysis of the Fifth National Climate Assessment” | “New Study: 67% Of Scientific Papers Can Be Said To Reject The AGW Hypothesis” |

  4. Petit_Barde

    The most evident proof of this is the cross correlation diagram between the CO2 concentration (Mauna Loa) and the global temperatures (UAH) :
    – it clearly shows a strong positive correlation from T to CO2 with some 9 months lag,
    – a weak negative correlation from CO2 to T with a lag of some 16 months.

    The only sensible hypothesis is that an increase of global T induces an increase of CO2 concentration (which is known, proven and observed with the Henry’s law among other factors) and that this CO2 concentration increase somewhat (and weakly) slows down the global T increase.

    Thus, it’s not the CO2 which increases global T, it’s the opposite.

    Cross correlation diagram presented by Pr. Murry Salby (who saddly passed away in 2022) :
    https://youtu.be/HeCqcKYj9Oc?t=515

  5. An Imaginary Warming Trend – Newsfeed Hasslefree Allsort

    […] Related: Another Day, Another Scientific Paper Insists ‘Global Warming Is Not Caused By Increased CO2’ […]

  6. Richard Greene

    This is a junk science “study” whose main effect is to embarrass the author, Mr. Richard and this website

    At least 99.9% of scientists in the world, for over a century, have recognized that here is a greenhouse effect and CO2 is part of it.

    There are lab spectroscopy measurements for over a century to prove that.

    But Mr. Richards and other junk science cult memebers thing they are all wrong.
    William Happer is wrong
    Richard Lindzen is wrong
    Roy Spencer is wrong
    John Christy is wrong
    Judith Curry is wrong
    All P.h.D. “skeptic” scientists ON OUR SIDE

    Are they all wrong?

    There is a process where CO2 is a feedback, so ocean temperature changes LEAD CO2 changes in the ratio of CO2 in the oceans and atmosphere. But the total amount of CO2 in the oceans and the atmosphere COMBINED does not change, unlike manmade CO2 emissions:

    The CO2 feedback process was unable to increase atmospheric CO2 beyond 280ppm in the 800,000 years of the ice core era (and probably for much longer before that).

    During the ice core era VERY SLOW changes of ocean temperatures (+/- 6 degrees C. over 100,000 years) caused the atmospheric / ocean CO2 ratio to change by about +/-100ppm (about +/-17ppm per +/-1 degree C.)

    Suddenly (in geologic time), in the 137 years after 1850, humans added about +250ppm CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, and atmospheric CO2 increased about +140ppm, or +50%. That was no coincidence. Manmade CO2 emissions were more than enough to explain 100% of the CO2 rise.

    What did the oceans do as they warmed about +1 degrees C. since 1850?

    They absorbed about 17ppm less CO2 than tey would have absorbed (of the +250ppm of manmade CO2 emissions) if the average ocean temperature had not warmed at all.

    There is also a seasonal carbon cycle that does not increase atmospheric CO2 levels year over year:

    Every year there is a seasonal carbon cycle:
    (1) Natural seasonal CO2 emissions
    (2) Natural seasonal CO2 absorption

    It is very basic climate science, supported by at least 99.9% of scientists living on our planet, that humans added a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and more greenhouse gasses impede Earth’s ability to cool itself by some amount.

    Manmade CO2 emissions are a climate forcing that LEAD temperature changes when CO2 is a forcing.

    It is very unfortunate that so many conservative climate realists do not agree with this most basic climate science.

    That means they reject 100% of consensus climate science, when that science is NOT 100% wrong. And that gets other climate realists called science deniers.

    How the last +140ppm of CO2 got into the atmosphere is settled science

    The effect of that CO2 is debatable, mainly about a water vapor positive feedback that the IPCC wild guesses could multiply the warming effect of CO2 alone by 2x to 3x.

    The range of CO2 ECS guesses is from about +0.5 to +5.0 degrees C. — a HUGE range that tells us no one really knows.

    In addition to guessing the long term effect of CO2, there is very little discussion on whether global warming has been good news (I think so), and whether future global warming will be good news (I think so too).

    With all the unanswered climate science questions, the last thing we need is scary predictions of the climate in the year 2100, and that is basically what “climate change” is

    Predictions that have been wrong since the 1979 Charney Report — that’s 44 years in a row.

    Only one prediction of the long-term climate has ever been right in world history. Mine, from 1997:

    The climate will get warmer, unless it gets colder.

    The logarithmic absorption effect of CO2 alone, and the fact that CO2 emissions lead to global warming, are not facts that need to be debated.

    The radiative effect of CO2 alone is in the HITRAN and MODTRAN databases that both consensus scientists and “skeptic” scientists, such as Richard Lindzen and William Happer, use.

    The three main CO2 questions:

    (1) CO2 logarithmic greenhouse effect = general agreement

    (2) CO2 life expectancy in atmosphere = no agreement

    (3) Water vapor positive feedback effect = no agreement

    I have a climate and energy blog that publishes a recommended reading list every morning. Articles from this website often make the list. This one did not, and I just explained why. I do not tolerate junk science.

    https://honestclimatescience.blogspot.com/

    1. Petit_Barde

      I will try to answer shortly and address some of your points. Perhaps some other discussion will be necessary.

      Human impact on CO2 concentration :

      You wrote :
      “There is a process where CO2 is a feedback, so ocean temperature changes LEAD CO2 changes in the ratio of CO2 in the oceans and atmosphere. But the total amount of CO2 in the oceans and the atmosphere COMBINED does not change, unlike manmade CO2 emissions”

      Then how this equilibrium is maintened while volcanoes (Pinatubo 1991, etc.) emit often more CO2 in the atmosphere than human activity in decades and despite that, there is no observable blip in the CO2 concentration measurements (Mauna Loa) ?
      This is because CO2 in the oceans precipitates (for instance) whith Calcium (Ca²+ + CO3²- –> CaCO3).
      That’s the carbon cycle. And that’s why, while volcanoes can emit many folds more than us, the equilibrium (Henry’s law) from oceans and atmospheric CO2 concentration will prevail even if we add CO2 from fossil fuel. Geophysicists know also that there are CO2 equilibrium between soils and the atmosphere. Globally, the human impact is real but is very tiny because the Henry’s law applies to 1,3 billions km3 of oceans (plus the soils) and these equilibriums are able to deal with way bigger CO2 emissions from volcanoes than ours.

      CO2 (and other active gases in the IR spectrum) and temperatures :

      The radiative absorption/emission by CO2 is indeed a fact (my teacher in raditative transfer was Jean Taine at Centrale Paris so I know the theory and the different models which are used and in which situations they can or cannot be applyed). These models are mainly used in the industry but can’t be merely applyed to the earth atmosphere because they do not take into acount all the other factors (convection, evaporation, clouds, photosynthesis, etc.) and no other model actually can, thus, the only way to positively know what are doing the active gases in the IR spectrum is to measure what radiative energy they absorb from the surface (difference of upward and downward fluxes), and what they emit into space. This will not tell us what the CO2 is doing, but way better : if the actual mix CH4+CO2+WV+O3+… cools or warms the atmosphere). I let you search those data. You can find them in the Earth annual mean energy balance (NASA 2009, Kiehl trenberth 1997, …).

      By the way, many models concluded that the CO2 cools the atmosphere (see for example Manabe and Möller, “On the radiative equilibrium and heat balance of the atmosphere”).

      There are so much problems with models and the implicit assumptions we do when we use them :
      – for example, what are the conditions (temperatures – which increase induces atmospheric CO2 increase -, general atmospheric circulation, laps rate, cloudiness, solar activity, galactic rays, vegetation, …) we have to take into acount to run the model when we assume a doubling of CO2 concentration ? We can’t merely say “OK, let’s double the CO2 concentration and see what we get” assuming that all others parameters stay unchanged : this is not science but pseudo-science.

      On the 99.9% consensus :
      – from the scientists you cite, the only physicist is John Christy and as far as I know, he never told he think the AGW is true (or false by the way).
      – I can cite John Clauser, a Nobel laureate in physics who thinks all this is a scam. I assume he knows way better than us what the radiative transfer is, how HITRAN or MODTRAN are designed and that CO2 emits and absorbs at 15 microns and induces a thermalization (which is basic knowledge for an engineer) but he nevertheless call the AGW a scam, why?
      My point is that there is no consensus (which BTW has nothing to do with science) on the AGW, there is no science behind this hypothesis but incomplete (or even wrong) models, incomplete or wrong assumptions with too many (un)known unknown and which results proove nothing and have no scientific value whatsoever (except that when we assume CO2 warms the atmosphere the models find it does : circular GIGO).

      Best regards.

  7. Richard Greene

    The Volcano Myths’
    Volcanoes emit perhaps 1% of total CO2 emissions (manmade plus volcano CO2 emissions that both increase the atmospheric CO2 level).

    The CO2 emissions from land volcanoes are almost irrelevant because they are so small. The CO2 emissions from underseas volcanoes are more irrelevant, because they usually get trapped in the cold, deep ocean and do not reach the atmosphere.

    While the early history of the Earth is an approximation, it is believed that atmospheric CO2 has been declining for nearly 4.5 billion years.

    The CO2 that was once in the atmosphere has gradually been requesters in rocks, shells, and underground as oil, natural gas and coal.

    That is why after 4.5 billion years atmospheric CO2 was down to about 180ppm — the lowest it has ever been.

    While volcanoes add a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere, their CO2 emissions did not prevent atmospheric CO2 levels from declining for 4.5 billion years.

    If CO2 had declined below about 150ppm, C3 plant growth would have suffered, and our planet would not have been able to support billions of people.

    That means the CO2 emissions since 1850 were very good news for plants and the humans and animals who eat them.

    CO2 cools the atmosphere myth

    Over a century of lab spectroscopy says that is claptrap

    AGW is a scam myth

    Few people know what AGW is and I bet you did not
    Over 99.9% of the world’s scientists believe AGW exits.

    What is AGW:

    (1) Manmade CO2 emissions

    (2) Reduced manmade SO2 emissions

    (3) Increasing urban heat island effect from economic growth in the vicinity of land weather station, including rural stations

    (3) Land use changes such as clear-cutting forests for farming or for solar panel farms

    (4) Other albedo changes, such as dark coal dust falling on Arctic ice and snow, causing more solar energy absorption

    (5) Errors, whether unintentional or deliberate, in the measurements of temperatures and calculation of the global average temperature statistic, that create an artificial “manmade” warming trend that does not exist in reality.

    Are you claiming all five of these manmade causes of global warming are a hoax?

    If so, you have nothing of value to contribute to the debate over leftist predictions of CAGW (aka Climate Doom). You can’t deny 100% of consensus climate science, which you almost appear to be doing, and win any climate science debate.

  8. Petit_Barde

    “Volcanoes emit perhaps 1% of total CO2 emissions (manmade plus volcano CO2 emissions that both increase the atmospheric CO2 level).”

    1) The James Hansen’s article on the Pinatubo shows another story :
    – It shows that the 1991 Pinatubo eruption caused a decrease of the CO2 fraction with spectific C isotope (in CO2 emitted from CO2) from 60% to 40% of the total amount of airborn CO2 : that’s not possible unless not 1% but rather 20% or more of the total CO2 was emitted with the other C isotope during this eruption ALONE.

    2) Despite those massive CO2 emissions, we can’t observe any CO2 blip in 1991-1992 (see Mauna Loa CO2 measurements), plausibly oceans via the Henry’s law (and other factors) maintained unchanged the increasing trend in atmospheric CO2.

    It would be useful to refute those observations by, for example, giving an other plausible explanation or showing by evidence based reasoning that some theories or collected data are wrong among :
    – Mauna Loa CO2 concentration measurement,
    – CO2 airborn fraction index definition/measurements (see J. Hansen paper on this website for example),
    – Henry’s law,
    – ?

    Note : Have you analyzed the NASA Earth energy budget and the measured absoption and emission of the IR active gases ? This is a very important diagram to analyze (it needs an understanding of basic radiative heat transfer because some arrows represent radiative fluxes and others radiative energy transfers). This diagram is published also in the IPCC ARs.

    What is AGW:

    (1) Manmade CO2 emissions : see before. No link proven. Data measurement and models desagree. My position is that Manmade CO2 emissions whichever impact they have on climate, are too small and the CO2 has a too small impact on climate to even bother. BTW CO2 is beneficial for vegetation and thus life. Labs experiments do not take into acount the too complex atmosphere behaviour, we use HITRAN in the industry in confined, controlled spaces (refractory wall/material furnaces, ovens, …) where we can assume a thermodynamical and/or radiative equilibrium : that’s not the case in the atmosphere.

    On this point I know I am a “contrarian”, I of course maybe wrong, but I use the own data of the IPPC and the NASA and basic engineer knoledge.
    And for the human CO2 emissions impact, I use the CO2 airborne index (J. Hansen, …) and the Mauna Loa CO2 concentration measurements.

    (2) Reduced manmade SO2 emissions : as far as I know, there is no proven causal link between manmade SO2 emission variations (which are btw rapidily dissolved and or go down and are absorbed by the soils) and climate. Volcanoes SO2 emissions have indeed a cooling impact but they go through the troposphere up to the tropopause, and they are massive, which is not the case of the humans SO2 emissions. Minor/undetectable impact here.

    (3) Increasing urban heat island effect from economic growth in the vicinity of land weather station, including rural stations :
    – by definition UHI is local and has almost nothing to do with climate. Note : all the humanity can live in Texas … and 71% of the earth is covered by oceans. So this effect may be small on the global scale.

    (3) Land use changes such as clear-cutting forests for farming or for solar panel farms : farming induces also cooling (irrigation) and with respect to solar panels (which for me are an ecologic disaster) it’s equivalent to point 3. Clear-cutting forests, yes : minor note, the trend is opposite in Europe (I have data of Germany and France) since about a century.

    Note also : the so-called water vapor positive warming reaction induced by more evaporation from more vegetation due to the rise of CO2 concentration (introduced a decade ago by the IPCC when the estimated ECS to a CO2 doubling was too small to bother anyone and with a decreasing trend) … what do you think about that ? If true, clear-cutting forests may not have so much impact … or may have an opposite impact on climate …

    (4) Other albedo changes, such as dark coal dust falling on Arctic ice and snow, causing more solar energy absorption :
    – this pollution comes also from volcanoes and atmospheric circulation which brings for example Sahara sand to Europe. Nevertheless, they have little or no impact since where there is snow or ice, particularly in the Arctic, the sun is weak most of the year and it snows regularly. They may have some impact on European glaciers. But less than some decades ago since we use less coal.

    (5) Errors, whether unintentional or deliberate, in the measurements of temperatures and calculation of the global average temperature statistic, that create an artificial “manmade” warming trend that does not exist in reality : the only point I completely agree, a mix of UHI and Mann made warming.

    Best regards.

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