“From modern instrumental carbon isotopic data of the last 40 years, no signs of human (fossil fuel) CO2 emissions can be discerned.” – Koutsoyiannis, 2024
It is routinely claimed that a telltale sign human emissions (fossil fuels) have irrevocably altered the atmospheric CO2 concentration is a declining trend in carbon isotope 13 (δ13C), considered an interruption of natural carbon cycle processes.
But new research examining isotopic data from four observation sites (South Pole, Mauna Loa, Barrow, La Jolla – regarded as “global” in their coverage) indicates there is no isotopic pattern consistent with a human fingerprint.
“The standard metric δ13C is consistent with an input isotopic signature that is stable over the entire period of observations (>40 years), i.e., not affected by increases in human CO2 emissions.”
In fact, not only has the input isotopic CO2 signature not been declining as proposed by those who believe humans are fully responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, but, according to multiple detection techniques using both modern data and paleo data extending to the Little Ice Age (16th to mid-19th century), δ13C [input] has actually been increasing.
This directionality is the exact opposite of what is supposed to happen if fossil fuels were driving atmospheric CO2 increases.
“…for the longer subperiod lengths, 20 and 30 years, the tendencies are clearly increasing, opposite to the hypothesis that they are caused by fossil fuel emissions”
“…the trends are small and always positive, again contradicting the fossil fuel origin of the phenomenon”
“…from period B to C [1899-1976 to 1977-1997], we note an increase in δ13C [input, from -13.9‰ to -12.9‰], contradicting the fossil fuel origin of the phenomenon”
Excellent article. Thanks to share.
In one of his publications (Hansen et al., 2013), James Hansen already noticed that the CO2 airborn fraction was not consistent with the human’s increasing CO2 emissions.
The article reference can be found here:
https://notrickszone.com/2022/04/11/defying-modeled-expectations-again-the-co2-airborne-fraction-has-been-declining-since-1959/
He also noted that in 1991, this fraction decreased during the Pinatubo eruption. Indeed, the airborn fraction decreased by almost a third in a few months and maintained its values during about 1 year (this timeline is consistent with the Pinatubo 1991 eruption).
Some basic calculus can prove that for the CO2 airborn fraction to decrease by a third, the Pinatubo (or whatever natural CO2 emission phenomenon which occurred in 1991) must have emitted in about 1 year some 30% of the total CO2 present in the atmosphere at the time.
A look at the Mauna Loa CO2 measures shows that those massive CO2 emissions during 1 year did not even cause a dent on the measured CO2 trend.
Anyone can verify this and the conclusion is obvious.
The Pinatubo eruption is interesting to me because the cooling it caused resulted in a decrease in the CO2 growth the following year.
In 1992 the CO2 growth at Mauna Loa was 0.49ppm which is less than half the annual CO2 growth at that time.
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gr.html
CO2 growth correlates well with temperature and the change in CO2 growth correlates well with change in temperature. This suggests that the change in CO2 in the atmosphere is controlled by the equilibrium relationship the CO2 in the atmosphere and the CO2 in the oceans.
This explains why a large input from a large eruption has no detectable effect on the atmospheric CO2 concentration or growth.
The oceans’ temperatures change very slowly compared to the atmosphere. It takes about 800 years for the oceans to “turn over.” Yes, atmospheric temperature and CO2 are correlated, but, on average over the last several ice ages, CO2 changes occurred about 800 years AFTER temperature changes. Lawyers like to say post hoc ergo propter hoc — after the thing therefore caused by the thing. Logical nonsense, as illustrated by this syllogism: Apollo astronauts ate chicken. I ate chicken. Hooray! I’m going to the moon. A logically consistent Latin phrase would be ante hoc ergo non propter hoc — before the thing therefore not caused by the thing. If temperature changes before CO2 concentration, changes in CO2 concentration cannot be causing the temperature changes. And on a longer time scale, atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature are entirely uncorrelated.
Glad to hear you liked my article! And thanks for pointing out Kenneth Richard’s post quoting Hansen’s paper.
I have a question for you and/or Kenneth Richard. The papers quoted (which I did not read) say that airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions has not been rising since 1850; but how can their authors know what the [CO2] was in 1850 with such accuracy as to take differences from year to year and calculate that airborne fraction?
I am not familiar with the airborne fraction, but my intuition says it does not have any physical meaning.
https://notrickszone.com/2022/04/11/defying-modeled-expectations-again-the-co2-airborne-fraction-has-been-declining-since-1959/
The van Merle and Hansen papers say since ~1959, not 1850. I’m assuming there is a Mauna Loa-related metric being used to produce this late-fifties to present airborne fraction record. There’s likely nothing at all with regard to measurements to support any claim about the airborne fraction since 1850. Any 1850-1959 data are probably modeling artefacts.
We can count on Kenneth Richard to infest this website with ridiculous junk science “studies” such as claiming manmade CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere never happened. These myths are why this website is a laughingstock despite good articles by Mr Gosselin.
Humans added enough CO2 since 1800 to explain 2x of the total atmospheric CO2 increase
Nature was a CO2 absorber as it has been, irregularly, for 4.5 billion years
Meanwhile, almost 100% of climate scientists believe there is a greenhouse effect, human CO2 emissions have increased it and those emissions are responsible for some of the warming since 1975
But just not in Mr. Richard’s junk science world. All the scientists must have been wrong since 1896 and he knows better.
Richard Lindzen – wrong?
William Happer – wrong?
Roy Spencer – wrong?
John Christy – wrong?
Judith Curry = wrong?
All climate science Ph.D.’s
100,000+ scientific studies = wrong?
Daily downwelling longwave radiation measurements
= wrong?
A lot of people have to be wrong for Mr. Richards and this study to be right. Either Mr. Richards is a genius or he is not a genius, to be kind. My vote is for “not”.
Obviously you didn’t bother reading the study itself, as the scientist who authored it has never claimed manmade CO2 emissions “never happened”.
Another 2024 published scientific study uses decades of data to show…
“We conclude that the observed increase of the atmospheric CO2 concentration has not altered, in a discernible manner, the greenhouse effect, which remains dominated by the quantity of water vapour in the atmosphere…”
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02626667.2023.2287047
But it’s long been understood that Richard Greene does not like scientific research that doesn’t align with his point of view, and that he believes if he refers to 100% consensus or calls Dr. Koutsoyiannis’s work “junk”, he has done his job.
All Richard does is yap mindlessly in blustering self-opinionated garbage..
Do not expect him to every produce any actual evidence to back up any of his manic anti-science claims.
B nasty2000 follows me around like a junkyard dog at WUWT biting my ankles with science free insult pots
He believes all global warming is natural, caused by underseas volcanoes and El Nino heat releases, which I call an El Nino Nutter.
Of course he ignores La Nina cooling events and the fact that the ENSO cycle is temperature neutral in the long run
He also ignores the fact that if El Ninos caused all the warming in 1975 through 2024, then they must have caused all the cooling from 1940 to 1975.
El Ninos can do EVERYTHING folks !
Poor Richard , still doesn’t understand Lan Nina/ El Nino balance
Does not accept the basic fact that the only warming shown in the UAH TLT data is from El Nino events.
DENIAL of science, doesn’t even start to explain his AGW-cultist stance.
And being called a “nutter” by RG… I just LOL !!
Means I am almost certainly correct in my science and data based understanding… and that he cannot produce evidence I am wrong.
His anti-science rantings and tantrums are totally irrelevant…
… but very humorous, because they continually expose his deep-seated AGW-brain-washing and total lack of any scientific ability or understanding.
Richard is also a rabid AGW-support/cultist/lukewarmer…
Constantly regurgitating all the fallacies of the AGW agenda.
A closet AGW-cultist who keeps the closet door fully open.
All the Ph.D. scientists mentioned claim the greenhouse effect is increasing from manmade CO2 emissions and most of them estimate how much per CO2 x 2
I have the intelligence to decide if a scientific study is BS…, BUT YOU DO NOT.
You reflexively reject all consensus studies — 100,000+ of them and all consensus scientists (a nearly 100% consensus on AGW warming from CO2 emissions — no consensus on how much warming, or whether warming is good or bad news)
The greenhouse effect has been altered and that fact is measured 365 days a year by stellites. Reality can noit be denied.
Stop denying that humans added a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere in the past two centuries, mainly after the 1960s, Anyone who claims this this not happen is stuck on stupid.
Poor Richard has still failed completely to produce a single bit of actual science.
Fails to understand that natural sources of CO2 far outweigh and consume any fossil fuel CO2.
Deliberately fails to comprehend anything that is not part of his AGW-cult mantra.
Only person looking stupid here, is you Richard.
“I have the intelligence…”
NO.. you certainly do not !
Your intelligence exists only in your overactive ego and arrogance.
Dear Dr. Richard Greene,
Thanks so much for your compliment: “ridiculous junk science “studies” such as claiming manmade CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere never happened”.
Before you address your next compliment to me, please read my junk science study. In particular, see Figure 2 (right) which shows the evolution of global human carbon emissions. Perhaps this would help you clarify my view about what “never happened”.
As homework, before your next compliment to me, please take this graph and add a curve of non-human emissions for the same time span, 1850-2025. (Hint: Use Figure 22 of the same junk science paper.)
Also, please try your next compliment to me to be novel. Because you have already used this: “junk science articles like this one” for my earlier paper here:
https://judithcurry.com/2023/09/26/causality-and-climate/#comment-993876
Natural CO2 emissions from volcanoes and underseas vents are no more than 1% of total CO2 emissions that can increase the atmosphere CO2 level year over year.
The seasonal carbon cycle does not add CO2 to the atmosphere year over year when you add up emissions and absorption. If it did, the atmospheric CO2 level would have been increasing for the past 4.5 billion years. In fact, it has been DECREASING.
Nature has been a very long term CO2 absorber for all 4.5 billion years. The CO2 level 4.5 billion years ago was at least 1% and possibly as high as venus
CO2 has been in a downtrend since then despite natural vents and volcanoes. Down to 180ppm estimated at the troughs in the past 800,000 years. 150 ppm or power would be dangerous for C3 plants, which add up to about 80% of all vegetation on our planet.
The ONLY change to the long term CO2 decrease was manmade CO2 emissions recycling underground sequestered CO2 (from carbon) in oil, gas and coal.
This “CO2 recycling” was very good news for our planet
You appear to be a CO2 is 97% Natural Nutter so of course I will not waste my time reading your writings
Manmade emissions caused all the CO2 increase in the past 200 years (manmade CO2 emissions were about about 2x the actual atmospheric CO2 increase) while nature was a CO2 absorber … as it has been, irregularly, for 4.5 billion years.
Again Richard in DENIAL of the fact that the natural emissions of CO2 is somewhere around 95-97% of total global emissions.
Very sad.
No isotopic signature of fossil fuels in the atmosphere.
This is just something you need to accept… or continue to look like a low-end science denier.
“Manmade emissions caused all the CO2 increase in the past 200 years”
Yet another anti-science AGW-cult fallacy regurgitated by a scientific illiterate egomaniac.
“Natural CO2 emissions from volcanoes and underseas vents are no more than 1% of total CO2 emissions …”
No, the percentage you are claiming is only applicable to terrestrial volcanoes. We know too little about submarine volcanoes to assign a reliable percentage to them.
I wish I had a link to that Climate Etc. article of yours to cut and paste here. Would have saved my some time.
I want you to know that I am biased in favor of Greek peopke and you have what sounds like a Greek name. My wife is 100% Greek. But I am also biased against climate myths and CO2 is all natural, or 97% natural, of 95% natural, is a climate myth.
My response to your manade CO2 denying, at two websites in two nations, was consistent and correct. I’d rather have Richard Lindzen and William Happer on my side of a debate, than you.
Dear Dr. Richard Green,
That’s indeed a novel compliment, “will not waste my time reading your writings”. And it goes in line with your other comment, “I wish I had a link to that Climate Etc. article of yours to cut and paste here. Would have saved my some time.”
Thanks for those. I understand that you are able to have an informed opinion on writings which you don’t read. And that your informed opinion can be copy/pasted in comments on different writings. That’s awesome, your Greek wife must be proud of you!
Give her my greetings. I hope she didn’t lose contact with classical Greek values and that she would teach some to you.
There are two sources of CO2 in the atmosphere
Humans and nature
Humans have added a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere
The atmospheric CO2 level MUST be the sum of manmade and natural CO2 emissions
Since the estimate of 280ppm in 1850, the atmospheric CO increased +140 ppm to 420 ppm in 2023
Since manmade CO2 emissions are estimated at about +250ppm since 1850, but total atmospheric CO2 only increased +140 ppm, nature had to be a large CO2 absorber. As it has been, irregularly, for 4.5 billion years.
I tried to explain this in simple language that a 12 year old child could understand. Go out and find a 12 year old child to explain it to you.
When an author claims all, or nearly all, atmospheric CO2 had manmade origins, that marks the writer as a fool. Intelligent people do not waste time reading junk science written by fools. There are too many good articles and studies to read.
Please so the world a favor an find another subject to write about.
Why Pierre Gosselin and Judith Curry would publish your articles on their websites will remain a mystery. I guess no one is perfect,
That Richard is totally incapable of understanding an analysis of measured data…
… is not at all surprising.
No isotopic evidence of fossil fuel CO2 left in the atmosphere.
Get over it !!
Judith and Pierre publish scientific articles from scientists.
You on the other hand, produce nothing but bluster.
” But I am also biased against climate myths”
Now that is funny..
You actual regurgitate climate myths live you had them as a bad breakfast.
You continue to deny actual measured science in a pitiful attempt to hold your AGW-cult beliefs together.
btw… Will Happer says the effect of human CO2 is negligible.
I agree with him completely.. Warming by human CO2 has never been observed or measured anywhere on the planet..
You could, of course, counter that fact with actual evidence.. but I’m guessing all we will see is more blustering.
“I’d rather have Richard Lindzen and William Happer on my side of a debate, than you.”
Two of my favorite skeptics. You never will have either of them on your side,, what with the nonsense you push and especially the way you push it.
I’m at a loss as to your purpose in employing such rhetorical device. It makes no sense.
There have been 6 instances when Richard Greene wrote in the comments that he is not looking at NTZ anymore or commenting on the articles here. He wants readers to follow him to his blog, so he’s probably just trying to gin up traffic to his website. Apparently he thinks actually following through on his threats to leave is rhetorically persuasive.
I learned long ago, after having drop-kicked Richard Greene (aka DoubleSix6Man… ‘666 Man’) across the width and breadth of CFACT, that Dickie is a warmist wolf in climate skeptic sheep’s clothing.
He claims to be a climate skeptic in order to act as a Judas goat, leading legitimate climate skeptics astray in service to his woketard overlords.
Ask him why he defended leftists on CFACT. Vehemently. LOL
Dick buys into every warmist premise; argues from the warmist perspective; leaps to the defense of leftist woketards; bleat about ‘consensus’; denigrates bog-standard radiative physics, quantum physics and thermodynamics in favor of the warmist mathematical fraudery in their misuse of the S-B equation and reliance upon ancient and long-debunked scientific principles; and attacks anyone smart enough to mathematically and scientifically prove the warmist blather is unscientific.
https://i.imgur.com/PVMQqNl.png
That image was made years ago, back when he was infecting CFACT… he’s not changed because in order to change, one must be capable of learning.
@Kennith Richard
…..So, he’s trying to cut weaker individuals from the safety of the herd, so he can attack them on his home turf? Actually, I did go there once. Didn’t leave a comment. Just wanted to assess his material. No encore for him.
@LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
…..Thanks for your input, and for learnin me a new expression “bog-standard.” I thought I got it, but had to look it up to be sure. Anyway, he certainly is stubborn, which is fine, but it’s when he gets devious and nasty that he becomes odious. What Kenneth set me straight on is a ploy I haven’t seen him use before. His explanation is consistent with what I already know of Mr Greene.
chuckle.!
Wouldn’t worry too much about RG.
He is a non-scientific hack who thinks he knows a lot more than he actually does..
… and hides his general ignorance behind mindless and childish blustering ..
It is fun to watch some of his tantrums 🙂
BTW.. Good analysis…
Given the relatively small amount (5% ish?) of all CO2 emissions, it makes sense that most of fossil fuel CO2 gets very quickly consumed and becomes part of the general carbon cycle.
What might be interesting is to see if plants have a preference for one CO2 isotope over another.
We all know plants LUV CO2. 🙂
Thanks so much b.nice!
No, I don’t worry too much about RG. Why should I? Did he present any scientific argument?
Yes, plants love CO2–and animals, including myself, love plants. And yes, plants have a preference for the lighter isotope, and this is called fractionation. As I explain in the paper, photosynthesis removes CO2 from the atmosphere and the fractionation that characterises it results in an increase in δ13C in the atmosphere, during the months it occurs. The seasonal change is very high at high latitudes in the north hemisphere, as seen in Fig. 16 in the paper.
“Did he present any scientific argument?”
NOPE.. and he never will.
He is incapable of anything but mindless bluster.
Thank you for your patience and tolerance of Mr. Greene’s zero science evidence-based replies as he is known as Mr. Know it all as he is at war with just about everybody in the Solar System thus it was never about you it is about HIM the “magnificent” the entire time.
He got angry when I deleted one of his comments at a science variety blog, I administrate because he was inappropriately promoting his personal blog while he never added the link to his blog in his username which he never figured out how to do it even after I showed him how.
Thanks b.nice and Sunsettommy for the explanations. As I wrote to him, I hope his Greek wife would help him, by teaching him some classical values (including intellectual humility).
Richard Greene wrote:
“Daily downwelling longwave radiation measurements
= wrong?”
Absolutely wrong. Not only wrong, but physically impossible. Energy does not and cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density (ie: radiation pressure) gradient, just as water does not and cannot spontaneously flow up a pressure gradient.
Most people cannot think in terms of energy, energy density and energy density gradient. We need to analogize to something they’re familiar with. Thus, just as, for instance, water only spontaneously flows down a pressure gradient, energy only spontaneously flows down an energy density gradient. That’s 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense, in a nutshell. So one tack to take is to ask people if water can ever spontaneously flow uphill. Of course they’ll say, “No, water cannot flow uphill on its own.” Then show them dimensional analysis.
mass (M), length (L), time (T), absolute temperature (K), amount of substance (N), electric charge (Q), luminous intensity (C)
We denote the dimensions like this: [Mx, Lx, Tx, Kx, Nx, Qx, Cx] where x = the number of that dimension
We typically remove dimensions we don’t use.
Force: [M1 L1 T-2] /
Area: [M0 L2 T0] =
Pressure: [M1 L-1 T-2] /
Length: [M0 L1 T0] =
Pressure Gradient: [M1 L-2 T-2]
Explain to them that Pressure is Force / Area, and that Pressure Gradient is Pressure / Length. Remind them that water only spontaneously flows down a pressure gradient (ie: downhill). Then introduce energy. Tell them that energy is much like water. It requires an impetus to flow, just as water requires an impetus (pressure gradient) to flow. In the case of radiative energy, that impetus is a radiation energy density gradient, which is analogous to (and in fact, literally is) a radiation pressure gradient.
Energy: [M1 L2 T−2] /
Volume: [M0 L3 T0] =
Energy Density: [M1 L-1 T-2] /
Length: [M0 L1 T0] =
Energy Density Gradient: [M1 L-2 T-2]
Explain to them that Energy Density is Energy / Volume, and Energy Density Gradient is Energy Density / Length.
Highlight the fact that PRESSURE AND ENERGY DENSITY HAVE THE SAME UNITS.
Also highlight the fact that PRESSURE GRADIENT AND ENERGY DENSITY GRADIENT HAVE THE SAME UNITS.
So we’re talking about the same concept as water only spontaneously flowing down a pressure gradient (ie: downhill) when we talk of energy (of any form) only spontaneously flowing down an energy density gradient. Energy density IS pressure, an energy density gradient IS a pressure gradient… FOR ENERGY.
—————
So how does this “backradiation” come about?
It’s due to the climastrologists misusing the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. They use the idealized blackbody form of the S-B equation on graybody objects, which is tantamount to isolating each object into its own isolated system so the objects cannot interact via the background EM field… and that means the climastrologists are forced to assume emission to 0 K, which inflates radiant exitance of all objects.
https://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif
Idealized Blackbody Object (assumes emission to 0 K and ε = 1 by definition):
q_bb = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) A_h
= 1 σ (T_h^4 – 0 K) 1 m^2
= σ T^4
Graybody Object (assumes emission to > 0 K and ε 1 m^2], which converts the result from radiant exitance (W m-2, radiant flux per unit area) to radiant flux (W).
Temperature is equal to the fourth root of radiation energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant (ie: the radiation constant).
e = T^4 a
a = 4σ/c
e = T^4 4σ/c
T^4 = e/(4σ/c)
T = 4^√(e/(4σ/c))
T = 4^√(e/a)
q = ε_h σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
[1] ∴ q = ε_h σ ((e_h / (4σ / c)) – (e_c / (4σ / c)))
Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
W m-2 = W m-2 K-4 * (Δ(J m-3 / (W m-2 K-4 / m sec-1)))
[2] ∴ q = (ε_h c (e_h – e_c)) / 4
Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
W m-2 = (m sec-1 (ΔJ m-3)) / 4
One can see from the immediately-above equation that the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation is all about subtracting the radiation energy density of the cooler object from the radiation energy density of the warmer object.
[3] ∴ q = (ε_h * (σ / a) * Δe) / 4
Canceling units, we get W m-2.
W m-2 = ((W m-2 K-4 / J m-3 K-4) * ΔJ m-3) / 4
You will note that σ = (a * c) / 4… the S-B Constant equals Stefan’s Constant multiplied by the speed of light in vacua divided by 4.
[4] ∴ q = (ε_h * ((a * c) / a) * Δe) / 4 = (ε_h * c * Δe) / 4
Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
W m-2 = (m sec-1 * ΔJ m-3) / 4
Note that [2] and [4] are identical, arrived at via two different avenues.
So radiant exitance at its most simplified (and thus the S-B equation at its most simplified) is just the emissivity of the warmer object (because emissivity only applies to objects which are emitting, and only the warmer object will be emitting… the colder object will be unable to emit in the direction of the warmer object because energy cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient) multiplied by the speed of light in vacua, multiplied by the energy density differential, all divided by 4.
For graybody objects, it is the radiation energy density differential between warmer object and cooler object which determines warmer object radiant exitance. Warmer objects don’t absorb radiation from cooler objects (a violation of 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense and Stefan’s Law); the lower radiation energy density gradient between warmer and cooler objects (as compared to between warmer object and 0 K) lowers radiant exitance of the warmer object (as compared to its radiant exitance if it were emitting to 0 K). The radiation energy density differential between objects manifests a radiation energy density gradient, each surface’s radiation energy density manifesting a proportional radiation pressure.
—————
“But they’ve measured backradiation!”, some may claim. Yeah, no.
https://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/08/how-to-fool-yourself-with-pyrgeometer.html
As Professor Claes Johnson shows in that article on his website, pyrgeometers (the instrument typically used to ‘measure’ backradiation) utilize the same sort of misuse of the S-B equation as the climastrologists use. The bastardized form of the S-B equation used by pyrgeometers [ usually some form of q = (σ T_h^4 – σ T_c^4) or equivalently Ld = U_emf/S + σT_b, as outlined in the documentation for the instrument, with U_emf/S being negative in sign ] apriori assumes a subtraction of ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow, which as has been shown, is fallacious.
As has been shown, the entirety of the CAGW narrative is predicated upon mathematical fraudery. Given that the climatologists are purportedly highly educated, there’s no way they’d make such a basic mistake… hence it must be intentional deception. The only other explanation is profound incompetence on the part of the climatologists.
Are you claiming there is no greenhouse effect and nearly 100% of scientists since 1896 were wrong about that?
Are you claiming there is no back radiation, which is the greenhouse effect?
Are you claiming the measurements of back radiation are fraud ?
Are you claiming that there is a global conspiracy of scientists to fake back radiation measurements and hide the fact that back radiation is a hoax?
Are you claiming that Richard Lindzen, William Happer and almost all the conservative skeptic scientists on our side, are fools for using an increasing greenhouse effect from manmade CO2 emissions in their predictions of the future climate?
A lot of people have to be wrong for you to be right.
That’s why it is obvious you have no idea what you are talking about.
Again.. A total lack of any evidence from Richard
Flapping your arms in the air, is not evidence. !!
Read it and weep… absolute mathematical proof that the “greenhouse effect” has been conflated with Kelvin-Helmholtz gravitational auto-compression; absolute mathematical proof that not only does “backradiation” not exist, it CANNOT exist because its existence would violate the fundamental physical laws; absolute mathematical proof that the climastrologists have misused the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to bolster their doomsaying narrative; absolute mathematical proof that not only are the climastrologists wrong, they are diametrically opposite to reality.
https://www.file.io/SgMK/download/PFw9vdn5Wtsz
CAGW is nothing more than a complex mathematical scam. The CAGW hypothesis has been disproved. Few were quit-witted enough to catch the climastrologists as they palmed the pea while shuffling the thimbles in their little thimblerig scam… and for those who were not, they should be mortified that you were taken in by such an obvious scam due to their lack of proper education.
It appears that scientific reality really perturbs the warmists… they’ve flagged the file uploaded to file.io and gotten it removed.
No matter, I can upload it to any number of other places… they can play whack-a-mole all they like, it won’t stop the truth from coming out.
https://filebin.net/rta04q2jydbxiydx/Climate_Sanity.pdf
Just to keep Richard and his ilk busy tonight, I’ll upload to a few more sites… here’s one. LOL
https://f2h.io/5355a993ux0n
The climate deniers are going to have to work very hard to censor scientific truth. LOL
https://www.udrop.com/LB26/Climate_Sanity.pdf
BTW, for those interested, you’re allowed to use any of what I write however you wish… rewrite it to make it more easily understandable then publish under your own name, publish it as-is in whole or in part under your own name, round-file it, whatever… no attribution to me is needed. Let’s use the file to destroy CAGW. LOL
I’ve been emailing all the automobile companies, investment companies in the Climate Action 100+ initiative, lawmakers, judges, governors, mayors, oil companies, etc… you’ll note there’s a marked up-tick in pushback against the climate catastrophe narrative lately. If one person hitting the right people can sway things that easily, imagine what thousands of people could do. We could utterly crush CAGW and all of its offshoots (EPA CO2 Endangerment finding, SEC emission reporting requirement, social cost of carbon, carbon capture and sequestration, net zero, carbon credit trading, replacing reliable fossil-fueled or nuclear baseload electrical generation with unreliable ‘renewables’, etc.).
Here’s a link they’ll have trouble pulling down:
https://tinyurl.com/ClimateSanity
Just realized the website messed up the comment… the ‘greater than’ and ‘lesser than’ signs messed it up…
This:
“Graybody Object (assumes emission to > 0 K and ε 1 m^2], which converts the result from radiant exitance (W m-2, radiant flux per unit area) to radiant flux (W).”
— should be —
Graybody Object (assumes emission to > 0 K and ε ‘less than’ 1):
q_gb = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) A_h
The A_h term is merely a multiplier, used if one is calculating for an area greater than unity (ie: ‘greater than’ 1 m^2], which converts the result from radiant exitance (W m-2, radiant flux per unit area) to radiant flux (W).
Now, there have been some slick huckster climastrologists who claim something along the lines of:
“But if a cooler object emits a photon of shorter wavelength that incides upon a warmer object, that photon can be absorbed!”
Yeah, no.
A warmer object will have higher energy density AT ALL WAVELENGTHS than a cooler object because temperature is a measure of radiation energy density (equal to the fourth root of radiation energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant, per Stefan’s Law).:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/qPJ94.png
… so ‘backradiation’ can do nothing to warm the surface because energy cannot spontaneously radiatively flow from lower to higher radiation energy density, and thus CAGW is nothing more than a complex mathematical scam perpetrated to obtain multiple billions of dollars in funding for trough-grubbing line-toeing ‘scientists’ and to push a Marxist One World Government “Build Back Better” agenda.
I took a thermodynamics course in college on the way to a BS degree.
You obviously studied ThermoDUMBnamics and demonstrate complete ignorance about the subject
There are radiation flows between all objects warmer than absolute zero
That means radiation flows from Earth’s surface up to the atmosphere heading toward the infinite heat sink of space (upwelling longwave radiation) and down from the atmosphere to Earth’s surface (downwelling longwave radiation, aka back radiation).
The net cooling effect is the larger radiation flow up minus the smaller radiation flow down.
The temperature of the surface becomes warmer than it would be if it were heated only by direct solar heating.
Some people describe back radiation as Impeding surface cooling. It would be just as accurate to say back radiation causes surface warming.
The upwelling radiation cools Earth’s surface less the warming effect of the downwelling radiation … which is a portion of the upwelling radiation deflected back down by water vapor, clouds and CO2.
The downwelling radiation is called back radiation and is the greenhouse effect that almost 100% of scientists agree exists based on radiation measurements.
The CO2 is Nayural Nutters and Ther is no Back Radiation Nutters have infested this website.
bNasty2000 also set a new personal record for childish, nasty, science-free insult posts aimed at me. Like I care what a science denier says!.
Richard Greene wrote:
“There are radiation flows between all objects warmer than absolute zero”
Wrong.
https://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif
That assumes emission to 0 K by utilizing the idealized blackbody form of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, rather than the graybody form.
Idealized blackbody objects greater than 0 K emit. Idealized blackbody objects don’t actually exist… they’re idealizations to make the mathematical calculations easier.
Real-world graybody objects emit when their temperature is greater than 0 K above the ambient (whatever that ambient may be… it may vary around the perimeter of that object due to different-temperature objects within the view factor of that object).
Your take on radiative energy exchange clings to the long-debunked Prevost Principle (from 1791, and which was predicated upon Caloric Theory) which claims that radiant exitance of an object is only predicated upon that object’s temperature… we have learned a bit in the intervening time… namely that radiant exitance is predicated upon the energy density gradient between objects. I suggest you attempt to bring your knowledge up to date by 233 YEARS before you attempt to argue with anyone, Richard.
https://www.file.io/SgMK/download/PFw9vdn5Wtsz
You’ve been taken in by an easily discerned and easily-disproved scam. That you couldn’t ascertain for yourself that it’s a scam is likely due to the fact that colleges nowadays teach the shortcut method of calculating for emission to 0 K using the idealized blackbody form of the S-B equation, then subtracting a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ ENERGY FLOW from the real (but far too high because it was calculated for emission to 0 K) ‘warmer to cooler ENERGY FLOW to get the equation to balance… when the proper application of the S-B equation for graybody objects is via subtracting cooler object ENERGY DENSITY from warmer object ENERGY DENSITY to arrive at the ENERGY DENSITY GRADIENT, which determines radiant exitance of the warmer object.
The colleges and universities used to make it clear that they were teaching that shortcut method to make the calculations easier, that it didn’t reflect reality… obviously nowadays they don’t tell students that.
Now that you’re emotionally invested in your incorrectitude, there’s no fixing you, because you’ll eschew even mathematical PROOF that you are wrong. You’ve been brainwashed into the climate cult, and hence you are irreparably broken. You won’t even read in full the file linked above because it proves you WRONG.
I guarantee it. You’ll be right back here, spewing the same unphysical nonsense soon (even after having lightly perused then rejecting that linked file despite it hewing to the fundamental physical laws, whereas your take on reality demonstrably violates the fundamental physical laws).
And Richard .. yet again… relies totally on mindless bluster.
Hilarious. !!
You certainly have a degree in BS !!
Richard Greene wrote:
“I took a thermodynamics course in college on the way to a BS degree.”
Then you should demand a refund. Colleges and universities used to inform students that using the idealized blackbody form of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation upon graybody objects, which artificially inflates radiant exitance of all objects, necessitating that one subtract a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ ENERGY FLOW from the real (but far too high because it was calculated for emission to 0 K) ‘warmer to cooler’ ENERGY FLOW was just a shortcut used to make the calculations easier, that it didn’t reflect reality, but it still came up with the same net energy flow as using the proper graybody form of the S-B equation… but it led to incorrect conclusions such as that energy can spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient.
Now, apparently, the institutions of higher learning aren’t telling students that any longer. The climastrologists have taken that to heart and are now claiming that energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to the energy density gradient… in other words, they claim energy can flow without working being done… and by association, they MUST also then claim that work can be done without energy having to flow.
That’s your take on reality, Richard. It’s wrong.
Of course, they’ve forgotten about entropy, which utterly demolishes their claims… read the paper for a thorough debunking of CAGW:
https://www.file.io/SgMK/download/PFw9vdn5Wtsz
Richard Greene wrote:
“There are radiation flows between all objects warmer than absolute zero”
No.
Do you also claim that water can spontaneously flow uphill, Richard? That there are “water flows to and from oceans, to and from lakes above sea level”, both higher-to-lower and lower-to-higher? Why not, Richard? You do it with energy, why not water? Same exact concept. Is it that you’re utterly unable to grasp that concept, Richard? Like I said, demand a refund from whatever fly-by-night diploma mill you got your ‘degree’ from, Richard. LOL
Idealized blackbody objects greater than 0 K emit at all times, because the idealized blackbody form of the S-B equation assumes emission to 0 K by definition. The climastrologists (and you) are attempting to treat real-world graybody objects as though they are idealized blackbody objects.
Real-world graybody objects greater than 0 K above their ambient (and that ambient may vary around the perimeter of that object as the view factor for each facing side may be facing other objects of different temperatures, and therefore different energy density gradients), and it is the energy density gradient which determines radiant exitance of the warmer object. The cooler object won’t emit in the direction of the warmer object because energy cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient… if it could, it would be tantamount to your claim that energy can flow without work being done, and therefore that work can be done without energy having to flow… and that’s just ludicrous.
That is directly analogous to claiming that water can spontaneously flow uphill (ie: up a pressure gradient)… energy density IS pressure, and energy density gradient IS a pressure gradient…. FOR ENERGY.
In fact, the highest PRESSURE ever attained was achieved by lasers increasing ENERGY DENSITY during nuclear fusion experiments.
https://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif
The misuse of the S-B equation is why the climastrologists claim that ‘backradiation’ exists… a simple bit of calculation done correctly shows ‘backradiation’ is merely a mathematical artifact due to the misuse of the S-B equation. ‘Backradiation’ does not and cannot exist. They then claim to have ‘measured’ it by misusing the S-B equation in pyrgeometers… of course, if they misuse the equation in the same way as they do in their Energy Balance Climate Models, in pyrgeometers, they’re going to arrive at the same incorrect conclusions.
I await your comprehensive mathematically-precise refutation of scientific reality, Richard. LOL
The “nearly 100% agree” meme was created by a cartoonist named John Cook in Cook, J.D., Nuccitelli, S.A., Greem, M. et al (2013) “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature.” Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024, 1-7. He downloaded the abstracts of 11,400 climate-related papers (not the entire papers, just the abstracts). Then, of those abstracts (30%) that expressed an opinion whether human activity is related to climate change, he “adjusted” the opinions and concluded that 97% of them agreed that human activity does cause climate change. So actually, Cook’s data show that 30% of 97% (about 29%) of “scientists” “agree” that human activity causes climate change. 29% is not “nearly 100% agree.” It’s closer to “mostly, they don’t agree.” But, as Michael Crichton said in a lecture at Caltech:
“If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
And, of course, Climate Science is almost exactly as much “science” as Christian Science or political science or social science (or philately). Science requires testable hypotheses. Just like in Christian Science, there are no testable hypotheses in climatism.
Mr. Greene call junk and say many is good. Only one enough make many eat words.
Mr. Greene spam again. No good.
Not discuss paper. Why not? Afraid?
Not able pick holes?
[…] From NoTricksZone […]
Thanks Demetris for this additional study on the issue of CO2 and who to blame (or credit) for the changes. I posted a synopsis for generalists and those of us math challenged.
https://rclutz.com/2024/03/20/humans-add-little-to-rising-co2-march-2024/
Thanks so much, Ron! Your synopsis is great! I am so glad to see it.
Ron has contributed much. 🙂
I have posted the published paper and Mr. Clutz synopsis at my forum.
Cheers.
I find it sad, Mr. Clutz, that your website has many good articles yet promotes the junk science that manmade CO2 only accounts for 3% of all atmospheric CO2 rather than the correct number of 33%. Such false claims make climate realists look like science deniers and make it difficult to refute CAGW.
After I commented about the 3% versus 33% difference as politely as possible on your blog’s comment section, you blocked me from further comments. I imagine that comment “disappeared”
Junk science and censorship is a poor combination for an alleged conservative
Mr. Greene back? False claim he has.
It well known, man only 3% of turnover CO2 in atmosphere.
No magic retain man CO2. So turnover is same as what man CO2 in atmosphere.
[…] The Conclusion Humans Drive Atmospheric CO2 Increases Is Undermined By Carbon Isotope Data […]
I’ve been using the internet since 1996 but only reading comments and making comments since 2016
Considering the eight years starting with 2016, the comments on this thread have been the worst junk science I have ever read on any climate related website thread. I read at least one dozen articles a day, every day of the year. Congratulation to those commenters, and the author, who will not even admit that humans have added a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere, That is what students learn on hour one of “climate science 101”, because it is a fact.
I normally ask the CO2 is Natural Nutters where the manmade CO2 went, if not into the atmosphere, and exactly what natural source added +140 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere since 1850. I never get a answer and often get insulted just for asking the questions.
My comments are in no way intended to criticize the Pierre Gosselin articles here, because they are consistently good
In the future when Climate Realists are trying to figure out why they could not refute leftist CAGW scaremongering, after 50 years of trying, they will realize that conservative junk science could never refute leftist junk science
Leftist junk science
Large amounts of manmade CO2 emissions will cause a global warming crisis
Conservative junk science
Large amounts of manmade CO2 emissions never happened
The Truth
Large amounts of manmade CO2 emission did not harm anyone,
Any warming they caused was beneficial
Any greening of the planet they caused was beneficial
We should celebrate more CO2 in the atmosphere
This last paragraph may cause this comment to not be published, but it needs to be said:
Conservatives who refuse to admit humans added a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere are perpetually stuck on stupid. They make it very difficult for more intelligent conservatives to refute leftist CAGW scaremongering.
You Manmade CO2 Deniers are shooting yourself in the foot and the leftists love that.
The global warming/climate change narrative depends on three suppositions. Like a 3-legged stool, it falls down if any of them are false.
https://rclutz.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/climate-stool.png
Richard is willing to critize the second and third legs, but not the first one, the science bit about humans able to control the weather and climate. That is untrue and a valid target for critical intelligence.
Humans warm the climate gradually by adding CO2 to the atmosphere but the warming is good news because it is mainly in colder nations, mainly in the colder months of the year and mainly at night. Good news warming.
Humans cool the climate by polluting the air and blocking some sunlight. Not a good idea this but did happen from about 1940 to 1980
The human effect on the climate are relatively small but so are natural climates changes when you look at a 50 year period.
The ice cores showed 100,000 year natural cycles.
The effect of humans on the climate is not dangerous but there is more evidence that humans caused the warming after 1975 with a +27% CO2 increase, the SO2 emissions decrease and economic growth (land changes and UHI increases, than evidence of natural warming
There is no way to determine what percentage of the warming was natural, but the evidence does not support a claim of majority natural, much less 100% natural
Concerning the three leg stool
Humans do affect the climate
The effect has beneficial, not dangerous
We have no idea if governments can do anything about global warming because about 175 of 195 national governments could not care less about CO2.
CO2 emissions correlate well with economic growth, so the only way to stop the rise of CO2 emissions would be ending global economic growth and forcing Nut Zero on people with fascism. I think it is safe to assume Nut Zero will nt stop the rise of CO22 in the atmosphere. And that’s fine with me — our planet’s plants would benefit from much more CO2 in the atmosphere.
There is a way to knock all three legs out from under the CAGW stool in one swift kick.
I’ve done so… mathematically, scientifically, irrefutably.
https://www.patriotaction.us/showthread.php?tid=2711
Not even frothing-at-the-mouth climastrologists want to debate when I show up… they’ve learned from experience that they’ll invariably lose the argument after getting backed into numerous logical traps, and they don’t like having their imagined credibility damaged by having no refutation to scientific reality. It tends to show that they don’t know half as much as they claim to know.
I’ll issue my standard challenge to any lurking climastrologists or warmist physicists… debate me. Every single one of you who’s tried in the past has failed, so by the Law of Averages, you’re bound to be due for a win at some point, right? LOL