Yet another scientific study concludes CO2 is an insignificant contributor to Earth’s recent temperature changes.
New research involving a comparative analysis of satellite (CERES) observations of absorbed solar radiation (ASR) and CO2 radiative forcing modeling finds CO2 may have contributed just 0.09°C to the 0.52°C temperature increase from 2000 to 2023.
The rising ASR trend is instead the primary (0.39°C of 0.52°C) cause of the 21st century warming, and it is solely responsible for the high temperatures achieved during the second half of 2023.
Thus, it can be said that “carbon dioxide has an insignificant impact on annual and monthly temperature changes.”
What nonsense. CO2 is responsible for zilch surface warming as 99.95% of the energy absorbed by CO2 is thermalized. This is an artifact of thermal equilibrium which is textbook science and inter-alia states that at any given altitude, all molecules each have the same average temperature. CO2 is less than 0.05% of the air (420pp is less than 500 ppm) and so CO2 cannot radiate materially net of conduction to the 99% of the other atmospheric gases, 99% of which are none radiating non-GHGs.
CO2 is estimated to cause only 5-8% of the radiative transfer in the atmosphere so this 17% claim is dubious, to say the least, even in the IPPC “CO2 is to blame for all and everything” fantasy world.
We’re on parallel tracks. My analysis assumed only 2 facts, both not refutable: 1) GHGs collectively are about 1% of the troposphere; and 2) thermal equilibrium at each altitude. From those 2 facts, deductively all GHGs only radiate 1% of the energy they absorb because they transfer 99% of that energy conductively (via collisions) to the 99% non-GHGs at that altitude. MY math is:
The surface gets 164W/M2 from the sun, by after subtracting latent heat and thermals, it only radiates 60W/M2 back out, 1/6th of which goes directly to outer space via the atmospheric window and 5/6th is absorbed by various GHGs which thermalize 99% of it and radiate the rest, half down. That works out to 0.25W/M2 of radiative surface warming by the GHE.
I have a question: How many meters of atmosphere we need to absorb all the radiation coming from the earth surface? I read that after 100 m all thermal radiation coming from the earth surface is already absorbed in the atmosphere.
[…] From NoTricksZone […]
Yes David, I agree. I would like to add, however, that only some 4% of the 420 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is added by human activities. The rest is all natural, something we have no control over. On top of that, the heat absorbing characteristic of CO2 is not linear, as the warmist retards are lying to people by telling them the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the higher the temperature, until we all burn. Instead the characteristic is logarithmic, meaning, that the more CO2 is added, the less extra heat it can absorb, until it saturates (not that the CO2 has any meaningful effect on Earth’s temperature in the first place). As the “luck” has it, CO2 is at the moment saturated. Look at this study here: https://notrickszone.com/2024/04/23/3-physicists-use-experimental-evidence-to-show-co2s-capacity-to-absorb-radiation-has-saturated/
Thanks for the kind words. I’ve viewed AGW as pseudo-science since I did my due diligence before investing in oil drilling in 2005. I have written a 10 point paper on why AGW is a fraud, but just like with trying to tell a beginner the 10 things he needs to focus on will inevitably lead to a face plant, I find using the best argument with the fewest number of words and clearly stated is the best approach. In 2 words: Baby steps.
David Hamilton wrote:
“CO2 is responsible for zilch surface warming…”
Not exactly zero, mind you. The increase in CO2 concentration from the pre-industrial 280 ppm to the current 430 ppm is responsible for 0.00024538389628901 K of surface temperature increase.
For the calculations:
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/the_un_and_the_biden_administration_want_net_zero_for_the_uswhile_china_opts_for_energy_realism/#comment-6554079224
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/the_un_and_the_biden_administration_want_net_zero_for_the_uswhile_china_opts_for_energy_realism/#comment-6554085134
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/the_un_and_the_biden_administration_want_net_zero_for_the_uswhile_china_opts_for_energy_realism/#comment-6554085756
As the comedian, Ron White, allegedly said to the police who found a 1/10th of a gram of marijuana on his plane, “I figure when I’m down to 1/10th of a gram of marijuana that I’m out of marijuana.”
No study is complete until the injection of waste heat from fossil fuels (et al) into the earths near-surface energy reservoir is accounted for. And not waste heat alone, but together with its feedback component also.
Why does everyone accept the 280ppm CO2 level of ice core measurements at all? Don’t we have actual atmospheric measurements in the range of current levels throughout the 1800’s?