A new analysis indicates tripling the atmospheric CO2 concentration from 100 to 400 ppm only produces a 0.3°C surface warming effect.
Eight engineers (Wei et al., 2024) from the National Sun Yat-Sen University in Taiwan have assessed the capacity of rising CO2 concentrations to affect surface air temperature (SAT) over a 5-year research observation period.
They constructed a model of the energy balance between the net incident flux and emission at the Earth’s surface.
“This work examines one-dimensional transient temperature changes due to conduction, and radiative heat transfer including collimated radiation as a function of longitude, latitude, and altitude, as well as diffuse radiation determined by absorption bands based on wavelength, temperature, and the concentration or pressure of carbon dioxide and water vapor.”
The research results do not support the prevailing narrative that says rising CO2 is a driver of SAT change.
Instead these researchers found tripling atmospheric CO2 from 100 ppm to 400 ppm produces a “negligibly small” 0.3°C warming effect. This temperature change is only associated with the increase from 100 ppm to 350 ppm and includes no additional warming as CO2 rises from 350 ppm to 400 ppm.
“…the effects of carbon dioxide concentration in comparison with spatial and time variations on temperature are negligibly small near the ground surface.”
“The temperature at 5 m above the ground increases by approximately 0.3 K and then maintains constant as carbon dioxide concentrations rise from 100 to 350 ppm and from 350 to 400 ppm over a 5-year period.”
For the last 30 years the IPCC has claimed a 300 ppm CO2 increase – roughly doubling the CO2 concentration from 300 to 600 ppm – will produce about a 3°C increase (2.0 to 4.5°C) in surface air temperature.
Thus, this new research indicates the IPCC may be overestimating CO2’s capacity to warm the surface by at least factor of 10.
The Greenhouse Effect is an anti-science GS construct without any experimental validation.
“The Greenhouse Effect is an anti-science GS construct without any experimental validation.”
In other words a lie!.
[…] From NoTrickZone […]
I wonder about starting the analysis at 100 ppm. That is sort of a non-starter. When did that ever happen? Pre-industrial (about 1750) the concentration was near 280 ppm and not below the critical 150-180 level since green plants began.
Don’t mind me, I’m getting snowed in this morning!
Catastrophic climate predictions are found in the media in reports by journalists quoting a girl who skipped science classes and glues her ar** to the asphalt.
On the other hand sceptics of the catastrophic narrative are scientists who have a name and a reputation to lose,but still publish their peer-reviewed scientific findings which are not published in the corrupt mainstream (lying’) media.
These six engineers are heroes.