Popular claims that CO2 changes drive temperature changes currently or throughout the distant past “are based on imagination and climate models full of assumptions.”
A comprehensive new study details a stochastic assessment determination of the sequencing of CO2 variations versus temperature variations since the 1950s, over the last 2,000 years (the Common Era), and throughout the last 541 million years.
The robust conclusion is that the causality direction – with the understanding that causes lead and effects lag – clearly shows the temperature changes lead and CO2 changes lag on yearly, decadal, and centennial/millennial scales. In other words, “the reverse causality direction [CO2]→T should be excluded.”
The claim that CO2 increases drive temperature changes is thus a “narrative” only, as the claim that “humans, through their emissions by fossil fuel burning, are responsible for the changes we see in climate” can be regarded as a “non-scientific issue.”
Image Source: Koutsoyiannis, 2024
The author has had a series of peer-reviewed scientific papers published supporting this same T→CO2 conclusion (Koutsoyiannis et al., 2022, Koutsoyiannis et al., 2020, Koutsoyiannis et al., 2023, Koutsoyiannis, 2024, Koutsoyiannis, 2024) in just the last few years.
Since these papers challenge the prevailing anthropogenic global warming (AGW) narrative so acutely, Dr. Koutsoyiannis has understandably been the recipient of antagonism bordering on vitriol from AGW proponents. This includes comments from peer-reviewers. So, in an apparent effort to foster transparency, he has made the peer reviewers’ comments on this latest paper public. Here is the link to these commentaries:
Peer reviewers’ exchanges with Koutsoyiannis in “Stochastic assessment of temperature–CO2 causal relationship in climate from the Phanerozoic through modern times.”
Excellent paper. I would appreciate an estimate of the upper limit on the CO2 climate sensitivity.
I believe you miss the point. Once it is established that the rise in CO2 follows the warming and therefore cannot cause it (causes don’t happen after effects, do they), then the notion of climate sensitivity becomes moot … silly, really.
Since there is no causality from CO2 to global temperatures, the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is ZERO.
Attacking a scientific paper that demonstrates AGW defies causality itself is certain to draw fire from those whose careers would be in ruins once this inconvenient truth is widely known. It’s rather like Democrats rallying around Biden even though he’s clearly mentally unwell.
testing
Also true for last month’s observations
https://rclutz.com/2024/07/11/mid-2024-more-proof-temp-changes-drive-co2-changes/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1ZZ-Yni8Fg
Kenneth Richard, thanks so much for your post about my work!
I am particularly grateful for the fact that you refer to the backstage procedures–the peer review. Yes, we certainly need transparency. Secrecy and anonymity, which dominate in the peer-review system, are good for conspiracies. Not for science.
In science, we need responsibility, which in turn presupposes eponymity and full transparency. Only those who can take the responsibility for what they say, i.e., make eponymous reviews, can call themselves scientists. Anonymous reviewers can seek other names, e.g. conspirators, scaredy-cats, or other terms, which natural English speakers are better than me to suggest. I have struggled for the improvement of the peer review system, even writing papers and editorials about it (I can provide links if there is interest).
Ron Clutz, thanks very much for the link to your interesting post!
Martin Zumstein, David Hamilton Russell, thanks for your comments. The issue you discuss is interesting and needs another paper to reverse the concept of climate sensitivity.
[…] by K. Richard, July 15, 2024 in NoTricksZone […]
[…] From NoTricksZone […]
As I already posted years ago (here and at WattsUpWithThat), the cross-correlation diagram between CO2 concentration (measured at Mauna Loa) and global temperature anomalies shows no correlation from CO2 to T (if anything a very weak negative correlation which is insignificant).
No correlation implies NO causation from CO2 to T, at least at this timescale.
Conversely, there is a positive and significative correlation from T to CO2 concentrations with a lag of some 10 months.
See the CO2 T cross-correlation diagram in a Murray Salby (RIP) presentation here :
https://youtu.be/HeCqcKYj9Oc?t=531
[…] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]
[…] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]
[…] Learn extra at No Tips Zone […]
[…] From the NoTricksZone […]
The underwater volcano in 2022 has had profound effects on weather the last few years yes? As I understand, climate models are unable to simulate the event thereby stumping climate scientists.
[…] Causality Analysis Finds Temperature Changes Have Determined CO2 Changes Since The Phanerozoic […]
[…] Sources: Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering; No Tricks Zone […]
[…] Sources: Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering; No Tricks Zone […]
[…] Sources: Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering; No Tricks Zone […]