Why CO2 does not govern the earth's surface temperature

This will cause some pearl-clutching.
How Much Manmade CO2 is in the Atmosphere, Really?
Charles Rotter
Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much…

A new paper in HEALTH PHYSICS asks this question.

World Atmospheric CO2, Its 14C Specific Activity, Non-fossil Component, Anthropogenic Fossil Component, and Emissions (1750–201
Skrable, Kenneth; Chabot, George; French, Clayton1

1University of Massachusetts Lowell, 1 University Avenue, Lowell, MA 01854.

Health Physics: February 2022 – Volume 122 – Issue 2 – p 291-305

doi: 10.1097/HP.0000000000001485

Abstract
After 1750 and the onset of the industrial revolution, the anthropogenic fossil component and the non-fossil component in the total atmospheric CO2 concentration, C(t), began to increase. Despite the lack of knowledge of these two components, claims that all or most of the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been due to the anthropogenic fossil component have continued since they began in 1960 with “Keeling Curve: Increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuel.” Data and plots of annual anthropogenic fossil CO2 emissions and concentrations, C(t), published by the Energy Information Administration, are expanded in this paper. Additions include annual mean values in 1750 through 2018 of the 14C specific activity, concentrations of the two components, and their changes from values in 1750. The specific activity of 14C in the atmosphere gets reduced by a dilution effect when fossil CO2, which is devoid of 14C, enters the atmosphere. We have used the results of this effect to quantify the two components. All results covering the period from 1750 through 2018 are listed in a table and plotted in figures. These results negate claims that the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been dominated by the increase of the anthropogenic fossil component. We determined that in 2018, atmospheric anthropogenic fossil CO2 represented 23% of the total emissions since 1750 with the remaining 77% in the exchange reservoirs. Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming. . . .

 

Here's an alternative climate hypothesis.
Global Warming Driven By Pacific Warm Pool, La Nina & ITCZ: An Alternative Climate Change Theory
Charles Rotter
The video describes how the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool can drive climate change and explains the last 10,000 years of climate change, observed changes that contradicts CO2 theory. . . .

 

The beat goes on.
New Research: “CO2 Influence On Global Temperature Development Since1860 Only Half As Large As IPCC Estimate!
By P Gosselin on 14. December 2021

Share this...
A remarkable publication on solar influence on climate goes unnoticed
By Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt (Die kalte Sonne)
(Text translated/edited by P. Gosselin)

On November 3, 2021, the renowned scientific journal Climate published a paper on solar influence on climate. The paper by the renowned solar researcher Dr. Frank Stefani from the Helmholtz Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf is entitled: “Solar and Anthropogenic Influences on Climate: A Regression Analysis and Tentative Predictions” and concludes that the influence of CO2 on the development of global temperatures from 1860 until today was only about half as large as the last report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assumed. . . .

 

Another blow against CO2.
Atmospheric Physicist: CO2 Explains 0.1°C Of 1975-2000 Warming – ‘One Fifth Of The IPCC Assumption’
By Kenneth Richard on 28. March 2022

Share this...
A new study uses existing temperature and CO2 records and albedo/natural variability attribution to suggest most of the recent warming is natural. The climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing is just over 0.2°C for a 100 ppm concentration increase.
Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu is an “expert in aurora physics, solar physics, geophysics, and magnetosphere” and the founder of the International Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks.

He and a co-author suggest albedo changes and multi-decadal oscillations (natural variability) explain about 0.4°C of the 0.5°C warming that occurred from 1975-2000. The rate of global warming has not risen linearly in concert with human greenhouse gas emissions, but instead it has oscillated from -0.005°C per year to about +0.018°C per year for the last 150 years. This weak to non-existent correlation between CO2 and temperature further disconfirms the assumption greenhouse gases are primarily driving global temperature trends.

Image Source: Akasofu and Tanaka, 2021

 

This is why it is necessary to systematically alter the instrumental temperature data to agree with the CO2-controls-temperature hypothesis. Look for such practices to become more and more widespread and extreme as the real world continues to disprove anti-fossil-fuel hysteria.

 

Peer review on the Kenneth Richards paper was brutal, and it had to be retracted.

Of course, that's in the real world, where clowns belong in circuses..

 

Kenneth Richards wrote no paper. You'll have to identify the paper correctly if you have a point to make.
If you refer to Akasofu and Tanaka 2021 please cite evidence it was retracted.

 

An interesting phenomenon has been documented by the weather satellites. Heat blooms. Not cities, or man made structures, but large heat signature blooms coming from the earth itself. Electro friction outputs? I suspect it will take time to analyze these natural phenomenon and what if any additional impact they bring. Tectonic movement seems to be associable. It will need some real study to find out.

 

Yet you can't back up your retraction claims too hard for you? Not only that I don't think you read it because he he... ha ha you thought Kenneth Richards was the author of the paper thus your retraction claims is bogus anyway.

Your bias is hurting you here.

 

The science is settled. Subsequent events, like the collapse of Antarctic shelves and the burning of permafrost (lovely irony there) have made it obvious. Something insurance companies are screaming about.

Richards is a kook, that's why you like him, and I don't.

 

So . . . I guess you couldn't back up your claim of retraction.

 

I don't have to, science has moved on, and once again left the kooks in the dust.

I should have been more careful, but after a quarter century of Big Oil propaganda, crap is still crap.

 

I believe you were fooled by the retraction from a different journal of a different paper. The biggest source of crap, IMHO, is the posting of baseless claims about "settled science" that are founded on elementary errors of fact.

 

Chronic Big oil funding claims is a sign of your being lazy on the topic try something else such as backing up your retraction claim.

If you can't then you who started with nothing ends up with nothing a waste of time for everyone.

 

If you want to challenge the science, you need to do it in a journal of climatology.

What you're doing is propaganda, and I've gotten tired to responding to a thousand kooks shoveling the same tired BS for the millionth time.

You talking about wasting time. If irony was explosive, that would be measured in gigatonnes, a lot of gigatonnes...

 

"Chronic Big oil funding claims is a sign of your being lazy on the topic try something else such as backing up your retraction claim.

If you can't then you who started with nothing ends up with nothing a waste of time for everyone."

Two things I learned here:

You can't support your retraction claim and you can't stay on the topic over the paper you hilariously attributed to the wrong person.

You are batting ZERO today!

 

This doesn't count. The science reached consensus about 20 years ago, the entire community of scientists supported it a couple years later. Which doesn't usually happen.

You are stuck at zero, if I was feeling generous, which I'm not.

 

You are so far out of date and showing hard evidence that you are a science illiterate since nothing in science is ever settled and consensus errors are abundant.

Meanwhile this remains true:

"You can't support your retraction claim and you can't stay on the topic over the paper you hilariously attributed to the wrong person."

Yes you ARE batting zero since you made easy to prove silly errors.

 

"Consensus" was achieved via sleight-of-hand.
Manufacturing consensus: the early history of the IPCC
Posted on January 3, 2018 by curryja | 385 comments
by Judith Curry Short summary: scientists sought political relevance and allowed policy makers to put a big thumb on the scale of the scientific assessment of the attribution of climate change.

 

The fact the handful of climate deniers still try quote Pruitt's denial of CO2 and its relation to global warming when he was clearly debunked speaks for itself:

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06062017/scott-pruitt-fact-check-climate-change-paris-agreement/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tudy-refuting-scott-pruitt-on-climate-change/

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...strator-pruitts-latest-climate-misinformation

https://nypost.com/2017/03/13/meteorologists-debunk-epa-chiefs-climate-change-denial/

https://archive.thinkprogress.org/e...kinds-of-studies-contradict-you-64d0ce34a1ac/

Evidence as to CO2's role in global warming is not in question by anyone except some noted scholars on this thread:

https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...among-climate-scientists-about-global-warming

https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases

https://climatechange.lta.org/get-started/learn/co2-methane-greenhouse-effect/

https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/10-myths-about-climate-change

Ah but why not keep repeating the same debunked fallacies as if they were not already addressed as something new....it isn't..its the same old denial....

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/climate-change-psychology-1.4920872

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/denying-the-grave/201901/climate-change-denial

https://www.sciencealert.com/the-five-corrupt-pillars-of-climate-change-denial

https://journals.openedition.org/ejas/10305

https://www.wired.com/2009/12/climate-psychology/

https://theconversation.com/ca/topics/psychology-of-climate-change-denial-77174

The bottom line is until something impacts a denier directly and negatively and forces a climate denier to have to leave their burning house they won't give a **** and if when they do find themselves forced to flee, you can be sure these very same deniers who demanded governments not intervene will now demand government assistance for themselves.

 

Good post.

 

The cut and paste master is back!

Another post filled with invective anger and short of rational commentary which means you can't post in YOUR own words.

By the way it has been COOLING for over 6 years now.

Cheers.

 

No climate realist is denying the warming or that CO2 has a very small warm forcing effect not even disputing the slow sea level rise and glaciers melting in various places of the world..... which means NO Climate Emergency is evident which is easy to show by the official numbers.

By the way it has been COOLING for over 6 years now.

UAH says so and so does the NOAA that is a FACT!

How come C02 doesn't prevent cooling trends as it has allowed a big for several decades from the 1940's to the 1970's.

 

You regularly ignore studies posted in journals that challenge what you consider to be settled. Many have been posted here on this thread. And yet, you're still here mouthing the catechism.... Science... settled... ugh... At about that level to eloquence. As if that doesn't make you look like the self termed "kooks" you lament about. And yet, you still haven't been able to craft a cogent narrative. I mean other than you stop breathing, what influence on CO2 emissions are you actually willing to endure for your fantasy?

 

The only folks I see denying the science are folks who continue to mouth the AGW catechism. In the face of the actual science that has demonstrably and effectively undercut your narrative. And no, likely the folks should their house burn down, would rely on their insurance company or their own savings to rebuild. Unlike progressive folk, who only know government handouts to fix their failed lives.