Why CO2 does not govern the earth's surface temperature

What Really Drives The Climate?
Posted on February 24, 2021 by tonyheller
The belief that carbon dioxide controls earth’s temperature is a superstition which has no basis in science. A civilization which bases policy on superstition is doomed to failure.

Video Player


00:00
11:34

 

The graph you showed him consists of made up numbers. It is not possible to measure global CO2 concentration even TODAY, let alone during supposed past "glacial ages"...

IF true (we don't know), then that would be a minor change.

 

Correct, given your below-mentioned assumptions.

It is not possible to measure global CO2 concentration, whether that be today or sometime in the past. Measurements taken at a single location (such as Mauna Loa) does not apply to the rest of the Earth, and Mauna Loa data is obviously cooked since it doesn't show spikes whenever the nearby volcano erupts. Cooked data is not allowed when performing a statistical analysis (it MUST be raw data).

It hasn't made ANY difference in temperature. The presence of CO2 cannot increase Earth's temperature. Firstly, a colder object (CO2) cannot heat a warmer object (Earth's surface). Secondly, in order to increase the temperature of an object, additional energy is required.

 

So a greenhouse doesn't work.... got it.

 

How do you suppose a greenhouse works? My guess is that you don't understand how one works...

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjANegQIAhAF&usg=AOvVaw2YEnReuW9RvHQlixdT8rSo

 

Physicists’ Lab Experiment Shows A CO2 Increase From 0.04% To 100% Leads To No Observable Warming
By Kenneth Richard on 1. April 2021

Share this...
Two University of Oslo physicists designed several variations of a tabletop experiment trying to confirm the IPCC’s claimed CO2-forcing capacity. Instead they found (a) 100% (1,000,000 ppm) CO2 “heats” air to about the same temperature that non-greenhouse gases (N2, O2 [air], Ar) do, and (b) no significant temperature difference in containers with 0.04% vs. 100% CO2.
Observations, experiments do not support a large forcing effect for CO2

Real-world outdoor observations indicate that even a massive variance in the CO2 concentration, from 0.1% to 75% over the course of a 24-hour period over a mofette field, has no detectable effect in stimulating changes to the surface temperature. Instead, the CO2 concentration changes in response to the temperature.

Indoor tabletop experiments also demonstrate there is a very small temperature difference when adding 100% CO2 to a container. And even this tiny temperature change can be attributed to the reduction in convective cooling effects of adding CO2 molecules, not the radiative or “greenhouse” effects of CO2.

There is also no temperature difference detected when comparing CO2’s “heating” capacity to that of a non-greenhouse gas like Argon (Wagoner et al., 2010), as the “temperature rose by approximately the same amount and at the same rate as for CO2” when 100% Argon was used.

Another study questions claims of CO2’s temperature-forcing effect

And now a recently published study (Seim and Olsen, 2020) further affirms these experimental observations. The authors tested the forcing effects of increased IR radiation on temperature using a specially-designed meter-long chamber, a 500 watt halogen bulb, and IR radiation detectors. . . .

 

EIA: U.S. CO2 Emissions Declined 11% in 2020 – No Change in Rising Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Anthony Watts
Climate change action proponents regularly tell us we have to reduce our carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to prevent “climate change”, even to the point of curtailing industry, travel, and food…

 

CO2 Levels Highest in 3.6 Million Years, Yet Temperatures Are Not Following Suit
CLIMATE RECORD APRIL 21, 2021

 

42,000 Years Ago A Massive Geomagnetic Shift Plunged A Warm Earth Into An Ice Age…But CO₂ Didn’t Budge
By Kenneth Richard on 22. April 2021

Share this...
A groundbreaking new study in Science suggests warm interglacial-like conditions (surface temperatures within 1°C of today’s) persisted from 54 to 42,000 years ago even though CO₂ levels idled around 200 ppm at that time. A sudden geomagnetic shift that intensified galactic cosmic rays and cloud formation and reduced ozone levels ~42,000 years ago resulted in global-scale cooling, rapid glacier advance, disappearing water sources (lakes), plummeting sea levels, and a catastrophic peak in large animal extinctions.
In the 20 thousand years between about 55 and 35 thousand years ago, the agreed-upon paleoclimate CO₂ reconstructions suggest concentrations hovered around 200 ±10 ppm (Kohfeld and Chase, 2017). It was during this phase, however, that a 33-author new study (Olsen et al., 2021) suggests abrupt and dramatic changes in the Earth’s magnetic field (for example, a “10-fold decrease in the cosmic ray cut-off rigidity”) about 42,000 years ago “drove synchronous global climate” from interglacial-like conditions (with surface temperatures within 1 to 1.5°C of today’s 54 to 42 ka) to a fully glacierized state. . . .

 

Physics Prof. Concludes CO2 Climate Effect Is ‘Fairly Negligible’ – Adds Just 0.5°C For A Doubling To 760 ppm
By Kenneth Richard on 29. April 2021

Share this...
A new CO2 climate sensitivity study suggests that, beyond the 300 ppm threshold, “any further increase of (anthropogenic) CO2 cannot lead to an appreciably stronger absorption of radiation, and consequently cannot affect the earth’s climate.”
Dr. Schildknecht is a Bielefeld University physics professor affiliated with the Max Planck Institute in Munich.

His equilibrium climate sensitivity estimate (0.5 or 0.6°C for a doubling of CO2 from 380 to 760 ppm) is identical to manyother recent estimates (Stallinga et al., 2020, Ollila, 2019, Smirnov, 2017, Smirnov, 2020, Harde, 2016, Bates, 2016, Kissin, 2015, Abbot and Marohasy, 2017, Gervais, 2016). . . .

 

IMO the CO2 effect threshold is probably quite a bit lower, around where water vapor feedback stops being strongly positive, and climate sensitivity under contemporary temperature and atmospheric conditions may therefore also be significantly less than 0.5C.

 

In my years as a Parks irrigator I always see water as a COOLING agent, the parks gets cooler right after I irrigate it.

Just about done getting my SWAMP Cooler set up, been working on it between posts here, water is the COOLING agent in the unit as the air is dry and hot, works very well.

 

The Cooling Side of Greenhouse Gases
Guest Blogger
Most people are unaware that the greenhouse gases CO2 and H2O, both warm & cool our planet. When I mention that CO2 has a cooling effect, I’m amazed by the…

 

Paradigm-Busting New Study Affirms CO2 Doesn’t Drive Climate – Water, Clouds Do
By Kenneth Richard on 24. May 2021

Share this...
A professor of hydrology from the University of Athens eviscerates the “naïve” paradigm that says the natural state of Earth’s climate is constancy and stability, only changing when an “external agent” (i.e., a rapid increase in fossil fuel emissions ) acts upon it. Instead, (a) water is the main element driving climate and (b) the alleged human contribution to heat exchange is 2100 times smaller than Earth’s natural energy fluxes.


Koutsoyiannis, 2021
Selected key points from Dr. Koutsiannis’ new paper in the journal Water. . . .

 

Here's some evidence to exonerate CO2.
Contribution Of Anthropogenic Co2 Emissions To Changes In Atmospheric Concentrations
Guest Blogger
There is no question that anthropogenic CO2 is being absorbed in the atmosphere. However, there is no obvious evidence to support the claim that it is totally responsible for the…

 

I read both the No Tricks Zone article and the Science Magazine articles, including some of the supplementary material. There is nothing in the Science

Magazine article that said the surface temperatures were within 1.0 to 1.5 degrees C. (54k to 42k years ago) of today's or that those conditions were

interglacial-like. There was only a mention of the southern island of New Zealand showing those conditions. The No Tricks Zones extrapolated that

along with anatomically modern humans occupying some sites in the Arctic as sufficient evidence to draw that misleading claim. If the Science Magazine article was making that claim one would expect that it would appear in the Abstract, beginning or end of the article, but it isn't mentioned outside of what I presented.

They also don't say anything about the near constant level of CO2 and this study doesn't refute that changing atmospheric levels of CO2 can significantly affect the

climate. In Figure 17 of the supplement there is a map of the world showing the global ice coverage used for initiation of the global chemistry climate model.

All of Canada and portions of the northern U.S. are covered in ice, along with the most northern portions of Europe. So the model used to show what the

earth was like before the changes of the Earth's magnetic field and series of solar minimums is not consistent with interglacial-like conditions.

The graph below of the Antarctica ice core data doesn't show interglacial conditions during that time frame. Antarctica averaged about -6 degrees C.

colder than today and the global average may have been about half of that or a little less. Also there is a paragraph in the Science article where

there is mention of the Earth's orbital configuration moving toward a full glacial state.

"Although the immediate impacts
associated with the geomagnetic transition were
likely on the order of the duration (800 years),
many of the above synchronous changes per-
sisted for millennia. This implies that a thresh-
old may have been passed in one or more Earth
system components, effectively tipping into a
different persistent state (Fig. 4). One possibility
is that with Earth’s orbital configuration moving
toward a full glacial state and limited global
ocean ventilation (see supplementary mate-
rials), the climate system may have been
sensitive to a relatively short but extreme
forcing around the time of the Laschamps"

Antarctic Time Series for Carbon Dioxide, Methane and Temperature

Thousands of years before present era

The following observations may be made:

The curves for temperature, methane and carbon dioxide match very well.[3]
Ice ages end very abruptly.
With the exception of the current era, warm periods are very brief.

 

NTZ makes no claim that is not in the Science article or the other cited research.

 

But why is the time scale reversed? I.e., why is later time to the left instead of the right? Are they trying to conceal the fact that CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around?

 

I don't know about the other cited research. NTZ is making an extraordinary claim that the Science Magazine article isn't making, that the time

period from 54,000 years ago to 42,000 years ago was interglacial-like. The Science Magazine article briefly mentions a part of New Zealand

during that period and doesn't discuss what the climate was like from 54,000 years ago to 42,000 years ago anywhere else. They mainly discuss the way climate

changed after 42,000 years ago. The NTZ article is spinning the truth to make its readers think that there was a much greater change corresponding to

changes in the Earth's magnetic field + a series of prolonged solar minimums than there actually was. Did you look at Figure 17 of the supplement

and see that Canada and the northern portion of the U.S. were covered with ice about 42,000 years ago? Doesn't it seem strange that both Antarctica

and Greenland's ice core data don't correspond with interglacial conditions? Why would there be interglacial-like conditions?


You generally give no critical analysis to the many articles that you present. Don't you ever find anything wrong or suspicious in your posts that

need to be mentioned to readers? Do you care about the accuracy of those posts and the possibility that you are misleading people?

 

CO2 follows temperature because CO2 is a climate feedback for the very large temperature swings shown in this graph. Since pre-industrial times

CO2 is a climate forcing and not a feedback. The large temperature swings prior to human influence that are shown on the graph were initiated by

changes in orbital forcing, Milankovitch cycles, where tiny changes in orbital forcing over extended periods of time altered the incident solar

radiation over the northern hemisphere polar region that affected the formation or melting of ice sheets. That in turn triggered other changes like:

changes to the Earth's surface albedo, outgassing or uptake of CO2 by the oceans, changes in atmospheric aerosols, the release or uptake of

methane, and changes to the biosphere. Every climate scientist knows that CO2 follows temperature during those prehistoric times and this was

predicted by a climate scientist before it was verified.

 

I've certainly had hysterical anti-fossil-fuel climate alarmists tell me the very large temperature swings of the last million years were caused mainly by changes in CO2.

You mean since centuries of unusually low solar activity caused the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years?

The increase in CO2 is far greater than could have been caused by the unusually large cyclical increase in solar activity that returned the earth to more normal Holocene temperatures in the 20th century, if that's what you mean.

I've certainly seen false and absurd claims that positive CO2 feedback was the principal driver of Pleistocene warming and cooling cycles.

 

All cited and linked by NTZ:

Kohfeld and Chase, 2017
Olsen et al., 2021
Cooper et al., 2021 and Supplemental Data

 

I have read that both methane, nitrous oxide, and CO2 feedbacks accounted for approximately 46% of the total climate forcing that caused the rise in global

temperatures following the last glacial maximum (LGM) around 20,000 years ago to the beginning of the Holocene. Those 3 greenhouse gases accounted for

3.0 watts per square meter of forcing and the total surface albedo changes accounted for 3.5 watts per square meter. One uses the last time period

when the LGM had a stable sea level and the eraliest time when the Holocene had a stable sea level. The total temperature change was about 5 degrees

Celsius and from those numbers one can estimate equilibrium climate sensitivity as 5/6.5 = 0.77 degrees C. per watt/square meter of forcing.


Those "hysterical anti-fossil fuel climate alarmists" weren't well-informed but they were right about CO2 playing a very significant role in those large

temperature swings - CO2 may account for close to 30% of the total forcings.


The coldest period, the LIA, was primarily caused by a series of 3 very large volcanic eruptions and the subsequent climate feedbacks following

those eruptions. The sun played somewhat of a role. I have presented this to you previously and backed it up with a link. You replied that volcanic

eruptions only cause short-term cooling of a few years but when there are a series of very large eruptions the effects can last much longer due to

of climate feedbacks. The article mentioned the formation of Arctic sea ice reflecting away more sunlight and that caused a slowing of the Atlantic

meridional overturning circulation. This could also have lowered atmospheric CO2 levels - I don't recall if the article mentioned that but I think it did.

The LIA was mostly regional.


Wikipedia: The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of regional cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period. It was not a true ice age of global extent

 

Kohfeld and Chase, 2017 only established that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 varied from 190 ppm to 210 ppm. It says
nothing about the 42,000 to 54,000 year time period being interglacial-like.

This is typical of what you do, You bend or break the rules of the forum by copying and pasting long opinions from other sources

without ever giving much of your own analysis. You can't respond to my questions. Show me the evidence anywhere that that

time period had interglacial-like conditions. I don't think that you can do it.