Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Comment Search Results

Search for co2

Comments matching the search co2 :

More than 100 comments found. Only the most recent 100 have been displayed.

A major milestone: Global climate pollution may have just peaked

nigelj at 08:02 AM on 24 July, 2024

Regarding "A major milestone: Global climate pollution may have just peaked." Something related and important:

From the Sydney Morning Herald: “It’s good news’: Scientists suspect history about to be made in China” July 13th 2024.

“But it is data from the past few months that is intriguing analysts today. The world’s economy is growing. China’s economy is growing. Yet greenhouse gas emissions appear to have peaked.”

“Some time last year, or perhaps earlier this year, it appears China’s emissions, in particular, reached a high point. If China has peaked, there is good reason to believe global emissions peaked, too. It would mean that some time over the past few months, the stubborn nexus between economic growth and greenhouse gas pollution was snapped, and the 250-year surge in emissions ended…….”

“In November last year, he wrote that despite the post-COVID surge in emissions, China’s massive deployment of wind and solar energy, growth in EVs and an end to a drought that had cut hydroelectricity generation had caused emissions to tumble.”

“A 2023 peak in China’s CO2 emissions is possible if the build-out of clean energy sources is kept at the record levels seen last year,” he wrote in an analysis for Carbon Brief based on official figures and commercial data.”

“Largely as a result of the China green surge, global investment in renewable technology in 2023 outstripped that in fossil fuels for the first time, the International Energy Agency reported.”

www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/it-s-good-news-scientists-suspect-history-about-to-be-made-in-china-20240709-p5jsbi.html

Lots of caveats of course. But I found the article interesting. Especially Chinas self interested motivation to dominate certain technology markets, and reduce its dependence on foreign oil for geo political reasons. But at least the environmental consequences are positive:

CO2 is coming from the ocean

Bob Loblaw at 05:18 AM on 24 July, 2024

ThePooleMan:

Also take a look at this post, which explains a simple mass balance approach to the cause of atmospheric CO2 increases.

CO2 is coming from the ocean

Bob Loblaw at 05:12 AM on 24 July, 2024

ThePooleMan:

I think it may be easier to just think in terms of mass, not volume. Total atmospheric mass, per square meter, is easily calculated from standard surface pressure. As a mass calculation, density, temperature, etc. become moot.

You can see more numbers on this page about the human contribution to atmospheric CO2. That the rise is due to anthropogenic releases can been seen on this web page.

A major milestone: Global climate pollution may have just peaked

Bob Loblaw at 04:54 AM on 24 July, 2024

Joel:

The figure mentions OurWorldInData.org. They have a large collection of charts of CO2 and greenhouse gas information on this web page.

One of the charts (second row, right side, in the view I have) is for "Annual greenhouse gas emissions by world region". It looks like the total for that chart matches the values in the figure in this post, so I expect the figure here is using the same data (just not by region).

If you dig down into the information for that chart at OurWorldInData, it gives the following reference:

Jones, Matthew W., Glen P. Peters, Thomas Gasser, Robbie M. Andrew, Clemens Schwingshackl, Johannes Gütschow, Richard A. Houghton, Pierre Friedlingstein, Julia Pongratz, and Corinne Le Quéré. “National Contributions to Climate Change Due to Historical Emissions of Carbon Dioxide, Methane and Nitrous Oxide”. Scientific Data. Zenodo, March 19, 2024. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10839859.

That paper describes the data as "emissions CO2, CH4 and N2O from fossil and land use sources during 1851-2021."

If you follow the link to that paper, it then points to yet another paper that gives a more complete description: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-023-02041-1. The abstract of that paper starts with:

Anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) have made significant contributions to global warming since the pre-industrial period and are therefore targeted in international climate policy.

From that information, it seems pretty clear that forest fires, peat, etc. are not included.

The figure here provides enough information that your question can be answered with a little effort tracking down sources.

A major milestone: Global climate pollution may have just peaked

Joel_Huberman at 03:59 AM on 24 July, 2024

Does the graph (and other data reported here) apply only to anthropogenic emissions or to total emissions? Total emissions would include all "natural" emissions, including CO2 due to forest fires and methane/CO2 from peat melting. Emissions like those I've mentioned seem likely to increase in the near future.

CO2 is coming from the ocean

ThePooleMan at 23:05 PM on 23 July, 2024

The "all CO2 comes from the ocean" myth is being commonly used this month and therefore that man cannot change the climate.

It seems obvious that burning fossil fuels adds CO2 to the atmosphere and so I set about calculating the volume of CO2 produced and comparing calculated ppm yearly increase to actual CO2 concentration change (around 2.5 ppm/year in 2024). Here is the approach:

35 billion metric tonnes of CO2 per year.

1 Kg of CO2 occupies 190L at standard pressure & temperature.

Earth radius is 6400 Km.

Volume of a sphere is 4/3 Pi r^3.

Assumed that CO2 is fully mixed.

Assume that effective atmosphere is no more than 10 Km. Obviously the atmosphere is higher but at 10Km the atmospheric pressure is 0.26 (see https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/international-standard-atmosphere-d_985.html)

I then calculate the volume of CO2 and divided by effective atmospehric volume* to work out CO2 ppm.

Using 10 Km then the calculated increase is 1.3 ppm.

Using 5 Km then the calculate increase is 2.6 ppm.

* By effective atmosperic volume I mean the height of the atmosphere if all the atmosphere was evenly compressed to 1 bar. I need to 'compress' atmosphere to 1 bar as I calculated CO2 volume at one bar.

Is there a better/published approach?

Pressure drops with altitude is not linear and I have not included temperature. So whilst perhaps Ok for a fag packet the approach is lacking some.

Can we air condition our way out of extreme heat?

walschuler at 02:16 AM on 17 July, 2024

I would add to this post two unfortunate feedback effects involved with air conditioning: first, in cities the heat rejected from air conditioned spaces raises the outdoor temperature, as the heat can't be rejected unless it flows out at a temperature higher than the air it is rejected to. Raising the outdoor temperature increases the energy required to achieve the next degree of cooling. In principle,this means that as time goes on air conditioning systems will have to be increased in capacity or indoor temperatures in air conditioned spaces will rise. Secondly, if the electricity driving the air conditioners is fossil fueled, and most still is, the supply of chilling adds CO2 to the atmosphere, adding to overall heat trapping and making that worse on a larger scale. Converting to renewably sourced electricity is essential and will help deal with the second feedback but not the first. Energy conservation and other measures are needed to fix this.

What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals

Eclectic at 01:49 AM on 16 July, 2024

Thank you for the entertainment, TWFA @52.

Your mention of "draft animal farts" and the production of CO gas . . . is a [typo?] of Justice Gorsuch-ian expertise. Asphyxiatingly funny ~ if you really meant CO2 gas.

I shall abstain from a pun about horses, mules, asses, and "asphyxiation". Also, TWFA, don't risk confusing H2S and H2O.

What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals

TWFA at 09:22 AM on 11 July, 2024

Nigel, you can appeal to higher courts, but if they are all required to defer to the unelected and permanently entranched regulators it has obviously been a wasted effort prior to Loper overturning Chevron. As to how many, it is probably far to many to count, because not only do they write the regulations but periodically reach back and reinterpret and usually expand their scope, for example the ex-post-facto inclusion CO2 into the Clean Air Act of 1970 as a pollutant caused cases to go to the Supreme Court where in a split decision it was decided in 2007 that the EPA "could" regulate CO2 but would still be subject to lawsuits, thus leaving the final decision with the courts and not the regulators.

There are almost 100,000 pages in something like 250 volumes of the Code Of Federal Regulations, all written by unseen and unaccountable people, revolving doors of experts who regularly pierce the semipermeable membrane between government and private sector, first feverishly promulgating regulations and then moving to the private sector to make a living helping others either fighting or complying with them.

The regulatory world is a living being with a whole economy and ecosystem of its own, like the mysteries of the human brain or the global ecosystem, nobody can claim they know everything that is going on, least of all the public at large, yet those regulations affect virtually every aspect of life.

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

janolsen at 01:53 AM on 21 June, 2024

One of the themes in the movie seems to be that co2 levels and temperatures have been higher before humans were around, i.e. when other animals roamed the earth...They also seems to claim that temperatures have risen shortly before co2 levels rise, rather than as a direct result of co2 levels (though co2 is undoubtedly has a greenhouse effect).

Here's is "opposing side's" documenation for the statements made in the movie:
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2024/03/26/annotated-bibliography-for-climate-the-movie/

Of red flags and warning signs in comments on social media

Bob Loblaw at 06:08 AM on 18 June, 2024

OPOF:

Yes, it's amazing how so many of these zombie myths keep coming back in slightly altered form.

The OP does include a link to SkS's list of common myths (https://sks.to/arguments), and lo and behold we find "CO2 limits will hurt the poor" at #67. In that rebuttal, there is a map of Climate Demography Vulnerability Index (CDVI) that shows much of Africa as being highly vulnerable. (Go to the link above to see details on the source).

Vulnerability

...but you also raise another important "red flag" not specifically mentioned in the OP here: logical inconsistencies in the arguments being made. It takes a significant level of psychological compartmentalization to be able to hold strongly contradicting beliefs at the same time. As you state, how can action make poor countries richer and poorer at the same time?

SkS used to have an online list of contradictory "contrarian" viewpoints, but it became too difficult for our limited number of volunteers to keep up-to-date. Too many contradictions, I suppose.

On Hens, Eggs, Temperature and CO2

Bob Loblaw at 05:37 AM on 4 June, 2024

RE: my comment 10:

Now, if Koutsoyiannis et al want to claim that ENSO effects on temperature are irrelevant - i.e., that it does not matter if the temperature variation is due to ENSO, volcanoes, or fairy dust, etc. - then they can try to make that claim. But then they are breaking the chain of causality.

Causation has to start somewhere, and their "unidirectional, potentially causal link with T as the cause..." is basically ignoring any previous cause. By ignoring anything else, they fail to consider the possibility that both T and CO2 are responding to something else (hello, ENSO!). And, of course, they ignore the possibility of feedbacks, where two or more factors affect each other - i.e., the world is not unidirectional.

On Hens, Eggs, Temperature and CO2

Bob Loblaw at 04:24 AM on 4 June, 2024

As MAR points out in comment 9, Koutsoyiannis et al ignore ENSO as a possible factor in their analysis.

Is ENSO a factor in global temperatures? Yes. Tamino has had several blog posts on the matter, where he has covered the results of a paper he co-authored in 2011, with updates. The original paper (Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011) looked at the evolution of temperatures from 1979-2010, and determined that much of the short-term variation is explained by ENSO and volcanic activity. After accounting for ENSO and volcanic activity, a much clearer warming signal is evident.

Tamino recently updated this analysis, with modified methodology and covering a longer time span (1950-2023). This method turns this:

Tamino raw

to this:

Tamino adjusted

Now remember: Koutsoyiannis et al used differenced/detrended data in their analysis, which means that they have removed any long-term trend and fitted their analysis to short-term variations. If you remove the short-term effects due to ENSO, Koutsoyiannis et al will have a temperature signal with a lot less variation. That means they have a lot less ΔT to "cause" CO2 changes. Their physics-free "causality" gets stretched even thinner (if this is possible with an analysis that is already broken).

On Hens, Eggs, Temperature and CO2

MA Rodger at 01:41 AM on 4 June, 2024

The most powerful message of the paper Koutsoyiannis et al (2023) 'On Hens, Eggs, Temperatures and CO2: Causal Links in Earth’s Atmosphere' is their "Graphical Abstract" which is reproduced in the OP above as Figure 1.

They are not the first to try and use these data to suggest increasing CO2 is not warming the planet. And likely there will be other fools who attempt the same in the future.

So what does their "Graphical Abstract" show?

The graphic below is Fig2 of Humlum et al (2012) which insists this same data shows that CO2 lags temperature and not the other way round.

Humlum et al 2012 fig 2

The data that is missing is the ENSO cycle which precedes both the T and the CO2 wobbles and thus drives global temperature wobbles and, by shifting rainfall patterns, drives CO2 wobbles. To suggest (as Koutsoyiannis et al do) that such "analyses suggests a unidirectional, potentially causal link with T as the cause and [CO2] as the effect" is simply childish nonsense.

On Hens, Eggs, Temperature and CO2

Bob Loblaw at 00:42 AM on 4 June, 2024

David @ 6:

Yes, the point you make about how glacial cycles show CO2 and T variations that would imply a huge temperature increase is needed over the last century to cause the observed rise in CO2 is discussed in the PubPeer comments on the earlier paper.

The earlier paper used the UAH temperature record that only covers very recent times (since 1979). The new paper also looks at temperature data starting in 1948 - but temperature data from re-analysis, not actual observations.

If their statistical technique is robust, then they should come up with the same result from the glacial/interglacial cycles of temperature and CO2...

...but their methodology is devoted to looking at the short-term variation, not the long-term trends. Our knowledge from the glacial/interglacial periods has much lower time resolution. Different time scale, difference processes, different feedbacks, different causes. That does not fit with their narrative of "The One True Cause".

A purely statistical method like Koutsoyiannis et al cannot identify "cause" when the system has multiple paths and feedbacks operating at different time scales.

On Hens, Eggs, Temperature and CO2

Bob Loblaw at 00:29 AM on 4 June, 2024

David @ 5:

Yes, that wording of "commonly assumed" in the Koutsoyiannis paper is rather telling. Either they are unaware of the carbon cycle and climate science work that has gone into the understanding of the relationship between CO2 and global temperature, or they are using a rhetorical trick to wave away an entire scientific discipline as if it is an "assumption".

That Looney Tunes clip has one more snippet that I think applies to Koutsoyiannis et al: at the end Foghorn Leghorn says "No, I'd better not look". I think that Koutsoyiannis et al did that with respect to learning about the science of the carbon cycle: "No, I'd better not look".

On Hens, Eggs, Temperature and CO2

David Kirtley at 06:25 AM on 3 June, 2024

An easy way to test whether today's atmospheric temp inc. are causing today's rise in CO2 levels might be to look at this chart of data from the EPICA ice core:

EPICA Dome C

From this SkS rebuttal: https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

Yes indeed, some of the CO2 inc during glacial-interglacial cycles was caused by Temp inc first. Koutsoyiannis et al. would have us believe that the current huge increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is also caused by Temp inc first.

Where is this huge increase in Temp?

On Hens, Eggs, Temperature and CO2

David Kirtley at 05:52 AM on 3 June, 2024

From the Koutsoyiannis et al. abstract: "According to the commonly assumed causality link, increased [CO2] causes a rise in T. However, recent developments cast doubts on this assumption by showing that this relationship is of the hen-or-egg type, or even unidirectional but opposite in direction to the commonly assumed one."

"Commonly assumed"? I don't think so. The link between CO2 and Temp is shown by a wealth of actual physical evidence. There is no question that Temp increases can cause CO2 increases and that the opposite ("commonly assumed causality link") relationship is also true: CO2 inc. can cause Temp inc. Koutsoyiannis et al. seem to be saying that their study proves that the causality relationship can only be "unidirectional": Temp inc cause CO2 increases.

It is all very strange. They seem to be trying to answer questions about climate science which have very solid answers already from different lines of evidence. Is their statistical magic a new line of evidence which overturns the vast majority of climate science? I doubt it.

But, since we're on the subject of hens and eggs, this paper reminds me of an old Looney Tunes cartoon starring the rooster Foghorn Leghorn and the highly intelligent little chick, Egghead, Jr. Foghorn is babysitting little Egghead and they decide to play hide and seek. Egghead starts counting while Foghorn hides in a large "Feed Box". When Egghead finishes counting he gets out a slide rule and a pencil and paper and runs some calculations to try to locate Foghorn. He grabs a shovel and starts digging a hole nowhere near the Feed Box. With his last final tug on the shovel handle Foghorn pops out of the hole, flabbergasted.

Foghorn Leghorn-Hide and Seek: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMyD3TSXyUc

I think Koutsoyiannis et al. think they are like Egghead, Jr and have come up with some magical statistics which override our physical reality. Maybe their calculations would work in Looney Tunes land. But they don't work in the climate system we are familiar with.

On Hens, Eggs, Temperature and CO2

Bob Loblaw at 02:02 AM on 2 June, 2024

To continue, one nice new example that appears in this blog post is the accelerator versus the brake analogy. The OP does a nice job of describing the natural carbon cycle, pointing out that the natural portions of the cycle include both emissions and removals - adding to and subtracting from atmospheric CO2 storage.

Koutsoyiannis et al basically assume that if there are changes in atmospheric CO2, they must be linked to something that changed emissions. As the OP points out, the likelihood is that the correlation Koutsoyiannis et al see (in the short-term detrended data set they massaged) is more likely related to changes in natural removals.

Once again, Koutsoyiannis et al do not realize the limitations of their methodology, ignore a well-known physical process in the carbon cycle (rates of natural atmospheric CO2 removal), and attribute their correlation to the wrong thing. The right thing isn't in their model (statistical method) or thought-space (mental model), so they don't see it.

The OP's bathtub analogy is useful to see this. The diagram (figure 4) looks at the long-term rise in bathtub level (CO2 rise), but it is easy to do a thought experiment on how we could introduce short-term variability into the water level. There are three ways:

Short-term variability in the natural emissions (faucet on the left).

Short-term variability in the human emissions (faucet on the right).

Short-term variability in the natural sinks (drain pipe on the lower right).

The bathtub analogy is similar to the water tank analogy that is used in this SkS post on the greenhouse effect. The primary analogy in that post is a blanket, but the level of water in a water tank appears further down the page.

In short, the Koutsoyiannis et al paper ignores known physics, fails to incorporate known physics in their methodology, and comes to incorrect conclusions because the correct conclusion involves factors that were eliminated from their analysis from the beginning.

On Hens, Eggs, Temperature and CO2

Bob Loblaw at 01:31 AM on 2 June, 2024

Yes, this blog post does a really good job of outlining the correct scientific background on atmospheric CO2 rise, and pointing out the glaring error that Koutsoyiannis et al have made.

The recent paper is a rehash of an earlier Koutsoyiannis paper that is allude to but not specifically linked in the OP and comments. The OP does subtly link to a rebuttal publication of that earlier work (link repeated here... You'll have to verify you're not a robot to get to the paper). As Dikran has pointed out, the authors appear to have doggedly refused to accept their error.

Both the current Koutsoyiannis et al paper and the earlier one have threads over at PubPeer:

The current paper only has one short comment.

...but the earlier paper has more extensive comments, including more detail on the criticisms Dikran mentions here in comment 1.

...and as Dikran mentions, this basic error is an old one, being repeated again and again in the contrarian literature on the subject. Two Skeptical Science blog posts from 11 and 12 years ago discusses this and similar errors. Plus ca change...

The blog And Then There's Physics also posted a blog on the earlier papers.

The importance of the differencing scheme used by Koutsoyiannis et al cannot be overstated. I hate to inject that dreaded word "Calculus" into the discussion, but if you'll bear with me for a moment I can explain. Taking differences (AKA detrending) is that dreaded Calculus process called differentiation - taking the derivative. This tells you the rate of change at any point in time - but it does not tell you how much CO2 accumulates over time. To get accumulation over time, you need to sum those changes over time - in Calculus-speak, you need to integrate.

The catch is, as Dikran points out, that taking differences has eliminated any constant factor - in Calculus-speak, the derivative of a constant is zero. And when you turn around and do the integration to look at how CO2 accumulates over time (basically, undo the differentiation), you need to remember to add the constant back in. Koutsoyiannis et al fail to do this, and then make the erroneous conclusion that the constant is not a factor. Their method made it disappear, and they can't see it as a result. David Copperfield did not actually make that airplane disappear - he just applied a method that hid it from the sight of the audience. (Of course, David Copperfield knows the airplane did not disappear, and is just trying to entertain the audience. In contrast, it appears that Koutsoyiannis et al are fooling themselves.)

At least introducing Calculus to the discussion give me a chance to mention one of my two math jokes. (Yes, I know. "math joke" is an oxymoron. Don't ask me to tell you the one about Noah and the snakes.)

Two mathematicians are in a bar, arguing about the general math knowledge of the masses. They end up deciding to settle the issue by seeing if the waitress can answer a math question. While mathematician A is in the bathroom, mathematician B corners the waitress and tells her that when his friend asks her a question, she should answer "one half X squared". A little later, when the waitress returns to the table, A asks her "what is the integral of X?". She answers as instructed, and mathematician A sheepishly pays off the bet and admits that B was right. As the waitress walks away, she is heard to mutter "pair of idiots. It's one-half X squared, plus a constant".

On Hens, Eggs, Temperature and CO2

Dikran Marsupial at 23:41 PM on 31 May, 2024

Good article!

Koutsoyiannis et al. have made essentially the same mathematical blunder that Murray Salby did ten years ago (and he was far from being the first), which I covered here:

https://skepticalscience.com/salby_correlation_conundrum.html

Correlations are insensitive to constant offsets in the two signals on which it is computed. The differencing operator, Δ, which gives the difference between successive samples converts the long term linear trend in the signal to an additive constant. So as soon as you use Δ on both signals, the correlation can tell you precisely nothing about the long term trends.

When the earlier work was published in Proceedings of the Royal Society A, I communicated this error to both the authors of the paper and the editor of the journal. The response was, shall we say "underwhelming".

The communication (June 2022) included the observation that atmospheric CO2 levels are more slowly than the rate of fossil fuel emissions, which shows that the natural environment is a net carbon sink, and therefore the rise cannot be due to a change in the carbon cycle resulting from an increase in temperature. It is "dissapointing" that the authors have published a similar claim again (submission recieved 17 March 2023) when they had already been made aware that their claim is directly refuted by reliable observations.

Fact Brief - Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?

One Planet Only Forever at 05:52 AM on 19 May, 2024

Great brief rebuttal of the ridiculous belief that breathing contributes to increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

A minor nit-pick with a suggested better presentation added in italics:

The CO2 we breathe is part of a balanced carbon exchange between the air and the earth. In contrast, burning fossil fuels injects oxidized carbon, CO2, into the atmosphere that has been stored underground in hydrocarbon molecules for millions of years, causing a rapid buildup.

Tragically, the popularity of absurd beliefs requires efforts to 'change the minds' of people who are easily tempted to believe nonsense when the alternative is 'learning about the need to stop trying to benefit from being unjustifiably more harmful'.

The first Open Access Notable presented in "Skeptical Science New Research for Week #20 2024" - Publicly expressed climate scepticism is greatest in regions with high CO2 emissions, Pearson et al., Climatic Change - highlights that regions benefiting from high harmful CO2 impacts have higher percentages of the population willing to believe nonsense.

I live in Alberta so I was not surprised by the research results regarding climate skepticism ... and I am painfully aware that nonsense beliefs like 'breathing contributes to the CO2 problem' can be persistently popular among 'highly educated people' who have developed interests that conflict with being less harmful.

There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature

MA Rodger at 20:58 PM on 14 May, 2024

Martin Watson @ 184,

As you say, the graphic appears in a Science article CenCO2PIP Consortium (2023) 'Toward a Cenozoic history of atmospheric CO2', although more correctly it was in the 'commentary' of the paper and it also then sported a scale for the GMST (which in my eyes isn't so helpful).

The paper itself does provide a more conventional graphic (Fig2) which does show 20-odd Mya CO2 levels of perhaps 300ppm and GMST of some +3ºC above pre-indusrial.

While CO2 is the major control knob of Earth's GMST, other factors can make a big difference. The closure of the Panama Isthmus certainly is one of these 'other factors'. The timing is not so well defined (with some even suggesting a date as ancient as 23Mya, this a seriously controversial suggestion), and the changes at work in the climate system which resulted are far from straightforward. The conventional version is that the inital result of the closure was a warmer Earth but that kicked-off the Norhern glaciations which tipped the Earth into a colder phase leading to the recent ice-age cycles (as per for instance Bartoli et al (2005) 'Final closure of Panama and the onset of northern hemisphere glaciation'.)

There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature

Bob Loblaw at 04:30 AM on 14 May, 2024

Martin Watson @ 184:

The diagram you post is not radically different from the graphs and data presented in the intermediate tab of the "CO2 was higher in the past" rebuttal. That rebuttal gives a fairly detailed look at CO2 history over longer periods, and discusses many of the other factors that also affect temperature at geologic time scales.

From a brief point of view, many other factors would have been different at the time you ask about (25 million years ago), so one would expect that temperatures would not exactly match those of today.

I suggest that you look over that rebuttal for possible answers, and then continue the discussion on that thread.

There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature

Martin Watson at 03:16 AM on 14 May, 2024

Could someone clear up another little issue for me. I've come across this graph today, which was taken last year from a big literature review in the journal Science. I'm confused by the dip at about 25 million years ago. It seems to show CO2 levels similar to today but temperatures much higher. I don't think I've seen this dip on other graphs.

news.climate.columbia.edu/2023/12/07/a-new-66-million-year-history-of-carbon-dioxide-offers-little-comfort-for-today/

The science isn't settled

Bob Loblaw at 05:54 AM on 11 May, 2024

To follow up on MA Rodger's comment (#106) on TWFA's comment (#104) that presents data from Delague and Bard (2010).

MAR has provided a link to a free copy of the paper.

The journal page is here,

That journal page includes a link to Supplementary data, which is a CSV file that includes their TSI reconstruction (discussed, but not graphed or presented in the paper).

With respect to Delague and Bard's TSI reconstruction, it is worth noting:

It provides values on a roughly 10-year interval.

The first value is for the year 695.

The last value is for 1982.

The graph presented by TWFA says "5-per running mean", so it is a smoothed graph where each point represents roughly 50 years.

The difference between the maximum and minimum in Delague and Bard's TSI data is 1.2 W/m². You need to divide by 4 to compare it to the CO2 forcing, to get 0.3 W/m². You need to then adjust for the earth's albedo, since 30% of TSI is reflected, further reducing the absorbed radiation to 0.21 W/m².

We can graph the original data (no smoothing) for the period 1900 to present. It looks like this:

Delague and Bard TSI

Question for TWFA:

How much of the warming observed since 1900 do you think is accounted for by the changes in TSI, as indicated by your source (Delague and Bard)?

The science isn't settled

Bob Loblaw at 00:51 AM on 11 May, 2024

I agree with Eclectic that TWFA seems to be getting some rather bad information from dubious sources. Given that TWFA often seems to just jump to a different "talking point" when challenged on his interpretation or argument, it seems that he lacks understanding of exactly what point his snippets of information are supposed to represent.

As an example, after arguing about the features of the Jevrejeva sea level reconstruction, in comment 99 I pointed to a RealClimate post that shows the Jevrajeva methodology is suspect. In comment 100, TWFA did not make any attempt to justify the use of Jevrajeva - instead, he made a bogus general argument about trends and processing, and did a "Look! Squirrel!" about comparing 1600 with 1750. After I commented in #101, he continued with more Just Asking Questions.

I will attempt to respond to TWFA's comment 102 in two ways. First, to address his general question about past climates, what we know, and what does it tell us.

The information we have about past climates is limited, and often requires use of proxies (geological records, tree rings, ice cores, etc.) That does not mean we "know nothing". though. In essence, the proxies are the result of past climates, rather than direct measurements of the temperature, precipitation, etc.

By understanding the physics of climate (including physics of solar output, etc.), we can use the evidence we do have about past climates to determine what factors were playing a role at that time. And we can compare that to what we can directly measure about those factors now.

...and we see that the best explanation for current trends must include greenhouse gas changes (mostly CO2 from fossil fuel use) to get things anywhere close to right. Other factors were active in the past to a sufficient degree to cause changes we see in the past - but they are not sufficient now to cause the changes we are seeing now.

To directly respond to TWFA's "I don't understand how what is now deemed to be abnormal can be so determined if prior normal cannot be",

We can determine what "prior normal" was - at least to some limited extent. But that limited extent contains a range of uncertainty due to our limited information. (Even today, we have limits on what is measured.)

When we interpret our evidence of the past, we have to include that uncertainty range. Hence Eclectic's question in comment 98: the broad mauve band versus the smooth calculated curve in the graphs that were being discussed.

The second approach I'll take is by analogy. A thought experiment.

Let's assume I am on trial for stealing money from TWFA's bank account.

The prosecution has shown evidence of an electronic transfer of $10k from his account to mine on a particular date last month, and evidence that this transfer was initiated for a login from my IP address. At the time, TWFA was on vacation in central Africa, with no internet access.

I have presented evidence that TWFA's bank account balance in the past has gone up and down by thousands of dollars from month to month. I do not have information about individual transfers in the past, but I do have evidence of TWFA's approximate income and typical monthly expenses.

I argue that this past range of bank balances raises doubt that I stole the money. How can we be sure that some expense that existed in the past did not cause the removal of $10k?

On cross, the prosecution presents detailed records that show each transaction for the past year (when detailed records are available). None of the historical expenses that cause $10k changes in the older historical bank balances were happening during the period I am accused of stealing money. They again point out that the current detailed records include a transfer to my account.

The judge ends up saying "it's settled - guilty as charged".

Climate scientists have spent a lot of time looking at past climates, using the available (albeit limited) evidence. We've spent time to understand the physics, analyze the data, and determine the range of effects that have caused past climate changes. And now we've looked in detail at the role of CO2, and we are observing the effects of increased CO2 that are in broad agreement with theory.

There are things we still want to learn (always), but the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, has caused most (if not all) the warming in the recent past, and will continue to cause warming in the future is settled science.

The science isn't settled

Eclectic at 11:39 AM on 10 May, 2024

TWFA @104 :

(Thanks ~ good timing ~ I was about to leave the house.)

Your question would be better expressed, not as "nature bringing temperature up stopped [in 1850]" . . . but rather as : nature reducing the greater downward pressure (by about 1850). Of course, from a Milankovitch-cycle aspect, we would expect the slow gradual line of temperature decline . . . to continue for about 15,000 years, until "the ice really hits the fan" . . . ;-) . . . and the world plunges deep into the next Glacial Age (a genuine Ice Age).

[ So there was no rush for humans to burn all their coal to keep the next glaciation at bay. ]

TWFA, the forcing from the sun ~ is only one factor in the big picture. And as best I currently understand it, the Little Ice Age was caused by two roughly equal factors. Those factors being (A) the Grand Solar Minima [Spoerer, Maunder, etc] . . . and [B] a period of greater frequency of major volcanic eruptions [stratospheric particulates causing cooling ]. A Grand Solar Minimum, by itself, is rather weak in its cooling effect.

The major factors causing climate change are : Albedo, Sun, Particulates, and CO2 (currently!)

Yeah, it's complicated. But the scientists have been doing good work in getting an understanding of it.

Fair to say : the science is settled enough for our current practical purposes. It is the politics of how to tackle our self-made problem . . . which is the difficult part to carry out efficiently.

The science isn't settled

TWFA at 15:38 PM on 9 May, 2024

Sorry, you're wrong again, perhaps your eyes didn't notice the first chart starts at 1700 and the second at 1800.

In the second chart the authors used data from the 2014 study, which basically took some of the noise out of the '08 paper but did not change the overall curve from 1700, however this particular evangelist cut off the data prior to 1810 to show the slight dip between 1810 and 1860 in order to make an apparent human caused reversal to fit the Industrial Revolution chronological orthodoxy, even though the lagging emissions curve still needed quite a bit of explaining... perhaps in the future they will discover or "adjust" preceding emissions to better fit the narrative.

By the way, I am not "regurgitating" anything, I first noticed the second chart about six months ago when somebody posted it as some sort of devastating proof of the coming inundation we are to be blamed for, it didn't make sense to me based upon the lagging emissions curve, then I drilled deeper into the source data and it all made even less sense.

In any event whether the science is settled (an oxymoron if there ever was one, no theory or law following the scientific method can ever be proved right, only not yet proved wrong) or not is moot, the evangelists ARE getting their way and we WILL be spending hundreds of trillions over the next four or five decades, probably forgoing a chunk of liberty along the way as well, seeing if we can operate a global CO2 controlled thermostat, either it will work, or nature will have something to say about it.

My money, if there is any to be left over, is on the buckets.

The science isn't settled

TWFA at 13:36 PM on 9 May, 2024

Of course I looked at Fig. 1... the ebb point in curve is at 1750, clearly rising by 1800 and well on the way by 1850.

I just want to know why, if we are the ones causing all this, that it began long before we were emitting measurable amounts of CO2, which was around 1890. Do I need to show you a chart of sea levels vs emissions?

Time series of sea level anomalies (blue) Jevrejeva et al. (2014).
Million tons of carbon emitted from burning fossil fuels from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC 2014)

The science isn't settled

TWFA at 11:59 AM on 9 May, 2024

Come on, 2 buckets a day is 730 a year, and now you're bitching that it's a thousand a year instead, like that changes anything, it's all within an order of magnitude of my first 365 estimate, why didn't you just go right to 100,000 a century for greater effect?

The point is we KNOW such methods work and have been effective, not just on the coast, but improved insulation, hydroponics and gee, maybe agriculture will come back in thenorthern climes.

The Venetians have been dealing with rising water since the 5th century, on the other hand we only have an alleged 97% certainty that by adjusting the atmospheric content of CO2 up or down by a fiftieth of a percent from the four tenths of a percent it is now that we can control the temperature of the entire planet and avoid having to buldoze all that sand.

Besides, according to the Jevregeva data in '08 and refined in '14 the sea levels stopped receding and began to rise in 1750, when James Watt was twelve years old and over a century before our emissions were even measurable, see Fig. 1
Jevrejeva '08

The science isn't settled

TWFA at 03:52 AM on 9 May, 2024

I still get hung up on the plane example, not sure anybody is framing it correctly.
If you consider the plane to be built upon an aeronautical theory of AGW and is predicted with 97% certainty by those who designed it to be airworthy and get you to your destination, which would be surviving changes in the climate by preventing them altogether using a human controlled CO2 thermostat to control the temperature of the verses planet... verses choosing an alternative, far more pedestrian and proved means of transportation to climate survival that has worked for thousands of years, namely innovation, adaption and migration, which would you choose?

For example, a five gallon bucket of sand tossed upon your acre of oceanfront property every day will keep up with 8" of sea level rise over the next century.

Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag

Paul Pukite at 23:02 PM on 6 May, 2024

Lags are tricky in feedback-controlled systems. If one signal is 90 degrees out of phase with another, you can't really say one is leading or lagging over the other.

However, it's clear for the current interannual measure that CO2 lags the temperature shifts as T is clearly primarily seasonal and secondarily ENSO+AMO related. CO2 simply follows that temperature change via the outgassing relationship.

More problematic IMO is the belief that ENSO is a lagging indicator to shifts in prevailing winds, i.e. shifts in prevailing winds will trigger an El Nino event. One can argue that the winds are in fact a lagging indicator of the ENSO phase, with climatologists not able to accurately discriminate the two signals precisely enough. AFAIK there is only one article that has looked closely at this https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-49678-w and they find that ENSO is initiated at the subsurface level (likely due to tidal cycles). The wind is a lagging indicator as the ENSO modified thermocline level creates spatially-resolved surface temperature variations, leading to atmospheric pressure gradients, and that's what drives the wind as it blows from regions of high pressure to low pressure. This happens dynamically so it explains why so many are fooled by this misguided correlation = causation attribution.

Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag

Ignorant Guy at 09:17 AM on 6 May, 2024

DeeplyMoronic @158

I suspect that you misunderstands what "lag" is and how it is shown in the diagram you ask about.

First: It is not so simple that the horizontal displacement distance of the yellow curve and the blue curve is the time lag. The yellow 'curve' (collection of measurement points, rather than a curve) and the blue curve represents two quite different things (CO2 concentration vs temperature) and their respective scales are a bit arbitrary. They are selected to make the diagram easy to read with a glance. Imagine that the scale of the blue curve was selected so that it was much taller than the yellow curve. Then, if you assume that the horizontal distance was directly indicative of the lag, it would appear as the time delay was different, i e smaller. Just because of a change of scale.

Second: The concept 'lag' is a bit fuzzy. In this case we have one variable, representing a certain phenomenon, temperature, that depends on another variable , representing the phenomenon concentration of CO2. The temperature responds to changes in CO2 concentrations. This can be compared to signal theory where an out-signal responds to an in-signal. If the in-signal is a step then the out-signal is the step reponse. A typical step response starts immediately after the input but will take some time to reach its final value. In fact it will take some time before it's clearly visible - even if it really starts immediately.
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transient_response
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Step_response
If the in-signal is not a perfect step (and in the real physical world it never is) then the response will look a bit more complicated and will take longer time to reach its final value.
Lots of physical system has this kind of behaviour. So in this case we have that when the CO2 concentration rather suddenly rises the temperature immediatly also start to rise, but the response takes quite a long time to finish. The climate is a very complicated physical system with all sorts of feedbacks and 'filter functions' involved so you should expect a diagram of past events to be a bit hard to read.

For our current situation we have a change in CO2 concentration that is not 'rather sudden' but very, very sudden. So we can expect that the temperature response will be visible a lot faster.

Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag

DeeplyMoronic at 00:03 AM on 6 May, 2024

Hello everybody. I'm not sure this is the best place to ask my question, this topic is so old, but I try. Also please excuse my bad english.

I was wondering about this graph :

How is it that the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels is so far removed from the increase in global Earth temperature ? I estimate that there must be between 500 and 1000 years of difference; How is it possible ? Isn't CO2 once in the atmosphere supposed to immediately warm it up ?

And when we look at the curves about more recent times, scientists explain to us that the climate began to warm up from the start of the industrial area, we don't see a gap of several hundred years.

Do you have an explanation ?

CO2 is just a trace gas

Bob Loblaw at 00:04 AM on 5 May, 2024

scaddenp:

I previously pointed out in this comment on this thread that concentration in ppm is not a good way to determine the effects of CO2 on IR radiation. I stated that the absolute amount is the key, and pointed to this "from the email bag" post that illustrates this point. That comment was two comments above where JJones posted his first comment in March of this year, so it's probably too much to expect that JJones actually read it. He seems more interested in posting than in reading and learning.

As for JJones idea that CO2 in trace amounts can't absorb enough radiation, there are commercial CO2 gas analyzers that are designed to measure CO2 by measuring the amount of IR radiation it absorbs, and they can do this on very small quantities of air. One such instrument is described here:

https://www.licor.com/env/products/gas-analysis/LI-830-LI-850/

From the "how do they work?" section of that web page:

How do they work?

The LI-830 and LI-850 use non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) gas analysis to measure gases in air. A broad-band optical source delivers infrared radiation through the sample onto optically filtered detectors. Optical detectors measure the sample and reference bands to compute absorption by CO2 and H2O (LI-850 only).

I expect that the manufacturer of this device (and the many manufacturers of similar devices) will be awfully disappointed to find out that they can't possible work, because JJones has asserted that trace amounts of CO2 can't absorb enough IR radiation to make a difference.

CO2 is just a trace gas

scaddenp at 10:26 AM on 4 May, 2024

JJones - despite the examples in main article of very small amounts capable of having large effect, you seem to be clinging to idea that the concentration cant be important. Can we unpack this please? I want to see how you understand this?

From the basics, the sun warms the earth and heat is radiated out to space through the atmosphere as photons with wavelengths in the infrared part of the spectra.

Now as I understand it, you believe because the concentration is low, then there are not enough CO2 molecules to catch all the photons leaving the surface? Is that a reasonable summary of your position?

One way to check that sort of question is consider how far, on average, a photon at say 15microns wavelength might travel before hitting a CO2 molecule if the concentration of CO2 is 400ppm. If you want to think about it a very crude approximate way, then think of cylinder 15microns wide going to top of atmosphere. Now then what is chance of it encountering a CO2 molecule? Doing it properly is quite complicated because density of molecules varies with pressure as you go up the atmosphere, but can start with simple sealevel values and the gas equation.

If you start the calculation, eg how many CO2 molecules in a meter of that tube, then you immediately realise that while 400 molecules in a millions seems rather small, Avagadro's number is extremely large. There are a lot of CO2 molecules in the way.

In short, the photon will likely get only a metre or so before being captured. 400pm can easily trap all the photons in appropriate wavelength leaving the surface. To really understand the greenhouse effect though you have to know what happens next.

PS - you wouldnt walk into a room with 400ppm of cyanide gas would you?

CO2 is just a trace gas

Bob Loblaw at 22:48 PM on 3 May, 2024

jjones1960 @ 54:

After two months, the best you can come up with is an empty assertion that CO2 is a trace gas? On a post/thread that is devoted to demonstrating why that is such a bogus argument?

Well, let's review the calculation that you provide or reference, in support of your claim that CO2 "cannot trap a significant amount of heat anyway."

...oh, wait. You did not actually provide any calculation. Unfortunately for you, the people that have done the calculation come up with a different conclusion.

I miss the days when contrarians/deniers could actually put together a reasonable argument (however wrong) that presented some actual analysis (however wrong) that supported their positions. These days, it seems more and more that contrarians commenting here have nothing to say that goes beyond a 240-character slogan.

CO2 is just a trace gas

JJones1960 at 17:58 PM on 3 May, 2024

Bob Loblaw @ 51:

“CO2 is not "colourless" when it comes to infrared radiation. Just because JJones1960 can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.”

The point that you miss that that CO2 is a trace gas, therefore cannot trap a significant amount of heat anyway.

OPOF @52:

Your quote:
“Tropospheric ozone (O3) is the third most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4).“

The point you miss is that ozone traps heat in relation to CO2 and methane as the ‘third most important greenhouse gas’ but that is IN RELATION to those gases. My point is that those gasses don’t and can’t trap a significant amount of heat because they are in trace amounts, therefore neither would ozone.

Welcome to Skeptical Science

brtipton at 10:41 AM on 1 May, 2024

I spent a large part of my career investigating, exposing and debunking scientific and engineering boondoggles or fraud within US DOD.

The SCIENCE behind climate change as about as well done as humanly possible. I have found zero politically motivated exaggeration of the situation on the part of climate the climate scientists. If anything, many reports have been watered down somewhat on the positive side.

Unfortunately, the opposite is true on the climate SOLUTIONS side of the coin. While all of the statements I can find are legally, and scientifically accurate; they are highly misleading creating a false sense of progress.

This became painfully evident during the 2022 meeting of the World Climate Coalition's conference on finance when the ONE climatologist who spoke correctly pointed out that ALL efforts to date have had no measurable effect on reducing atmospheric CO2 levels. In fact, atmospheric CO levels are accelerating upward. The MC followed up with "well, that's unfortunate. Let's move on to the good news." Followed by that session not being published on conference website.

Examples:

US Energy Information Administration (EIA) data states that about 2/3 of planned new generating capacity is green (correct.) They omit that new generating capacity if 1.2% of US total consumption and 2/3 of 1.2% is 0.8% PER YEAR for US conversion from fossil fuels to renewables.

The same source correctly states that about 25% of US sustainable energy comes from wind, but obscures that only 11% of total consumption is sustainable. This results in installed wind accounting for 4% of US total consumption. Note: That is INSTALLED wind, not ACTIVELY operating wind. A casual drive or fly by usually shows a large percentage of wind turbines are inactive. I have been unable to find data documenting the actual operating levels.

An article in the UK Guardian, about a year ago, reported that the first UK offshore wind turbine was operating. Based on their reported number and size of turbines, the entire installation, when completed, would generate about 1.9% of UK total consumption.

This linked in articles further digs into the state of affairs on "solutions." - https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/when-does-megwatt-114-watts-bob-tipton-asdfc/?trackingId=8eOLtQUcTwizRZ8AN%2Fe4Pg%3D%3D

All of these are observations and attempts to discover core facts and are in need of skeptical review. As a skeptical reviewer, I welcome this.

There is an engineering adage - you cannot control what you cannot sense. If our leaders do not know the true state of affairs it is not possible for them to make effective decisions. It's not enough to put laser focus on the accuracy of the risk reports from the climatologists while ignoring the over exaggerating capabilities of the solutions we are staking our success on.

In my OPINION, the tools we have are not adequate to win this battle. There are few to know effective efforts to develop new tools. The vast majority of out best and brightest minds are bogged down adding more volume to a case which is already well proven. Further documentation of our impending mass extinction is a poor use of strategic resources.
The true battlefield we are on is one of COST to the consumer and TAXATION of the taxpayers. Until we have solutions where the green way is the cheap way, we will be pushing a boulder up a mountain. When we achieve that point, progress will be rapid and viral.

Bob Tipton
Cofounder [Howard] Hughes Skunkworks

Simon Clark: The climate lies you'll hear this year

Charlie_Brown at 02:32 AM on 1 May, 2024

Martin Watson @ 5,

Bob Loblaw and Eclectic provide good explanations. To add to them, look up Kirchoff’s Law for radiant energy: Absorptance = Emittance when at thermal equilibrium. Understanding this concept will go a long way toward helping understand the mechanism of global warming. Combined with the atmospheric temperature profile, it is key as to why global warming is a result of increasing CO2 and CH4 in the cold upper atmosphere. It explains why absorption in the lower atmosphere does not prevent radiant energy in the 14-16 micron range from being transferred to the upper atmosphere. Consider a 3-step process: 1) absorb a photon, 2) collisions bring adjacent molecules to the same temperature, 3) emit a photon. It might seem like a pass-through of photons, but think of it as conservation of energy, not conservation of photons. Thus, absorption and emission are functions of temperature. The atmospheric temperature profile is controlled by several factors including adiabatic expansion, condensation, convection, and concentration of greenhouse gases. When these factors are not changing, the temperature profile is fixed. Temperature controls radiant energy. The temperature changes only when something upsets the energy balance and steady state equilibrium temperature, like increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.

Simon Clark: The climate lies you'll hear this year

Bob Loblaw at 23:50 PM on 30 April, 2024

Martin Watson @ 5:

From a quick reading, there is nothing wrong with the information presented in the link you provide. It looks like an accurate discussion of what happens to the energy contained in an IR photon when it is absorbed by a greenhouse gas (CO2 or otherwise). That energy is almost always lost to other molecules (including non-greenhouse gases such as oxygen and nitrogen), and this leads to the heating of the atmosphere in general.

The article you link to also goes on to explain how higher temperatures in the atmosphere lead to more collisions with CO2 molecules (or other greenhouse gases), which will increase the rate at which they emit IR photons. And it explains how those are emitted in all directions, and how this leads to the greenhouse effect.

Just because very few absorbed photons lead directly to an immediate photon emission by CO2 does not mean that the energy is lost forever and the energy is not eventually emitted as a photon. The complete 100% of the absorbed photon energy is added to the atmosphere, and it continues to remain in the atmosphere until it is eventually emitted out to space or absorbed at the surface.

Eli Rabbet's blog has an excellent discussion of this same factor.

In other words, that article is an accurate description of exactly the process by which greenhouse gases such as CO2 lead to warming of the atmosphere. It provides nothing that represents a refutation of modern (the past 100+ years) of climate science. The article does not mean what the people are claiming it means.

If you are in a debate with someone making this argument, perhaps you can try asking them "what happens to the other 99.998% of the energy?" Or perhaps ask them "why are you referring to an article that accurately describes the greenhouse effect and how it causes warming, as if it refutes it?"

Simon Clark: The climate lies you'll hear this year

Martin Watson at 23:43 PM on 30 April, 2024

Hi Eclectic

Thanks for the reply.

Yes, it was another website making the claim that this research meant the effect of CO2 was infinitesimally small. I then tracked down the geoexpro as the original source of the info. I have to confess I didn't understand it!

This was the website where I first read it:

notrickszone.com/2023/06/12/new-research-only-2-of-every-100000-co2-molecules-radiate-photons-and-this-controls-climate/

Simon Clark: The climate lies you'll hear this year

Eclectic at 23:30 PM on 30 April, 2024

Martin Watson @5 ,

the absorption and re-emission of IR-photons by CO2 molecules is discussed in "Most Used Climate Myths" Number 74 ~ check the top left of (every) page on the SkepticalScience site. [Click on View All Arguments]

The energized CO2 molecules then then immediately transfer energy (kinetic) to neighbouring molecules (being mostly N2 and O2). Much the same thing happens with other GreenHouse Gas molecules e.g. of water molecules etc.

And N2 and O2 molecules transfer energy by impact to their neighbours ~ including to CO2 as well. All these impacts happening at a rate of billions per second.

Therefore, even though the IR-photon emission "percentage" is ultra-low for a particular molecule of CO2 or other GHGas . . . the billions of impacts produce an emission of a sea of photons per cubic millimeter of air.

Also, the geoexpro article you link to, goes into all this in a more detailed way.

Martin, I did not see that article make a suggestion that CO2 had an "infinitesimally small" global warming effect. Have I missed something ~ or were you confusing your memory with some other article elsewhere on the internet? It would be interesting to examine who or what was making the claim that CO2 (or H2O or other GHGasses) was inert . . . and was making a claim that GreenHouse-type global warming does not exist. Because such a claim goes against all the evidence gathered during the last 100+ years of investigation by physicists.

Simon Clark: The climate lies you'll hear this year

Martin Watson at 22:31 PM on 30 April, 2024

I am really hoping that somebody will be able to debunk the following claim in a way I can understand, or point me to an article which already does that. Yesterday, I was Googling about climate change and I came across a claim about CO2 and photons. Basically, it was saying that out of every 100,000 CO2 molecules which absorb a reflected IR photon from the surface, only 2 will actually re-emit that photon. Instead the other 99,998 molecuales will bump into a molecule of nitrogen or oxygen. And the claim was this means the contribution of CO2 to global warming was infinitesimally small. It seems to be referencing this article. Thanks.

geoexpro.com/recent-advances-in-climate-change-research-part-ix-how-carbon-dioxide-emits-ir-photons/

At a glance - Is the CO2 effect saturated?

MA Rodger at 19:42 PM on 25 April, 2024

Eclectic @14,

You say the work of these jokers Kubicki, Kopczyński & Młyńczak failed the WUWT test, being too bonkers even for Anthony Willard Watts to cope-with. I would say Watts has happily promoted work just as bonkers in the past.

And as you say, there is no WUWT coverage of this Kubicki et al 2024 paper although Google shows it is mentioned once in one of the comment threads, as is an earlier paper from the same jokers. Indeed, there are two such earlier papers from 2020 and 2022. Thankfully, these are relatively brief and thus they easily expose the main error these jokers are promoting.

In Kubicki et al (2020) they kick-off by misusing the Schwarzschild equation. The error they employ even gets a mention within this Wiki-ref which says:-

At equilibrium, dIλ = 0 even when the density of the GHG (n) increases. This has led some to falsely believe that Schwarzschild's equation predicts no radiative forcing at wavelengths where absorption is "saturated".

They then measure the radiation from the Moon through a chamber either filled with air or with CO2 and show there is no difference and thus, as their misuse of Schwarzschild suggests, that the Earth's CO2 is "saturated." In preparing for this grand experiment, they research the thermal properties of the Moon as an IR source and thus tell us:-

The moon. The temperature of its surface varies a lot, but for the part illuminated by the Sun, according to encyclopaedic information, it may slightly exceed 1100ºC.

This well demonstrates that these jokers are on a different planet to us as it is well know our Moon only manages 120ºC under the equatorial noon-day sun.

At a glance - Is the CO2 effect saturated?

Eclectic at 01:29 AM on 25 April, 2024

Thanks for that, MA Rodger @13.

Possibly - just possibly - the ultimate Thumbs-Down on the Kubicki et al. paper . . . is that it has not been trumpeted at WUWT website (which usually trumpets any crackpot paper which seems "anti-mainstream" science. And that's despite many of the WUWT denizens regularly/continually asserting that the CO2-GreenHoouse Effect was now irrelevant (because "saturated") or was always non-valid anyway.

Now perhaps I have failed to remember "Kubicki" being a Nine-Day Wonder at WUWT ~ or perhaps I failed to notice "Kubicki" among the mountainous garbage-pile accumulating at WUWT. But as a final check, I used the WUWT Search Function . . . and turned up Nothing.

Something of Contrarian pretensions would need to be pretty bad, not to get 15-minutes of fame at WUWT. But maybe I speak too soon?

At a glance - Is the CO2 effect saturated?

MA Rodger at 00:15 AM on 25 April, 2024

The paper Kubicki et al (2024) 'Climatic consequences of the process of saturation of radiation absorption in gases' is utter garbage from start to finish. When something is so bad, it is a big job setting straight the error-on-error presented.

As an exemplar of the level of nonsense, consider the opening paragraph, sentence by sentence.

Due to the overlap of the absorption spectra of certain atmospheric gases and vapours with a portion of the thermal radiation spectrum from the Earth's surface, these gases absorb the mentioned radiation.

I'd assume this is saying that the atmosphere contains gases (or "vapours" if you are pre-Victorian) which absorb certain IR wavelengths emitted by the Earth's surface. Calling this "overlap" is very odd.

This leads to an increase in their temperature and the re-emission of radiation in all directions, including towards the Earth.

The absorption if IR does lead to "an increase in their temperature" but the emission from atmospheric gases is determined by its temperature. Absorbed IR only very rarely results in a re-emission of IR (and if it does, the IR energy is not cause "increase in their temperature").

As a result, with an increase in the concentration of the radiation-absorbing gas, the temperature of the Earth's surface rises.

This is not how the greenhouse effect works. For wavelengths longer than the limit for its temperature defined by 'black body' physicis (for the Earth, about 4 microns), the planet emits IR across the entire spectrum. The level of emission depends on the temperature of the point of emission which for wavelengths where greenhouse gases operate is not the surface but up in the atmosphere. For IR in the 15 micron band, CO2 will result in emissions to space from up in the atmosphere where it is colder and thus where emissions are less. If adding CO2 moves the height of emission up into a colder altitude, emissions will fall and the Earth then has to heat up to regain thermal equilibrium.

Due to the observed continuous increase in the average temperature of the Earth and the simultaneous increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it has been recognized that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration associated with human activity may be the cause of climate warming.

This was perhaps true before the 1950s but the absorption/emission of IR by various gasses was identified and measured when the USAF began to develop IR air-to-air missiles. The warming-effect of a doubling of CO2 (a radiative forcing of +3.7Wm^-2) has been established for decades.

So just like debating science with nextdoor's cat, taking the heed the whitterings of Messers Kubicki, Kopczyński & Młyńczak is a big big waste of time.

At a glance - Is the CO2 effect saturated?

Bob Loblaw at 23:43 PM on 23 April, 2024

Theo:

Taking a quick look at that paper, I see it refers to Angstrom's work in 1900 to support their "saturation" argument. This is already discussed in the Advanced tab of the detailed "Is the CO2 effect saturated?" post that this at-a-glance introduces. Short version - we've learned a few things since Angstrom wrote his paper in 1900.

Searching the recent paper for "saturation", it seems that they are using the typical fake skeptic approach that applies the Beer-Lambert law (which is exponential in nature, and a standard part of radiation transfer theory) to the atmosphere as a whole. That is - they look at whether or not IR radiation can make it through the atmosphere in a single pass.

To nobody's surprise, this turns out to not be the case - IR radiation in the bands absorbed by CO2 rarely makes it directly from the earth's surface to space. The energy in the photons needs to go through a series of absorption/re-emission cycles as it gradually works its way up through the atmosphere. When these processes are included in the calculations, it turns out that this particular flavour of the "saturation" argument falls flat on its face, and adding more CO2 (compared to our current levels) does indeed have an effect.

Executive Summary: the authors of that paper have no idea how the greenhouse effect works, as Eclectic has stated.

Read the full rebuttal here for more discussion - and the details of the Beer-Lambert Law are also discussed in this SkS blog post.

Elsevier is usually considered a reputable publisher, but they screwed up on this one. The rapid passage from "received" to "accepted" is indeed a red flag. The journal - Applications in Engineering Science - is clearly an off-topic journal for this paper. On the page I link to, it mentions "time to first decision" as 42 days, and "review time" of 94 days. If you click on "View all insights", you get to this page that also gives "Submission to acceptance" as 77 days, and "acceptance to publication" as five days. The seven days for this paper (from "received" to "accepted") is, shall we say, a bit shorter than usual?

It is worth noting that several other papers in the same issue also have very short times between "received" and "accepted". Of the four I looked at, none of them had any indication that the authors were asked to revise anything, which is rather unusual. Someone at that journal is in a rush.

(If you click on "What do these dates mean?", below the title/author section of the web page for the appear, it specifically states that "received" is the date of the original submission, and they will say "revised" if a more recent version is submitted - e.g. after review.)

At a glance - Is the CO2 effect saturated?

John Mason at 16:53 PM on 23 April, 2024

re - # 4: I've just taken a look at that paper. The reason we didn't mention it was that it came out very recently.

This however is part of the conclusion:

"However, the intention of the authors of this article is not to encourage anyone to degrade the natural environment. Coal and petroleum are valuable chemical resources, and due to their finite reserves, they should be utilized sparingly to ensure they last for future generations. Furthermore, intensive coal mining directly contributes to environmental degradation (land drainage, landscape alteration, tectonic movements). It should also be considered that frequently used outdated heating systems burning coal and outdated internal combustion engines fueled by petroleum products emit many toxic substances (which have nothing to do with CO2). Therefore, it seems that efforts towards renewable energy sources should be intensified, but unsubstantiated arguments, especially those that hinder economic development, should not be used for this purpose."

In scientific literature, a conclusion should be about the work that was done, and not an arm-waving diatribe! The Introduction likewise gives its first 400 plus words over to arm-wavy waffle about the IPCC. I'm surprised it got beyond peer review on that basis. Indeed, its submission/acceptance dates (Received 4 December 2023, Accepted 11 December 2023) suggests it never was reviewed. In most cases a period of months divides those two dates because the peer review process is quite slow. These are all warning signs that 'something is up' with this item.

At a glance - Is the CO2 effect saturated?

Theo Simon at 15:46 PM on 23 April, 2024

I am not science trained but trying to understand. This rebuttal doesn't mention the alleged evidence presented in the paper "Climatic consequences of the process of saturation of radiation absorption in gases" by Kubicki and others - or does it? The current denialism talking point is that additional CO2 has now been shown to have no additional warming effect, and claims new proofs of this:

https://notrickszone.com/2024/04/23/3-physicists-use-experimental-evidence-to-show-co2s-capacity-to-absorb-radiation-has-saturated/

What is Mexico doing about climate change?

prove we are smart at 00:04 AM on 16 April, 2024

On behalf of Mexico and the many,many nations on this planet who will struggle more than the "entitled wealthy", climate justice - can it come from those who have given us the current 20% of global co2. www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zP0L69ielU

Full article here www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-which-countries-are-historically-responsible-for-climate-change/

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

Grumnut at 20:39 PM on 11 April, 2024

I think it's bizarre, that Durkin has basically made the same movie again. This is "The Great Global Warming Swindle" made over with the same players. One of the oddest parts of BOTH films is the contention of the claim that warming comes first, followed by CO2 rise, 800 years later. They even use the graph (at least in TGGWS) from the paper from Caillon et al. The trouble is, that paper clearly states that CO2 rose first in the Northern Hemisphere followed by warming. Highly educated scientists, some with doctorates, can't read a simple scientific paper, it seems.

They wouldn't be trying to put one over on us, would they?

Welcome to Skeptical Science

Bob Loblaw at 01:07 AM on 5 April, 2024

cookclimate @ 118:

I have looked at the paper in the volume I linked to in comment 121. There are definite changes compared to an earlier version I found that said "submitted to Earth and Space Science", so I presume that you've had some sort of review and modified the paper since the earlier drafts.

It looks like you have identified the 1470-year cycle using your eyecrometer. I see nothing in the paper that actually does any sort of signal processing to identify cycles using any objective statistical technique. You are seeing a cycle because you want to see a cycle.

Your speculation includes arguments that include all sorts of stuff that has been debunked many times before. Pages are available on Skeptical Science that cover thee topics:

Geothermal heat flux is included in this post.

The "CO2 lags temperature" argument is discussed here.

Most of your examples use regional, not global, temperature proxies. Regional temperatures are far more variable than global ones, and it is invalid to compare the two directly. This is discussed in this SkS post.

You're convinced that an increase in volcanoes are adding to warming. That is the opposite of the argument commonly made by "skeptics" that increasing volcanic activity caused the Little Ice Age, so a subsequent decrease is causing warming (discussed here). In any event, just counting the number of volcanoes (your figure 3) is extremely simplistic. Arguing that more volcanoes implies more geothermal heat is a non-starter, as discussed in the post linked above.

Your "computer models are unreliable" is an old, tired argument, scoring position 6 on the SkS Most Used Climate Myths. The rebuttal is here.

So, your paper is really nothing more than an "I see it" 1470-year cycle mixed with a rehash and Gish Gallop through a variety of common "skeptic" myths. I could probably find more, but it isn't worth the time.

I hope you didn't pay too much money to get it published.

Welcome to Skeptical Science

cookclimate at 09:28 AM on 4 April, 2024

CO2 does not cause Earth’s climate change.

It is estimated that it will cost $62 trillion to eliminate fossil fuels, but eliminating fossil fuels will be a complete waste of our tax and corporate dollars, because it will not stop the warming. You can’t stop Mother Nature.

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) frequently shows that temperature correlates with CO2 for the last 1,000 years as proof that CO2 is causing the warming. But if you extend that to the last 800,000 years, the temperature and CO2 lines do not correlate or fit (Figure 14 in Supplemental Data). If the lines don’t fit, then you must acquit CO2. CO2 is not guilty of causing climate change. CO2 does not control Earth’s temperature. The IPCC has not demonstrated any scientific evidence that CO2 controls Earth’s temperature (they only have unproven theories).

The facts:
• Earth is currently warming (it is still below the normal peak temperature).
• CO2 is increasing (it is above the normal CO2 peak).
• Earth’s current warming is being caused by a 1,470-year astronomical cycle.

The 1,470-year astronomical cycle warms the Earth for a couple of hundred years and melts ice sheets primarily in Greenland and the Arctic. It has repeated every 1,470-years for at least the last 50,000 years. It is normal that it would be happening again. It accelerates Earth’s rotation, stopping length of day increases (Figure 9). It warms the Earth. Based on historical data, the current warming should peak near the year 2060 and then it should start to cool.

For more information, see A 1,470-Year Astronomical Cycle and Its Effect on Earth’s Climate,

DOI: 10.33140/JMSRO.06.06.01

and Supplemental Data,
www.researchgate.net/publication/379431497_Supplemental_Data_for_A_1470-Year_Astronomical_Cycle_and_Its_Effect_on_Earth's_Climate#fullTextFileContent

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

John Mason at 08:16 AM on 4 April, 2024

Jim, which is it to be?

"But truth is I have never denied the greenhouse effect."

"Clearly commneting here on SkS is a privelege only given to those who support the CO2 warming narrative."

If you have never denied the greenhouse effect, you must surely accept that enhancing its intensity warms the planet. Likewise you must surely accept that reducing its intensity cools the planet.

Both, I must add, based on very old, tried and tested first principles.

There are as we all know other factors that should be taken into account at all times. We are talking about one component, albeit highly significant, of the climate system here.

So I suggest you try and reconcile the two statements above, upon which I have quoted you.

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

jimsteele24224 at 07:54 AM on 4 April, 2024

I would respond to Charlie_Brown and Eclectic, but the moderator will simply remove my comments that refute your comments. Clearly commneting here on SkS is a privelege only given to those who support the CO2 warming narrative. Allowing scientific debate is not something that is honored here as revealed by the "moderator" deleting my post on polar bears, and other trivia. WUWT is clearly offtopic, but is always allowed because it dishonestly trashes skeptics which is the mission of SkS.

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

Eclectic at 05:09 AM on 4 April, 2024

Gentlemen ~ "Climate The Movie" is currently being featured and featured "bigly" , at the WattsUpWithThat [WUWT] blogsite. WUWT has the topic "pinned" for consideration and comments. Comments are currently numbering 422. Yes, 422.

However, please do not waste your time by seeking through the 422 for any sign of perceptive & intelligent comments. I assure you that I have skimmed the 400-ish . . . and it's merely the typical WUWT "usual suspects" who are angrily venting into the WUWT echochamber.

Jimsteele , it sounds like you are completely unfamiliar with the WUWT website. It is full (well ~ at the 95% level) of commenters who deny the greenhouse effect ~ either directly or indirectly. Yes, I view the website to "educate" myself . . . mostly about the follies of Motivated Reasoning which are on display there daily. WUWT manages to be both interesting and tiresome. But the cynical reader will see some amusing comments there ~ of egregious fatuities & unintended ironies.

Jimsteele @91 ~ please go back and carefully re-read my comment @84. No, I did not state or allege that you "denied the greenhouse effect". But among your convoluted statements on ocean warming/cooling, you both allege and imply that CO2 contributes little or nothing to the (presently unfrozen) temperature of the Earth's ocean. Do you see the irony/incongruity of your position ?

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

Charlie_Brown at 05:02 AM on 4 April, 2024

The discussion of the heat transfer mechanisms at the ocean’s surface is irrelevant for understanding the mechanism of global warming caused by increasing greenhouse gas emissions. It neglects infrared radiant energy emitted from the surface and the overall global energy balance.

jimsteele @91 claims that he does not deny the “greenhouse effect”, yet the movie and his initial post @67 direct to myths about “global warming caused by increasing GHG emissions.” He reveals his lack of knowledge about the “greenhouse effect” when, @83, he accuses eclectic: “It is your narrative that grossly incomplete! You make a totally unsubstantiated assertion that without CO2 the oceans would freeze.” It is a correct assertion substantiated by a simple radiant energy balance over the globe: Solar In = Infrared Out.

The surface of the ocean and the land are blackbodies that absorb and emit radiant energy based on Planck’s Distribution Law. Gases, being simple molecules, emit at specific wavelengths as internal energy levels change determined by bending and stretching depending on the molecular structure. CO2 has many strong absorptance/emittance lines in the wavelength band of about 14 to 16 microns and many more weak lines on the shoulders of this band.

Absorptance equals emittance at thermal equilibrium (Kirchoff’s Law). That is the energy balance of a molecule. The condition of thermal equilibrium is important because it is conservation of energy, not conservation of photons at a specific frequency. Because the bottom layer of the stratosphere is cold, the intensity of emitted energy from CO2 is lower than the intensity emitted in the same wavelength band from the surface. Thus, energy emitted to space is reduced. With increasing CO2, the emittance lines fill in and the range of the CO2 emittance band becomes wider. Infrared out is reduced. Energy accumulates. The pre-industrial steady state balance when accumulation was zero is upset. Warming occurs until the energy balance is restored. It is restored when the temperature of the surface increases enough such that the energy emitted by the surface at other wavelengths outside of the CO2 absorptance band matches the reduced energy emitted to space from within the CO2 band.

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

jimsteele24224 at 03:39 AM on 4 April, 2024

Second, when you Bob told me to discuss this elsewheere I didnt know it was said by a moderator. You never made that clear, so it appeared you were just a random commenter deflecting the discussion.

I also believed the topic here was about the Climate the Movie and whether or not the facts presented in it were just refuted myths.

SkS topic 31 greenhouse stated the argument "Increasing CO2 has little to no effect" is a myth and that "The strong CO2 effect has been observed by many different measurements."

I had not argued about the greenhouse effect in general, just about how the ocean is warmed. Then Eclectic dishonestly alleged I denied the greenhouse effect. So please explain why his post is still up but my reply gets deleted?

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

jimsteele24224 at 03:15 AM on 4 April, 2024

Eclectic, LOL What are you talking about saying " Jim ~ you would lose all scientific credibility if you assert that the so-called greenhouse effect does not exist."

But truth is I have never denied the greenhouse effect. Your allegations are typical of alarmists trying to denigrate skeptics. Every skeptic I know totally understands the greenhouse effect and are grateful for its warming effect. The question is how much does further increased CO2 cause further warming and is that beneficial or not.

Your second funny is telling me not to get distracted by the details of the actual mechanisms of the ocean is warming, simply because you believe ,without ever substantiating, that there are equilibrium points that are unaffected by those proven dynamics.

Please educate yourself Eclectic.

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

jimsteele24224 at 02:19 AM on 4 April, 2024

Eclectic, LOL What are you talking about saying " Jim ~ you would lose all scientific credibility if you assert that the so-called greenhouse effect does not exist."

Please educate yourself Eclectic.

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

Eclectic at 15:33 PM on 3 April, 2024

Jimsteele @83 :

Certainly the ocean skin surface is the gateway through which heat enters & leaves the ocean. (Other than the large flux of solar radiation which penetrates deeply into the ocean ~ we scuba divers can definitely see that occurring ! )

But as I mentioned above, the skin surface dynamics do not disturb the long-term equilibrium of energies, over the course of days and years. Surely that is obvious to you. Please do not confuse & distract yourself with the ephemeral fluctuations in the surface few microns of oceanic water.

Also ~ do not distract yourself with thinking about the different heat fluxes in the tropic / temperate / and polar zones of the planet. Those zones have their own long-term equilibrium positions, and their existence (and fluctuations) won't change the medium-term equilibrium of the total planet.

Second ~ please educate yourself about the paleo history of Earth . . . and its "iceball" phases. Yes, the paleo evidence indicates low armospheric CO2 produces "iceball" oceanic freezing. In addition to that evidence, the basic physics of Earth's planetary orbital distance and the incident solar radiation on Earth . . . indicate that the Earth's oceans would become meters-deep in ice, if the atmospheric "greenhouse" effect were to disappear.

Jim ~ you would lose all scientific credibility if you assert that the so-called greenhouse effect does not exist. Please step back from the brink . . . and reconsider your position.

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

jimsteele24224 at 13:43 PM on 3 April, 2024

ocean heat flux

Eclectic, First the skin surface dynamics are essential. The skin surface is the only layer from which heat can leave the ocean.

Second It is your narrative that grossly incomplete! You make a totally unsubstantiated assertion that without CO2 the oceans would freeze. You totally ignore solar heating. However the heat flux into the ocean primarily happens due to tropical solar heating in the eastern oceans, where La Nina like conditions reduce cloud cover and increase solar heating. The ocean sub surface can trap heat but the skin surface cannot.

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

Eclectic at 12:57 PM on 3 April, 2024

Jimsteele @81 :

Thank you ~ but the analysis is still incomplete. Possibly some semantic obfuscation or confusion is impeding the basic physical picture.

Over a 24 hour cycle or 365 day cycle, the interesting variations in the topmost few microns of ocean are unimportant. What is important is the overall flux of energy into & out of the ocean ~ for that is what maintains the ocean's temperature structure (stratification) and long-term heat content. And the ocean is responsible for a large slice of the atmosphere's heat content & stratification (indirectly). It goes both ways.

Remove CO2 and the lesser greenhouse gasses . . . and the ocean temperature would decrease . . . and the surface few microns would be ice (and the deeper ocean would freeze as well).

Ergo ~ and in straightforward language ~ it can be accurately said that CO2 has a major effect in warming the planetary ocean.

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

jimsteele24224 at 12:26 PM on 3 April, 2024

Eclectic to be more complete

First understand, CO2 infrared only penetrates a few microns depth compared to solar heating that warms the sub-surface for several meters depth, creating the diurnal warm layer

Second, the ocean’s skin layer is the only layer where heat can ventilate from the ocean. Absorbed solar heat creates a temperature gradient where conduction moves heat from the diurnal warm layer up towards the skin surface and out to the atmosphere. 98% of the time the ocean heats the atmosphere. The atmosphere does not heat the ocean.

The skin surface is always the coolest layer because as soon as any downward infrared from greenhouse gases heats the skin surface, the skin surface radiates that heat away as the laws of physics dictate! Furthermore, any heating of the skin surface increases evaporation and promotes evaporative cooling. And finally the skin surface heat is conducted away by the atmosphere. Thus even at night after most solar heat has been ventilaated, the skin surface is cooler than subsurface layers.

Measurements show the skin surface radiates away infrared from the combined inputs of solar heating that rises to the skin surface and infrared heating absorbed in the skin surface. The skin surface cannot trap heat. However subsurface layers trap heat because of the time delay of that heat reaching the skin surface to ventilate. Furthermore, heat is trapped in the ocean where ever solar heated subsurface layers are overlain by fresher water that suppresses convection.

To better understand this dynamic watch or read: Science of Solar Ponds Challenges the Climate Crisis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wl3_YQ_Vufo&t=17s

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

Eclectic at 12:13 PM on 3 April, 2024

Jimsteele @76 :

You have answered incompletely. Have I missed something basic in physics or in logic ? e.g. ~

Solar shortwave radiation -> ocean

ocean heat -> atmosphere by molecular vibration and by IR radiation

atmospheric heat -> ocean (predominantly by molecular vibration, but a small component of IR radiation too)

CO2 -> greenhouse effect -> lower atmosphere warming [lapse rate]

Ergo, CO2 provides a large (but indirect) amount of ocean warming.

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

jimsteele24224 at 11:20 AM on 3 April, 2024

Hi Eclectic, No you are wrong to claim "In summary ; the ocean receives heat predominantly from light energy and from conduction from the atmosphere."

Conduction is negigible if at all.

The diurnal warm layer created by greater subsurface heating from the sun creates heat conduction out of the ocean and towards the skinlayer which is the only layer from which heat can leave the ocean.

Once infrared heats the ocean's couple of micron thick skin surface, the warmer surface begins emitting infrared and cools the skin surface. Basic physics! Heating the skin surface also increases evaporative cooling and 98% of the time the atmosphere is warmed by contact with the ocean's skin surface. Basic physics does not indicate CO2 infrared can heat the ocean.

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

jimsteele24224 at 11:15 AM on 3 April, 2024

scaddenp SCIENCE OF DOOM had many accurate posts but regards heating the ocean he/she failed miserably. So I ould appreciate hearing your understanding, instead of pawning the issue off to someone else.

He first presented the idea of conduction as important for OC2 heating with "Once you establish a temperature difference you inevitably get heat transfer by conduction"

Indeed, the diurnal warm layer created by greater subsurfac heating by the sun created heat conduction towards the skinlayer which is the only layer from which heat can leave the ocean.

Once infrared heats the ocean's coup;le of micron skin surface, the warmer surface begins emitting infrared and cools the skin surface. Basic physics! Heating the skin surface also increases evaporative cooling and 98% of the time the atmosphere is warmed by contact with the ocean's skin surface. Basic physics does not indicate CO2 infrared can heat the ocean.

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

Eclectic at 11:02 AM on 3 April, 2024

Jimsteele : help me understand your position.

At the most basic level :- solar radiation at visible wavelengths does penetrate 10's of meters into the ocean. (As a scuba diver, I can vouch for this.)

At other wavelengths, into the infrared & longer, there is shallow or deep penetration, but the actual penetration flux is tiny in comparison to the visible light. (That includes the infrared flux radiated from CO2 in the lowermost few meters of atmosphere.)

Then we have a large flux of energy (both out of and into the ocean) from molecular vibrations at the ocean/air interface ~ vibrations of molecules of water / water vapor / nitrogen / and oxygen. I have not chased down the magnitude of such flux into and out of the ocean ~ but presumably that magnitude is huge.

In summary ; the ocean receives heat predominantly from light energy and from conduction from the atmosphere. CO2 molecules have only a very tiny direct ocean-warming effect ~ but arguably a huge indirect warming effect through CO2's action as a greenhouse gas warming the planet's atmosphere.

Have I understood that correctly ?

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

jimsteele24224 at 07:50 AM on 3 April, 2024

scaddenp: I am unsure why you claim "On interannual and to some extent the decadal scales, variations in surface temperature are strongly influenced by ocean-atmosphere heat exchange, but I think you would agree that the increasing OHC rules that out as cause of global warming?"

Why?

Most studies I have reviewed, find that most heat flux(98%) leaves the oean and warms the air. I trust the Argo data that the oceans have slightly warmed, but Argo does not determine attribution.

It has been well established that the tropics absorbs more heat locally than it ventilates. And that outside the tropics more heat is ventilated than is absorbed. Because CO2 infrared never penetrates deeper than a few microns compared to deep solar heating, I argue solar heating of the oceans drives atmoispheric warming.

I addressed this in https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1771957182407536940

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

jimsteele24224 at 07:15 AM on 3 April, 2024

Why?

Most studies I have reviewed, find that most heat flux(98%) leaves the oean and warms the air. I trust the Argo data that the oceans have slightly warmed, but Argo does not determine attribution.

I addressed this in https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1771957182407536940

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

scaddenp at 06:38 AM on 3 April, 2024

Two dog. The OHC content data in red comes from the Argo array. You can find reasonable description here. The old pentadecadal data is ship-based and has much bigger error bars. I cant immediately find the paper that determined the accuracy of the Argo data but if interested I am sure I dig it out.

On interannual and to some extent the decadal scales, variations in surface temperature are strongly influenced by ocean-atmosphere heat exchange, but I think you would agree that the increasing OHC rules that out as cause of global warming?

"I did also read that the warming effect of CO2 decreases as its concentration increases so the warming is expected to reduce over time. Is there any truth in that?"

Sort of - there is a square law. If radiation increase from 200-400 is say 4W/m2, then you have to increase from CO2 from 400 to 800ppm to get 8W/m2. However, that doesnt translate directly into "warming" because of feedbacks. Water vapour is powerful greenhouse gas and its concentration in the atmosphere is directly related to temperature. Also as temperature rises, albedo from ice decreases so less radiation is reflected back. Worse, over century level scales, all that ocean heat reduces the ability of the ocean to absorb CO2. From memory, half of emissions are currently being absorbed there. Hot enough and the oceans de-gas. These are the calculation which have to go into those climate models.

Which brings us to natural sources. Geothermal heat and waste heat are insignificant so would you agree that the only natural source of that extra heat would be the sun? Now impact of sun on temperature has multiple components that climate models take into account. These are:
1/ variations in energy emitted from the sun.
2/ screening by aerosols (natural or manmade). Important in 20th century variations you see.
3/ changes in albedo (especially ice and high cloud)
4/ The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Now climate scientist would say that changes to all of those can account for all past natural climate change using known physics. They would also say very high confidence that 1/ to 3/ are not a significant part of current climate change (you can see the exact amount for each calculated in the IPCC report). Why are they confident? If you were climate scientist investigating those factors, what would you want to measure to investigate there effects? Seriously, think about that and how you might do such investigations.

Is it possible there is something we dont understand at play? Of course, but there is no evidence for other factors. You can explain past and present climate change with known figures so trying to invoke the unknown seems to be clutching at straws.

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

jimsteele24224 at 06:07 AM on 3 April, 2024

A Netherlands journalist, Maarten Keulemans, tried to denigrate Climate the Movie: The Cold Truth in about 50 tweets using much of the same arguments posted to here on SkepticalScience. I successfully debunked all of his arguments in 16 tweets (originally I intended 20) listed below, and so I was just honored with being interviewed for a Dutch TV segment regards how the Climate the Movie promotes vital scientific debate. Too often alarmists try to suppress debate with weak arguments or denigrating the opposition as deniers. However I doubt alarmists can refute any of my arguments, but I will gladly entertain your arguments.

1 Denigrating the Climate Reconstruction graph by Ljungqvist https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1771929435366940908…

2 Keulemans' Medieval Warm Period lie https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1771933673488789868…

3 Contamination of Instrumental by Urbanization https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1771939656504062260…

4 The Best USA temperature Statistic! https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1771947116631580724…

5 Ocean Warming Facts https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1771957182407536940…

6 US Heat Waves https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1771963700951527487…

7 It is the Sun Stupid! https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1771977013576024282…

8 Alarmists know better than Nobel Prize Winners ! https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1771987039631921454…

9 Wildfires: Liar Liar Keulemans' Pants on Fire https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1772000151596572844…

10 The Dangers of CO2 Sequestration and CO2 Starvation https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1772016867265380795

11 Models Running Hot! Keulemans Disgraceful attack on the most honest Dr John Christy! https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1772081300884852829…

12 Keulemans’ Blustering Hurricane Fears
https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1772319957042479298

13. Dishonestly Defining Natural Climate Factors
https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1773395443864736058

14. Denying Antarctica’s Lack of Warming
https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1773473481637957758

15. Misinformation on CO2’s Role in Warming Interglacials during our Ice Age.
https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1773777313924297210

16. Science journalists vs grifting propagandists – Antarctica
https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1774428539858907444

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

Two Dog at 22:33 PM on 2 April, 2024

Scadd - #64

Thanks for the explanation and appreciate the civility, I don't consider it a dog-pile(on?) to reply - and its nice not to be accused of "abysmal ignorance" and told to "put up or shut up".

I get the fact the planet is warming and your sea temperature chart is more compelling for the reasons you cite, although I would like to understand where this temperature is measured and the average obtained - but I do not doubt the trend. I also agree the heat has to come from somewhere and, to be clear, I have no preference for theories of man-made sources or natural sources. My point remains that we are not dealing with a world in perfect temeprature equilibrium, so I feel uneasy discounting natural sources as significant when their impact is all too obvious when looking at the historical temperature record. I have no idea "which natural sources" I am referring to but I am fairly confident we are unable to accurately measure and predict them. However, so long as the temperature continues to rise in line with C02 emmissions I think the man-made argument becomes more and more compelling but a few years blip and, for me, it becomes open to considerable doubt. That is why the 30 year period of little warming looks suspicious to me (and I now know the explanation some have for this)

I did also read that the warming effect of CO2 decreases as its concentration increases so the warming is expected to reduce over time. Is there any truth in that?

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

scaddenp at 13:00 PM on 2 April, 2024

Two Dog, I don't want to be dog-piling, but I am very curious as to how you assess evidence when you are examining a question like global warming? We are seeing the same information, and yet to my mind you are fixating on the very unlikely or what you seem to think is unknownable rather than the obvious, the observable and the extremely likely. Other commentors have commented on your tendency to push what they see as straw-man arguments - you seem to be confident the scientists say things or work in ways that they dont. I am curious as to what informed assertions like these?

Can I assume that you comfortable with conservation of energy? So that any change in temperature involves moving or transforming energy. Consider total ocean heat content - a much less noisy measure than surface temperature and the ocean is where most of the heat is going.

The blips you see here in the red on this record are the near-surface action of ENSO - when the upwelling of warm water to surface heats the atmosphere but cools the ocean.

Do you agree that all that heat has to come from somewhere whether it is natural or anthrogenic? If your priors are to assume it is natural, then how do you start to think about what might be causing it and what measurements would you like to make to verify or falsify?

Also, you do realise that increased radiation from the CO2 has been directly measured? In terms of likelihood, the match between the amount of excess radiation and increased ocean heat content would be strong evidence for anthropegic warming for most people. I am assuming your priors would try to discount that so again, what do you think happens to excess radiation from the greenhouse effect and what kind of measurements would you use to verify?

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

Bob Loblaw at 03:59 AM on 2 April, 2024

Frankly, Two Dog, you are continuing to put words in other people's mouths, and continuing to create strawman caricatures of climate science. Many people working in climate science are actually well-trained (if not primarily trained) in physics and geology. All you are doing is showing your abysmal ignorance of the science and the people involved.

I'll choose one example - in fact, the first example I decided to check. Michael Mann is often a target of the fake "skeptics". He is a well-respected member of the "climate science" community. You can find his biography at realclimate.org. Here is his academic training:

Dr. Mann received his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Applied Math from the University of California at Berkeley, an M.S. degree in Physics from Yale University, and a Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics from Yale University.

You should be embarrassed at how easy it is for people to show that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Once again, nobody has ever claimed "knowledge of all factors that impact the climate." Nobody has claimed that natural factors are not significant. Nobody has claimed that all natural factors are temporary (which is what I presume you have meant with your use of the term 'temporal').

Natural factors exist on a variety of time scales, from hours to thousands of years, and "climate science" has considered many of them, and found that many of them can be both measurable and predictable. And they have collected evidence to support the position that these factors are having impacts that are much less important that CO2 over the past few decades - and are extremely unlikely to become more important than CO2 in the coming decades.

What you have utterly failed to do is to provide any new "natural factor" that you think has not been considered and can possibly have a large enough impact to explain what is already fairly well-explained by the factors that we do know about and have quantified. It's time to put up, or shut up.

What you have done is refuse to actually engage in discussion with people that have pointed out your errors. You simply re-assert your unfounded and uniformed opinions. As OPOF says, you have an "apparent resistance to learning".

Before you comment again, I suggest that you read the Comments Policy, especially the part about excessive repetition. If you are only going to repeat your uninformed and unfounded strawman arguments, you should expect to see parts or all of your comments subject to moderation.

Comments should avoid excessive repetition. Discussions which circle back on themselves and involve endless repetition of points already discussed do not help clarify relevant points. They are merely tiresome to participants and a barrier to readers. If moderators believe you are being excessively repetitive, they will advise you as such, and any further repetition will be treated as being off topic.

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

One Planet Only Forever at 02:21 AM on 2 April, 2024

Two Dog @55,

I offer the following as an example of the incorrectness of your beliefs, and your apparent resistance to learning:

A combination of understood natural factors explain the 'blip' of warm global average surface temperatures in the early 1940s. That warm blip, along with the other aspects shared by others, especially nigelj, for your potential learning benefit, is a significant part of the total understanding of why there 'appeared to be no warming from 1940 to 1970 in spite of CO2 levels increasing'.

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

Bob Loblaw at 23:38 PM on 1 April, 2024

diff01 @ 51,52:

If you want to apply a "modicum of reasoned thought", the answers to your questions are available if you look. Given your use of labels such as "true believers" and "sham", I doubt that your mind is open to any reasoned discussion, but here are a few pointers. Basically, your short post is kind of like the movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths.

Skeptical Science posts that are already linked in the OP:

CO2 is just a trace gas

Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

It's the sun

Additional Skeptical Science posts:

Milankovitch Cycles (orbital variations)

I hope that if you come back with "a myriad of other questions", that you will have given them more than "a modicum of reasoned thought". So far, what you have said here suggests that your level of thought is at the "trifling" end of "modicum" (per Wictionary). Scientists, on the other had have given these issues a lot of thought.

Noun

modicum (plural modicums or (rare) modica)

A modest, small, or trifling amount.

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

John Mason at 20:35 PM on 1 April, 2024

Re - #51 diff01:

I'll break this up into Q&A because there's a range of questions:

Q. Will changing one small ingredient (0.04%) of the earth's greenhouse gases (CO2) arrest gloabal warming (if that is what is happening)?

A. CO2 has increased 50% since pre-industrial times. Can you imagine if sunshine became 50% stronger?

Q. If the scientists(?) believe this to be the case, how will it be regulated to adjust the climate to maintain an average that is not too hot or cold?

A. We have yet to see!

Q. If all anti-carbon emitting policies were implemented, what says the climate will not be too cool?

A. Already locked into further warming for centuries.

Q. How will the climate be regulated (say changing one greenhouse gas does the trick) if the sun's intensity changes (sun spots), the reduction in carbon emission works, and it cools too much?

A. Changes in total solar irradience across a sunspot cycle are very low, but not neglibible.

Q. Another question I have is about other factor's, such as the recent eruption at Hunga Tonga. Apparently water vapor increased by 10% in the stratosphere. Won't that affect the climate?

A. It may be accoutable for a few tenths of a degree of recent warming, but research continues.

Q. What about the earth's orbit, and it's distance from the sun?

A. You are referring to Milankovitch cycles that affect three orbital parameters. However they do so over tens of thousands of years, not in a couple of centuries.

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

diff01 at 19:38 PM on 1 April, 2024

Will changing one small ingredient (0.04%) of the earth's greenhouse gases (CO2) arrest gloabal warming (if that is what is happening)?

If the scientists(?) believe this to be the case, how will it be regulated to adjust the climate to maintain an average that is not too hot or cold?

If all anti-carbon emitting policies were implemented, what says the climate will not be too cool?

The other, obvious hole in the argument for drastic economic change in the name of cooling the planet, is that the sun is not factored into the equation (by the way, I am all for increasing efficiency and reducing waste). How will the climate be regulated (say changing one greenhouse gas does the trick) if the sun's intensity changes (sun spots), the reduction in carbon emission works, and it cools too much?

Another question I have is about other factor's, such as the recent eruption at Hunga Tonga. Apparently water vapor increased by 10% in the stratosphere.

Won't that affect the climate? How do the 'models' account for nature not doing what the computers predict?

There are a myriad of other questions. I haven't watched the movie yet, but will, with interest.

When I searched for the movie, this website popped up right under the movie heading.

It's always interesting to hear from the 'true believers'.

The whole thing is a sham of biblical proportions. You need just a modicum of reasoned thought to tell you so.

Just had a quick look at your response regarding 'the sun'.

You say the 'irradiation level' has been measured with accuracy for the last 40 years, and shown little variation.

The sun has been influencing weather on earth for 4 and a half billion years. What about the earth's orbit, and it's distance from the sun?

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

diff01 at 19:32 PM on 1 April, 2024

Will changing one small ingredient (0.04%) of the earth's greenhouse gases (CO2) arrest gloabal warming (if that is what is happening)?

If the scientists(?) believe this to be the case, how will it be regulated to adjust the climate to maintain an average that is not too hot or cold?

If all anti-carbon emitting policies were implemented, what says the climate will not be too cool?

Another question I have is about other factor's, such as the recent eruption at Hunga Tonga. Apparently water vapor increased by 10% in the stratosphere.

Won't that affect the climate? How do the 'models' account for nature not doing what the computers predict?

There are a myriad of other questions. I haven't watched the movie yet, but will, with interest.

When I searched for the movie, this website popped up right under the movie heading.

It's always interesting to hear from the 'true believers'.

The whole thing is a sham of biblical proportions. You need just a modicum of reasoned thought to tell you so.

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

nigelj at 04:48 AM on 1 April, 2024

Two Dog @41

"Finally, on the "cherry picking" of the 50s, 60s and 70s. I think its a fair point to pick 30 years out of 150 in this case. Indeed, the argument above is, as I understand it, that the main and dominant factor in the current warming is human GHG emissions. For that theory to hold, in any period where GHG emissions are increasing year on year, then only a few years "blip" in warming must presumably call the theory into question? (unless we can find another new and temporary factor like air pollution)"

The reason the temperature record has "blips" and is not a smooth line is because the trend is shaped by a combination of natural and human factors that have different effects. However the overall trend since the 1970s is warming. The known natural cycles and infuences can explain the short term blips of a couple of years or so, (eg el ninos) but not the 50 year overall warming trend since the 1970s. Sure there may be some undiscovered natural cycle that expalins the warming, but its very unlikely with chances of something like one in a million. And it would require falsifying the greenhouse effect which nobody has been able to do. Want to gamble the planets future on all that?

The flat period of temperatures around 1940- 1977, (or as OPOF points out it was really a period of reduced warming) coincides with the cooling effect of industrial aerosols during the period as CB points out. This is the period when acid rain emerged as a problem until these aerosols were filtered out in the 1980s.

However the flat period mid last century also coincided with a cool phase of the PDO cycle (an ocean cycle), a preponderance of weak el ninos, and flat solar activity after 1950 and a higher than normal level of volcanic activity. Literally all the natural factors were in a flat or cooling phase. In addition atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were not as high as presently, so it was easier for the other factors to suppress anthropogenic warming.

So for me this is all an adequate explanation of why temperatures were subdued in the middle of last century. Just my two cents worth. Not a scientist but I've followed the issues for years.

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

Bob Loblaw at 04:38 AM on 1 April, 2024

It's also worth noting that the trend values OPOF is providing from the SkS Trend Calculator use 2σ ranges for the uncertainties.

...and if you look closely, none of the trends OPOF mentions are significantly different from 0. So, the "cooling from 1940 to 1970" is really "no significant warming [or cooling] from 1940 to 1970". To argue "cooling", you need to

ignore the statistical significance of the linear fit

choose your starting point carefully.

In comment 41, Two Dog makes the point "...then only a few years "blip" in warming must presumably call the theory into question? ". That depends on "the theory" being that CO2 is the only factor causing warming on an annual or several-year basis. As we've been pointing out, this is not "the theory" that climate science is working with.

Two Dog is making the classical logic failure that is discussed in the SkS Escalator.

The Escalator

In fact, Two Dog is also arguing with himself. On the one hand, he is arguing that climate science can't possibly know all factors that might be affecting global temperature, no matter how many factors they have already considered in the relevant scientific literature. And then on the other hand, he is criticizing climate science because any blip in temperature that is not explained solely using CO2 as the only factor "...must presumably call the theory into question?". The two positions he argues are mutually contradictory.

Unfortunately this is a common thing in "skeptical" arguments against well-supported climate science - mutually-contradictory (and often impossible) positions on the subject. It's like the Queen in Alice in Wonderland:

I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

Bob Loblaw at 00:07 AM on 1 April, 2024

Two Dog: You say ' but I am less convinced about the arguments that "all other causes for the current warming have been looked at and ruled out".'

First of all, I will point out that nobody here, and nobody in climate science (that I am aware of), has ever claimed that "all other causes ... have been looked at". In fact, I'd be willing to wager that there is not a single scientific subject where any scientist would claim that "all other causes ... have been looked at".

By putting that phrase in quotes (in your statement in #41), you are making it look as if someone has actually made that claim. If you have a source for such a quote, please provide it. Otherwise, you are creating a strawman argument, and setting impossible expectations ("all other causes").

In the rest of comment 41, you are basically making an argument from incredulity. You use strawman terms such as "all of those factors", and emotive impossible expectations such as "then accurately measure their hypothetical potential impact". You throw in rhetorical questions such as ' how do we "know" what would have happened to our climate absent human GHG increases?'

The answer to the last question is, climate scientists do the science. The second figure in my comment 34 shows the results of some of that science: running models that look exactly at the question you raise - how does the model behave with and without the anthropogenic forcing. They look at hypothetical natural and anthropogenic causes, quantify them as best they can, and perform calculations to determine the relative importance of each factor.

As Eclectic pointed out in comment 31, saying there might be some "undiscovered mysterious physical cause responsible for the recent rapid global warming" [Eclectic's words] is nothing but handwaving. Unless you can propose a plausible mechanism that would cause the warming (and another one to offset the warming from GHG, as Eclectic points out in #31), then you're just blowing smoke.

People often try to use the same bogus arguments in denying that fossil fuel combustion is causing the rise in atmospheric CO2. They postulate some mysterious, unknown source of CO2 that remains undiscovered - and avoid the question of what mysterious, undiscovered process is managing to remove all the CO2 from fossil fuels (but can't remove this mysterious, unknown source of CO2 that is making atmospheric CO2 rise).

You may as well be saying "it could be fairies".

...and before you try to counter the graphical evidence in the figure I posted in comment 34 using the "but modelz" argument, I will point out that everything in science uses models. Descriptive, mathematical, statistical, computer simulations - all are different forms of models. If you don't accept models as valid science, then you are rejecting science writ large. (The original post points out that reliabilty of models is one of the myths that was raised in the movie, and proves a link to the SkS page that covers this myth.)

Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?

Eclectic at 23:15 PM on 30 March, 2024

On reflection, I believe my @47 comments (on Dr Bierwirth's paper) were lacking the bluntness that our readers deserve.

His 2024 Abstract shows a notable Red Flag, in his mention of the phrase "existential threat" ~ a phrase which is not only rather panicky, but is fashionably overused nowadays for subjects ranging from imminent nuclear holocaust . . . through to a possible world shortage of cocoa.

A second Red Flag is his lengthy laundry list of "potential" threats of a wide range of nasty diseases ~ cancer; calcification in the kidneys; diabetes; etcetera.

A third Red Flag is his attribution of all these diseases to a combination of elevated CO2 in association with low pH. Actually, such a combination is a brief/transitory situation when CO2 is high ~ for (as I and others have pointed out, earlier in this thread) the body's kidney function does correct the low pH in the medium & long term.

Which leaves us with his dubious claim about "protein malfunctions".

In short, it seems Dr Bierwirth paints with a very broad brush and also draws a very long bow. Not only that ~ but some of his other papers seem to have a similar flavor.

All well and good if Dr Bierwirth has supportive evidence ~ but for the meantime, I think we should all remain most skeptical.

# Obviously, we cannot expect controlled experiments in humans with exposure to years of elevated ambient CO2. The mouse experiment (mentioned above) was a controlled study using mice in 890ppm CO2 versus mice living in half that level. The gestation & first 3 months of life might perhaps equal 5 - 10 years of human equivalence. Still, it is only about 110 days in absolute terms ~ and that might explain the absence of adverse findings in the "high CO2" mice, despite the rapid pace of mouse physiology.

And that fits with other evidence, of mice and men . . . and dinosaurs.

Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?

Eclectic at 05:33 AM on 30 March, 2024

Res01 @46 : thank you for resuming the conversation of 2023, and the mention of the new [2/2024] paper by Dr P. Bierwirth (please note the second "r" in Bierwirth).

His 2024 Abstract quotes: "Protein malfunctions in cells due to elevated CO2 and associated low pH has [sic] the potential to cause threats to life including cancer, neurological disorders, lung disease, diabetes, etc. ... overexpression of carbonic anhydrase, the enzyme that catalyses CO2 in the body, causes calcification in the kidneys arteries and tissues, along with other diseases and this may be an existential threat."

Please excuse my adding of underlining emphasis, in the above. The body of the paper does not really add much, I think, to earlier comments on the topic. # It is all rather breathless [please forgive my feeble attempt at a pun, of sorts].

Looking at the bigger picture, we see that the dinosaurs survived millions of years of "high" ambient CO2. Were their bodily proteins shaped by evolution to perform satisfactorily at high CO2 levels ~ or did their kidneys simply compensate for high CO2 ? We don't know ~ and yet we know that the dinosaurs did survive and thrive.

Is there any experimental evidence to support Dr Bierwirth's gloomy comments about long-term CO2 exposure? # Well, for what it's worth, there is a 3-month study in mice, by C. Wyrwoll et al (2021). Gestation through to 3-months of age. Despite some slight ambiguity in the Abstract, they quote: "There were no clear anxiety, learning, or memory changes. Renal and osteological parameters were minimally affected." [my emphasis]

If there be some clear-cut evidence of failure of the mammalian body to make (renal or other) adjustment/compensation in high ambient CO2, then I would be pleased to learn of it.

At SkS , we all know the potential of increasingly severe adverse effects of higher atmospheric CO2 levels. But these dangers are terrestrial, rather than physiological, for mammals.

Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?

res01 at 02:45 AM on 30 March, 2024

Skeptical Science Team, Eclectic @42, et. al,

Recent paper by P. Bierwith (2024)* notes, "There is now substantial evidence that permenant exposure to CO2 levels in the future will have significant effects on humans." The article goes on to summarize recent findings; all of which generally support the subject article here. I find though the article does contain a few "technical errors" as it was written with the knowledge as it was best known a few years back, it is in no way unnecessarily "alarmist." The problem I believe is that to some the subject itself is "alarmist", and in truth it should be.

To address Eclectic's concern a bit more succinctly; the human body's CO2 compensary mechanisms have been considered in the papers being questioned. Basically, though the body can compensate for very high levels of CO2 for short periods of time, eventually these mechanisms will "give out" over time as one is continually immersed in even mildly elevated levels of CO2; the effect becoming noticeable around 800-1200 ppm. The general effects are bone dimeneralization, calcification of soft tissues, and neurological agitation which will give rise to a range malidies not favorable for human health and well being.

*P. Bierwith, (2024), "Long-term carbon dioxide toxicty and climate change: a critical unapprehended risk for human health. Australian National University. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311844520_Long-term_carbon_dioxide_toxicity_and_climate_change_a_critical_unapprehended_risk_for_human_health

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

One Planet Only Forever at 13:21 PM on 29 March, 2024

Two Dog @32,

Bob Loblaw has provided a good response to your question about the lack of warming from 1940 to 1970. And Eclectic has posed good questions for you.

I have something to add that may help you better understand things.

The SkS Temperature Trend Calculator (link here) can be used to see that the temperature trend for the data set from 1940 to 1970 was indeed negative (GISTEMPv4 Trend: -0.043 +-0.052 C/decade). However, within that time period:

trend for 1945 to 1965 was positive (+0.017 +-0.108 C/decade)

trend for 1950 to 1960 was more positive (+0.126 +-0.302 C/decade)

What’s up with positive trends within a negative trend? You may notice that the 2sigma values are significantly higher for the shorter data sets. The 2 sigma for 1940 to 1970 is also quite high. So look at longer data sets.

trend for 1935 to 1975 is -0.003 +-0.040 C/decade

trend for 1925 to 1985 is +0.048 +-0.024 C/decade

Factors other than CO2 appear to be the cause of the negative trend for the 1940 to 1970 data set. But within that data set the trend of the temperature was still positive. What’s up with that? A significant part of the explanation is apparent in the Temperature Trend Calculator image for the longer data sets.

The temperatures from 1940 to 1947 can be seen to be unusually high. That set of unusually high temperatures needs to be explained, not the apparent lack of warming through the next 30 years compared to that ‘high set of values' (just like the ‘appearance of cooling for a period of time after 1998’ is explained by the explanation for the unusually high temperature in 1998 - also see the SkS myth/argument “Did global warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?” which could have included 1944)

I am sure if you put in some effort you could find a reliable source (perhaps you could find such information on this SkS website) that would effectively explain why the 1940 to 1947 set of years were unusually warm (warning: there is an explanation - nothing mysterious or magical happened - warming influence of increased CO2 still happened)

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

Bob Loblaw at 05:50 AM on 29 March, 2024

Two Dog @ 32:

You seem to be under the impression that nobody has tried to explain the observed temperatures using anything other than CO2. This is patently false.

This SkS rebuttal looks at conclusions drawn by the IPCC in 2007, looking at a variety of possible explanations. The first figure from that post shows contributions to radiative forcing from several sources:

IPCC 2007 SPM figure 2

...and the second figure on that post shows modelling of temperatures over the last century with and without anthropogenic forcing:

IPCC 2007 SPM fig 4

So when you try to answer Eclectic's question, you'll need to come up with something that is not on that list.

If climate scientists have been "shutting down the debate", it's because they have looked at the proposed alternatives and found that the evidence is against them.

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

Two Dog at 04:55 AM on 29 March, 2024

"One Planet Only Forever" - I get the point about "having some merit" but couldn't the "deniers" make the same case? i.e. that there are uncertainties in the man-made climate change narrative. One uncertainty that confuses me is why was there no global warming from about 1940-1970? Presumably CO2 was increasing over that period.

John Mason - not sure I understand the point. Over history there has been many cooling and warming factors that are observed by the temperature record but largely unexplained. How do we know this current warming is not, at least in part, one such warming period?

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

One Planet Only Forever at 02:59 AM on 28 March, 2024

Two Dog @26,

The movie in question is still questionable and misleading even if it contains 'points that have merit'.

I am a structural engineer with an MBA. I present two examples for the merit of my opening point:

A structure design is unacceptable even if some parts of the design could be claimed to be 'perfect'. All it takes is one obvious error to justifiably declare the design to be unacceptable.

A business plan is unacceptable even if some parts of the plan could be claimed to be 'perfect'. All it takes is one obvious error to justifiably declare the plan to be unacceptable.

As for the ‘merit’ of things in the questionable misleading movie you perceive to have merit:

Climate Change can be understood to be the term applied to the vast body of science that has proven conclusively that human impacts, not just CO2 from fossil fuel use, have caused significant rapid changes to the climate conditions of regions on this planet. “Climate Change Denial” is a term referring to people who resist learning about the constantly improving understanding of Climate Change science.

The answer provided above questions the merit of your second ‘perceived point of merit’ about the significance of human impacts. There are many presentations of better understanding that shatter the ‘merit of what you perceive is a point of merit’. One example is SkS Myth/Argument 192 “The IPCC confidence in human-caused global warming is based on solid scientific research”. A related presentation is the Carbon Brief item form 2017 “Analysis: Why scientists think 100% of global warming is due to humans” (and more recent investigations have strengthened that understanding).

I will conclude with the following: “Resistance to learning”, not “shutting down debate”, is the real problem. Being ‘hard-of-learning’ (see my comment @18), can cause people to claim that justifiably criticizing their ‘questionable attempts to debate points they unjustifiably believe have merit’, and pointing out that ‘repetition of already well-debunked misunderstandings has no merit’, is “shutting down debate”.

Note: Regarding ‘covid’ you did not present an example of a ‘conspiracy theory’ you believe was proven to be correct. But I would suggest that for this topic on this website you should focus on presenting an example of what you believe is a ‘climate change conspiracy theory’ that has proven to be correct. One example I am aware of is the ‘conspiracy theory’ that undeserving wealthy powerful people have been deliberately misleading regarding Climate Change science resulting is massive amounts of unjustified “Climate Change Denial”.

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

Two Dog at 00:33 AM on 28 March, 2024

I am relatively new to criticisms of the man-made global warming narrrative but it seems to me that some of the points made in this film have merit.

First, the use of emotive language in a critique like "climate change denial" (what does that even mean?) is problematic. The climate has never been in perfect equilibrium, so presumably nobody denies it changes - best to stick to the arguments. Second, we seem to focus on the wrong question. I think very few anthropogenic climate change skeptics would deny we are pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere right now than ever before and that has a warming effect (the "greenhouse effect"). Surely the question is: "To what extent are man-made increases in CO2 emissions driving the current warming we are experiencing?". It clearly cannot be 100% and for me that is the nub of the question.

Given the huge unknowns about the factors that drive climate (and their significance) it seems unfortunate to me that there is an intolerance around this question. The BBC, for instance, should consider other theories on this. It may well be that the scientific weight suggests anthropogenic CO2 is by far the major cause, but in my reading there are some good reasons to doubt that.

The problem with “shutting down debate” is best evidenced with covid where many of the “conspiracy theories” proved to be correct.

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

Nick Palmer at 07:13 AM on 26 March, 2024

As it can be cumbersome to explain why CO2 fertilisation is not a get-out-of-jail-free-card in fora such as Twitter/X, I usually try to get the 'sceptic' to look up Liebig's Law of the Minimum, which states why all nutrients need to be optimised in order to get more healthy growth.

Link to wiki article

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

nigelj at 05:51 AM on 26 March, 2024

The greening of the Earth is approaching its limit.

When plants absorb this gas to grow, they remove it from the atmosphere and it is sequestered in their branches, trunk or roots. An article published today in Science shows that this fertilizing effect of CO2 is decreasing worldwide, according to the text co-directed by Professor Josep Peñuelas of the CSIC at CREAF and Professor Yongguan Zhang of the University of Nanjin, with the participation of CREAF researchers Jordi Sardans and Marcos Fernández. The study, carried out by an international team, concludes that the reduction has reached 50% progressively since 1982 due basically to two key factors: the availability of water and nutrients.

"There is no mystery about the formula, plants need CO2, water and nutrients in order to grow. However much the CO2 increases, if the nutrients and water do not increase in parallel, the plants will not be able to take advantage of the increase in this gas", explains Professor Josep Peñuelas. In fact, three years ago Prof. Peñuelas already warned in an article in Nature Ecology and Evolution that the fertilizing effect of CO2 would not last forever, that plants cannot grow indefinitely, because there are other factors that limit them.

If the fertilizing capacity of CO2 decreases, there will be strong consequences on the carbon cycle and therefore on the climate. Forests have received a veritable CO2 bonus for decades, which has allowed them to sequester tons of carbon dioxide that enabled them to do more photosynthesis and grow more. In fact, this increased sequestration has managed to reduce the CO2 accumulated in the air, but now it is over. "These unprecedented results indicate that the absorption of carbon by vegetation is beginning to become saturated. This has very important climate implications that must be taken into account in possible climate change mitigation strategies and policies at the global level. Nature's capacity to sequester carbon is decreasing and with it society's dependence on future strategies to curb greenhouse gas emissions is increasing," warns Josep Peñuelas.

The study published in Science has been carried out using satellite, atmospheric, ecosystem and modeling information. It highlights the use of sensors that use near-infrared and fluorescence and are thus capable of measuring vegetation growth activity.

phys.org/news/2020-12-greening-earth-approaching-limit.html#:~:text=The%20study%2C%20carried%20out%20by,nutrients%20in%20order%20to%20grow.

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

John Mason at 03:07 AM on 26 March, 2024

Thanks, Nick!

You're right - 'CO2 is plant-food' is the one that comes closest. The specific claim that the planet is greening does not have a rebuttal. Onto the to-do list. We ran into a similar situation last summer when claims that surface temperature had somehow been swapped for surface air temperature started doing the rounds.

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

Nick Palmer at 02:50 AM on 26 March, 2024

I've just checked and SKS does not appear to have a rebuttal yet to the 'Earth is getting greener due to CO2 fertilisation' meme, which is currently a very popular argument in the 'Climate Brawl' online and in the media.

My current response is to point out that the 'sceptic' almost always refers to the first paper from NASA, that does indeed conclude that there has been a greening and that it has been most likely caused by the CO2 fertilisation effect. However, the second paper several years later in fact noted that alarge part of the hreening was actually down to China and India planting millions of trees to reforest areas, de-desertification and expansion of agriculture.

There are papers which say that, in fact, the greening stopped a while back and Earth is now browning although there are others that say the greeninh has continued. Thoughts?

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

Doug Bostrom at 04:04 AM on 24 March, 2024

"Climate vs. Freedom" is the main point of the movie, the mainspring of the climate denialist clockwork. Careful disassembly and reverse engineering of this particular brand of synthetic ignorance inevitably reveals solipsism expressed in ideology as the movement's power source; so-called "freedom" here means "I get to do whatever I want regardless of costs to others," and powers the entire affair.

The film's funders would like us to confuse the freedom to think that is central to enlightened governance with freedom to dump sewage at our property line. This brings us into the territory of irony. Enlightenment thinking delivered the facts governing the anxieties of the film's producers— and this film is essentially trying to wind back the clock on several hundred years of the results of freedom to think.

The producers of the film are not at all concerned with freedom of thought and its outcome of science and enlightened understanding of our world. Their fears are centered on application of scientific results to public policy dealing with climate effects of CO2 emissions, circumspect and informed decisions proscribing unaccounted external costs. This will threaten any ideology founded on "everything's all about me."

Is application of climate science to public policy decisions itself ideological, even socialist? In a way it's true that climate policy is "socialist" if we're thinking in terms of social vs. antisocial, if we're employing the word "social" in its basic meaning.

Climate policy is an outcome of "socialist ideology" in the same sense that traffic regulations are a social response to selfish automobile drivers. Individual irresponsible actions come at cost to bystanders. Society is generally concerned with fairness and rejects that one person may destroy another for no good reason.

Some small percentage of persons are so poorly socialized as to care nothing about others, so we must resort to various forms of coercion to force societally-compatible behaviors. Reckless driving is discouraged by force of policy and law, ranging from fines to imprisonment because we attach such high value to fairness.

So it's proving to be the case with the external costs of vending fossil fuels, and hence we end up with climate policy that ultimately will end up with sharp edges of coercion to deal with diehard antisocial elements, given that some very tiny fraction of our society is composed of people truly uncaring of anybody but themselves.

If vast amounts of money were to be made by driving over the speed limit, we'd find a vigorous public relations industry centered on denying that e=1/2mv². The intent would be the same as with climate science and climate policy, to fool us into thinking we don't know established facts and by extension the outcomes of those facts.

We'll never see "Traffic Tickets: The Movie" because there's no group of people for whom a vast revenue stream is threatened by being forced to drive safely. In this case of climate science and (more importantly) climate policy there is indeed a postively astronomical vector of money that will change due to policy arranged around facts and fairness and informed by science. So here we are, dealing with a slickly produced film created entirely for the purpose of prolonging profoundly anti-social behavior and employing the tactic of propagating synthetic ignorance.

Freedumb isn't freedom. It's the opposite. Freedom to think well and to make informed choices isn't the same as freedumb, feeling free to make stupid decisions because we've been fooled into believing we're ignorant.

CO2 lags temperature

Charlie_Brown at 02:31 AM on 17 March, 2024

The mention of quantum mechanics warrants further discussion so one is not baffled or misled by a misrepresentation of it. Besides, the science is fascinating, and the concept is not that hard to understand. All molecules above absolute zero have internal energy. They vibrate, bend, and stretch in a limited number of ways that depend on their structure and ability to interact with electromagnetic radiation. Absorption and emittance of a photon changes the internal energy level by a discrete amount, which gives rise to discrete absorptance/emittance lines. CO2 is a linear, non-polar molecule that can stretch symmetrically and asymmetrically, but also polarizes temporarily when it bends. When molecules in the atmosphere have absorptance/emittance lines that fall within the wavelength range of IR at moderate temperatures by the Planck distribution, they become greenhouse gases. Discrete lines for CO2 and H2O are illustrated in Figure 3 in Introduction to an Atmospheric Radiation Model.
One more comment about the “quantum process” which is described incorrectly by RBurr @ 654. CO2 is “additive” and increasing. Thus, it is affecting the accumulation term in the global energy balance.

CO2 lags temperature

Charlie_Brown at 09:26 AM on 16 March, 2024

RBurr @ 654

1) CO2 lags temperature rise at the end of an ice age because CO2 evolves from ocean waters as the temperature rises. This is Henry’s Law. In that case, temperature rises first due to the Milankovitch Cycles. Note that ice age temperatures cool slowly and warm rapidly. Modern CO2 emissions are different because they come from burning fossil fuels. Therefore, temperature rises as a result of CO2. Cause and effect in both cases is clear in both cases, and different in both cases.
2) The quantum mechanical mechanism on IR radiation that explains the greenhouse warming theory has been proven. It is based on fundamental principles of energy balance and radiant energy transfer and has been verified by massive amounts of data, cross-checks, and validation.
3) The Earth’s energy “balance” is fundamental:
Input = Output + Accumulation
Output is reduced as greenhouse gases increase. Thus, energy accumulates.
4) Your description of quantum mechanics does not make sense. Quantum mechanics is fundamental to the specific frequencies (i.e., wavelengths) that are absorbed and emitted by CO2, CH4, and H2O. There is a huge amount of energy carried by IR radiation. It is naturally emitted (not dissipated) and lost to outer space by IR. By the overall global energy balance at steady state:
Input solar = Reflected solar + Emitted IR
Accumulation is zero at steady state, as before CO2 emissions of the industrial revolution.
5) The hot object in this case is the sun at about 5800 Kelvin. That is more than hot enough to warm the earth. The temperature profile is 5800 K of the sun to 288 K (60F) of the Earth 217 K of the lower stratosphere to 2 K of outer space. Increasing CO2 reduces the energy loss to space at specific wavelengths (e.g., approx. 13-17 microns). The absorptance/emittance lines in that range increase, meaning that energy is emitted from a cold 217 K instead of a warm 288 K. This upsets the energy balance. The balance is restored by accumulating energy until the surface temperature increases enough to make up the reduction by CO2. Nothing about this violates either the 1st or 2nd law of thermodynamics. Some mistake the 2nd law by describing the energy balance being at steady state, but the steady state was upset by increasing GHG.
6) Neither the Milankovitch Cycles nor the Schwabe Cycles (sunspots) explain the cause of modern global warming. The long-term Milankovitch Cycles have not been in a period of significant change for the last 12,000 years after warming from the last ice age. Measured radiosity data from the sun show that short-term Schwabe Cycles have not changed significantly either and do not explain modern warming.

More than 100 comments found. Only the most recent 100 have been displayed.

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Comment Search Results