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 science

Comments matching the search co2 science:

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

Climate skeptics have new favorite graph; it shows the opposite of what they claim

MA Rodger at 02:32 AM on 13 December, 2025

michael sweet @31,

A few thoughts about this +8°C ESS finding (actually it's AESS, taking the increasing solar energy into account).

(1) Hansen has indeed proposed a lower value, famously the graphic below from Hansen & Sato (2012) which even pre-dates the term ESS.
H&S12 Fig7

(2) Judd et al (2025) does say its constant ESS=+8°C finding is at odds with other work, but doesn't properly set all this out. For instance, they don't [ro[er;y review CenCO2PIP (2024) who find ESS "generally within the range of 5° to 8°C—patterns consistent with most prior work." I think all would agree that we haven't found a difinitive value for ESS although it will be higher than ECS.

(3) The Earth System equilibrium is very slow to arrive so the opportunity to keep AGW below +1.5°C in the long terms is surely far less of an issue than the shorter-term century-scale AGW.
That is, if CO2 will be three-quarters sucked from the atmosphere over a millenium, the CO2 forcing from modern CO2 emissions (with Af = ~50%) will be halved during the next 1,000 years, the sort of timescale that ESS arrives in. So if ESS ≤ 2 x ECS, it is the shorter timescales we need to worry about regarding temperature. SLR would likely be a good reason for giving natural CO2 draw-down a healthy hepling hand. And the technology to effortlessly do that will not be that long in coming.

(4) But on that point of a future 'effortless' techno-fix for excess CO2, I am always surprised that the post-2100 parts of the IPCC scenatios are not better known. The graphic below is Fig 2 from Meinshausen et al (2020) 'The shared socio-economic pathway (SSP) greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions to AD2500'. The thumbnail bottom left-hand graph shows net CO2 emissions for scenario-various and if you scale SSP1-1.9 (a scenario which we should be trying to follow), the negative net emissions post-2050 equal all the FF & LUC emissions 2007-2050. That is something I find scary.
Meinshausen et al (2020) Fig2

Climate skeptics have new favorite graph; it shows the opposite of what they claim

MA Rodger at 05:03 AM on 29 November, 2025

RegalNose@26,
In the context of Judd et al (2024)'s graph below (Fig4a in the OP above), Judd et al Fig2

you ask - Isn't the NASA graph (below)

NASA carbon graph

just pure scaremongring?

You ask "What am I missing? Why the panic and crisis mode?"

The OP above does not really answer your question of why CO2 should put us humans into a panic mode.
❶ The OP is firstly addressing the misuse of the Judd et al findings, being converted into total nonsense. It is, of course, difficult to nail down 'total nonsense'. ❷ Secondly, the OP chats about the threat of our CO2 to natural life on Earth rathert than the treat to humanity. ❸ That is not to say we humans should not be panicking.

❶ That first point, the OP presents an exemplar piece of 'total nonsense' which says "There's always this rise and fall." The context here implies it is the global temperatures they are saying "always ... rise and fall."
They continue:-

"This idea that the whole thing is based on carbon emissions from human beings is total bullshit. It's not true. Right. We might be having an effect, but we're having a small effect, a very small effect.”

This quote is 'total nonsense' as the findings of Judd et al, the evidence they are presumably presenting, says the exact opposite. Judd et al say it is CO2 on which the "whole thing is based". From their abstract:-

"There is a strong correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations and GMST, identifying CO2 as the dominant control on variations in Phanerozoic global climate and suggesting an apparent Earth system sensitivity of ~8°C." [My bold]

And the present-day big actor driving the 'whole thing', the startling rise in CO2 NASA graph above, that is the 'human beings'. This 'whole thing' is not "very small".
Additionally, Judd et al finding "an apparent Earth system sensitivity of ~8°C" suggests the effect is far from "very small" in terms of global temperature.

❷ The threat to nature from to the CO2-rise being so rapid is a major part of the above OP. Perhaps to add a little colour, 56 million years ago the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) was caused by CO2 rising from ~800ppm to ~2,000ppm. The climatic forcing would be the same if we today allow CO2 to rise to 690ppm (and no other GHG increases - accounting for other GHGs, the equivalent would be perhaps 520ppm).
The PETM was not a massive event in historical climate or ecology but it did have pretty big impacts. Consider horses - they shrank to the size of large dogs to cope with the heat. The PETM is often held up as the nearest example of what we are stoking with our man-made climate change. But there is one stark difference. The PETM warming took something like 25,000 years. Our warming is happening 100-times quicker. The sixth mass extinction event which humanity is already threatening with other activities will be a certainty if our warming gets anywhere close to rivalling the PETM's +6ºC.

❸ But we humans are an adaptable species. However the problems are this.
(1) We a very numerous species that relies on a lot of real-estate. Loss of big portions of that real-estate (or even just the projected loss of it) will have big big geo-political consequences. If we could all pull together and address the problems, that may not be so disastrous. But we won't. And I'd imagine climate-change-mitigation measures will not be such a high priority when the world economy collapses and wars of national survival break out.
(2) The climatology cannot tell us how long we can keep melting Greenland to prevent 20ft of sea level rise becoming inevitable, or when the AMOC will disappear plumging Europe into the deep freeze, or when the cloud feedbacks over the Pacific will add another +3ºC to the warming, etc. The +2ºC limit to the warming was dropped in favour of +1.5ºC because tipping-points such as these could potentially be triggered below +2ºC.

I hope that goes some way to explaining "the panic and crisis mode."

Climate skeptics have new favorite graph; it shows the opposite of what they claim

RegalNose at 22:46 PM on 27 November, 2025

Hi all,

I am absolute green when it comes to topic of Climate research (which is obviously not my field) and trying to make sense of some information presented to general public. I am writing here as I'd like your help with navigating this as it seems to me a bit contradictive with presented "news of the day".

If you navigate to the https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/, there are two data points that are interesting to me:

1. current CO2 ppm = 430

2. increase of GMST of 1.5 degree C since pre-industry era.

What puzzles me, why is this so important to call for crisis mode?

When I look at the Judd's graph no. 2 I am reading that the planet was operating during The Mesozoic Era, which we know was lush, green and supported living of megafauna, on levels of CO2 between 500-2000ppm and with temperature s significantly higher comparing to current time. I am reading the graph as a path from local minimum and not as a path to glabal maximum, when it comes to GMST. I do understand the problem of how rapid is the incremental temperature increase, but don't see the issue of the increase itself.

In the context of Judd's graph, isn't the graphe used at https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/ just pure scaremongring?

If you take 800,000 years, the CO2 ppm looks like massive spike, in the graph. But when you take the context of millions of years as Judd does, this increase is well.. insignificant.

What am I missing? Why the panic and crisis mode?

Thanks!

Debunking Joe Rogan, Dick Lindzen, and Will Happer

Eclectic at 21:58 PM on 7 November, 2025

Nick Palmer :

A lengthy PART TWO of the religious component of Lindzen's climate science denialism.

While we see where the typical Denialist (e.g. to be found in the street or @WUWT website) harbors anger / selfishness / deficiency in empathy . . . . there is IMO an additional fundamentalist religious component in the Motivated Reasonings of some prominent Denialists. You yourself could name a few of those luminaries, I am sure.

IIRC, there was an interview with a very relaxed, laid-back Lindzen sitting in a chair in his garden, while being interviewed by a "sympathetic" interviewer. My perhaps-faulty memory was that the occasion was 2006 ~ but perhaps that date is wrong. My googling this week turned up youtube: "Interview with Professor Richard Lindzen" on the "Rathnakumar S" channel. I am unclear on its date ~ maybe 2014 or 2015. Hard to be sure, since youtubers tend to recycle and re-post stuff from years earlier from other sources. But the exact date is a trivial matter. And please do not bother to view the video, unless you are in a masochistic mood.

# The "Rathnakumar S" channel is new to me, and I have not viewed any of the rest of the playlist. But the playlist does include interviews (originals or re-posts?) of people such as :- W.Soon; W.Happer; H.Svensmark; M.Salby; P.Michaels; S.Baliunas; Bob Carter; et alia. And including that paragon of ethical public education, Marc Morano. Plus there appears to be a flirtation with anti-vax. Of course.

Video with approximate time-stamps :

Lindzen seems to favor a degree of Intelligent Design ~ the World is well-designed. 3:05 "Oh I think the case is pretty strong that it is in fact better designed, and there are strong negative feedbacks that will instead of amplifying, diminish the effect of man's emissions."

Lindzen keeps minimizing the Global Warming: "Only half a degree in a century ... [and] the temperature is always flopping around."

Lindzen opines that CO2 can have a warming effect, but most of it is not due to humans . . . though yes, water vapor and clouds "worsen what we do with CO2." [Note that Lindzen's "Iris Hypothesis" has been a dud.]

22:20 "We still don't know why we had these ice age cycles. We don't know why 50 million years ago we could have alligators in Spitzbergen."

27:00 "Ever since we invented the umbrella, we've known how to deal with climate, up to a point."

37:20 "Nothing in this [climate] field is terribly compelling. The data is weak. ..."CO2 will contribute some warming : not much. ..."It is then claimed that recent changes are due to man : I don't think that's true."

46:13 He returns to Intelligent Design : "A well-engineered device tries to compensate for anything that perturbs it."

So ~ not much particularly explicit denialisty statements . . . but a great deal of implicit statements. Including, throughout the video, a great deal of "Cornwall" wording.

CO2 is just a trace gas

Cedders at 05:36 AM on 5 November, 2025

Bob Loblaw @60: "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."

Indeed I've bought an air quality meter for about $10 online, which uses non-dispersive infra-red (filters) to detect carbon dioxide, formaldehyde and other volatile organic compounds. It takes a minute to literally warm up, and is of course nowhere near as accurate as the infra-red equipment scientists use to measure CO₂, but it will at least detect breath, poor ventilation and includes a hygrometer.

Whether actual hands-on experience of such things will help someone accept radiative physics is one question. And whether finding that kind of evidence against the most convenient rationalisation available changes wider world-view about who is responsible for climate change is a different one.

Scaddenp @61 : "I am interested in how people build up their mental models, and how we update these mental models as new information is presented."

(digression) So am I, although I often find it hard to persuade people to share their reasoning, particularly if they are quickly on the defensive. I think humans in general do some 'hill-climbing' in their professed beliefs, aiming at local maxima of practical, satisfactory narrative. New information may change the landscape, but people only move their position slightly, rather than doing the tiring cognitive work of re-evaluating the bigger picture. Hence why goalposts are moved and people rapidly move on to the next myth.

One thing I do find is quite common among contrarians in real life (besides an understandable but exaggerated distrust of authority that is a mirror image of acceptance of consensus) is a simplistic version of Popper's falsificationism. Here's apparent evidence why climate science is wrong, and that is enough to disprove it. (Some do then accrete other supporting arguments.) This mischaracterised epistemology is something to apply to any scientific 'hypothesis' that may have been painted as inconvenient or costing money or jeopardising worldview, but from my experience they use a more common-sense Bayesianism for everyday life.

To JJones @48, one could add that 'a significant amount of heat' is radiated from Sun to Earth and Earth to space. If the latter is mostly in the form of long-wave infra-red, and carbon dioxide absorbs long-wave infra-red, where does the 'heat energy' go? And then maybe explain emission layer displacement in simple terms.

It's the sun

kootzie at 04:32 AM on 4 November, 2025

I am semi-active on Research Gate and elsewhere and doing my bit to [snip]

swat and bitch-slap denialists as they emit their oral-methane emissions to contaminate the discussions and spread anti-science drivel

I notice that the likes of
D*n P*rn
H. D*s L*oot
J*k Br*n
and others regularly engage in denialist mis-information
I notice that none of them appear to be significant enough to
merit (or dis-merit) inclusion in your rogues gallery

Their latest drivel stream purports that not only does increased atmospheric CO2 concentration not contribute ANY increase in global average temperatures, that CO2 does not have any effect on GAT at all.

They claim that WV aka Water Vapour, is a far more potent GHG
(which is arguably a defensible proposition) but that WV is the ONLY
GHG which has ANY effect on temperature, and ipso-facto ergo QED
anthropogenic Global Warming does not exist - its all on the natch.

They regularly mis-interpret mis-comprehend mis-represent physics.
They fundamentally deny that CO2, a non-condensible GHG with a long lifespan drives global temps and insist that WV, a condensible GHG with a short lifespan is not merely a feedback / feedforward mechanism but the fundamental / ONLY driver.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/analyze-and-critique-vol-20-20-wis.z78fQn.WeNzqnj5Kkg#0
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/analyze-and-critique-the-error-7ZbX2nqyRgGc19k2y45u_Q#0
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/analyze-and-critique-paraphras-Lrr7UYOjQAitC93qUR10EA#1

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_can_environmental_protection_and_biodiversity_be_improved_by_using_current_ecological_technologies#view=6908dd880ea281189c0a137f/312/313/312

Is this the most embarrassing error in the DOE Climate Working Group Report?

Bob Loblaw at 04:35 AM on 17 October, 2025

History suggests that the authors of the DOE report are largely incapable of being embarrassed. Their determination to spread their message, in spite of numerous criticisms and corrections, is quite remarkable.

Charlie Brown @ 4:

That is an interest take: that they argue 3 W/m² is small compared to the total radiative flux. It seems that they are using the "it's a trace/small amount compared to [X]" template that has been used in a variety of poor contrarian arguments; vis a vis:

CO2 is a trace gas

Anthropogenic emissions are small compared to natural cycles

Are there any other arguments that fit this same template?

DenialDepot had a fun post (15 years ago!) on how to cook a graph by playing with the Y-axis. Of course, in its standard mocking of the contrarians, DenialDepot accuses Skeptical Science of cooking the graphs by not expanding the Y-axis to make the change look minuscule. (DD looked at sea ice.) DD shows the "proper" method should be to compare the lost sea ice area to the total area of the earth. In DD's words, "That's far more clear. Immediately I am having trouble seeing the sea ice. This is good. If you can't see it, it's not a problem."

It's like a defendant in court arguing "how can it be grand larceny? I only took $100,000. He has billions."

Koonin providing clarity on climate?

Charlie_Brown at 05:09 AM on 28 September, 2025

Ken Rice is lenient with the authors of the DOE Climate Impacts report and with Secretary Chris Wright. Chris Wright states in the Foreword: “I chose them for their rigor, honesty, and willingness to elevate the debate. I believe it faithfully represents the state of climate science today.” I care more about substance than credentials. My public comments included: “The Foreword highlights that the purpose of the Critical Review is to challenge and counter mainstream science. It certainly does not represent the state of climate science today. Rather, it provides a rationalization for weakening current policies for combatting climate change. The authors are neither representative of the scientific community nor diverse.”

The science is not that complex. The report is full of misrepresentation, distraction, and obfuscation. It is not worthy of an undergraduate term paper let alone a critical review of science by PhDs. Many points have been thoroughly discussed and debunked here on the SkS website. My comments included:
1) “Section 2.1 is oversimplistic. CO2 is rarely the limiting nutrient. It discusses photosynthesis as a benefit but ignores adverse effects resulting from CO2 as the primary cause of climate change including drought, extreme temperatures, excess rain, and cropland relocation.”
2) “CO2 below 180 ppm is an irrelevant distraction to the discussion of modern global warming.”
3) “Changing ‘ocean acidification’ to ‘ocean neutralization’ is semantic posturing that does not change the effects. To say that pH reduction is not acidification until the pH drops below 7.0 it is not meaningful.”
4) “Implying that the IPCC uses data manipulation to satisfy preferences is baseless accusatory language. The change in radiative forcing due to the Earth’s orbit around the sun is negligible within the period of modern global warming. The change due to sunspot activity is measured and found to be negligible.”
5) “Comparing 3 W/m2 to 240 W/m2 is misleading and diminishes the significance of 3 W/m2. It is an example of science denialism by distraction, obfuscation, and omission. Straightforward, fundamental physics including conservation of energy and radiant energy calculations combined with atmospheric properties allow the effects of anthropogenic forcing to be isolated by calculation. The calculated spectra of energy loss to space is verified by satellite measurements (Hanel, et al.,1972) (Brindley & Bantges, 2015). 3 W/m2 is sufficient to cause and continue observed global warming. The anthropogenic forcing is not determined by difference of two large, measured numbers and does not rely on just satellite estimates of radiative energy flows. There is very little uncertainty about the effects of increasing gas concentrations.
The effect of clouds is the largest uncertainty in climate models. However, average cloud cover does not change without a driving force. Therefore, the effect of increasing GHG can be isolated by holding clouds constant. Specific humidity will rise with increasing surface temperature, resulting in positive water vapor feedback. This can affect clouds."

Others have submitted many more excellent comments, but I have made my point. The science can be explained and understood by most scientific-minded people who are interested in learning. One does not need a PhD in climate science to understand the flaws in the DOE report.

Disbanding the CWG may not be a sign of progress. It may be a way to avoid the lawsuit by the Environmental Defense Fund and the Union of Concerned Scientists that would restrict the use of the report.

Climate change is accelerating, scientists find in ‘grim’ report

Evan at 19:58 PM on 19 September, 2025

MA Rodger@11, thank you very much for your detailed answer and for the explanation about AF.

Katharine Hayhoe has an analogy about driving on a dead-straight road in Texas and saying that "relying on past climate patterns is no longer a reliable guide for the future because of the speed of climate change." (this is the Google AI version of her quote). It is reassuring in a sense that AF has been steady for so long, but ...

Despite the data you showed, because we are pushing the climate so hard (CO2 rising on average 2.5 ppm/yr), I remain skeptical that we can really be sure that AF will remain constant into the future. But for the sake of harmony, can we figure out wording that we all agree on.

Do you agree that climate scientists use 2C warming as a guesstimate of the point at which we begin to lock in warming in the pipeline? In other words, even if we achieved Net-0 after crossing the 2C warming threshold, do climate scientist agree that at that point we would have locked in additional future warming?

A lot of this is semantics, because the socio-political inertia does not give me much hope that we will put on the brakes before we cross the 2C barrier, but I would like to arrive at a common understanding so that my posts here don't seem to be at odds with professional climate science.

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

tder2012 at 03:59 AM on 29 June, 2025

Micheal Sweet,

"Apples and oranges: Comparing nuclear construction costs across nations, time periods, and technologies"

Could you please provide a link for a renewables grid that achieve a Paris climate target of less 100 grams of CO2 released per kilowatt-hour, averaged on an annual basis. I don't see any at the global electricitymaps site

Fact brief - Was 'global warming' changed to 'climate change' because Earth stopped warming?

Bob Loblaw at 01:36 AM on 5 June, 2025

Greenhouse effect, global warming, and climate change do indeed have different technical meanings, but common simplified usage does tend to add obfuscation - er, sorry, make things more confusing.

The Greenhouse Effect, as lynnvinc mentions, exists as a natural phenomenon. It relates to the atmospheric influence, as discussed by Charlie Brown, that leads to warmer surface temperatures than we would observe if there was no atmosphere.

It is a somewhat unfortunate term, as "the label "greenhouse" implies a similarity with actual greenhouses - and that was based on a misunderstanding of what keeps greenhouses warm. (Trapping air is more important than trapping IR radiation.)

At times, people have suggested using "the atmospheric effect" instead, but that has never caught on. At times, the human-cause changes in greenhouse gases have been referred to as "the enhanced greenhouse effect", but that is rather cumbersome and the "enhanced" part gets dropped.

As for "global warming" - that is the key easily-observed result of an enhanced greenhouse effect, but also can be caused by other factors. (CO2 dominates the current trends). On a global mean basis, surface temperatures will rise. It is not the only effect of an enhanced greenhouse effect, though. Precipitation changes are also critical. And many other weather phenomena. Seasonal changes and timing. Extreme weather events. Etc. Hence "climate change" is a much broader, more encompassing term. In the Venn diagram of climate, "Global warming " is a subset of "climate change", and "global warming" overlaps both the greenhouse effect and other causes of climate change.

On the myth of "they changed the name...", I took undergraduate climate science in the 1970s. The textbook we used was Sellers, W.D., 1965, Physical Climatology, U Chicago Press. Changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide are discussed in that book, along with other factors, under the chapter titled "Paleoclimatology and Theories of Climatic Change". My copy of the book is the one that I bought in 1978, so if "they changed the name..." then someone must have taken my copy off my bookshelf, altered the printing, and replaced it without me noticing.

Electric vehicles have a net harmful effect on climate change

Charlie_Brown at 02:36 AM on 29 May, 2025

Unfortunately, a key phrase was dropped from the source reference footnote [4] which makes the sentence in the green box for “What the Science Says” misleading. The reference says “EVs convert over 77% of the electrical energy from the grid (underline added) to power at the wheels. Conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 12%–30% of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels.” The source of power for EVs is not included in Eisenson, et al. “Electric vehicles have lower lifecycle emissions than traditional gasoline-powered cars because they are between 2.5 to 5.8 times more efficient.” Larson, et al., Final Report, p. 40, also compares units of electricity to units of gasoline. Furthermore, the articles do not define efficiency, whether it is g CO2/mile, g CO2(eq)/mile, or BTU/mi. Where coal is the power source for the grid, CO2 g/mi is about the same for EV and ICE. Where natural gas is the source, CO2(eq)/mi is close to the same after accounting for methane leakage from production and transport. Most simplified analyses use the source power mix from the regional grid. When the incremental power source to meet added demand for EVs (and other demands such as AI and growth), the situation is much more complex.

I am a strong supporter of EVs and I love my new car. To meet greenhouse gas emission reduction goals, transition to EVs is needed. The electric power grid also needs to reduce fossil fuel generation.

Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?

michael sweet at 05:02 AM on 8 May, 2025

I have been in this game for about 20 years. Over that time nuclear supporters like you have generated many false claims. For example when a paper was published with a single 1 MW wind turbine connected to a gas generator. It was then argued that more CO2 was emitted from the wind turbine. No-one has a grid with a single wind turbine. Experience in using wind turbines has shown that that analysis was completely false.

Your citation calculates the cost of a solar and battery system without using any hydro or wind. And they only use a very small grid (Texas and Germany). These are gross mistakes. The literature shows that it is much cheaper to have a larger grid than a smaller one. Most realistic analysis use all of North America as a grid.

Why analyze Germany alone when they currently are in a grid with the rest of Europe? Because you know in advance that it will be more expensive.

The analysis you linked is ignored for a reason. It is obviously junk science. A grossly too small grid and no existing hydro or wind. Texas will have to connect with the rest of the USA if they want cheap electricity. (Texans already pay a premium because of their small grid).

Just look at Europe: most of the countries have 50-80% renewables and they save money on their electric bills!

Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?

tder2012 at 01:41 AM on 8 May, 2025

I don't read Jacobson. He gets debunked and stops with the scientific debate and then takes it to court and loses that as well. https://retractionwatch.com/2024/02/15/stanford-prof-who-sued-critics-loses-appeal-against-500000-in-legal-fees/ Bryer works closely with Jacobson, so I don't bother with him either. I have read their material over the years, for example, here is one on my blog from 2016 that my friend wrote https://tditpinawa.wordpress.com/2016/09/17/tim-maloneys-analysis-and-critique-of-100-wws-for-usa/. I believe science debates should stick to science debates. There are nine grids today that have achieved <100 grams of CO2 emitted per kilowatt hour, averaged on an annual basis that service at least 5 million people. They are Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and then there is Norway, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, France and Brazil. They have achieved this with either mostly hydro, mostly nuclear or mostly a combination of the two. "Your post claiming high cost of LFSCOE (made on another thread) is simply fossil fuel propaganda. It has been known for years that the last 10-20% of renewable energy will be the most expensive." You can state your opinions about propaganda all you like, how about showing the evidence in the real world, not just in Jacobson's spreadsheets, about the last 10-20% being the most expensive. Lazard didn't make changes, instead they are open about their limitations, as I quoted in a previous comment. Will Lazard scrap their limitations and instead do a complete study, as opposed to just points in time. I don't care so much about % of renewable energy, I care about CO2 emissions. Once Texas and Spain have achieved <100grams/CO2 emitted per kilowatt-hour, averaged on an annual basis, then we'll talk. Texas is 292 and Spain is close at 112, but they are planning to shut down nuclear so their emissions are likely to rise, just like everywhere else that shuts down nuclear. https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE/12mo/monthly Jacobson is a big proponent of Germany, but 345 for the last 12 months, their energy system is really struggling and due to high prices, their industrial and manufacturing are slowing down. "Let’s dive into one of the most ambitious (and chaotic) energy transitions in the world" Amory Lovins was awarded the German Order of Merit in 2016 for his influence on the German "Energiewende", maybe they jumped the gun a bit with this award.

Greenhouse effect has been falsified

Reed Coray at 11:42 AM on 2 April, 2025

Bob when I googled "Adiabatic wall" I got the following. I think the text came from Wikipedia (not that Wikipedia is a great source only that it didn't come from WUWT and/or Jo Nova. see https://www.bing.com/search?q=adiabatic+wall&qs=AS&pq=adiabatic+wall&sc=10-14&cvid=78B3DD64803943E6B6458C617BB3F7EE&FORM=CHRDEF&sp=1&lq=0

An adiabatic wall is a boundary that does not allow heat transfer between two thermodynamic systems. This means that there is no heat or mass transfer across the wall, making it a theoretical concept often considered as a perfect thermal insulator. In essence, any energy exchange occurring across an adiabatic wall is strictly in the form of work.

So an Adiabatic Wall is "something that prevents the transfer of heat between two thermodynamic systems as in (1) the transfer of heat between the Earth/Earth-atmosphere system and (2) space. Isn't this precisely what is meant by the phrase "trapping heat within the Earth/Earth-atmosphere system?" So the claim that the relationship between "Adiabatic" and "can't trap heat" may be garbled in Reed Coray's mind, doesn't hold water."

Your guess that "Reed Coray does not accept that human emissions of CO2 are leading to increased global surface temperatures" is wrong. Those emissions may very well lead to increased global surface temperature. One thing I'm unsure about is "how big is the increase?"

In any event, the quality of my arguments is independent of where they came from. The only thing that matters is their validity, not their source. If one technique of "denial of science" is appeal to authority, then implying that authorities are not good authorities is a form of appealing to a bad authority.

Climate skeptics have new favorite graph; it shows the opposite of what they claim

Evan at 05:57 AM on 31 March, 2025

nigel@12, I won't argue your points except to note the following.

My view of why we keep focusing on temperature reconstructions is to convince non-scientists that the current rate of warming really is unprecendented over a period of time we care about, and really is something we should be worried about.

But for anybody who appreciates climate science and the link between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and the coming climate "attractions", CO2 increasing at 2.5 ppm/year is about 200 times higher than it was coming out of the last deglaciation, when rates were more like 1 ppm/100 years. So let's round it off and just say that currently CO2 concentrations are increasing about 100 times faster than they were during the last deglaciation.

The ice-core data shows that over the last 400,000 years or more, CO2 has stayed within the range of 180 to 300 ppm. That we have increased CO2 by 100 ppm since the start of the Keeling Curve measurements, the fact that we are now at 420 ppm, and the fact that CO2 is currently increasing, on average, by 2.5 ppm/yr, should be all that anybody needs to know to understand that we are in deep doodoo. At least anybody who respects what climate science tells us about the link between CO2 concentrations and warming.

Climate skeptics have new favorite graph; it shows the opposite of what they claim

Evan at 04:33 AM on 31 March, 2025

Eric@10, yes, the ice cores give temperatures at just a single location. However, because CO2 is a long-lived greenhouse gas, we can use the CO2 record from a single ice core to reasonably represent the global CO2 concentration at any given time. Link the measured CO2 concentration to the science that relates atmospheric CO2 concentration to atmospheric temperature (i.e., the climate sensitivity), and we can use a single ice core to infer global temperatures. Because we have multiple ice cores dating back 400,000 years or so, we know with reasonably high confidence the temperature profile quite a ways back.

But the real point is that at a current rate of warming of 0.2C/decade, we are warming so much faster than any of the ice-core data sets record, that we are clearly warming at an unprecendented rate compared to the warming over the last 400,000 years or so. And unprecendented does not mean a factor of 2 or 3, but more like a factor of 100 or so. In short, we are warming so much faster than Earth has in the recent past, that it really is not productive to argue about semantics.

We are in deep trouble, and we have plenty of data sets with which to compare to support that claim. No, I have not provided links, but you seem very well informed about the history and science of ice cores (that is meant as a compliment), so that I assume you understand what I mean by CO2 being a long-lived greenhouse gas that distributes itself uniformly over the Earth.

If you contest the science that links CO2 to warming, then I will rest, because it is science that provides the critical link between what we can measure very well (i.e., CO2 concentrations from ice cores) and global temperatures.

Climate's changed before

Brainscientist at 07:12 AM on 18 March, 2025

All of the fear mongering about Humans changing the climate never discuss the fact the the climate changed dramatically in the last 880ka.

The Younger Dyras Impact event was AFTER the climate had warmer dramatically.

Every scientist FUNDED talks about the oceans rising 300 feet when in the past there has NEVER been an ocean level above 20m from present and most are less than 8m.

There have been 16 cataclysms that could have easily destroyed advanced civilizations, we have also had a pair of "nuclear Winters" in the last 250 years.

We might be able to track asteroids but Younger Dryas appears to be a comet impact.

The earth has had higher levels of CO2 before are we so omniscient to know Our CO2 is the end of mankind. <yes, I have heard this bit of fear mongering from scientists).

I would like to knwo WHY the temperatures changed so dramatically on what appears to be a fairly regular but NOT in sync with any astronomical- earth wobble et al.

The impact event appears to have killed the large fauna in NA, spread a layer of ash, ended Clovis, and we do have all this troubling evidence of advanced and large populations in SA.

Fossil Fuels are made from life forms that used to be on the surface.

Exactly why should they not be brought up and put back into the mix?

I am a major skeptic of what is looking like fear-mongering science.

Electric vehicle adoption is stumbling, but still growing amid geopolitical clashes

One Planet Only Forever at 05:08 AM on 25 February, 2025

Evan,

Carbon pricing, massively resisted in the USA, would help.

I will get to carbon pricing. But I will start by commenting on the popular misunderstanding that “Most people are concerned more about meeting their own needs than those of others.”

A better understanding is: Many people have developed to be more concerned with misleading marketing induced ‘wants – incorrectly perceived as needs’ than they are about learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others.

The root of the problem is ‘the developed marketplace competition’. And a relate problem is the marketplace failure to identify, limit, and make amends for harms done.

Marketplace competition for popularity and profit drives the pursuit of perceptions of superiority relative to others, the ‘keeping up with the Jones-es’ nonsense, harmfully amplified by misunderstandings popularized by the science of misleading marketing. That creates ‘misunderstandings and unjustified perceptions of needs that overpower learning to be less harmful and more helpful’.

The competition not being governed by learning to be less harmful and more helpful has produced massively harmful results. The poorly governed free-for-all marketplace has developed:

massively harmful developed ways of living, particularly climate change impacts

massive aspirations to be more like the ‘more harmful perceived winners’

massive resistance to the understandable need to massively and rapidly correct (transition away from) what has developed.

A massive part of that resistance is opposition to carbon pricing on fossil fuels.

The marketplace operation could help protect against the climate change harm being done if the harm of carbon emissions from fossil fuel use was properly priced (it would be a very high price per tonne of CO2e – likely more than $200 USD).

France’s leadership made a massive mistake by introducing a fairly low carbon price without clearly providing adequate additional assistance to the poor. The result was increased popularity of anti-learning populist politicians who paired the opposition to ‘climate science and the understandable need for carbon pricing’ with other harmful anti-learning actions like intolerance for immigrants (those Others).

In Germany the populist AfD opposes climate science and immigration, along with promoting other harmful misunderstandings (see my comment on a previous SkS item here).

Canada’s carbon pricing and rebate program (currently only $80 CAN - $55 USD per tonne of CO2e) benefited the poorest by providing more rebate than the carbon pricing costs they faced. Even our household in the top 10% income bracket got more rebate than we paid because of the choices we made to reduce fossil fuel use. However, the anti-learning populist political players were able to misleadingly market so successfully that all major Canadian political parties have declared they no longer support the carbon pricing program.

Fact brief - Can CO2 be ignored because it’s just a trace gas?

One Planet Only Forever at 12:41 PM on 2 February, 2025

nigelj @10,

I have reasons to disagree regarding greed and self-interest being ‘ human nature that is unlikely to change’.

I will start by presenting an important perspective on economic development (aligned with the understanding presented in the 2012 book “Why Nations Fail”).

A competitive marketplace (of products, services, ideas, science, politics...) can develop amazing improvements. That is the positive-sum game (vs. zero-sum game) potential of marketplace competition. And the ways it happens include creative disruption or creative destruction of the developed status-quo (links are to Wikipedia. Note that “Why Nations Fail” is mentioened in the creative destruction Wikipedia item). However, competition for personal benefit and perceptions of superiority relative to others can produce negative-sum disruptive-destructive results.

When creative disruption-destruction is not responsibly governed by learning to be less harmful and more helpful to others the collective result can be worse than it needed to be. If people in the competition can get away with winning by being more harmful and less helpful to others then ‘greed and selfishness are encouraged to develop’ rather than being ‘human nature’.

The winners in the negative-sum game may be worse off than they would have been in the positive-sum alternative. But they pursue ‘their interest’ which is ‘increasing their perceived status relative to others’. They would think that others benefiting reduces ‘their’ potential ‘relative’ superiority.

The sensitivity of the climate on this amazing planet to human impacts on seemingly minor aspects of what is going on, like the trace amount of CO2, is tragically affected by the sensitivity of people to temptations to misunderstand matters in ways that make them like being greedier and more selfish.

Today’s situation is worse than it needed to be. The fossil fuel collective has successfully misled resistance to the creative disruption of developed energy systems. As a result there is more damage done and increasing need for creative disruption-destruction. The feedback response to increased need for rapid creative disruption-destruction is ‘increased resistance to change’.

What is required is getting people to change their mind about understandably unsustainable and harmful actions they have developed a liking for and related misunderstandings that promote and excuse those actions. And the manitude and speed of the required changes is continuing to increase.

Misinformation is a serious problem, especially, but not only, regarding climate change. This NPR article “The Doomsday Clock has never been closer to metaphorical midnight. What does it mean?” includes the following:

This year, it cited continuing trends in multiple "global existential threats" including nuclear weapons, climate change, AI, infectious diseases and conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East. It also pointed to the spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories as a "potent threat multiplier" that undermines public discourse in general and about these very issues.

While these threats are not new, the scientists said that "despite unmistakable signs of danger, national leaders and their societies have failed to do what is needed to change course."

They are particularly concerned about the U.S., China and Russia, countries they say have the "collective power to destroy civilization" and the "prime responsibility to pull the world back from the brink."

At a glance - Is the CO2 effect saturated?

Bob Loblaw at 03:05 AM on 1 February, 2025

sychodefender @ 34:

For feedbacks, they start as soon as any system change occurs. When CO2 rises, it take a bit of time for temperature to rise, and then once temperature rises, atmospheric water vapour will rise, which will have a greenhouse gas heating effect (after a bit of time...), etc.

...but I have left "a bit of time" undefined for the moment. There are many different factors that take varying amounts of time to respond to changes. MA Rodger's response @ 35 touches on several of these factors.

Obviously, day-to-day weather causes changes in temperature, which will cause day-to-day feedback effects, etc. When we talk in terms of climate, though, we are more interested in the persistent changes, and how factors relate over longer periods of time. We also often talk about averages over large areas, not local effects such as your back yard.

Taking MA Rodgers statement about "increased evaporation adds 7% H2O capacity for every +1ºC", we are talking about longer term effects - e.g. decades. You won't see this simple a relationship when discussing day-to-day local weather. This relationship is looking at global trends over decades.

We can't instantaneously double atmospheric CO2 in the real world (thankfully!), but we can in a climate model. Back in 1981, Hansen et al published a well-known paper on CO2 and climate that included an interesting diagram.

Hansen, J., Johnson, D., Lacis, A., Lebedeff, S., Lee, P., Rind, D., & Russell, G. (1981). Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213(4511), 957-966

They ran a computer model where they instantaneously doubled atmospheric CO2, and their figure 4 shows how energy fluxes changed over time.

Hansen et al (1981) fig 4

This is a somewhat complex diagram, so bear with me a bit.

The first panel shows the immediate response. We see a very slight increase in atmospheric absorption of solar radiation, a larger reduction of IR loss to space, and some changes in the radiation, thermal, and evaporation fluxes between the surface and atmosphere.

A lot of things are now "out of balance", so changes will occur.

Notice that the change in IR loss to space (ΔF) is -2.4 W/m². Combined with the change in solar (ΔS = 0.1), we get a net change of +2.5. This is the "climate forcing" that MA Rodger refers to. This is what drives the overall warming of the earth-atmosphere system.

The atmosphere is the fastest to respond to these energy changes, because it does not require a lot of heat to warm up air. Land will heat up more slowly, and oceans even slower than land.

In the middle panel, we see what is happening "a few months later". The atmosphere has restored its local balance, but the surface has not - so the whole system is still out of balance. Surface temperature (T_s) is still the same as it was at the start.

The net climate forcing is now +3.9 (similar to the 3.7 number MA Rodger states in comment 35. Different models will vary slightly on what this number should be.)

The atmosphere has now had a chance to warm - and get more humid. So now, we see the effects that include the feedback.

With water vapour feedback now active, the net global imbalance has increased from +2.5 to +3.9. Roughly 50% larger than if there was no feedback.

The last panel is "many years later". The entire system has balanced again.

The atmosphere has a net balance of zero.

The surface has a net balance of zero.

The whole system has a net balance of zero.

...but note that many of the internal energy fluxes are different from what they were before CO2 was doubled.

Absorbed solar has change for both the atmosphere and surface. Total net solar (ΔS) has only increased by 0.1, but where it is absorbed is different - more in the atmosphere and less at the surface.

IR loss rates to space have changed. Net change (ΔF) is only 0.1 (to balance the change in ΔS), but again we see that contributions from the surface and atmosphere have changed.

IR exchanges between the surface and atmosphere have changed. The climate is warmer, so IR fluxes have increased in both directions.

Convective fluxes (thermal and evaporation) between the surface and atmosphere have changed slightly.

...and surface temperature is now 2.8C warmer... (Global warming!)

...so we are living in a different climate, with many changes. A new equilibrium, but one that looks quite different from what we are used to.

Hopefully this is not too hard to follow. As stated before, climate is a complex system. It gets quite difficult to to isolate changes in one part from another. Looking at one part can help understanding - but you do need to be careful about over-emphasizing what you see in that one part (and missing another important part). Much of what you can call "contrarian" positions involves over-simplifying the system, to the peril of leaving out parts that do matter. You're doing the right thing by asking questions.

At a glance - Is the CO2 effect saturated?

Bob Loblaw at 01:39 AM on 29 January, 2025

sychodefender @ 30:

The ultimate limiting factor for warming induced by greenhouse gas increases is the infrared radiation emitted to space from the upper part of the atmosphere. As the earth-atmosphere system heats up (primary a surface effect in the case of greenhouse gases) more IR is emitted to space, and (hopefully) eventually balances again. Think of it in stages:

Earth is in a stable climate, with a stable (over years or decades) temperature. Energy absorbed from the sun is balanced by IR losses to space.

Something causes that equilibrium to go out of balance. In the case of greenhouse gases, the direct factor is a reduction in the IR loss to space.

Now, absorbed solar exceeds IR losses, so we are adding energy to the earth-atmosphere system.

The net energy increases causes some part of the system to warm up. That energy cascades through the system in a variety of forms (radiation, thermal energy, evaporation/condensation).

After a while (many years), the system evolves to a point where IR losses to space increase enough so that we reach a new balance with absorbed solar.

Once a new balance is achieved, we have a (new) stable climate again. In the case of doubling CO2, this new stable climate will be a surface temperature that is a few degrees warmer than it was before.

So, ultimately, the ability to regain equilibrium requires that the system respond to a point where IR loss to space - from the upper part of the atmosphere (you'll often see "TOA" to indicate "Top of Atmosphere") can rebalance the energy absorbed from the sun. In a stable climate, you can have short-term shifts away from equilibrium, but this "energy balance with space" will keep pulling the climate back to its stable position - kind of like a marble rolling around in the bottom of a round bowl.

So, next let's think about feedbacks, such as the "CO2 warming increases water vapour, increases warming, increases water vapour" go-on-forever loop. SkS does have a lengthy discussion of that topic, on this thread here, but let's take a quick look at it now.

In climate science terms, the water vapour effect you describe is called a positive feedback. A system change in one factor causes a change in another factor that adds to the initial change.

If the initial change is an increase, a positive feedback will cause more increase.

...but if the initial change is a decrease, a positive feeback will cause more decrease.

Positive feedbacks do not necessarily lead to values that increase forever. As long as the feedback multiplier is small enough, a new equilibrium will still be reached.

"Small enough" is anything less than 1.

If the initial change is 1, and the feedback adds another 0.5, then the next time through the sycle we'll only add 0.5*0.5 = 0.25, and the next time will only add 0.25*0.5 = 0.125, etc.

This will stop increasing once it reaches a total change of 2.

Let's look at this graphically. The following image shows 10 time steps with eight different feedback multipliers.

For all curves the initial change from time 0 to time 1 is a system change of 1 (you can think of it as temperature, but the math doesn't care what it represents.)

For time 1 to time 2, we add another change of 1*feedback multiplier.

an increase of 0.1 for a multiplier of 0.1.

an increase of 0.2 for a multiplier of 0.2.

etc.

The figure shows feedback multipliers ranging from -0.5 to 2.

Feedback ratios

Note some key features in the figure:

For a multiplier of 0, there are no further changes after time step 1. The system change has already reached a new equilibrium and remains constant forever.

For a multiplier of 1, we see a continuous linear increase. We add another 1 at each time step.

For a multiplier of 2, we see an accelerating, exponential increase over time. Not a good place to live.

For all multipliers between 0 and 1, we can see that the rate of increase tapers off and a new equilibrium is reached after 10 time steps.

...but that new equilibrium is higher for higher feedback multipliers.

For multiplier 0.5, note that the final result is an increase of 2.

This one is closest to our known climate system feedbacks - the direct effect of CO2 is roughly doubled by feedbacks such as water vapour and snow/ice.

Note that I threw in a multiplier of -0.5, too. This is a negative feedback, opposing the initial change. The final change is 0.67, not 1.0.

In a real world, the negative feedback would not wait until the initial change of 1.0 happens - all feedbacks kick in as soon as any change occurs. You'd see smooth curves, not the jumps we see in the figure. The -0.5 curve would just gradually increase from 0 to 0.67 in the first few time steps.

Also, note that you can find out more about these issues by using the search box on the SkS web page (upper left), or by looking at the Most Used Myths list (linked below the search box and social media emblems).

Fact brief - Can CO2 be ignored because it’s just a trace gas?

One Planet Only Forever at 05:00 AM on 27 January, 2025

Evan @6,

Your make a good point about the sensitivity of our amazing planet’s global climate conditions. It has prompted the following thoughts regarding attempts to ignore or dismiss CO2 impacts ...

The warming impact of increased levels of CO2 have been understood for more than 125 years. And the natural causes of glaciation and inter-glacial periods, like the Milankovitch cycles, have been reasonably understood for more than 80 years.

A challenging understanding, an inconvenient truth, is that human CO2 impacts causing global warming may be helpful in the future but are not helpful now. Those distant future actions could make the next natural glaciation event more ‘livable’.

The next glaciation is expected to naturally happen about 50,000 years from now. But studies, like the one reported in the Carbon Brief in 2016: Human emissions will delay next ice age by 50,000 years, indicate that the human caused increased CO2 levels have likely delayed the next glaciation by 50,000 years. That is nothing to be proud of. It was Too Much Too Soon.

It would be ‘great’ if lots of easy to access fossil fuels were still available for future humans to use to limit the negative impacts of future glaciations.

Fossil fuels are undeniably non-renewable. Future generations cannot benefit from burning them as much as current generations do. Rapidly ending fossil fuel use would leave more ‘limited resources’ for the benefit of future generations and reduce the climate change harm done to people today and to future generations. However, the ‘competitive marketplace’ fails to ‘naturally’ develop towards those understandably ‘great’ objectives. In fact, there is ample evidence that the marketplace developed, and continues to develop, misinformation efforts against the development of such ’helpful external influences on the marketplace’.

The undeniable marketplace efforts against learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others clarifies what competitive free market activity can be expected to accomplish. The fundamental market function is managing the distribution and benefits from the use of scarce resources. It develops replacement alternatives as resources become scarcer. However, the marketplace will only seriously develop replacements that are less expensive than the increased cost of the activities that rely on scarcer resources (note political efforts to reduce the costs of fossil fuels).

More importantly, the market is unlikely to care to reduce harm or ensure that harm done is repaired. Limiting harm done, and avoiding the challenge of getting the beneficiaries of harm done to repair the damage done, requires external influence to make the more harmful ways less popular, more difficult, and more expensive.

Hopefully efforts to limit the success of misinformation, not just regarding climate science, will result in more helpful and less harmful political action. It is common sense that political actions need to be less likely to cycle in ways that are significantly negative for the future of humanity. However, limiting the sensitivity of political actions to harmful misunderstandings is likely less certain than improving the understanding of the sensitivity of the climate on this amazing planet to the impacts of human activity.

Scientific understanding is certain to be constantly improving the ability to develop sustainable improvements and limit harm done - The politics of popularity of beliefs is not certain to develop sustainable improvements or limit harm done.

Fact brief - Can CO2 be ignored because it’s just a trace gas?

One Planet Only Forever at 08:08 AM on 22 January, 2025

Noel Yrrep,

In addition to your well presented questioning of the questionable claims made-up by people who are resistant to learning how CO2 levels in the atmosphere significantly affect the global average surface temperature, the ‘hard of learning’ would struggle to explain:

How the surface is so much warmer than it would be without ‘trace amounts of ghg’ in the atmosphere. What evidence-based, independently verifiable, alternative understanding do they offer?

Some might claim that God made it this way, in a way that humans cannot ruin, therefore, it is not necessary for people to understand how it works. Others may claim that the activity in free market capitalism (the developed economy) will naturally be the best way to identify and solve any developed or developing problems if it is free from external observation and influences. Still Others may claim that popularity of a belief justifies it. And some may claim that everyone's personal opinion is as valid as any other opinion.

Those would be arguments based on orthodoxy (which means ‘the right opinion’).

Science is not a matter of opinion. Science, done scientifically, develops evidence-based improved understandings of what is going on.

So I would recommend that instead of “...those who don't accept the scientific orthodoxy behind the 'warming' role of CO2.”, you should say something like “...those who resist improving their awareness and understanding of the scientifically developed knowledge regarding the 'warming' role of CO2.”

Fact brief - Can CO2 be ignored because it’s just a trace gas?

Bob Loblaw at 08:39 AM on 19 January, 2025

Noel:

An illustration of why ppm is a bad set of units to look at the radiative effects of CO2 forms part of the discussion in this blog post I did a few years ago. (To toot my own horn.)

https://skepticalscience.com/from-email-bag-beer-lambert.html

At a glance - Is the CO2 effect saturated?

Charlie_Brown at 05:30 AM on 19 January, 2025

sychodefender @18 and @22

The band saturation effect does have a diminishing logarithmic curve as explained by Bob Loblaw and as shown in Fig. 6a of Zhong & Haigh 2023. But the rate of modern global warming has not diminished to being negligible. Your descriptors of the effect: "distinct leveling off" and "surely can only have a very slow impact on warming" are misleading toward an incorrect conclusion.

I described the main problem with Kubicki, et al., above @16.

I described the main problem with Wijngaarden & Happer in “Is the CO2 effect saturated?” @716, page 29, Oct 5, 2024.

At a glance - Is the CO2 effect saturated?

Bob Loblaw at 11:13 AM on 17 January, 2025

sychodefender at 18:

What is your point? All the authors you mention have serious problems in their analysis, so you won't find their results given any credence in the IPCC summaries.

There is no such thing as "the IPCC models". The IPCC reports are a review of the scientific literature, so any models they discuss are models that are developed by individual scientists or groups. Those scientists cooperate on model comparison studies. RealClimate keeps a permanent page on CMIP model comparison results.

There is no need for climate science to come up with a "more recent finding or mechanism" to refute that list of authors, as those authors do not refute the previously-existing understanding that explains current warming (and predicts future warming). Since the old understanding isn't broken, it doesn't need fixing.

Also note that these "at a glance" posts include a link to full rebuttals of the myth, at the bottom of the post (Click for further details), above the list of other rebuttals.

Skeptical Science New Research for Week #1 2025

David-acct at 07:48 AM on 12 January, 2025

M Sweet at 26

The Wikipedia link was a 2012 post , 12 years out of data. Please cross check your work.

Phillipe Chantreau provided a good response which is based on the data from France's real time grid monitor / Eco2mix which refutes your claim of france "shutting down" their nuclear reactors on the weekends. Further, A broad and general understanding of electric generation from various source , including from nuclear reactors would show why that assertion is inane, its simply not cost or energy effective.

Finally I dont understand your aversion to Raw data or analyizing raw data - your statement - "Please do not cite raw data any more. "
That is the anti-thesis of science.

CO2 effect is saturated

Eclectic at 21:58 PM on 4 January, 2025

MA Rodger @872 :-

Please don't bother to spend more of your own valuable time going through the Shula videos !

As you mentioned, they are very lengthy ~ much of what he says is paleo information which is not in dispute. Possibly that lengthy info is intended to camouflage the actual unscientific "clangers" which he comes out with, scattered here & there in his videos.

Also as you say ~ in that one video, in less than 5 minutes, he states boldly that "Gases do not emit thermal radiation". And I persisted for about one-third of the total video, in the hope that he was really going to quibble about the semantics of "thermal" . . . but it was not to be, for he was simply flat wrong in his understandings of the science.

Other red flags were Shula's use of a rather shonky Scotese paleo graph . . . and later Shula's use of a Holocene graph of global CO2 levels versus a temperature graph (without pointing out that the temperatures were Greenlandic not global) ~ from both graphs he casually asserted that there has been zero evidence of CO2/temperature linkage.

So, the Shula case is quite hopeless . . . but these modern videos are still coming out, and are misleading the unwary public (such as poster CallItAsItIs).

Viewing smaller amounts of other Shula ( +/_ colleague named Ott ) videos has not given any other new insights into the deniosphere claims that "CO2 effect is saturated".

At a glance - Is the CO2 effect saturated?

Charlie_Brown at 09:11 AM on 4 January, 2025

The paper by Kubicki, Kopczyński, and Młyńczak., “Climatic consequence of the process of saturation of radiation absorption in gases,” Applications in Engineering Science, Vol. 17, March 2024 has been retracted by Elsevier. “After review by additional expert referees, the Editor-in-Chief has lost confidence in the validity of the paper and has decided to retract.”

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666496823000456

Not explained in the retraction, but according to my interpretation in addition to the previous posts, Kubicki, et al., describe the emitted intensity for one monochromatic transmittance line for methane at 3.39 microns. However, when they describe absorptance for CO2, the description changes from a single line to a spectrum. They do not integrate the intensity of single lines for all lines in the full spectrum, which is the straightforward approach used in atmospheric radiation models and climate models. Rigorous models use line-by-line calculations while simple models utilize narrow bands for calculation efficiency with minimal loss of accuracy. Instead, Kubicki, et al., introduce a definition of “saturation mass” that reaches 95% of maximum value of absorptance for a large band for an unspecified wavelength range. They support their concept by describing experiments for a detected value at the end of a tube. This experimental design does not account for re-radiation in any direction apart from a straight line.

CO2 effect is saturated

Eclectic at 23:23 PM on 2 January, 2025

As part of my New Year's Resolutions, I had wished to ask if SkS readers have any views or opinions on the AGW/CO2 ideas put forward by a Mr (or Dr ?) Tom Shula who allegedly has some physicist qualifications, yet who also qualifies as a science-denier apparently.

He strongly asserts that the 15-micron IR radiated upwards by the Earth's warm surface is totally absorbed by CO2 in the lowermost 10 meters of the troposphere. And that there is no re-radiation of IR by the CO2 molecules in that 10-meter layer ~ because, although molecules in solids and liquids can radiate photons, nevertheless it is impossible for molecules in the gasseous state to emit radiation.

At the same time, Tom Shula does say that Earth emits IR to space from the upper troposphere. Clearly Tom Shula suffers from cognitive dissonance . . . or I am failing to grasp the subtleties of his ideas.

IIRC, someone earlier in this thread has also claimed that "CO2 saturation" means that the 15-micron IR from the Earth's surface cannot rise above the 10-meter altitude (possibly that claimant was poster CallItAsItIs or his re-incarnations ~ but he has made so many posts in this thread, that it would be a tiresomely daunting task for me to go back and check & read through all of his comments ).

The assertions by Shula were made in a Youtube video in 2024, on the Tom Nelson channel ~ a channel which is often bristling with Red Flags of Unscience.

Any thoughts? BTW, I am quite happy if this post today elicits no replies at all . . . for it is highly probable that Tom Shula's (and Tom Nelson's ) effusions are a waste of time for rational readers.

Stop emissions, stop warming: A climate reality check

Evan at 22:29 PM on 18 December, 2024

The message that I prefer to give people is this.

"The current CO2 concentration is 420 ppm. That concentration is sufficient to warm the planet to 1.7C if we don't bring it down. Every time we emit CO2 we are actively destroying Earth's life-support systems. We need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions as fast as possible and to support local, national, and global initiatives that do that."

This is a message that is consistent with climate science and refers people back to the Keeling Curve to monitor how we're doing. If 420 ppm is enough to take us to 1.7C, then anything higher will take us to a higher temperature. The message is also that any level of emissions is bad, and that we need to do all that we can to reduce GHG emissions.

Stop emissions, stop warming: A climate reality check

Evan at 22:05 PM on 18 December, 2024

Although I agree with the theoretical aspects of no warming after reaching net-0 emissions, the danger I see with the underlying message in this paper is that we are broadcasting the concept that the future is in our hands. This is not only an arrogant position, but may backfire. The average person is not reading SkS and is not grounded in legitimate climate science, but may be getting a fuzzy, positive feeling when they see the number of solar panels, wind turbines, and EVs on the road increasing. They see what looks like great progress deploying renewable energy and EVs, and therefore conclude wrongly that we're decreasing CO2 emissions, and so now can relax and rest assured that the future will be fine. As long as they continue to see the deployment of renewable energy projects and EVs, they are satisfied that we are doing what is needed. Now that we've got the climate back on track, let's go elect leaders to get the economy back on track.

This at a time when CO2 concentrations are increasing at a rate of 2.5 ppm/year and fossil-fuel use continues to increase year after year.

In my opinion it will never work to broadcast that the future is in our hands and that we just need to get to Net-0 emissions to stabilize the climate. The message is arrogant and really just a concept that we cannot possibly hope to effectively quantify. In my opinion, achieving it will require more than we've ever demonstrated we're capable of.

I hope my opinion is wrong!

Having said this, I'm still not sure what the best messaging is. I think what SkS is doing is critically important because it is helping people understand what is happening and why. So I offer my comments in an effort to put the message of this paper into context and to temper what I see as an overly optimistic message.

CO2 effect is saturated

CallItAsItIs at 21:08 PM on 15 December, 2024

Charlie_Brown @825

Perhaps I should have made this clearer on my last posting, but your comment

CO2 molecules at a specified temperature absorb and emit photons equally ...

describes a very long-term steady state condition that the atmosphere tends toward on a time-scale of centuries, not years, and certainly not real time. Otherwise we wouldn't be seeing all the ups and downs that have occurred ever since temperatures were first recorded, and there certainly wouldn't be any worries over AGW.

Note to Moderator:

In view of this, could we please move on from holding me to the climate science version of "Kirchhoff's Law" which we know won't happen for a long, long time if ever

CO2 effect is saturated

Bob Loblaw at 02:12 AM on 2 December, 2024

One more post for the moment. I alluded in my previous comment that to examining the effects of changing CO2 or other aspects of climate modelling, one needs to "combine the local aspects of Schwarzschild’s equation into a series of equations that links many layers of the atmosphere - and also includes other forms of energy transfer besides radiation".

One such study was the work of Manabe and Strickler (1964). Their figure 1 provides a useful illustration of what goes on inside such a model:

ManabeStrickler_fig1

What we see is the results of four model runs, where atmospheric temperature changes over time. At the initial time, temperature is set to a somewhat arbitrary uniform temperature. Radiative transfer equations are used to evaluate the upward and downward fluxes (both IR and solar). At each altitude/layer in the model the energy balance is calculated, and the result is used to move to the next time step.

If the layer is gaining energy, it will warm.

This is a net change: energy coming in from or going out to the layers above and below.

If the layer is losing energy (net), it will cool.

The calculations continue until all layers show no further change. They have reached thermal equilibrium.

Just doing the radiative transfer calculations once is not enough - you have to look at how they change with height (layer to layer), and then determine how they change over time (warming, cooling).

On the left, we see results if only radiative transfer occurs. There are two model simulations: one from a cold atmosphere, and one from a warm atmosphere. We see that it does not matter if the model started cold or warm - it converges on a common temperature profile.

The diagram on the left produces a tropospheric temperature profile that is too steep - a profile that would lead to extreme convection and cannot be sustained in a fluid atmosphere. On the right, we see the results when convection is added in, limiting the temperature profile. In essence, convection increases energy movement from the surface upward, so less needs to be transferred via radiation. More efficient energy transfer leads to the same total energy moving along a smaller slope (T vs. h) in the temperature profile.

What we also see on the right, is that such a model does a pretty good job of predicting global mean atmospheric temperature profiles. The model is verified by data.

A very similar model was used by Manabe and Wetherald 1967. Earlier in this discussion, I included their figure 16:

ManabeWetherald_fig16

Notice that adding CO2 does not cause warming - oh oops, well, not at the top of the daigram. In the stratosphere, increasing CO2 leads to cooling. It's only when you get to the lower troposphere and surface that you see substantial warming.

So, when CallItAsItIs claims he can prove that CO2 can't cause warming, he does this by completely ignoring most of the physics.

CO2 effect is saturated

Bob Loblaw at 01:27 AM on 2 December, 2024

CallItAsItIs continues to provide assertions with no evidence. And he is also saying "it's too hard!" when asked to show his math, and shouting "Wrong!" at anyone that points out his misunderstandings.

MA Rodger is correct in comment 801, when he points out that this is grade-school level discussion. It's a continuation of CallItAsItIs's posts where he says things like "I cannot pack an entire radiometry textbook into this comment space". Long experience tells me that someone who pretends it is too complex or hard to explain things to me has reached a point where they are trying to hide their obvious lack of knowledge.

What is also glaringly obvious is that when CallItAsItIs reads pretty much anything, the only part that makes it into his mental model is any small snippet that he thinks confirms his misunderstandings. Anything else is rejected as "irrelevant".

More than once, I have referred to Schwarzschild’s equation, and linked to its discussion on Wikipedia. CallItAsItIs claims (in comment 791) "I have checked out every link and diagram that was posted, and only found two that were even remotely related to the problem I am addressing,"

So, what has CallItAsItIs's reaction to Schwarzschild’s equation? It's in comment 796 (quoted in its entirety, for context):

Wonderful! Now with your radiation expertise and Schwarzschild's equation, you surely see that the solution for spectral intensity has a term that accounts for thermal radiation (ie. blackbody) and an exponential term that vanishes at high altitudes, giving us the exact same result I have been claiming through all the ridicule. Yes, those photons are there but they are there to establish thermal equilibrium at the surrounding temperature and not for warming. I'm glad you finally see the light!.

Amazing! CallItAsItIs has noticed that Schwarzschild’s equation includes both absorption and emission of radiation. But all he sees is the bit that he thinks confirms his "theory". For reference, here is equation, as posted on Wikipedia:

$Schwartzschild equation$

If we read further, we'll note that Schwarzschild’s equation is not applied to the atmosphere as a whole, but over small volumes where local thermodynamic equilibrium applies. Reading even further, we get to a section on "Application to Climate Science" that starts with (emphasis added):

If no other fluxes change, the law of conservation of energy demands that the Earth warm (from one steady state to another) until balance is restored between inward and outward fluxes. Schwarzschild's equation alone says nothing about how much warming would be required to restore balance.

In other words, you need to combine the local aspects of Schwarzschild’s equation into a series of equations that links many layers of the atmosphere - and also includes other forms of energy transfer besides radiation. Once you have Schwarzschild’s equation, there is still work to be done. The very next sentence on Wikipedia starts this:

When meteorologists and climate scientists refer to "radiative transfer calculations" or "radiative transfer equations" (RTE), the phenomena of emission and absorption are handled by numerical integration of Schwarzschild's equation over a path through the atmosphere.

Further down, we even get a section titled "Saturation". What do we find in the first paragraph? (Again, emphasis added).

In the absence of thermal emission, wavelengths that are strongly absorbed by GHGs can be significantly attenuated within 10 m in the lower atmosphere. Those same wavelengths, however, are the ones where emission is also strongest. In an extreme case, roughly 90% of 667.5 cm−1 photons are absorbed within 1 meter by 400 ppm of CO2 at surface density,[23] but they are replaced by emission of an equal number of 667.5 cm−1 photons. The radiation field thereby maintains the blackbody intensity appropriate for the local temperature. At equilibrium, Iλ = Bλ(T) and therefore dIλ = 0 even when the density of the GHG (n) increases.

Near the bottom of the Wikipedia article we see:

The radiative forcing from doubling carbon dioxide occurs mostly on the flanks of the strongest absorption band.

There is more there that disagrees with CallItAsItIs's "reading", but his Morton's Demon is blocking that information. He does not see that Schwarzschild’s equation includes emission of radiation that he deems "irrelevant" or non-existent. He does not see the information that should tell him that the local flux of IR radiation - including emissions - will be far more than just the IR radiation that has reached that altitude from the surface. He does not see that calculations of the effect of CO2 must look at more than just the strongest absorption band (and more than just radiation).

...but we have been trying to point all this out to CallItAsItIs for a week now.

It's very, very simple. In order for CallItASItIs's "interpretation" to be correct, one must ignore huge swaths of basic physics and observations of the climate system. And CallItAsItIs has been very effective at maintaining that ignorance in his knowledge. There is a word for that.

CO2 effect is saturated

MA Rodger at 16:51 PM on 30 November, 2024

CallItAsItIs @789,

There are three CO2 absorption/emission bands for IR (although it can get more complicated with massive rising CO2). At the temeratures found ion Earth, the 2.7 micron and 4.3 micron bands is too energetic to be anything more than an absorption band. And the 4.3 micron band is so weak from the sun that it is ignorable while the 2.7 micron band is strong enough to have a measurable dip in the incoming solar IR, but it is tiny.

More of a cooling influence from increasing CO2 is the central 15 micron wavelengths as these are not emitted into space until up in the stratosphere where temperature rises with altitude. But such central-15 micron cooling is far outweighed by the edges of the band's warming.

I noticed a chart from the science blogger Sabine Hossenfelder which you may find useful in describing the greenhouse effect (something which is not usually done well). The one word I would change is to substitute "impeded" for "trapped" in the 'grand description' line.

sabine hossenfelder chart

CO2 effect is saturated

Bob Loblaw at 03:39 AM on 26 November, 2024

I feel as if I'm on the verge of beating a dead horse - no idea if CallItAsItIs will respond to the latest comments, but....

I think it is useful to provide a graphic published in a 1967 paper by Manabe and Wetherald.

Manabe, S., & Wetherald, R.T. (1967). Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity. Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 24

Figure 16 looks like this:

ManabeWetherald_fig16

Note that increasing CO2 increases surface temperatures, but leads to cooling in the stratosphere. Why? Many factors, but one of them is that by adding CO2, the overall emissivity of the atmosphere increased - so the atmosphere can emit the same IR radiation to space at a lower temperature. Kirchoff's Law at work - both absorptivity and emissivity change in unison.

But CallItAsItIs has not yet caught up with science from 1967, so he believes that only the emission of "thermal radiation" is being picked up by satellite sensors, and there is no emission from CO2.

Fact brief - Does manmade CO2 have any detectable fingerprint?

Eclectic at 02:33 AM on 26 November, 2024

Rkcannon @1 :-

you mention a 2022 paper published in "Health Physics" by authors Skrable, Chabot, et al.

I gather that the journal "Health Physics" is primarily concerned with the topic of radioactivity effects on human health.

Presumably the Skrable paper had been rejected by reputable journals that normally published general scientific matters (including the physics of climate science).

Judging by Skrable's Abstract, the authors have made a colossal fundamental error in their understanding of the carbon cycle (involving the movement of CO2 into and out of Earth's atmosphere). And hence their conclusion is grossly erroneous.

The puzzle is : how did the journal Editor fail to see this error.

Models are unreliable

Bob Loblaw at 06:48 AM on 13 November, 2024

A further follow-up to Syme_Minitrue's post @ 1332, where (s)he finishes with the statement:

A climate model probably contains hundreds of model parameters. Can you adjust them so that you get a good fit with historical data, and good predictive capability at a significantly lower, or even completely excluded CO2-dependency?

Let's say we wanted to run a climate model over the historical period (the last century) in a manner that "excluded CO2-dependency". How on earth (pun intended) would we do that, with a physically-based climate model?

We could decide to remove the part of the model that says CO2 absorbs (and emits) IR radiation.

Unfortunately, that would make our model run far too cold for the entire period, since the 19th century CO2 level of 280-300ppm is a significant source of heating that helps keep us in a stable climate of roughly 15C (as opposed to -18C that we'd expect with no atmosphere)

This would defy the physics of IR absorption by CO2 that is easily demonstrated in a laboratory.

We could arbitrarily decide that CO2 remain at 300ppm.

This would be a useful experiment, and is probably what was done for the graph I included in comment 1334...

...but this defies the actual physical measurements of rising CO2, so it can hardly be argued that this model experiment can explain actual temperature observations.

We could run the model so that the first 300ppm of CO2 absorbs IR radiation, but the CO2 content above 300ppm does not.

This makes no physical sense, since all CO2 molecules act the same. We can't use "special pleading" for some.

And once we remove the effects of rising CO2, how would we change other model calculations to compensate for the lack of CO2 warming? i.e., what would "fit" the model to the observed increase in temperatures?

We could arbitrarily increase solar input...

...but this defies our physical measurements of solar irradiance.

We could arbitrarily change cloud cover

but we have no physical measurements that would support this.

We could arbitrarily change surface albedo, vegetation, etc...

but we run into the same problem: we have physical measurements of the properties of these factors, and it's hard to justify using values that are different from the known measured values.

In comment 1334, I linked to a review I did of a paper that claimed to be able to fit recent temperature trends with a model that showed a small CO2 effect. I said it was badly flawed.

The paper in question did pretty much what Syme_Minitrue expressed concern about: doing a statistical fit to a large number of parameters, many of which defied any plausible physical meaning.

As long as your parameters can perform all sorts of non-physical gymnastics in an effort to fit the data, you can easily come up with some rather odd results.

When your model parameters are limited to physically-measurable values, "fitting" gets a lot harder.

Physically-based models in climate science generally get "fit" by trying to get the physics right.

Models are unreliable

MA Rodger at 21:24 PM on 12 November, 2024

Syme_Minitrue @1332,

You suggest CO2 can be extracted from climate models and it would be "then hard to use that model to claim that CO2 is what drives global warming." You then add "I have done a little bit of searching but not found any such falsification attempt."

I would suggest it is your searches that are failing as there are plenty "such falsification attempt(s)." They do not have the resources behind them to run detailed models like the IPCC does today. But back in the day the IPCC didn't have such detailed models yet still found CO2 driving climate change.

These 'attempts' do find support in some quarters and if they had the slightest amount of merit they would drive additional research. But they have all, so far, proved delusional, usually the work of a know bunch of climate deniers with nothing better to do.

Such clownish work, or perhaps clownish presentation of work, has been getting grander but less frequent through the years. An exemplar is perhaps Soon et al (2023) 'The Detection and Attribution of Northern Hemisphere Land Surface Warming (1850–2018) in Terms of Human and Natural Factors: Challenges of Inadequate Data'. Within the long list of authors I note Harde, Humlum, Legates, Moore and Scafetta who are all well known for these sorts of papers usually published in journals of little repute. If such work was onto something, it would be followed up by further work. That is how science is supposed to work.

Instead all we see is the same old stuff recycled again and again by the same old autors and being shown to be wrong again and again.

Models are unreliable

Bob Loblaw at 06:26 AM on 12 November, 2024

Syme_Minitrue @ 1332:

Your comment contains several misunderstandings of how models are developed and tested, and how science is evaluated.

To begin, you start with the phrase "If a hypothesis should be considered proven..." Hypotheses are not proven: they are supported by empirical evidence (or not). And there is lots and lots of empirical evidence that climate models get a lot of things right. They are not "claimed to be true" (another phrase you use), but the role of CO2 in recent warming is strongly supported.

In your second and third paragraphs, you present a number of "alternative explanations" that you think need to be considered. Rest assured that none of what you present is unknown to climate science, and these possible explanations have been considered. Some of them do have effects, but none provide an explanation for recent warming.

In your discussion of "parameters", you largely confuse the characteristics of purely-statistical models with the characteristics of models that are largely based on physics. For example, if you were to consider Newton's law of gravity, and wanted to use it to model the gravitational pull between two planets, you might think there are four "parameters" involved: the mass of planet A, the mass of planet B, the distance between them, and the gravitational constant. None of the four are "tunable parameters", though. Each of the four is a physical property that can be determined independently. You can't change the mass of planet A that you used in calculating the gravitational pull with planet B, and say that planet A has a different mass when calculating the attraction with planet C.

Likewise, many of the values used in climate model equations have independently-determined values (with error bars). Solar irradiance does not change on Tuesday because it fits better - it only changes when our measurements of solar irradiance show it is changing, or (for historical data prior to direct measurement) some other factor has changed that we know is a reliable proxy indicator for past solar irradiance. We can't make forests appear and disappear on an annual basis to "fit" the model. We can't say vegetation transpires this week and not next to "fit" the model (although we can say transpiration varies according to known factors that affect it, such as temperature, leaf area, soil moisture, etc.)

And climate models, like real climate, involve a lot of interconnected variables. "Tuning" in a non-physical way to fit one output variable (e..g. temperature) will also affect other output variables (e.g. precipitation). You can't just stick in whatever number you want - you need to stick with known values (which will have uncertainty) and work within the known measured ranges.

Climate models do have "parameterizations" that represent statistical fits for some processes - especially at the sub-grid scale. But again, these need to be physically reasonable. And they are often based on and compared to more physically-based models that include finer detail (and have evidence to support them). This is often done for computational efficiency - full climate models contain too much to be able to include "my back yard" level of detail.

You conclude with the question "Can you adjust them so that you get a good fit with historical data, and good predictive capability at a significantly lower, or even completely excluded CO2-dependency?" The answer to that is a resounding No. In the 2021 IPCC summary for policy makers, figure SPM1 includes a graph of models run with and without the anthropogenic factors. Here is that figure:

2021 IPCC SMP figure 1

Note that "skeptics" publish papers from time to time purporting to explain recent temperature trends using factors other than CO2. These papers usually suffer from major weaknesses. I reviewed one of them a couple of years ago. It was a badly flawed paper. In general, the climate science community agrees that recent warming trends cannot be explained without including the role of CO2.

Climate Risk

Bob Loblaw at 00:58 AM on 5 November, 2024

Paul @ 5, 7:

I wouldn't say that Curry has flipped - but I have to admit that I have not being paying a lot of attention to her and I have never had the impression that she has a coherent, logical, consistent position on much related to climate science. She would have to actually hold a position in order to be able to flip away from it. She has a history of broadcasting all sorts of whack-a-doodle stuff (calling it "interesting") - but in a way that she can deny she supported it (or opposed it) when the cards line up.

So, in that tweet, what the heck is she really claiming she has been saying for over a decade now? Only the contents of David Wallace-Wells' tweet, which says little? If you interpret his tweet as saying that there are other factors besides CO2 driving the current warming trend, and stopping CO2 emissions will have little effect, then maybe that fits her history of obfuscation and attacks on climate science as we know it. But is that what David Wallace-Wells really means?

We could try to find David Wallace-Wells' article at The Conversation. Not hard. It's here. Want more detail? The article at The Conversation links to the actual paper it is based on. It is here.

I have not read the paper in detail - it is moderately long and technical - but I can get the gist of it. It certainly does not support any argument that CO2 levels are less important than presented in the IPCC reports and positions. What the paper does seem to present is an argument (from model simulations) that the expected drop in CO2 levels after reaching net zero - due to fast parts of the carbon cycle continuing to remove CO2 - will be offset by other slow feedbacks in the climate system that will cause continued warming.

The paper uses the Australian Community Climate and Earth System Simulator Earth system model (ACCESS-ESM-1.5), which appears to include a number of slow-response feedbacks related to ice, ocean circulation, etc. (The paper provides references that explain that model in more detail, but the details are not apparent from a quick read of the current paper.)

So, the gist of this new paper seems to be that slow feedbacks often not included in many models will make things worse than expected, once net zero is reached. They also indicate that the longer we wait to reach net zero, the worse things will be.

This may fit into Curry's Uncertainty Monster scenario ("See, I told you there were things the models didn't get right!), but it is an uncertainty that will bite us in the posterior regions - not Curry's favoured "everything uncertain will fall to our benefit".

I would not be surprised if Curry hasn't actually read the paper (or maybe even the Conversation article), and just saw what she wanted to see in the tweet - without actually understanding it.

CO2 lags temperature

michael sweet at 04:31 AM on 26 October, 2024

Eclectic at 673,

We agree on most issues regarding Climate Science. At 673 you said "There's more than half a century of scientific investigation showing that CO2 causes warming."

In the 1850's scientists first measured the emission lines of carbon dioxde and noted that if carbon dioxide increased in the atmosphere it would heat the Earth (170 years ago). In about 1898 Arhennius calculated the temperature increase from a doubling of carbon dioxide and got a result not too far off the current estimates (125 years ago). In 1965 the National Academy of Science told President Johnson that climate change would be a big problem in the future (60 years ago).

The science of climate change has been understood by scientists for much longer than half a century. I find that many novices think that climate science was only recently developed when in fact it is well established, long understood that carbon dioxide will heat the Earth.

I think we should say "There's more than 170 years of scientific investigation showing that CO2 causes warming". Jbomb need only look at the absorbtion lines of carbon dioxide to see convincing experimental evidence that the Earth will warm with more carbon dioxide in the air.

CO2 lags temperature

Bob Loblaw at 10:28 AM on 7 August, 2024

Charlie Brown @ 669:

One needs to be careful about referencing Henry's Law when it comes to CO2. CO2 does not just dissolve in water - it ends up dissociating and forming carbonic acid. This complicates the solubility equations.

SkS has a very good series on ocean acidification - in 20 parts. The 9th part discusses Henry's Law. The entire series is summarized in the 19th and 20th posts in the series.

CO2 lags temperature

MA Rodger at 20:05 PM on 6 August, 2024

Blusox69 @664,
The paper you link-to is Koutsoyiannis (2024) 'Stochastic assessment of temperature–CO2 causal relationship in climate from the Phanerozoic through modern times' which is hot off the press. The author should immediately ring alarm bells being a known perveyor of crazy denialism.

This SkS thread deals with the Temp → CO2 → Temp relationship prior to recent times when mankind began to increase atmospheric CO2 levels by burning fossil fuels and clearing forests.
The author of Koutsoyiannis (2024) also co-authored Koutsoyiannis & Kundzewicz (2020) 'Atmospheric Temperature and CO2: Hen-Or-Egg Causality?' which addresses a different relationship and does so with eye-bulging stupidity.
[To explain this stupidity, the measured CO2 record of recent decades has wobbles caused by El Niño impacting rainfall patterns and thus reducing vegitation growth in tropical regions. This effect is enough to slow the draw-down of CO2 and accelerate the atmospheric CO2 increase from human emissions, delaying the absorption of perhaps 15Gt(CO2) over a matter of months. Such a wobble is quite visible on the measured CO2 record. The whole process has been measurd from satellites.
An El Niño also causes a wobble in global average temperature and this temperture wobble arrives earlier than the CO2 wobble This is the situation Koutsoyiannis & Kundzewicz are measuring, a Temp wobble preceeding a CO2 wobble.
What Koutsoyiannis & Kundzewicz entirely fail to explain is the long-term rise in CO2 due to human emissions. This becomes eye-bulgingly stupid when they address the source of this long-term CO2 rise if it is due to rising temperature. They "seek in the natural process of soil respiration" and also "ocean respiration" but fail to actually look and find it. This should be no surprise. While warming biosphere and oceans would release CO2, the CO2 content of the biosphere & oceans is today increasing not falling, not exactly what you'd expect in a CO2 source.]

I cannot say I have read Koutsoyiannis (2024) properly. After a lot of blather, it tells us it there are questions to be asked about the role of CO2 within the climate system. Is it a GHG? Is it "decisive" in this role? Is the GH-effect enhanced in the last century? Are human emissions increasing the GH-effect? Are human emissions "decisive" in this regard? Is mankind the cause of rising CO2 levels? Is CO2 increasing global temperature, or visa versa, or both?
Koutsoyiannis (2024) then lists a bunch of references to support the assertion that "conventional wisdom" is wrong although the science behind the "conventional wisdom" is rather unwisely (and unscientifically) ignored. Note that all nine of Koutsoyiannis's bunch of references is authored by Koutsoyiannis. He has, according to himself, managed to overturned the scientific understanding of our planet's greenhouse effect.

And this new paper, Koutsoyiannis (2024), proceeds to use 12,000 words examining the temporal relationship between CO2 and global temperature for periods back 541million years. I have not read those 12,000 words but they certainly comprise more eye-waterlingly stupid blather.

CO2 lags temperature

Eclectic at 19:37 PM on 6 August, 2024

Blusox69 @664 :

Are you referring to the new 10/July/2024 article by Dr Demetris Koutsoyiannis ? (your link is not activated)

If so, then you will find that some previous articles by Dr K. have already been discussed on the SkS website here.

IIRC, those articles showed gross errors in his understanding of climate physics. If you can show that Koutsoyiannis has made a large step forward in his understanding of climate mechanisms ~ then I (among others) would be happy to spend time analysing his new July paper. But you would need to make a good case that it wasn't just Dr K. seeking to recycle/republish his old erroneous ideas.

Over to you, Blusox69.

btw, the title of his new paper is: "Stochastic assessment of temperature-CO2 causal relationship in climate from the Phanerozoic through modern times". ~A rather discouraging title, which suggests that he is relying on a statistical analysis [which might well be misleading] rather than looking into the actual physical mechanisms which produce climate effects. Real science requires real demonstrated mechanisms of physical action.

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

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 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

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 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.

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

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

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.

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?

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/

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.

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!

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!

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!

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!

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!

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?

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 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!

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!

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.

2024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #09

ChangeTheName at 11:20 AM on 4 March, 2024

As this is your first post, Skeptical Science respectfully reminds you to please follow our comments policy. Thank You!

The term "climate change" is an Orwellian BENIGN and VAGUE term for a civilization threatening DISEASE.

A medical approach to naming this disease would result in a term such as "Atmospheric Carbon Poisoning".

Atmospheric is the LOCATION of the POISON

Carbon Gases (CO2 and CH4) are the NAME of the primary POISONS.

Poisoning is an unequivocal declaration of dangerous toxicity.

A skeptical scientist should think about telling the public the TRUTH and not shy away from naming the disease like a good scientist would. Climate change is clearly vague and inadequate. The generally public is woefully ignorant about this DISEASE.

https://www.change.org/p/change-name-of-climate-change-to-atmospheric-carbon-poisoning?recruiter=261487266&recruited_by_id=d2d62b10-d0fa-11e4-b3f4-bd4f0f527c9b&utm_source=share_petition&utm_campaign=share_petition&utm_term=petition_dashboard_share_modal&utm_medium=copylink&utm_content=cl_sharecopy_37915781_en-US%3A3

CO2 is just a trace gas

One Planet Only Forever at 04:52 AM on 2 March, 2024

JJones1960 @48,

I hope the following helps you understand that John and Bob have correctly pointed out that you have made a very weak counter-presentation regarding the significance of small amounts. The points presented in the Argument effectively counter the simplistic and understandably incorrect belief that the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is too small to make a difference.

A major weakness of your counter-presentation is that you appear to lack even a small amount of knowledge regarding the matter, here’s why:

You stated • You don’t use trace amounts of ozone to trap a significant amount of heat

That belief is contradicted by improved evidence-based understanding (contradicted by learning what is already known). One of the many presentations about the global surface temperature impacts of ozone is the NASA Aura item: The greenhouse effect of tropospheric ozone. It opens with the following:

Tropospheric ozone (O3) is the third most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). Ozone absorbs infrared radiation (heat) from the Earth's surface, reducing the amount of radiation that escapes to space.

A lot can be learned from the items presented on SkS and other reliable information sources.

Learning from reliable sources can make a world of difference.

At a glance - Plants cannot live on CO2 alone

PSBaker at 20:27 PM on 12 January, 2024

I think this explainer needs a bit of work.
In the first place it’s not necessarily true that plants in containers struggle without expensive liquid feeds. Provided the mix of soil and organic matter is adequate, in a reasonable sized pot, most vegetables can be grown quite easily, with some additional fertilizer as required. This can be a simple NPK fertilizer dissolved in water and will cost a few pennies per application.
https://www.rhs.org.uk/vegetables/containers
https://www.rhs.org.uk/herbs/growing-bags
On the other hand, growing in some soils can be problematic, in some/many locations they may be sandy/compacted/acidic etc. and will need considerable work to improve.

And while it’s true that atmospheric CO2 increases have led to ‘global greening’ which has helped ameliorate warming (https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/146296/global-green-up-slows-warming) trying to figure out how things will continue in the future turns out to be very complicated (https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108/ ; https://ripe.illinois.edu/press/press-releases/photosynthesis-unaffected-increasing-carbon-dioxide-channels-plant-membranes ; https://botany.one/2021/08/rising-carbon-dioxide-concentrations-are-making-the-worlds-most-destructive-toxic-weed-more-toxic/ )

Elevated CO2 has a strong impact on the other aspects of C3 plants' physiology, especially nutrient metabolism which can be attributed to:
• increase in the biomass of plant leaves results in a lower mineral concentration via a dilution effect,
• reduced transpiration cause reduced mass flow in the soil, and hindered nutrient translocation via the xylem sap,
• reduced photorespiration & production of NADH, leading to a decreased NO3 assimilation,
• disturbance in the regulations of root N uptake and signaling.
https://www.cell.com/trends/plant-science/fulltext/S1360-1385(22)00247-3

At a glance - Is the CO2 effect saturated?

Just Dean at 09:44 AM on 11 January, 2024

I think this is where data from paleoclimatology can help as well. Three recent studies have looked at the earth's temperature vs CO2 during the Cenozoic period, Rae et al., Honisch et al., and Tierney et al. . Each of those show that the temperature of ancient earth continues to rise as CO2 increases. As I understand it the first two are based solely on proxy data while the Tierney effort includes modeling to try and correlate the data geographically and temporally.

All of these are concerned with earth system sensitivities that include both short term climate responses plus slower feedback processes that can take millenia, e.g. growth and melting of continental ice sheets. Both Rae and Honisch include reference lines for 8 C / doubling of CO2. In both cases, almost all the data lie below those reference lines suggesting that 8 C / doubling is an upper bound or estimate of earth's equilibrium between temperature and CO2. Also notice that there quite is a bit of spread in the data.

In contrast, when Tierney et al. include modeling they get a much better correlation of T and CO2. They find that their data is best correlated with 8.2 C / doubling, r = 0.97. Again, this represents an equilibrium that can take millenia to achieve but does to my way of thinking represent "nature's equilibrium" between T and CO2.

In these comparisons, the researchers define changes in temperature relative to preindustrial conditions, CO2 = 280 ppm. For Tierney's correlation then on geological timescale, the temperature would increase by 8.2 C at 560 ppm. At our present value of 420 ppm there would be 3.7 C of apparent warming potential above our 1.1 C increase already achieved as of 2022, i.e., global warming in the pipeline if you will.

Bottom line, based on paleoclimatological data, there is no apparent saturation level of CO2.

At a glance - Is the CO2 effect saturated?

nigelj at 06:49 AM on 11 January, 2024

The sceptics claim that the CO2 warming effect is already saturated or is close to being saturated is clearly false. It seems to originate with the assertion that the surface receives about 3.7 W/m2 more energy each time CO2 is doubled ie: a logarthmic curve. This means eventually it would take a huge volume of additional CO2 (presumably over a long time period) to add an extra 3.7W / m2. Which they suggest means the effect is essentially then saturated, but without specifying a precise number (how convenient of them).

I see that the article mentions that this assertion about a logarithmic relationship may have been proven false by He et al. 2023, (?) and it also depends on emissions trajectories and other factors, but assuming the logarithmic relationship is simplistically true a look at radiative forcing versus CO2 concentration below and a bit of maths and its obvious the warming effect is not saturated and we are not yet near saturation:

skepticalscience.com/why-global-warming-can-accelerate.html

My back of envelope maths: In 1960s CO2 was 320 ppm ppm so doubling would be 640 ppm at around roughly year 2100 assuming BAU emissions. This coincides with the IPCC warming projection of 3 - 5 degrees C by 2100.

The next doubling is from from 640 to 1280 is a larger volume of CO2 and would presumably take longer to around year 2300 assuming the same BAU CO2 growth trend and other things being equal. Projections of warming by the IPCC by 2300 are not surprisingly around 8 - 10 degress C for this further doubling of CO2. Such a quantity of CO2 is large but may possibly be feasible given reserves of fossil fuels and uncertainties arount that.

The next doubling from 1280 to 2560 would lead to something like 15 degrees C and is a huge volume of CO2 that would take many centuries and would almost certainly exhaust reserves of fossil fuels, and most probably well before 15 degrees is reached. We could say this is the point of saturation in a practical sense. Its of no comfort because we would have had at least 5 degrees of warming and probably more, and not even factoring in tipping points.

Someone check my maths its very rough, but the sceptics claims are clearly false and meaningless.

Cranky Uncle with Dr. John Cook

Ben Laycock at 07:17 AM on 7 January, 2024

I have collated some important climate data that might come in handy when trying to counteract disinformation.
It is not rocket science, but it is science.
As Cranky Uncle might say, it is just plain common sense.
Every single government in the whole world, bar none, is desperately trying to increase economic growth, blissfully unaware that economic growth is the primary driving force of the climate catastrophe. We point the finger at the evil fossil fuel merchants and their enablers in government, but they are just struggling to keep up with our insatiable demand for more stuff!
Since 1990 global clean energy generation has increased 1000 fold, but our emissions have been going up at the same time, by 60% since 1990. We have burnt more fossil fuels since we learnt about climate change than all the rest of history put together! Our emissions have been rising by about 10% every year since 1950, though the rate has slowed a bit lately, which is encouraging.
The reason they keep going up is because the global economy keeps growing. The economy grows by about 4% per anum. So clean energy must replace emissions at the same rate, just to break even. Clean energy generates 17% of our global energy needs. So to replace 4% of
CO2, it must increase by 18% every single year. If we are to achieve Zero Net Emissions by 2050 we must reduce our CO2 by another 4% p.a. every single year for nearly 30 years. That means increasing clean energy by another 18% p.a. So we must increase our clean energy by 36% every year. Last year we our clean energy went up 10%, a shortfall of 26%. So this year that 26% gets added onto this years target, bringing it up to 62%. Next year it will be 88%, and so on.
If you know anyone who thinks that is even remotely possible, please refer them to a psychiatrist!
There is only one solution to this predicament.

Ben Laycock

Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage

One Planet Only Forever at 05:00 AM on 29 December, 2023

michael sweet @17,

Agreed that the use of CO2 to scrub oil off of rock formations, a possible benefit of CO2 injection to increase the production of oil as presented in the article, would almost certainly mean that CO2 comes out with the oil. But, to be fair, CO2 injection can potentially lock-away CO2 while producing more oil from an oil deposit.

Here are potential stages of oil production:

Natural pressure of the trapped oil deposit forces oil to the surface when it is drilled into – the ‘gusher’.

Pressure drops as the oil flows out.

A pump-jack increases the rate of extraction by ‘lifting’ oil out of the well – like a water well pump.

As more oil is removed the rate of flow to a well point pump-jack declines.

Injecting gasses like captured CO2 can increase the pressure in the oil deposit and force more oil out of the well locations. Current operations inject CO2 captured from the exhaust of burned fossil fuels. This process potentially traps the injected CO2 in the rock formation that the oil was trapped in.

So oil can be produced by injecting and trapping CO2. But scrubbing oil off of the formation that the oil is in would mean CO2 comes out with the oil.

However, CO2 thought to be trapped in an oil deposit may not be truly trapped. Accurate pressure monitoring over a long time frame would be required to prove that the CO2 is staying where it was put. And until the completion of that pressure testing it is uncertain that the ‘claimed to be trapped’ CO2 is properly trapped. If a pressure test fails, the pressure drops, then the ‘carbon removal’ action plan is failing. And there would be little that could be done to keep the rest of the ‘believed to have been locked away’ CO2 from leaking out.

Who will pay for removing it and locking it away? Everybody essentially pays for the profit obtained, or pays for the government subsidy (worse when the government subsidizes the obtaining of profit - nobody should profit from publicly funded harm reduction like CO2 removal).

It would be nice if the ones who benefited most from the developed total current problem paid the most to limit the harm done ... but the current systems have a histry of making the least fortunate, who do not deserve to be penalized, suffer the most harm. Refer to the lead article in the Skeptical Science New Research for Week #50 2023 for a detailed presentation of concerns regarding free-market development of Carbon Capture.

Skeptical Science New Research for Week #49 2023

michael sweet at 01:16 AM on 10 December, 2023

This MSN article, Which is apparently a press release from the Columbia Climate school describes a paper in Science. The paper is a collaboration of many scientists summarizing knowledge of CO2 concentrations for the past 65 million years. The MSN article is easy to read. Since it is a press release it would be a good OP here at SkS. I have not yet read the paper.

Unfortunately, they conclude that Earth system sensitivity, the climate response when all slow feedbacks respond, is 5-8 C. The processes involved can take a long time to equilibrate (as much as thousands of years). Still, it is a very grim conclusion. I note that Dr. Hansen has long held an Earth System Sensitivity of 6 C. The IPCC consensus has been 3C. This is unlikely to affect anyone living but bodes very bad for 1000 years from now. The question of how long the slow processes take to equilibrate is left unanswered.

John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

AB19 at 21:32 PM on 29 November, 2023

I quote from the article introduction:

"It’s a familiar story – the physicist who draws attention for declaring that climate scientists have got climate science all wrong. He (it’s always a ‘he’) was born before color television was invented, usually retired, perhaps having won a Nobel Prize, but with zero climate science research or expertise. William Happer."

I don't know if the writer of the article is a scientist or not but it starts with some rather unscientific viewpoints, namely by suggesting that male, retired physicists are not qualified to comment on climate matters. What does it matter what sex they are or how old they are? In relation to physicists, I don't know about the others in the list given, but William Happer would, I would have thought, certainly qualify to comment on the global warming debate given that if you have watched any of his presentations on this topic, you'll know that his field of research was the absorption of infra-red radiation by CO2 molecular stretches and bends - very apt in the climate debate I would have thought, given that it is precisely CO2 that is being posited as the culprit in current global warming trends. He also openly admits that he was once a climate alarmist until his work led him to believe he was wrong.
I am not a climate scientist- my background is chemistry- but there are certain apparent facts that appear to be ignored in the current debate, namely that we know the earth warmed before about 1000 years ago in the medieval warming period and again about 2000 years ago in the Roman period. These warmings cannot have been due to human activity given that there were no combustion engines or factories around and world population was vastly lower than today. I believe it's also true that in the last ice age the level of atmospheric CO2 was at least 10 times current levels - which according to IPCC thinking ought to have produced a blisteringly hot climate - yet there was an ice age. Whilst not denying that CO2 is x greenhouse gas, these facts do tend to cast doubt on just how potent a greenhouse gas CO2 really is. I believe Dr Roy Spencer, who is a meteorologist not a physicist and also not retired ( though he is male) has similar views to the listed physicists.

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

Eclectic at 06:04 AM on 13 November, 2023

Michael @44 , I must modestly disagree with you.

Yes, there is a real concern about the adverse effect of high local ambient CO2 levels in classrooms, submarines, and other enclosed spaces. A perfectly valid concern, for health and intellectual performance (and most especially the performance of crew in a nuclear-armed submarine ! ).

But please read again through the O.P. ~ and note the panicky crescendo in the final few paragraphs. [quote] "... we may end up intellectually a lot closer to plants."

Sure, that was an expression of dramatic hyperbole ~ but hyperbole more fitted to a rally of Extinction Rebellion adherents, than to the sober annals of SkepticalScience. Even in the comments thread, some seem to have taken that apocalyptic message seriously. And I am thinking the propagandists at WUWT would take it even further, as an example of them thar crazy Alarmists.

But I am not so much interested in the final paragraph, as in the build-up evident in those lattermost paragraphs. Even in the sly reference to D.Zappulla,2013 ~ a reference which actually discusses effects at CO2 ambients in the range 5,000 - 30,000 ppm. Golly !

The O.P. starts with matters of technical interest . . . but then gradually slides into unwarranted alarmism. And it entirely fails to mention the human body's well-evolved compensation system [the kidneys].

I do not wish to see the O.P. deleted ~ but suggest a prominent CAUTION for the casual reader.

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

Eclectic at 16:34 PM on 4 November, 2023

Thanks, Res01 @41 (and forgive my perhaps over-courteous usage of a capital letter for your moniker ~ that is simply my customary literary style).

Time is precious in this modern age . . . and so, no , have not read the OP's Robertson paper [the link showed as Page Not Found] nor the Stumm paper [unlinked]. Yes, it is quick to read a paper's Extract; and where that is insufficiently informative, still it is usually possible to skim through the body/conclusion of a paper to identify the salient points. But it's even better if one can "Cut To The Chase".

All the same, there is so much information "out there" on the internet ~ that the SkS website staff have created a Comments Policy which requests all commenters to respect readers' time . . . by giving a sufficiently detailed relevant description/summary of (linked) citations. Whether the citation/link is an actual scientific paper or simply a journalistic article.

# That request applies in Spades, to video links (even if the video is only 5 minutes long). As you know, videos can be a great time-waster. That's why a summary of the video's message and significance can be a great help to the flow of the discussion happening in the thread here.

Res01 ~ I particularly ask for your deeper discussion of the essential science of this topic of "CO2 impact" on human (and animal) bodies. That is because I fear that a major mistake is being raised (and I would be pleased to be corrected if I am wrong about that).

Evolution has designed the body to operate at a specific set point (or very narrow range) of acidity/pH. You can temporarily disturb that pH by hyperventilating (to raise the pH) or by re-breathing into the classic paper bag (to lower the pH). But in the long run, it is the kidney (as mentioned earlier) which maintains the body's day-by-day acidity level. Renal function is vital !

And it is (as yet) unclear to me if Robertson / Stumm / and other sources, have made allowance for those basic facts of physiology. Are they making a giant blunder ~ or am I making a blundering assessment of their warnings? Please discuss.

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

res01 at 11:38 AM on 3 November, 2023

Not to detract from the general argument, but as noted by other posts, Figure 1from D. Robertson is a little off. What D. Robertson overlooks in his calculations is that arterial CO2 partial pressure in the human bloodstream, as it is in most mammals, is a significantly higher than what it is in ambient atmosphere. That means a percentage rise in CO2 in the atmosphere makes for a much smaller percentage rise of CO2 concentration in the bloodstream. In short at low CO2 levels the effect is a whole lot less. Not until CO2 levels reach about 1000ppm in the does the change become notable in the bloodstream. That means the effects of CO2 will not be notable in the human body until around 1000ppm (ok, maybe around 600ppm for a few canaries among us.) Nevertheless, direct impact of CO2 on the human body should still be a big concern because 1000ppm CO2 in the atmosphere will be what we see by the end of this century if the world keeps on the course that it is presently on. Now consider fish whose arterial CO2 pressures are generally an order of magnitude less than that of mammals. They will see the effects much earlier, and most likely by the end of the century will die off significantly. Also, while plants do thrive on a little extra CO2, with atmospheric CO2 concentrations over 1000ppm they tend to die off. So, what we may see is that fish and plants will die back first leaving humans without sufficient means for sustainment. For a more concise treatment of the subject please refer to, “ Carbon Dioxide’s Direct Impact on Down-Regulating the Human Species”, by R.E. Stumm, published in Science of the Total Environment, 19 September 2023.* *https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37734619/

Also check out the video short “The Die Back” on Rumble** **https://rumble.com/v23ofba-the-die-back-2.1.html

Climate scientists are in it for the money

WasAScientist at 18:41 PM on 2 November, 2023

In the opening statement of this Climate Myth, it is claimed that climate scientists could make far more money in other careers, and I believe it is time they did just that. According to Climate Myth 69 which states

That human CO2 is causing global warming is known with high certainty & confirmed by observations.

it seems that the climate scientists have completed their work and there is no longer any need for their research positions. At this point, people are either convinced of AGW or they are not. If they are not convinced, as is the case with most common folks, it's highly unlikely that more science is going to change them.

In my case, I was a US defense scientist with a Ph.D. in physics when the "End of the Cold War" (or "Outbreak of Peace") terminated my career after just eight years. I was simply told that there was no longer a need for the service I was providing since the former East Block countries promised to behave themselves from now on.

Well, I sure hope the climate scientists have much better luck than I did in finding a new career if their current one vanishes. Whenever I tried to break into anything new, I was always beat out by those with more experience.

At any rate, there is little more the climate scientists can do to get people converted over to carbon-free energy. Instead, what would be needed is a global Gestapo to enforce the no-carbon provisions on folks regardless of the harm they cause, and I know of no nation that would go for that.

John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

Rob Honeycutt at 00:26 AM on 28 October, 2023

TWFA: "... if the atmosphere and planet is heating up, so should the temperatures at 20,000' or 40,000', or even deep ocean temperatures, there should be plenty of data available at least for the former, weather balloons and PIREPs, it should track the models just as well and if not we would need to know why."

Each of these comments from you is a fascinating demonstration of how little you've actually looked at the science of climate change. There is published research on all these topics and there is a very broad, deep agreement across research fields that human emissions of CO2 are the primary cause of warming of the past 50 years.

And the PIREP bit is espectially bizarre. Being a pilot myself I know what you're talking about, but you should also know that PIREP's tend to be few and far between. They're helpful but not reliable. In addition, those PROG charts you pull in to ForeFlight or download via ADS-B in, those are produced through the same models used for climate models. They're merely initial conditions modeling (weather) as opposed to boundary conditions modeling (climate).

All this and still you have yet to say one word about Clauser's claims.

From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

MA Rodger at 22:07 PM on 18 October, 2023

I'm reluctant to engage with a commenter that peppers a comment thread at a rate of one every couple of hours for almost two full days without establishing some form of understanding as to their purpose. But here goes...

Rabelt @46,

The OP does not claim to show that "emission from FF are responsible" for changing levels of atmospheric CO2. It is providing an explanation of "how measurements of changing isotopic ratios are described" and this in regard to the atmospheric ¹³C:¹²C ratio.

This ratio is shown in the OP fig3 waggling over a whole millennium in a very similar way to the level of atmospheric CO2. CO2 levels go up/down and the ¹³C:¹²C ratio goes down/up. Such a remarkable correlation tells us (although this is beyond the message of the OP) that the source (and sink) responsible for the changing CO2 levels has a ¹³C:¹²C ratio far lower than the atmosphere. Thus that the oceans cannot be the source/sink of that extra carbon waggling the atmospheric CO2 levels.

The source of this rogue CO2 messing up the atmosphere is thus plants, either by their direct destruction or indirectly via fossil fuels which retain the low ¹³C:¹²C ratio.

(The middle section of your comment @46 mentions "this change" but does not make entirely plain whether you refer to the "changes in discourse" or the "changes in Delta C13". So, if it is in any way relevant, it is not clear which you don't accept.)

Your comment make two final assertions which I find a little odd. You suggest annual and cumulative CO2 emissions 1750-1900 do not explain the changing atmospheric CO2 levels, the latter being "too small". Further you suggest a mismatch in the AtmosCO2:Delta C13 ratio "the 1950s-2010s periods."

The Global Carbon Project is always a good go-to source for annual carbon emissions. Although their historic LUC data only runs back to 1850, it is plain from their various source-sink numbers that the Atmospheric Fraction does not show emissions that are "too small" prior to 1850. You may have sight of other numbers which show it different and if so you do need to explain such 'other numbers' properly. (I note @34 you put the CO2 emissions for 1850 = 0.2Gt_(CO2). This is presumably ignoring the LUC emissions which would increase the full 1850 emissions to 2.6Gt_(CO2) using the Global Carbon Project numbers.)

It is also not clear what you are considering with this 1950s-2010s mismatch which you perceive between accelerating CO2 levels and steadily decreasing Delta C13 levels. If it is the OP's Fig 3 (& I don't see a problem there), perhaps a sight of the original may help as it shows the data points without the assumed solid δ¹³C trace.

Delta13C graph - no assumed trace

From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

Rob Honeycutt at 11:46 AM on 18 October, 2023

Rabelt... Assuming your "main narrative" is "[d]elta C13 starts decreasing around 1750 and continues to decrease ever since, the main narrative blames it on FF"... Your narrative is a basic misinterpretation of the science.

The C13 narrative (if you want to call it that) is merely the physics behind carbon isotopes for natural sources vs through burning hydrocarbons. That it. If you're saying this area of physics is wrong, you need to explain why.

The accepted understanding of this physics merely creates a prediction that can be tested. If the increasing concentrations of CO2 are primarily due to the buring of FF's, then we should see a corresponding relationship with C13. And that's all this is. It's just one piece of evidence that contributes to the scientific understanding that our uses of FF's is the source of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

Bob Loblaw at 04:33 AM on 18 October, 2023

Rabelt @ 28: "quote which part I said anything dismissive about the carbon cycle."

The fact that you say virtually nothing coherent at all about it - when it is essential to understanding the graph/data you criticize - is all the evidence that is needed.

@ 29: "I love how the guy putting words in my mouth is acussing me of strawmaning his arguments,"

I am not accusing you of strawmanning my arguments - you have strawmanned "the main narrative" (in the context of what climate science - e.g., the IPCC - has said). If you want to provide a counter-argument, you need to give a thorough explanation of "the main narrative" (including the carbon cycle). Until you provide actual evidence that you have at least a basic level of understanding the carbon cycle (not just an assertion), then you're just blowing smoke.

Also @ 29: "Quote my comments and explain why they follow your supposed "logical consequences"

I did quote you, in my comment 19.

You finish with "I said Delta changes previous to human emissions following co2 concentration not FF emissions as there were none, and the ones that existed were accountable for insignificant amounts of co2." The way you have worded this suggests that you think that either CO2 concentration changes cause C13 changes ("delta changes ... following CO2 concentration"), or that C13 changes cause CO2 concentration changes ("delta ... accountable for ... CO2").

You have not responded directly to that, to provide any sort of clarification or indicate what you really meant. Yet you come back with "Again, never said co2 concentrations cause changes in Delta C13..." From this view, it looks as if you are just dodging the question.

And now you are stating "Differences in the carbon cycle are expected, yet only are accepted if they dont contradict the main narrative,"

Congratulations. You have now scored a third point on FLICC - the 5 techniques of science denial. - Conspiracy theories.

Since you clearly are unable to actual specify what "the main narrative" is, your speculation about what contradicts it is not worth the electrons used to transmit it.

And finally, @ 30 "I am talking about emissions not co2 concentrations"

Yet the graph that you began this whole flood of nonsense over is a graph that shows two things as a function of time: CO2 concentrations, and C13 isotope ratios. There is no coherence or consistency to what you say. Buy a clue please: CO2 concentrations, CO2 emissions, CO2 uptake - all are part of the carbon cycle that you keep dismissing. Oh,, sorry - not "dismissing" but just "ignoring".

From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

Rabelt at 23:57 PM on 17 October, 2023

Bob Loblaw,

I love how the guy putting words in my mouth is acussing me of strawmaning his arguments, 10/10.

Quote my comments and explain why they follow your supposed "logical consequences", just saying it again, as you dont show the ability to read the comments I am posting.

"You see a correlation over the period 1750-1860, and then expect to see the exact same response at later times" During this entire period is a stable trend downwards, yet emissions during this period are incapable of generating such a trend. This is only one of the multiple periods I talked.

Again, never said co2 concentrations cause changes in Delta C13, I even said that there had to be other natural mechanism capable of producing this effect. What a great ability to read.

Differences in the carbon cycle are expected, yet only are accepted if they dont contradict the main narrative, unless you wanna say that the decrease during the beginning of the industrial revolution was natural, which I completely agree.

Again another fantasy about what I belive or think, saying I am trying to invalidate climate science, I only talked about 1 specific thing but the entire field will crumble to the ground for just this specific inconsistency, what a joke of an argument.

Sorry to say that your ability to read degrades quite quickly, I never said you didnt have knowledge on the carbon cycle, I said you didnt have any authority to say what the main narrative states, and I was right, as you are just another of the thousands of people that provide research and not a spokesman or director of the main organizations.

From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

Bob Loblaw at 23:20 PM on 17 October, 2023

Rabelt:

Again, you are saying "I never said..", and avoiding the logical consequences of what you are saying.

The conversation has all the hallmarks of the following sequence:

A person says:

A = 3

B = 8

C = A+B

Someone else says "So, you are claiming that C = 11?

And the first person says "I never said that C = 11. Stop putting words in my mouth."

You keep referring to "the main narrative". Unfortunately, what you have written here tells me that your idea of "the main narrative" is pretty much a strawman. I don't think you have any clue how the carbon cycle works, how different carbon isotopes fit into that cycle and why they would change over time.

Your comment at 23 illustrates this very well. You see a correlation over the period 1750-1860, and then expect to see the exact same response at later times. You seem incapable of realizing the following:

There is no direct cause-effect between C13 ratios and atmospheric CO2 levels. They are part of the same large carbon cycle, but one does not cause the other, regardless of any fantasies you have about "the main narrative". As long as you ignore all the indirect connections (known as "the carbon cycle"), you will continue get everything wrong.

The different time periods have different conditions, different fluxes, and different relative important of atmospheric inputs and sinks of carbon as a result, they would be expected to show slight differences in the patterns.

Your overly-simplsitic "I see with my little eye..." analysis is telling us nothing about the global carbon cycle. Where you see inconsistencies you think can't be explained (because you won't look) and invalidate climate science, climate science sees the carbon cycle working as expected (because they have looked).

You are hitting two of the five main components of FLICC - the 5 technicques of science denial:

Logical fallacies [your misunderstanding of "the main narrative" is just one]

Impossible expectations [your overly-simplistic view of what you think should be happening, and your belief that this disproves something]

FYI, yes I have some authority with respect to carbon cycles, having been involved in analysis of forest carbon cycles and storage, and having my name on several publications related to that. You can read more about my background on the SkS Team page.

2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

Bob Loblaw at 22:51 PM on 30 September, 2023

Yes, the "explanations" that Likeitwarm prefers are indeed "the most screamingly laughable, unphysical explanations".

In comment 1606, Likeitwarm brings us back to the laughable paper by Peter Ward. Likeitwarm says:

Your radiated photons from all emitting gases carry wave length and amplitude dependent on temperature emitted from.

This repeats the laughable statements from Peter Ward, that attribute "amplitude" as a characteristic of radiation. Radiation does not have "amplitude". It has been over 100 years since physics addressed the issue of particle-wave duality in radiation. Radiation has attributes that can be described or explained by treating it as a particle, and radiation has attributes that can be described or explained by treating it as a wave - but in none of those scenarios does "amplitude" show up.

When Planck's Law calculates more energy at a specific wavelength or frequency from hotter objects, the increased energy comes from more photons, not higher amplitudes of waves. Every single photon that ever existed at a specific wavelength had exactly the same energy, regardless of when, where, or at what temperature the emission occurred. Any talk about "cold" and "hot" photons of the same wavelength is crank physics.

The "explanations" that Likeitwarm prefers are not simply "CO2 causes climate change science" denial, or even "climate science" denial - they are basic physics denial.

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