“No climate emergency,” scientists say…”increasing levels of CO2 won’t lead to significant changes in earth temperature”
Increases in CH4 and N2O will have very little discernable impact.
A new publication in the International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences concludes that CO2 climate sensitivity has been excessively exaggerated by IPCC scientists.
A British and two German scientists collaborated for decades on the measurement of atmospheric gas concentrations using infra-red absorption spectroscopy and so they are well acquainted with the absorptive properties of those gases and are familiar with the HITRAN gaseous spectra database.
In the publication, the authors first find it is surprising that there is a wide variation in the estimated warming potential of CO2, noting that estimates published by the IPCC for climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 concentration vary from 1.5 to 4.5°C.
Most warming comes from water vapour
In their study, the authors’ aim is to simplify the method reaching a figure for climate sensitivity not only for CO2, but also CH4 and N2O, and to do so by determining just how atmospheric absorption has resulted in the current 33K warming and then extrapolating that result to calculate the expected warming due to future increases of greenhouse gas concentrations.
Chart: David Coe
Just 0.50°C warming from CO2 doubling
The authors conclude that H2O is responsible for 29.4K of the 33K warming, with CO2 contributing 3.3K and CH4 and N2O combined just 0.3K. Climate sensitivity to future increases in CO2 concentration is calculated to be 0.50°K, including the positive feedback effects of H2O, while climate sensitivities to CH4 and N2O are almost undetectable at 0.06K and 0.08K respectively.
No “significant changes in earth temperature”
This result, the authors say, strongly suggests that increasing levels of CO2 will not lead to significant changes in earth temperature and that increases in CH4 and N2O will have very little discernable impact.
Chart: David Coe
Of the 33°C warming, 29.4°C is entirely due to the absorptive effects of water vapour.
420ppm of CO2 delivers just 3.3°C of that warming, while methane and nitrous oxide are responsible for a mere 0.3°C.
“No climate emergency”
Contrary to the blitz of propaganda, there is no climate emergency or even any significant increase in temperature due to increasing levels of CO2. The climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is 0.45°C which increases to 0.5°C when the 12% feedback of water vapour is taken into account. A four-fold increase in CO2 concentrations to 1600ppm will increase temperatures by 1°C and it would take around 800 hundred years to reach that point at the current rate of CO2 level increases.
This is more information, and maybe better estimates, but
the basics have been known for many years.
The Climate Cult and political and other leaders are not interested.
The arrow has already left the bow.
A whole degree? We’re doomed!
Out of our ignorance we are afraid, and so pay ruinous tithes to the Devil.
[…] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]
I would like to make an extended comment on why talk of CO2 warming is misguided. While not a physicist, I have followed discussions of the physics of atmospheric infrared radiation-activity for at seven or eight years, and what I have read argues overwhelmingly against CO2 warming the atmosphere. Studies stating a combination of reasons for this date back to the 20th Century and are known by those who follow them. Odd how they never break into general knowledge …
A. Causes must precede effects. On all time scales, CO2 has been observed to follow, not precede, temperature change and therefore cannot be a cause. Most of us know that in the fossil record changes in CO2 levels follow temperature change by 800 years, plus or minus 200. On a current time scale, a recent study found their concentrations trailing by 9 to 12 months. Humlum, O., Stordahl, K., and Solheim, J-E., Global and Planetary Change, v. 107, Aug. 2013, pp. 226–228. It is consistently true on all other time scales.
B. Carbon dioxide is a cooling, not warming gas. Its interaction with solar irradiance has been observed to peak mainly at the 15 micron wavelength. Wilhelm Wien’s Displacement Law places this at about 193K (about -80°C). (In particular see: Salby, Murry L., “Physics of the atmosphere and climate” (New York, Cambridge Univ., 2012), p. 213.) In early 2020, Dr. W.J. Witteman, emeritus professor of physics, University of Twente, Netherlands, found that, at 500 meters altitude and 0.945 bar pressure, using 400 ppm concentration, its absorption of radiant thermal re-emission from the earth occurred in four bands – between 17.07 to 1.995 microns (μm) – and almost entirely (99.83%) at about the 15μm wavelength band. As for for four higher interactive bands, Witteman concluded that total photon density is 6.929 x 10+7 photons per cm3, or one photon for every 158,750,000 CO2 molecules. (Witteman, W.J., “The absorption of thermal emitted radiation by CO2,” April 3, 2020, https://principia-scientific.org/the-absorption-of-thermal-emitted-infrared-radiation-by-co2/) Salby observed CO2’s radiant activity in the frigid upper atmosphere. Lightfoot and Mamer observed it cooling on the Antarctic plateau. Lightfoot, H.D., and Orval A. Mamer, “Calculation of atmospheric radiative forcing (warming effect) of carbon dioxide at any concentration,” Sage Journals, research article, Dec. 1, 2014, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305x.25.8.1439 https://doi.org/10.1260/0958-305X.25.8.1439
C. Finally, in its [minor but presumed dominant] warmer bands CO2 saturates and its effect declines on an inverse logarithmic scale, fated never to reach full effectiveness. The IPCC assessed its current concentration at 87 percent saturation. (IPCC TAR3, Ch, 6, Sec. 6.3.4.) Guy S. Callendar first observed the effect in a paper to the Royal Society in February 1938. It was confirmed by Stephen W. Schneider (later an alarmist) and S..I Rasool of GISS in Science, v. 173, July 26, 1971, pp. 138-141. Addressing interaction at a warmer temperature, Schneider stated that the “runaway greenhouse effect does not occur because the 15μm CO2 [solar radiation] band, which is the main source of absorption, “saturates,” and the addition or more CO2 does not substantially increase the infrared opacity of the atmosphere.”
“Carbon dioxide is a cooling, not warming gas”.
“the addition or more CO2 does not substantially increase the infrared opacity of the atmosphere.”
I would estimate that over 99.9% of scientists
in the world would disagree with both claims.
You state that you are “not a physicist”
And you have provided proof of that claim.
Thank You
Is that 99.9% of the notorious 67 selected pseudo-‘scientists’? Reduced to trolling as your narrative collapses. Rather desperate and more so pathetic. Choose your lamppost, minions of the cabal deserve no less.
The statement you made “causes must precede effects” is misapplied here.
Say an increase in solar output or some oriental/axial Milankovitch cycle change causes the Earth to warm
which causes a release of Co2 from the oceans.
Then, yes, that Co2 cannot be the cause of the preceding
increase in solar irradiance or orbital shift. But it
can still act as a greenhouse gas warm the planet.
Positive feedback does not break any logical rules.
I googled for an example but they are all about the
workplace. Good work causes praise causes good work.
Take a chocolate bar on a white plate and place in the
Sun. The heat causes the chocolate to melt and spread
over the plate reducing albedo and therefore causing
further warming. if a human smeared chocolate over the parts
of the plate not covered in chocolate
no one would argue that that couldn’t lessen albedo
because the Sun is the cause of the cchocolate spreading
Faulty leap of logic.
That bar graph is odd. For all but the last doubling, the height of both bars is increases from the previous pair by 0.04. But for the last blue the height increases by 0.09, and for the orange by 0.11.
Also, they seem to make the same unwarranted assumption that so many others do, that “… the positive feedback effects of H2O” are what’s important. But, as I’ve posted several times, water vapor appears to contribute to a negative, not positive, feedback.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2K1uHvfaek
See also here.
https://www.thegwpf.com/new-evidence-that-water-vapor-is-a-negative-feedback/
Please read the paper. The temperature response to CO2 doubling is close to but not quite logarithmic, hence the slow increase in climate sensitivity as CO2 levels increase. The effect of H2O feedback is easily explained. And it is a positive feedback effectively acting as a multiplier of 1.12 for any given increase in temperature.
Just what we needed: Another guess of ECS.
The 673 prior guesses were obviously not enough!
Bill’s cheque is in the post
Interesting! I yet will have to read the paper, but I just published a corrected 2xCO2 forcing estimate of 0.53K. So yes, 0.5K is largely right, although I am not sure if they have mastered the physics. For instance there is no 33K GHE in the first place.
Anyhow, here it is..
https://greenhousedefect.com/fileadmin/user_upload/tabco23final2.png
https://greenhousedefect.com/the-holy-grail-of-ecs/the-2xco2-forcing-disaster
There is 1 assumption made in this analysis that involves water vapor being
held constant at today’s level while carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases
vary widely. Water vapor is held constant while atmospheric carbon dioxide varies
between 10 ppm and 1600 ppm. This assumption is not mentioned anywhere in the article except for the caption above Table 2. It is an absurd assumption to make because water vapor levels are a function of temperature and water vapor is a feedback gas that indirectly depends on the non-condensable greenhouse gases.
Therefore, the model should include water vapor as a temperature dependent variable. Even if that were done, the results would only be approximate and maybe of little use for any analysis of climate sensitivity. Notice that no error analysis appears in the work.
[…] New Atmospheric Science Publication Finds Quadrupling CO2 Would Lead To Only 1.0°C Increase! […]
This paper has now disappeared from the Journal’s website.
Cancel Culture 🙁
You can still download a full copy from here, so be quick: https://junkscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/10.11648.j.ijaos_.20210502.12.pdf