The modern notion that human CO2 emissions are equivalent to a “deadly poison” may one day be viewed as “the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world.”
In a new paper published in the Journal of Sustainable Development, Manheimer (2022) summarizes some of the evidence for the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature in the paleoclimate as he rips apart the claim that humans are driving a changing climate.
About 4000 years ago the limit of Northern Hemisphere tree growth extended 322 km (200 miles) farther north than it does today, as it was much warmer back then.
During Medieval times the Vikings were able to grow barley for centuries. Today Greenland is too cold to grow this crop.
The Romans grew wine grapes in northern Britain, indicating the climate was much warmer than today about 2000 years ago. Wine vineyards cannot flourish at these latitudes today (unless the new “hybrid” grapes, bred to survive in colder climates, are used).
Observing paleo temperature and CO2 concentration charts for the last hundreds of millions of years, it can be affirmed there is “no particular correlation between CO2 and temperature.”
https://co2coalition.org/teammember/wallace-manheimer/
[…] From NoTricksZone […]
[…] Related: Scientist: ‘There Is No Climate Crisis’ And ‘No Particular Correlation Between CO2 And Tempera… […]
Burn Manheimer at the stake!
No, wait. That would produce more CO2. Better drown him in the ever-rising seas.
I’ll still be contributing to air pollution after I die – at the local crematorium when they turn my carcass into ashes.
So now, a country that many people hoped to visit some day is covered in industrial scale wind turbines because it was deemed they would reverse the climate crisis. Is it true that there is nowhere that one can go in Germany without seeing a wind turbine?
“Is it true that there is nowhere that one can go in Germany without seeing a wind turbine? ”
Questions like this — often seen in newspapers — almost always have the same answer.
No, that is not true.
[Full disclosure: I can’t see Germany from here.]
Complete nonsense
NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGES
Atmospheric CO2 level changes, RESULTING FROM changes in ocean temperatures from any cause, correlated well with ocean temperatures after a long lag to overcome the thermal inertia of the oceans.
MANMADE CLIMATE CHANGES
Manmade CO2 emissions, a CAUSE of climate change, correlated fairly well with the global average temperature after 1975, as expected.
Why would he write something like this and call it complete nonsense?
Yes, we understand, Richard. You’re a believer that humans can heat up the ocean by driving trucks. After all, if two variables correlate, however spuriously, it can be confirmed that one variable caused the other. Got it.
I have never claimed in the past 25 years that CO2 “heats” anything.
Yours is a strawman argument.
CO2 and other greenhouse gases do not heat directly, they impede cooling.
And that affects the oceans too (along with downwelling infrared radiation deflected by CO2 in the troposphere) — a warmer atmosphere affects the top layer of the oceans, impeding cooling from lower layers of the ocean.
My first comment was on correlation which was claimed to not exist.
I did not say correlation always proved causation.
Once again, yours is a strawman argument.
In fact, correlation does exist, so the title is wrong.
In addition, there are good theories to explain WHY the correction exists.
The explanations are different for natural climate changes and manmade climate changes that happen at the same time.
If you want to claim that increased CO2 has NO effect on the surface temperature of this planet, both over land and ocean surfaces, then you are a science denier. Which means you can not be effective in the battle against CAGW climate scaremongering.
It’s okay to state that AGW is mild, and harmless, because it is. It is science denying to claim that AGW does not exist.
https://notrickszone.com/2022/03/14/new-study-the-co2-drives-global-warming-concept-is-obsolete-and-incorrect/
https://doi.org/10.29169/1927-5129.2022.18.03
“little, if any, correlation between the level of CO2 and Earth’s temperature over the 42 years [1979-2021]”
Nah, I won’t claim that. A 0.02°C effect for doubled CO2 is still an effect, not “NO” effect.
Obviously you have been triggered, Richard.
You may try to baffle me with climate BS,
but you can’t trigger me with climate BS
The bad Richard sez:
“little, if any, correlation between the level of CO2 and Earth’s temperature over the 42 years [1979-2021]”
The good Richard sez:
WRONG. Strong positive correlation clearly shown in UAH global average temperature data, and all surface global average temperature datasets. This is an ignorant statement. In fact, the strongest correlation of CO2 and temperature was in the 1975 to 2015 period.
The bad Richard sez:
“If you want to claim that increased CO2 has NO effect on the surface temperature of this planet”
Nah, I won’t claim that. A 0.02°C effect for doubled CO2 is still an effect, not “NO” effect.
The good Richard sez:
Your prediction is just a wild guess, and unusually low versus every other ECS wild guess I’ve seen in 25 years. No one knows the exact long-term effect of CO2 with feedbacks, but many people wild guess. You are one of them.
The bad Richard sez:
“you are a science denier”
Obviously you have been triggered, Richard.
The good Richard sez:
I am triggered by climate science claptrap. Anyone who claims no correlation of CO2 and the global average temperature in the 1979 to 2021 period, as you do, can not be taken seriously. Such a person is identifying themself as a data denier.
But have a nice day anyway,
This argument should be filed under
“Richard versus Richard, argument number 47}.
Accordingly what are “Greenhouse gasses” when the earths cooling is not impeded by our small contribution to a 0.04% trace gas.(CO2)
This old way of thinking has been proven false by Holmes who shows that planets with a thick atmosphere have a temperature that is not dependent on gas content. He proves this via the application of the molar mass version of the ideal gas law and also points out the severe flaws in traditional GHG theory. Eg Titan being colder than Saturn despite having 8000X more methane than earth or more relevantly 3X that of Saturn.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324599511_Thermal_Enhancement_on_Planetary_Bodies_and_the_Relevance_of_the_Molar_Mass_Version_of_the_Ideal_Gas_Law_to_the_Null_Hypothesis_of_Climate_Change
A calculated change is given for a future Earth with double CO2 (if we could do that) with a difference of +0.11K
It can be said anthropogenic CO2 is a ’cause’ of climate change if it has indeed heated or cooled the atmosphere by 0.001 degree F of C. Of course, that amount of change is so insignificant, it’s not worth mentioning.
A baloney straw man argument
There are many ways to prove CO2 is a mild greenhouse gas above 400 ppm and will have a mild, harmless effect on Earth’s ability to cool itself, boosted by a water vapor positive feedback. Even if the exact effect of CI2 + feedback can not be measured outside of a laboratory.
Your 0.001 degree claim is a strawman argument because even the unreasonably low margins of error claims for the global average temperatures are +/- 0.1 degrees C.
‘ … correlated fairly well with the global average temperature after 1975, as expected.’
Let us not forget the great climate shift of 1976, when the PDO entered its positive phase.
The two variables, CO2 and average temperature, correlated well in that 1975 to 2015 period, no matter what else happened. The article title said they didn’t. The title was wrong.
There is no natural phenomenon called CLIMATE. It is a collective noun for the yearly pattern of meteorological events for a given geographical location. There is no ONE climate, but many.
Additionally, weather (and hence climate) is not man-made, and it is not a random product of evolution. It is part of a perfectly designed and made eco-system which allows human life to exist on this planet. It is a creation, not an accident which ignorant and arrogant intellectual pygmies think they can correct.
There are only two reasons for the fairy tale of climate change, and they are money and control. The problem the world has, is that too many people believe the charlatans, and we end up with noddies like the Oxford City council.
Of course there is climate
You are wrong.
It is a 30 year or more average of weather.
Climate does have manmade influences
So you are wrong again.
Climate is perfectly designed?
That is claptrap. Most of the time climate on our planet has been at least unpleasant for human and animal life. We are very lucky to be living in a warming trend during an interglacial. CO2 was down to only 180 ppm at the peak glaciation about 20,000 years ago. 150 ppm is a danger zone for C3 photosynthesis plants
You are wrong for a third time.
You last paragraph i on the mark, although you might want to say “CAGW” rather than climate change, even though they mean the same thing to the Climate Howlers.
The earth’s climate has and always will be governed by the Sun and until we can control the Sun nothing will change. In fact we do not need to control the Sun because we do not have a climate emergency and we live in a miniscule span of time in relation to the history of the Earth. Ice ages have happened approxiamately every 100,000 years and we are still coming out of the last one, so there has been and will be very gradual change in our temperature during these long periods. The reason for these ice ages is because the Earth’s orbit around the Sun is not perfectly circular as it is elliptical and the Earth is furthest away from the Sun every 100.000 years. The orbit is also influenced by gravitational pulls from the other planets and also slight changes in the rotational tilt of the Earth on its own axis. All this is known as the Milankovich cycles and Milankovich’s discovery has not been disproven. Regarding C02, the levels of this essential gas are currently at some of the lowest levels they have ever been and if they drop further then all life on Earth will start to die, so all the current panic about C02 levels being too high is just scaremongering and total nonsense coming from the UN and big business and governments. We need to put more C02 into the atmosphere and this is happening at present and we need to continue doing this and latest mapping is showing a greening of the Earth which is positive for all life. This natural fertilizer enables more food to be grown which has to be a good thing. It really is that simple !
The next thing the kooks will want to do is put into orbit a massive shield to block enough of the sun’s radiation to cool the planet by as much as they believe CO2 and methane are heating it. There is no end to the hair-brained schemes these clowns come up with.
“The earth’s climate has and always will be governed by the Sun and until we can control the Sun nothing will change.”
Misleading
Of course the sun CREAYES a climate that supports life.
But CHANGES in the climate, for at least the past 300 years, were NOT caused by any known changes of incoming solar energy. That solar energy is almost constant, especially using top of atmosphere measurements by satellites in the past 50 years.
Virtually none of the climate change in the era of weather satellites can be BLAMED ON CHANGES OF SOLAR ENERGY REACHING THE TOP OF OUR ATMOSPHERE.
Everything else you wrote is right !
Richard Greene hasn’t been keeping up with the science. There’s been a well-documented increase in the SW radiation reaching the Earth’s surface (oceans) in recent decades due to the downward trend in cloud and aerosol albedo. The forcing values are enough to easily supersede and/or cancel out radiative changes associated with CO2 emissions.
Here are some sample articles, replete with many peer-reviewed scientific papers, supporting these observations.
Richard is obviously biased against any evidence that challenges his beliefs in AGW.
https://notrickszone.com/2022/08/08/scientists-the-global-warming-since-1985-cannot-be-attributed-to-co2-forcing/
Scientists: The Global Warming Since 1985 Cannot Be Attributed To CO2 Forcing
https://notrickszone.com/2021/10/18/2001-2019-warming-driven-by-increases-in-absorbed-solar-radiation-not-human-emissions/
2001-2019 Warming Driven By Increases In Absorbed Solar Radiation, Not Human Emissions
Three new studies affirm the increase in absorbed solar radiation associated with decreased reflection by clouds (albedo) has been the “root cause” of the positive Earth Energy Imbalance and global warming since the early 2000s.
https://notrickszone.com/2022/12/08/new-study-observational-data-affirm-95-of-post-1970s-warming-is-not-linked-to-co2-increases/
New Study: Observational Data Affirm 95% Of Post-1970s Warming Is Not Linked To CO2 Increases
https://notrickszone.com/2022/08/22/new-study-a-post-2000-increase-in-absorbed-solar-energy-by-far-the-largest-contribution-to-warming/
New Study: A Post-2000 Increase In Absorbed Solar Energy ‘By Far The Largest Contribution’ To Warming
What’s wrong with you richard — you are a troublemaker!
I correctly stated no NASA satellite measured change in solar energy at the top of the atmosphere — actually down slightly, in the satellite age.
That is ONE climate change variable, shown to be not important for at least the past 50 years, per satellite data.
You change the subject to cloudiness and atmospheric aerosols, which are two DIFFERENT climate change variables.
Then use your red herring argument to insult me (as usual).
Studies are not gospel, and they do not affirm anything. You are hypnotized by studies that support your strong case of confirmation bias. If a study discredits CO2 as a cause of climate change, you become a cheerleader for that study. That is confirmation bias.
There are too many climate change variables for anyone to know exactly what each one does. At best, one could say, for example, that no change in TOA solar energy has been measured in the past 50 years, assuming the measurements are correct.
The following variables are likely to influence Earth’s climate:
1) Earth’s orbital and
orientation variations
2) Changes in ocean circulation
Including ENSO and others
3) Solar activity and irradiance,
including clouds, volcanic and manmade aerosols, plus possible effects of cosmic rays and extraterrestrial dust
4) Greenhouse gas emissions
5) Land use changes
(cities growing, logging, crop irrigation, etc.)
6) Unknown causes of variations of a
complex, non-linear system
7) Unpredictable natural and
manmade catastrophes
8) Climate measurement errors
(unintentional or deliberate)
9) Interactions and feedbacks,
involving two or more variables.
Anthropogenic CO2 and methane are false villains. What the globalists should be complaining about is the 6 major air pollutants we are producing. Those pollutants plus all the deforestation we’ve done to make way for buildings, roads, and crop fields plus wildfires may partially be responsible for the climate changes some areas have been experiencing. We’re to blame for whatever influence most of that has on climate.
The sun, ocean and wind currents, volcanic activity, and water vapor are natural occurrences that definitely affect the climate. There’s basically nothing we can do about their influence. Nature produces more CO2 and methane than we do. Should we go after all the natural sources of those two trace gases?
Given all that information, does anyone with a working mind really believe if we could reduce CO2 levels from 0.042% of the atmosphere to 0.035%, where it probably would be without our contribution, could possibly make one damn bit of difference?
“Anthropogenic CO2 and methane are false villains.”
Thats sure true.
“Nature produces more CO2 and methane than we do”
FALSE
100% of the +50% INCREASE of the atmospheric CO2 level since 1850 is from manmade CO2 emissions.
“if we could reduce CO2 levels from 0.042% of the atmosphere to 0.035%”
The world can’t even figure out how to stop CO2 levels from rising, so this is a hypothetical argument. As a best-case guess, you could assume all the warming from CO2 at 350 ppm to CO2 at 420 ppm was caused ONLY by CO2 — then reverse that, for a best-case estimate of what lowing the CO2 from 420 ppm to 350 ppm would be.
I strongly favor much more CO2 in the atmosphere based on reading about 200 plant — CO2 scientific studies in the past 25 years.
C3 plants (90% of 300,000 species) grow best in 750 ppm to 1500 ppm CO2. So at least 750 ppm CO2 is required for optimum C3 plant growth. And optimum C3 plant growth will support the largest amount of human and animal life on this planet. People who are anti-CO2 are also anti-life.
We are warned rising temperatures will cause the release of bomb levels of CO2 as northern permafrost, muskeg rots as it warms. I’ve seen this new source being exposed.) This has been happening for at least 200 years. (I’ve seen the glacial deposits of the LIA inside the older Pleistocene deposits.)
How much CO2 has been released from the warming ground since 1750? Why haven’t we been told this if further warming is a problem?
Have you Richard Greene,produced a paper outlining your hypothesis.
All your experiments,tests and data please.
Refuse to accept the ignorance of the climate fraud. https://budbromley.blog/2023/01/08/refuse-to-accept-the-ignorance-of-the-climate-fraud/
[…] Scientist: ‘There Is No Climate Crisis’ And ‘No Particular Correlation Between CO2… […]