Image credit: livescience.com
The author poses what he calls the ‘major question’: why does CO2 have no significant effect on temperatures in the real world?
(See also this Press Release).
The major development in climate science in the last year or two is something almost no one talks about, says Alan Carlin – strong evidence that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have no significant effect on global temperatures in the real world over recent decades.
The studies involved conclude that the minor increases in global temperatures during this period can be entirely explained using natural factors.
The evidence for this conclusion appeared in studies done over a year ago, but neither side is saying much about them.
Skeptic researchers seem to be currently concentrating on the case for lower equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), arguing that it is lower than the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has hypothesized.
I agree that the ECS is nowhere near as high as the IPCC claims, but believe that the emphasis needs to be on the larger issue of whether CO2 has a significant effect on temperatures in the real world.
The Major Question Is Why CO2 Has No Significant Effect
Now that the evidence shows that CO2 has no significant effect in the real world over recent decades, the major research question is why–not how small the ECS may be in the idealized world of climate researchers. Insignificant effects will still be insignificant regardless of who may be correct as to the ECS.
Perhaps the major question is why CO2 has no significant effect on temperatures in the real world, in which case CO2 and ECS are largely irrelevant.
The climate alarmists continue to put their heads in the sand and pretend that their oft-repeated catastrophic CO2 hypothesis is somehow correct, even though it has been disproved, and the world should continue to spend more than a trillion dollars each year trying to reduce human-caused CO2 emissions.
But if changes in CO2 levels have no significant effect on temperatures, their proposed reductions in human-caused emissions will not either.
Continued here.
UPDATE: Press Release on New Research Report Showing CO2 Has No Significant Effect on Temperatures
Alan Carlin — May 13, 2018
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
The followers of the church of climatology can’t climb down from their ‘plant food is evil’ stance because that would show them up as the charlatans they are and leave them open to being prosecuted for fraud in those places where the greenwash hasn’t subverted the judicial system like it has in some US states.
From the very beginning, it was known that CO2 would only play a small part but the assumption was that the feedbacks in the system were net positive. I would suggest that it is this assumption that has proven to be false, as anyone using an ounce of logic could have predicted. It is the fact that feedbacks are negative which has kept the Earth’s climate incredibly stable over thousands, if not millions, of years.
We were supposed to see accelerating temperature rises this century, but what we’ve had is decelerating ones, barring the occasional El Niño – after which temps largely fell back again.
The so-called pause can’t last longer than whatever it was supposed to be pausing.
On Feb 13, 2018: The judge dismissed all charges in the lawsuit brought against Tim by BC Green Party leader Andrew Weaver. It is a great victory for free speech.
‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
My website is
“Human Caused Global Warming”, ‘The Biggest Deception in History’.
http://www.drtimball.com
Any IR radiation from the Earth’s surface will be quickly absorbed by the “GHG’s”. Water vapour absorbs far more of the IR spectrum than CO2 and is present in vastly higher amounts, so the effect of CO2 is minor.
The absorbed energy is then distributed to nitrogen, oxygen and argon by kinetic transfer so the atmosphere warms as a whole, and cools as it rises. Radiation loss to space can only occur near the tropopause where there is very little water vapour and rising concentrations of CO2 scatter radiation spherically, so, in theory extra CO2 act to cool slightly.
In geological time there is little correlation between CO2 level and surface temperature leading to the conclusion that the effect of CO2 is minimal. Land distribution, sea levels, current circulations seem to be far more important. Thus the Jurassic at 2000-2700 ppm CO2 was cooler than the following Cretaceous at 1650-1900 ppm.
Compare the effect of CO2 in Antarctica where there is much less water vapour than elsewhere, and temperatures even in summer are far less than in the Arctic.
Hot air rises, and expands, and cools, until its temperature matches its surroundings. This is the major engine for heat transport throughout the troposphere. To have any effect CO2 must significantly influence the heat capacity of the atmosphere (change the lapse rate), and a trivial calculation shows it cannot.
Why does CO2 have no significant effect on ‘Global ‘Temperature’?
Because there is no physical mechanism for it to do so!
From the very start, this simple fact has been ignored by both sides because they prefer to argue about anything but the real question.
Sad but true.
With CO2 not having the warming affect as computer models predictions, the whole scare tactics against fossil fuels is debunked. But, the mainstream media and politicians have missed the memo and they’re still demonizing fossil fuels for AGW and Climate Change. Fossil Fuels are still being over regulated and increasingly taxed for causing something that’s not happening. This is equal to a person that’s been falsely convinced of a crime and spending over 30 year’s in prison without parole. The population is pay for their sins that they had no role in the crime that didn’t occur.
Graeme No.3
This is what happens when the amount of additional 14CO2 in the lower stratosphere increases due to low solar activity.
“The highest rate of carbon-14 production takes place at altitudes of 9 to 15 km (30,000 to 49,000 ft) and at high geomagnetic latitudes.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14
At the same altitude, additional ozone is also produced by the GCR.
Therefore, in long periods of low solar activity, the temperature in the troposphere drops (increases in the lower stratosphere).
We had so much global warming last night that the local mountain got another layer of snow last night and the frost line is almost down to the village.
It might help if the academics supporting the scam actually left their ivory towers and got out into the real world, or maybe not because most of them suffer from concreteitus.
It is really very simple. Just ask why is there a troposphere?
The answer is because it has insufficient radiative cooling. So gets hot at the surface where the sunlight collects; and cooler at altitude. This causes convection, clouds, the works.
Since it is already not cooling via radiation (by definition of a troposphere) adding more CO2 does little to nothing.
Now at altitude where radiation effectively cools (stratosphere + higher), CO2 acts as a heat radiator to space. Not to the surface as it hits that convective barrier. In the stratosphere, CO2 added increases cooling to space.
Note the big CO2 radiation factor in the stratosphere and the big gap of nothing from CO2 in the troposphere (below the dotted line) where water is all that matters.
E.M. Smith 9:40pm: ”the big gap of nothing from CO2 in the troposphere (below the dotted line)”
Not nothing.
Note the surface (1000mb) warming from CO2 at about 665 wavenumber below the dotted line (0 to -.1K *10^-3/day cm^-1). Along with the surface warming of H2O at many other wavenumbers. And the surface cooling of O3 near 1000 wavenumber.
Also I note this isn’t the chart shown in the paper cited, so what is the chart’s real source?
PRESS RELEASE
Comment on “Examination of space-based bulk atmospheric temperatures used in climate research” by Christy et al. (2018)
Research Report
by James P. Wallace III, Joseph S. D’Aleo, & Craig D. Idso
Third Edition, May, 2018
A just released peer reviewed Climate Science Research Report has once again proven that it is all but certain that EPA’s basic claim that CO2 is a pollutant is totally false. All research was done pro bono.
http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/4369
Quote from the report:
In fact, this structural analysis demonstrates that there was a “Pause” in temperature trend increases over the 1995 to 2016 period. This is a time period over which atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased by over 12.0%.
[…] oldbrew on Alan Carlin: Both sides ignore… […]
@Trick:
I got that chart from the paper cited in my article (which is the link I provided); but following that link to the original now leads to a dead URL, so I’ll need to ‘go fish’ in the internet archive to find it again.
As to CO2 activity below the dotted line at 665 wave number: I do not see any. There is a light pale blue area and everything below the line is labeled “H2O” not “CO2”. CO2 activity is that big bright yellow and and green diamond in the Stratosphere where it is cooling at high rate.
Wayback machine has it here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150203172753/http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html
EMSmith, low solar activity causes the local increase of ozone and 14CO2 in accordance with the Earth’s magnetic field in the lower stratosphere and tropopause. This causes an increase in convection and the escape of water vapor into the stratosphere.
4:55pm: That way back machine link does not take me to the original paper. The chart shown at the link is not from the paper, it has been modified from the original with no resaon given. You need to get to the original paper cited to understand the units and the colors. The arrows for CO2 and O3 are for the entire pressure column from 1000mb up to .1mb. Or 0km to above 48km.
Compare the CO2 column at 1000mb ~665 wavenumber to the chart color showing warming from CO2 at the surface, cooling from CO2 in the stratosphere.
Compare the O3 column to the chart color showing cooling at the surface, warming & cooling at different pressure levels (density altitudes) and different wavenumbers above the dotted line. H2O are large areas (many wavenumbers) color coded for surface warming and stratosphere cooling.
@Ren:
Interesting graphs. Yes, there is an interesting interplay of factors at the tropopause. Folks like to envision it as some kind of hard lid, and it is not. It is just where active convection stops. There’s a LOT of leakage across it into the stratosphere, and the degree of water vapor et.al. that is above it does vary. It’s a place where the rising air turns sideways and becomes a turbulent flow both around the globe and toward the cold poles.
I’m sure the sun interacts with all of it, but the exact details are complicated and hard to tease out.
@Trick:
You assert the graph is not the original, then POINT to the original Absent any evidence that this is not the original all you are doing is hand waving.
As to the CO2 column “showing warming from CO2 at the surface”: No. It does not.
Warming is only shown by grey tones. All other tones are degrees of cooling. The only grey in the CO2 column is a very small patch at the TOP of the tropoPAUSE (as would be expected since any downward startospheric IR would impact the troposphere and be immediately absorbed, never to reach the surface).
At the tropoPAUSE there is a Category 2 hurricane force wind flow toward the poles, so that topopause warming never can reach the surface, as if faces convection from below and then the poleward winds whisking it away.
Again, note that between 500 and 1000 wave number there is NO GREY in the bottom 80%+ of the troposphere so NO surface warming from CO2. The only warming spot is a tiny patch AT the tropoPAUSE which is irrelevant to surface warming. Further, the Stratosphere is very busy dumping lots of heat via CO2 cooling to space.
Net effect of CO2 = cooling.
Effect of CO2 on the surface = NIL.
IF you wish to assert the graph is wrong or not the original, do not expect me to “go fish” more. This IS the original from the link where I found it (via the wayback machine now) and if you wish to assert that that author presented a fraudulent version, please provide a pointer to what you believe is the correct one. Just saying “it isn’t the original” doesn’t cut it.
FWIW, a brief search has shown that same graph used on a half dozen other Name web sites in their articles. The only different one I’ve found is what looks like a close up of the bottom chunk in a slide show by what looks to be the same original authors:
https://www.slideserve.com/niran/j-delamere-e-mlawer-v-payne-s-clough-aer-inc
I note in passing that on slide 9 they show a graph of simulated “down-welling” radiation under a version of that graph… which shows high values in the water band and basically a notch as it drops out under the CO2 band…
I’m done playing “go fish”. Trick, you want to assert the graph is bogus, you’ve got a few dozen other name sites to visit… and an original to find that shows a difference (and NOT just that it’s a close up of the bottom 1/4 or similar derived for purpose follow up work.)
I’ve found no different versions kicking around.
”Trick, you want to assert the graph is bogus, you’ve got a few dozen other name sites to visit…I’ve found no different versions kicking around. “
Yes, many sites and many blogs use that same graph. They trace to the link you provided which says: “adapted from the SPARC website.”
The trail ends at the link you provided as there is no SPARC website to consult on the chart provenance. You found no other versions because you didn’t pull the original paper.
I went over to my local college library and pulled the original cited paper. See that 400 blue block in the color key top right? That makes no sense above the 100 green. In fact, the original paper does not show that block. Who knows what else was “adapted” by SPARC.
” POINT to the original”
I point at the original in Clough and Iacono, JGR, 1995.
”Warming is only shown by grey tones.”
No. From 0 to -.1 blue is warming as I noted. The original shows it better. AND is discussed as such in the paper.
The only grey in the CO2 column is a very small patch at the TOP of the tropoPAUSE (as would be expected since any downward startospheric IR would impact the troposphere and be immediately absorbed, never to reach the surface).”
No. What you are seeing there is not captured or expected in the real-world measurements. That is the genesis of the tropical hot spot in this model now made famous with more expensive models.
“Net effect of CO2 = cooling.”
No, that takes a fuel; the net effect is none from CO2 as CO2 burns no fuel. As shown CO2 warms the surface in this model and equally cools above the dotted line.
”Effect of CO2 on the surface = NIL.”
Not in the “adapted” chart you show nor in the author’s discussion.
SPARC website: https://sparcopen.org/become-a-member/
Handwaving at a paper in a bin somewhere is NOT presenting your exemplar.
It takes NO fuel for a hot object to radiate into a COLD space.
Light blue is the zero band, with edges at +/- 1 i.e. irrelevant size about zero. Get over it.
Graph stands. Conclusions stand.
EM Smith
Your Clough & Iacono graph appears in this paper called “Line‐by‐line calculation of atmospheric fluxes and cooling rates: 2. Application to carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, nitrous oxide and the halocarbons”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/95JD01386
This is a follow on from “Line‐by‐line calculations of atmospheric fluxes and cooling rates: Application to water vapor” https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/92JD01419
(IIRC) Follow on papers on the topic (Line‐by‐line calculations) run all the way up to 2002, and maybe (now) further.
I hope this helps.
”Handwaving at a paper in a bin somewhere is NOT presenting your exemplar.”
Sticking one’s head in the sand demonstrates lack of debating skills.
”It takes NO fuel for a hot object to radiate into a COLD space.”
That isn’t what you wrote, nice change up. They do work when pitching. But your pitch isn’t over the plate and I don’t swing at changeups.
”Light blue is the zero band, with edges at +/- 1”
So you agree even the adapted copy shows CO2 warming (-.1) at the surface, cooling above. In the “adapted” copy, the same blue is also 400 of cooling if you believe your “standing” copy. Mighty cold at the surface. Since the surface really isn’t cooling at 400, take your head out of the sand & waltz over to the local college library, read the paper, no 400 shown. Or not, just continue on oblivious to what the authors really meant.
“I hope this helps.”
Me too. Sheesh. Give the nice college librarian a chance to practice.
@Trick:
Well, here’s our difference:
“Sticking one’s head in the sand demonstrates lack of debating skills.”
I’m not debating and I’m not interested in “debate”. Oh, and I’m not near any sand nor do I do headstands. IF you have some content to share, share it. “Debate tactics” are of no interest.
This, too, is nonsensical. I wrote that the CO2 in the stratosphere would be radiating and cooling. That’s also what the text quoted said. YOU said it “took fuel” (not me). I simply pointed out basic thermodynamics that no fuel is needed for CO2 (warmer than deep space) to radiate to deep space (very cold place). How that becomes a “change up” (or even what a “changeup” might be, or why one would “swing” at one, is irrelevant.
Simple facts: YOU said “takes fuel”. I pointed out “Hot to cold takes no fuel”; basic thermo.
Your statement: “No, that takes a fuel; the net effect is none from CO2 as CO2 burns no fuel.”
A non sequitur and wrong too.
So no, I’m not interested in sport analogies nor using them as “debate tactics”, and you may swing, or not swing, with whomever you wish, just not me.
“So you agree even the adapted copy shows CO2 warming (-.1) at the surface”
No, I do not. It is ZERO with an error band of +/- 1 in keeping with the maximum precision shown. Now, in keeping with all standard error bands, it could be up to 1 or up to -1; BUT you do not know which and the correct interpretation is “zero” (with warming or cooling known once you get to one of the OTHER bands).
“In the “adapted” copy, the same blue is also 400 of cooling”
Not on my monitor. Slightly different shade, and it only happens as 400 inside / next to green, so is only that tiny spot in the middle of the giant CO2 cooling diamond in the stratosphere.
BTW, your sneering attitude is offputting. Not interesting or effective.
Also, stop asserting I’m saying things I have not. You assert there’s 400 at the surface, then try to imply that’s from me. It isn’t, that’s all on you reading the graph wrongly (deliberately?).
” Mighty cold at the surface. Since the surface really isn’t cooling at 400, take your head out of the sand”
That’s you, not me. I’ve said (as we just discussed above) that it’s ZERO +/- error band of up to 1 at the surface.
So I guess that’s your complaint about this derivation, that YOU didn’t understand the color scheme. OK, not my problem.
As I’m bored with you, and your petty “debate tactics” and you’ve not shown any way in which the graph is actually wrong; I see no further benefit in engaging.
Polish Point: While I don’t like it, it is common to reuse colors in graphs as you reach extremes. You ought to learn that, and learn how to read graphs that do it. It is not an error, nor a fault, in graphs where the different ends of the range are obvious, like the above graph.
So good luck with your complaining. I find it a waste of my time so will not bother pointing further out where you go off the rails.
Trick & EM Smith…
FYI —
The original Clough document has the graphic as figure 2 and says
THE COLOR SCALE
The color scale runs from 100 to -6, colors run green, yellow, red, orange, purple, then a graduation of light gray to darker grays to black. Green is 100, yellow 40, orange is 20, red is 10, purple is 8, the blues are graduated dark blue to light blue and from 6 to zero. The gray colors run from light gray is -0.1 to black -6. Mid gray is -1.
Thanks Tom. That does confirm the top 400 blue block was added (“adapted”) some time after original publication. The color scale list doesn’t indicate what color is from 0 to -.1 shown as shade of blue in the SPARC website adapted graphic.
@Trick
Yes but I have an old paper copy of the Clough paper from more than a decade ago (probably 15 years ago). The ink’s a bit smudged and the color are not quite what they were, however the scale does not have the 400 block on it.
Also in the original paper are the calculation for a doubling of CO2 level (to 710ppm), they note in the Discussion part of the paper this causes a 25% increase in cooling at the stratopause while giving a 5% reduction in the tropospheric cooling rate for the MLS atmosphere.
“..the (originally published) scale does not have the 400 block on it.”
Right, that 400 block was added to charts on the internet after initial publication by an unkown entity which was my original point. Who knows what else was “adapted”. The adaption story for why the 400 block was added has not been found as far as I know.
Trick
A minimum atmospheric temperature, or tropopause, occurs at a pressure of around 0.1 bar in the atmospheres of Earth1, Titan2, Jupiter3, Saturn4, Uranus and Neptune4, despite great differences in atmospheric composition, gravity, internal heat and sunlight. In all of these bodies, the tropopause separates a stratosphere with a temperature profile that is controlled by the absorption of short-wave solar radiation, from a region below characterized by convection, weather and clouds5,6. However, it is not obvious why the tropopause occurs at the specific pressure near 0.1 bar. Here we use a simple, physically based model7 to demonstrate that, at atmospheric pressures lower than 0.1 bar, transparency to thermal radiation allows short-wave heating to dominate, creating a stratosphere. At higher pressures, atmospheres become opaque to thermal radiation, causing temperatures to increase with depth and convection to ensue. A common dependence of infrared opacity on pressure, arising from the shared physics of molecular absorption, sets the 0.1 bar tropopause.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2020?WT.feed_name=subjects_giant-planets&foxtrotcallback=true
You must remember that the main source of carbon dioxide in the stratosphere is secondary galactic radiation (neutrons) in the lower stratosphere. Ozone particles and 14CO2 have a high molecular weight and fall into the lower stratosphere. Therefore, there is a local temperature increase in the lower stratosphere and tropopause at high latitudes. This is of great importance for the tropospheric winter temperature.
ren’s link (9:37 am) goes on to say:
Judicious use of this rule could help constrain the atmospheric structure, and thus the surface environments and habitability, of exoplanets.
Sounds a bit like a universal rule.
One can learn a lot about atm. opacity and its various causes & effects due observations of solar system atmospheres from the paper ren links (linked many times previously around here) & especially the appendices. Yes, oldbrew, there is enough “universality” (a bit…or more?) in the paper for the authors to conclude:
“Thus, a unity of physics not only explains ∼0.1bar tropopauses in thick Solar System atmospheres but also has the implication of potentially constraining exoplanet habitability.”
since
“a 0.1bar tropopause assumption in a radiative–convective model would allow an estimate of surface temperature or pressure, respectively, which together are required to assess liquid water stability.”
The hypothesis that CO2 drives climate does not fit the facts. The hypothesis is false.
If there is anyone left who thinks otherwise let him (or her) offer evidence or models that can explain observations since 1850 or longer period.
gc 5:53am – the hypothesis really is that unnaturally added CO2 is only one of the 9+ drivers (i.e. forcings) of climate in addition to natural cycles and natural forcings. That hypothesis is reasonably fitting the experimental and observational facts.
The paper linked by ren adequately develops an explanation for that from “a unity of physics” based on actual test (Dr. Feynman requirement) & observation. The explanation is general enough to be useful for exoplanet application.