Why lockdown had little to no effect on global temperatures

Posted: October 24, 2020 by oldbrew in atmosphere, climate, Emissions, research, Temperature

The ocean carbon cycle [credit: IAEA]

The article asks: ‘So what really happened?’ They often try to play the aerosol card when changes to CO2 levels fail to deliver their supposed effects. But could the answer simply be that climate obsessives discovered the atmosphere is a minor player in the climate compared to the oceans?
– – –
Countries across the world took unprecedented action in the first few months of 2020 to control the spread of COVID-19, says The Conversation (via Phys.org).

At its peak, one-third of the world’s population was in lockdown.

Around the world, car travel fell by 50%, the number of flights plummeted by 75% and industrial activity fell by around 35%.

With so many cars parked, airplanes grounded and factories closed, global carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions fell by around 17% compared with the same period in 2019.

But greenhouse gases such as CO₂ weren’t the only emissions to fall, and not all pollution heats the planet. [Talkshop comment: What?]

Some of the industrial activities that shut down—particularly heavy industry, including steel and cement making—also produced aerosols, which are tiny particles that linger in the atmosphere for weeks and reflect heat from the Sun.

Previous studies have suggested that if a lot of these industrial processes were to suddenly shut down, it would lead to short-term warming because the atmosphere would lose the reflective effect of aerosols.

But as the lockdown cleared skies, temperatures didn’t rocket.

In new research, we show that lockdown had a negligible effect on global temperatures. So what really happened?

Continued here.

  1. oldbrew says:

    Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere
    Hermann Harde (2017)


    We present a carbon cycle with an uptake proportional to the CO2 concentration.

    Temperature dependent natural emission and absorption rates are considered.

    The average residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is found to be 4 years.

    Paleoclimatic CO2 variations and the actual CO2 growth rate are well reproduced.

    Human emissions only contribute 15 % to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era.

    – – –
    So is it:
    The average residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is found to be 4 years. [HH]
    CO₂ and methane…remain in the atmosphere for centuries and decades respectively [Conversation article, researchers]
    who knows?

  2. Jeremy says:

    The proclaimed explanation is a potpourri of unverifiable rubbish. If the pea isn’t under one shell, it must lie under another – somewhere, among countless other shells.

    “(CO₂) emissions fell by around 17%”. It “had little to no effect on global temperatures”. This admission misses the elephant in the room. The sharp reduction of man’s emissions of CO2 had no impact even on atmospheric CO2, whose growth was completely unaffected.

    The absence of impact on atmospheric CO2 confirms what has now been shown by real scientists (Salby, Harde, Berry): Man’s emissions are irrelevant.

    Are you listening Boris?

  3. JB says:

    “Global heating won’t stop until emissions reach zero.”

    Tell that to the planet with its emissions, which has always far exceeded what Man has produced.

    “Only a decisive shift from fossil fuels will stabilize global temperatures.”
    To what? Every fuel source has its hazards and down side, including economic efficiency. Experienced engineers know there is no golden-child solution.

    Heinlein wrote: “Naturists are self-haters. They despise man’s integral part in nature.” Climate mongers are just a different face of Naturism. These people are more concerned with the planet’s homeostasis (influenced heavily by forces outside of the planet) than they are with the human species becoming extinct from their Utopian solutions.

    This is why I cannot extend credence to anything published at Phys.org.

  4. oldbrew says:

    At the end of The Conv article:
    Only a decisive shift from fossil fuels will stabilize global temperatures.

    The usual empty-headed propaganda.

  5. Chaswarnertoo says:

    When the observations show the model to be wrong, it’s wrong. The warmists need to shut up, now.

  6. stpaulchuck says:

    “We ran a series of computer model simulations of the atmosphere …”

    Once again, no real empirical data, just computer guesswork. Once again I will post one of the best observations on computer models:
    “Computer models are no different from fashion models. They’re seductive, unreliable, easily corrupted, and they lead sensible people to make fools of themselves” John in OK

  7. Paul Vaughan says:

    Perfect Cove Airy Ants in 1728

    We hear IT (as in We the novel and IT ware IT = inverted totalitarianism) :
    • lockdown controls everything
    • co2 controls everything
    • race controls everything
    • gender controls everything
    msm therefore controls NO. THING?

    I gave my 5 sentence pandemic & climate pitch 4 Joe Trump & Don Biden just Be/11 O the link to left field f(UN) weigh “hi!” over the green monster.

    keywords: Orwell j-invariant hitchhiker’s guide
    1728 = 1984 – 104 – 152 = 1984 – 298 + 42

  8. tom0mason says:

    “Why lockdown had little to no effect on global temperatures”

    1) Atmospheric CO2 levels do not control global atmospheric temperature — the Sun has a far bigger effect. If any CO2 ‘warming’ effects can be identified, they would be lost in the chaos and noise of much bigger events mostly caused by the water cycle.

    2) Atmospheric CO2 levels are controlled by nature not humans — the majority by the oceans, the minority by effects over land.

    3) Nature, not human, controls both weather and climate. Human effects on both weather & climate are mostly confined to very limited local land use changes.

    The UN’s fantasy that humans control the climate is an obvious fraud perpetrated by rich elites, those who wish to be the great lords and ladies of the New World Order.

  9. Phoenix44 says:

    Did anybody actually expect and discernible change? We can barely measure the effects of 100% of emissions without all sorts of statistical shenanigans (most places most of the time are well within natural variability) so reducing emissions by a bit for a bit will be completely undetectable.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s