The Test and Failure of the AGW Paradigm

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Jack Hays, Jan 1, 2021.

  1. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    1,435
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nor are consensus claims, which has become predictable since many have never heard of the concept: The Scientific Method (LINK)

    Consensus pabulums are the province of politics.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2021
    Jack Hays likes this.
  2. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Another nail in the coffin of "consensus" climate sensitivity.
    New Atmospheric Science Publication Finds Quadrupling CO2 Would Lead To Only 1.0°C Increase!
    By P Gosselin on 29. August 2021

    Share this...
    “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.

    [​IMG]
    . . . . .
     
  3. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Cooling is under way.
    Solar Update September, 2021
    Guest Blogger
    This figure also shows a flat trend through the 1970s cooling period followed by a 40 year long downtrend in activity. Whatever solar processes caused the Modern Warm Period and…
     
  4. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Here's an explanation why the AGW paradigm doesn't work. CO2 has little effect.
    The Greenhouse Effect, A Summary of Wijngaarden and Happer
    Andy May
    By Andy May The phrase “greenhouse effect,” often abbreviated as “GHE,” is very ambiguous. It applies to Earth’s surface temperature, and has never been observed or measured, only modeled. To…
     
  5. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  6. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The AGW paradigm here takes another peer-reviewed hit. How much longer can it be sustained?

    Thunderous New “Atmosphere” Publication: “Warming Of Last 20 Years Mainly Caused By Cloud Changes”
    By P Gosselin on 9. October 2021

    Share this...
    Science never quits. New findings by German researchers challenge the IPCC’s claim that greenhouse gases drove recent warming. Data point to low cloud cover changes.
    ===================================

    Warming of the last 20 years mainly caused by cloud cover changes
    By Fritz Vahrenholt and Hans-Rolf Dübal
    (Translated, edited and subheadings by P. Gosselin)

    Hans-Rolf Dübal and Fritz Vahrenholt have investigated the Earth’s radiation balance over the past 20 years in a peer-reviewed publication appearing in ” Atmosphere”.

    The net radiative flux, i.e. the difference between solar irradiance and longwave and shortwave radiation, determines the change in the energy content of the climate system. If it is positive, the Earth is warming; if it is negative, it means cooling. The NASA-operated satellite-based CERES project has now been providing such radiation data, as well as data on the evolution of cloud cover in temporal and spatial resolution for two decades. These data are determined both in relation to an altitude of approx. 20 km (TOA = “Top of Atmosphere”), and also in relation to the Earth’s surface.

    This publication: “Radiative Energy flux variation from 2001 – 2020“, Dübal, H.-R.; Vahrenholt, F., appearing this week in Atmosphere 2021, 12, 1297 has brought to light a surprising result for climate science: the warming of the Earth in the last 20 years is mainly due to a higher permeability of clouds for shortwave solar radiation. During the period, shortwave radiation has strongly decreased (see figure) and this equally for the northern and southern hemisphere (NH and SH). With solar irradiance remaining nearly constant, this means that more shortwave radiation reached the Earth’s surface, contributing to warming. . . .
     
    bringiton likes this.
  7. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The new paradigm emerges.
    2001-2019 Warming Driven By Increases In Absorbed Solar Radiation, Not Human Emissions
    By Kenneth Richard on 18. October 2021

    Share this...
    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.
    Scientists (Loeb et al., 2021) have determined the rather uncertain positive trend in Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI) from 2005 to 2019, 0.5 W/m² ±0.47 W/m² per decade−1, is “primarily due to an increase in absorbed solar radiation associated with decreased reflection by clouds.”

    CERES satellite data indicate clouds and surface albedo account for 89% of the absorbed solar radiation trend in the 21st century, whereas anthropogenic greenhouse gases account for but a tiny fraction of the trends in combined absorbed solar radiation and greenhouse effect forcing (reductions in emitted thermal radiation) during this period. . . .
     
    bringiton likes this.
  8. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The AGW paradigm fails again.
    Scafetta: Testing the CMIP6 GCM Simulations versus Surface Temperature Records from 1980–1990 to 2011–2021: High ECS Is Not Supported [link]
     
    bringiton likes this.
  9. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Here's another experimental result to undermine the AGW paradigm.
    New Study: Modelers Got Aerosols All Wrong…CO2 Climate Sensitivity Likely Another 0.4°C Overstated!
    By P Gosselin on 26. November 2021

    Share this...
    Die kalte Sonne reports on a new aerosol study by Liu et al.

    The results are a major blow to the high greenhouse gas climate sensitivity modelers.
    ". . . But now a new study appearing in the journal Science Advances by Liu et al has been published and it concludes that the forcing by aerosols had to have been overestimated by climate modelers. IPCC modelers insisted that 20th century aerosol concentrations were higher than during the pre-industrial times, and this is what kept the climate from warming by 1.5°C.

    According to the scientists led by Liu, however, atmospheric aerosols in the preindustrial times were just as high as they were just recently. They were in fact more or less constant over the past 250 years. No change means it could not have been aerosols putting the brakes on temperature rise . . . ."
     
  10. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As predicted by both Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv. The AGW paradigm is again off the rails.
    New Research: “CO2 Influence On Global Temperature Development Since1860 Only Half As Large As IPCC Estimate!
    By P Gosselin on 14. December 2021

    Share this...
    A remarkable publication on solar influence on climate goes unnoticed
    By Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt (Die kalte Sonne)
    (Text translated/edited by P. Gosselin)

    On November 3, 2021, the renowned scientific journal Climate published a paper on solar influence on climate. The paper by the renowned solar researcher Dr. Frank Stefani from the Helmholtz Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf is entitled: “Solar and Anthropogenic Influences on Climate: A Regression Analysis and Tentative Predictions” and concludes that the influence of CO2 on the development of global temperatures from 1860 until today was only about half as large as the last report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assumed.

    As a reminder, the IPCC concludes that 98% of the warming ( 1.07 degrees out of 1.09 degrees) is human-induced. According to Stefani’s analysis, the solar influence accounts for 30-70%.

    Stefani examined the course of the geomagnetic aa – index, which reflects the strength of the earth’s magnetic field. This index has been measured in Cambridge and Melbourne since 1844 and reflects the influence of solar activity. In earlier publications, Stefani had already been able to prove that the 11-year solar cycle is triggered by the gravitational forces of Venus, Earth and Jupiter, which are in orbital resonance every 11.07 years (here, here and here).

    Since the Sun – influenced by all the planets (especially Jupiter and Saturn) – also moves around the center of gravity of the solar system, solar cycles arise that have become known in temperature history as the 193-year Suess-de Vries cycle and the 90-year Gleissberg cycle.

    Only 1°C warming by 2100 . . .
     
    bringiton likes this.
  11. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The AGW paradigm has taken another hit.
    Dr. Nicola Scafetta is another astrophysicist who has concluded the consequence of doubling CO2 (280→560 ppm) “could be between 1 and 2°C” in a new paper also published in the journal Climate. He asserts a significant portion of the warming in recent decades “could have been induced by natural oscillations.”

    Scafetta is highly critical of the flawed model-based overestimation of warming associated with rising CO2 emissions. He emphasizes just how much climate model estimates diverge from observations, as modeled “predictions disagree from the data by more than 0.2°C (on a total mean warming of about 0.5 °C from 1980–1990 to 2011–2021) over more than 50% of the global surface.”

    [​IMG]

    Image Source: Scafetta, 2021

    2 More Studies: The Climate’s CO2 Sensitivity Is Low…Models Erroneously Overestimate CO2 Warming
    By Kenneth Richard on 20. December 2021

    Share this...
    Astrophysicists conclude climate models are deeply flawed. Doubling CO2 to 560 ppm only elicits about 1°C warming.
     
  12. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oops. Gonna have to change some more data....
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  13. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    1,435
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Watts Up With That?

    Advection
    2 hours ago

    Willis Eschenbach

    Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

    Excerpt:


    I got to messing about with the MODTRAN Infrared Light In The Atmosphere model. From the Help file.


    [​IMG]
    Figure 1. Description of the MODTRAN model.

    LINK

    ======

    The article makes interesting statement about the increased cooling rate from the Tropics in the Northern Hemisphere that needs to be read since it just another example to show how little CO2 effects the "heat budget" of the planet.
     
    bringiton and Jack Hays like this.
  14. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The graph is slightly misleading in that it labels the dip between ~14 and ~17 microns as "CO2," implying that CO2 is the dominant absorber-emitter in that part of the spectrum. Actually, water vapor absorbs and emits those wavelengths quite well (its main absorption-emission gap is ~8-~13 microns, the "atmospheric window" where CO2 also does not absorb much); it's just that there is very little water vapor at the emission altitude:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Water_infrared_absorption_coefficient_large.gif
     
  15. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    1,435
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Modtran model isn't high resolution as you can see it is just whole numbers only listed, here is the true HIGH resolution of wavelengths showing that CO2 is the dominant IR absorber at the peak area around 14.77:

    Water Vapor is the top showing sparse lines and the much thicker absorption range of CO2 in the bottom chart.
    [​IMG]

    LINK

    =====

    Here are more high-resolution charts here:

    Cross sections for CO2 in cm^2 per molecule
    http://vpl.astro.washington.edu/spectra/co2pnnlimagesmicrons.htm
    Cross sections for CH4 in cm^2 per molecule
    http://vpl.astro.washington.edu/spectra/ch4pnnlimagesmicrons.htm
    Cross sections for H2) in cm^2 per molecule
    http://vpl.astro.washington.edu/spectra/h2opnnlimagesmicrons.htm

    LINK

    ======

    All this and more from HERE in the LINK
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2022
    Jack Hays likes this.
  16. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    These graphs only show the absorption spectra in the narrow range between ~14.3 and 16.7 microns, and are for low concentrations of pure gases in the lab, not IR absorption in the actual atmosphere.
    The high concentration of H2O in the lower troposphere broadens its absorption bands, as does the mix of other gases, temperatures, winds, etc. in the actual atmosphere. So even in the narrow part of the IR spectrum shown in these graphs, CO2's IR absorption only dominates above the lower troposphere where there is very little H2O.
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  17. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    1,435
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually the spectral lines for Water Vapor is low in those bands as the chart clearly shows which is well supported by the full spectral lines links you didn't comment on. Here is what Phil who is a scientist on the atmosphere chemistry says about it:

    "Also such a low resolution spectrum such as the one in the OP is totally misleading, since as George points out it gives the illusion of overlap where there is none!

    Here’s high resolution spectrum showing the two gases, the top one being water, the much sparser lines of which give very little overlap with CO2.

    http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/H2OCO2.gif
    Here’s a spectrum through the atmosphere with the GHGs progressively remove starting with water, which is at a very low concentration higher in the atmosphere where the radiation to space actually takes place.

    http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/Atmos.gif
    By the way methane doesn’t react with O2 in the atmosphere it reacts with OH which is a scavenger molecule which is in short supply which limits the breakdown rate of methane.

    Methane when it reaches the stratosphere acts as a source of H20 there which otherwise has difficulty passing through the temperature minimum at the tropopause."

    LINK

    bolding mine

    ===

    Here is what a scientist states about what Phil posted:

    "I get spooked by Phil’s wavenumber based spectra, since I am not a chemist. So I don’t expect to find the CO2 absorption band right at the peak of the surface LWIR, instead of on the falling tail end.

    Readers need to appraised of an important distinction.

    The usual wavelength based spectra, a la the solar spectrum, have units of Watts per meter squared PER MICRON OF WAVELENGTH INCREMENT.

    The Chemist’s wave number based spectra, like the ones Phil linked to, have units of Watts per square meter PER WAVE NUMBER INCREMENT.
    So what ??

    Well on a wavelength based scale, the CO2 band is somewhat lower than the peak at 10.1 microns, for the 288 K LWIR spectrum, BUT there are a lot of MICRONS of band width, typically from around 13 microns up to around 17 microns..

    On Phil’s wave number based spectrum, the CO2 band is sitting on the spectrum peak, but there are fewer wave numbers down at the low end of the spectrum, whereas the much higher frequency solar spectrum, is up where there are plenty of wave numbers to spare, so even if the Y scale value is lower the PER WAVE NUMBER INCREMENT can add up to a lot of energy.

    So you have to pay attention to the scale units of these absorption spectra, so you are comparing apples to apples."

    LINK

    ======

    What I posted are the TRUE spectral numbers of Water Vapor and CO2 in HIGH resolution showing little overlap. Water Vapor has few lines between 13-17 Microns while CO2 fills a lot of it up and most of it at 100% transmittance levels while WV has very low transmittance values in its few bands.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2022
    Jack Hays likes this.
  18. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I enjoy having friends who can carry on a sophisticated exchange without rancor.
     
    Sunsettommy likes this.
  19. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Two points:
    1. The chemical spectra are misleadingly narrow because actual absorption spectra in the atmosphere are broader than the laboratory-conditions spectra used for chemical analysis (especially for H2O, which is much denser in the lower atmosphere than CO2) because variations in density, temperature, wind, presence of other gases, etc. enable IR absorption in adjacent wavelengths.
    2. The figures given are for transmittance, so the fact that water vapor is 1-2 orders of magnitude more abundant than CO2 in the lower troposphere means the transmittances have to be scaled to reflect how much H2O and CO2 are actually present. Some of the H2O transmittances in its weaker absorption bands are 50%-90%, compared to 1%-2% for CO2 in its strongest bands, so it looks like CO2 is absorbing much more IR. But if you apply H2O's transmittance rates 20, 30 or 50 times to reflect how much more of it there is in the lower troposphere, the actual effective transmittances go right down to low single-digit percents, just like CO2's.
    It's not clear what "through the atmosphere" means here, or how the GHGs have been "removed." If it is a top-of-atmosphere satellite spectrum, it mainly reflects the fact that there is very little H2O at that altitude. True, there is no doubt that CO2 consequently dominates top-of-atmosphere absorption and emissions. The question is, how relevant is that to surface temperature? IMO there is excellent reason to think the effect is largely confined to regions of the atmosphere above where H2O effectively all condenses out.
    That is a good point wrt the whole EM spectrum, but not really significant in the narrow 14-17 micron IR bandwidth we are talking about here because the wave numbers don't change that much.
    I think you are referring to CO2's near-zero transmittance levels (i.e., near-100% absorption) vs H2O's typically much higher ones. I addressed this above: the high-resolution laboratory spectra don't apply in the actual atmosphere, and H2O's far greater atmospheric abundance means its actual effective transmittance is comparable to CO2's.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2022
    Jack Hays likes this.
  20. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The AGW paradigm has suffered another direct hit.

    A new paper in HEALTH PHYSICS asks this question.

    World Atmospheric CO2, Its 14C Specific Activity, Non-fossil Component, Anthropogenic Fossil Component, and Emissions (1750–2018)
    Skrable, Kenneth; Chabot, George; French, Clayton1

    1University of Massachusetts Lowell, 1 University Avenue, Lowell, MA 01854.

    Health Physics: February 2022 – Volume 122 – Issue 2 – p 291-305

    doi: 10.1097/HP.0000000000001485

    Abstract
    After 1750 and the onset of the industrial revolution, the anthropogenic fossil component and the non-fossil component in the total atmospheric CO2 concentration, C(t), began to increase. Despite the lack of knowledge of these two components, claims that all or most of the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been due to the anthropogenic fossil component have continued since they began in 1960 with “Keeling Curve: Increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuel.” Data and plots of annual anthropogenic fossil CO2 emissions and concentrations, C(t), published by the Energy Information Administration, are expanded in this paper. Additions include annual mean values in 1750 through 2018 of the 14C specific activity, concentrations of the two components, and their changes from values in 1750. The specific activity of 14C in the atmosphere gets reduced by a dilution effect when fossil CO2, which is devoid of 14C, enters the atmosphere. We have used the results of this effect to quantify the two components. All results covering the period from 1750 through 2018 are listed in a table and plotted in figures. These results negate claims that the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been dominated by the increase of the anthropogenic fossil component. We determined that in 2018, atmospheric anthropogenic fossil CO2 represented 23% of the total emissions since 1750 with the remaining 77% in the exchange reservoirs. Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming. . . .

    How Much Manmade CO2 is in the Atmosphere, Really?
    Charles Rotter
    Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much…
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2022
    Sunsettommy likes this.
  21. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    More shortcomings of the AGW paradigm exposed:
    The IPCC CO2 Climate Narrative: A “Behemoth On Clay Feet” …Ready To Collapse
    By P Gosselin on 6. February 2022

    Share this...
    The earth’s history provides the solid proof that acquits CO2. The IPCC’s claim of CO2 being the dominant climate factor is a behemoth on clay feet.

    By Fred F. Mueller

    Have you ever had an uneasy feeling when watching the aggressive, intolerant stance of the apologists of “man-made climate catastrophe” against all critics?

    The overwhelming majority of our elites blame CO2 emitted by mankind to be responsible for “a runaway overheating” of our atmosphere. “The science” spearheaded by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calls for us to us to renounce fossil fuels and return to the frugal lifestyle of the 18th or 19th century.

    You might well find you’re not alone with that unease, which is proliferating rapidly since social media giants have started to censor people daring to question the IPCC’s “science is settled” attitude. . . .
     
    bringiton likes this.
  22. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And once again it comes back to ECS, where AGW-based climate models fail.
    Outside The Black Box
    Guest Blogger
    Models that need model-specific input to replicate the known past, violate the most basic criteria of science to earn the label “scientifically proven”, independent of the “proven physics” they are…
     
  23. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The failure of the AGW paradigm is here (again) made plain.

    Climate Change, an Emergency, or Not?
    Guest Blogger
    The Impact of CO2, H2O and Other “Greenhouse Gases” on Equilibrium Earth Temperatures

    ". . . 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 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. It would however offer multiple beneficial effects, such as increased crop yields and greening of desert areas. The adoption of a zero-carbon economy, at a cost of not just billions of dollars, but trillions, will have no discernible effect upon the climate whatsoever, even assuming that all nations would adopt such a policy. The IPCC pronouncements, which form the basis for the headlong stampede to “zero carbon” are simply wrong. Their estimates of climate sensitivity are out by a factor of at least three and possibly ten!

    The fearmongering over methane emissions from cattle is just that. The climate sensitivity to a doubling of methane is just 0.06°C. And for this we are asked to restrict the consumption of beef and even replace it with insects and mealworms. No thank you!

    Variations of earth temperature of many degrees Celsius, over millennia, are known to have occurred caused by entirely natural phenomena, particularly solar radiation intensity variations. The medieval warm period and little ice age are two recent examples. Scientific concern could perhaps be better focussed on the possibility, ne probability, that we are approaching the end of an interglacial period at which point the earth will enter a new ice age. Our impotance to influence the climate will then be clearly and painfully realised.

    The data for this article is derived from the paper “The Impact of CO2 and Other Greenhouse Gases on Equilibrium Earth Temperature” published in the International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science.

    The link to the paper is http://www.ijaos.org/article/298/10.11648.j.ijaos.20210502.12 ."
     
  24. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The end of the AGW paradigm is at hand.
    New Study: The CO2-Drives-Global-Warming ‘Concept’ Is ‘Obsolete And Incorrect’
    By Kenneth Richard on 14. March 2022

    Share this...
    “The IPCC concept that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes global warming is three decades out-of-date.” − Lightfoot and Ratzer (2022), Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences
    In analyzing UAH global temperature and Mauna Loa CO2 records from 1979 to 2021, climate researchers Lightfoot and Ratzer (2022) report there has been “little, if any” correlation between these two variables during this period.

    They assert that between 91 and 98% of Earth’s greenhouse gas effect is from water vapor, as CO2 and other trace gases contribute less than 5% to greenhouse gas forcing.

    A solar minimum has just began in the current solar cycle 25. The declining solar output is projected to eventually lead to a ~1 to 1.2°C cooling over the next 30 to 40 years. Solar minimum periods are also accompanied by crop failures due to frost and weather extremes delivering excessive heat.

    The authors conclude by suggesting the popularized conceptualization of CO2 as a driver of global warming has proven to be “obsolete and incorrect”.

    [​IMG]

    Image Source: Lightfoot and Ratzer, 2022
     
    bringiton likes this.
  25. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

Share This Page