By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Michael Limburg of Eike, the splendid German environmental think-tank, writes to point out that there has been no discernible effect at all in the Mauna Loa monthly concentration data from the large reduction in annual CO2 emissions arising from the Chinese-virus pandemic.
The 18 months January 2020 to July 2021, during which many nations locked down, are shaded on the Mauna Loa CO2-concentration graph. Though global CO2 emissions fell by a remarkable 27% in the first half of 2020 (Le Quéré et al. 2020), the uptrend in CO2 concentration remained near-linear during the pandemic, and has continued unaltered thereafter. The breadth of the yellow trend-line is 1 μmol mol–1.
A longer-run trend since 2015, with the breadth of the trend-line again equal to 1 μmol mol–1:
The uptrend in total anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcing has also remained near-perfectly linear notwithstanding the large reduction in CO2 emissions during the pandemic:
These considerations strongly reinforce the conclusion in my recent piece on the ever-lengthening New Pause (now at 8 years 9 months and counting) that even if the whole world actually achieved net zero emissions by 2050 the reduction in global temperature by then would be less than one-tenth of a degree:
The table shows just how little global warming would be prevented, even in theory, by the attainment of net zero worldwide and in various territories.
After 2100, very little further warming would be prevented, because existing and foreseeable resources of oil and gas would be substantially exhausted and coal reserves would last for only another half-century at current demand.
It is also possible to calculate how much (or, rather, how little) global warming would be prevented if the United States were to double its existing installed wind and solar capacity:
From the above calculation (h/t Douglas Pollock), it is evident that wind and solar on their own are not going to be capable of getting the United States, or the world, to net zero. Therefore, the earlier table was more than somewhat optimistic. Bottom line: the trashing of the Western economies to Save The Planet will not benefit the climate one whit.
“Though global CO2 emissions fell by a remarkable 27% in the first half of 2020 (Le Quéré et al. 2020)”
Le Quéré did not say that. He did say
“At their peak, emissions in individual countries decreased by –26% on average.”
Very different (and note the “rounding up” to 27%). But in terms of the whole year:
“The impact on 2020 annual emissions depends on the duration of the confinement, with a low estimate of –4% (–2 to –7%) if prepandemic conditions return by mid-June, and a high estimate of –7% (–3 to –13%) if some restrictions remain worldwide until the end of 2020.”
IOW, the pandemic was not designed to reduce emissions, and in fact did not do so enough to significantly affect the buildup of CO2.
In a later paper (2022) with all the data for 2020 in, he said
“We find a global reduction of 6.3% (2,232 MtCO2) in CO2 emissions compared with 2019.”
Small beer. 2.232 Mton CO2 is just 0.3 ppmv CO2. Then halve that for airborne fraction.
In addition to misgendering Corinne Le Quéré , you deliberately quote an earlier paper than the citation. In your own reference:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01001-0
The paper is from 2021, however, prelims and pre-release were in 2020 just as Monckton has written.
Still lying, still illitereate. Plus le change…
Your objection is not comprehensible. Are you saying that Lord M’s reference to (Le Quéré et al. 2020) is not to the paper I linked, which Nature lists as
Nature Climate Change volume 10, pages 647–653 (2020)
but rather to the one you quote, listed as:
Nature Climate Change volume 11, pages 197–199 (2021)?
Normal referencing convention says the former. But whatever, they say effectively the same, with (2021) saying:
“emissions decreased at the peak of the country’s confinement, by on average 27%”
That is a single max attained during the year. It is not what Lord M said:
“Though global CO2 emissions fell by a remarkable 27% in the first half of 2020 (Le Quéré et al. 2020)”
But whatever, the second paper said, like the 2022 paper, referring to the 2020 total:
“Global fossil CO2 emissions have decreased by around 2.6 GtCO2 in 2020 to 34 GtCO2 (Fig. 1).”
The 2022 paper said 2.3 GtCO2 (actually Mt, but I’m sure that was a typo). Either way, the expected decrease in CO2 post-2020 because of the pandemic is about 0.15 ppmv. And that is too little to see by eye on the graph.
—the illiiterate part, because you did not read or understand any of this piece or the ones you referenced.
…the lying part, because SHE did indeed WRITE that, with collaborators, as I’ve quoted and Moncton referenced, in the published paper.
I am very grateful to dk_ for having dealt so firmly with the silly quibbles by Mr Stokes.
In the head posting, there were three elephants in the room, all of which Mr Stokes meticulously failed to notice.
First, as Corinne le Quere and her colleagues pointed out, the drop in CO2 emissions in the first half of 2020 brought emissions down to their 2006 level. Yet, despite that significant reversal, not a flicker of deviation from the CO2 concentration record is evident. Like it or not, that does not bode well for future reductions in global warming from CO2 emissions abatement.
Secondly, although McKinseys say approaching $6 trillion a year is already being squandered on trying to attain net zero emissions, the consequent global CO2-equivalent radiative forcing continues to increase in a near-perfectly linear fashion. So far, there is no evidence whatsoever of any departure from that near-linear trend of the past one-third of a century.
Thirdly, even if one paid no attention to the failure of that large global fall in CO2 emissions to alter global forcing (nothing to see here, folks, move right along), it is not difficult to calculate just how little global warming would be prevented even if the whole world moved in a straight line to attain net zero by 2050. The CO2 emissions abated would be 0.45 Watts per square meter; the warming prevented by each Watt per square meter abated would be the ratio 0.46 K/W/m^2 of the 1.8 K midrange transient doubled-CO2 response (TCR) to the 3.93 W/m^2 midrange doubled-CO2 radiative forcing; and that must be reduced by the ratio 0.45 K/K of the 0.136 K/decade observed warming since 1990 to the 0.3 K/decade midrange warming overpredicted by IPCC (1990).
Therefore, even if the whole world moved in a straight line towards net zero, and actually attained it by 2050, warming prevented would be less than 0.46^3 K: i.e., less than 0.1 K. That would rise to at most 0.3 K by 2100, after which little further warming would arise. But the cost would approach one quadrillion dollars. So each $1 billion squandered on attempting to attain nut zero would reduce global temperature by about one ten-millionth of a degree – the worst value for money in history.
But no. Mr Stokes ignores all these inconvenient truths and concentrates instead on arguing that a 27% reduction in CO2 emissions in the first half of 2020 was only 26% and that the reduction averaged over the year was only 6%. To get to nut zero, one would have to reduce current global emissions by close to 4% per year. Yet just look at the disruption caused by a reduction in 2020 equivalent to 18 months’-worth of the reductions necessary to attain nut zero.
Thanks. He does distract from the point. It bears repeating that net zero is no solution to a non-problem. Even the attempt will cause (or is causing) truly predictable, disasterous results.
“Thirdly, even if one paid no attention to the failure of that large global fall in CO2 emissions to alter global forcing”
This is the lie (to use the language of dk_ that you embrace) that is built on the original misrepresentation of Le Quéré et al 2020. You have quoted what they said were individual country peak reductions, caused by the lockdowns. But to turn that into a large global fall, you need to know how long those lockdowns lasted. They were, in most places, a few weeks. But by your misrepresentation
“Though global CO2 emissions fell by a remarkable 27% in the first half of 2020 (Le Quéré et al. 2020)”
you give it a duration of six months, which could be quantified, and is moderately large. But it is false.
What you didn’t tell us was that Le Quéré et al did state, explicitly, in later papers how much CO2 did go missing. From the abstract of the 2022 paper:
“Here, we provide a daily CO2 emissions dataset for the whole year of 2020, calculated from inventory and near-real-time activity data. We find a global reduction of 6.3% (2,232 MtCO2) in CO2 emissions compared with 2019.”
And the airborne fraction of 2.23 Gtons amounts to 0.15 ppmv. Truly nothing to see here. With an irregular year to year variation of about 8 ppmv, you just couldn’t. That is not a quibble.
Still haven’t read the paper I cited, The paper I linked describes itself as an update to their 19 May 2020 paper that corrected their earlier figure which you continue to deliberatedly use out of context. The does state their conclusion, exactly the same as Monckton has used it.
To justify your lying, you continue to misquote the paper that Monckton did not cite, but which, nevertheless confirms his point.
BTW I am the one continuing to call you out as a liar, since Monckton is, overgenerously IMO, still allowing for your possible ignorance. Your falsehoods are deliberate and repeated, and your arguments are off-point and disinginuous. Liar is a shorter name for it. You’ve struggled to earn it, wear it.
“The does state their conclusion, exactly the same as Monckton has used it.”
Please quote what they say.
I did, above. There’s more in the paper, since that was just one part of the introductory summary.
You demonstrate, again, that you have not actually read anything, and are simply, childishly attempting to gain attention.
Mr Stokes has already been put straight by d_k. And he has not read the comment of mine to which he was attempting to reply. I had used the 6% figure for global emissions reduction, and had pointed out that this represented 18 months’-worth of the reduction that would be necessary to get to net zero globally, and yet that anthropogenic forcing continues upward in a near-perfect straight line.
He also ignores the fact that even if one believed attaining net zero was actually possible the global warming thereby prevented would be of order 0.1 C by 2050. Yet the cost would approach $1 quadrillion. That would be an irrational waste of money to achieve practically nothing.
“I had used the 6% figure for global emissions reduction, and had pointed out that this represented 18 months’-worth of the reduction that would be necessary to get to net zero globally”
The fact is that the event you are focussing, the covid lockdowns, had a small effect on CO2 emissions. They were designed to limit spread of Covid, not diminish emissions, so that is no surprise. And that is the underlying fact. A total of 2.3 Gtons of CO2 was not emitted in 2020 because of lockdowns, equivalent to 0.15 ppmv. That is small. You can’t see it in the graph. That doesn’t tell you anything about climate, the carbon cycle, or net zero. It was just a non-event in terms of CO2.
And you can’t make that small number any larger by doing arithmetic about the number of years to 2050.
Data are available at a monthly resolution. Yet, you are using the total annual values. Perhaps because you don’t want to see it in the graph. Sensitivity to changes is improved if one works with the available monthly data.
Mr Stokes, as so often, resorts to hand-waving. The truth is that if the 2020 global CO2 emission was down by 6%, then that represents one and a half years’-worth of the emissions abatement at 4% p.a. compared with the present that would be necessary to reach net zero emissions by 2050. Yet the trend in anthropogenic forcing in response to those emissions continues upward in a near-perfect straight line. I correctly stated that that does not bode well for the likely impact even of worldwide net zero emissions on global temperature.
It is precisely because the number is so small that the impact on global warming is also likely to be small. No amount of diversionary tactics will alter the fact that even if the whole world went to net zero emissions by 2050 the warming prevented would be of order only 0.1 degree.
Monckton,
Your graph is mislabeled
You show the pandemic lasting 6 months, but the text says 18 months.
There was a huge quantity of CO2 already in the air before the pandemic, as measured by MLO
Emissions divided by 2 was added to that huge quantity during the pandemic.
I am not surprised the % change of that huge quantity did not exhibit itself in the ppm curve
Wilpost,
Look at the second graph, please.
Geoff S
Sherro01
The second graph is correct, but not the first graph
Excerpt from:
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-co2-no-life
Weight of atmosphere is 5.148 x 10^18 kg
The atmosphere consists of 5.148 x 10^18 kg / 0.0289647 kg/mol = 177.7 x 10^18 moles.
Hence, 1 ppm is 177.7 x 10^12 moles.
The mass of 1 ppm of CO2 is 177.7 x 10^12 moles x 44.01 g/mole = 7821 x 10^12 g, or 7.821 billion metric tons, or 7.821 Gt
In 2020
The human CO2 emissions were about 34.81 Gt, per Statista
The natural CO2 emissions were about 29.07 Gt. See URL
Total CO2 emissions were 63.88 Gt
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674927818300376
MLO measured an increase of 2.58 ppm, or 2.58 x 7.821 = 20.18 Gt
About 20.18/63.88 = 31.5% was absorbed by atmosphere, the rest by ocean and land
During the COVID episode, there likely was a reduction in HUMAN CO2 of about 10%, or 3.481 GT, of which 31.5%, or 1.10 Gt was not added to the atmosphere
Normal, no COVID, 20.18
Abnormal, with Covid, 20.18 – 1.10 = 19.08
That little change would not be measurable by MLO
CO2 decay is neglected
“Your objection is not comprehensible”
Your reply certainly isn’t.
It is garbled non-science nonsense.
A thing you are becoming renowned for.
You seem to be saying that human released CO2 has basically no effect on the global CO2 level.
Accidentally correct ?
Nick,
Here, I change one word while maintaining the same meaning:
From:
“Though global CO2 emissions fell by a remarkable 27% in the first half of 2020 (Le Quéré et al. 2020)”
To:
“Though global CO2 emissions fell by a remarkable 27% during the first half of 2020 (Le Quéré et al. 2020)”
It was not my reading that Christopher wrote that the emissions fall lasted for half a year.
…………………….
Nick, what is your response to the claim that “wind and solar on their own are not going to be capable of getting the United States, or the world, to net zero”?
What strategy do you propose as available to overcome that asserted deficit?
Geoff S
Geoff,
I don’t propose a strategy. We have a problem, we have to do something. Wind and solar will take us a long way, and will in any case be adopted because they have no fuel costs.
Prevaricating about the CO2 rise will not help us.
But Nick,
Where is the measured evidence that a reduction of hydrocarbon fuel consumption will solve or even affect the temperature, if that is what you regard regard as the problem?
Sure, there are conclusions from modelling, but surely decisions like net zero by 2050 require some form of measurement support. The simple idea that atmospheric CO2 reduction will lead to atmospheric temperature reduction has nowhere been proven by measurement to date.
You know that I am complimentary about your own use of logic, but you seem not to be so logical in this discussion. I hope that you are not affected by Covid or other ailments.
Geoff S
Geoff,
The simple idea that atmospheric CO2 increase will lead to atmospheric temperature increase was amply demonstrated (and quantified) by Arrhenius in 1896, and supported by many scientists later. Then we did it and it happened. We can undo it.
“supported by many scientists later”
A consensus? Then that resolves the issue. /sarc
Increasing CO2 will not “lead to atmospheric temperature increase”. We have seen that several times in the ice core records.
Even Anthony’s experiment showed that.
No it wasn’t demonstrated. It was asserted. And at least at the scale asserted by Arrhenius, its not true. Observational studies of the amount of warming give no cause for alarm.
And even if they did, trying to move electricity generation in the West to wind and solar is not going to make the slightest difference.
Arrhenius for Heaven’s sake! Can the Hockey Stick be far behind?
Arrhenius withdrew his contention in 1906 I believe.
Arrhenius wrote his paper of 1896, and his revision of 1906, long before the mathematics of feedback in dynamical systems had been derived and formalized. He guessed that feedback response would be large when the evidence is that it is actually so small that it can be left out of account without error in climate sensitivity appraisals.
You are wrong.
Mr Stokes is unable to say in what respects I am wrong in stating that Arrhenius wrote his papers on climate sensitivity before the mathematics of feedback in dynamical systems had been derived and formalized. That was not done until Black’s paper of 1934. Feedback was known of before then, but the underlying mathematics was not worked out until the 1920s and 1930s.
Mr Stokes is also unable to say in what respects I am wrong in stating that the evidence is that feedback response is so small that it can be left out of account without error in climate-sensitivity appraisals. The energy-budget method shows that one might expect about 1.3 K equilibrium doubled-CO2 sensitivity, but the direct warming by doubled CO2 before accounting for feedback response is 1.2 K. The error in ignoring feedback response altogether is, therefore, small, exactly as I said it was.
“Mr Stokes is unable to say in what respects I am wrong”
My correction was addressed to HotScot (who was wrong).
This shouldn’t be a debate about whether CO2 in the atmosphere can cause some warming through impeding loss of infrared energy to space. That is understood. The debate is what if any measurable impact on global temperature that is having in contrast with all the other natural forces that caused warming in the past and presumably at present. We are in one of the coldest periods of geologic planet Earth – an ice age where there are persistent ice caps at the poles year round. We are fortunate to be in an interglacial period which is warmer than most of the ice age and it is during and likely because of that interglacial that organized human society developed.
It was warmer during Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods which preceded the recent little ice age that arrived with famine, pestilence and significant declines in European/Asian populations. It then warmed again beginning in the 18th and 19th centuries long before any human industrialization could take credit for a significant rise in atmospheric CO2. The warming preceding significant industrialization is no different in rate and magnitude to that that followed the mid 20th century when industrialization really took off. CO2 has risen during the industrial bloom of human society in a near linear trend and yet warming has started and stopped with no relationship to that CO2 rise.
We’ve had periods of no warming when nearly a third of all human CO2 emissions entered the atmosphere and, as mentioned above many periods of warming when Humans had no impact on the atmosphere.
Some of the coldest periods on Earth before the modern era had much higher CO2 levels, and ice cores show us that CO2 rises after temperatures increase and falls after temperature declines with lag times of about 800 years. There is no proof that CO2 in the atmosphere from human activity is doing anything adverse to our climate. Try as they might the IPCC continues to admit they can measure no adverse change in severe weather events.
If your only evidence is rigged and unreliable climate models which fail at almost every testable prediction then you have no evidence. Model outputs are not evidence, they are simply a hypothesis which is programmed into the model. The only way to prove a model valid is to make testable predictions from the model (the output) and then show they come true in the real world. When the predictions fail the model should be abandoned.
Thanks for this excellent summary of the issue.
Mr Stokes again attempts a dishonest bait and switch by ignoring the fact that the head posting implicitly accepts that emissions of greenhouse gases will cause warming, for it uses the official midrange values of relevant quantities. Even then, however, the quantum of global warming prevented even if the whole world actually went to nut zero by 2050, rather than just the Western nations he so hates, would be negligible – of order only 0.1 degrees.
Nick, have you never heard that “correlation is not causation”? So the fact that it happened is not due to CO2. If you choose to believe that it is, you must do something about it.
It’s not actually so easily demonstrated unless you use the artificial “anomaly” scale.
Nick,
read Knut Angstroms 1900 criticism of Arrhenius 1896 experimental work (following Eunice Foote’s 1856 work ).
Then read Arrhenius 1906 paper where he admits his mistakes (can’t see many modern scientists admitting mistakes).
In his 1896 paper, Arrhenius states the average temperature of the Earth’s surface as 15 °C.
127 years later – According to climate information from (NOAA),the average temperature on Earth 14.96 °C
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
He calculated over 3 C of warming for an increase of 50% in atmospheric “Carbonic Acid,” since 1896 that increase has already happened, so where’s the dramatic increase in temperature from CO2 ??
Show me Al Gore’s “Boiling Oceans”.
Nick,
That Arrhenius paper showed that IR flowing through a laboratory test cell containing some CO2 raised the gas temperature. That is not controversial. (Later, we used CO2 lasers do much the same). Arrhenius did not show what happened to that heat energy after the laboratory test cell experiment stopped. He could likewise have generated higher temperatures by shining his IR through a salt magnifying glass, but that heat would also leave the Earth environment. We know that heat anywhere on earth eventually escapes, that it does not continuously accumulate.
So, in that sense, the Arrhenius paper is irrelevant because it fails to cover the full sequence of events. Measurements in the real, whole atmosphere remained to be done. Geoff S
“That Arrhenius paper showed that IR flowing through a laboratory test cell containing some CO2 raised the gas temperature.“
The Arrhenius 1896 paper has nothing like that. I don’t believe Arrhenius ever did such an experiment.
Nick,
You are quite correct. My apologies. I had in mind Tyndall and others.
Arrhenius (1896) wrote
“In order to get an idea of how strongly the radiation of the earth (or any other body of the temperature +15° C.) is absorbed by quantities of water-vapour or carbonic acid in the proportions in which these gases are present in our atmosphere, one should, strictly speaking, arrange experiments on the absorption of heat from a body at 15° by means of appropriate quantities of both gases. But such experiments have not been made as yet, and, as they would require very expensive apparatus beyond that at my disposal, I have not been in a position to execute them.”
Van Wijngaarden & Happer have since filled in some of the holes.
Geoff S
The problem is that the “simple idea” was supported by a simple experiment that did not duplicate the numerous feedbacks that can modify the net change in a complex system. Basically, what Arrhenius demonstrated was that CO2 absorbs IR, and in the absence of other parameters, in a laboratory environment, will warm up. It does not prove that an “atmospheric temperature increase” will result.
Mr Stokes is, as usual, wrong. Arrhenius attempted to quantify the effect of increased CO2 before the mathematics of feedback in dynamical systems had been derived. Therefore, he over-predicted the influence of temperature feedback, just as many subsequent researchers have done.
The warming that is occurring is a long way below what would be predicted on the basis of Arrhenius’ estimates.
And no, we cannot “undo it”, if IPeCaC is correct that the mean atmospheric residence time of CO2 is measured in centuries. The best we can hope to do is to abate future emissions to some small degree: but, as the head posting shows, even if the whole world actually achieved net zero emissions by 2050 only 0.1 degree of future global warming would be prevented, at a cost close to one quadrillion dollars.
As one of those awful deniers I feel the need to point out that the whole argument is akin to whether it is the Devil himself or just some of his demons that are causing the evil in the world. CO2 in the atmosphere isn’t a real problem, it is just a scapegoat chosen by the eugenicist and Malthusian running amuck and roughshod over the western world..
“We have a problem, we have to do something.”
But of course- Al Gore said the oceans are boiling. 🙂
“We have a problem, we have to do something.” — No, you have a problem , you believe in climate catastrophe and the end of the world if the world does not de-carbonize. You are scared, afraid of your future. I am not.
“Wind and solar will take us a long way” – Towards energy poverty.
The real problem and it is a severe problem is hysteria about “climate change” even as the quantitative record clearly shows that the globe is NOT warming to any significant extent and no other measures of climate instability show the “hockey stick” trend. No hockey stick is, in fact, positive evidence that the climate scare is just that, a scare, and a scare that is driving energy policy off a cliff!
Nick, when you say “Wind and solar will take us a long way, and will in any case be adopted because they have no fuel costs” you seem to be blissfully unaware of the fact that oil, coal, and natural gas have no fuel costs either. Mother Earth sends no bill for any of the above. The cost of energy is not due to an invoice from earth, it’s from the costs of getting the energy from its source location to its needed location in the form it can be used, at the time it is most needed. Actual data prove that solar and wind have the highest cost for that.
Mr Stokes is unaware of the Pollock limits on generation by wind and solar sources. Most Western nations (though not yet the U.S.A.) are already above their Pollock limits. Adding wind and solar to the grid above the Pollock limits will cost a fortune but will not reduce CO2 emissions at all.
Well wind in particular, both onshore and offshore, uses a great deal of cement and steel which are reliant on coal for manufacture and will be so reliant for many years to come. (Hydrogen reduction process for steel will take years to develop enough to meet the quantities required)
And there is now serious consideration of using cement in the construction of offshore wind turbine towers as well as the concrete bases and floating concrete platforms because the concrete does not degrade as fast as steel towers do in that environment.
In other words wind turbines are absolutely reliant on coal
“Wind and solar will take us a long way, and will in any case be adopted because they have no fuel costs.”
Here we go with the same absurdity. The fuel costs are relatively unimportant. What counts is the total costs of using the technology to deliver a usable = dispatchable electricity supply.
Wind and solar do not do that at all, and if supplemented don’t do it affordably. The numbers have to be faked to make it look affordable. As in levelized costs.
If they are adopted it will be due to mass intellectual hysteria on the part of the political class supported by the endorsements of the chattering class. Free floating intellectuals with no expertise in the subject who keep repeating nonsense like ‘because they have no fuel costs’, and telling the rest of us that the impossible is perfectly doable, affordable and will work fine, when it obviously will not. And is not.
It is called ‘trahison des clercs’.
“Wind and solar will take us a long way, and will in any case be adopted because they have no fuel costs.”
A simple review of any public utility annual report will show you that the cost of fuel is near the bottom of the list of the cost of generating and distributing electricity to either Residential or Industrial consumers. The largest cost is Federal, State and municipal TAXES, which account for over 50% of the price per kWh consumed. Some states even add a “Sales tax” on the electric bill. The second largest cost is “Down time” also called Capacity factor. Unreliable Renewable Energy (RE) forces plants to sit idle or in “Hot Standby” while preference is given to RE, and the consumer pays the bills. Even Wind Turbines provide a heavy burden on the costs. WTs require and use electricity 100% of the time 24/7/365 weather generating power or just standing there like an eyesore. Typical annual consumption for a WT is in excess of 10% of the total theoretical annual name plate capacity rating. Even the electronics in a solar panel inverter consumes in excess of 100 watt hours a day.
We don’t have a problem with CO2. Millions of people saying it is doesn’t make it true.
Actually CO2 is probably a net good thing, good for greening the planet and, perhaps, ever so slightly warming the planet, making human habitation very slightly more comfortable.
Coal, oil and natural gas have no fuel cost as is the case with wind and solar by your judgment. They are all free just waiting for us to collect and use them. But then you must expend energy and wealth to collect and use them. If one does this with coal, oil and gas one gets a far greater return in useable, reliable energy than if one expends the wealth on harvesting “free” wind and solar power. If you don’t agree then you don’t understand basic physics or economics.
Yes we do have a problem and you are part of it. It is the big lie that is CAGW or, for those who wish to hide their prior lies and lack of evidence “climate change”.
Nick, my reading here is that we don’t have a problem and therefore don’t need to do anything.
Actually, the real problem is hysteria about a non-problem. Developing countries need roads and they need energy and they won’t get much of either from windmills.
because they have no fuel costs.
Which is garbage, and you know it. The amount of fossil fuels used in their construction, installation, maintenance and decommissioning, defeats their purpose for the sequestration of CO2.
Why are you having discussions with an AGW acolyte?
He will die on the pyre before he changes his thinking.
Nick had a bad day yesterday on subsidies for U.K. wind and solar
The trend continues today
Thinking, Alexy? Haven’t seen it, yet. Nor discussion. Mr(?) Stokes is just stoking dissent through silly, off-topic, distracting gibberish – as always – and even an undereducated and overmedicated pensioner can point it out in less than 15 minutes and 300 words (and is just enough tired to do so).
I am sometimes amazed that Nick can have all this information on various climate things at his fingertips.
I couldn’t be that dedicated to one subject or lover.
He’s gotta be sick.
Look them up on any of Nick’s post: they go no farther than the fingertips. (He) grabs references, takes them out of context or misrepresents them, and argues incessently on these inanities (compared once to the black knight from Monty Python) just for the attention. If he gets a response from the author, it is a point.
“Tis but a scratch,” said the Black Knight.
Plus câ change
…et plus le meme. Mais oui. Tiresome Stokes comme toujours,
Not sure how to say DOH en francaise. I finally got it, Lion. My French is long unpracticed, pronounciation atrocious, spelling wrong more than not, and grammar non-existent.
“We find a global reduction of 6.3% (2,232 MtCO2) in CO2 emissions “
But it had ZERO effect on CO2 rate on increase.
What does that tell you. (as if you ever had the ability to think for yourself !)
It tells you that human released CO2 DOES NOT control the increase in atmospheric CO2, something else does..
Doesn’t matter.
The agw cult demands that western white folk take the blame.
Just curious- and not being a scientist- and being a fully climate emergency skeptic:
“But it had ZERO effect on CO2 rate on increase.”
If the increase in emissions droped by 6%- would that even be detectable- if the increase each year is only a several parts per billion? Is the measurement of CO2 in Hawaii or wherever so accurate that such a 6% decrease in the increase would be measurable? Not sure if my question makes sense- but perhaps you get the point. I have no idea how accurate the measurement is- just trying to learn.
Human CO2 emissions are still a fart in the wind.
a beneficial fart!
Here is a rather long explanation of how CO2 is measured at Mauna Loa.
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
Worldwide, there are many monitoring places and comparisons. Such as …
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/12/how-do-we-measure-greenhouse-gases/
The annual net CO2 increase is about 2-3 PPMv.
Good to know- so if it’s that little, then if emissions decrease by 6%- can such a decrease in the increase even be detectable, accurately in Hawaii and elsewhere? My point being (admitting I have no clue) that the increase in atmospheric CO2 hasn’t decreased since it’s showing a linear trend – ergo, that would show that emissions aren’t relevant to the long term increase? (given the fact that I admit to knowing less than everyone else here on this topic – I can ask good questions thanks to my infinite curiosity 🙂 )
Really, the more important point is that after over 30 years of climate hysteria and hundreds of billions of dollars of research and mitigation with windmills and solar, the upward march of CO2 is unhampered. The majority of the world’s people want to escape poverty. The coal and gas-fired plans of their governments move apace.
Nick give up your pro-Green propaganda as a bad job that is losing and will continue to do so.
The experiment on rising CO2 is on! So far, looks like a better Earth.
Please explain why CO2 falls as summer approaches and temperatures rise – and then they rise as temperatures cool into winter. I know it is due to photosynthesis and its reversal after the growing season ends, but doesn’t the IPCC dogma tell us that more CO2 causes warming?
According to the IPCC Scriptures:
STFU and have faith in us.
and if you really want to live dangerously, venture to ask why
i.e. The Exact Opposite to what climate change is supposed to do
Ours aren’t, It depends on whether you’re in a winter or summer rainfall area.
“Please explain why CO2 falls as summer approaches and temperatures rise – and then they rise as temperatures cool into winter.”
It may not be due to photosynthesis and decomposition.
In the northern summer, the arctic ice extent gets smaller, This causes more exposed ocean in the arctic to be able to absorb CO2 and so the CO2 measured at Mauna Loa (MLO)
goes down.
In winter the process reverses. The reduced area of open water in winter means the ability of the cold water to absorb CO2 is reduced.
At the same time tropical oceans are still out gassing CO2 at the same rate, and so CO2 goes up in the MLO record.. The opposite happens in the southern hemisphere although the amplitude is smaller,possibly because there is no open ocean at the south pole. The cyclic change in CO2 is reversed.
Two important points.
Firstly, the annual rises and falls of atmospheric CO2 are the opposite in the southern hemisphere.
In the northern hemisphere the CO2 is highest in October and lowest in April. In the southern hemisphere, it is highest in April and lowest in October.
Secondly, Changes in CO2 concentration follow changes in sea ice extent, which is what we expect if the CO2 saw tooth is caused by variation in sea ice extent.
The following is a link to a spreadsheet with graphs that shows this using data from MLO and Gape Grim(in Tasmania) for CO2 data. NASA’s GISS for data on Sea Ice extent. You need to scroll to the right to see the graphs.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/czhpb09d1xnnq7y/Anticyclic%20rythm%20of%20Cape%20Grim%20vs%20MLO.xls?dl=0
“In the northern hemisphere the CO2 is highest in October and lowest in April.”
A typo, I guess, but worth clarifying. Annual maximum of atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa is usually in May and minimum is usually in September.
oops. Yes. I got that back to front. And yes, it is mostly highest in May. But the point I am trying to make does not change.The peak in CO2 at MLO follows the peak in arctic sea ice by a couple of months.
The thinking mostly is that CO2 is highest in May when spring plant growth in the Northern Hemisphere starts consuming CO2, and lowest in September when the plants are finished growing for the year, leaves fall, vegetation freezes and decomposes.
Mid April and we are still close to mid-March max arctic ice. Open ocean area affects CO2 absorption but the arctic and antarctic would pretty well cancel each other out globally, so probably your ice area/sea area assumption doesn’t quite fit.
You may also be interested to look here: https://pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/GAKOA
I find these plots take a while to download so be patient! The partial pressure of CO2 in the surface waters drops dramatically in late April at this location. This can also be seen in the Iceland Sea: https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Iceland
This would seem to coincide with the phytoplankton becoming active (and ‘hungry’ for CO2).
you’ve asked an interesting question: Is there any seasonal variation in the lower Troposphere temperature data from UAH, and if there is, do temperatures lead, or lag the CO2 seasonal variation”. There may be tons of data on this, but if there are, I have never seen it. This would be a good question to pose to Dr. Spencer. This might even make a good story tip.
To petroalbion. The ultimate sinks for atmospheric CO2 are the cold open waters of the polar oceans. In the northern hemisphere most of the Arctic ocean is covered with ice in the winter and CO2, that is being delivered from the tropics via jet streams, builds up. When the ice melts, the very cold water absorbs all the CO2 that reaches the surface. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations at Point Barrow relation to Arctic sea-ice concentrations is the best evidence for this natural process.
What is your explanation for the sudden, huge, drop in pCO2 in the surface waters in April in the examples I gave above?
It’s the solubility of CO2 in the oceans. Cold water holds more CO2 than warm (which is why fizzy pop bottles get pressurised when allowed to get warm).
Because the N Hemisphere has far less ocean surface than the S Hemisphere, when the S Hemisphere is colder (winter) the atmospheric CO2 decreases. As S Hemisphere enters spring the CO2 out-gasses and the atmospheric CO2 concentration goes up.
It should be noted that the changes can be seen instantly in the Mauna Loa data. There’s no buffering. Which means the changes from the Covid lockdowns should show instantly too. But those changes are too small.
We now know that NetZero involves greater suppression of the economy than Covid, and not just for one year. But for every year after year, like a boot stamping on your face forever.
Bacterial decomposition of deciduous leaves and annual plants, along with respiration from the roots of evergreen trees, and the absence of photosynthetic withdrawal, allows CO2 to increase in the Fall, Winter, and early-Spring. As deciduous trees leaf out, annual plants start growing, and phytoplankton take advantage of the increasing sunlight in the late-Spring, there is a strong draw-down of CO2 throughout the Summer. Bacteria can work in cold temperatures, albeit more slowly than when warm. Most trees and plants thrive with increased temperatures and sunlight. The ramp-up and draw-down phases are not symmetrical in slope or duration, suggesting that it is biological activity rather than Henry’s Law that is driving the seasonal changes.
More CO2=more biomass=more CO2?
Irrespective of frantic emission reduction programs; the physics of the earth system will carry-on.
Within the lowest reaches of the troposphere, the hydrodynamic boundary layer is free to vary in depth.
Meanwhile, the freezing point of water remains fixed.
The bulk emission of longer waves from the Earth system originates from the top of this boundary layer, not from the terrestrial surface.
The average depth of the boundary layer is about 2km forming the base of the troposphere.
You can visualize this depth in the real world as the gap between the terrestrial surface and the “cloud deck”.
That energy delivered up through the depth of the hydrodynamic boundary layer, having departed from the terrestrial surface, is transported only by non-radiative means in turbulent fluxes.
Only that OLR transmitted directly to space from 0km altitude originates from the terrestrial surface.
The majority of OLR originates as the full spectrum IR in condensation at the top of the boundary layer.
This occurs at a fixed peak temperature of 273K. Such that, this forms the boundary layer effective surface temperature.
That surface exists with an average altitude over 2km. The bulk of OLR originates from this condensation surface.
273K is a very particular and special temperature for the Earth.
The machine of dynamical transport is continuously shuffling energy from the terrestrial surface, up through the boundary layer, to this variable effective radiating surface altitude.
Any shuttering of the transmitted terrestrial flux, by increasing optical depth, can only result in an increased depth of the hydrodynamic boundary layer.
Such that, the effective radiating surface is forced to a higher altitude. From there, the reduction of terrestrial transmitted flux is largely negated by enhanced boundary layer flux.
This variable depth of the boundary layer, which maintains an effective radiative surface temperature of 273K, is a critically important physical mechanism for Earth.
It is the mechanism which makes positive radiative feedbacks to trace gas emission physically impossible.
The operation of the atmospheric convective engine is completely independent of CO2 radiative properties. The only dependence on CO2 is through added mass, which is negligible.
Over open ocean surface, the convection engine reaches surface energy equilibrium at a temperature of 30C. Tropical ocean surface cannot sustain a temperature over 30C over any annual cycle. The equilibrium is due to the level of free convection approaching the 273K altitude. Cloud formation above the LFC, resulting from convective instability, becomes persistent ice cloud with just enough clear sky before the next cloudburst to allow sufficient sunlight to the surface evaporator to keep the engine running at full throttle. Most of the ocean surface is less than 30C because 30C is full throttle for Earth’s current atmospheric mass.
More ocean surface in the Northern Hemisphere will reach 30C as the peak solar intensity moves northward. This cycles every year but is also happening on a much longer time scale for the next 10,000 years. There will be a long term warming trend in the NH for at least centuries until snowfall overtakes snow melt.
The Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal are a few weeks away from hitting the temperature limit and the monsoon to set in:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp/orthographic=-285.36,3.56,514/loc=81.358,2.980
The water surrounding India will get above 30C to herald the beginning of the monsoon with the regional convective engine reaching full throttle typically by early May.
You ignore that without IR active gases the convective atmosphere is limited.
It is the creation of the environmental lapse rate which is only 2/3rds of the adiabatic one which drives the instability.
Eventually, of course, once the engine fires up there is a system hydrostatic balance which occurs. It is this hydrostasis which resists change. This is the world we live in today.
Within the framework of the global hydrostatic equilibrium, the internal mechanisms are highly dynamic.
Not at all. The fusion/condensation of the water through radiative cooling is the cool end of the convective engine. That process relies solely on water.
The LFC acts as the expansion nozzle during the convective instability and ensuing cloudburst. Convective potential is ubiquitous through the tropical oceans:
The Pacific
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=cape/orthographic=-172.10,-14.54,514/loc=-167.749,-12.712
And building in the Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=cape/orthographic=-288.86,4.73,514/loc=73.785,14.020
This is a surface temperature regulating process but it depends on the LFC approaching the 273K altitude because that guarantees the persistence of cloud that reduces surface sunlight.
The convective engine pumps up the tropical atmosphere by about 900m compared to the polar atmosphere. The heat engine is doing that work and is the primary driver of global circulation that distributes the heat poleward from the tropics.
@RickWill,
you are half right. There are two processes which drive the instability – 1) the radiative effect of IR active gases + 2) the phase dynamics of water.
on 1) as soon as the temperature lapse rate becomes steeper than the temperature lapse rate by adiabatic expansion of dry air; 1°C per 100 m, the atmosphere becomes instable.
on 2) air in which humidity is changing phase 0.29 °C per 100 m at 320 K, 0.42 °C per 100 m at 300 K, 0.74 °C per 100 m at 250 K, the atmosphere becomes instable.
Related to 1) – we know this is almost always true. The environmental lapse rate on average is steeper than the adiabatic one by factor of 3:2.
Related to 2) – this is a special case in which you are focused.
The more IR active gases in the air, the steeper the environmental lapse rate in the boundary layer, and the sooner the instability comes into action.
I have plotted the boundary layer depth on the following figure from Hartmann.
Notice Hartmann depicts (unwittingly?) the various levers which exist in the hydrodynamic boundary layer in a 1D model.
Notice first the radiative discontinuity at the surface – whereupon the real air temperature adjacent to the surface is not equal to the effective radiation temperature. There is a correction which occurs at a height of 0-z metres depicted by the 2 rightmost dots.
From there, the hydrodynamic levers come into play extending through the depth of the boundary layer.
As a clarification, it should be noted that Hartmann is only discussing the radiative phenomena – such that the diagram depicts the primed condition and levers prior to the latent condensation effects.
I only provided a brief description of the process. The full picture is detailed in two papers.
This one covers the process with reference to hourly data measured at moored buoys in the three tropical oceans in Section 2:
http://www.bomwatch.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Bomwatch-Willoughby-Main-article-FINAL.pdf
This one goes into more detail on the process of convective instability:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/23/ocean-atmosphere-response-to-solar-emr-at-top-of-the-atmosphere/
In response to RickWill, it is far simpler and more effective to accept for the sake of argument that greenhouse gases cause the direct warming predicted by the usual suspects at midrange, and then to demonstrate that by an elementary error of control theory climate scientists imagined that feedback response to direct warming forced by greenhouse gases would be many times what it actually is, and then to demonstrate that, sure enough, the rate of global warming since 1990 is well below half IPCC’s then midrange prediction.
lordmoncktongmailcom
I am not trying to win any debate by offering nonsense. I am describing why a well known atmospheric process prevents any open ocean surface from sustaining a temperature above 30C. This limit has been identified in published scientific papers since the 1970s.
Convective potential is well known and the estimated data is available globally on an hourly basis.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=cape/orthographic=-49.37,10.09,363/loc=-69.819,13.903
If you rotate that globe, you will see CAPE is ubiquitous across the tropical oceans.
The reason for the 30C limit has been postulated in scientific studies since the 1970s. However I have seen scientific records on the tropical ocean surface temperature dating back to the late 1800s that identify the 30C limit.
Radiation imbalance and temperature are completely uncorrelated across the globe. Surface temperature depends entirely on heat transport in the climate system. The attached group of charts prove this using CERES net radiation data and temperature change over 16 years – no correlation between net radiation uptake and surface temperature. The atmosphere of the tropical oceans and rainforests absorb an enormous amount of radiated heat and surface latent and sensible heat, which is transferred poleward in the climate system where most of it is released to space. No one knows how much of that net heat input goes into terra forming and permanent biomass creation. We do know that the creation of biomass is accelerating due to the increase in atmospheric CO2. Coral atolls are growing.
The Southern Hemisphere has absorbed 15% more radiation than the Northern Hemisphere over the last 16 years but warming is primarily occurring in the Northern Hemisphere in winter..
You bang on about the current pause. It will end within the next 10 years with the next big El Nino and you will go back to the new pause. The average surface temperature is trending upward. Warming faster in the NH than the SH is cooling.
RickWill is, as so often, a little too dismissive of forms of argument with which he is unfamiliar. It is not “nonsense” to accept ad argumentum that the direct warming by greenhouse gases – the reference sensitivity of global temperature thereto, before accounting for feedback response – is approximately as official climatology finds it to be.
Nor is it “nonsense” that greenhouse gases cause the temperature to be greater than it would be without them. It is a matter of straightforward comparison between the 260 K emission temperature as it would be without any greenhouse gases in the air and the 288 K industrial-era global mean surface temperature.
For these reasons, it is wisest to concentrate on those points at which climatologists have made a frank error – such as their failure to realize that very nearly all of the feedback response in the climate system is feedback response to the 260 K emission temperature, and that virtually none of it is feedback response to the greenhouse gases.
One way to apply this knowledge for practical discussion:
Climatology cannot have both a positive radiative feedback (and the associated unobserved anomalous warming) in addition to increasing global average precipitation volumes.
A scenario of increasing global precipitation must come at the expense of the positive radiative feedback.
It is a tradeoff. They must choose one or the other.
Under a hypothesis of increasing precipitation from direct CO2 forcing, the hydrodynamic shipment of energy to altitude will have increased, thereby negating an anomalous positive feedback enhancement of optical depth.
From the hydrodynamic boundary layer effective radiating surface, more liquid and solid particles will have precipitated. This can only enhance full spectrum IR emission.
One can say the virtual positive feedback enhancement will have simply rained out; in so doing, it will have vanished.
All those things but the take-away is: Water controls climate
It does that via convection (skilfully) utilising the immense heat capacities of water.
It is because of those huge heat capacities (esp evaporation) that only modest amounts of water movement are needed to move the heat and thus the climate is benign/gentle.
The Very Fact that there is: Weather = Convection drives a stake through everything that is= the GHGE
A climate entirely or mostly controlled by radiation would not need convection.
i.e. The very existence of Convection (weather) states that Earth would be a whole lot hotter without it = that the basic premise of the GHGE (it raises Earth temp by 33°C) is utter nonsense.
The Atmosphere Cools The Surface. It doesn’t heat it
If Sadi Carnot or Josef Stefan were still around this thing would have been shredded and binned within moments of its conception
We really are in a new dark age
Well, not quite impossible. Consider the position in 1850. That year, global temperature was 288 K, but emission temperature in the absence of greenhouse gases would be 260 K, so the natural greenhouse effect was 28 K, of which only 8 K was direct warming by the naturally-occurring greenhouse gases. Therefore, the feedback response was 20 K. Climatologists have hitherto argued that, therefore, each degree of direct warming by greenhouse gases, before adding feedback response, would cause 28 / 8 = 3.5 K final warming after adding it.
In reality, though, at any moment the feedback processes then extant must respond equally to each Kelvin of the entire reference temperature, specifically including the 260 K emission temperature. The correct system-gain factor to allow for feedback response, then, is not 28 / 8 = 3.5 but (260 + 28) / (260 + 8) =1.075.
Thus, based on the feedback regime in 1850 and adopting climatologists’ implicit assumption that it has not changed since then, the equilibrium doubled-CO2 sensitivity (ECS) after adding feedback response would be the product of the reference doubled-CO2 sensitivity (RCS) of 1.2 K and the corrected system-gain factor 1.075: i.e., just a harmless 1.3 K and not the predicted 3 or 5 or 10 K.
Bottom line: feedback response to direct or reference warming forced by anthropogenic emissions does occur, but it is so small that, without great error, one may ignore it in calculating how much global warming we may cause.
But let us pretend that climatology is wrong in assuming that the feedback strength today is exactly as it was in 1850. In that event, it is not difficult to calculate that the [2, 5] K interval of predicted ECS in IPCC (1990) implies a corrected feedback-strength interval of [0.23, 0.26] Watts per square meter per Kelvin. Startlingly, the breadth of that corrected interval is just 0.03 W/m^2/K. Since we simply do not have a sufficiently well-resolved knowledge of the initial conditions and evolutionary processes of the climate system to determine feedback strength to anything like that precision, feedback analysis cannot be used to derive or constrain ECS, for the results would be – and are – no better than guesswork. Not that that stops IPeCaC, which mentions “feedback” >2500 times in its 2021 Sixth ASSessment Report.
Instead, one must use observationally-based methods such as the energy-budget method, which suggests ECS of around 1.3 K, which is too small to cause net harm.
Bottom line: feedback response does exist, but in the industrial era the anthropogenic enhancement of it will be negligible.
Wouldn’t the reference temperature(s) for the feedback be the lower bound of the gaseous phase temperature for the various GHGs? For CO2, that’s 195K (near enough), so subtract it from 260 in the system gain function to give 65. (65 + 28) / (65 + 8) = 1.27
Old Cocky’s point is interesting but incorrect. At any moment, such feedback processes as are then extant must perforce respond equally to each Kelvin of the entire reference temperature (the temperature as it would be before adding any feedback response). Those processes cannot now tell at what temperature they would have commenced. They are inanimate. To them, a Kelvin is a Kelvin is a Kelvin. The system-gain factor based on the equilibrium state of the climate in 1850 is indeed (260 + 28) / (260 + 8) = 1.075, implying ECS of order 1.3 K. We tested that point at a national laboratory. It is correct.
That’s the problem with thought experiments, n’est ce pas?
Having the reference temperature being that at which feedback can appear seems reasonable.
So does the temperate due entirely to incoming radiation
So does absolute zero
So does the 4K Cosmic Background Radiation
Agreed, observational or experimental verification is required. I don’t recall seeing you national lab experiment summary – my bad.
Mars should also be suitable for an observational cross-check. It has gaseous CO2 in the atmosphere and a day length similar to Earth.
We are not talking about a thought experiment but a readily-demonstrable result that has been independently verified by a national physical laboratory, which built a test apparatus that showed exactly what the governing equations of a feedback-amplifier circuit show: namely, that in the absence of any differencer in the circuit (and there is none in the climate) the feedback processes extant at any moment must perforce respond equally to each unit of the input signal, and hence in strict proportion to the amplitudes of each component in the input signal.
Feedbacks in the climate are temperature feedbacks. They are denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin of the entire input signal, which is the sum of the 260 K emission temperature and the 8 K direct or reference sensitivity forced by natural greenhouse gases and the 1 K direct or reference sensitivity forced by the anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
Like it or not, 269 K is the actual input signal at present. Therefore, feedbacks in the climate respond to that signal and to no lesser signal. Like Luther, they can do no other.
What I said, innit? Without observational and experimental data, it’s thought experiments.
One caveat, assuming all these features are true:
At a 260K initial terrestrial emission temperature, an additional 4 Wm-2 “forcing” results in a maximum 1K non-feedback effect.
At a 288K initial terrestrial emission temperature, an additional 4 Wm-2 additional “forcing” results in a maximum 0.75K non-feedback effect
Effectively, it gets increasingly difficult to budge the system.
This additional resistance to temperature change comes straight from the sigma T^4 relationship of blackboy radiant emittance. This, without any reference to system dynamics.
For such a system gain factor of 1.075 to remain true over the full course, the feedback response to each doubling of CO2 would have to be getting progressively stronger.
Or not. Our atmosphere is not warmer at the surface because of GHGs trapping energy and radiating it back towards the surface. GHGs simply ration received energy upward through the atmosphere, based on density, to all the other gases. Hence, more energy ends up low in the atmosphere and less as you get higher. Changing the amount of these gases will not change the temperature as long as the density of the atmosphere remains unchanged and the received energy stays the same.
There is no “greenhouse effect”.
The part climate science has been missing is the IR energy that is directed at the surface from increasing CO2 cannot cause any warming. The reason is simple once you think about it (that is the hard part).
The boundary layer (BL), where this IR originates, is in thermal equilibrium with the surface skin (SS). This is due to the massive back and forth conduction between the two entities. When a photon is sent from the BL to the SS you disrupt this equilibrium. The 2nd Law doesn’t like this imbalance and it is rectified by more energy conducting back into the BL. IOW, back where it came from. Both the BL and SS end up exactly as they started.
Sometimes the IR energy initiates evaporation. In this case the energy disappears from the BL-SS combo. It is hidden as latent heat until it condenses which is often high in the atmosphere.
The net result is cooling of the surface, not warming. Good thing CO2 also absorbs a little more energy from the atmospheric window. This compensates for the cooling.
@richard M,
the diagram posted above to RickWill depicts some actions to which you speak, albeit in a static “primed” position.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/08/abate-co2-emissions-to-cut-global-warming-good-luck-with-that/#comment-3706273
I perceive the plot as being under a great deal of tension – such that it is “primed” like a stretched and taut elastic band.
This metaphorical band will ‘snap’ into place once the boundary process plays out.
Radiation enthusiasts create a lot of ‘tension’ with their ideations, but what they have forgotten to do is to release the system to ‘snap’ into place.
I read your comments and agree with them. The boundary layer is a much better starting point for understand how the atmosphere works.
thanks. Ja, the boundary layer full spectrum emission surface is always there, in addition to the hotter terrestrial radiation via the windows.
When viewed from space, there are effectively two radiating surfaces, not 1.
So, the nature of this dynamic 273K emission surface is vital.
Atmospheric CO2 content depends on seawater temperature, (Henry’s Law).
Only the sun can heat 1.335 billion cubic kilometres of water.
Infrared cannot penetrate water: the best it can do is evaporate the top 0.01 mm.
Evaporation has a cooling effect.
“CO2-warming” is political and anti-scientific.
Always was, always will be.
Systems that operate with feedback can have a governor to enforce a set point and/or an equilibrium. It is hard to imagine which natural governor is at work to prevent runaway cold or hot global temperatures. Logic infers that a phase change of water is the stable set point that dominates the global climate.
Logic, as always, has to be shown correct by the measurement sciences.
Rick’s surmises have appeal because, inter alia, they show regulated temperatures such as the 30 degrees C of the open oceans, a level probably unaffected significally by radiative gas effects.. Geoff S
I would think that surface pressure determines the approximate 30c max open ocean surface temperature. Surface pressure is determined by gravity acting on the atmospheric mass. At .06% by weight in the atmosphere, CO2 plays almost no role in determining surface atmospheric pressure.
Global net zero this century is a fantasy of our gormless politicians and green activists.
On this site recently the latest projections by the US EIA of global primary energy usage showed oil and gas demand continuing to increase well into the second half of the century, with coal flatlining and wind/solar making an insignificant contribution. The rise in oil and gas being driven by developing countries struggling to drag their growing (sometimes explosively) populations out of poverty.
So, humans reduced their CO2 emissions. Yet the amount in the atmosphere still rises. Where does it all come from? And no change up or down in global temperatures.
“So, humans reduced their CO2 emissions. Yet the amount in the atmosphere still rises.”
hmmm… a decrease in the increase must still result in a rise, only slower
The problem is that the slope of the seasonal ramp-up phase for 2020 is indistinguishable from that of 2019.
Monckton of Brenchley, thank you for making these points.
“From the above calculation (h/t Douglas Pollock), it is evident that wind and solar on their own are not going to be capable of getting the United States, or the world, to net zero.”
Calling the “Pollock Limit” concept to mind, I noted something in this recent report by Tesla.
https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/Tesla-Master-Plan-Part-3.pdf
Specifically, on page 15 of the pdf, following Table 3,
“To provide reliable year-round power, it is economically optimal to deploy excess solar and wind capacity, which leads to curtailment. Curtailment will happen when (1) solar and/or wind generation is higher than the electricity demand in a region, (2) storage is full and (3) there is no available transmission capacity to transmit the excess generation to other regions. There is an economic tradeoff between building excess renewable generation capacity, building grid storage, or expanding transmission capability. That tradeoff may evolve as grid storage technologies mature, but with the assumptions modeled, the optimal generation and storage portfolio resulted in 32% curtailment.”
32% curtailment!!! What a waste! Tesla and the academics ought to know perfectly well that this demonstrates the folly of weather-dependent, intermittent, unreliable sources for electricity.
At least the concept of tradeoffs is recognized. How about this tradeoff problem? Why would we trade prosperity and security to theoretically mitigate tiny fractions of a degree C?? Your reasoning and messaging on this point is greatly appreciated.
Mr Dibbell’s comment is, as always, helpful and informative. The Tesla proposal for a deliberate excess wind and solar capacity of one-third is remarkably stupid. In Britain, where we are well on the way to that excess, we now have some of the costliest electricity in the world. Foreign direct investment, particularly in manufacturing, has dried up. Much better to go on using coal, oil and gas while we have them, to allow nuclear power to be developed, and to stop subsidizing wind and solar, which have nothing to contribute either economically or environmentally.
“the trashing of the Western economies to Save The Planet will not benefit the climate one whit”
But it will benefit some corporations and corrupt politicians.
“corrupt politicians.”
Tautology.
“Tautology.”
Is a description of a retired professor (:-))
Some time ago, in a comment to a post similar* to this one, I posited that the warmists have reversed Cause and Effect – that increased atmospheric CO² is the result of outgassing from warmer oceans caused by some, as yet, unidentified phenomenon.
*It’s been a while but IIRC, that post offered an analysis showing how heat transfer from warm air could not account for ocean warming due to the combination of specific heat and density, air vs water.
Thus I’m in favor of lots more research before spending trillions on remediation which may have no beneficial effect.
Anyway, that’s what I think.
But then where would the money for my next private jet come from?
“After 2100, very little further warming would be prevented, because existing and foreseeable resources of oil and gas would be substantially exhausted and coal reserves would last for only another half-century at current demand.”
The above quote from Christopher Monckton’s article is very relevant. The real issue is not global warming due to CO2 emissions, but an over-reliance upon limited energy resources, such as fossil fuels.
As Christopher implies, we might have another 75 years of oil and gas resources, at current demands, and 125 years of coal reserves, at current demands.
However, if there’s no political move to reduce the use of fossil fuels, the demand for energy from fossil fuels would definitely increase as undeveloped countries strive to reach a better standard of living, equivalent to the current standard in developed countries, and as developed countries used more energy to provide greater wealth for the working Class and the Middle Class.
Without the scare about CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, we would have far less than 75 years of affordable oil and gas resources, and far less than 125 years of coal reserves; maybe half those number of years, or even less.
The problem is that most people are not as rational, as objective, and as unbiased as we AGW skeptics. I don’t think any political party would succeed in allocating billions of tax-payers’ dollars each year for research into alternative energy projects, on the basis that fossil fuels will become a scarcity in 50 years time, as world-wide demand increases.
It’s clear from the short history of renewable-energy development, that there are major problems of intermittency to overcome. It might take another 30 or 40 or 50 years to solve such problems, but it’s better we start now, rather than in 75 years time when fossil fuels become a scarcity.
By increasing the percentage of energy used from renewables, the fossil fuel reserves will last much longer. I have great faith in the achievements of science and technology, and I think it’s possible that developments in solar power and battery technology will eventually solve the intermittency problem and lower the true cost of renewable energy.
Vincent may be unduly optimistic about the costs of wind and solar power. The problem is that these so-called “renewable” technologies are actually a lot less renewable than coal, oil or gas. They depend upon the extraction of scarce, costly and environmentally damaging rare-earth and other techno-metals. Reserves of such methods are grossly insufficient even for a single 15-year generation of net-zero energy infrastructure.
We should use coal, oil and gas while we have them, and develop nuclear power as the primary energy source for the future.
They also require coal, oil, and gas for development, construction, and maintenance.
A 2008 US Geological Survey paper estimated the fossil fuel cost at 350,000 tons per 2MW capaxity for wind turbines (making the most common 6MW capacity turbine at the time cost a cool megaton of fossil fuel for finished materials and maintenance). More recently, the financial analysis firm Doomberg has documented an even greater carbon-cost for cosntruction of PV.
Truly eliminating fossil fuels will eliminate wind and solar energy development. The books are cooked.
The Cost of oil and gas extraction will soon become an issue. We already seek it in deep oceans and in the far north, in big enough quantities to be competitive with old oil fields….. which often still have 70% of their original oil in “in the ground” but economically unrecoverable. Future 2100 looks like biofuels and nuclear just on a cost basis, although today they are about 3 X too expensive.
A lot can happen in 100 years. One-hundred years ago people in rural areas were still lighting their homes with kerosene hurricane lanterns and candles. Horses were still important for transportation and haulage.
That’s true, but the speed of development usually requires the promotion of a sense of urgency to encourage the investment in new technology. For example, wars are terrible events, but they can speed up the development of new technologies which might have taken many decades to come to fruition without the sense of urgency generated by the war.
The following link provides some examples of ‘World War II Innovations ‘That Changed Everyday Life’.
https://www.history.com/news/world-war-ii-innovations
As I see it, the current alarm about the devastating consequences of continuing to burn fossil fuels, is a political tactic to create a sense of urgency which is analagous to the urgency when fighting a World War. However, the imaginary enemy in this case is the climate, and hopefully the result of this imaginary conflict with climate will eventually result in additional, new, reliable, and efficient sources of energy, which will secure the prosperity of everyone in all countries long into the future, assuming we don’t have a devastating Nuclear, World War III.
The true reason for the Western Left’s insistence on destroying the Western economies, and those economies alone, in the specious name of Saving The Planet is to replace the West’s hegemony with that of the Communist-led east Asian nations – Russia, China, India and Pakistan. The “sense of urgency” was and is merely a pretext. As coal, oil and gas become scarcer and costlier, nuclear power will become more competitive. Wind and solar power are a useless and damaging distraction. They have nothing to contribute, economically or environmentally.
Vincent
With decades of experience in finding new mines, I confidently assert that one must be quite wary about a concept of mineral resource lifetimes before the world runs out.
Socially, reserves and resources are artificial concepts. They are calculated using economics based on what analysts think the market will bear with commodity prices. They are calculated without including all factors, example, explorers slow down when global demand is saturated within their lifetime.
There is a lot of uncertainty about significant, new, unexpected discoveries. In 1969 my own group found the Ranger uranium deposits. They were an order of magnitude (or more) larger that previously known and big enough to expand total global future estimates. Then, within in a decade came Jabiluka, Koongarra, Yeelirrie, Olympic Dam and others in Australia, plus at much the same time, Rabbit Lake, Key Lake, Cluff Lake, Elliott Lake McClean Lake and McArthur River with its very high grades and others in Canada. In a few years, world uranium outlook shifted from scarce to adequate for centuries to come. Explorers for U have slowed down.
Don’t be scared by threats of minerals running out. Could be a threat fow a few, but most remain able to increase as needs increase. Geoff S
“Don’t be scared by threats of minerals running out. Could be a threat for a few, but most remain able to increase as needs increase.”
Geoff,
Doesn’t the same apply to the resources required to build solar panels, EVs, Lithium-Ion batteries, and so on? There are so many negative comments on this site claiming that renewable energy is an impossible dream because the minerals required will soon run out.
By the time Lithium becomes very scarce and expensive, I would predict that Sodium-Ion batteries, and/or other types of batteries will become functional and affordable. Technology is always in a state of development and improvement.
I recall the days when the first digital cameras were ridiculously expensive and had much lower resolution than the much cheaper film cameras. Look at the latest digital cameras. They are so much better and more efficient than any film camera was.
I imagine in 20 or 30 years time we’ll have BEVs that are just as affordable as today’s ICE vehicles, but much cheaper to run and maintain. Sensible and pragmatic people, when planning a new home, will choose to have their entire roof built with ‘solar tiles’ which have a 40 year warranty. They will have a small room for battery storage, and could have more than enough electricity to recharge their BEV and operate all the devices in the house, such as fridge, stove, air-conditioner, and so on.
If they are connected to the grid, they can sell their surplus energy during long sunny periods, and use the electricity from the grid during any long periods of cloudy days. What could be better!
Bronze was replaced by iron because iron was more abundant than copper and tin and also bronze was more technologically difficult to produce.
There was an interesting presentation posted on Youtube which posited that the collapse of the Bronze Age civilisations in the Mediterranean was the result of a major disruption to their local tin supply.
At that stage, sufficient temperatures to fully smelt iron weren’t achievable, so bronze was the superior material. This was eventually overcome by improved iron-working technology, and increased supplies of tin fro further afield (e.g. Cornwall)
It may have been a load of old cobblers, but it seemed quite well reasoned, with supporting evidence.
Yes
But – the rapid ramp-up in demand may swamp supply in the short term because of the lead times required for commencing mining at scale, and processing facilities.
Vincent is unduly optimistic. The most serious analysis of the techno-metals requirements for the achievement of net zero emissions (Michaux) shows that there are insufficient techno-metals even for a single 15-year generation of net-zero energy infrastructure. The shortages are extreme: for instance, vanadium for static batteries to back up windmills and solar panels would require 67,000 years’-worth of the entire 2019 global vanadium production just for one 15-year generation of that infrastructure.
Much better to leave these things to the free market, which, without the interference characteristic of the climate-extremist policies now being pursued in the West, would be slowly increasing nuclear generation while slowly decreasing the use of coal, oil and gas. Wind and solar power are simply uneconomic under any sensible scenario, to say nothing of the substantial environmental damage they do.
Whatever we do, the head posting makes it quite clear that the effect of net-zero emissions on global temperature will be infinitesimal, while the cost will be colossal.
You might be right, Christopher. There could be an enormous, wasted cost of experimenting with renewables that will never produce the desired results. However, I get the impression that part of your negativity is due to the concept that we should focus on a solution that fits all circumstances.
Obviously one can’t produce hydro-electricity in areas where there are no lakes and dams. Windmills located in areas with infrequent windy days will be inefficient, and solar panels located in areas that have relatively few sunny days per year, such as St Petersberg, will also be inefficient.
If it becomes clear that nuclear power is a better option, over all, and if people can be persuaded that there is no danger of devastating pollution resulting from earthquakes, tsunamis, terrorist attacks, accidents due to faulty maintenance and engineering, then nuclear power might take the place of renewables in the future, especially if the research and development of batteries fails to produce a battery that is much cheaper and more durable, and which doesn’t depend upon limited resources such as Lithium.
After a possible failure of this huge costly experiment in renewables, I expect there will be some positive results, even if it’s only the develpopment of more affordable electric vehicles with a greater range than current EVs.
or if you read the chart correctly the global reduction in altitude pollution by jet exhaust particulates has been responsible for 100% of the minimal change in temperature….
great points by Nick Stokes an dk_. I did ask myself the same question. The drop in emissions during the pandemic is tiny compared to the volume of the giant mixing pot we call earth atmosphere. DBW
And the annual contribution of anthropogenic emissions is of the same magnitude as the uncertainty in the natural fluxes in the Carbon Cycle.
ChatGPT tells me that humans…
“are responsible for nearly all of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations”. (uses IPCC as the source).
If that’s the case (it can be tricky to tease the truth out of ChatGPT), and the massive restrictions put upon billions of people actually did reduce emissions by 6% (or more) in 2020, I would have thought we’d see that reflected in the measurements. However, we don’t even see the faintest of dents in the trend line.
– If the massive scale of the restrictions on our lives in 2020 didn’t affect the rise of CO2 at all, just what would we have to live like to cause a measurable decline? I dread to think what that would be like. I suspect I’d rather brave a climate where I might not need to wear warm clothes quite so often, and be able to live a little more freely.
– Maybe 2020 just happened to be a year when natural influences compensated for the drop in FF emissions, resulting in no net change in yearly increase. What would be the chances of that, esp. as the yearly rise is generally pretty steady?
– Maybe there’s been a mistake, and humans are _not_ primarily responsible for the rise in atmospheric CO2.
The whole CAGW is a sham, net zero is a non solution to a sham problem. This nonsense needs to stop.
Doomscrollers who believe in the Club of Rome scenarios are just trying to get you accepting of living like you will have to in future, in their view. Any contribution by enterprise-based economics, industrialization, and education, the greatest successes in history at lifting mankind out of starvation, disease and poverty, are not relevant to their vision of the future. They will, of course, be society’s leaders. The rest of us will be contented workers singing in the sun, working our market gardens, and carving wooden combs for our girlfriends, who will have been sterilized.
There is a Peer revised study published during the pandemic, namely year 2020.
in the Abstract:
”the relationship of atmospheric CO2 and temperature may qualify as belonging to the category of “hen-or-egg” problems”
” examine the relationship of global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration in monthly time steps, covering the time interval 1980–2019 during which reliable instrumental measurements are available.”
”While both causality directions exist, the results of our study support the hypothesis that the dominant direction is T → CO2. Changes in CO2 follow changes in T by about six months on a monthly scale, or about one year on an annual scale. We attempt to interpret this mechanism by involving biochemical reactions as at higher temperatures, soil respiration and, hence, CO2 emissions, are increasing.”
In the Conclusions
”with T → CO2 being the dominant, despite the fact that CO2 → T prevails in public”
Where the T is temperature.
The 2020 study.
https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/sci/sci-02-00083/article_deploy/sci-02-00083-v2.pdf?version=1606708552