Simplified climate modelling. Part 1: The role of CO2 in paleoclimate

by Thomas Anderl

Simple models are formulated to identify the essentials of the natural climate variabilities, concentrating on the readily observable and simplest description. The results will be presented in a series of five articles. This first part shows an attempt to determine the climate role of CO2 from the past. Observations on 400 Mio. years of paleoclimate are found to well constrain the compound universal climate role of CO2, represented by a simple formula.

1. Introduction

Earth presently receives on average 240 W/m2 of insolation (planetary albedo taken into account) [1]. In equilibrium, Earth radiates the same amount back to space, corresponding to -18 °C in the blackbody approximation. The actual surface temperature is far higher with an average of about +15 °C. Therefore, something must be delivering heat to the surface in addition to insolation. When looking for the sources, a hint comes from a well-known experience: clear-sky nights exhibit relatively low Earth surface temperatures while cloudy nights remain relatively warm. Thus, the atmosphere is contributing to the heat variability at the surface, with water molecules as the dominant components.

However during the current geologic eon, the water content in the atmosphere is a passive reactant to otherwise driven temperatures, acting as an amplifier. When looking for the temperature driving processes, key candidates are the insolation (in particular the varying solar activity and modulation by the planetary albedo), tectonic movements (e.g. with their impact on ocean and wind currents), large volcanic activities, forms of life, extra-terrestrial events (bolide impacts, cosmic rays), and atmospheric composition beyond water content. Apparently through history, all these components have played their role in driving Earth’s near-surface atmospheric temperature.

Regarding the atmospheric composition, CO2 is recognized as a temperature driving agent. A clear sign comes from the well-known transmission spectrum of infrared radiation from Earth’s surface into space: It reveals strong absorption by atmospheric CO2 which to all existing knowledge, is contributing to the atmospheric heat.

The present analysis is devoted to the search for the empirically obvious related to the climate role of CO2, including its relation to the further driving forces. Starting points are the paleo-reconstructions on surface temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration, with focus on the period 50-35 Mio. years before present (Ma BP) [2, 3], 400 ka BP (Vostok ice core data [4]), and the entire past 400 Ma BP [5,6]. These measurement data are found to be well reproduced by a simple model concentrating on the climate driving forces, basically identified as modulated insolation and CO2. From this observation-based approach, the CO2 contribution to equilibrium climate is judged universally well constrained in its compound effect, i.e. with all related effects taken into account, and is clearly disentangled from the opposite causation, the CO2 concentration following temperature variabilities.

2. The climate contribution of CO2

2.1. Eocene, 50-35 Ma BP

First let us think of designing an experiment to measure the impact of the atmospheric CO2 concentration onto the surface-air temperature. The CO2 concentration needed to be changed and for each change, its value and the corresponding temperature recorded. Other temperature influences needed to be negligible or well controlled. It turns out that Earth has performed such an experiment in the past. During the Eocene, in the period 35-50 Ma BP, atmospheric CO2 has steadily been removed by sequestration while recording its concentration and the corresponding temperature via proxies. Other temperature influences are judged negligible. This assumption is considered a first-order approximation subjected to potential amendment as the time horizon and the data base widen in the course of the further analysis. The span of the CO2 concentration has been from 1600 to 500 ppmv in the considered period, the temperature span from about 28 to 20 °C.

An interpretation of the ‘measurement’ data (i.e. the proxy reconstructions) has previously been presented [2, 3]. In the present studies, these reconstruction data are found to follow a simple relationship between the CO2 concentration (hereafter 𝑝CO2 in the unit ppmv) and the entailed temperature (TCO2), in the further course referred to as the Eocene (CO2-temperature) relationship:

TCO2 = ln(𝑝CO2/22) * 6.68 °C. (1)

From the historical CO2 concentrations of [3] (here used in course representation), the related temperatures are determined according to the preceding Eocene relationship. A slight correction is applied to account for the steady solar luminosity increase with time (ΔTsol) by approximating [5] via

ΔTsol = -0.01514 * t °C, (2)

with t the time from present into the past in million years, and by applying 0.75 °C/(W/m2) for the radiative forcing-to-temperature sensitivity (see e.g. [3]).

In Figure 1, the resulting T = TCO2 + ΔTsol (smooth blue line) is compared with the ‘measured’ data given in [2] (orange wiggly line). The simple logarithmic function (equation 1) for the temperature impact from the atmospheric CO2 concentration is well able to reproduce the temperatures of the considered period 50-35 Ma BP and beyond, extending to 60 Ma BP. As a sensitivity test, the two coefficients in TCO2 (equation 1) are changed by ±1 % and the resulting temperature boundaries depicted in Figure 1 by the dotted bright-blue lines.

Figure 1. Mean global annual near-surface air temperature trend for the Eocene as published by [2] (wiggly orange line) and computed from the Eocene CO2-temperature relationship, T = TCO2 + ΔTsol, of the present work (smooth blue line); dotted bright-blue lines: boundaries for changes of coefficients in TCO2 by ±1 %

Conclusion from the Eocene: As the primary change process, the atmospheric CO2 concentration was steadily reduced in the period of 50 to 35 Ma BP. Roughly, a difference of 1100 ppmv in the CO2 concentration is followed by a temperature difference of 8 °C. This causal relationship is well explained by simulation programs [2, 3]. At the same time, the simple 2-parameter logarithmic function of equation (1), the Eocene relationship, is able to reflect the compound effect of all underlying processes.

2.2. Late Quaternary, 420 ka BP until present

To explore the general applicability of the simple Eocene relationship, it is examined for a period with heavy disturbances to the pure CO2 influence: the Late Quaternary with its dominant waxing and waning ice sheets, in cause alternating the surface albedo and thus, the absorbed surface insolation. The present study is based on the Vostok ice core data [4]. The herein reported CO2 concentrations are used to derive the CO2-effected temperature contributions according to the Eocene relationship (TCO2). The albedo effect (ΔTice-Quaternary) is approximated with help of the also reported proxy-determined temperature variabilities (ΔTVostok) of [4] by adapting the linear δ18O-sea level-albedo relationship of [3] via:

ΔTice-Quaternary = (0.2 * ΔTVostok – 2.5) °C. (3)

The factor 0.2 has the meaning of αT/αp where αp the polar amplification (in this work taken as 2) and αT the proportionality factor for the global mean surface temperature, hence 0.4.

In Figure 2, the resulting temperatures T = TCO2 + ΔTice-Quaternary are compared with the proxy-measured temperatures. The computed temperatures T (orange solid curve) are in good accordance with the measured temperatures (long-dashed dark blue from [4] and short-dashed bright blue from [2]).

Figure 2. Surface temperatures for the Late Quaternary; ‘T (CO2, albedo)’: computed as T = TCO2 + ΔTice-Quaternary in the present work (orange solid line); ‘T Petit’ (long-dashed dark blue line): course representation of [4] as derived from the Vostok ice core proxies, multiplied by 0.5 to transform local temperature anomalies into mean global values (as in [3]), plus a 14 °C offset to translate from anomalies into absolute temperature (treated as fit parameter to match the computed temperatures, and being approximately the pre-industrial surface temperature); ‘Ts (Hansen)’ (short-dashed bright blue line): temperature values of [2]

The two contributions to the computed temperature T, originating from CO2 and predominantly ice albedo, are depicted in Figure 3. Each, CO2 and ice albedo, influence the surface temperature at similar size. In a more general (and correct) view, ΔTice-Quaternary represents all terms not covered by TCO2. From Figure 2, it is inferred that the aggregate non-CO2 temperature contribution largely follows a linear relationship to the global mean surface temperature.

Figure 3. Surface temperature contributions to ‘T(CO2, albedo)’ of Figure 2; from CO2: TCO2 according to the Eocene relationship (dashed blue line, with an arbitrary offset for presentation purposes); from ice albedo: ΔTice-Quaternary (solid grey line)

Conclusion from the Late Quaternary, part 1: By switching on ice albedo as a massive second temperature determinant in addition to CO2, the observed temperatures are also well reproduced with help of the Eocene CO2-temperature relationship. The Eocene relationship is indicated as independent of other temperature-driving forces.

This raises the question about the CO2-temperature relationship in the other direction: It is well known that temperature is viably directing the atmospheric CO2 concentration. On the sceptics’ side, there is remarkable supposition that the CO2 concentration is predominantly driven by temperature, rather than by human emissions during the industrial age. For an examination, let us think of an experiment to measure the CO2 concentration entailed by different temperatures. Again, nature has done such an experiment: in the Late Quaternary. By increasing and reducing ice coverage, albedo is being varied, by this the absorbed surface insolation and in turn, the surface temperature. Temperature and CO2 concentration have been recorded via proxies educed from ice cores (see before), and the associated time via the ice core depth. During the Late Quaternary, temperature is considered the predominant CO2 change agent, other CO2-determining processes judged disregardable.

Looking at the Vostok ice core data [4], the local temperature has varied by about 10 °C between glacial and inter-glacial maxima, and the CO2 concentration by 100 ppmv. 10 °C temperature difference in the Vostok ice core data roughly relate to 5 °C in the global average temperatures (see factor of 0.5 in Figure 2). Thus, a change of 1 °C of the global annual mean temperature is followed by a change of 20 ppmv in CO2 concentration. This is a factor of 2 higher then resulting from theoretical research [7], where the CO2 concentration (pCO2) varies per 1 °C of temperature change according to pCO2/27 (ppmv). For pre-industrial pCO2, this roughly results in 10 ppmv CO2 concentration change caused by a 1 °C temperature change.

Application of this theorical relationship to the temperature variabilities in the Vostok ice core data results in the CO2 concentrations as depicted by the dashed orange and dotted gray lines of Figure 4, for Vostok temperatures times 0.5 and raw Vostok temperatures, respectively; the solid blue line shows the CO2 concentrations as reported from the ice cores.

Figure 4. Atmospheric CO2 concentration in the Late Quaternary; solid blue line: course representation of proxy reconstruction [4]; dashed orange line: computed as caused by the temperature variabilities (proxy data of [4] times 0.5) according to theory [7]; dotted gray line: as before, temperature variabilities of proxy data without factor for translation from local to global mean temperature

Conclusion from the Late Quaternary, part 2: Nature reveals different CO2-temperature relationships for either direction: (a) temperature driving CO2, (b) CO2 driving temperature. In direction (a), the atmospheric CO2 concentration follows temperature changes by 10-20 ppmv per 1 °C temperature change. In direction (b), a change of 10 ppmv in CO2 concentration causes a temperature change of about 0.07 °C. Regarding for instance a CO2 concentration increase of 100 ppmv, the Eocene relationship indicates an induced temperature increase of 0.7 °C. Since this temperature increase, in turn, causes a concentration change of 7-14 ppmv, about 7-14 % of the 100 ppmv-increase is to be attributed to the entailed temperature increase.

2.3. PETM, 56 Ma BP, and Devonian to Triassic, 400-200 Ma BP

So far, the Eocene CO2-temperature relationship has proven applicable for two geological ages, the Eocene and the Late Quaternary. The next sections shall turn to other eons with yet different conditions. The first is the time of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), circa 56 Ma BP. In a previous computer simulation study [8], temperature and CO2 conditions have been analyzed by varying the CO2 concentration up to 9 times pre-industrial levels. In Figure 5, the results of the simulation study (blue dots connected by the solid line) are compared with the Eocene relationship results, corrected by ΔTsol (equation 2) for 56 Ma (orange dots connected by the dashed line); the black circle depicts the PETM condition according to [8].

Conclusion from the PETM-study: The simple Eocene CO2-temperature relationship is well able to reflect the comprehensive understanding of nature as implemented in simulation programs.

Figure 5. Surface temperature for PETM in dependence upon the atmospheric CO2 concentration, computation results as dots connected by straight lines; blue (solid connection): simulation results of [8]; black open circle: PETM condition [8]; orange (dashed connection): temperature following the CO2 concentration according to the Eocene relationship, corrected by ΔTsol for 56 Ma (this work)

In a further earlier study [9], the period of 400 to 200 Ma BP has been analyzed. Based on observed CO2 concentrations [5], the related radiative forcings have been determined. In Figure 6, these forcings (solid blue line) are compared to those given by the Eocene relationship (dashed orange line) by applying a sensitivity of 1.2 °C/(W/m2).

Figure 6. CO2 radiative forcing in the period 400-200 Ma BP; solid blue line: radiative forcing from [9] in course representation; dashed orange line: radiative forcing from the Eocene CO2-temperature relationship (this work) with 1.2 °C/(W/m2) as sensitivity

Conclusion from the 400-200 Ma-period: The pattern of the radiative forcing from earlier computer studies is well reproduced by the simple Eocene relationship. It is noted that a sensitivity of 1.2 °C/(W/m2) is required for the agreement, whereas 0.75 °C/(W/m2) are perceived as a generally applicable standard. At this point, no interpretation can be given on the sensitivity specifics of this case; as hypothesis, the difference may predominantly be attributed to water vapor.

2.4. Late Paleozoic, 420 Ma BP until present

So far, the considerations have each focused on rather specific periods. In the various periods, the Eocene CO2-temperature relationship has proven as a viable tool to quantify the CO2-induced temperature variabilities. In this paragraph, the entire Late Paleozoic from 400 Ma BP to present will be analyzed utilizing the Eocene relationship. The CO2 data are now taken from [5] (as in the previous 400-200 Ma study, context of Figure 6), and the temperature data from [6]. Either data are judged coherent state-of-the-art reconstructions for the considered period. Both data are shown together in Figure 7, the blue (mostly upper) line for the temperature and the orange line for the CO2 concentration.

Figure 7. Reconstructed surface temperatures (course reconstruction of [6]) and CO2 concentrations [5] for the Late Paleozoic; blue (mostly upper) line: temperature, left scale; orange line: CO2 concentration, right scale

From visual impression, the extremes exhibit rather consistent patterns: nearly the same CO2 concentrations correspond to the respective temperatures at the minima and maxima (except at the maxima of 90 and 55 Ma BP). In between, CO2 may lead temperature by circa 20 Ma (400-320 Ma BP) or lag by 20 Ma (280-220 Ma BP). From this, it is expected improbable to extract a statistically significant correlation between the two variables – if not artificially adapted for the 20 Ma-time shifts. Since there is no explanation in sight for a potential time lead / lag of this order, such statistical analysis is disregarded.

Instead, the Eocene relationship is applied to the CO2 concentrations. The resulting temperatures are depicted in Figure 8 (dashed orange line) with a constant subtraction of 3 °C, and compared to the reconstructed (measured) temperatures (solid blue line). Besides the artificial 3 °C-offset, the agreement between the two curves is perceived remarkably good. One may infer that the Eocene relationship represents the major temperature driving force.

However, it is known that the absorbed insolation is subject to modulations with time. Significant variability is to be expected from the constantly increasing solar luminosity (see ΔTsol of equation 2), from surface albedo via snow and ice coverage (e.g. regarding the Late Paleozoic icehouse at around 300 Ma), and proposedly from the cyclic cosmic ray intensities [10]. Further significant temperature influence is expected from tectonic changes (the entire considered period covered by supercontinent Pangea assembly to break-up).

Figure 8. Surface temperatures; solid blue line: geologic reconstruction, as in Figure 7; dashed orange line: temperature determined from the CO2 concentrations [5] via the Eocene CO2-temperature relationship minus 3 °C (this work)

The cosmic ray intensity φ(t)/φ(0) is taken from [10] and its temperature influence approximated via fit by

ΔTcrf = -4 * φ(t)/φ(0) °C. (4)

The resulting variability of ~ 3 °C is found in consistency with [10].
The tectonic changes are apparent in the paleogeographic evolvement; Figure 9 shows a course reconstruction of [11]. The temperature impact is approximated via multiplying the coverages (in percent) of landmass, mountains, and ice sheets by -0.2 °C/%, and the coverages of water (shallow waters and deep ocean) by +0.2 °C/%, and applying a constant offset of -7 °C:

ΔTtec =(Σifi* Ci -7)°C, (5)

with i indicating the tectonic types, fi the coverage-temperature impact described before, and Ci the respective coverages (Figure 9).

Figure 9. Paleogeographic evolvement with time; Earth coverages in % from top to bottom: deep ocean (dashed blue), landmass (solid brown), shallow waters (dashed bright blue), mountains (solid ochre), ice sheets (dotted violet)

This approach means for instance: if land gives 1 % to water, then 0.2 °C is contributed by the reduction of land coverage and another 0.2 °C by the simultaneous increase of the water area, in total 0.4 °C. Originally introduced to explore the tectonic influences, ΔTtec in its given form is interpreted as predominantly reflecting albedo variabilities and in addition, overall land/water-driven climate variabilities (shift in the coverage ratio of continental vs. warm-humid climates).

To put this into perspective, a 1 % land increase from today’s tectonics – with ocean and land coverages 0.71 and 0.29, respectively, the ocean and land solar surface absorptions of [1], and a sensitivity of 0.75 °C/(W/m2) – results in a temperature reduction of 0.26 °C. More qualitatively, the albedo of water clouds is about 10 % higher over land than over oceans, 0.46 versus 0.42 [12], contributing to higher surface insolation at oceans than at land. In conclusion, the albedo interpretation of ΔTtec and the chosen parameter set are viewed as principally supported by separate studies. For further instance, in the Late Paleozoic icehouse at around 300 Ma BP, the ice sheet contribution to ΔTtec is -2.9 °C if the ice area is recruited from water areas.

In summary, the total temperature is determined by


T = TCO2 + ΔTsol + ΔTcrf + ΔTtec. (6)

The result is depicted in Figure 10 by the dashed orange line and compared to the reconstructed (measured) temperatures (solid blue line). The agreement is perceived fair, particularly regarding the extensive period of about 400 Ma covering a large variety of disparate conditions. The pattern of the agreement remains principally unchanged (not shown) if considering the 68 % confidence boundaries for the CO2 concentrations of [5], the temperature discussion of [6], and a potential sensitivity dependency on the climate state by varying the non-CO2-terms in equation (6) by ±1⁄3. The agreement of the present high-level consideration with observations is seen as confirmation that the major temperature-determining components have been identified and that their respective contributions can be quantified by simple approximations.

Figure 10. Surface temperatures; solid blue line: geologic reconstruction, as in Figure 7 and Figure 8; dashed orange line: determined by equation (6) of this work based on the Eocene CO2-temperature relationship; dotted gray line: as before, with cosmic ray influence switched off and ΔTtec adapted; dot-dashed green line: as before (no cosmic ray influence), with ΔTtec replaced by a snow/ice albedo approximation and continental coverage (sea level)-to-temperature proportionality (see text)

By nature of the approximations, the regarded contributions subsume all relevant underlying processes. This particularly applies to the Eocene CO2-temperature relationship comprising e.g. atmospheric water vapor variations with temperature, changing ocean-atmosphere interaction with varying atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature, and the temperature influence on the CO2 concentration (see above, Late Quaternary). TCO2 in equation (6) gives the near-surface temperature if CO2 was the only forcing. The further components of equation (6) act as correction terms, each again subsuming all underlying processes. These are explicitly incorporated in ΔTsol (equation 2) by applying the sensitivity of 0.75 °C/(W/m2) and implicitly incorporated via the factors -4 and fi in ΔTcrf (equation 4) and ΔTtec, (equation 5), respectively. Dependency of the sensitivity on the climate state is approximated as zero, cross-terms and higher-order terms in the forcing-to-temperature relationship are interpreted to be partly contained as averages in the insolation components of equation (6) (i.e. ΔTsol, ΔTcrf, ΔTtec) and to be partly attributed to the residuals.

To examine model alternatives, variations have been applied to equation (6). (A) First, the contribution from the cosmic ray flux is set to zero. With the parameters of ΔTtec changing from -0.2 to -0.3 °C/%, from +0.2 to +0.3 °C/%, and the constant to -15 °C, the temperatures are given as depicted by the dotted gray line in Figure 10. (B) From here, ΔTtec is replaced by two components. (i) Snow/ice albedo is approximated by a linear relationship to temperature: for TCO2 + ΔTsol > 17 °C, the relative albedo contribution is +3 °C; for lower temperatures, the contribution is (TCO2 + ΔTsol – 11.5) ∙ 0.545 °C. (ii) A temperature contribution is introduced proportional to the ocean continental coverage [13], which is a measure for the eustatic sea level; this temperature contribution is taken proportional as 0.2 °C per 1 % continental coverage difference with a constant offset of -6 °C. This temperature contribution is interpreted to originate from albedo variabilities. The resulting temperatures are shown in Figure 10 by the dot-dashed green line. (C) Introduction of effects from atmospheric oxygen variabilities leads to temperatures within the ranges exhibited in Figure 10 (therefore not shown).

In general, the pursued selective and simple driving-force consideration cannot cater for the entirety of all related processes. Major contributions to the temperature variabilities are expected from strong volcanic activities (beyond the CO2 effects) as well as from wind and ocean currents. The latter may be the cause for the deviations between about 50 and 30 Ma BP in Figure 10 which decrease by circa -4 °C during this period (differences between solid blue and dashed orange lines in Figure 10). Such progressive cooling may well be ascribed to changes in the ocean currents [14]. Also the model-to-reconstruction deviations before and after the center of the late Paleozoic icehouse (at about 300 Ma BP) are proposed to be predominantly attributed to warming contributions from – tectonically determined – ocean current specifics, these being largely reduced in the presence of wide-spread glaciation (i.e. at the center of the icehouse).

The proxy reconstructions used for the Late Paleozoic in this paragraph exhibit deviations from those used for the derivation of the Eocene relationship in § 2.1. Nevertheless, the original relationship of equation (1) reveals as best fit through the Late Paleozoic-analysis.

From comparison of Figure 10 (dashed orange line) with Figure 8, the summed effect of insolation variabilities (particularly from solar luminosity (ΔTsol) and albedo) roughly acts as a constant temperature reduction of 3 °C. As example for detailed insight, the single temperature contributions to T (equation (6), dashed orange line in Figure 10) are depicted in Figure 11.

Figure 11. Surface temperature contributions to dashed orange line of Figure 10: TCO2 (solid blue) with 14 °C-subtraction for presentation purposes, ΔTsol (dotted gray), ΔTcrf (dash-dotted green), ΔTtec (dashed orange)

For an illustration of reconstruction uncertainty effects, the 68 %-pCO2 confidence envelope is used for TCO2 of the dotted gray line in Figure 10 and the results depicted by the dotted gray lines of Figure 12. The relative temperature uncertainties are emulated as 0.3 times the relative pCO2 uncertainties (68% confidence). By this, the uncertainty increase with depth into the past is accounted for; the absolute height (factor 0.3) has intuitive character. It is interpreted that detailed error treatment cannot substantially alter the preceding considerations.

Figure 12. Uncertainty consideration for reconstructed temperature and dotted gray model of Figure 10; gray: TCO2 computed with 68%-low/high confidence envelope for pCO2 instead of maximum probability pCO2; blue: temperature envelope by emulating uncertainties from the pCO2 data via 0.3 times their relative 68%-confidence deviation from the maximum probability value

Conclusion: The attempt is perceived successful to describe the fundamental climate determinants by simple means. The Eocene CO2-temperature relationship is revealed to be applicable throughout (at least) the past 400 Ma, as resulting from comparisons with paleo-reconstructions (Eocene, Late Quaternary, Late Paleozoic) together with plausibility considerations on the further major climate determinants. CO2 delivers the major contribution to the climate variabilities. The second major influence stems from the modulation of the absorbed insolation by the sun’s luminosity, the planetary albedo (via paleogeography/tectonics, or snow/ice and sea level), and potentially cosmic rays. The Milankovitch-cycles turn out to play a subordinate role for understanding the climate variabilities on the high level pursued in this study. However, there is room for other important contributions, particularly from ocean currents. At the very least, the benefit of the present analysis is to have a handy tool for estimates, particularly to quickly size risk from the CO2-temperature relationship.

3. Interpretation

Methodologically, the present study is based on the principle that the determining forces of a certain natural phenomenon are (1) few and (2), clearly visible. The focus has been the search for the clearly visible on nature’s interplay between CO2 concentration and temperature.

With this focus, a sophisticated error calculation is regarded subordinate. Remarks on error consideration are included (Late Paleozoic) and sensitivity studies performed (Eocene relationship, Late Paleozoic). In general, the presented studies are based on long-term trends. The approach presumes that the degree of agreement between approximation and observation is clearly visible in the long-term patterns. It is perceived that a sophisticated error analysis would basically leave the degree of conclusiveness unchanged.

The major goal, uncovering reproducibility from the abundant scientific results in an 80:20 approach, is considered achieved – strongly observation-based (Eocene, Late Quaternary, Late Paleozoic), and extracting simple descriptions. The analysis recruits a single value from previous modelling: Earth’s climate sensitivity for its response to the steadily increasing solar luminosity (sensitivity in the present definition as the transformation of radiation change into surface temperature change).

Due to the long time span considered in the initial derivation (15 Mio. years), the Eocene CO2-temperature relationship reflects equilibrium climate states. Beyond conformance with measurements, the simple relationship agrees well with sophisticated simulation results (Eocene, PETM, Devonian to Triassic) offering itself as a handy tool for further analysis, and testifying reproducibility of the complex models.

The interdependency between CO2 and Earth’s climate is clearly crystallized. Either direction in the temperature relationship – CO2 or temperature in the driver’s seat – is quantified by simple means. From this analysis, the sceptics’ argument seems difficult to be maintained that the CO2-temperature relationship reflects a spurious correlation. At the very least with societal responsibility, the risk must be assumed that nature treats any atmospheric CO2 concentration change according to the Eocene relationship.

Furthermore, the role of CO2 is put into perspective with other major climate determinants, mainly those causing insolation variabilities (particularly solar luminosity and planetary albedo), with a note to the anticipated role of the ocean currents. The hope is that this will facilitate differentiation in the discussions.

Supplementary Material: All data and code are available: Simplified climate modelling.

References

  1. Wild M., Folini D., Hakuba M.Z., Schär C., Seneviratne S.I., Kato S., Rutan D., Ammann C., Wood E.F., König-Langlo G.. The energy balance over land and oceans: an assessment based on direct observations and CMIP5 climate models. Clim Dyn 2015, 44, 3393–3429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-014-2430-z.
  2. Hansen J., Sato M., Russell G., Kharecha P. Climate sensitivity, sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 2013, 37120120294. http://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0294.
  1. Hansen J., Sato M., Kharecha P., Beerling D., Berner R., Masson-Delmotte V., Pagani M., Raymo M., Royer D.L., Zachos J.C. Target Atmospheric CO2: Where should Humanity Aim?. The Open Atmospheric Science Journal 2008, 2. http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874282300802010217.
  2. Petit J. R., Jouzel J., Raynaud D., Barkov N. I., Barnola J.-M., Basile I., Bender M., Chappellaz J., Davis M., Delaygue G., Delmotte M., Kotlyakov V. M., Legrand M., Lipenkov V. Y., Lorius C., Pépin L., Ritz C., Saltzman E., Stievenard M. Climate and Atmospheric History of the Past 420,000 Years from the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica. Nature 1999, 399, 429-436. https://doi.org/10.1038/20859.
  3. Foster G.L., Royer D.L., Lunt D.J. Future climate forcing potentially without precedent in the last 420 million years. Nat Commun 2017, 8, 14845. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14845.
  4. Scotese C. A NEW GLOBAL TEMPERATURE CURVE FOR THE PHANEROZOIC. 2016. doi:10.1130/abs/2016AM-287167. Herein: Scotese, Christopher. PhanerozoicGlobalTemperatureCurve_Small. 2016.
  5. Omta A.W., Dutkiewicz S., Follows M.J. Dependence of the ocean‐atmosphere partitioning of carbon on temperature and alkalinity. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 2011, 25, GB1003. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GB003839.
  6. Zhu J., Poulsen C.J., Tierney J.E. Simulation of Eocene extreme warmth and high climate sensitivity through cloud feedbacks. Sci. Adv. 2019, 5, eaax1874. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aax1874.
  7. Soreghan G.S.; Soreghan M.J.; Heavens N.G. Explosive volcanism as a key driver of the late Paleozoic ice age. Geology 2019, 47, 600–604. https://doi.org/10.1130/G46349.1.
  8. Shaviv N.J., Veizer J. Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate? GSA Today July 2003, 13, 7, 4. doi: 10.1130/1052-5173(2003)013<0004:CDOPC>2.0.CO;2.
  9. Cao W., Zahirovic S., Flament N., Williams S., Golonka J., Müller R.D. Improving global paleogeography since the late Paleozoic using paleobiology. Biogeosciences 2017, 14, 5425–5439. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-5425-2017.

12. Han Q., Rossow W.B., Chou J., Welch R.M. Global Survey of the Relationships of Cloud Albedo and Liquid Water Path with Droplet Size Using ISCCP. J. Climate 1998,11, 1516-1528. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1998)0111516:GSOTRO2.0.CO;2.

  1. Keller C.B., Husson J.M., Mitchell R.N., Bottke W.F., Gernon T.M., Boehnke P., Bell E.A., Swanson-Hysell N.L., Peters S.E. Neoproterozoic glacial origin of the Great Unconformity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2018, 116, 201804350. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1804350116.
  2. Yang S., Galbraith E., Palter J. Coupled climate impacts of the Drake Passage and the Panama Seaway. Clim Dyn 2014, 43, 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-1809-6.

263 responses to “Simplified climate modelling. Part 1: The role of CO2 in paleoclimate

  1. Is CO2 sequestration simply following temperature (from ocean out-gassing), not causing it?
    And are temperature proxy proportionality really reliable?

    • The ice core record– ppm increases in of atmospheric CO2 follows global warming.

      • David Appell

        The ice core record– ppm increases in of atmospheric CO2 follows global warming.

        That doesn’t mean pumping CO2 into the atmosphere doesn’t cause warming.

        CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Like water vapor, it is a strong absorber of infrared radiation, which is emitted by the Earth’s surface. Of course pumping it into the atmosphere is going to cause warming. It’s basic science.

      • If it were ‘basic science,’ the fallacious example of a ‘greenhouse’ would not be employed to deceive the people.

        “Even if CO2 concentration doubles or triples, the effect on temperature would be minimal. The relationship between temperature and CO2 is like painting a window black to block sunlight. The first coat blocks most of the light. Second and third coats reduce very little more. Current CO2 levels are like the first coat of black paint.” (Dr. Timothy Ball)

      • David Appell

        If it were ‘basic science,’ the fallacious example of a ‘greenhouse’ would not be employed to deceive the people.

        It’s not an example, it’s an approximate analogy. How can everyone know this but you?

      • David Appell

        Tim Ball is a physics ignoramus, by education or by choice I’m not sure. He’s talking about the saturation fallacy, and it’s been known for decades. He’s a fool for not knowing this and understanding it.

        Pierrehumbert explains this on the penultimate page of his 2011 Physics Today article:
        http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

      • All global warming/ climate change/ hot world fear-mongering is an invention of Western academia founded on flawed reasoning, false, inaccurate and unsupported claims and ideologically motivated purposeful deception. I think, more people are starting to see that how the Left has used fears about the pandemic to fan the flames of un-Americanism and panic to undermine the free enterprise economic system and to increase political power at the expense of individual liberty is also why the Left has abandoned the scientific method to promote its phony global warming, ‘greenhouse’ analogy to manufacture an unprovable, self-serving ‘climate change’ meme on an increasingly less credible public. In both instances– global warming and pandemic fear mongering– The MSM also has a history of dishonesty.

      • “All global warming/ climate change/ hot world fear-mongering..”
        This is scary stuff.. it sounds just like “the other side”.. typically skeptics on this page call for a voice of reason and scientific debate.

        Clearly, not all global warming arguments are made up fear mongering and it is not easy to point out when and where exactly the scientific methods are lacking.
        Many smart people tried to illuminate that question, with our gracious host leading the way for a debate of underestimated uncertainties and unkown unkowns in climate science.

        A. Ollila has a slightly simplified summary of the current state for modeling the residence time of CO2-molecules in the atmosphere.
        I think it is very worthwhile reading!
        It includes an opinion on longtime question of mine, why would the CO2 stay in the atmosphere for centuries:
        https://www.climatexam.com/single-post/2016/08/29/the-residence-times-of-carbon-dioxide-are-16-and-55-years
        “According to IPCC, the oceans can absorb about 55 % of the yearly CO2 emissions in the present climate but as soon as the fossil fuel emission rate starts to decrease, the ocean can not do it anymore! This is very difficult to understand.”

      • Are you suggesting that, ‘fear-mongering’ is logical and rational? Absent that you’re left with either superstition, ignorance, conscious deception– e.g., a hoax– or, a mental aberration– e.g….

        Hot World Syndrome—fear of a hotter, more intimidating world than it actually is prompting a desire for more protection than is warranted by any actual threat.

      • David Appell

        “Abstract: The notion is pervasive in the climate science community and in the public at large that the climate impacts of fossil fuel CO2 release will only persist for a few centuries. This conclusion has no basis in theory or models of the atmosphere/ocean carbon cycle, which we review here. The largest fraction of the CO2 recovery will take place on time scales of centuries, as CO2 invades the ocean, but a significant fraction of the fossil fuel CO2, ranging in published models in the literature from 20–60%, remains airborne for a thousand years or longer. Ultimate recovery takes place on time scales of hundreds of thousands of years, a geologic longevity typically associated in public perceptions with nuclear waste. The glacial/interglacial climate cycles demonstrate that ice sheets and sea level respond dramatically to millennial-timescale changes in climate forcing. There are also potential positive feedbacks in the carbon cycle, including methane hydrates in the ocean, and peat frozen in permafrost, that are most sensitive to the long tail of the fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere.”

        The millennial atmospheric lifetime of anthropogenic CO2
        David Archer & Victor Brovki, Climatic Change (2008) 90:283–297
        DOI 10.1007/s10584-008-9413-1
        https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2008.tail_implications.pdf

    • There is a balance between the release of carbon dioxide and it’s slow sequestration. Some is from volcanoes, some is a biokinetic or solution stoichiometric feedback and some is from human activities – when release exceeds sequestration concentrations in the atmosphere increase. Carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels and cement and steel production – from 1750 to 2011 – was about 365 billion metric tonnes as carbon (GtC), with another 180 GtC from deforestation and agriculture. Of this 545 GtC, about 240 GtC (44%) had accumulated in the atmosphere, 155 GtC (28%) had been taken up in the oceans with slight consequent acidification, and 150 GtC (28%) had accumulated in terrestrial ecosystems.

      Climate and ecologies are chaotic – and this implies that these systems are both unpredictable and vulnerable to small changes. Small changes initiate large and rapid changes in internal dynamics. It is the key reason why caution is warranted when changing such a fundamental system as the atmosphere. An example – carbon dioxide increase allows plants to reduce the size and number of stomata. Plants can access the same amount of carbon dioxide for growth and lose less water resulting in a change in terrestrial hydrology. It is impossible to foresee the ramifications of this. But it is possible to return most of the atmospheric carbon increase to vegetation and soils in ways that improve agricultural productivity, enhance food security, conserve biodiversity and create more flood and drought tolerant food production systems. While buying time for the development of 21st century energy systems to supply cheap and abundant energy for the essential needs of humanity.

      • Mark Lewis

        It deserves to be said every now an again.

        After so many years on this site, I still find your contributions to be the highest signal to noise – almost to an order of magnitude. Thank you for the enormous amount of work you to towards this.

        *bow*

      • Why thank you kind sir.

      • chriskshaw

        Thanks for your post. You note that around 28% of the CO2 has been taken by the oceans as they equilibriate With the increase in atm concentration. There is no mention of the take up by phytoplankton. I read that ocean based chlorophyll containing species resulted in the switch from CO2 dominated atmosphere to O2. Is the same not accelerating today as CO2 and temperature increase? We discuss how the higher CO2 is being mopped up by existing and new vegetation, why no mention of the CO2 chomping fauna/flora in the upper levels of the ocean?

      • Phytoplankton takes dissolved CO2 converts it to organic carbon – part of which sinks to the bottom where a large part of that stays. It is shown explicitly in the chart I posted.

        It only accelerates if carbon – and not some other element – is the growth limiting factor in the photic zone (up to 200m) of oceans.

        With terrestrial vegetation we need to consider the balance between photosynthesis and respiration.

  2. Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

    • ‘The global climate system is composed of a number of subsystems — atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere — each
      of which has distinct characteristic times, from days and weeks to centuries and millennia. Each subsystem, moreover, has its own internal variability, all other things being constant, over a fairly broad range of time scales. These ranges overlap between one subsystem and another. The interactions between the subsystems thus give rise to climate variability on all time scales.’ A Mathematical Theory of Climate Sensitivity or, How to Deal With Both Anthropogenic Forcing and Natural Variability?

      Climate is an emergent property of the dynamic interaction of Earth subsystems. We leap to that dramatic conclusion via nonlinear toy models – from Edward Lorenz, Michael Ghil and Demetris Koutsoyiannis to Anastasios Tsonis. The latter uses climate indices to identify synchronous changes associated with state changes in the climate system on decadal scales. These toy models embody a conceptual understanding of the behaviour of the system as Hurst-Kolmogorov stochastic dynamics seen in geophysical time series at all scales.

      e.g. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227670614_Hurst-Kolmogorov_Dynamics_and_Uncertainty

      Lorenz’s toy model provides a key to understanding the temporal chaos of the finite dimensional phase space of climate models. In the spatio-temporal the convenient finite dimensional phase space is lost.

      ‘That’s why almost nothing transports from temporal chaos to spatio-temporal chaos. There are no attractors, bifurcations and such. The whole mathematical apparatus has to be invented from scratch and it will take decades. To know the state of the system, we must know all the fields at all points – this is an uncountable infinity of dimensions.’ Tomas Milanovic

      It is of course well beyond our capacity to model and predict the Earth system. The most that can be said is that human emitted greenhouse gases bias a chaotic system to a warmer state. There is implicit in chaos the risk of dramatic and rapid change emerging from small changes in the Earth system. That much should be accepted as truth in line with Isaac Newton’s 4th rule of natural philosophy. There are of course those who don’t and never will. But then denial is not a river in Egypt. 😉

      The politically pragmatic response is the ‘raising up of human dignity via three overarching objectives: ensuring energy access for all; ensuring that we develop in a manner that does not undermine the essential functioning of the Earth system; ensuring that our societies are adequately equipped to withstand the risks and dangers that come from all the vagaries of climate, whatever their cause may be.’ <a href="texthttps://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27939/1/HartwellPaper_English_version.pdf“>The Hartwell Paper 2010

      • Meant as a reply to mdmill.

      • Curious George

        This is a sound logic. But a good pragmatic response should not be based on a very superficial understanding of the climate, nor on mostly faulty models. I am calling for a more scientific approach.

      • David Appell

        “All models are wrong, but some are useful.”
        – George Box, British statistician

      • ‘Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation (see ref. 26).’ James McWilliams – climate modeller

      • It takes much more than science to make sound policy.

  3. I would think society should base its decisions on recent actual measurements and comparison with GCM’s rather than million year old temperature proxies…such as:
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-predict/
    or
    the recent Energy budget analysis papers based on actual measurement by Lewis and Curry…which indicate most likely values of under 2 C per CO2 doubling.

    • Notice how Roy never publishes his claims in the scientific literature anymore, just save and easy blog posts that no scientists take seriously.

      • Rob Starkey

        I notice that you have not provided any valid scientific criticism of Roy’s paper.

      • David Appell

        It’s not a “paper,” it’s a blog post. He doesn’t even cite his sources or say what data he’s using, what climate models he’s choosing or why. 13 models? Which? 68 simulations? Why? Where are the error bands on the data? He’s not posting professional stuff, which is why scientists don’t respond to it. It’s meant for (ahem) deniers to link to, that’s all.

      • The range of models in the latest IPCC opportunistic ensemble is shown in blue and yellow. Above and below the mean of means. Some models are run in centres with large computing facilities. Models can be run many times with slightly different initial conditions and wildly divergent solution trajectories. Some have more modest origins.

        https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/cmip-6-1.png

        Each of these models in the CMIP 6 opportunistic ensemble have an ‘irreducible imprecision’ or ‘evolving uncertainty’ – however one wants to put it. Below is an example of a single model run 1000’s of times. The rest is a work in progress.

        https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/rowlands-fig-1-e1612040479369.png

        Climate models have done one great thing – they introduced the world in the 1960’s to the third great idea of twentieth century physics – an idea that may still bring balance to the force.

        https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/01/laws-of-physics.png

      • Appell does not refute with evidence Dr Spencer’s post because he cannot. He simply denigrates it, as a good propagandist does. Just as he denigrates the UAH LT record as best he can, not that he can find any error in it, as a good propagandist does. Energy Budget analysis based on actual observables by Lewis and Curry indicate most likely values of under 2 C per CO2 doubling, and these are peer reviewed papers with full errors and references provided.
        The Sea surface temp record (60N-60S) of ERSSTv5 as reported by Spencer above shows a most likely value of roughly 0.4 C temp increase over 42 years, ie .095 C/decade!
        If Appell can show that the average (and most likely value) of all IPCC recognized CMIPv6 simulations is well under 0.19 C/decade over the same period (60N-60S), then let him do it. Otherwise his refutation is without basis…as one would expect from a propagandist of his caliber.

      • David Appell

        If Spencer can publish a peer reviewed scientific paper, let him do it. That’s where scientists publish their claims, transparently, according to standards, for other scientists to read, analyze, and critique. A blog post with claims means nothing in the scientific world.

        Spencer isn’t even clear about what he’s doing, where is data comes from, what models he’s using, so there’s little to critique. It’d be a waste of time anyway because those claims have no scientific worth or consequences. They’d not intended for scientists, they’re intended for people like you to point out to keep denying AGW in the hopes of polluting Google.

        Lewis and Curry is one paper, of hundreds. Focusing only on it, just because you like its results, isn’t honest.

      • There is a basic flaw in the Appell’s reliance on scientific literature as the arbiter of truth, namely assuming that the scientific literature is objective. Politically driven bias excessively permeates throughout the literature, with less-than-honest gatekeepers attempting to control the narrative. This undercurrent means that it is exceptionally difficult to believe much of anything emanating from large numbers of “scientific literature” sources that intentionally squelch material that does not fit the enforced consensus. Hardly a proper environment for pursuing the scientific truth, no matter where it may lead.

      • David Appell

        Which “less-than-honest gatekeepers?”

      • Schneiders ‘effective’ scientists, who refuse to show all ifs and buts,

      • Less than honest gate-keepers.

        You forget. Close to 100% of the funding comes from government, which stands to expand and benefit from a successfully scare-mongered public.

      • Once again:
        Appell does not refute with evidence Dr Spencer’s post because he cannot. He simply denigrates it, as a good propagandist does. Just as he denigrates the UAH LT record as best he can, not that he can find any error in it, as a good propagandist does. Energy Budget analysis based on actual observables by Lewis and Curry indicate most likely values of under 2 C per CO2 doubling, and these are peer reviewed papers with full errors and references provided.
        The Sea surface temp record (60N-60S) of ERSSTv5 as reported by Spencer above shows a most likely value of roughly 0.4 C temp increase over 42 years, ie ~.1 C/decade!
        If Appell can show that the average (and most likely value) of all IPCC recognized CMIPv6 simulations are also well under 0.2 C/decade over the same period (60N-60S), then let him do it. Otherwise his refutation is without basis…as one would expect from a propagandist of his caliber.

        Appell seems to (at best) rank ideas/propositions by counting pages, rather than judging them. To him therefore validity and importance of Lewis and Curry is equivalent to any other peer reviewed paper of similar length. He almost never makes an argument of his own and does not critique the above observations with any valid refutation, because he cannot…he simply ,as expected of a good propagandist, denigrates the source and or the forum. I do not say he is certainly wrong in his estimation of ECS (~3 C/doubling), but that he and others reasonably could be based upon the direct observations currently available, as shown above. It would be nice if he would simply admit this…ie that the question is not at all settled. But then again, you would not expect a propagandist to do this.

      • Notice how Roy never publishes his claims in the scientific literature anymore, just save and easy blog posts that no scientists take seriously.
        No ‘scientists’ precommitted to the manufactured ‘consensus’ you mean. And the ones dedicated to stifling dissent by crooked gatekeeping.
        Can you offer any better way he can deal with the dominant corrupt and paid-for establishment ?

  4. I differ in interpretation of the presented data. Comparing conditions based upon paleo data to modern weather instrumentation is invalid from the start. We do not know what an equivalent paleo profile of current climatic conditions viewed through a paleo data resolution window might look like, especially plotted on a 450 million year graph.

  5. May I make a suggestion? All this research focuses on CO2. Just look at the ice core and geological record. CO2 doesn’t drive temperature. Just look at the temperature variablity, CO2 isn’t variable. CO2’s W/m^2 shows a log decay. You are trying to model a non-linear near rabdom factor against a log decay factor defined by physics.

    Start looking for the factors that changed along with the temperature. Just look at the graphics Dr. Christy creates. If something is understood, it can be modeled. Climate Modelers using CO2 have tried and failed.

    There is plenty of evidence CO2 doesn’t drive temperature.Just look at the charts.
    https://imgur.com/a/CDasqHH

    • That’s a joke of a graph. No one thinks temperature anomalies in one specific location are proportional to CO2.

      CO2 is a strong absorber of IR. The Earth emits IR. Explain then how it cannot affect surface temperatures. And, yes, there is evidence of CO2’s contribution to the greenhouse effect — it’s been measured.

      “Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

      “Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,” R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004).
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract

      “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015). http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

      • “That’s a joke of a graph. No one thinks temperature anomalies in one specific location are proportional to CO2.”

        David, then you clearly don’t understand:
        1) Controlled experimentation
        2) Multi-Variable Modeling

        The South Pole was specifically selected because it is a natural control for the Urban Heat Island and Water Vapor Effect. The South Pole isolates the impact of CO2 on temperatures. When you do that, guess what? You find no warming. None, made zip. I challenge you to state in advance a controlled location in advance and prove your point. I’ve literally identified hundreds of locations, chosen to isolate the impact CO2 on temperatures by controlling for the UHI and Water Vapor.

        NASA shows graphics claiming that temperatures have increased by over 1 degree C since the early 1900s. You will have a great deal of difficulty finding any one specific location that shows that warming that isn’t impacted by the UHI and Water Vapor. NASA is simply measuring non-CO2 factors and claiming the warming is the caused by CO2.

        NASA’s graphic and CO2 are near linear, and the “adjustments” make temperature more linear all the time. Problem is, that is a smoking gun to any forensic scientist. Why? Because it isn’t CO2 that matters, it is change in W/m^2 caused by CO2 that matters, and W/m^2 isn’t linear, it shows a log decay. That is why all climate models fail. They don’t understand basic math and modeling 101.

        Anyway, the oceans are warming. CO2 only radiates 13 to 18 micron LWIR. Those wavelengths don’t penetrate water and they won’t warm the deeper ocean. If you want to understand what is causing the warming, identify what is warming the oceans, and it isn’t CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 micron. HInt. fewer clouds will let more visible/warming radiation to reach the oceans.

      • David Appell

        The South Pole isolates the impact of CO2 on temperatures.

        It does not, that’s absurd. You have many other influences, such as ENSOs, solar irradiance, albedo changes, and everything else.

      • David Appell

        If you want to understand what is causing the warming, identify what is warming the oceans, and it isn’t CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 micron.

        “Why greenhouse gases heat the ocean”
        Peter Minnett, September 2006
        https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/

      • Tony Banton

        CO2:
        “If you want to understand what is causing the warming, identify what is warming the oceans”
        We have.
        Basic thermodynamics ….

        Heat travels from hot to cold (net). You agree that?
        DWIR heats the ocean skin.
        The ocean heats the atmosphere.
        In order for ocean heat to get there it passes though the skin.
        The skin is colder than water just beneath – ergo the 2nd LoT comes into play and heat travels from below to the skin and hence into the air.
        But, back to DWIR heats the ocean skin.
        What effect does that have on the 2nd LoT at play here?
        The 2nd LoT to work is weakened (smaller detaT) and so LESS heat gets transferred through to escape into the air.
        Result less ocean cooling.
        Reduced COOLING not warming.
        Just as the GHE effect works globally.

        “When you do that, guess what? You find no warming”

        Classic example of not considering all the variables involved to arrive at your preferred conclusion.
        Antarctica is unique in many ways (not just a lack of built up areas).
        It is isolated by a vast ocean that has it’s own ocean current and PJS encircling, effectively cutting off much advection of low latitude air from reaching the interior.
        It is at an average height of >8,000ft.
        It has a snow/ice surface.
        What does a snow/ice surface do?
        Preferentially reflects/reradiates Solar and terrestrial radiation.
        Constantly cools due to sublimation.
        At times also a surface based inversion may lead to a “reversed” GHE.
        The O3 hole allows a greater GHE and has strengthened the Stratospheric PJ to further isolate the continent from warmer climes.

        “And even though the ozone hole can’t explain global-scale temperature trends over the past few decades, models do suggest that changes in atmospheric circulation due to the ozone hole have contributed to seasonal surface temperature trends in a few Southern Hemisphere locations, including warming of high latitudes of the Southern Ocean in late winter, and summertime warming of the Antarctic Peninsula and cooling of the continental interior.”

        https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/4-ways-ozone-hole-linked-climate-and-1-way-it-isn%E2%80%99t

      • David Appell

        What? The 2LOT is always “in play.” It doesn’t get “weakened” — it’s a universal law of nature. But I can’t follow your cryptic argument or in what way you’re trying to apply it.

      • David Appell

        Reduced COOLING not warming.

        Reduced cooling does not mean no warming, it means less warming.

      • David Appell

        I’m sorry — reduced cooling means *more* warming.

      • David Appell

        Oops – reduced cooling means more warming

      • Tony Banton

        “ What? The 2LOT is always “in play.” It doesn’t get “weakened” ”

        David:
        Err … I do KNOW That.

        I was referring to the Earth’s GHE !!

  6. Ice Thawing does cooling of the climate system.
    It is ignored because the evaporation and snowfall and ice thawing is all inside the atmosphere.
    That is extremely flawed theory because the Evaporation, Snowfall and IR out happens in warmer times when the warm tropical ocean currents in the Arctic do evaporate and cause snowfall and sequestering of ice.
    The sequestered ice spreads and causes cooling, hundreds or thousands of years later with cooling with evaporation and cooling by albedo.
    Climate theory does consider the albedo but does not consider the cooling by thawing.
    This posting makes the same mistake, climate is analyzed as a static equilibrium problem. Climate is a dynamic stability problem.
    In warm times there is significant IR out that removes the energy that allows water to be sequestered as ice. In cold times there is significant cooling by thawing ice.

  7. Polar Regions of the Climate Systems are hosts to Great Ice Machines.
    The Great Ice Machines are Powered by Warm Tropical Ocean Currents, in the Arctic, we have the Great Gulf Stream. The warm water takes away Sea Ice that is always on Polar Oceans if not warmed from the Tropics. When the Arctic is Open, it snows all around the Arctic and puts ice on land. Some of that ice becomes multi year ice. Evaporation and Snowfall and IR out continues when the Arctic remains open. If the ocean gets some warmer and some deeper, enough ice is put around the Arctic and on mountains to cause a Little Ice Age. If the ocean gets much warmer and much deeper, enough ice is put around the Arctic to cause a Major Ice Age. A Milankovitch warm period would promote more evaporation and snowfall and a larger ice age. A Milankovitch cold period would promote less evaporation and snowfall and a smaller ice age. An ice age is, is by definition, more ice spread further south and further down the mountains. This can only happen due to exposed water in the Arctic. The IR out that is removed from water vapor to produce the sequestered ice does no cooling of the Climate system at the time the ice is produced; the cooling occurs later when the ice thaws. This is Dynamic Stability, NOT Static Stability.
    When the ice is piled on land around the Arctic, on Greenland and on other islands and the northern continents is pushed back into the Arctic Ocean, from where it came from many years earlier, it chills the tropical saltwater currents, just as the ice and salt in the old hand cranked ice cream makers, and the saltwater gets cold and sea ice forms on top and turns off the evaporation, turns off the ice machines.
    The cold periods last as long as it takes to deplete the ice on land, which halts the cooling flow of ice into the ocean.
    This causes natural, alternating, self-correcting, warm and cold periods.
    Movement of the plates of the earth increased this cooling over the most recent fifty million years by blocking the flow of warm currents close to the equator and forcing more and more water into polar regions. As more ice accumulated in Polar Regions, and High Mountains, the whole climate system cooled. These internal cycles have frequencies that depend on the areas of evaporation and areas of ice thawing and and depends on the mass of water and ice that takes part in each cycle.
    The thermostat setting for these ice cycles is the temperature that sea ice forms and thaws.
    The power for the ice machines mostly comes from the Sun heating the Tropical Oceans and the energy is transported into the Arctic and Around the Antarctic by ocean currents.
    Antarctic ice has steadily increased over millions of years. Northern Ice Ages developed larger and larger cycles as more and more warm water entered the Arctic with longer warm times to develop more and more ice on the continents that would move south for the longer and colder ice ages.
    Suddenly, Lucky for us now, there is enough ice sequestered on Antarctica to prevent the great warm period, that we should be in now, from happening. With less ice on Antarctica, The oceans would have continued to get deeper and warmer, taking additional ice away in the Northern Hemisphere. We would be now building ice for another major ice age. This is a new normal, “this ten thousand year time period” is, as Leighton Stewart wrote in a book title, this is the Paradise that followed the Fire and Ice, this is our wonderful time with wonderful warm periods and not so terrible ice ages.
    More people need to know and be thankful.

  8. Heat Pipe
    Think of heat pipes. In Spacecraft, the side facing the sun gets too hot and the side in the shade is cold. Heat pipes are used to pipe the energy from the hot spots to the cold spots where it can be radiated out. The IR out can be regulated, turned on and off as needed.
    In the tropics, in some places, the sun heats the surface water and the water evaporates and puts water vapor into the atmosphere, at some point, crossing some boundary, thunderstorms or hurricanes or typhoons erupt, suddenly increasing the evaporation and IR out tremendously. Some of these storms travel far into the regions away from the tropics, carrying the energy to be radiated out from normally cooler regions. When these storms travel over water, they suck more energy out of the water as they go. These heat pipes are looked at as weather events.
    There are more heat pipes that carry tropical energy from the sun into polar regions with warm tropical ocean currents. The warm water is cooled in polar regions in two ways. One way is that the warm water is chilled by ice being dumped into the turbulent saltwater. The other way is by evaporation and IR out from the tops of snowstorms. Some of the snowfall enters the water and does some immediate cooling. Some of the snowfall lands on land and builds the huge stores of sequestered ice in the far north or south and on high mountains. The total climate system is cooled by these great heat pipes that carry warm water into the polar regions and by the great heat pipes that carry the chilled water back to the tropics.
    There are controls in the polar regions that have two states. In one state, ice in the polar region is depleted and not enough ice is pushed into the oceans and the warm tropical currents are exposed to the atmosphere and the evaporation and snowfall build the sequestered ice. This time period can be a summer or when the oceans are deeper and warmer this time period can be year-round for hundreds or thousands of years. The volumes of water in the heat pipes are reduced as more ice is sequestered on land and the sea level drops. Eventually, always, at some point there is enough ice pushed into the decreasing ocean currents to chill them to form sea ice that turns the polar ice machines off. The ice machines can be halted or greatly reduced for a season, for a few years, or hundreds of years and even for thousands of years.
    The Arctic is the main driver of these greatest alternating cycles. The water in the Arctic Ocean is at the North Pole and an alternating frozen or thawed Arctic Ocean turns a greatest ice machine off and on. There is no stable equilibrium state that can exist. The energy balance diagram for this cycle has IR out in warmest times that rebuilds sequestered ice and sea ice shuts off this IR out during the coldest times. Ice is always cooling by thawing and reflecting any sun that shines.
    Climate theory does not include ice. Climate theory is WRONG. That is the reason Climate Models cannot forecast correctly.
    There is not likely much we could easily do about Antarctica.
    As for the Arctic, if you want a colder climate with lower sea level, open the heat pipe and let more gulf stream into the Arctic, that will promote more sequestered ice, a lower and colder ocean.
    If you want a warmer climate with a deeper ocean, block off the heat pipe and let less gulf stream into the Arctic, that will promote less sequestered ice, a deeper and warmer ocean.
    Changing energy into the climate system does little change, the temperature sea ice freezes and thaws is fixed and sea ice is the control to turn the ice machines on and off.
    Over the most recent ten thousand years, Milankovitch has removed solar into the north and increased it in the south. Over that time, people have been very afraid because sequestered ice in the north has decreased. Of course, it should have and did because there was less solar energy in, less sequestered ice was needed and less was produced. When Milankovitch or CO2 or whatever, increases energy into the north, the sea ice will stay removed more and more ice will be produced, the great ice sheets and glaciers will grow and dump more ice into the oceans.

    Herman A (Alex) Pope

  9. So… we’re living in an ice age, relatively speaking, but… all life on Earth is benefited by a relatively small amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere by the activities of humanity, no?

    • Oops, spoiler alert…

      • This hits me as being the invisible elephant in the room. We may actually be doing ourselves a world of good (pun intended) by mitigating cooling.

      • We are not mitigating anything.
        We are well inside the temperatures shown in ice cores for ten thousand years, actually the Greenland ice core records show we are in the coolest part of the last ten thousand years in the Northern Hemisphere.
        This well controlled, self correcting climate produces more ice every time the Arctic thaws and it snows more until it gets cooler. The thermostat setting is the temperature the Arctic sea ice thaws. Every time it gets warmer, sea ice thaws and it snows until more ice makes it cooler.

      • Do not take my word for it, look at the ice core records for yourself.

      • Afternoon PCT (UTC),

        And what exactly should I be looking for in “the ice core records” that you refer to?

    • We are living in a conditioned climate. We have ice machines in the polar regions and on high mountains and the ice is replenished periodically when we get warm enough to thaw polar sea ice.
      Just like the air-conditioners I use to keep my house cool in Houston, the increased ice on land keeps our continents cooler and nicer to live on.

    • all life on Earth is benefited by a relatively small amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere by the activities of humanity, no?

      a) why?
      b) by what measure is it “relatively small?” We’ve increased it by 50%

  10. The changes due to increased sequestered ice on land is included in this term, ΔTtec, in this posting.

    But it treated as a continually changing static energy balance.
    It is, shown by ice core records, a continually changing dynamic cycle.
    The long term Albedo Average does work out.
    There were huge cycles of imbalance if you only consider a static system.

    Everything was perfectly balanced if you consider energy storage in tropical oceans that was transported to polar regions to promote evaporation, snowfall, IR out that did not yet cool the system and ice thawing later that conducted the cooling in cold times due to the IR out in the warm time.

  11. Let us consider TCO2:
    CO2 changes follow Temperature changes in most of all past climate data.
    CO2 pressure changes follow Temperature changes in 100% of bottled or canned carbonated drinks.
    CO2 vapor pressure is a function of temperature in basic physics calculations.
    Correlations between CO2 and Temperature are expected if Temperature is driving.
    Correlations between CO2 and Temperature is not well understood if CO2 is driving because the expected warming of the atmosphere where it is to supposed to make the most difference is not verified by actual data.

    • CO2 is driving because the expected warming of the atmosphere where it is to supposed to make the most difference is not verified by actual data.

      See the PETM.

      See *any* warming. Temperature and CO2 are in a mutually reinforcing feedback loop. The temperature increase of the Pleistocene ice ages would only be about 3/4ths as great (I think that’s the number) without CO2’s heating effect.

      • “ Temperature and CO2 are in a mutually reinforcing feedback loop.”

        And that’s why the Earth heated to 200 C and all life was destroyed a billion years ago.

        Oh, wait….

  12. This first part shows an attempt to determine the climate role of CO2 from the past.

    That topic has dominated climate science since I started studying climate science in April 2007.

    I look forward to the next 4 Parts. I do hope thawing of sequestered ice and some internal response of the climate system is included.

    Every large dynamic system has internal parts with masses, spring rates, capacitance, inductance, dynamic stuff. The climate system is analyzed as a large static system that always moves toward equilibrium and as a system that can tip and go out of bounds in a direction and never turn back. The data from the past shows large excursions in one direction or another, but the data from the past shows after some time at an upper or lower bound, it turns toward the other bound, flies through the equilibrium average and turns back at the other bound. Consensus Science says, that is too hard, we will ignore that. That is why it will take a generation to get the 97% people out of the picture so someone different can actually be recognized with more correct theory.
    A large dynamic system, a rocket ship, using static equilibrium analysis, blows up in flight because of fuel slosh and internal spring rates and masses that were not analyzed. People do the hard stuff, analyze the pogo problems, the out of balance crank shaft or the out of balance wheel or drive shaft.
    Climate science will never be right if we do not do the hard stuff.

    • Curious George

      I still have to see an analysis of a spherical, rotating planet, not of a Flat Earth. Effects of a thermal capacity must be taken into account – that’s why the winter starts on a shortest day of year, and the summer on the longest day. Disregard the thermal capacity, and June 20 becomes the hottest day of year.

  13. A comprehensive analysis of global temperatures (GMST, average tropical, north polar region, south polar region, and deep sea temperatures) has just been published by Scotese et al. (2021).

    Scotese, C.R.; Song, H.; Mills, B.J.W.; van der Meer, D.G. Phanerozoic paleotemperatures: The earth’s changing climate during the last 540 million years. Earth-Science Reviews 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2021.103503

    Scotese, C.R.; Song, H.; Mills, B.J.W.; van der Meer, D.G. Phanerozoic paleotemperatures: The earth’s changing climate during the last 540 million years – Supplementary Materials. 2021. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1654vkl6b_Fy-2R_VdvcUpg4IZP4r4rqP

    However, the ECS they calculate is too high. They attribute warming to increasing CO2 concentrations and ignore the evidence that CO2 lags warming and is largely a result of degassing from the oceans as temperatures increase due to a variety of causes, including in part CO2 increases due to volcanic activity.

    • That’s it, huh — a carefully written review paper by professional scientists gets dismissed in one paragraph because you have the (incorrect) preconceived notion that CO2 only lags temperature.

      BTW, CO2 from volcanic activity is trivial compared to what humans are emitting today — 1% or less.

  14. The Eocene was 56-34 Ma, not 35-50 Ma.

    • Ignore this comment. I see you are using only the period from the Early Eocene Climate Optimum (50 Ma) to end of the Eocene.

  15. “During the Late Quaternary, temperature is considered the predominant CO2 change agent, other CO2-determining processes judged disregardable.”

    True.

  16. “In this paragraph, the entire Late Paleozoic from 400 Ma BP to present will be analyzed utilizing the Eocene relationship. The CO2 data are now taken from [5] (as in the previous 400-200 Ma study, context of Figure 6), and the temperature data from [6].”

    The temperature data from Scotese et al. (2021) is far better than from Scotese (2016) and Scotese (2018). The Scotese et al. (2021) temperature data is at 1 Ma intervals (see Supplementary Materials https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1654vkl6b_Fy-2R_VdvcUpg4IZP4r4rqP ).

    The dates of the Foster et al. (2017) CO2 peaks and troughs do not align with the Scotese et al. (2021) temperature data. This suggests the Foster et al. dates may be incorrect.
    [I’ll send a chart to Judith Curry and ask her if she can add it to or below this comment.]

  17. “In equilibrium, Earth radiates the same amount back to space, corresponding to -18 °C in the blackbody approximation. The actual surface temperature is far higher with an average of about +15 °C. Therefore, something must be delivering heat to the surface in addition to insolation. When looking for the sources, a hint comes from a well-known experience: clear-sky nights exhibit relatively low Earth surface temperatures while cloudy nights remain relatively warm. Thus, the atmosphere is contributing to the heat variability at the surface, with water molecules as the dominant components.”

    The warmest surface at night is on the oceans, and it’s not the atmosphere keeping them warm. While during daytime, the atmosphere reduces potential maximum surface temperatures by absorption of solar near infrared by water vapour, and scattering of blue light. Equatorial midday on the Moon gets far hotter.

    The Moon doesn’t have a blackbody temperature of -18°C so I don’t see why Earth should. A realistic Lunar mean surface temperature can be calculated by spreading the illuminated disk area over just the sunlit hemisphere, which is roughly in equilibrium with solar irradiance, and averaging that with the mean temperature of the dark side.

    394K * 0.5^0.25 = 331.3K
    minus 12% albedo
    331.3 * 0.88^0.25 = 320.9K
    and averaged with a dark side mean of 95K, is 207.9K

    If the Lunar regolith had greater heat capacity and raised the dark side mean temperature to say 190K, that would make a small difference to the sunlit hemisphere maximum temperature, but a large difference to the global mean.
    While Earth’s surface without oceans would get a lot colder during the night.

    • Ulric
      > The Moon doesn’t have a blackbody temperature of -18°C so I don’t see why Earth should. A realistic Lunar mean surface temperature can be calculated by spreading the illuminated disk area over just the sunlit hemisphere, which is roughly in equilibrium with solar irradiance, and averaging that with the mean temperature of the dark side.

      394K * 0.5^0.25 = 331.3K
      minus 12% albedo
      331.3 * 0.88^0.25 = 320.9K
      and averaged with a dark side mean of 95K, is 207.9K

      Moon’s blackbody temperature is calculated as 270 K or -3°C.
      The realistic Lunar mean surface temperature you calculated as 207,9 K = 208 K
      I did your calculations – everything is fine.

      The thought you expressed “The Moon doesn’t have a blackbody temperature of -18°C so I don’t see why Earth should.” is brilliant!!!
      Ulric, thank you for sharing this thought.
      What you did is to apply a scientific method. The same method I use “Planets Surface Temperatures Comparison Method”.

      Ulric, you compared the surface temperatures of two celestial bodies, Earth and Moon. And you concluded Earth, which has Albedo a = 0,306 and therefore the incoming solar energy is 30% less than on Moon… Earth cannot have theoretical uniform surface without-atmosphere blackbody temperature of -18°C or 255K, since the realistic Lunar mean surface temperature you calculated as 207,9 K = 208 K is much-much lower than Earth’s alleged blackbody uniform temperature of 255K.
      Therefore, according to the Earth -Moon surface temperatures comparison, Earth’s blackbody theoretical uniform surface without-atmosphere temperature should be not the 255K but even less than the realistic Lunar mean surface temperature you calculated as 207,9 K = 208 K .

      Thank you again Ulric.
      https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Ulric Lyons

        Christos,
        spreading the disk area over the whole sphere results in a much higher black-body temperature, 278.6K or 254.8K with 30% albedo.
        While spreading over one hemisphere is 331.3K and zero for the other hemisphere, giving a global average of 165.65K.

      • Ulric,
        Yes it is. It is different for Earth’s case.
        What we should take in consideration is the fact some planets (Mercury, Moon, Earth, Mars, Europa and Ganymede) have also very strong specular reflection.
        Therefore the
        energy in = Φ(1 -a) = 0,47(1 -a)So πr² (W)

        For Earth energy in = 0,47(1 – 0,306)1361 πr² (W) =
        = 444 πr² (W)
        And the same is the energy out = 444 πr² (W)
        For Earth the Corrected effective temperature is
        (444 /4σ)¹∕ ⁴ = 210 Κ

        Effective temperature (corrected or not corrected) is a mathematical abstraction… but it helps as a first approach.
        For Moon the corrected effective temperature is 224 K.
        For Mars it is 174 K.
        For Mercury it is 364 K.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Ulric,
        > “So what applies to the Moon should also apply to Earth.”
        Exactly! Thank you.

      • Ulric,
        > “Obviously the Moon can only be in equilibrium with solar irradiance on its sunlit hemisphere. The temperature profile from dawn to dusk and from pole to pole is naturally parabolic shaped.”
        And from pole to pole!!!
        Thank you!

      • Ulric Lyons

        Earth’s sunlit surface using divide by two, after losing 6% to scattering, 16% to absorption of solar near infrared, and 30% cloud albedo, is down to about a mean 285.7K, without considering other factors.
        Much of the warmth of the night side is from the thermal reservoirs of the oceans, which the surfaces of barely cool through the night due to convection.

      • Ulric,
        when comparing planets’ mean surface temperatures we also should take in consideration the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon (in short the rotational warming).

        The higher is the planet’s (N*cp) product – the higher is the planet’s mean surface temperature.
        I have demonstrated the planets’ satellite measured mean surface temperatures (everything else equals) relate as the planets’ (N*cp) products sixteenth root.

        “Earth’s sunlit surface using divide by two, after losing 6% to scattering, 16% to absorption of solar near infrared, and 30% cloud albedo, is down to about a mean 285.7K”
        It is down to about 285,7K , but it is not a mean 285,7K…
        In this syllogism the 285,7K is a uniform surface temperature, which is quite different.
        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Ulric,
        Earth’s N = 1 rot /day
        Earth’s cp = 1 cal /gr°C (water)
        Earth’s (N*cp) = (1*1) = 1

        Moon’s N = 1 /29,5 rot /day
        Moon’s cp = 0,19 cal /gr°C (regolith)
        Moon’s (N*cp) = [(1 /29,5)*0,19] = 1 /155.3

        [ Earth’s (N*cp) /Moon’s (N*cp) ]^1/16 = ( 155,3 )^1/16 = 1,3707
        Earth’s Tmean /Moon’s Tmean = 288K /210K = 1,3714

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Ulric Lyons

        If the Moon was rotating three times as fast relative to the Sun, the dusk surface temperature would be slightly lower and the dawn temperature slightly higher. I can’t see that it would make much difference overall.

      • Ulric,

        If the Moon was rotating 29,5 times as fast relative to the Sun, and the Moon’s average surface specific heat was
        1 /0,19 = 5,26 times higher like earth’s oceanic water
        (1 cal/gr*oC) instead of moon’s regolith (0,19 cal/gr*oC) then moon’s (N*cp) product will be equal to earth’s (N*cp) = 155,3
        And Moon’s mean surface temperature would be the same as Earth’s.
        Also, if Moon still was a regolith surface body, but with 5,26 times higher rotational spin than earth’s, then again, the moon’s
        (N*cp) = 155,3 and the moon’s mean surface temperature would be equal to earth’s 288K.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Ulric,
        > “If the Moon was rotating three times as fast relative to the Sun, the dusk surface temperature would be slightly lower and the dawn temperature slightly higher. I can’t see that it would make much difference overall.”

        I am sorry, Ulric, I had to read more carefully. You wrote the dusk surface temperature would be slightly lower…
        and the dawn temperature slightly higher…
        and that would not make much difference overall.

        Yes, there would not be much difference if the dusk surface temperature would be slightly lower.
        But when planet rotates faster, the dusk temperature is not lower, when planet rotates faster the dusk temperature is also higher.

      • Ulric Lyons

        With a shorter day length, the lunar regolith would have less time to heat up during the day, and also less time to cool at night.

      • > “With a shorter day length, the lunar regolith would have less time to heat up during the day, and also less time to cool at night.”
        Yes, when the lunar regolith surface was heated by some inner source of heat during the day, and not heated during the night. During the shorter day length the lunar regolith would have less time to heat up and also less time to cool at night.
        For lunar surface the source of incoming energy is radiative.
        Lunar regolith at average 95 K at night emits some 4,62 W/m².
        At daytime average 320 K it emits some 595 W/m².

        “The temperature profile from dawn to dusk and from pole to pole is naturally parabolic shaped.”
        The parabolic shape happens because of lunar surface the incident SW solar energy IR emittance at fourth power from the every point (ι) the temperature T(ι) Kelvin.
        The lunar surface temperature parabolic profile follows the solar angular irradiance profile.

        When closer to the dusk the parabolic profile falls down to zero dramatically. Thus for slow rotating regolith there is more time during the low phase of the parabolic profile to cool down.
        Consequently the slower rotating planet approaches dusk at much lower temperature.

        At night lunar surface regolith temperature varies from
        120K to 95K
        https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F2193-1801-3-723/MediaObjects/40064_2014_Article_1586_Fig5_HTML.jpg?as=webp

        Thus temperature falls dramatically fast, because the lunar dusk hours are 29,5 times longer.
        If moon was rotating three times faster the lunar dusk would take three time less to complete. As a result lunar regolith would “enter” dark side at higher surface temperature.

        The lunar regolith solar energy accumulation in form of heat is a linear function process of heat conduction. The temperature gradient developed on surface definitely plays a role.
        The lunar regolith solar energy IR emission process during the solar irradiated hours is at temperature fourth power function though.
        As a result, lunar surface, when rotating slower has more time for high temperature IR emission daytime outgoing energy, and therefore there is less energy left accumulated for night and at lower initial temperatures than for the faster rotating planet.

        For the faster rotating planet the daytime parabolic shape temperature profile is lower and more “shallow”, it does not skyrocketed at midday but it also does not deepened very much at the terminator.
        For one moon surface parabolic very “impressive” profile there are 29,5 earth surface very much modest parabolic temperature profiles.
        The earth’s surface temperature parabolic profiles come up 29,5 times more frequently, thus the heat accumulation process for earth is much more vigorous.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Ulric Lyons

        A relatively warmer dusk and a warmer dawn from rotating faster is getting energy from nowhere. A shorter daytime means there’s less heat in the subsoil to keep the dusk surface temperature warmer, even if the the dusk period is shorter.
        C.V.:
        “For the faster rotating planet the daytime parabolic shape temperature profile is lower and more “shallow”, it does not skyrocketed at midday but it also does not deepened very much at the terminator.”

        With the Moon rotating three times as fast, the sunlit side should still be roughly in equilibrium with solar irradiance. The thermal reservoirs are not great enough to dampen daytime surface heating rates. Apparently one meter below the equator remains roughly constant at around 255K, which is more than the mean for the surface around the full equator.

      • Ulric:
        “A relatively warmer dusk and a warmer dawn from rotating faster is getting energy from nowhere. A shorter daytime means there’s less heat in the subsoil to keep the dusk surface temperature warmer, even if the the dusk period is shorter.”

        Yes, the faster rotation does not provide any additional incident SW radiative solar energy. No matter how slow or fast a planet rotates the incident on the planet’s surface solar energy is always the same.
        What changes with the faster rotation is the planet surface sunlit hemisphere IR emission ratio.

        There is the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.

        Lets consider two identical planets F and S at the same distance from the sun.
        Let’s assume the planet F spins on its axis Faster, and the planet S spins on its axis Slower.

        Both planets F and S get the same intensity solar flux on their sunlit hemispheres. Consequently both planets receive the same exactly amount of solar radiative energy.

        The slower rotating planet’s S sunlit hemisphere surface gets warmed at higher temperatures than the faster rotating planet’s F sunlit hemisphere.

        The surfaces emit at σT⁴ intensity.
        Thus at every given moment the planet S sunlit surface emits IR outgoing radiative energy more intensively from the sunlit side than the planet F.

        So there is more energy every given moment left for the planet F to accumulate for the night then. That is what makes the faster rotating planet F on the average a warmer planet. That is how the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon occurs.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • I suggest you look into conservation of energy.

      • Ulric:
        “…Much of the warmth of the night side is from the thermal reservoirs of the oceans…”

        “With the Moon rotating three times as fast, the sunlit side should still be roughly in equilibrium with solar irradiance. The thermal reservoirs are not great enough to dampen daytime surface heating rates.”

        Thank you Ulric. The Planet Surface Specific Heat “Cp” plays a decisive role in planet mean surface temperature values.

        What changes when there is a Higher planet surface average specific heat is the planet surface sunlit hemisphere IR radiative energy emission ratio lessens. It is a physics observation similar to the faster rotational spin warming phenomenon.

        Lets consider two identical planets “H” and “L” at the same distance from the sun. Let’s assume the planet “H” has a Higher average surface specific heat, and the planet “L” has a Lower average surface specific heat.

        Both planets “H” and “L” are solar irradiated by the same intensity SW solar flux on their sunlit hemispheres. Consequently both planets receive the same exactly amount of Solar Radiative Energy.

        For Lower average surface specific heat planet “L” the sunlit hemisphere surface gets warmed at higher temperatures than for Higher average surface specific heat planet “H” the sunlit hemisphere.

        The surfaces emit at σT⁴ intensity.
        Thus, when solar irradiated, the planet “L” emits more intensively IR radiative energy from the sunlit hemisphere than the planet “H”.

        So there is More Energy Left for the planet “H” to accumulate for the night then. That is what makes for Higher surface specific heat planet “H” to be on average a Warmer Planet.

        Therefore there is also a Planet Surface Specific Heat “cp” Warming Phenomenon.
        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • The Planet N*cp product IMPORTANCE
        Let’s proceed the syllogism.
        N – is the planet’s rotational spin
        cp – is the planet’s average surface specific heat
        N*cp is the product of planet’s N and cp

        Now, let’s have two identical planets, at the same distance from the sun, but with different rotational spin N1 and N2, and with different average surface specific heat cp1 and cp2. Which planet has the highest mean surface temperature Tmean ?

        Of course, since every planet has its own unique rotational spin (diurnal cycle) and every planet has its own unique average surface specific heat… we should compare for the two planets N*cp – the product of N and cp.

        Consequently, the planet with the highest N*cp product should be the planet with the highest mean surface temperature Tmean.
        Example:
        Earth’s N.earth = 1 rot /day
        Moon’s N.moon = 1 /29,5 rot /day
        Earth’s cp.earth = 1 cal /gr.oC (watery planet)
        Moon’s cp.moon = 0,19 cal /gr.oC (regolith)

        For Earth the (N*cp) product is:
        (N.earth)*(cp.earth) = 1*1 = 1 rot.cal /day.gr.oC

        For Moon the (N*cp) product is:
        (N.moon)*(cp.moon) = (1 /29,5)*0,19 = 1 /155,3 rot.cal /day.gr.oC

        Let’s compare the products:
        (N.earth)*(cp.earth) / [(N.moon)*(cp.moon)] = 1 / (1 /155,3) = 155,3
        What we see here is that the Earth’s N*cp product is 155,3 times higher than the Moon’s N*cp product.
        And the satellite measured mean surface temperatures are
        Tmean.earth = 287,16 K
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
        Tmean.moon = 220 K
        https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon

        It is obvious that Earth’s higher rotational spin and Earth’s higher surface specific heat make Earth on average a warmer than Moon planet.
        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Ulric,
        I have demonstrated planets mean surface temperatures (everything else equals) relate as their (N*cp) products sixteenth root.
        When comparing Earth’s and Moon’s (N*cp) products sixteenth root we shall have:
        Earth’s N = 1 rot /day
        Earth’s cp = 1 cal /gr°C (water)
        Earth’s (N*cp) = (1*1) = 1

        Moon’s N = 1 /29,5 rot /day
        Moon’s cp = 0,19 cal /gr°C (regolith)
        Moon’s (N*cp) = [(1 /29,5)*0,19] = 1 /155.3

        [ Earth’s (N*cp) /Moon’s (N*cp) ]^1/16 = ( 155,3 )^1/16 = 1,3707

        When we compare Earth’s and Moon’s mean surface temperatures the result is almost identical
        Earth’s Tmean /Moon’s Tmean = 288K /210K = 1,3714

        The results are almost identical – the results demonstrate Earth’s atmosphere does not play any significant role when theoretically estimating Earth’s the whole planet radiative equilibrium mean surface temperature.
        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Ulric Lyons

        “The slower rotating planet’s S sunlit hemisphere surface gets warmed at higher temperatures than the faster rotating planet’s F sunlit hemisphere.”

        With the Moon rotating three times as fast, the sunlit hemisphere surface will still be close to equilibrium with solar irradiance, but the subsoil will have less time to warm.

      • “With the Moon rotating three times as fast, the sunlit hemisphere surface will still be close to equilibrium with solar irradiance, but the subsoil will have less time to warm.”

        Yes, the sunlit hemisphere surface will always be close to equilibrium with solar irradiance. Solar irradiated side is always the arena of solar flux-surface interaction process.
        Lunar regolith at average 95 K at night emits some 4,62 W/m².
        At daytime average 320 K it emits some 595 W/m².

        At daytime lunar surface on average emits IR energy 130 times more intensively.
        What I think is subsoil actually doesn’t warm the rate we expect it to, when judging from the incident solar irradiation intensity. Sahara desert is very hot at the surface, but a little in the soil – there is cool enough for lizards, sneaks and insects to survive.
        My observations lead me to think EM energy transfer is very different compared to the solid body heat conduction.
        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Yes, the sunlit hemisphere surface will always be close to equilibrium with solar irradiance. Solar irradiated side is always the arena of solar flux-surface interaction process.
        Lunar regolith at average 95 K at night emits some 4,62 W/m².
        At daytime average 320 K it emits some 595 W/m².

    • A realistic Lunar mean surface temperature can be calculated by spreading the illuminated disk area over just the sunlit hemisphere, which is roughly in equilibrium with solar irradiance

      The Moon doesn’t have an atmosphere, so its equilibrium with solar irradiance is pointwise on the surface, not for the entire surface as a constant. So to calculate the average surface temperature on the sunlit side you have to do an integral over the surface. Like this:

      https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/04/norfolk-constabulary-made-wrong-charges.html

      • Ulric Lyons

        Obviously the Moon can only be in equilibrium with solar irradiance on its sunlit hemisphere. The temperature profile from dawn to dusk and from pole to pole is naturally parabolic shaped.
        But the issue here is that dividing the disk area by two works for the Moon, but dividing it by four results in a much too high black-body temperature value for the Moon. So what applies to the Moon should also apply to Earth.

      • David Appell

        Why parabolic?

        I think it varies like the 1/4th power of the cosine of the longitude. That’s pretty straightforward, from the Planck Law. Again, see my like above.

      • David Appell

        That’s the variation along the Moon’s equator. At any given point on the sunlit side it will be a more complicated trigonometric function, I think the 1/4th power of the cosine of the longitude times the 5/4th power of the sine of the latitude (trying to do this quickly in my head), but in any case I don’t see any reason why it’s parabolic. I’d like to hear your reasoning.

      • Ulric Lyons

        It would be parabolic from pole to pole too, but with cooler terminators than at dawn and dusk. The analogy is a parallel light source striking a convex parabolic reflector on axis produces a virtual point source of light radially. The same geometry should apply with the directional heating of a spheroid, albeit with terminators above zero due to thermal reservoirs.

      • David Appell

        WHY parabolic? Based on what physical laws?

        The Stefan-Boltzmann law says the temperature at a sunlit surface point will, in equilibrium, be proportional to the 1/4th power of the solar flux. The solar flux depends on the angle an incoming solar light ray makes with the Moon’s surface. That’s the basis for my sines and cosines — I don’t see any way it leads to a parabolic dependence on…on what, the co-latitude?

        Look at the Diviner graph in my link — it’s not parabolic. In fact, my equation describes it perfectly.

      • Ulric Lyons

        Maybe your sines and cosines are creating a near parabolic shape temperature profile. This looks pretty parabolic:

        https://149366104.v2.pressablecdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/diviner-noon-lunar-equator-temps.png

      • David Appell

        Sines and cosines don’t make parabolic, esp when raised to an x/4th power.

        Here’s the equation of a parabola:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabola

        The curve isn’t parabolic, period.

      • Ulric,
        You have posted a very interesting graph “Lunar Equatorial Temperatures, Diviner Data.

        According to graph we have for Moon
        (Tmax+Tmin) /2 > Tmean

        It states that Tmin plays a dominant role in Moon surface diurnal temperatures profile.

        For slower rotation there is more IR emission during the day. When surface edges terminator it is already very cold surface.

        The additional heat “taken away” in the night by faster rotation rises the nighttime temperature not proportionally, because of the nonlinearity of the surface’s emission at σT⁴ intensity.

        For every 1 °C cooler (due to faster rotation) the average daytime temperature, in order to IR emit the additional heat “taken away” in the night by faster rotation…
        The nighttime average temperature rises higher than 1 °C.
        I did a rough theoretical calculation in my site.
        For the daytime average temperature 200 K and night time 100 K, when the faster rotation lessens the daytime temperature by 1 °C, to 199 K
        the night time temperature (in order to get the whole planet radiatively balanced – to get rid from that additional heat )
        the nighttime surface theoretical radiative temperature rises to 107,4 K.
        When averaging for faster rotation the day-night average temperature appears to be higher.

        In the graph for Moon’s faster rotation the “Tmean” line will go up, and the
        “(Tmax + Tmin) /2 ” line will go down.
        Thank you Ulric.

        Please, Ulric, can you provide me with the Link to the article the graph is from?

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Ulric Lyons

        CV
        “For slower rotation there is more IR emission during the day.”

        Not if the sunlit surface isn’t any warmer.

        “The additional heat “taken away” in the night by faster rotation”

        Less heat is lost during a shorter night.

        “For every 1 °C cooler (due to faster rotation) the average daytime temperature…”

        The lunar sunlit side will still reach equilibrium with solar irradiance.

      • Ulric
        “Less heat is lost during a shorter night.”

        Yes, I agree with that.
        What I say is that the nighttime emission happens at higher than +1°C temperature.

        “For slower rotation there is more IR emission during the day.”
        Not if the sunlit surface isn’t any warmer.
        “For every 1 °C cooler (due to faster rotation) the average daytime temperature…”
        The lunar sunlit side will still reach equilibrium with solar irradiance.

        Ulric,
        I need to think about the above for a few hours. Then I will come back.
        Thank you.
        https://www.cristos-vournas

      • David Appell

        http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/EMAT6680Fa06/Chitsonga/ASSIGN9/PARA%202.htm

        I’m not going to guess what a link means for the conversation. Spell it out.

      • Ulric,
        “Obviously the Moon can only be in equilibrium with solar irradiance on its sunlit hemisphere.”
        Do you mean by equilibrium that the entire not reflected incident SW energy is IR emitted, or some portion of it is kept for the night?

        What do you think, when Moon rotates three times faster, the sunlit daytime average surface temperature will be the same, or it will be somehow cooler?
        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Ulric Lyons

        Christos
        Of course daytime surface heat is conducted into the lunar subsoil, making the dusk warmer than the dawn. With a 3 times faster rotation the difference between dawn and dusk temperatures are smaller, but the mean dark side surface temperature is the same as it is dependent on heat capacity and not on the rotation speed. The subsoil receives the same average heating over time. The sunlit side surface mean should be similar, as long as it is still reaching equilibrium with solar irradiance. Though with it rotating fast enough for the midday equatorial surface not to reach solar equilibrium because of subsoil thermal dampening, I reckon the global mean would be lower.

      • Ulric
        “Though with it rotating fast enough for the midday equatorial surface not to reach solar equilibrium because of subsoil thermal dampening, I reckon the global mean would be lower.”

        “…the midday equatorial surface not to reach solar equilibrium because of subsoil thermal dampening…”
        You say that for three times faster rotating Moon, the daytime average would be lower (because of subsoil thermal dampening), and the global mean would be lower ?

      • Ulric Lyons

        “You say that for three times faster rotating Moon, the daytime average would be lower (because of subsoil thermal dampening)”

        I clearly did not, I said fast enough.

      • Please, Ulric, it is important for me, what you see…
        If Moon rotates faster what the global mean would be then. Lower, unchanged or higher.

      • Ulric Lyons

        We had already agreed that with the Moon rotating 3 times faster that the sunlit side would be have a similar mean surface temperature. The effect of heat capacity is the big issue.

  18. Thus, a change of 1 °C of the global annual mean temperature is followed by a change of 20 ppmv in CO2 concentration.

    You can’t conclude this, because the relationship isn’t linear. The increase in atmospheric CO2 is in turn causing an increase in temperature, which in turn causes further increase in CO2, and so on. So the analysis after the sentence above is faulty.

    • “The increase in atmospheric CO2 is in turn causing an increase in temperature, which in turn causes further increase in CO2, and so on.”

      It should be instructive that the expert consensus originally claimed that the CO2 correlation to paleo temperature ice cores indicated CO2 as the temperature driver (as claimed in Al Gore’s award winning move). This, however, was known to be false since the higher resolution ice cores of the 1980s showed that change in CO2 concentration consistently lagged change in temperature, reversing the causation. Then the expert consensus was revised to CO2 being a positive feedback, as David asserts.

      The question then becomes a matter of quantification of the feedback. For this determination the logical analysis to do would be to look at the expected temperature response to other climate forces. Since Milankovitch Cycles are precisely predictable and quantifiable one would think this would allow precise quantitation of CO2 feedback, especially because on the geologic scale solar variance, asteroid impacts and volcanic eruptions are just noise. Can anyone point to papers done on this analysis?

      • David Appell

        It should be instructive that the expert consensus originally claimed that the CO2 correlation to paleo temperature ice cores indicated CO2 as the temperature driver (as claimed in Al Gore’s award winning move).

        When, decades ago? Was that a “consensus?” I doubt it. There were hypotheses.

        Do you wait for the temperature to increase before your turn on your ICE car’s engine? CO2 certainly doesn’t lag when we are pumping it straight into the atmosphere.

        It doesn’t lag when it’s emitted from volcanoes or large traps or hydrates or during the PETM. I don’t understand why this is so difficult to understand, or why people think it matters for the present.

      • This piece from above, quote “Since Milankovitch Cycles are precisely predictable and quantifiable —“. The Milankovitch theory is based in part on an assumption that ‘Obliquity’ does not change beyond the Stockwell/Newcomb limits (22.1 and 24.5 degrees). Those are the secular limits from calculation, and a backward extrapolation (beyond what the various formulae state as reliable).
        https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/
        Others have shown that superimposed on those changes are other abrupt changes.
        And since (from my limited perspective) there seems to be a lot of dependence on that ‘precept’ (the S/N theory), perhaps more solid proof in warranted.

      • David Appell: ‘When, decades ago? Was that a “consensus?” I doubt it. There were hypotheses.’

        You are right there was not a scientific consensus that CO2 caused the Late Pleistocene temperature graph in Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth.” It was Arrhenius’s hypothesis I believe. It’s a shame that top climate scientists like Lonnie Thompson put their stamp of approval on the movie along with the CS community so that it would gain awards and go into classrooms when they knew it was wrong in the science. Explaining to children it was false years later never erases impression it made (if they believe you). This why we got the Russia hoax. Intentionally infecting the popular culture with a lie is hard to reverse.

        Dr. Thompson and the expert community knew for years before the movie that glacial cycles were caused by M-cycles reinforced by ice sheet caused change in albedo. The CO2 extra-reinforcement is purely based on the assumption of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Showing those graphs in the movie of CO2 correlation to temperature was intentional deception. The scientists knew it was Henry’s Law causing the correlation of temperature to CO2, which lagging temperature in high resolution ice core analysis, proving the case. If a scientist had somehow got a similar claim through peer review there would have been an investigation into falsification and fraud. But since it’s only in a movie exposing a billion non-scientists then it’s more than A-OK — it’s Nobel Prize winning.

        BTW, I’m not sure if Mann claims his Nobel Prize for being an IPCC author or having his “hockey stick” graph misused in Gore’s movie.

      • David Appell

        Ron, CO2’s greenhouse effect was part of the temperature increase out of the glacial maxima of the ice ages.

        BTW, what did Fred Singer claim his IPCC Nobel Prize was for (his and John Christy’s)?

        “John Christy, my fellow skeptic and fellow co-recipient of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize (by virtue of having our names listed in IPCC reports) in the WSJ [ITEM #4]….”
        http://www.sepp.org/twtwfiles/2007/November%203.htm

      • “Ron, CO2’s greenhouse effect was part of the temperature increase out of the glacial maxima of the ice ages.”

        Perhaps, but we have no evidence of that as far as I have seen from paleoclimate analysis. It is only assumed due to the theory that CO2’s radiative properties are contributing to the GHE.

        Therefore, using the charted correlation between CO2 and T was intentionally deceptive, thus a fraud to the movie going public. Saying there was kernel of truth because we know that CO2 affects T so we know that some of the paleo T response must have been CO2 does not change the fraud because circular reasoning is not allowed in science. The charts provided no evidence supporting the claim.

      • Christy and Singer were poking fun at Mann’s ego problem.

    • Ralph Ellis, who has authored several papers on explaining the forcing through the Pleistocene glacial cycle kindly answered me with this: here:

      “We [Ellis, Rapp, Palmer and Best versus the climateriat] had a disagreement on CO2 feedbacks.

      They were saying that the CO2 forcing-feedback was 4 W/m2. But that is over the full 5 ky of an interglacial. The true CO2 forcing is actually 0.008 W/m2 per decade, which is not going to assist anything. And the climate needs to get from one decade to a slightly warmer next decade, with just 0.00’ W/m2. It is not going to happen.

      Conversely, dirty ice sheets can provide 240 W/m2 every year, when measures regionally. Now that can and will make a difference .

      They said I was crazy. -R “

  19. Thomas Anderl thank you for this post. Very interesting and informative.

    I have a question regarding this paragraph:
    Conclusion from the Late Quaternary, part 2: Nature reveals different CO2-temperature relationships for either direction: (a) temperature driving CO2, (b) CO2 driving temperature. In direction (a), the atmospheric CO2 concentration follows temperature changes by 10-20 ppmv per 1 °C temperature change. In direction (b), a change of 10 ppmv in CO2 concentration causes a temperature change of about 0.07 °C. Regarding for instance a CO2 concentration increase of 100 ppmv, the Eocene relationship indicates an induced temperature increase of 0.7 °C. Since this temperature increase, in turn, causes a concentration change of 7-14 ppmv, about 7-14 % of the 100 ppmv-increase is to be attributed to the entailed temperature increase.”

    What is the ECS for:
    (a) temperature driving CO2?
    (b) CO2 driving temperature?

    • You can’t separate these two effects. They are represented by differential equations and are both taking place at the same time, not separately — a dT causes a dCO2, and that dCO2 causes a dT. They’re coupled differential equations. It makes no sense to talk about one without the other. That’s just the physics.

      • David Appell

        What could reduce CO2 levels at the extent evident other than cooling ocean waters?

        Changes in continental land area, for one, as plate tectonics moved and reshaped land masses and hence how much land area was available for vegetation and silicate weathering.

        And other processes you or I don’t know about, I’m sure.

    • If Temperature did not drive CO2 levels in the Paleo record, what did? What could reduce CO2 levels at the extent evident other than cooling ocean waters? Every apparent answer raises ever more difficult questions

      • Peter Lang

        Rick,

        Much of the CO2 reduction from the Early Eocene Thermal Maximum may have been due to CO2 sequestration by azolla plants. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene#Greenhouse_to_icehouse_climate

        “The Eocene is not only known for containing the warmest period during the Cenozoic, but it also marked the decline into an icehouse climate and the rapid expansion of the Antarctic ice sheet. The transition from a warming climate into a cooling climate began at around 49 million years ago. Isotopes of carbon and oxygen indicate a shift to a global cooling climate.[29] The cause of the cooling has been attributed to a significant decrease of >2,000 ppm in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.[24] One proposed cause of the reduction in carbon dioxide during the warming to cooling transition was the azolla event. The increased warmth at the poles, the isolated Arctic basin during the early Eocene, and the significantly high amounts of carbon dioxide possibly led to azolla blooms across the Arctic Ocean.[29] The isolation of the Arctic Ocean led to stagnant waters and as the azolla sank to the sea floor, they became part of the sediments and effectively sequestered the carbon. The ability for the azolla to sequester carbon is exceptional, and the enhanced burial of azolla could have had a significant effect on the world atmospheric carbon content and may have been the event to begin the transition into an ice house climate. Cooling after this event continued due to continual decrease in atmospheric carbon dioxide from organic productivity and weathering from mountain building.” …

  20. Anders Rasmusson

    A much appreciated summary from then to now. Equation (1) though, returns a rather high 4.6 °C per CO2-doubling.

    TCO2 = Ln(𝑝CO2/22) * 6.68 °C (1)

    Kind regards
    Anders Rasmusson

  21. Richard Greene

    Warming oceans will release CO2

    Fossil fuel CO2 emissions release CO2

    Now let’s consider what is important:

    (1) How much warming will the next +100 ppm of CO2 cause?

    (2) What percentage of the warming since 1950 did CO2 cause?

    How has the CO2 increase since 1950 affected plant growth?

    What areas had the most warming since 1975?

    What months of the year had the most warming since 1975?

    What time of day had the most warming since 1975?

    We have assumptions for question (1),
    with climate change n-u-t-s IMAGINING much faster global average temperature increases than rational people do, based mainly on the mild, harmless ACTUAL warming in the past 45 years.

    We have assumptions for question (2), but with so many variables that can affect the global average temperature, we can’t blame CO2 for a specific percentage of the warming.

    The climate change n-u-t-s will blame all the warning on CO2, as if stating their claim with great confidence automatically creates truth.

    We do have answers for the next four questions: CO2 concentrations began ramping up in about 1950, global warming began in about 1975, and that warming most affected areas, and was at times, where warming was good news. Think of warmer winter nights in Siberia.

    The greening of our planet has been measured from satellites using the Leaf Area Index and NASA Vegetation Index.

    Many thousands of scientific studies show that CO2 enrichment benefits plant growth.

    A small percentage did not — climate change n-u-t-s will cherry pick the few studies that do not support CO2 enrichment.

    Many greenhouse owners, all over the world, use CO2 enrichment systems to boost growth of their plants.

    Climate change n-u-t-s declare they don’t know anything about growing plants.

    We have up to 45 years experience living with global warming, and much longer than that living with rising CO2 levels.

    That’s reality.

    We also have predictions of a coming climate crisis, that I trace back to oceanographer Roger Revelle in 1957.

    Plus about 40 years of the government bureaucrat scientist consensus, as reflected by the average climate model, predicting more than double the actual rate of warming since 1979, when compared with UAH temperature data.

    That’s climate change n-u-t fantasyland.

    I prefer to live in reality, not climate change fantasyland.

    Richard Greene
    Bingham Farms, Michigan
    http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

    • a) UAH is an outlier (a dataset that’s had a lot of problems in the past, usually on the low side) and not one many people take seriously

      b) greenhouses can tightly control for water and temperature, which doesn’t happen in the real world.

      • Richard Greene

        Oh please Mr. Appleman; Being an “outlier” doesn’t automatically make the UAH dataset wrong. You are an “outlier” at this website, and we don’t take YOU seriously, but that doesn’t automatically make YOU wrong.

        The UAH is measured in a consistent environment with far less guessing (infilling) than surface statistics, with their infilling done by people EXPECTING rapid global warming, and hired BECAUSE they believe that will happen,

        Nevertheless, UAH and others are all in the same ballpark — warming since the mid-1970s — mild, harmless warming — global warming experienced by up to seven billion people.

        We don’t need always wrong wild guess predictions and computer game simulations — billions of people have up to 45 years experience living with global warming, and no one was harmed by it.

        Surface temperature statistics get untrustworthy before UAH in 1979, considering the “gradually disappearing” global (-0.3 to -0.5 degree C.) cooling from 1940 to 1975. And the “cooling” of the 1930s in the United States, so that 1998 could be claimed to be hotter than 1936. That is science fraud, over many decades, with an agenda. You should be condemning it. not celebrating it.

        The amount of infilling increases a lot as one goes back in time before World War II, with poor Southern Hemisphere coverage ,getting worse toward 1900, and almost no S.H. coverage before 1900. Some scientists used to admit that fact.

        Measuring ocean temperatures with non-scientist sailors, using buckets and mercury thermometers, mainly in Northern Hemisphere shipping lanes, doesn’t add up to an accurate global average sea surface temperature. Accuracy started with ARGO floats, only about 20 years ago.

        CO2 enrichment increases water use efficiency, and CO2 enriched plants grow even better with warmer temperatures.

        In general, CO2 enrichment and warmer temperatures BOTH improve plant growth. But I’m sure you know better than greenhouse owners?

        Concerning water: There is no proof of more droughts being caused by climate change — I’d post official charts here if I had any idea how to do that.

        Natural causes of oceans warming cause CO2 out-gassing.
        More CO2 in the atmosphere should cause additional warming.
        Seems like the process would eventually cause runaway warming.
        But that has never happened. Why?

        The obvious answer is there are many causes of climate change and CO2 is NOT global average temperature control knob … after 4.5 billion years of ONLY natural causes of climate change.

        Nothing has happened to the climate in the past 150 years that could not have had natural causes. Therefore, the ACTUAL effect of CO2 is an assumption, not a proven fact.

        There is no logical connection between the greenhouse theory, and lab spectroscopy, and the many decades of predictions of rapid and dangerous global warming (aka “climate emergency”) in the future .. that never shows up.

        You smarmy leftists have taken a little science, and spun a tall tale of the CO2 boogeyman — the devil in the sky — and the world will end unless everyone does as you say, without question. In fact MUST do as you say without question, even if you are wrong — per the “precautionary principle” — the favorite motto of dictators throughout history.
        Richard Greene
        Bingham Farms, Michigan
        Where we LOVE global warming !
        http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

      • David Appell

        Richard Greene, always impolite when threatened, writes:
        The UAH is measured in a consistent environment with far less guessing (infilling) than surface statistics

        Of the three satellite datasets, UAH disagrees with the other two, RSS and STAR. Why is UAH better?

        All must now adjust their temperature models for a host of structural uncertainties: satellite orbital decay and orbital drift resulting in gradual shifts in the time of day at which measurements are made; drifts in the onboard calibration of the microwave measurements and for the transition between earlier and more sophisticated versions of the microwave sounder.

        These groups, including UAH, are now trying to calibrate over something like 11 different satellites over the 40-year history of their dataset, comparing measurements taken today to those taken on all the 10 previous. Some of those satellites or MSUs failed catastrophically with no opportunity to ever do a like-vs-like direct calibration.

        Then there was the last 90s/early 00s saga of UAH’s sign error, which took years for them to admit and fix and bring their too-low trend in accord with others of the time, which caused a lot of people to question whether their results are truly unbiased.

        Most climate scientists think the surface temperature measurements are less uncertain than those calculated from satellites, including one of the founder of RSS:

        Carl Mears, Senior Research Scientist, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS)

        “A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets….”

        http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures
        video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BnkI5vqr_0

      • Dave Andrews

        RG

        Don’t forget there are only around 4000 Ago buoys which means each is measuring an area of ocean roughly equal to the size of Portugal. As Willis E has pointed out would you take a single measurement of the temperature in Portugal and say this is the temperature for the whole country?

      • David Appell

        As Willis E has pointed out would you take a single measurement of the temperature in Portugal and say this is the temperature for the whole country?

        If you want to measure the average surface temperature of the globe, how many stations do you need?

        It’s a question of statistics. Only ~100 stations worldwide are needed to get an accurate-enough measure of global mean surface temperature:

        “Spectral Approach to Optimal Estimation of the Global Average Temperature,” Samuel S. P. Shen et al, JAMS 1994.
        https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/1520-0442%281994%29007%3C1999%3ASATOEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2

      • “Only ~100 stations worldwide are needed to get an accurate-enough measure of global mean surface temperature…”

        Which is true. But the number is less than 100. On the other hand, the GMST has no meaning. No useful meaning. It doesn’t tell me what is in Minnesota or what’s going to happen. It’s like a God. God caused that. Really? Yes. God caused this too. How did he cause that. The GMST went up. Does this CMIP6 work? Let’s ask God. Did it get the GMST right? Yes. God said yes it works. Okay. Let’s talk later. I have to run.

      • David Appell

        On the other hand, the GMST has no meaning. No useful meaning. It doesn’t tell me what is in Minnesota or what’s going to happen.

        Yes, it has a meaning — which is the global mean surface temperature.

        No, it doesn’t tell you the temperature in Minnesota. But it doesn’t claim to.

      • Richard Greene

        RSS satellite temperature data made a huge “more warming” revision about five years ago, to better match the surface numbers .

        The 2000 to 2015 linear trend went from a moderate downtrend, to a nearly mirror image moderate uptrend.

        I have their charts yo prove that/

        No logical explanation was given.

        It was obvious RSS was trying to avoid leftist criticism and become more popular.

        That’s science fraud.

        Of course after RSS suddenly showed more warming in 2016, it just MUST be right, according to your obvious pro-warming bias, Mr. Appleman.

      • David Appell

        No logical explanation was given.

        RSS didn’t publish a paper explaining the changes in their new version?

        I rather doubt that.

      • David Appell

        RG:

        Mears, C. A., and F. J. Wentz, 2017, A Satellite-Derived Lower-Tropospheric Atmospheric Temperature Dataset Using an Optimized Adjustment for Diurnal Effects, Journal of Climate, 30(19), 7695-7718, doi: 10.1175/jcli-d-16-0768.1.

      • David Appell

        RG, time to apologize for your accusation of scientific fraud.

  22. There is a fundamental error in item 1. Firstly, there is the statement that the earth radiates the same into space as it receives from the sun, effectively saying that the earth’s system is in thermal equilibrium. This must be justified and defined. On what timescale for a start. If equilibrium means a constant temperature, then it clearly is not true otherwise, we would not have had the recent ice ages.
    The biggest error comes when discussing temperatures. It is based on a false assumption that there is a Law of Conservation of Temperature which means temperatures can be added together, in the same way as energy. This is false. If temperatures add together as suggested here to claim some energy is missing, then taking two cups of water at 50C and mixing them would produce boiling water.
    How can this article be taken serious with this nonsense at the very start?

    • ‘ We are living in a world driven out of equilibrium. Energy is constantly delivered from the sun to the earth. Some of the energy is converted chemically, while most of it is radiated back into space, or drives complex dissipative structures, with our weather being the best known example. We also find regular structures on much smaller scales, like the ripples in the windblown sand, the intricate structure of animal coats, the beautiful pattern of mollusks or even in the propagation of electrical signals in the heart muscle. It is the goal of pattern formation to understand nonequilibrium systems in which the nonlinearities conspire to generate spatio-temporal structures or pattern.’ https://www.ds.mpg.de/LFPB/chaos

      In energy terms at top of atmosphere (TOA):

      d(work&heat)/dt = energy in – energy out

      The change in work and heat in the system is equal to energy in less energy out by the 1st law of thermodynamics. The planet tends towards energy equilibrium at TOA driven by the negative Planck feedback – with changing emissions related to temperature to the 4th power by the Stefan-Boltzmann law. But the planet is always playing catch up with changes in albedo – the proportion of sunlight reflected back out to space – resulting from changes in spatiotemporal chaotic patterns.

      ‘You can see spatio-temporal chaos if you look at a fast mountain river. There will be vortexes of different sizes at different places at different times. But if you observe patiently, you will notice that there are places where there almost always are vortexes and they almost always have similar sizes – these are the quasi standing waves of the spatio-temporal chaos governing the river. If you perturb the flow, many quasi standing waves may disappear. Or very few. It depends.’ Tomas Milanivic – https://judithcurry.com/2011/02/10/spatio-temporal-chaos/

      Adding greenhouse gases to Earth’s atmosphere perturbs the flow.

      • Peeing into your fast moving river has no effect on turbulence. Other considerations are more important. Ditto for man adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

      • An argument from ineptitude?

      • You are the one making ridiculous claims that the climate models are capable of producing meaningful solutions to exceptionally complicated arrays of non-linear partial differential equations. I merely pointed out an obvious counter analogy.

      • In fact I make exactly the opposite claim. Having run hydrodynamic models for decades.

      • You appear to be claiming that some form of stability exists in the chaotic nonlinear system that is the climate and that we can mathematically determine a measure of that stability. However, that claim rests on the assumption that the non-linear system can be properly modeled. That assumption is highly unlikely given the exceptional complexity of the climate. The problem is far too complicated to properly model. The alleged solution is decoupled from reality; the fundamentals required to develop a proper mathematical solution are beyond our ability to determine or manufacture. In simple words, the models are crap and the solutions are crap, thus rendering claims of derived underlying stability also crap.

      • Further, because you must resort to personal attacks, rather than logic, strongly suggests your position is also full of crap.

      • You commence with an inept analogy and then suggest that I say the opposite of what I explicitly argue. If you want to continue – you will have to supply examples of what I said and your incorrect interpretations – and I’ll try to clarify.

    • However, that claim rests on the assumption that the non-linear system can be properly modeled. That assumption is highly unlikely given the exceptional complexity of the climate.

      Look at the climate over the Holocene as measured by the average global surface temperature. Where is the exceptional complexity?

      https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7/figures/3

  23. Pingback: Simplified climate modelling. Part 1: The role of CO2 in paleoclimate – Watts Up With That?

  24. Curious George

    “Earth presently receives on average 240 W/m2 of insolation (planetary albedo taken into account).” That’s an average over the planet. How do we measure the albedo of the night side?

    • Curious George

      This comment landed me in moderation. I must be a very black sheep.

      • thecliffclavenoffinance

        Don’t feel bad George. When drinking, the Moderator throws every 20th comment into moderation, just to show us who is boss.
        Moderator Bait

  25. David Appell says: The South Pole isolates the impact of CO2 on temperatures. It does not, that’s absurd. You have many other influences, such as ENSOs, solar irradiance, albedo changes, and everything else.

    David does a great job highlighting how if you don’t understand science and the scientific method, then you make elementary mistakes. If you start with a conclusion and work backwards, you reach the same point David and other alarmists will reach. CO2 will always be the cause. If all you are looking for is evidence that CO2 is the cause, that is all you will see. I’m sure David thought the COVID Virus didn’t come from the lab, that the Steele Dossier and the Russian Collusion Hoax was real, that the 50 Intell Officers that said the Hunter Biden Laptop was a Russian Disinformation Campaign, that defuidning the Police will make our neighborhoods safer, that Russia was paying bounties on US Troops, that boosting and extending unemployment benefits won’t slow hiring, that Cuomo deserved a Grammy and book deal for successfully managing COVID, and the list goes on and on and on. 400k people fought and died to instil the communist system in North Korea. Trying to convince people like that is a complete waste of time. The only hope for America is that there are more people with common sense than those who don’t. Once the people that live in the world of false narratives to push a political agenda is the day America dies.

    To David’s points:
    1) Every point you identified also impacts other locations as well, but it impacts the S Pole far less.
    2) ENSOs, Solar Radiation and Albedo are easy to measure and model, and once again, largely impact other areas as well, so a good modeler can tease out the impact.
    3) The Albedo of the S Pole changes a whole lot less than other areas, especially areas that have growing cities.

    Facts are, we can’t put a climate or planet in a test tube, so we have to rely on Statistical Methods to control for various factors.

    How a real modeler would approach the climate:
    1) As David pointed out, many factors impact the climate, but certain areas get impacted more. For instance, El Nino’s and La Ninas are S Hemi events and NAO are N Hemi. Key is that the effect can be measured and highly variable, while CO2 isn’t. CO2 is basically constant during the period of the ENSO.
    2) The Polar Regions are likely impacted least by the factors David mentioned (ENSO in mostly tropical), There is less variation in clouds over the cold dry regions, and the S Pole is basically 100% white snow so the surface albedo is basically a 100% constant.
    3) The main variable in the S Pole is CO2, and CO2 increases evenly across the globe, so it is ideal for isolating.
    4) Now, given that, the S Pole is ideal for isolating the impact of CO2 on temperature. As you go north, the ocean’s impact gets added to the model, then as you go higher north you add in land, and as you go higher you have to add in Cities and tropical forests and their water vapor. It makes absolutely no sense to have a global temperature as the dependent variable for all these climate models. They will always fail because the dependent variable is a variable itself.
    5) Dependent variables can not be variables among themselves, it is what you are modeling. To make a climate model that is accurate you need to identify locations with similar factors and model the temperature of those regions. Current climate models are like creating a model of a pregnancy test, and one data set included men and the other doesn’t. The comparative results won’t make any sense, and the test that included men will be pure nonsense.

    I’ve spent a great deal of time identifying groups of stations that show similar patterns. There are:
    1) Stations that show cooling
    2) Stations that are flat and volatile over 140 years
    3) Stations that are flat and relatively non-volatile
    4) Stations that show no warming but an oscillation that can’t be caused by CO2
    5) Stations that show no warming for about 100 years, and then “steps up” in temperature
    6) Stations that show no warming for 100 years and then starts warming in about 1980
    7) Stations that show warming over the past 140 years, largely the city locations
    8) Very very very few charts show a warming of over 1 degree C that isn’t easily attributed to something other than CO2, and yet the NASA GISS Graph shows the average temperature to increase by over 1 degree C over 110 years.
    9) The NASA GISS chart show a “dog-leg” that simply isn’t supported by the quantum physics of the CO2 molecule. CO2 can’t cause accelerations and step-ups in temperature. CO2’s impact is very gradual and decays.

    Anyway, simply look at the variety of temperature graphics. Putting them all in a mixer to get a “composite” global temperature in pure un-scientific nonsense. That is like including men, women, plants, and animals in a human pregnancy test experiment. That is what NASA is doing, and attributing the warming to CO2 when in reality the warming is due to something else.

    Just because NASA GISS and people like David don’t understand the basics of modeling, doesn’t man CO2 is causing warming. It simply means people making those conclusions don’t understand science and statistics.

    Here are the stations that show a great deal of variability that can’t be caused by CO2. Pay special attention to the last charts.
    https://imgur.com/a/IrE63Xo

    • Here are the stations that show a great deal of variability that can’t be caused by CO2.

      Honestly, this is all so silly it’s not even worth commenting on. Have fun with your little graphs.

    • “Here are the stations that show a great deal of variability that can’t be caused by CO2. ”

      Err …. because they aren’t!
      Just another skeptics whack-a-mole
      Before ~1980 GMST variation was largely dominated by natural forcings, eg ENSO.

      In 1980 the forcing caused by CO2 alone was around 1 W/m2, almost exactly cancelled by all negative forcings.
      It was only from about then that +ve climate forcings broke away from -ve ones to achieve a net positive and CO2 took off with commensurate feedback from H2O.

      http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig8-18.jpg

  26. On the sceptics’ side, there is remarkable supposition that the CO2 concentration is predominantly driven by temperature, rather than by human emissions during the industrial age.

    This is an unremarkable straw man argument. A minority of skeptics hold that current CO2 increase is temperature driven only. But mostly it is a false characterisation of the skeptical position. Most skeptics – myself included – accept that currently rising CO2 levels are anthropogenic. Recent anthropogenic CO2 is irrelevant to this study owing to the long historic time scales up to hundreds of millions of years.

    The paper omits any mention of the robustly and consistently observed lag of several thousand years between temperature and CO2 over the Pleistocene successive glaciations and interglacials, the period covered by the ice core records, with temperature leading CO2. This glaring omission argues against impartiality of this study and instead shows yet another study irresistably motivated to confirm the dogma of CO2 driving temperature. The obvious mechanism for this – solubility of gas in the ocean depending on temperature, is not mentioned, again pointing to huge bias and practically discrediting the study.

  27. John Sutherland

    J. Sutherland Anderl’s unsupported statement that water content of the atmosphere is a merely a passive reactant seriously weakens his whole argument.
    It has long been established that water vapour is the dominant greenhouse gas and that it is almost always present in the atmosphere at much higher levels than CO2. It has a much wider band of energy absorption than CO2. In addition, it forms clouds and shows itself as precipitation. It also plays a crucial role in convection.
    The reason that it receives so little attention in climate models is that its behaviour is far too complex to be modelled effectively.
    No model that essentially ignores water vapour’s role can be taken seriously.

    • But water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. Unlike CO2, it’s a condensable gas — the average amount of water vapor in the atmosphere can’t change unless the temperature first changes, then it’s about 7% per degree C. See the Clausius-Claperyon equation.

      • Curious George

        Can’t CO2 dissolve in liquid water droplets, and in snow crystals?

      • David Appell

        Can’t CO2 dissolve in liquid water droplets, and in snow crystals?

        I guess some, yeah. But it’s not raining out of the sky.

      • Curious George

        Natural rain water is slightly acidic (pH = 5.6) since there is carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It dissolves limestone, creating beautiful caves.

  28. Sequestration is akin to the cat scratching dirt behind itself and, makes about as much sense to all but for the cat and politicians

  29. It’s interesting that the author cites Soreghan et al 2019.
    These authors get into all sorts of trouble trying to explain the Palaeozoic glaciations from 360-260 Mya. They recognise glaring mis-matches with CO2 and the need to posit low levels of CO2 that would drive plant based life to extinction – and many other inconsistencies also:

    https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2019/07/16/the-cult-of-carbon-dioxide-is-leading-palaeo-climate-research-on-a-road-to-nowhere/

    In the end they just invoke a string of volcanoes. Volcanoes can only cool climate for a short time – less than a century, so they require a string of volcanoes – millions of them – happening serially. This is hardly plausible except possibly for flood basalt eruptions, of which none occurred during this time.

    Particularly acute is the difficulty of attributing the end-Ordovician (Saharan-Andean) glaciation to CO2, in view of the detailed geo-chronology showing that CO2 levels increased during the inception of this profound glaciation and remained high throughout it:

    https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/07/05/the-ordovician-glaciation-glaciers-spread-while-co2-increased-in-the-atmosphere-a-problem-for-carbon-alarmism/

    If Anderl wishes to adequately model the strong influence of tectonic shift and continental configuration on climate and temperature, the factors to focus on would include:

    – Total land area
    – Amount of land around the equator
    – Amount of land at the poles
    – Collisions and separations
    – Mountain uplift from collisions e.g. Himalayas from India collision
    – A meridionally bounded ocean i.e. the Atlantic
    – Area of shallow seas

    The current fashion to ignore all aspects of continental movement except for silicate weathering (since it influences CO2) is not helpful.

    • “Insisting on carbon centric control of climate leads to tortuously complicated non parsimonious explanations of the LPIA [Late Pleistocene Ice Age] in which one mechanism initiates glaciation, and another (sulphate particulates from volcanism) sustains it while overwhelming a recalcitrantly rebounding higher CO2 [salla Allahu] level.” – Phil Salmon

      Great article, Phil. Does the consensus really ignore the CO2 temperature lag to temperature in the high resolution ice cores? That blows me away if so. I thought that was settled science to borrow a phrase.

      The question also goes to Thomas Anderl if he [he/they] visits. And if so, thanks for the post.

      Oh, and how does one ignore M-cycle forcing when doing a climate analysis including the Quaternary Ice Age? Honestly I can’t follow the logic of the paper but it’s late.

      • Ron
        Yes it’s extraordinary that not even Milankovitch cycles get mentioned in a study of Milankovitch cycles. Tells you all you need to know.

  30. Pingback: Simplified climate modelling. Part 1: The role of CO2 in paleoclimate — Iowa Climate Science Education – Climate- Science.press

  31. / Now the dark air is like fire on my skin
    And even the moonlight is blinding /

    https://youtu.be/UPxz_4wIa4g

  32. Thomas, I can only conclude that with such a high model climate sensitivity you are simply modeling a spurious correlation of outgassing CO2 CAUSED by rising temperatures, and not the other way round.

  33. I note that clouds have no contribution…

  34. I would like to add here about glass greenhouse warming phenomenon…
    It is said in the current GHE theory Earth atmosphere greenhouse effect forcing is +33 oC.
    Ok, so far so good!
    Now… I have visited greenhouses many times. I never witnessed
    +33 oC warming there. Not in daytime, not in nighttime, not in winter… and not in winter nighttime!
    It was warmer inside those greenhouses, but never, never +33!!!
    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

  35. The other and maybe more relevant issue is that those who know how to explain the temperature cycles of the Holocene interglacial should explain all of them to avoid the data selection bias fallacy.

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/05/12/human-cause-in-the-anthropocene/

  36. I keep going back to the basics. The quantum physics of the CO2 molecule don’t change. They are constant, yet we see different temperature trends in different locations. The laws of Physics don’t simply cease to exist in certain locations. Climate alarmists can’t simply ignore all the inconvenient “facts” about their “science.” NASA GISS produces a global chart that totally debunks CO2 as the cause of the warming, and anyone that understood how to read a chart would know that.CO2 can’t simply cause warming during one period and then not in another.
    https://imgur.com/8AGI3g7

    • The quantum physics of the CO2 molecule don’t change. They are constant, yet we see different temperature trends in different locations.

      I keep going back to the basics: CO2 isn’t the only influence on climate, especially over short periods.

      • David, you are making my point. The physics of the CO2 molecule don’t randomly turn on and turn off. CO2 does one thing and one thing only, it thermalizes 13 to 18 micron longwave IR. CO2 can only warm. That is the only defined mechanism. If you have a model that only focuses on CO2 you will never be able to tease out the effects of the other variables. That is why the models fail so miserably. The change in W/m^2 due to CO2 is well within the variability caused by a simple cloudy day. Believing that changing the backradiation by 0.31W/m^2 can cause no change in temperatures over an 80 year period, and then having 0.31W/m^2 cause an increase of over 1 degree C over a period of 40 years. Clearly, CO2 isn’t the cause of much. Start looking for what truly changed over that 80 and 40-year period.

        Anyway, you claim that there are other factors that explain the temperature changes other than CO2.
        1) Name them, what are they
        2) Model them, where is your model that proves you understand the Climate
        3) What are the factors and what are the coefficients on those factors?

        You talk a great game, but where is your model to prove anything you say? You don’t have one. Prove your point. Show everyone your model, show everyone your data sources and I’ll reproduce your model and publish the results. You are the one supporting the conclusion of scientists that can’t model the object they claim to be experts on. That is nonsense.

        Facts are, as you identified, many factors impact the temperature, and those various factors are different all across the globe. There are huge regional differences and different factor influences, and yet you support a science that takes all those different dependent variables and throws them in a blender and treats them as equal. That is pure pseudo-science.

        Climate science is like a drug company doing a pregnancy test and including pre-pubescent boys and girls, menopausal women, men, dogs and cats, and then claiming that the results they get are applicable to women of childbearing age. Climate change is nothing more than statistical sophistry. They use temperature data that measures the impact to increased levels of solar radiation reaching the oceans, the Urban Heat Island Effect, and increased Water Vapor.

        Once again, 400k people believed the lies and died fighting to instill communism in North Korea. Societies throughout history destroy themselves once the gullible people with no common sense outnumber those with common sense. People literally burned witches because the experts claimed they were causing the weather to be bad. I personally don’t want to look in the mirror knowing that I knew better and let the witch burn, and I certainly don’t want to be the one leading the charge to burn the witch. I’ll leave that to others, I just hope they never get the power they lust for.

      • Richard Greene

        Over long periods too

        Our planet has had 4.5 billion years of climate change with NO man made CO2

        Ice core temperature and CO2 reconstructions show temperature changes from natural causes lead CO2 changes.

        1975 to 2021 had both CO2 and global average temperature with a strong positive correlation

        Therefore, based on what we know so far (or think we know): The 4.5 billion years, through 1975, do NOT have evidence of a strong positive correlation of CO2 and average temperature.

        Evidence of the alleged water vapor positive feedback, tripling the expected warming effect of CO2 alone, would have been runaway warming.

        And that would have ended almost all life on our planet long ago, so no one would be alive today to debate the future climate.

        Runaway warming did not happen.

        So the endless climate debate continues, with one side unwilling to debate.

        The climate alarmists say: “Don’t provide us with any more climate information — we are already too well informed”.

        In the past, CO2 levels were often higher than today, with no runaway warming.

        What’s the “best” level of CO2?

        Our C3 photosynthesis plants used for food wuild prefer 800 to 1,000ppm, for optimum growth.

        Optimum growth would support the most life on our planet.

        Anyone who is anti CO2, at the current 420ppm, is also anti-life.

        The water vapor positive feedback theory is wrong.

        And without that alleged positive feedback, there is no climate emergency.

        Without it there is most likely to be mild, harmless global warming.

        Just like infrared gas lab experiments suggested.

        Just as we have had since the mid-1970s.

        We are very lucky to be living in an interglacial period, with a mild warming trend, that I would say started in the cold, late 1600s.

        The climate on this planet is rarely better than it is today for humans, animals and plants.

        We should be celebrating the wonderful climate.

        But pesky leftists, who are never happy about anything, won’t let us celebrate.

        They keep predicting a coming climate crisis, for the past 64 years, getting louder and more hysterical each year, demanding that everyone to do as they say without question.

        As the actual climate gets better and better.

        Richard Greene
        Bingham farms, Michigan
        Where we love global warming !
        http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

      • David Appell

        The change in W/m^2 due to CO2 is well within the variability caused by a simple cloudy day.

        What about a clear sky? What about the noncloudy days? What about all the days without a net increase in clouds? What about the days where the increase in clouds are due to a change in cloudiness induced by climate changes due to the effects of CO2?

      • David Appell

        What’s the “best” level of CO2?

        The one that determines the climate to which a species has adapted.

      • David Appell

        If you have a model that only focuses on CO2 you will never be able to tease out the effects of the other variables.

        Global climate models don’t only focus on CO2.

        Here’s a description of a climate model. Have a look. You’ll see that it includes a lot more than just CO2.

        NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM 3.0)
        Equation 3.248 and definitions that follow, p 46
        http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/atm-cam/docs/description/description.pdf
        https://opensky.ucar.edu/islandora/object/technotes%3A477/

      • David Appell

        Here’s another:

        NASA GISS GCM Model E: Model Description and Reference Manual http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/modelE.html

      • David Appell

        Richard Greene wrote:
        The 4.5 billion years, through 1975, do NOT have evidence of a strong positive correlation of CO2 and average temperature.

        That’s an unwarranted and, as it turns out, incorrect conclusion. The science shows otherwise. Study, for example, the PETM.

      • David Appell

        Evidence of the alleged water vapor positive feedback, tripling the expected warming effect of CO2 alone, would have been runaway warming.

        You provide no evidence for this, and it’s also an unwarranted, and incorrect conclusion.

      • David Appell

        Richard Greene wrote:
        The climate alarmists say: “Don’t provide us with any more climate information — we are already too well informed”.

        When you write things like this there’s really no reason to think you’re interested in a serious discussion and no reason to engage you.

      • David Appell
        What’s the “best” level of CO2?
        The one that determines the climate to which a species has adapted.

        What range of CO2 levels has been experienced by crocodiles? Or horseshoe crabs? Or grasses and hibiscus bushes?

        Climate change is the normal state for earth in which life has evolved. Indeed some critically important evolved structures and capabilities have only done do because of climate change, not in spite of it. Edenic stasis exists in reassuring religious myths only. The real world is one where change is the only constant. For instance, in the late Devonian CO2 levels fell a lot and this provoked refinement in woody stems that would be critical to trees. It was needed to improve water transport and allow plants to extract CO2 at lower air concentrations without losing too much water and move away from coastal or boggy environments. Now plants live practically in the desert. I could give many other examples. For instance human evolution with intelligence is considered to be driven by the rapid pace of repeated climate change in Africa over the Quatenary, in which large parts of the continent alternated between forest and grassland, even desert. This made a demand for adaptiveness and ability to innovate intelligently – and nature met this demand. Here we are. Climate change is tough love.

      • David Appell

        What range of CO2 levels has been experienced by crocodiles? Or horseshoe crabs? Or grasses and hibiscus bushes?

        Are you denying that many species have not gone extinct because of climate change?

      • David

        Not at all, most species last only about a million years, climate change has been a frequent cause of extinction over the whole Phanerozoic.

        I agree with your point that CO2islife’s argument that CO2 warming must necessarily be uniform everywhere in space and time, is false, denying the complexity of climate and its feedbacks and internal dynamics.

    • “CO2 can’t simply cause warming during one period and then not in another”

      See above …. the one with the IPCC climate forcings graph.

      It’s really just basic stuff co2islife.
      So basic that I don’t believe you are not aware of it.
      You just just choose to deal with it via cognitive dissonance.

      • Tony says its Really simple stuff? The IPCC created a graphic that explains how CO2 can cause both warming and no warming, but the warming is due to CO2 and you should ignore the period when the theory doesn’t hold. We are talking a period of 80 years of no warming, and a period of 40 years of warming due to “adjustments” and I am supposed to conclude that CO2 truly does cause warming. How about this theory, Okum’s Razor. If you have time periods, extended time periods where CO2 increases and temperature doesn’t and you have time periods where CO2 increases and temperatures fall, and you have time periods where CO2 increases and temperature increases, then CO2 isn’t the cause of warming. CO2 has be 17x the level we have today and we never had catastrophic warming. CO2 was 4,000 ppm and the globe fell into an ice age. 95% of the geological record has temperatures above where we are today, meaning that we are near the cool end of the geological record.
        https://imgur.com/721CGca

      • David Appell

        CO2 was 4,000 ppm and the globe fell into an ice age.

        Back when the Sun was 4% less radiant than today — 52 W/m2. HUGE.

        BTW, that graph is junk — some of the data points on it are up to 10 Myrs apart, when the O-S ice age you’re talking about was only 0.5 Myrs in length. Some of the deep time carbon numbers numbers come from carbon cycle models with huge uncertainties. You can’t talk about it without including those large uncertainties.

      • David Appell

        95% of the geological record has temperatures above where we are today, meaning that we are near the cool end of the geological record.

        And how much of the geologic record had CO2 levels above where we are today?

      • David Appell says: 95% of the geological record has temperatures above where we are today, meaning that we are near the cool end of the geological record.

        And how much of the geologic record had CO2 levels above where we are today?

        Basically 100%, we are in a CO2 drought, and near the dangerous end where life can actually end if it goes much lower. Plants die below 180 ppm. As I pointed out, CO2 was 10x where we are today and the earth fell into an ice age. The problem you have is Henry’s Law. The oceans are regulating the CO2, and they regulate CO2 through temperatures. As we fall into an ice age, the oceans absorb CO2. You are attributing a causal relationship that is reversed.

        In the 600 million year graphic, CO2 drops from 7,000 to 1,000 and the temperature remains the same, and it never gets above 22 degrees C There is volatility, but basically you can choose many levels and the temperature remains 22C. Your solar theory has a problem with variability. The sun and CO2 aren’t highly variable, so once again, you are overlooking some significant factors.

      • Go to MODTRAN and save 7000 ppm to the background and set it to looking up from the surface. Then enter 400 ppm. What do you see? W/m^2 changes by 11.3 W/m^2. What is the change in temperature between 550 and 350 million years ago? Maybe 1 degree. NASA GISS is claiming that the small change in CO2 over the past 40 years changed temperatures by over 1 degree, and that change in W/m^2 is 0.31 W/m^2. To put things in perspective a single cloudy day can alter the W/m^2 by over 80 W/m^2. The effect of CO2 is so far within the natural variation is really isn’t even worth considering, but everyone puts all their focus on it. That is like a world-class sprinter focused on the type of shoelaces he/she is using. The focus is clearly on the factors that don’t matter.

      • David Says: What about the days where the increase in clouds are due to a change in cloudiness induced by climate changes due to the effects of CO2?…Back when the Sun was 4% less radiant than today — 52 W/m2. HUGE.

        David’s theories are pure nonsense:
        1) The temperatures are pretty stable at 22 degree C for large ranges of CO2 both when they increase and decrease. The Sun’s radiation isn’t perfectly synchronized with the changes in CO2. Clearly, there are far more significant facts that David chooses to not look for. That is unless the system was intelligently designed to synchronize CO2 and the Sun.
        2) CO2 traps OUTGOING LWIR. A cooler sun wouldn’t warm the earth as much. Trapping outgoing LWIR wouldn’t warm the radiating body. Also, there simply isn’t enough heat in the atmosphere to warm the oceans and earth. There is 2,000x the energy in the ocean as the atmosphere, so even if you took all the energy in the atmosphere and transferred it to the oceans, nothing materially would change.
        3) Using David’s theory there is no off button. CO2 would warm the air, the air would absorb more H2O, and warm more, and the cycle would never end. Clearly that has never happened, so once again, David is missing something he chooses not to look for.
        4) David seems to want to ignore the elephant in the living room. CO2 absorbs 13 to 18µ LWIR. Those are very very low energy wavelengths. H2O also absorbs 13 to 18µ LWIR. but far far far more of the IR Spectrum. For some reason, H2O doesn’t seem to have the same impact in David’s world as CO2 does, even though H2O is far more potent.
        5) 52W/m2 is less energy than a cloudy day, and well within the natural variation of the earth. The earth doesn’t end with each cloudy day.
        6) David seems to ignore that there are natural safety valves built into the system compensating for any additional energy. Heating the oceans takes a whole lot of energy and a whole lot of time. The system has El Ninos and La Ninas and other ocean oscillations that rapidly remove energy from the system. If CO2 did what David and the alarmists claim, it would never cause runaway warming, it would simply slightly increase the frequency of El Ninos. Mother nature isn’t as stupid as David seems to apply she is.
        7) CO2 has a natural off switch in that it has a log decay in its change in W/m^2 with an increase in CO2. The whole system is intelligently designed to not experience what CAGW that David claims will happen.

      • David Appell

        c02islife wrote:
        Trapping outgoing LWIR wouldn’t warm the radiating body.

        Why?

        Also, there simply isn’t enough heat in the atmosphere to warm the oceans and earth.

        Why not? Let’s see that calculation. Equations & numbers,not your opinions.

      • David Appell

        c02islife wrote:
        The system has El Ninos and La Ninas and other ocean oscillations that rapidly remove energy from the system.

        An opinion, which is scientifically worthless. Let’s see your calculations. What is “rapidly?” How much energy? Equations, calculations, numbers!

        If La Ninas remove energy, why does the surface and lower troposphere cool during them?

      • David Appell
        CO2 was 4,000 ppm and the globe fell into an ice age.
        Back when the Sun was 4% less radiant than today — 52 W/m2. HUGE.

        No – the “dim sun” is not a fig leaf to allow escape from the problems of the high CO2 during the end-Ordovician glaciation. Look at figure 11 above, and the other related firgures showing temperature. What effect has steadily increasing insolation had over the last 400 million years? The temperature trend if any has been the opposite – cooling not warming.

        CO2 actually increased during the inception of the end-Ordovician glaciation and remained high throughout it.

        https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/07/05/the-ordovician-glaciation-glaciers-spread-while-co2-increased-in-the-atmosphere-a-problem-for-carbon-alarmism/

        Figure 11 above is remarkable in showing how little effect insolation has on climate. The same is true of the difference between perihelion (closest sun) in January and aphelion (furthest sun) in July. These fail to affect the normal seasons, NH January is still very cold. The climate system adapts spontaneously to insolation changes as it adapts to CO2 changes also.

      • David Appell
        CO2 was 4,000 ppm and the globe fell into an ice age.
        Back when the Sun was 4% less radiant than today — 52 W/m2. HUGE.

        The difference in insolation every year between perihelion (January) and aphelion (July) is almost twice that amount, almost 100 W/m2.
        TINY. Little perceivable effect. Why? That’s the interesting question.

      • David Appell

        Because the annual average is constant, and “climate” is weather averaged over decades, not one year.

      • David Appell

        No – the “dim sun” is not a fig leaf to allow escape from the problems of the high CO2 during the end-Ordovician glaciation.

        No, the point is that the radiative forcing from 4,000 ppm CO2 isn’t “high” compared to today if the solar insolation is much lower than today.

  37. According to Henry’s law, the equilibrium ratio between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and its concentration in oceans is a constant. Increase the partial pressure of CO2 and the concentration in water increases. The change in solubility with temperature is a little trickier. I have not a clue how these two factors impact the 1000 odd GtC stored in the ‘surface oceans’ – or which effect is dominant. Photosynthesis and respiration are – however – major additional factors in the global carbon cycle. Both have temperature dependencies – but not in a simple way. Respiration increases with temperature – photosynthesis has water, light and nutrient limitations.

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Naeem-Abas/publication/264313268/figure/fig8/AS:471717035417607@1489477513873/Carbon-dioxide-solubility-in-water-15.png

    https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/argo-200m.jpg
    The top 200m average temperature of the world’s oceans

    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ContentFeature/CarbonCycle/images/carbon_cycle.jpg
    ‘This diagram of the fast carbon cycle shows the movement of carbon between land, atmosphere, and oceans. Yellow numbers are natural fluxes, and red are human contributions in gigatons of carbon per year. White numbers indicate stored carbon.’

    • Curious George

      “Increase the partial pressure of CO2 and the concentration in water increases.” True. In case of oceans the process takes millenia.
      Citing Henry’s Law is disingenious. The seawater is far from being saturated with CO2. In addition, the pressure rises quickly with depth.

      • Although the partial pressure of CO2 is a property of the atmosphere.

      • Curious George

        CO 2 is also about 10 percent higher in the deep ocean than at the surface.

      • Deep oceans are colder and at higher pressure. What exactly might you mean by these snippets?

      • Curious George

        It has the same relevance as “the partial pressure of CO2 is a property of the atmosphere”. Actually, more relevance. It shows that oceanic CO2 is likely to escape into the atmosphere. It shows that “Increase the partial pressure of CO2 and the concentration in water increases” is not an absolute truth.

      • The partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere is related to concentration via the ideal gas law. It is what drives solubility at the surface – that is then mixed into region above the thermocline – the mixed layer. Organic material then carries carbon to the bottom where it accumulates. Sure in regions of abyssal upwelling some carbon dioxide escapes to the atmosphere – but the ocean is a net carbon sink.

      • Curious George

        Please don’t conflate carbon with carbon dioxide. Leave that to the media.

      • When considering the many forms carbon can take it is always more correct to talk in terms of carbon content. The exception is with solubility as a gas in a liquid.

  38. Ellison:

    Time to earn your money. Assume two states. A long time ago when temperature drove CO2 and now when CO2 drives temperature.

    There was a transition from the first state to the second state. Describe that transition. In state one, one formula worked. In state two, a different formula replaced the old formula. The math changes. If you can change the math that describes the climate, there has to be a point where that happened. And changing the math of the climate is no small thing. It is as Tsonis said, right?

    This transition could be boring taking 50 years. But during that 50 years, neither formula works. Or each above formula works not so much. You might call that chaos.

    • Assume two states. A long time ago when temperature drove CO2 and now when CO2 drives temperature.

      Again, THERE ARE NO SUCH STATES. Both processes take place simultaneously. You can’t have one without the other.

      • thecliffclavenoffinance

        Warming from 1910 to 1945
        But that warming can’t be blamed on CO2
        (no more than 10% of it)

        Cooling from 1940 to 1975,
        reported as -0.5 degrees C. at the time
        (being revised away over the decades
        by smarmy climate alarmists)
        as CO2 increased

        Warming from 1975 to 2021
        as CO2 increased

        So, in just 111 years, we have had
        — Warming not caused by CO2 increasing
        — Cooling while CO2 was increasing
        — Warming while CO2 was increasing

        And that adds up to either (1) or (2) :
        (1) The science is settled, if you are a green dreamer and
        climate change zealot, like Mr, Appleman, or

        (2) Climate science is not settled, and CO2 does not appear to be the “climate control knob, for rational people, like me.

      • A > B, A < B or A = B.
        I argue there are two states.

      • David Appell

        Ragnaar:
        The point is that, there are no states A or B. They don’t exist.

      • No Yin, no Yang?

      • David Appell

        I have no idea what that mean. Speak in science.

      • David Appell:

        What we are looking for is an equation that reflects temperature being the driver a million years ago and then CO2 being the driver since 1950 or there abouts. One equation. Now if there are two states, you can argue for two equations. But that still leaves an explanation of the transition from one equation to the other.

        I didn’t say control knob. That was some peer reviewed guy you can be happy with. I don’t think that CO2 has always been the control knob. But if you argue that it has, you have to tell some tall tales in my opinion. Temperature driving CO2 is simpler, a million years ago.

      • David Appell

        You fail to grasp this — there is no such equation because there are no such states. CO2 and temperature increase together, always. If one increases, the other does immediately, which causes the other to immediately increase, etc.

        At best the equation will look like

        f(T,CO2)=constant

        where f is some function to be solved for by solving the underlying partial differential equations for the rates of change of CO2 and T, which will both involve CO2 and T.

      • “Speak in science.”
        Order and Chaos.
        “That law says that things run down. Complexity degenerates into simplicity and ultimately into randomness. So we have natural selection and the second law of thermodynamics as the yin and yang of the universe as we know it. Shiva and Vishnu. The principles of destruction and regeneration. The general idea has been around for a long time.”

      • David Appell

        I don’t think that CO2 has always been the control knob.

        CO2 is ALWAYS a control knob. If you want to terraform Mars, increase its atmospheric temperature, find a way to turn up the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (“turn the control knob”). All else being equal, the atmosphere will warm. Same on Earth — we’re doing exactly that right now.

      • Come on. One increases and then the other increases. And since the other increased, the first increases again. And so on. Until the negative feedbacks get strong enough to stop it all. Diminishing returns against a steepening slope.

        But they told us CO2 controls the temperature. Period. It’s the driver. We can communicate right? Did they say CO2 is the driver? Yes. Thus allowing the existence of a driver. A driver above all others. The one to look at. The one to focus on, the one to act on. These are peer reviewed people that said this.

        So you put up an equation, for now. What about for the past? Do you want to use the same equation since it’s not a different state?

        Wouldn’t two equations be simpler? One for then that doesn’t contradict the one for now. Then you have to sew them together using math. So that’s the question. How do this? Even if you don’t believe me, how would you do it? You went to college. You can do it.

      • David Appell

        Pseudoscientific gobbleygook that doesn’t address the issue in any way. Got it.

      • David Appell

        But they told us CO2 controls the temperature. Period. It’s the driver.

        “They” who?
        Who?
        You never learned about feedbacks?
        That’s not “their” fault.

      • “The validity of models will, in particular, not be demonstrated as long as at least the most important features of climate changes, namely the glacial–interglacial transitions and the differing durations of interglacial periods, remain unaccounted for. Similarly, the constant 7 kyr time lag between temperature and CO2 decreases following deglaciation is another important feature that needs to be understood.”

        It’s CO2 lagging temperature above. Ice cores I think.

      • Can we agree on this?

        Lacis et al. 2010

        Lacis, A.A, G.A. Schmidt, D. Rind, and R.A. Ruedy, 2010: Atmospheric CO2: Principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature. Science, 330, 356-359, doi:10.1126/science.1190653.

      • David Appell

        No citation for me to check, but in any case it’s wrong.

        This is such trivial science I can’t believe you don’t understand it.

      • David Appell

        Yeah — turn up CO2 you turn up the temperature. Turn it down, down.

      • Citation.

        The temperature–CO2 climate connection: an epistemological reappraisal of ice-core messages

        Pascal Richet Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, 1 Rue Jussieu, 75005 Paris, France

        Correspondence: Pascal Richet Received: 24 Jan 2021 – Revised: 21 Mar 2021 – Accepted: 11 Apr 2021 – Published: 26 May 2021

        I think it’s safe to say, the ice cores do not show CO2 leading temperatures during decreases. They conclude temperature leads CO2 during decreases of both, more or less.

  39. ‘About 55 million years ago, near the Paleocene-Eocene boundary, massive explosive volcanism took place in northwestern Scotland, northern Ireland, the Faeroe Islands, East Greenland, and along the rifted continental margins on both sides of the North Atlantic Ocean.’

    I have to the best of my understanding discussed biokinetic feedbacks just above – heterotrophs love warm weather. It’s why rotting happens so much faster in summer than winter – autotrophs have other limitations. I mentioned up front the balance between geologic sources and sinks of CO2. At times of extreme volcanism – carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere. Some 1000 ppm in the Paleocene-Eocene periods. With a spike in temperature at the PETM and a major marine extinction event. A cautionary note is that we may approach those levels in a high fossil fueled economic growth scenario by the end of this century.

    https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/65-million-years-temps-co2.png

    The graph comes from this presentation. We suspect that the temperature spike occurred as a result of a marine boundary layer stratocumulus cloud tipping point feedback in a high CO2 environment.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGshzvKAM3w

    Carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels and steel and cement production – from 1750 to 2011 – was about 365 billion metric tonnes as carbon (GtC), with another 180 GtC from deforestation and agriculture. Of this 545 GtC, about 240 GtC (44%) had accumulated in the atmosphere, 155 GtC (28%) had been taken up in the oceans with slight consequent acidification, and 150 GtC (28%) had accumulated in terrestrial ecosystems. Climate and ecologies are chaotic – and this implies that these systems are both unpredictable and vulnerable to small changes. Small changes initiate large and rapid changes in internal dynamics. It is the key reason why caution is warranted when changing such a fundamental system as the atmosphere.

    I suspect we would be wiser to develop some advanced nuclear options – sooner rather than later – and to return some of the carbon lost from soils and terrestrial ecologies in the modern period.

  40. Regarding the atmospheric composition, CO2 is recognized as a temperature driving agent. A clear sign comes from the well-known transmission spectrum of infrared radiation from Earth’s surface into space: It reveals strong absorption by atmospheric CO2 which to all existing WRONG knowledge, is contributing to the atmospheric heat.

  41. It’s useful to remember how the warm operate as you read through these posts. The official “forecasts” for manmade CO2-caused warming ranges from “not a problem (quite possible)” to “laughably, and unscientifically determined improbably high.”
    If you doubt the high end of the range, it’s because you are a denier.
    If you respond to that accusation by demonstrating that the warming they forecast isn’t happening, they cite the low end of the forecast and claim they got it right. And then wait until later to call you a denier for favoring the low end of the forecast.

    By “forecasting” both nothing and catastrophe, their forecasts are always correct, any critic is always wrong, every grant application is accepted, and any pointless left-wing spending plan loosely tied to something “green” always solves an “existential threat” that will never go away because it will always be necessary for the next spending plan or grant.

    In short, this article is example number 1 million of attempting to nail Jello to a wall.

  42. Richard Greene

    Evidence of science fraud, or incompetence, in the global average, and US average, temperature statistics:
    Note: This comment. PLUS many relevant charts, is here:
    https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2021/06/tuesday-mornig-climate-rap-ever.html

    (1) Failure to reveal that pre-1920 numbers for the Southern Hemisphere are mainly guesses, not measurements, especially before 1900. The “global” statistic should be labelled as “Northern Hemisphere only” prior to 1920, as it used to be long ago, but is no longer:

    (2) Repeated “adjustments” to the temperature numbers almost always creating a steeper global warming, or US warming, trend. For two examples:

    (a) !941 to 1970 global cooling “revisions”:
    Reported by NCAR in 1974 as almost -0.6 degrees C. cooling, which allowed a few scientists to falsely claim a coming global cooling crisis.

    Reported by NASA currently (V4) as only -0.05 degrees C. cooling, from 1940 to 1970:

    (b) RSS historical global average temperature satellite data reported in 2015, versus what was reported 2016
    — RSS in 2015:
    Global cooling trend from 2001 to mid-2014

    In 2016 RSS announced ‘NEVER MIND what we’ve told you for past 13 years’, but we wrote a paper, so you can trust our new numbers.

    — RSS in 2021 (after 2016 “revisions”):
    Global warming trend from 2001 to mid-2014

    (3) Changing the hottest year in the US, using “adjustments” made over 60 years later:
    The hottest year in the US had been 1936. Hotter than 1998. But with less CO2 in 1936, that did not fit the global warming narrative. So the 1930s were later “cooled down” enough to make 1998 the hottest year.
    Not one US state set a maximum temperature record in 1998
    1998 — US states with all time heat records = none of 50
    1930’s — US states with all time heat records = 22 of 50
    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_and_territory_temperature_extremes

    (4) The Michael Mann “hockey stick” chart.
    — Used by the IPCC to claim a steady global average temperature for a long time — no Little Ice Age, for example) until man made CO2 emissions changed everything … then the chart was dropped from the next IPCC report, like a hot potato.

    Reasons: Two completely different data sources were used to create a desired global warming narrative. The climate proxy was not appropriate for temperature reconstructions (a small sample, also affected by rainfall), and did NOT show the “desired” global warming in the 20th century. So tree ring data were truncated, without revealing that fact, and real time temperature observations (measurements) were substituted.

    NOTE: I’m not sure why most of the comments here do not have a “reply” link that shows up on my computer. I wonder if others have the same problem. It discourages a continuous thread of dialog.

    This especially happens with Mr. Appleman attack comments, that I can’t reply directly to, because of that problem. He does drive up page views and comments at every skeptic website he ‘attacks’.
    His ‘game’ is assuming a published study, that HE agrees with, is automatically true, and a proven fact. And predictions of a future climate crisis MUST be correct, even though wrong for the past 64 years, because they are made by government bureaucrat scientists, and they are like gods to Mr. Appleman.

    Richard Greene
    Bingham Farms, Michigan
    My motto: It’s always possible that I’m wrong.
    but that’s never at the top of my list of possibilities.
    My science and energy blog:
    http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
    (the “website box” won’t accept any address from my computer)

    • Richard Greene wrote:
      Evidence of science fraud….

      You’ve been wrong so many times, like with the tide gauges & acceleration, like here with RSS, like up above here, that there’s no point in taking you seriously anymore. Plus you can’t control your emotions.

      • Richard Greene

        Mr. Appleman:
        A false character attack on me is your argument? Your comments here are often n a s t y, but they do generate a lot of replies.Not agreement, of course. Because all you do is to repeat the old consensus “a climate crisis is coming” mantra, that started in the late 1950s. Well, we are still waiting for that alleged crisis.

        Meanwhile, the climate on our planet has rarely been better than today for humans, animals and plants. The mild warming since the mid-1970s has mainly been in colder N.H. areas, mainly in the colder months of the year, and mainly at night. Our planet is greening too. All good news.

        You can huff, and you can puff, and you certainly do both, but you can’t change climate reality. All you can do is predict a coming climate crisis … but we don’t play that game anymore. And please try to control YOUR emotions in future comments.

        My prior comment on temperature data adjustments and deceptions — either fraud. or incompetence — is at the link below with MANY added charts that couldn’t be placed here:

        https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2021/06/tuesday-mornig-climate-rap-ever.html

        Richard Greene
        Bingham Farms, MI
        PS: My climate science and energy blog reached 178,000 page views today. How is your science blog doing? 178 page views?

  43. Human emitted greenhouse gases bias a chaotic system to a warmer state. There is implicit in chaos the risk of dramatic and rapid change in the Earth system – atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere and hydrosphere. That much should be accepted as truth in line with Isaac Newton’s 4th rule of natural philosophy. There are of course those who don’t and never will. And if you think contrarians aren’t arseholes about it I guess it is all rainbows, Leonard Cohen and unicorns for you. The best one can expect is to be told that ‘believing’ in general relativity is a religious cult.

    The spatial and temporal patterns of climate both demonstrate spatiotemporal chaos. That models miss this is neither here nor there.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VbgzCahx8o
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6

  44. “an epistemological examination of the geochemical analyses performed on the Vostok ice cores invalidates the marked greenhouse effect on past climate usually assigned to CO2 and CH4”

    – Dr. Pascal Richet, 2021, https://notrickszone.com/2021/05/31/new-study-burden-of-proof-is-on-agw-proponents-as-ice-cores-invalidate-co2-driven-climate-change/

    • I have an idea that it is precisely the biokinetic CO2 and CH4 feedback that triggers glacial transitions. Think about it. Interglacial Arctic amplification slows thermohaline circulation leading to ice sheet growth in periods, like now, of low NH summer insolation. It is ice sheet growth that is the salient feature of glacials..

  45. We know that CO2 was not the primary feedback involved in the modulation of ice ages, because when CO2 concentrations were high the world cooled, and when CO2 was low the world warmed.

    That is why I deduced that the primary feedback controlling ice ages, was ice sheet albedo.

    Modulation of Ice Ages via Dust and Albedo.
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305

    Ralph.

  46. Regards the albedo compliment to feedback, Hansen’s calculations are wrong. He assumed ice-sheet extent as being proportional to sea-level, and thus he smeared the albedo factor out across the entire globe.

    This is incorrect, because albedo is a regional feedback. We know this because every ice age began with a northern hemisphere (NH) Great Winter (Milankovitch minimum), and every interglacial began with a NH Great Summer (Milankovitch Maxumum). These temperature changes are NOT initiated by SH Great Summers or Winters.

    Thus ice ages are hemispherically asymmetric. Thus it is highly unlikely that the ice age temperature feedback mechanism is CO2, as that is a global gas and would modulate interglacials in either NH or SH Great Summers. And this is not what the data shows.

    Likewise, ice albedo feedbacks are regional, not global. Annual winter snow in Canada is melted by insolation (and albedo) on the snow in Canada, not by the temperature in Argentina. And the same is true for Great Winter snows and ice sheets during the ice ages – it is the insolation and albedo of the northern ice sheets that promote interglacial modulation, not a global CO2, and not a misconceived global albedo factor.

    This is important, because Hansen’s albedo factor was a lowly globally smeared 4 W/m2. But a regional albedo factor, as measured upon the ice sheets, can be up to 240 W/m2. So what is more likely to melt the vast ice sheets – Hansen’s 4 W/m2 or my 240 W/m2.

    Modulation of Ice Ages via Dust and Albedo.
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305

    Ralph

  47. ‘GMT drops initially at glacial inception in response to decreased summer radiation at high northern latitudes that would have led to equatorward extension of sea ice and snow cover with associated cooling from increased albedo. Somewhat later, there is a large and rapid pCO2 drop that further enhances the cooling. The speed and size of this initial drop, at least one-third of the overall interglacial/glacial change, and a mirror image pCO2 rise in the middle of glacial terminations point toward relatively abrupt decreases/increases in deep ocean ventilation (22, 23) as important brackets for the glacial inception/termination cycle. The remaining slow drift to lower GMT and pCO2 over glacial time, punctuated by higher-frequency variability and the dust−climate feedbacks, may reflect the consequences of the growth of continental ice sheets via albedo increases (also from vegetation changes) and increased CO2 dissolution in the ocean from cooling.’ https://www.pnas.org/content/115/9/2026

    Yeah – like I said. Of particular interest is abrupt changes in ‘deep ocean ventilation’ bracketing glacial/interglacial inception. .

  48. Global Ice Making and Global Ice Making
    The design depends on two items.
    1. Water expands as it warms from 32degrees farenheight to 39degrees farenheight.
    2. The Ice Shelf is on the bottom of the ocean.
    As the 35degree farenheight water on the bottom of the ocean melts the side of the ice shelf it also works its way under forming an overhang allowing it to break off.
    The Frozen water made to replace the heat needed to keep a constant surface temperature of the earth’s surface is now being deposited on the ice sheet and other frozen areas of the poles.
    That is how we will remain for about the next 110,000 years.

    • GLOBAL ICE MAKING AND GLOBAL ICE MELTING. Explanation.
      Radiant heat is the only form of heat that travels thru a vacuum.
      The average surface temperature of the sun is 9,940.73 degrees Fahrenheit.
      Absolute zero is -459.67 degrees Fahrenheit.
      The average surface temperature of the earth is 61 degrees Fahrenheit.
      I believe the radiant heat striking the earth has been decreasing thru the Melanie. Either because the average surface temperature is cooling, the radius of the sun is decreasing or a combination of both. This is shown by the increase in the length of each successive ice age. The Vostok Ice Core Chart shows this.
      The last Ice Age began about 142,000 years ago when the Ice Melting Stage ended and the Ice Making Stage began. At that time the oceans were at their lowest and the Ice Making Stage began. The Radiant heat reflected to the Black Sky was less than that retained by the Earth. Nature began making the Ice Shelf. This took about 10,000 years.
      132,000 years ago, the Ice melting stage began. The oceans were at their highest and the radiant heat reflected to the black sky was at it’s highest. The ice covering upstate New York was over a mile thick.
      The last Ice Age lasted about 120,000 years. This one should last about 130,000 to 140,000 years. About 12,000 years ago Nature began making the ice shelf. The oceans began to rise. As the oceans rose the 35-degree salt water began to melt the edges if the ice shelf. Understand the ice shelf is resting on land. About 6,000 years ago the breaking off of the Ice Shelf and melting heat equaled the radiant heat reflected to the black sky.
      That is where we are now. This ice age should last about 130,000 years. MAN, CAN POLUTE AND KILL HIMSELF, HERSELF, OFF BUT WILL NEVER PRODUCE ENOUGH TO ALTER NATURE.
      The CO2 produced will help the farmers feed the growth of humanity!!!
      The Ice Age has three stages:
      1. With the oceans at their lowest, the earth begins losing more radiant heat to the black sky than it retains from the sun. The ice in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres is at its thickest. Nature begins to melt the Ice and deposit it on the frozen land areas at the poles. This is the beginning of the Ice Sheet. About 10,000 years later the edges begin breaking off due to the 35degree salt water melting the edges and bottom of the ice Shelf. This took about 2,000 years.
      2. At this point the oceans are down a little from their highest. The oceans will stay at this level until the ice sheet is completely gone.
      3. At this point Nature keeps removing heat from the oceans and they begin to drop to their lowest point again.
      The CO2 graph on the Vostok ice core shows this for the previous Ice Ages. The more green foliage the lower the CO2 level.
      The design depends on two items.
      1. Water contracts as it warms from 32degrees Fahrenheit to 39degrees Fahrenheit. The lighter 32degree water heads to the surface and is replaced by the 35degree water.
      2. The Ice Shelf is on the bottom of the ocean.
      As the 35degree Fahrenheit water at the bottom of the ocean melts the side of the ice shelf it also works its way under forming an overhang allowing it to break off.
      The Frozen water made to replace the heat needed to keep a constant average surface temperature of the earth is now being deposited on the ice sheet and other frozen areas of the poles.
      The volume of water being removed from the oceans, and frozen, is now equal to that breaking off the Ice sheet.
      That is how we will remain for about the next 110,000 years.

  49. ignore one making and imagine a melting there

    • Earth presently receives on average 240 W/m2 of insolation (planetary albedo taken into account) [1]. In equilibrium, Earth radiates the same amount back to space, corresponding to -18 °C in the blackbody approximation. The actual surface temperature is far higher with an average of about +15 °C. Therefore, something must be delivering heat to the surface in addition to insolation. When looking for the sources, a hint comes from a well-known experience: clear-sky nights exhibit relatively low Earth surface temperatures while cloudy nights remain relatively warm. Thus, the atmosphere is contributing to the heat variability at the surface, with water molecules as the dominant components.

      THEREFORE SOMETHING MUST BE DELIVERING HEAT TO YHE SURFACE IN ADDITION TO ISOLATION.
      IT IS COMING FROM THE MELTING OF THE ICE SHEET

      • Robert Clark

        A simple explanation is when the ocean was at its highest nature began removing heat from the ocean to maintain a constant surface temperature. At the present time the same amount of heat is being removed from the ocean to melt the ice that broke off the ice shelf.

      • Robert Clark

        The surface of the ocean is cooler where the floating ice is melting so less heat is radiated to the black sky.

      • Robert Clark

        Just like it did to make the overhang on the bottom of the ice shelf, the colder 32degree fresh water goes to the surface .

      • Robert Clark

        The increase in CO2 does not effect the radiant heat from the sun striking the earth’s surface or that radiating from the earth’s surface to the black sky.

  50. I’m looking forward to part 2: “Simplified climate modelling. Part 1: The role of the tooth fairy in paleoclimate”

  51. Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #458 – Climate- Science.press

  52. Lots of words but here’s the summary in her own words: “CO2 delivers the major contribution to the climate variabilities.”

Leave a Reply to Christos Vournas Cancel reply