By Joachim Dengler
Are the natural carbon sinks failing?
For a long time, the discussion about the relation between temperature and CO2 concentration has been focused on the greenhouse effect and its possible feedback mechanisms, captured by the concept of sensitivity.
Here, I would like to shift the focus to the other side of the story: the possible causal influence of global sea surface temperature on the growth of CO2 concentration. Some readers may see this as a contradictory paradigm to the greenhouse effect; others may see it as one of the feedback mechanisms of the greenhouse effect.
The motivation for the investigations constituting the background paper of this post, “Evaluating the Effectiveness of Natural Carbon Sinks Through a Temperature-Dependent Model”, was published in the mainstream media like the Guardian, claiming that “Trees and land absorbed almost no CO2 last year. Is nature’s carbon sink failing?“. A closer examination of all the articles published on this topic revealed that they all refer to a single publication. The scientific basis and trigger for the discussion had been a preprint of this article: “Low latency carbon budget analysis reveals a large decline of the land carbon sink in 2023”.
To find an appropriate answer to this, it is necessary to take a closer look and use original data to examine how the changes in CO2 concentration develop. In a scientific paper, it is legitimate to state, even guess, a model of a given form and relate this to measurements. This is what I did in the background paper by setting up a sink model that depends on both CO2concentration and temperature. I underestimated the consequences of decades of debates about the relationship between CO2 concentration change and temperature change. Before evaluating the interesting implications of the temperature-dependent model, I found myself confronted with fundamental doubts and prejudices. Therefore, I deviate from the structure of the published paper and begin with a visual introduction to the subject.
The effective monthly CO2 sink capacity is measured as the difference between the monthly anthropogenic emissions and the growth in concentration:
<sink capacity> = <anthropogenic emissions> – <concentration growth> (1)
To measure concentration growth independently of seasons, growth is defined as the difference between the current concentration and the concentration 12 months prior.
Figure 1: Anthropogenic emissions (blue), CO2 concentration growth (orange), and sink capacity (green). The Sink effect has a negative sign (for display purposes only).
From the continuity equation, it follows that the sink capacity is also the difference between global absorptions and natural emissions:
<sink capacity> = <global absorptions> – <natural emissions> (2)
Anthropogenic emissions, concentration growth, and sink capacity are displayed in Figure 1.
Motivating the temperature-dependent model with Henry’s Law
Henry’s law describes the exchange of gases, here CO2, between a liquid, where the gas is dissolved, and the gas phase, here in the atmosphere. In the equilibrium, the concentration C of the dissolved CO2 is related to the partial pressure P of CO2 in the atmosphere by C = k.P, where k is Henry’s law constant (mol/(L·atm), specific to CO2 and temperature, C is measured in mol/L, and P is measured in atm. The numeric value of the partial pressure P corresponds to the CO2 concentration, measured in ppm, because the total atmospheric pressure is assumed to be 1 atm.
Henry’s law constant k is influenced by temperature, salinity, and pH. Given the actual measured conditions of the Earth’s oceans, temperature is the dominant factor influencing k and thus CO2 solubility. Its large spatial variability (0–30°C) drives significant regional differences in air-sea CO2 flux, with cold polar waters acting as CO2 sinks (higher solubility) and warm tropical waters often acting as sources (lower solubility). For example, the solubility of CO2 in polar waters can be more than double that in tropical waters due to temperature alone. The temperature dependence of the solubility on k is displayed in Figure 2. Despite the complex, nonlinear mathematical form, the temperature dependence of solubility is close to antilinear, getting smaller with growing temperature.
Figure 2: Temperature dependence of Henry’s law constant (solubility).
The downwelling flux of CO2, the sink effect, is proportional to the difference between the equilibrium concentration k.P and the actual concentration C of the dissolved CO2.
Without diving here into the details of the computation, this suggests that the ocean sink effect not only depends on the CO2concentration via the partial pressure P, but also on temperature, which dominantly determines Henry’s law constant k.
This is visualized in Figure 3, taken from the publication “Uptake and Storage of Carbon Dioxide in the Ocean: The Global C02 Survey“
Figure 3: Ocean net CO2 flux map.
Although the authors state that rising emissions due to higher temperatures are compensated by reduced dissolved CO2 concentration from increased biological activity of phytoplankton, the map indicates that areas of net absorption are near the poles, and regions of net emissions are near the equator. The map clearly shows that higher temperature implies higher emissions, respectively, lower absorption. Phytoplankton therefore reduces the temperature-dependent increase of natural emissions, but it does not fully compensate for it.
Similarly, the decay of biological matter and organisms is related to van’t Hoff’s rule, which states that an increase in decay rate and, thus, natural emissions scale with an increase in temperature. Of course, the sustainable availability of decayable substances depends on photosynthesis. Photosynthesis also scales with sunlight hours and temperature up to 30 °C, besides scaling with CO2 concentration. CO2 fertilization dominates the greening of the Earth, which has been more than 30% since 1900. So, it is logical that absorption dominantly scales with CO2 concentration, while biological decay, implying natural emissions, scales with temperature. When both are correlated as they have been for the last 65 years, a balanced growth of both is expected.
The temperature-dependent model
We recognize from Figure 1 that CO2 concentration can change very fast. Therefore, the input data are monthly time series of CO2concentration and sea surface temperature.
Because it takes time to heat the ocean in summer and cool it down in winter, we allow several months of time lag between sea surface temperature changes and subsequent sink changes.
The simplest sink model with the dependency on CO2 concentration and temperature is a linear model
<sink capacity> = a.<concentration> + b.<temperature> + c (3)
This model has been presented before; new insights are gained by changing the data granularity to months and optimizing the time lags between concentration growth and temperature. Independence from seasonality and noise reduction is reached by averaging the measured data over 12 consecutive months. Nevertheless, the time lag is computed with a monthly resolution.
When estimating the optimal parameters a,b,c of equation (3) for a measured sink capacity according to equation (1), the explained variance (R2 value) depends on the time shift between the temperature measurement and the subsequent CO2 sink capacity. This is displayed in Figure 4. With a 4-month time lag, the model explains 80% of the data variance, compared to 57% when a sink model without temperature dependence is applied, i.e., when b=0.
Figure 4: Explained variance of the concentration and temperature-dependent sink model
This is reflected in the quality of approximation of the measured smoothed sink capacity, as displayed in Figure 5. While the concentration-based simple model explains the trend, the new model, including temperature, also explains most of the short-term variations.
Figure 5: Measured sink capacity (blue), approximation with simple sink model (green, only CO2 concentration), and temperature-dependent model (orange).
There is only one significant outlier. The sink capacity between 1991 and 1994 is considerably larger than predicted by the model. Roy Spencer explained this as a consequence of the Pinatubo eruption in 1991, where the dust-induced increased diffuse light increased photosynthesis considerably. Otherwise, the predicted value of the actual concentration growth is remarkable, as shown in Figure 6. Again, for comparison, the prediction of the simple sink model without the temperature term is shown as the green graph. The fact that the green graph clearly shows a consistent declining trend since 2013 indicates that the concentration-dependent causes for sink capacity are more likely to have increased instead of decreased. The details of the concentration growth are remarkably well predicted by the sea surface temperature. In particular, the sharp rise in concentration growth since 2023 is entirely temperature-based.
Figure 6: Monthly concentration growth (blue), modelled with concentration only (green) and additionally with temperature (orange).
Intuitive understanding of model parameters
Looking at the graphs, the introduction of temperature dependence seems to influence only short-term data variability. But temperature has a trend. This has severe consequences on the resulting parameters, shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Regression results of simple and extended sink model
In the simple, temperature-independent model, the absorption is only about 2% of the concentration, whereas the temperature-dependent model implies 5%. This is a severe discrepancy that deserves attention. The mathematical explanation of the discrepancy can be found in section 5 of the 2024 publication. If, in reality, sink capacity depends on temperature and temperature is strongly correlated with CO2 concentration (which is the case), if you then offer a mathematical model that contains only CO2 concentration as a parameter, then the CO2 parameter will also take the role of the missing temperature.
Figure 7 conveys an intuitive understanding by assuming that down-welling absorptions are controlled by CO2 concentration (green arrow), while natural emissions are controlled by temperature (blue arrow). By definition, their difference is the measurable sink effect (red arrow). When temperature is essentially a linear function of CO2 concentration (which is the case since 70 years), then in the long term, the concentration trend cancels the temperature trend. In the sink capacity, therefore, only the short-term variability of temperature is visible.
Figure 7: Intuitive explanation of apparent model discrepancy.
Validating the model with 14C decay after the bomb test ban treaty
The nuclear bomb tests beginning in the 1950s stopped rather suddenly in 1963 with the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. This provides a close-to-ideal identifiable carbon emission pulse of 14C that has been thoroughly investigated for more than 40 years. The data series is the global data sequence from 1950 to 2019 from the supplements of the article “Atmospheric Radiocarbon for the Period 1950–2019“. The relative deviation from the preindustrial zero level of 14C concentration, Δ14C, is displayed as the blue graph in Figure 8.
Figure 8: Relative deviation from preindustrial 14C level (blue), adjusted relative deviation of 14C level by setting pre-1963 level to 0 (orange).
Why is this concentration decay representing “pure” absorptions? The CO2 emissions from the oceans have the much lower 14C concentration of the long-term equilibrium before the bomb tests; therefore, the upwelling 14C can be neglected.
This decay includes both the decay of 14C concentration into the long-term sinks, but also the Suess effect due to the atmospheric concentration change of 12C by anthropogenic emissions. For the determination of the Suess effect, the 25-year interval from 1965 to 1990 with a good 14C decay signal was taken. The upper bound of the diluting Suess effect due to fossil fuels is obtained by pretending there is no sink effect, thus adding the cumulative emissions of 60 ppm (=127 GtC) between 1965 and 1990 to the 1965 CO2 concentration of 320 ppm. This results in a Suess effect contribution of 0.69% per year to the decline of the relative 14C concentration. With a value of 0.058 for the decay constant of the uncorrected data, the reduction by 0.0069 results in 0.051, the actual absorption constant of 14C. Considering the 95% confidence interval [0.047,0.055], this is a perfect confirmation of the concentration-dependent absorption constant of the extended sink model.
Validating the model with soil respiration
Photosynthesis is the primary driver of the following processes of plant decay and soil respiration. Net Primary Production (NPP) during the time interval from 1982 to 1999 was investigated. They found a yearly increase of 3.4 GtC of NPP over 18 years. During this time, the temperature increased by 0.25 °C. This would imply a 13.6 GtC increase of bound carbon per °C and year. According to the article, this was not only due to the increase of CO2 fertilization but also, to a large degree, to the reduction of cloud cover over the Amazon rainforest and an increase in solar radiation, which directly influences photosynthetic processes more than CO2 concentration and temperature. A later reported decline of yearly NPP by 0.55 GtC in the years 2000–2009 adjusts this exorbitantly high yearly number to 2.85 GtC/0.5 °C = 5.7 GtC/°C.
During the 19 years from 1989 to 2008, the natural emissions from soil respiration 𝑅𝑆 have risen by 0.1 GtC per year, i.e., 1.9 GtC during the whole investigation period. During this time, the global temperature has increased by 0.3 °C. Therefore, we have a soil respiration temperature dependency of 6.33GtC/°C. The temperature coefficient of the extended model, is 3.6 ppm/°C = 7.7 GtC/°C with the 95% confidence interval [5.9, 9.5] GtC/°C. This can be considered a sufficiently good match with the evidence from soil respiration.
Other Approaches relating Temperature to Sink Effect
I am aware of two other approaches to deal with the temperature dependence of the sink effect. Both have in common that they do not use temperature itself as a predictor, but a variable derived from temperature, which does not have a long-term trend. The obvious reason for this approach is the known fact that the measurable sink effect does not show any long-term trend. As I discussed above, this is a superficial conclusion from the observations; it ignores the fact that due to the large correlation between concentration and temperature, actual temperature effects might be hidden.
Ferdinand Engelbeen has suggested that the sink effect and, as a consequence, the concentration growth, should depend on the time derivative of temperature instead of temperature itself. Indeed, the derivative of temperature does not have a trend. And the numerical explanation value of the data variance is also 0.8 for his model, the same as for the model described here. Nevertheless, I do not consider taking the derivative of temperature as a predictor for the sink capacity or concentration growth, respectively, a good idea.
Both mentioned natural laws, Henry’s law and van’t Hoff’s rule, relate natural emissions to temperature and not to its derivative. Also, a simple thought experiment rules out the derivative: Let us assume a single temperature jump of 1 °C at the sea surface, then the temperature is assumed to remain at the elevated level for a long time. If the temperature effect depended on the time derivative of temperature, there would only be a single pulse of natural emissions during the very first time interval. But in reality, temperature is a thermodynamic state variable. This implies increased natural emissions at all times following the temperature step (under ceteris paribus conditions).
Roy Spencer has related the short-term variability of the sink effect to the Multivariate ENSO index (MEI). MEI is also a trend-free variable, where two of the five components of the MEI are regional sea surface temperature and regional air temperature anomalies. The anomalies are determined by subtracting the 30-year average from the temperature. This removes the trend from the temperature, but preserves the short-term variability.
To understand the relation of these approaches to the temperature-dependent model described here, temperature is decomposed into a linear function of CO2 concentration, containing the temperature, and a residual temperature. This is displayed in Figure 9.
Figure 9: Monthly sea surface temperature (blue), temperature from linear model of CO2-concentration (orange), residual temperature (green)
The residual temperature is a residual of a regression model and, therefore, by definition, zero-mean and trend-free. When the residual temperature replaces temperature in the extended model, the results for absorption coefficient a and the constant c are identical to those of the simple model (without temperature), the temperature coefficient b is identical to that of the temperature-dependent model (see details in previous publication). The model reconstruction of the concentration growth is identical to that of the temperature-dependent model.
Comparing the residual temperature with the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) and the derivative of the temperature, it becomes clear why all three lead to similar results. All three time series are displayed in Figure 10, slightly smoothed to keep them visually identifiable.
Figure 10 Comparison of Residual Temperature (blue) with the Multivariate ENSO Index (orange) and the Derivative of Sea Surface Temperature (green)
The residual temperature has structural similarities with the MEI signal. When sea surface temperature is indeed a physical driving force of the sink effect and CO2 concentration growth, it can be expected that MEI has a significant influence on the sink effect. In that case, I expect that the model based explicitly on sea surface temperature explains the observed data better than the model with the complex MEI index. I invite Roy Spencer and others to determine the R2 value when MEI is used besides CO2 concentration as a predictor. The first temperature derivative is also quite similar to the residual temperature, but appears time-shifted. This is because the derivative of a periodic function is a phase-shifted version of that function. Empirically, this is reflected in the fact that the optimal fit requires the derivative of the temperature to be shifted by 9 months instead of 4 months as with the residual temperature. In contrast, the peaks of the MEI signal coincide with those of the residual temperature; both are essentially the difference between the temperature and its temporally smoothed version.
My reason to prefer the model with the actual temperature is physics. The elementary sink processes only experience the state variable temperature, not complex derivations of it.
Conclusions
The continuity equation, together with the observed consistent decrease in the 14C concentration in the atmosphere after 1963 and the observation of temperature-dependent natural emissions, are powerful tools for evaluating observations.
One purpose of this article is to explain the recent rise in concentration growth as a consequence of rising sea surface temperatures instead of a hypothetical unobserved decline in absorption by oceans or plants. While the rise in concentration growth is real, the cause is not a failure of sinks but a larger rise in temperature beyond the trend that corresponds to the CO2 level rise.
It should, therefore, not be off-limits to consider temperature as a “normal” cause of CO2 concentration changes in the public debate, as an influencing factor instead of speculating about the absence of sinks without evidence.
This does not exclude causality in the other direction; the greenhouse effect, the rather large temperature coefficient on natural CO2 emissions, certainly limits the possible climate sensitivity.
The temperature-dependent model makes it possible to better separate the actual anthropogenic origin of CO2 changes and the natural causes, among which temperature is a very important one. Many people were confused when, in 2020, no effect of the anthropogenic emission reduction could be seen in the concentration growth. When the temperature effect is removed, as is the case in the simple model, then the effect of the lockdown-caused emission reduction can be seen, e.g., the green curve in Figure 6.
The most important contribution is that it became possible to separate downwelling absorptions from upwelling natural emissions. Through the evaluation of the bomb test 14C time series and by the Suess effect correction, we have a reliable estimate of the yearly absorption rate of 5% of the CO2 concentration. Together with the precise CO2 concentration measurements on Mauna Loa and the accepted measurements of anthropogenic emissions from the International Energy Agency (IEA), the continuity equation constrains the yearly net natural emissions. Together with the extended model, we also have an understanding of their temperature dependency.
To stop the carbon in the atmosphere from increasing, we only need to grow the biomass in the soil by a hundredth of an inch per year. Good topsoil contains about ten percent biomass, [Schlesinger, 1977], so a hundredth of an inch of biomass growth means about a tenth of an inch of topsoil. Changes in farming practices such as no-till farming, avoiding the use of the plow, cause biomass to grow at least as fast as this. If we plant crops without plowing the soil, more of the biomass goes into roots which stay in the soil, and less returns to the atmosphere. If we use genetic engineering to put more biomass into roots, we can probably achieve much more rapid growth of topsoil. I conclude from this calculation that the problem of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a problem of land management, not a problem of meteorology. No computer model of atmosphere and ocean can hope to predict the way we shall manage our land. (Freeman Dyson, Many Colored Glass: Reflections on the Place of Life in the Universe)
Important topic for discussion. Thanks.
I don’t understand Figure 1. First, as far as I know, emissions data is annual, not monthly. Not sure how that is being compared to monthly CO2 data.
Second, the “airborne fraction”, the annual change in ppmv as a fraction of the annual emissions, has remained remarkably constant since 1959, the start of modern measurements. (annual values, ~ 41% ± 12% remains airborne). There’s no statistically significant trend in the data (+0.1% per year, p-value = 0.13)
(1 ppmv CO₂ in the atmosphere is equivalent to approximately 2.13 gigatonnes (Gt) of carbon (C) added to the air)
This means the sink capacity is unchanged.
What am I missing here?
Best to all,
w.
Good catch, not that it matters to the made-up, monkey-fingered BS, fears, delusions and insanity of the gurus of anti-capitalism on the Left who push the idea that ‘CO2 is a poison.’ They do that to fleece the public. The Left does not really believe in capitalism so why deliver electricity to a house full of Leftists for the same price as anyone else who voluntarily buys into the capitalistic system that makes providing needed goods and services more affordable? When all of the people in the house say the coal you burn to create electricity is killing the planet, let them eat cake to stay warm on cold winter days.
The first question is an easy one. Due to the way of calculating deseasonalized concentration growth by taking the difference to the value 12 months before, the value is of the same scale as if I had taken yearly data. Therefore, the yearly emissions have not to be “distributed” among the 12 months, but can be interpolated. To be precise, I used a cubic spline. So what you see, are yearly values (y-axis) with monthly resolution (x-axis).
The airborne fraction is in my understanding a “fantasy figure”, because it does not carry any physical meaning. I replaced this ill-defined concept, which tries to tie anthropogenic emissions to concentration without looking left and right, with the undeniable mass conservation, respectively continuity equation, which relates anthropogenic emissions, natural emissions, and absorptions precisely to concentration growth, and thus gives us a solid framework to understand the carbon cycle.
Contrary to what many climate scientists claim, and what you also indicate, airborne fraction is by no means an invariant. Since 1959 it fell from more than 0.6 to now less than 0.5, and when we approach equilibrium (by the end of the century), it will go down to 0.
During the first half of the 20th century, you get really “crazy” values for airborne fraction, sometimes larger than 1, and even negative values.
The only value I see in airborne fraction is that a representative of the Bern model admitted, that when airborne fraction will be below 0.4, he knows, that his model is wrong. I am looking forward to that day…
Schwartz [2007] found that the thermal inertia of the oceans was measured in years not months, no?
MLO data are available daily. I used monthly data from IEA for anthropogenic emissions in Figure 1, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/22/anthropogenic-co2-and-the-expected-results-from-eliminating-it/
Thanks for pointing to higher resolution emission data
WE
This is a deliberate attempt to confuse the author with data and facts.
Richard—That’s a stupid comment
Rob, only to those that need a “/S” at the end.
” With a 4-month time lag, the model explains 80% of the data variance, compared to 57% when a sink model without temperature dependence is applied, …”
This suggests to me that the high Specific Heat Capacity of water results in seawater warming more slowly than air and terrestrial materials, thus delaying peak out-gassing and peak photosynthesis of marine organisms. MLO measurements consistently show a peak in seasonal CO2 in the month of May when Northern Hemisphere deciduous trees, and terrestrial plants in general, begin to leaf out. Trying to tease out cause-and-effect when the two hemispheres are out of phase by 6 months is confounding. I would suggest doing your analyses separately for the two hemispheres.
Something that you didn’t mention, but I think merits attention, is that Boreal evergreens shutdown photosynthesis in the reduced sunlight and cold of Winter and metabolize their sugars to survive. They respire CO2 from their roots when the ground is above freezing. It is generally accepted that more warming is occurring in the Winter with estimates currently being about 2-4X greater warming in the Arctic than for the globe as a whole. Therefore, I think that we can assume that warming results in a greater rate of respiration and fewer days that the roots are below freezing and dormant.
Thanks for pointing to another mechanism that confirms the finding that natural emissions rise with temperature. I am sure that there are many such validations which fill the mosaic with evidence for the findings of the global top-down approach I have described.
A frequency-domain analysis of the temperature to [CO2] relationship shows both a six-month delay (phase slope), and an integral-like -90° phase relationship, along with a characteristic 1/f amplitude response. The six-month delay is, I believe, the result of the longer solar forcing cycles alternating between hemispheres. In other words, seasonally modulated, but not related to the annual variations in [CO2]. The integral relationship is more pronounced when comparing Southern Hemisphere temperatures to MLO concentrations; more ocean.
https://localartist.org/media/CO2_Temp_FRF_1st_detrend_byHem.png
The six-month delay has been discussed many times on this forum, but the question is, does the long-term trend represent a different process from the well-established [CO2] lag after ENSO variations? I don’t believe it does as both the long- and short-term variations can be modeled using a single integral equation.
https://localartist.org/media/UAHandCO2v2.png
The integral relationship suggests that ocean heat content establishes [CO2] concentrations, and that warming oceans increase surface level concentrations, and therefore increased atmospheric concentrations.
What is the significance of the temperature to [CO2] relationship? I do not understand its physical meaning? The ratio seems to say nothing about causality or physical mechanism.
The integral relationship describes the direction of causality ([CO2] lags), and the mathematical relationship between temperature and [CO2], but as an empirical model it does not explain the mechanism.
In reality there should be a time constant in the equation, i.e. low-pass filter, not a pure integrator, but I’ve seen some evidence that the time constant would be very long. For example, I’ve seen one proxy comparison where a 1000-year variation in temperature was followed by a 1000-year variation in [CO2] delayed by 250 years (-90°).
What’s interesting is the integral equation predicts that UAH anomaly temperatures need to drop below -0.62°C before [CO2] starts falling. Until then, decreases in temperature only reduce the rate of the rise in concentration levels.
RC, why use UAH when your discussion is about the ocean vs CO2?
“… ocean heat content establishes [CO2] concentrations”
Yes, the equatorial OHC establishes climate and CO2 anomalies.
https://i.postimg.cc/VLrbG3Y6/Climate-and-Eq-OHCa.jpg
CO2 responds last, months after the EqOHC changes the SST first.
BobW, I used UAH data because it doesn’t suffer from UHI bias. Also, it’s well matched to MLO from a time-scale perspective. The result is the same using either UAH Globe or UAH Ocean.
GISTEMP v4 Ocean data doesn’t exhibit bias. GISTEMP and other global records do. Here are two results using other GISTEMP v4 Global and Ocean.
For GISTEMP Global, predicted temperature from [CO2] has a lower slope than the actual temperature, and the predicted [CO2] from temperature has too much curvature. This is consistent with UHI bias.
https://localartist.org/media/GISSTEMPpred.png
The ocean temperature data is interesting. Higher ocean temperatures prior to 1920 (not shown) results in higher predicted levels of [CO2]. The Law Dome [CO2] proxy does not show this. However, we know temperatures were significantly higher in the late ’30s and early 40’s, so there would have been a corresponding acceleration in [CO2] around 1940. This is captured in my [CO2] prediction from ocean temperature, but the Law Dome data goes flat. There was no increase in [CO2] following a significant El Niño warming event? Odd.
https://localartist.org/media/GISSTEMPOceanPred.png
Robert Cutler wrote:
BobW, I used UAH data because it doesn’t suffer from UHI bias.
Why doesn’t it?
But it does suffer from the having-to-calibrate-over-something-like-13-different-satellites, some of which didn’t even exist at the same time.
bobweber wrote:
CO2 responds last, months after the EqOHC changes the SST first.
Really? Then explain the CO2 increase since 1850.
In fact temperature changes precede changes in CO2 on all time scales, from last month’s observations to ice core data spanning millennia. A simple mathematical model is able to predict CO2 levels following temperatures.
https://rclutz.com/2025/07/03/june-2025-update-temperature-falls-co2-follows/
Nice work. I recommend including anthropogenic emissions and a term proportional to CO2 concentration of the previous year. This should improve your results further, especially when you repeat your test on older data, when CO2 emissions were rising.
Currently you don‘t seem „need“ anthropogenic emissions, because they have been more or less constant over the last 12 years.
Try your test in the 1970s, and you will see what I mean.
Can you confirm a 4 months time lag between temperature and concentration?
Ron, your recursive summation is the integration equation in my charts.
Joachim, I don’t believe there is a fixed delay of 4 months. The integral relationship produces a -90° phase shift, so the delay is a function of period. A 2-year cycle would have a 6-month delay while a 4-year cycle would have a 1-year delay, and a 1000-year cycle would have a 250-year delay (see the last graph on Ron’s page).
The problem is that longer cycles are seasonally modulated which gives the appearance of a 6-month delay when comparing to global temperature. As I mentioned before, when dealing only with MLO and Southern Hemisphere temperature, the data looks more like a pure integrator. See far-right plots, especially the phase plot.
https://localartist.org/media/CO2_Temp_FRF_1st_detrend_byHem.png
Joachim and Robert, thanks for chiming in. Joachim, the longer term picture of natural and FF CO2 was provided by Skrable et al. in 2021. My graph of their results below:
https://rclutz.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/history-of-atm-co2-1.png
The graph above is produced from Skrable et al. dataset Table 2. World atmospheric CO2, its C‐14 specific activity, anthropogenic‐fossil component, non fossil component, and emissions (1750 ‐ 2018). The purple line shows reported annual concentrations of atmospheric CO2 from Energy Information Administration (EIA) The starting value in 1750 is 276 ppm and the final value in this study is 406 ppm in 2018, a gain of 130 ppm.
The red line is based on EIA estimates of human fossil fuel CO2 emissions starting from zero in 1750 and the sum slowly accumulating over the first 200 years. The estimate of annual CO2 emitted from FF increases from 0.75 ppm in 1950 up to 4.69 ppm in 2018. The sum of all these annual emissions rises from 29.3 ppm in 1950 (from the previous 200 years) up to 204.9 ppm (from 268 years). These are estimates of historical FF CO2 emitted into the atmosphere, not the amount of FF CO2 found in the air.
Atmospheric CO2 is constantly in two-way fluxes between multiple natural sinks/sources, principally the ocean, soil and biosphere. The annual dilution of carbon 14 proportion is used to calculate the fractions of atmospheric FF CO2 and Natural CO2 remaining in a given year. The blue line shows the FF CO2 fraction rising from 4.03 ppm in 1950 to 46.84 ppm in 2018. The cyan line shows Natural CO2 fraction rising from 307.51 in 1950 to 358.56 in 2018.
Ron,
There are lots of issues with your plot of the Skrable data.
1. Where’s the bomb pulse? This first of the Skrable papers assumed it was insignificant. They fixed that (but not other things) in a second paper.
2. I believe your attempt at a point is that the “CO2 Nature” curve is higher than the “CO2 FF” curve. But you also correctly mentioned the two-way mixing. That supresses the FF contribution. Because of the mixing you cannot infer the cause of CO2 rise by naively comparing FF and Nature components in the present atmosphere, as Skrable et al. did. Others have made that mistake too.
3. Did you notice that human emissions of CO2 in your plot are greater than CO2 atmospheric accumulation? That tells us that natural processes are mitigating the effect of human emissions by removing a good deal of it from the atmosphere. Natural processes are removing, not adding net carbon to the atmosphere.
For a critique of the second Skrable paper see https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36719939/
Ron Clutz wrote:
In fact temperature changes precede changes in CO2 on all time scales,
Really? Show that for the PETM.
Also, what temperature change (and where/why) preceded the industrial era?
Now I understand what you mean with the “integral relationship”.
Let’s postpone the question of time-lag and clarify the basics first.
Effectively you take a subset of my continuity equation by setting absorptions and anthropogenic emissions to 0, only allowing the constant term and temperature as drivers of concentration growth. This is not legitimate. You violate mass conservation by discarding anthropogenic emissions. Anthropogenic CO2 molecules are there and contribute to concentration growth, you cannot just ignore them. And by ignoring the dependency of concentration growth on concentration, you are missing the very core of the carbon sink effect. Please take a look at equation (1) in the paper (Link is in the introduction of the post).
Actually, I’m not taking a subset of your equation as the temperature-sensitive part of you equation is not a function of time. This is a critical difference because your model is limited by design to surface temperatures. It does not allow for the ocean to have an integral-like response.
Pingback: Temperature – a driver of the carbon cycle – Climate- Science.press
Pingback: Was andere Medien sagen
Geophysical sensing in the open ocean is both costly and technically challenging. Here we developed a novel distributed fiber optic sensing technique that employs microwave modulation for phase measurement in signals returned from submarine repeaters. We transformed a trans-Atlantic telecom cable into an 81-sensor array and measured sub-millihertz strains. The strains correlate with ocean tide height variations in phase, suggesting a dominant factor of the cable’s Poisson’s effect. Large strains observed at fiber spans located in the shallow water match the strong variations of simulated seafloor temperature. This study presents the first experimental confirmation of detecting sub-millihertz signals using trans-oceanic distributed sensing with submarine cables at span-wise spatial resolution (∼80 km), opening the potential for cost-efficient tsunami early warning and long-term ocean temperature monitoring compatible with active data-carrying fibers.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024GL114414
Joachim …
> It should, therefore, not be off-limits to consider temperature as a “normal” cause of CO2 concentration changes in the public debate, as an influencing factor instead of speculating about the absence of sinks without evidence.
> The temperature-dependent model makes it possible to better separate the actual anthropogenic origin of CO2 changes and the natural causes, among which temperature is a very important one.
Any plans to pursue the above?
Good piece, thanks.
Good to meet you again, Bill…
Well, I am throwing the stone into the water, let’s see what waves it creates and who will pick it up.
Good strategy. I don’t have to tell you though, be careful as there are those who like throwing stones back (without much regard to science) … at you! ;-)
Again, I enjoyed your piece.
If CO2 of anthropogenic origin is of concern, because it is so dangerous our survival is imperiled, natural sources of CO2 should be equally concerning. It’s only logical.
The implication is, we’re dealing with a perpetual motion of the Third Kind sort of logic that dooms us all irrespective of what we do… a kind of deterministic fatalism of the world for the global warming alarmist that doom is inevitable unless we can eliminate humanity.
Although not able to follow all of this, am I correct that we don’t know whether CO2 is cause of temperature or temperature is cause of CO2. Am I also correct that “manmade CO2” is calculation with various degrees of accuracy depending on who is making the calculation? All other variables being discussed are actual measurements?
We know both happen. It is not an either/or situation. More details here:
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
Thanks for the reply. I have, however, been reading this and other sites for over 15 years. If there is a definitive answer in any previous publications I have missed it.
Curry says yes but uncertainty underreported
Clauser says no
Happer/Lindzen say no
Christy/Spenser say yes but
Pielke Jr says yes but
Bjorn Lombard (political science I believe) says yes but not to worry
I could go on but was hoping for a clear articulation of what this article contributed to the question of cause and effect. I am an EE and although being retired, my knowledge half-life has long since expired, I have followed this issue since before Dr Curry’s epiphany more than 15 years ago. Actually have learned more thermodynamics following this issue than when I was at Ga Tech. It is beginning to seem like there is a shrinkingly small circle of people who talk to each other and find many of us less knowledgeable and/or less intelligent to be a nuance.
Apologies for the rant but I am beginning to think I have been wasting my time and should go on to something more inclusive.
PMHinSC, have you ever visited the site:
the “Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon”?
–
Please visit.
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
My answer was definitive: both – it depends on the conditions, which you did not specify. In slightly more detail:
“Is CO2 leading or lagging temperature rise?
Data from ice core records strongly suggest that the prehistoric carbon dioxide changes were largely a response, not a cause, of temperature changes. This is not a surprise, since warm weather makes CO2 less soluble in water. In fact, a 800-year lag has been reported, and this is consistent with the known fact that it takes about 800 years for the ocean to overturn, that is, for all of the deep sea water to migrate to the surface where it can give up its dissolved carbon dioxide.
However, for the past century we know that the CO2 is not coming from the oceans but from human burning of fossil fuels. We can tell this from C-14 in the atmosphere, also known as radiocarbon. Seawater has high radiocarbon; fossil fuels have none. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere matches the low radiocarbon value of fossil fuel, not the high value from CO2 dissolved in seawater. In addition, we know how much fossil fuel has been converted into CO2, and there is more than enough to account for the atmospheric increase. In fact, we can determine that much, nearly half, of the emissions are dissolving into sea water and being absorbed by plants. So it is clear that it is the CO2 that comes first, not the warming.”
https://berkeleyearth.org/faq-new/#question-9
This also may be useful:
Changes to Carbon Isotopes in Atmospheric CO2 Over the Industrial Era and Into the Future
Heather Graven, Ralph F. Keeling, Joeri Rogelj
First published: 23 October 2020 https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GB006170
3 processes involving CO2.
(1) Seasonal carbon cycle.
Nature absorbs a very tiny net amount of CO2 year over year. Nature has been absorbing CO2 for billions of years.
(2) Ocean atmosphere CO2 exchange.
1° C of average ocean temperature change causes a 20 PPM change of the atmospheric CO2 level.
(3) Man made CO2 emissions.
Direct global average temperature rise of about +0.7° C. per CO2 x 2. Based on lab spectroscopy. Harmless.
The warmer atmosphere from CO2 holds more absolute humidity and that amplifies the CO2 greenhouse warming. No one knows how much because global average absolute humidity measurements are inaccurate.
The IPCC claims a water vapor positive feedback amplifies the effect of CO2 alone by 3x to 6x.
There are many feedbacks to a warming planet from CO2. Some positive and some negative. The IPCC loves one of them — a positive water vapor feedback. They claim it is very strong and causes far more warming than CO2 alone. That is speculation, not science.
The climate in 100 years will be warmer unless it is cooler. I developed that theory in 1997. Still hoping for a Nobel Prize.
Something that is not commonly appreciated is that every time a poly-isotopic element is involved in a phase change or chemical reaction, there is a process called isotopic fractionation that takes place. That is, lighter isotopes are often selected because it take less energy to change phase or participate in an endothermic chemical reaction. That shifts the isotope balance between the source and sink. I don’t think that this has been explored sufficiently to be able to dismiss it as being negligible. Thus, some of the conclusions are problematic. That is to say that I’m not sure that the conclusions about 13C and 14C are as supportive as commonly assumed. I think more work needs to be done.
Well, if you have spent so much time with this issue already, it should not be too difficult to follow my logic and equations (the actual equations are in the paper: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/15/12/6907). My intention is that readers should be able to derive the conclusions themselves, you do not have to believe me – an unknown stranger for you. Key to understanding is the continuity equation (equation (1) in the paper), setting up the balance that all emissions minus absorptions result in the concentration growth. Then the sink model is set up as a linear function of concentration and temperature, with a variable time lag of both variables relative to concentration growth. The result is given by the data: A time lag of appr. 4 months between temperature change and change of concentration growth .
This clearly proves causality from temperature to concentration change via natural emissions — everybody knows the effect when you let a glass of beer get warm.
Having said that, this does not discard the greenhouse effect, i.e. increase of CO2 concentration causing temperature rise. What it does, however, is to limit the possible assumed feedback and therefore the sensitivity to max. 3°C (otherwise we’d have a runaway heating).
Thank you for the follow-up. I understand Dr. Curry’s Climate Etc. is academically oriented and not intended for the layman. As an EE and follower of the debate for most of this century, I read articles published on this and other blogs; with varying degrees of comprehension. Thru the local newspaper “Opinion” page I try to act as an intermediary between conclusions in these articles and the layman. I found this article to be both well written and interesting; thus my question
My comment above was not meant to be a criticism of Dr Dengler or this article and his courteous reply answered my question. I have, however, long been frustrated by the often curt and dismissive replies by commentors to my questions which others might find “intuitively obvious to the casual observer.” If anyone expects technical climate related information to be conveyed to the general public, people like me need answers more translatable to the general public.
Again my thanks for this excellent article and for Dr. Curry making it available.
Oceans act as a carbon sink, absorbing roughly 30% of the CO2 released into the atmosphere.
If the ocean is warming from the greenhouse effect, it absorbs slightly less CO2.
Ice core studies suggest a +1° temperature change in average ocean temperature could outgas about 20 PPM of CO2.
In the age of man made CO2 emissions this has a different meaning: Since the 1850’s, the oceans absorbed 20 PPM less CO2 than they would have absorbed if the ocean temperature had remained constant.
CO2 is believed to have increased +140 PPM since 1850. If the oceans had not warmed +1°, atmospheric CO2 would have increased, perhaps +120 PPM. So what?
“One purpose of this article is to explain the recent rise in concentration growth as a consequence of rising sea surface temperatures instead of a hypothetical unobserved decline in absorption by oceans or plants.”
CO2 uptake in the North Atlantic is reduced during a warm AMO phase. The warm AMO phase is a response to weaker solar wind states causing negative North Atlantic Oscillation regimes. Which frames it as a negative feedback.
https://digital.csic.es/bitstream/10261/67041/3/Atlantic_Ocean_CO2_uptake.pdf
From what I’m seeing here, this article is bringing out the phenomenon is what is known as cognitive dissonance. What was at stake with the global warming hoax was a lot more than just the eroding credibility of science. Even so, it still is amazing to consider that all (not just a majority) of the Leftist, liberal fascist, enviro-wackpot part of the country was allied and conspiring together in a conspicuous consensus of un-Americanism to bring capitalism down. Moreover, a willing mainstream media and a broken governmental-funded education machine have been eager facilitators of the hoax and millions of taxpayers’ dollars have been spent for endless filing cabinets full of AGW global warming junk science.
Every physical scientist on the planet knows that temperature is a drive of the carbon cycle. And that the carbon cycle is a driver of temperature change,
Stop acting like this isn’t covered in every undergraduate course on climate.
Why are then most climate scientists then deny the consequences of the fact that temperature is driving CO2-emissions: 7.6 GtC/°C per year according to the above calculations. If that is such a trivial fact for you, then I would be very grateful for a reference in a scientific paper.
Where, e.g., do you find the temperature dependence on concentration growth in the Bern model, which is at the core of current climate models?
Joachim Dengler wrote:
Why are then most climate scientists then deny the consequences of the fact that temperature is driving CO2-emissions: 7.6 GtC/°C per year according to the above calculations.
I’m not going to accept this number, but show me scientists who have denied a T-CO2 relationship. Cite them and give the reference.
Joachim D: From Grok,
“Yes, CO2 and temperature can engage in a mutually reinforcing positive feedback cycle, though the relationship is complex and depends on specific mechanisms. Rising temperatures can increase CO2 levels by enhancing processes like permafrost thawing, soil respiration, and ocean outgassing, which release stored carbon. For example, warming permafrost releases methane and CO2, while warmer oceans absorb less CO2 and may release it. Conversely, higher CO2 levels trap more heat, amplifying global warming. Paleoclimate data, like ice core records, show correlations between CO2 and temperature over millennia, often with CO2 amplifying initial warming from orbital changes (e.g., Milankovitch cycles).”
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw%3D%3D_f9e88250-e8f4-42ec-8094-90b9c82cf2ec
Joachim, specifically, the point I was trying to make is that I would expect that out-gassing CO2 would be enriched in 12C, making the atmosphere look more like it came from fossil fuels, because its lower density should result in increased ability to escape from the water. Conversely, the solubility of the various isotopic variations of CO2 should change with temperature. I also believe that the precipitation of limey muds, such as occurs in the Bahamas, should shift the delta-13C, although I haven’t given this enough thought to say with certainty what the net result will be.
My concern is that it appears that no one has given this the time and attention necessary to assert confidently that isotopic variations in atmospheric CO2 are evidence for the origin.
Joachim Dengler wrote:
Well, if you have spent so much time with this issue already, it should not be too difficult to follow my logic and equations (the actual equations are in the paper: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/15/12/6907).
Are you at all aware of the reputation of MDPI journals???
“Are you at all aware of the reputation of MDPI journals???”
Was that intended as an ad hominen, or did it just come out that way?
Let me use this location to reply to your previous comment on the topic “isotopic fractionation”. You are making a valid point.
It is known that photosynthesis makes a measurable difference between C12 and C13. This has been used to estimate the ratio between the ocean sinks and the plant sinks. Ferdinand Engelbeen has been writing about this.
I am not so sure if this is relevant to the ocean absorption. I would assume, that the deviations between C12 and C14 are within the error bounds of the regression estimations.
Responding to your comment: “Joachim, specifically, the point I was trying to make is that I would expect that out-gassing CO2 would be enriched in 12C, making the atmosphere look more like it came from fossil fuels, because its lower density should result in increased ability to escape from the water.”:
You certainly caught my attention regarding the different behaviour of the 3 isotopes. Admittedly up to now I had not focussed on this very much. However, the consequence you describe, works “in my favor” by further enhancing the down-welling character of 14C. If you read the paper carefully, the 14C argument is only used for validating absorption. Would you think, 14C would be absorbed more than 12C, implying different absorption rates for both isotopes?
Regarding natural emissions, I couldn’t care less about 14C. Nevertheless, I will pay attention to the question, what the isotopic outgassing differences mean for the 14C equilibrium level. I don’t think it has significant influence on the decay constant.
clydehspencer wrote:
“Are you at all aware of the reputation of MDPI journals???”
Was that intended as an ad hominen, or did it just come out that way?
It was a comment on MDPI journals.
“List of all MDPI journals”
https://www.predatoryjournals.org/news/list-of-all-mdpi-predatory-journals
includes “Applied Science”
[Appell] ‘includes “Applied Science”’
And 2,779 others.
Curious George wrote:
[Appell] ‘includes “Applied Science”’
And 2,779 others.
Exactly, thanks.
MDPI as a publisher is entirely rotten.
And Joachim appears to have lost over $3000 to their scam.
We now have to accept that nearly all types of published research across all domains of human knowledge will be ‘tainted’ or ‘flavored’ as a byproduct of LLMs.
Latest trick, embed ‘white text’ hidden prompts to affect the analysis of documents and how it is evaluated by the LLM. This could include research papers, legal filings, even financial transactions.
https://phys.org/news/2025-07-massive-ai-fingerprints-millions-scientific.html
Can’t wait till we move past these brute force machine language models and step into the unknown of AGI + ASI =p(doom). It will be a god.
Appell, the point is that even if MDPI journals are not as ‘high quality’ (whatever that means) as journals that work very hard to maintain their reputations so that they can justify their high subscription rates, it doesn’t mean automatically that all MDPI articles are wrong or even untrustworthy. An article should stand on its own merits rather than be based on what you or others think of it. You don’t define what you mean by “reputation;” you just attempt to impugn Joachim by association with something rather than specify what is wrong with MDPI journals, let alone what is wrong with his analysis. Your remark about MDPI basically meets the definition of an ad hominen attack.
The other side of the coin, as it were, is that any research conclusions that drift too far from the mainstream paradigms are unlikely to be accepted for publication in journals whose primary concern is their reputation. That is, actual breakthroughs are more likely to be published first in journals that are ‘second tier’ and that you obviously disapprove of. If one wants supporting evidence for the status quo, they are most likely to find it in the journals that have low tolerance for risk to their reputations, which means that they will be the last to publish things that are paradigm shattering. They are content to make their money on uncreative, mediocre, ‘research’ of technicians rather than those who routinely “think outside the box.” Sweets for the sweet.
Where I said, “An article should stand on its own merits rather than be based on what you or others think of it,” should have said “An article should stand on its own merits rather than be based on what you or others think of the publisher”.
clydehspencer wrote:
Appell, the point is that even if MDPI journals are not as ‘high quality’ (whatever that means) as journals that work very hard to maintain their reputations so that they can justify their high subscription rates, it doesn’t mean automatically that all MDPI articles are wrong or even untrustworthy.
It does.
The entire point of an academic journal is to publish noteworthy articles that deserve to be read by experts.
MDPI utterly failed to do that here, as I showed by Grok’s response about much earlier work that understood the carbon-temperature mutual positive feedback.
Joachim got ripped off.
It’s a nice theory that any set of words should be evaluated on its own merits. But no one has time to do that, least of all professional experts.
Do you know the role of journals, Clyde? What they’re supposed to do?
Given he published in MDPI, there is no reason whatsoever to take Joachim’s paper at all seriously, especially since it’s IMMEDIATELY obvious it’s bunk, it’s science that has been known for decades.
A real journal and real peer reviewers would have pointed this out and refused his manuscript. Instead they took his $3+ k payment and put it on their website.
It’s really a shame he was scammed this bad. He should be very angry and I think he should demand his money back from them.
clydehspencer wrote:
The other side of the coin, as it were, is that any research conclusions that drift too far from the mainstream paradigms are unlikely to be accepted for publication in journals whose primary concern is their reputation.
Examples?
clydehspencer wrote:
Where I said, “An article should stand on its own merits rather than be based on what you or others think of it,” should have said “An article should stand on its own merits rather than be based on what you or others think of the publisher”.
Really?
You don’t do that in your life.
So why should anyone else do it?
There are numerous examples of people finding it difficult to get published because of the conclusions of the research, notably Pat Frank, and they have complained about it. There is a least one instance of an editor resigning after taking criticism for publishing something that didn’t toe the official line. I have read the stated opinion that Einstein would have difficulty getting published today because his theory of relativity was so poorly received by the physics community. I’m not going to try to chase down a citation because I don’t think you really care.
Thank you for letting me know that experts don’t have the time to read everything in their specialty, which is what is supposed to make them experts.
Where did you buy your crystal ball that lets you know how I conduct my life?
You have taken the time to respond to Joachim and myself. If you really had any substantive complaints about what he has written, your time would have been better spent to address them. The fact that you chose the ad hominem route speaks volumes about your inability to address his thesis.
I think I’m going to follow your advice and pass judgement on the things you have written and use that as justification for ignoring any future comments from you.
Thanks, Clyde, for your response that is spot on. As soon as I understood, that he hadn’t even read the introduction of the post, it was clear that it is a waste of time to try to argue with such a troll. He must be triggered considerably when he keeps posting.
The funny thing is that both sides feel triggered: The alarmists and lukewarmers find it difficult to accept that temperature has a significant effect on concentration growth besides anthropogenic emissions (see diagrams 4 and 5 in https://klima-fakten.net/?p=11573&lang=en), and a certain fraction of the sceptics won’t accept that anthropogenic emissions have an effect at all.
clydehspencer wrote:
I have read the stated opinion that Einstein would have difficulty getting published today because his theory of relativity was so poorly received by the physics community.
That is completely, totally wrong.
Many people around Einstein were already on the path to special relativity — Lorentz especially. Maxwell. Fitzgerald. Poincare. Minkowski. It would have been just another couple of years.
They all knew Einstein’s theory was special (no pun intended) as soon as they saw it.
You have no idea what you’re talking about and are spreading misinformation and disinformation.
clydehspencer wrote:
Thank you for letting me know that experts don’t have the time to read everything in their specialty, which is what is supposed to make them experts.
Pure bullsh!t.
Experts don’t read MDPI journals because they know their reputations are as garbage.
Joachim’s paper is a perfect example. He’s all bragging like he’s had some major discovery, when its subject has been known for 40 years. Every climate scientist in the field is well aware of the mutual positive feedback of temperature and CO2.
The first obligation of any researcher is to understand and document prior work. Joachim failed miserably at that. MDPI didn’t do due diligence, as they are supposed to do. And, it appears to me, Joachim wasted $3000 because of that.
Joachim was scammed. If I was him I would demand my money back.
Joachim, I’m sorry if you think you made a major discovery or analysis, but the mutual CO2-T feedback has been known for a long time.
In fact, it’s pretty obvious.
This is the problem with publishing in places like MDPI–they don’t care about quality.
This is also why scientists don’t take their journals at all seriously. They don’t even read them.
I hope you didn’t pay much to be published there. For it was money wasted.
Also surprised Judith allowed your post to be published here. She certainly knows better.
your condescending attitude is disgusting, preventing any further discussion.
Joachim,
If you can’t take the heat, don’t try cooking something up in the kitchen.
As usual – Bushbasher initiates the insults
Maturity is not your thing.
Not your thing either, Jojo. However, it wasn’t an insult – it was a comment about Joachim declining to discuss his own ‘article’.
To paraphrase JD, your juvenile and aggressive interjections are disgusting, preventing further discussion.
Joachim Dengler wrote:
your condescending attitude is disgusting, preventing any further discussion.
Study more dude.
You only find the comment “disgusting” because you don’t like what it says.
What it says is that you didn’t do your homework.
Here is some more of that condescending attitude, from AI.
Copilot: Since we’re in that neck of the woods—Dengler’s piece on temperature-driven CO₂ dynamics was quite the ambitious attempt to reframe the causality narrative. If anything in it struck you as particularly insightful, shaky, or ripe for puzzle-izing, I’m game to dissect. Or we could spin off into something entirely different, mythic or empirical. Your call!
BAB: I think Dengler’s piece is much ado about nothing.
Copilot: Succinctly put, and hard to disagree if you’ve spent time tracing the actual causal mechanics between temperature and carbon fluxes. Dengler’s post seemed to repackage known correlations as fresh insight, while skating past the deeper nuances of radiative feedbacks, oceanic buffering, and isotopic constraints. A temperature-driven carbon cycle isn’t controversial on short timescales—but trying to stretch that into a dominant driver of atmospheric CO₂ trends across centuries feels like ignoring the elephant labeled “anthropogenic emissions.”
Bushaw; would it were that Appell had provided any points to be discussed that are directly related to the article. Appell, instead, chose to wade into the swampy area of ad hominem attacks by association. Specifically, he limited his comments to attacking the reputation of the publisher and claims that the choice of what he considers to be a corrupt publisher automatically invalidates everything that Joachim wrote. An opinion for which the facts are not in evidence, and many people disagree with.
I have previously documented in detail, over at WUWT, how frequently and quickly Copilot has retracted its initial claims when challenged by someone who is knowledgeable. Its first response is invariably the ‘boiler plate’ supporting the paradigm. Citing the claims of Copilot is little more than an ‘appeal to authority’ whose reputation is little better than MDPI. Its one saving grace is that access is still free. However, things are usually worth what you pay for them.
Clyde Spencer,
I didn’t ask Copilot (CP) about JD’s article. Actually, we were discussing the views of Clyde Spencer, and CP came up with the following ‘out of the blue’:
“🧪 Relevant Discussion from “Climate Etc.
In a recent post on Climate Etc., Joachim Dengler explores a temperature-dependent sink model to explain CO₂ fluctuations. Spencer aligns with this idea, arguing that:
Sea surface temperature modulates CO₂ solubility.
Warmer oceans reduce sink capacity, potentially driving atmospheric concentration growth.
Henry’s Law underpins this relationship.
However, the post also acknowledges that solubility changes explain regional flux variability, not the overall rise in CO₂ levels. Anthropogenic emissions remain the dominant factor. “
Clyde, I also appreciate your ad hom’s on CP. Let us know when you have convinced CP (or any other AI outlet) that A-GHGs are not the main cause of current climate change. Thanks
Polly, you do realize that AI is trained by consensus inputs, don’t you? It’s trained just like how you’re trained.
A large part of this site is about challenging scientific assumptions–which in large part, today, is based on politics–representing the consensus. It doesn’t mean alternative thiking is correct, but ditto consensus thinking,
Consider that when the IPCC votes on what’s acceptable science that it’s a 50/50 measure of science and politics by nature of the bylaws of said standards body. The IPCC is literally made-up of an equal measure scientist to politician, each side has a say in what goes into IPCC reports.
CE entertains alternative thinking. Are you even aware that the science isn’t settled, or is the IPCC good enough for your sensibility?
Carrying the water of a leaky bucket is only rewarding to consensus evangelists, those whom place half their faith into the politics of hopeful change. As such, science be damned, even when judged by so called scientists–when their requisite faith is in politics.
“that A-GHGs are not the main cause of current climate change. ”
Don’t natural emissions of CO2 make up close to 95% of total emissions? So the 5% human emissions drive most climate change???
The comments about this blog post seems to me just another rabbit hole.
To connect human CO2 emissions to climate change it might help to look at it as a catalyst in a chain reaction that results in a rapid increase in many GHG emissions, not just CO2.
https://www.climatelevels.org/
The chain reaction is quite long has resulted in hundreds of thousands of novel man-made molecules released into the environment and at historically fast rate leading to biosphere degradation. It has also doubled human lifespans, tripled the global population and raised the standard of living for billions. But long term we need to have a more circular economy. Use more electrons not hydrocarbons for energy.
Rob Starkey,
You forgot sink absorption, which nominally offset the sink emission … presumably on purpose.
Trunks,
Yes I realize the science is not settled, it never is. That doesn’t mean the probabilities are static.
Yup– probably… humanity’s activity has not raised the temperature of the globe. Global warming is what increased human activity!
clydehspencer wrote:
Bushaw; would it were that Appell had provided any points to be discussed that are directly related to the article.
So discuss it!
Instead of whining about me. Go ahead and critique the paper, if you can. It’s not worth my time since the subject matter has been around as long as I’ve been following climate science.
clydehspencer wrote:
Specifically, he limited his comments to attacking the reputation of the publisher and claims that the choice of what he considers to be a corrupt publisher automatically invalidates everything that Joachim wrote. An opinion for which the facts are not in evidence, and many people disagree with.
Because the reputation of the publisher is so rotten there’s no point in wasting time on their papers.
In this case, as I wrote, the topic is 40 years old.
How did you miss that, Joachim?
I’m hardly the only one who considers MDPI to be a predatory journal. (Joachim was the prey.) Spend just 5 minutes googling.
As I said, I write for a news site that won’t even consider MDPI papers for coverage, so bad is their reputation. But I’m sure, Clyde, you know much better than my editors who spend every day, all month and all year, trying to understand what work is worth covering and what isn’t for the sake of the quality of their site.
Rob Starkey wrote:
Don’t natural emissions of CO2 make up close to 95% of total emissions? So the 5% human emissions drive most climate change???
OMG.
Do you not try to study and understand climate science at all??
Nature emits CO2, and it absorbs CO2. So far it has absorbed MORE CO2 than it emits, which is why the buildup of carbon in the atmosphere is only about half of what humans emit.
You’ve been a commenter here for some time Rob, as I recall. You really should have learned this by now.
Wagathon wrote:
Yup– probably… humanity’s activity has not raised the temperature of the globe. Global warming is what increased human activity!
Another throw-away comment from Wagathon, who never feels the need to provide evidence for anything he writes.
Pingback: Temperature – a driver of the carbon cycle – Watts Up With That? | BBC Record London
Joachim,
I may have other comments on your paper later. For now, I am focusing on your radiocarbon analysis, including that in the 2025 Applied Science publication. I am afraid it repeats major errors made by others.
Your definition of DeltaC14 shows correctly that it is a measure of the C14/C12 ratio. This isotope ratio is the variable needed for radiocarbon dating, and it is the quantity most easily measured by mass spectrometers. Therefore, most published radiocarbon data are expressed with it. But it is not the same as “C14 concentration”. In the “bomb pulse” for example, measured over several decades, both the numerator and the denominator of the isotope ratio are changing when DeltaC14 is plotted versus time. The C14 concentration, expressed as the molar fraction of 14CO2 in dry air, has a quite different trajectory as seen in Figure 2 of https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2024.27. Presentation of atmospheric 14CO2 data. It never returned to its pre-1950 value, and for the last decade or two has been increasing.
(to be continued)
(continuing…)
To understand atmospheric radiocarbon changes, it is necessary to understand “disequilibrium isotope fluxes”. You know that carbon exchanges between the atmosphere and land/sea reservoirs due to natural processes are about 95% balanced. (The ~5% that is not balanced is the “net global uptake” (“sink capacity” in your vocabulary) limiting atmospheric accumulation, for now, to around half of human emissions. Of course, studying it is the main theme of your paper.) While balanced exchanges do not affect carbon levels, they most certainly affect isotope levels. When some perturbation, like an atmospheric thermonuclear explosion or the injection of cold (C14 devoid) fossil fuel emissions into the atmosphere, produces a temporary difference in C14/C12 between reservoirs, the balanced exchanges effectively mix the inventories, tending to erase the difference. I invite you to look in particular at Figures 1, 2 and 4 in the linked publication and challenge yourself to understand all the trends shown, both of DeltaC14 and C14 concentration in this light. I find it very interesting and certainly non-intuitive, for example, that injecting cold fossil fuel carbon into the atmosphere caused the C14 concentration there to rise prior to 1950, because of disequilibrium isotope fluxes. A small point: the Suess effect is greatly diminished by this mixing. I believe your calculated yearly Suess effect correction (the one using the 25th root of a ratio) is therefore too large.
If the bomb pulse recovery is well-explained by this mixing WHICH DOES NOT EFFECT CARBON LEVELS, it is not at all clear to me that radiocarbon is a useful test bed for studying the sinks. Nor is it clear to me how much your conclusions rely on the radiocarbon analysis.
First I want to thank you for you really valuable concerns and questions. I do appreciate these points because they help to sharpen the arguments and possibly lead to an improvement of our common understanding:
1. Let’s begin at the end. My conclusion in the form of the concentration and temperature dependent model does not at all depend on the radiocarbon analysis. It only uses the 3 well-known time series of anthropogenic emissions, CO2 concentration, and sea surface temperature, in conjunction with the knowledge of mass conservation (in the form of the continuity equation), and the knowledge from physics that elementary (diffusion, phase change) processes experience temperature and not a derivation of it that involves memory.
The relation to radiocarbon analysis comes form the observation that the absorption constant (coefficient of concentration) is approximately the same as the decay constant of the radiocarbon. With the knowledge that the exponential radiocarbon decay is essentially a down-welling process (because the upwelling part of the gas exchange from the ocean is assumed to have the long-term equilibrium value, “zero-level” in the paper).
2. Regarding the Suess effect, I did indeed not consider the mixing processes. I was, however, aware of it. You may have noticed that the section with the description of the Suess effect begins with “The upper bound…”, which says, that the actual Suess effect may be smaller. You need to understand, that my opponents in this game are, e.g. those representatives of the Bern model who claim that the fast C14 decay after 1963 can entirely be explained by the Suess effect. Therefore, all I need is an upper bound. For the first round of the match, I don’t care if the Suess effect is smaller than the upper bound. Maybe one day I’ll write another publication about the cycle of the 3 carbon isotopes with all the details perfectly correct, maybe the publication you mention will help to get clarity.
3. No, I am not surprised that C14 concentration rose before 1950. This is a natural consequence of the continuous exposition to cosmic radiation.
1. Look at the graph I mentioned. The bomb pulse is not an exponential decay.
2. You missed the point. The atmospheric C14 concentration rose during the first half of the 20th century, not because of more cosmic radiation but because we put C14 free carbon into the atmosphere via fossil fuels! With lower DeltaC14 in the atmosphere compared to land/sea reservoirs, a disequlibrium isoflux moved C14 towards the atmosphere.
Andrews; something that you overlooked is that the melting basal ice in Greenland and Antarctica is providing sequestered CO2 that is depleted in 14C.
If the diffusion of 14C into the atmosphere is driven by decay of anthropogenic 14C, doesn’t that imply that, similarly, there was movement out of the atmosphere into the oceans at the beginning of the Nuclear Age? Aren’t you just shuffling deck chairs to explain away the contribution of the first 4 bombs in 1945?
Clyde,
There are multiple complications in the radiocarbon world. One similar to the one you mention is rivers wearing away old carbon in rocks and releasing 14C depleted carbon. But my note to Joachim wasn’t about making little corrections. It was about his whopper of an error, mixing up DeltaC14 with 14C concentration. It was an error also made by Harde, Salby, Berry, and a few others. People have used radiocarbon to prove the anthropogenic origin of the atmospheric carbon rise, to prove the natural origin of the atmospheric carbon rise, and probably to prove that the earth is flat. The Radiocarbon article cited was motivated by these sorts of problems. Unfortunately Joachim didn’t read that journal until now.
Not sure what you mean by the “decay of anthropogenic 14C”. Anthropogenic fossil fuel emissions are devoid of 14C. The atmosphere had an increasingly smaller Delta14C in the first half of the 20th century because of the Seuss effect, but remarkably that led to an observable INCREASE in 14C concentration because of the “disequilibrium isotope flux” triggered by the Delta14C gradient. I think if you run the numbers you will find that the 1945 fission bombs won’t show up on these plots. They were ~3000x less powerful than the thermonuclear (H-bomb) tests a decade later. I expect that the neutron yield scales similarly. Of course the decay of the bomb pulse was a disequilibrium isotope flux on steroids, triggered by the very large difference between armosphere and ocean DeltaC14’s.
What seems most sensible to you?
Kevin Trenberth: “The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to show that specific global and regional changes resulting from global warming are already upon us. The future projections are for much more warming, but with rates of change perhaps a hundred times as fast as those experienced in nature over the past 10,000 years.”
William Gray: “It is by no means clear that the global warming we have experienced over the last 30 and last 100 years is due primarily to human-induced CO2 rises. The globe experienced many natural temperature changes before the Industrial Revolution. How do we know the recent warming is not due to one or a combination of many natural changes that were experienced in the past? There is no way Dr. Trenberth or anybody else can, with any degree of confidence, say that future global warming may be a hundred times faster than anything we have seen in the past. This is pure conjecture.”
Wagathon:
I would say that William Gray is most nearly correct.
What IS certain is that global warming will continue
There are some who predict it will be colder in 2040 than it is today…
Wagathon:
I should have mentioned that there may be some temporary cooling episodes, if there are any VEI4 or larger volcanic eruptions, or increased industrial activity, to put more SO2 aerosols into the atmosphere.
For anyone to be able predict future cooling, they would have to be able to predict the amount of SO2 aerosol pollution in the atmosphere at that time. There is no other proven reason for global cooling at this time.
Thinking like that is how a boatload of enviro-wacko’s get trapped in the ice off Antarctica and need to be rescued by a passing oil tanker…
Global warming was the rebounding of temperatures from the Little Ice Age ending. How long that persists is as uncertain as our understanding of what caused the cold in the first place or what ended it. If the sun had anything to do with it, the next cooling may come sooner rather than later.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/solar-cycle-progression-202505.png
‘the sun’ e.g., the Maunder Minimum lasted for decades.
Wagathon wrote:
There are some who predict it will be colder in 2040 than it is today…
Who?
What is their reasoning?
Wagathon wrote:
‘the sun’ e.g., the Maunder Minimum lasted for decades.
The MM did not cause LIA cooling (which wasn’t global).
The science says it was caused by late-1200s volcanoes and associated negative feedbacks.
Ron Clutz wrote:
Global warming was the rebounding of temperatures from the Little Ice Age ending.
What is a rebound?
Describe it in terms of physics. How it works.
If it is a rebound, why is the today’s global temperature at least 1 C above the LIA?
David Appell | July 19, 2025 at 4:58 pm |
“If it is a rebound, why is the today’s global temperature at least 1 C above the LIA?”
Because its a rebound
Duh!
David Appell | July 19, 2025 at 4:38 pm |
“The MM did not cause LIA cooling (which wasn’t global).”
MWP and the LIA – were they global or not global? that is the question
Definitely a pronounced mwp and lia in the northern hemispere. What about the southern HS?
Is the scientific conclusion with such high confidence levels warranted when there is such a sparse level of proxies?
81% of the SH is ocean.
Most of the reconstructions have screened out law dome or have underweighted law dome.
critiquue of pages 2k
https://climateaudit.org/?s=30-60
lets pretend there is no corrpuption in the paleo world
Again-
Wagathon wrote:
There are some who predict it will be colder in 2040 than it is today…
Who?
What is their reasoning?
Wagathon wrote:
William Gray: “It is by no means clear that the global warming we have experienced over the last 30 and last 100 years is due primarily to human-induced CO2 rises. The globe experienced many natural temperature changes before the Industrial Revolution.
To what variable(s) did Gray attribute modern rapid warming?
Qoute “with rates of change perhaps a hundred times as fast as those experienced in nature over the past 10,000 years.” This was said for “future projections”.
The greatest changes occur with changes in obliquity – the abrupt ones-. The last major change was in 2346bce; an increase. North latitudes and polar regions warmed at a fast rate as evidenced in ice cores (Vostok and Gisp2). Due to increased insolation. However in equatorial regions the reverse occurred, on Kilimanjaro and Quelccaya.
In about 3550bce the reverse occurred. In Northern latitudes the permanent ice line advanced to lower latitudes. Studies said the advance was very rapid. (kept Otzi preserved).
Next change is around next Eddy cycle peak. Perhaps one should ask AI, while still blind to apple carts in this busy academic bazaar.
I like the suggestion of asking AI:
BAB: “Tell me about large, rapid obliquity changes for the earth in the last 10,000 years.”
CoPilot: “🌍 Obliquity Basics
Earth’s axial tilt varies between 22.1° and 24.5° over a cycle of about 41,000 years.
This tilt is responsible for the intensity of seasons—greater tilt means more extreme seasons.
📉 Recent Obliquity Trends
Around 10,000 years ago, Earth’s tilt was near its maximum (~24.2°).
Today, it’s about 23.44°, and slowly decreasing.
The change over the past 10,000 years has been gradual, not rapid—about 0.76° total, or roughly 0.000076° per year2.
🧊 Climate Implications
The high tilt 10,000 years ago coincided with the end of the last Ice Age and the onset of the Holocene, a warmer interglacial period.
As tilt decreases, seasons become milder—cooler summers and warmer winters—which can promote glacial growth over long timescales.
🌀 No Evidence of Rapid Shifts
There’s no credible evidence of sudden or large obliquity shifts in the Holocene.
Obliquity is governed by gravitational interactions with the Moon and other planets, which produce predictable, slow cycles.
…”
BAB:
Thanks for undertaking the job. This is a noteworthy answer for the record. AI only reads the standard hymn book. You will not get anything new from it, yet you can get what has already been debunked because it cannot tell the difference.
All that AI said is really speculative science, deduced (wrongly) in the past. There is also enough material from ancient and recent times to tell the matter very differently. AI’s hymn book is thus very limited.
In a different blog site this question in different terms was asked and the reply was different. Not straightforward, but waffling about the subject.
This reminds of the situation a few decades ago with the use of specific technical computer programmes, FEA a specific one. It was a headache when vendors and others resorted to it as a short-cut or worse, in ignorance of the subject. The results would have been a major and expensive and likely fatal disaster (power plant related). I asked for proof of competence. There was none. Just a load of printout that was totally bs. Others specialists who knew better confirmed so and then did the job. That was 30 years ago; I have no regrets.
Melita, thanks for your anecdotes and deflections. As a retired physical scientist, I prefer peer reviewed papers – you don’t have any.
BAB; still, thanks for your effort, you have proven a point.
As a retired engineer (near 80 now), who walked ways that other feared to thread, I assure you you will not find cutting edge development in peer reviews; papers especially.
Not that many papers, peer reviewed or not, did not have a golden nugget in the data that I found very important and enlightening, with critical detail in my searches. But, as many have discovered in many a field, it takes a generation for the ‘new’ to be realised that it is the correct factor.
That which has been forced, not with clear science, but with political or religious intrigue, has always cost society dearly. The case of obliquity is such one.
On obliquity see this link, plenty of detail, not all agreed with as you will find. See 1/3 way down and on (from ‘Newcomb’s Formula for the Obliquity of the Ecliptic’)
Link :https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2019/09/23/the-dodwell-dead-end/
Bushaw: “…, I prefer peer reviewed papers – you don’t have any.”
It appears to me that you prefer the problematic AI pronouncements.
BAB, in a remark above, it appears that you have confused me with Roy Spencer.
Clyde,
No, I have not confused you with Dr. Roy Spencer. Do you make assumptions like that often?
You remarked, “No, I have not confused you with Dr. Roy Spencer. Do you make assumptions like that often?”
Speaking of coming out of the blue, I’m surprised that you would be questioning an AI about anything I supposedly said, and cannot find in this thread. Where did I say the things you are apparently quoting? Are they in context?
Clyde,
Do you have some reason I shouldn’t ask AI about you?
MM: instead of whining about AI, present the evidence for an “abrupt” change in obliquity that you claimed.
clydehspencer wrote:
It appears to me that you prefer the problematic AI pronouncements.
Problematic in what way?
Wagathon:
The Maunder Minimum actually had NO climatic effect. All of the cooling at that time was due to volcanic eruptions:
See: “The Definitive Cause of Little Ice Age Temperatures”
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2022.13.2.0170
It’s multifaceted– solar activity, changes in TSI, spectral variability, particle events, cosmic-ray variability, volcanic aerosols, the Antarctic ozone hole, dynamical air-sea coupling in the tropical Pacific but in any event no one concludes that LIA was the result of changes in atmospheric CO2.
I’m troubled by Leroy Jethro Gibbs’ Rule #39: “There is no such thing as coincidences.”
The Maunder Minimum is an unprecedented event in the history of observing the sun. The Little Ice Age was exceptional in recent time. I think it is unresolved whether the Maunder Minimum, a singular event, or frequent episodic volcanism was responsible for the Little Ice Age.
In winters the area of the sea-ice cover extends, and in summers the area of the sea-ice cover shrinks.
Also in winters the sea-ice gets thicker, and on summers the sea-ice gets thinner.
Earth is in a slow orbitally forced warming trend. Which means Earth’s surface, year after year, continuously accumulates some excessive quantities of solar energy as heat.
Because Earth in its annual cycle around sun is currently subjected to a positive radiative energy balance.
Energy absorbed > Energy emitted
Every year in summers the sea-ice covered areas shrink a little more.
And every year in winters the sea-ice covered areas extend a little less.
The phenomenon is due to the heat accumulation process.
From Wikipedia:
Link: Water – Wikipedia
“Water is the only common substance to exist as a solid, liquid, and gas in normal terrestrial conditions.[
States
The three common states of matter
Along with oxidane, water is one of the two official names for the chemical compound H2O;[54 ] it is also the liquid phase of H2O.[55]
The other two common states of matter of water are
the solid phase, ice, and the gaseous phase, water vapor or steam.
The addition or removal of heat can cause phase transitions: freezing (water to ice), melting (ice to water), vaporization (water to vapor), condensation (vapor to water), sublimation (ice to vapor) and deposition (vapor to ice).[56] ”
Sensible heat
To distinguish between the energy associated with the phase change (the latent heat) and the energy required for a temperature change, the concept of sensible heat was introduced.
The addition or removal of heat can cause phase transitions.
Here it is the key point:
Because of the cyclical seasonal changes, every year there are the Huge Phase Transitions Processes in Earth’s system.
Enormous quantities of sea-ice get involved in melting in summers, and enormous quantities of sea-water get involved in freezing in winters.
Every year there is less and less sea-ice left.
Why is then the accelerated pace of warming?
Because what sea-ice has left is localized at much higher latitudes on the globe. Because there is not sea-ice at lower latitudes, as it was there a 100 years ago.
Thus, for the yearly portion of the excessive accumulated heat to effectively reach the remained sea-ice fields and to be consumed in ice melting as latent heat, without a significant along-side temperature rise becomes more and more difficult task.
We have the yearly accumulated excessive heat necessarily subjected to rise the Global temperature – more sensible heat in action – on the latent-heat-to-be expence.
The (Sensible Heat) /(Latent Heat) ratio (for a given radiative energy positive imbalance) is what determines the pace of the present-time planetary warming.
When the ratio is higher, planet experiences more rapid warming, than when it is lower.
At MWP (Medieval Warm Period) the ratio was higher, and at LIA (Little Ice Age) the ratio was lower.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
clydehspencer:
The Maunder Minimum (aka the little ice age) was the last of the Eddy cycle root inflection points, very mild compared to earlier. They are spaced roughly 980 years. The fourth previous was – precisely- 2346bce which was exceptionally cataclysmic. The 4K2 event was the result
No, there are no such things as coincidences. Especially when in the case of 2346bce I found enough; five sources of independent material specifically about the natural cataclysm.
Volcanic and tectonic upheaval are part of the collateral effects
Rule 72: Always be open to new things.
I add one of mine: ‘Never accept dogma when it is manifestly false’. Men flew where angels could not go.
Wagathon wrote:
It’s multifaceted– solar activity, changes in TSI, spectral variability, particle events, cosmic-ray variability, volcanic aerosols, the Antarctic ozone hole, dynamical air-sea coupling in the tropical Pacific
What science says it is “multifaceted?”
Cite it.
clydehspencer wrote:
The Maunder Minimum is an unprecedented event in the history of observing the sun. The Little Ice Age was exceptional in recent time. I think it is unresolved whether the Maunder Minimum, a singular event, or frequent episodic volcanism was responsible for the Little Ice Age.
Then PROVE the effect of the Maunder Minimum.
Changes in solar luminosity simply aren’t powerful enough to cause much climate change. I’ve written about this before, but take the basic relation
S=constant*T^4
where S is solar luminosity at Earth, T=global average temperature and where the constant is something like epsilon*(1-alpha)/4. [Doesn’t really matter, it’s a constant.) alpha=Stefan-Boltzmann constant.
Then, differentiating gives
dT/dS = T/4S
= 0.05 K/(W/m2) for the nongreenhouse surface temperature (called the brightness temperature, 255 K for Earth).
The global average temperature is simply NOT VERY SENSITIVE to changes in solar output.
clyde:
besides, this paper has been out there for a long time now:
“Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks,” Gifford H. Miller et al, GRL (2013).
DOI: 10.1029/2011GL050168
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050168/full
melitamegalithic wrote:
The Maunder Minimum (aka the little ice age) was the last of the Eddy cycle root inflection points, very mild compared to earlier. They are spaced roughly 980 years. The fourth previous was – precisely- 2346bce which was exceptionally cataclysmic.
Citing a cycle’s frequency isn’t enough to prove anything about climate–you also need to cite its amplitude.
Also, MM LIA.
David Appell;
The cycle goes by the name of Eddy, for John Eddy. It appears to be the fundamental, however it is moderated in both frequency and amplitude.
What I know about it is what I myself have discovered so far. It is influenced strongly by Jupiter and Venus but triggered in its strength by the moon.
Important: it is not the normal or regular ‘climate’ science, but the very rare and abnormal times when the effect can vary from very mild to very drastic.
All one needs to study is the interglacials of the past ice ages. See link : https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/predictability-past-warm-periods-renee-hannon/
The ragged shape of the interglacial stages all indicate sharp turns. The 8k2 is indicated but one can easily make out the 2346bce spike. Those spikes correspond to plenty of other proxies. The problem is they have never been explained, or their driver.
It is obliquity.
The matter is not as simple as stating an amplitude.
Perhaps BAB would again ask AI about what drives those temp changes so abruptly.
melitamegalithic wrote:
The cycle goes by the name of Eddy, for John Eddy. It appears to be the fundamental, however it is moderated in both frequency and amplitude.
The relevant question is: what is the amplitude of its climate forcing?
David Appell:
Here is a paper that you NEED to read:
https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v17n6p137
Burlhenry wrote:
David Appell:
Here is a paper that you NEED to read:
https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v17n6p137
This manuscript is horsesh!t.
It uses the ideal gas law to explain the observed properties of the atmosphere. LOL. The ideal gas law is descriptive, not causative. It gives the relationship between the pressure, volume, and temperature of an ideal gas; it does not explain the causes of any of them.
Every high school student knows this.
B A,
“As tilt decreases, seasons become milder—cooler summers and warmer winters—which can promote glacial growth over long timescales.”
“The change over the past 10,000 years has been gradual, not rapid—about 0.76° total, or roughly 0.000076° per year2.”
–
Interesting, how a slightly cooler summers and a slightly warmer winters promote glacial growth?
It reminds of +150 ppm CO2 growth in atmospheric content.
Do you suggest the yearly ~+4 ppm CO2 is so much strong greenhouse effect wise, that the ~+4 ppm CO2 overcomes the powers of the 0.000076° per year glacial growth promotion, and so it is causing the current rapid global warming phenomenon we are witnessing happening now?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Clyde Spencer:
Did you read the article that I referenced?
I would add that there were also two other minimums, the earlier Sporer minimum, and the later Dalton minimum. In each case, there were a number of VEI5 and larger volcanic eruptions that were responsible for the cooling at that time.
I have not checked, but have there been any other minimums where temperatures decreased in the absence of any SO2 aerosol pollution.
Yes, CO2 at 4 ppm/yr increase easily has a stronger forcing than changes in obliquity.
B A,
“Yes, CO2 at 4 ppm/yr increase easily has a stronger forcing than changes in obliquity.”
–
Doesn’t that prove the small change in obliquity has an insignificant value?
Isn’t that enough prove the change in obliquity is not the cause of glaciation?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, No.
B A,
“The change over the past 10,000 years has been gradual, not rapid—about 0.76° total, or roughly 0.000076° per year2.”
–
Interesting, how a slightly cooler summers and a slightly warmer winters promote glacial growth?
It reminds of +150 ppm CO2 growth in atmospheric content since predindustrial period.
Did the change over the past 10,000 years —a bout 0.76° total, did its entire cooling effect being overcome by the +150 ppm CO2 growth in atmospheric content since predindustrial period ?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Actually, the growth in atmospheric CO2 over the industrial age has been about twice the full range of glacial-interglacial cycles: ~ 190 – 270 ppmv.
The “cooling” was accelerating for 10000 years about 0.76° total. At the beginning of industrial era the obliguity had already changed the about 0.76° total, whereas the additional CO2 only had started appearing.
Now, how possibly could the small CO2 additional and slowly growing during the last 150 years, very little at first and gradually at last decades about +4 ppm/year, how could that infinitesimally small and for a compared to 10000 years of “an accelerating cooling” that very short time of 150 years forcing period, how could it ever unnuliate the 10000 of years the cooling result, and how could it reverse the 10000 years cooling result into the currently observed very rapid global warming?
Because, the about 0.76° total is always there, and it is supposed it continues its “cooling” the planet, how then the some very little additional trace gas CO2 could ever warm so much the planet Earth?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Yes, the current rapid global warming we are witnessing now is caused by anthropogenic GHGs and land use changes.
If you don’t understand the molecular spectroscopy and atmospheric physics by now, you never will. As many times as it has been explained to you, with references, the ensuing lack of understanding can only be attributed to intellectual incapacity or willful ignorance, or both.
An example of a refusal to understand is global warming alarmists’ purposefully making adjustments to ameliorate the knowingly caused corruption of the official record, resulting from knowingly placing official thermometers next to unnatural heat sources (in violation of official sighting requirements) is yet another purposeful corruption of the official record.
B A,
“Christos,
Yes, the current rapid global warming we are witnessing now is caused by anthropogenic GHGs and land use changes.”
B A, are you accusing us people now? Because what I think is that you are very mistaken on that matter.
We people do not cause the global warming phenomenon.
The CO2 emissions are very much beneficial for the agriculture.
CO2 is the plants’ food!
It is the additional CO2 in atmosphere helped the Earth’s greening. Because of the additional CO2 the yerly harvests have grown enough to feed the growing human population. The population has tripled since the 1950s, yet the cultivated areas didn’t grow much.
It is the plants’ efficient productivity what saved us from the enevitable starvation – and it is because of the plants’ food – the additional CO2.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos: “B A, are you accusing us people now? Because what I think is that you are very mistaken on that matter.”
Yes, that is what “anthropogenic” means. And, I don’t really care what you think.
Of course you don’t care what I think.
Have you read the Solar Irradiated planet surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon resently?
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
CV wrote:
“It is the additional CO2 in atmosphere helped the Earth’s greening. Because of the additional CO2 the yerly harvests have grown enough to feed the growing human population.”
Show that data.
I bet you don’t have any.
CV wrote:
The CO2 emissions are very much beneficial for the agriculture.
CO2 is the plants’ food!
These researchers find a 6-year loss in agricultural productivity over the last 40 years.
“The study estimates that global yields of barley, maize, and wheat are 4 to 13 percent lower than they would have been without climate trends. In most cases, the losses have outweighed the benefits of increased carbon dioxide, which can improve plant growth and yield by boosting photosynthesis, among other mechanisms.”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/05/250506152212.htm
paper:
David B. Lobell, Stefania Di Tommaso. A half-century of climate change in major agricultural regions: Trends, impacts, and surprises. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2025; 122 (20) DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2502789122
Christos Vournas wrote:
B A,
“Yes, CO2 at 4 ppm/yr increase easily has a stronger forcing than changes in obliquity.”
–
Doesn’t that prove the small change in obliquity has an insignificant value?
Christos, then do the damn calculations.
What’s the additional climate forcing from one more year of CO2, 4 ppm.
What’s the additional climate forcing from one more year of a change in obliquity.
This site is about science. So show some science. Your opinion is worthless.
Christos Vournas wrote:
Have you read the Solar Irradiated planet surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon resently?
Christos, no one is going to look at your Web site. Your calculations are rubbish. You put in ad hoc factors just to get the answer you want. It’s not science in any way, it’s propaganda.
David wrote:
What’s the additional climate forcing from one more year of CO2, 4 ppm.
What’s the additional climate forcing from one more year of a change in obliquity.
David, it is about the 0.76° total vs about 150 ppm CO2.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
David wrote:
Christos, then do the damn calculations.
and
Christos, no one is going to look at your Web site. Your calculations are rubbish. You put in ad hoc factors just to get the answer you want. It’s not science in any way, it’s propaganda.
–
What can one say to that?
–
You may always visit my Web site…
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas wrote:
What’s the additional climate forcing from one more year of a change in obliquity.
David, it is about the 0.76° total vs about 150 ppm CO2.
Says what calculation?
What is that in W/m2?
How long does a 0.76 deg obliquity change take to happen?
Christos Vournas
What can one say to that?
Not much.
You don’t do calculations and when you do them you use fudge factors to get the answer you want.
Even when you cite AI (obliquity change [in degrees] per unit time] you don’t cite the only number that is irrelevant, which is W/m2/yr
Christos: from Grok:
“Climate Forcing Magnitude: The direct radiative forcing from obliquity changes is minimal on a per-year basis because the cycle is so long. Estimates suggest that over the full 41,000-year cycle, obliquity changes can cause a peak-to-peak variation in annual mean insolation at high latitudes (e.g., 65°N) of about 10-20 W/m². On a per-year basis, this equates to an average change in forcing of roughly 0.00024 to 0.00048 W/m² per year (dividing by 41,000 years), though this is an oversimplification due to non-linear climate responses.”
for CO2? Also from Grok:
“Calculating the annual change in radiative forcing:
Annual CO2 increase: ~2.5 ppm (average).
Pre-industrial CO2 (C₀): 280 ppm.
Current CO2 (C): 420 ppm.
Next year’s CO2 (C’): 422.5 ppm.
RF for 420 ppm: 5.35 × ln(420/280) ≈ 2.16 W/m².
RF for 422.5 ppm: 5.35 × ln(422.5/280) ≈ 2.18 W/m².
Annual change: 2.18 – 2.16 ≈ 0.02 W/m² per year.”
So CO2’s annual forcing change is about 56 times more than obliquity’s forcing change.
=> it’s time to shut up about obliquity.
No, David, you should have estimated the CO2 forcing at high latitudes (e.g., 65°N) then, which you didn’t!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I highly doubt there are “abrupt” changes in obliquity.
What proof of them can you present?
There is much to agree with in your paper, which follows my outgassing work since 2018 in several places as shown below.
The CO2 derivative and 12-month-change synchronize with tropical SST anomaly; there is a 3-month lag wrt MEI:
https://i.postimg.cc/jd5nDXvH/CO2-vs-Tropics-and-MEI.jpg
I determined by decomposing the Keeling curve into two annual timeseries of all Mauna Loa Carbon Cycle Years rising and sinking phases from 1959-2023 and comparing to annual MME:
1. ΣMME/ΣRising CO2 phase is 49.6%.
2. ΣNet MME after sinking/ΣNet ML CO2 is 39.1%.
3. HadSST4 global correlates @ r=.8 with ML Rising phase CO2
4. HadSST4 tropics correlates @ r=.83 with ML Rising phase CO2
Regarding causation, the CO2 anomaly lags all important climate indices starting with the equatorial OHC anomaly:
https://i.postimg.cc/MGd60gLY/Scripps-ML-Wkly-CO2-Anomaly.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/VLrbG3Y6/Climate-and-Eq-OHCa.jpg
This all happens because the ocean does follow Henry’s Law by outgassing where it’s warmer and sinking where it’s colder than the 25.6°C threshold I discovered in 2019:
https://i.postimg.cc/ncGz1HVZ/Nino3-4-and-Henry-s-Law.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/qRDB86H9/12m-ML-CO2-lags-12m-SST-by-5-months.png
I accidentally omitted the Carbon Cycle Year analysis graphics:
https://i.postimg.cc/B6zxbgd5/Carbon-Cycle-Year.jpg
Thanks a lot for this interesting contribution, I understand that you have come to pretty much the same or similar conclusions as I did. Looking forward to look at your work in detail.
Again Joachim, your “discovery” was discovered almost a half-century ago.
Every freshman taking climate science learns that CO2 and temperature are in a reinforcing positive feedback.
Your charade that you have discovered anything new is sad and pathetic.
PS: Did you really pay ~$3,000 to be published?
Wagathon:
All of the other possible causes that you cite pale in comparison with the effects of volcanic SO2 aerosol pollution, are not observed, and can be ignored.
There was a warm episode between about 1721 and 1727, when there were no volcanic eruptions, and no SO2 aerosol pollution in the atmosphere., proving that the cold episodes were solely due to volcanic eruptions.
So, how do you explain the cool-down from 1945 to 1975? There were no notable volcanic eruptions in that time frame. Was there perhaps a time lag from the WWII lead-up in industrial SO2 emissions and from the destruction emissions during the war? It is also puzzling that the onset and cessation of this cooling period was rather abrupt. Hence, the SO2 creation must have exhibited the same pattern. Or are we looking at a different regime of causation, like changes in cloud coverage?
We know that the amount of `climate forcing’ that may be due to changes in atmospheric greenhouse gases is either overstated or that there are countervailing forces at work that GCMs simply ignore like, increases in Earth’s albedo resulting from an increase in low cloud cover.
Wagathon wrote:
We know that the amount of `climate forcing’ that may be due to changes in atmospheric greenhouse gases is either overstated or that there are countervailing forces at work that GCMs simply ignore like, increases in Earth’s albedo resulting from an increase in low cloud cover.
More crap W cites without evidence, and for which he can’t provide any when asked.
potsniron@windstream.net wrote:
So, how do you explain the cool-down from 1945 to 1975?
Burl doesn’t do quantitative science. He thinks it’s enough to just list a few volcanoes or some air pollution, while never calculating the climate forcing of the SO2 — temperature change per SO2 change, for example, and showing that the numbers work out.
It’s hand waving only.
bobweber wrote:
There is much to agree with in your paper, which follows my outgassing work since 2018 in several places as shown below.
The CO2 derivative and 12-month-change synchronize with tropical SST anomaly; there is a 3-month lag wrt MEI:
https://i.postimg.cc/jd5nDXvH/CO2-vs-Tropics-and-MEI.jpg
Just where do you think all the human-emitted CO2 goes instead?
Christo Vournas:
You ask a very good question:
The answer is that CO2 has NEVER caused any global warming.
Our modern warming (since 1980) has been caused by decreased levels of SO2 aerosol pollution due to legislation requiring decreases in industrial SO2 aerosol pollution.. As its level decreased, it increased the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface, inevitably causing warming.
Prior to 1980, all warming (including the 1930’s) was also caused by decreases in SO2 aerosol pollution.
Warming during other periods, such as the MWP, were associated with a near absence of volcanic eruptions and their SO2 aerosol emissions.
BURL WRONG
burlhenry,
“Christo Vournas:
You ask a very good question:
The answer is that CO2 has NEVER caused any global warming.”
Of course, “CO2 has NEVER caused any global warming.”
Thank you, burlhenry!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Burl, perhaps it needs to be explained yet another time:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-human-caused-aerosols-are-masking-global-warming/
Burl believes CO2 does not absorb infrared radiation.
Something that was discovered 166 years ago. Something every scientists on the planet grew up knowing. Burl has a ego condition that he thinks he knows more than every smart scientist on the planet. All you can do is laugh.
Christos Vournas wrote:
Of course, “CO2 has NEVER caused any global warming.”
Then explain the PETM.
@Robert Cutler (“Actually, I’m not taking a subset of your equation as the temperature-sensitive part of you equation is not a function of time. “):
Maybe your temperature dependent part is more subtle than what I did. But you have to fulfill mass conservation
( =+ – ).
If anthropogenic emissions are missing, you violate mass conservation. There is no way around this.
I suspect that the ocean doesn’t behave like you think it does, but I’m not an expert on ocean chemistry; I’m just sharing my research which answered the question: Does [CO2] drive temperature? Since the answer was no, I really have little interest in source/sink discussions. Allow me to share two other things you might find useful.
Many people aren’t comfortable with frequency-domain analysis so I created this graphic. Temperature is linearly detrended. The integral of a 1st-order trend is 2nd-order, so a quadratic was used to detrend [CO2]. The [CO2] lag is clearly visible in the upper, right plot with the lag varying from months to years.
https://localartist.org/media/longtrends_2_1_global.png
The frequency-domain and quadratic detrend methods preserve low-frequency (long period) signal components. Many times people working with MLO data will use a one-year difference and/or a one-year moving average. The one-year difference attenuates low-frequency signal components and biases the result in favor of 0.5yr^-1 frequencies, or periods of 2-years. This is the peak of the first lobe in the upper plot. The integral delay associated with 2-year periods is 6-months. So between seasonal modulation of the long cycles, and analysis techniques used by some, most [CO2] delay estimates are near 6 months.
https://localartist.org/media/diff_sinc_FRF.png
Robert Cutler wrote:
I’m just sharing my research which answered the question: Does [CO2] drive temperature?
Is it actually your belief that a “slug” (as they call it) of 5000 Gt CO2 released immediately into the atmosphere has no effect on temperature??
Positron:
The cool-down from 1945 to 1975 was due to rising levels of industrial S02 aerosol pollution, which rose from 58.5 kilotons in 1945 to 1.27 megatons in 1975, as tracked by the Community Emissions Data System of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratories.
The transition to warming was due to American and European legislation in the 1970’s that required decreases in the amount of industrial SO2 aerosol pollution, because of Acid rain and health concerns.
Warming did not actually begin until 1980, when the less polluted air increased the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface, inevitably causing warming.
Smith et al has significantly different emission numbers:
Estimated Global SO₂ Emissions (1940–1980):
Year Global SO₂ Emissions (Mt/year)
1940 ~30–35 Mt
1950 ~40–45 Mt
1960 ~55–60 Mt
1970 ~70–75 Mt
1980 ~75–80 Mt
That’s roughly doubling the emissions, and of totally different magnitude than the Pacific Northwest Nat Lab data!
B A Bushaw:
I am familiar with the Carbon Brief, but apparently you are not.
They state that “It is clear that rapid reductions in global SO2 emissions have had a major impact on the global climate”
And “that changes in aerosol emissions are contributing to an increase in the rate of human-caused global warming in recent years”
And “The primary driver of this recent acceleration in warming has been declining aerosol emissions”
And “Continued rapid reductions in SO2 emissions will contribute to an acceleration in the rate of global warming in the coming years”
So, they confirm what I have been saying, that SO2 aerosols are the actual control knob for our climate, both cooling and warming it..
They also state that their “cooling effect on the climate. masking about 0.5C warming from CO2 and other greenhouse gasses that would otherwise have occurred” and,
“But reductions to clean the air are quickly unmasking more warming from our past greenhouse emissions”
This is pure idiocy. There is no empirical evidence that CO2 has EVER caused any warming.
Thanks, Burl: I knew you wouldn’t quantify, nor acknowledge the quantification given by Hausfather. And thus you remain in the fantasy land of willfully ignorant hand-waving pseudoscience. Only one case of pure idiocy here.
Meanwhile, the Antarctic ice sheet is actually growing, not receding.
Wagathon wrote:
Meanwhile, the Antarctic ice sheet is actually growing, not receding.
Source?
Again, W can’t provide a source for his claims. He doesn’t even try.
Interesting tool called Google you might be interested in…
‘Antarctica has gained ice in recent years, despite increasing average global temperatures and climate change, a new study finds.’ ~ Patrick pester, LiveScience, May 13, 2025
W, thanks for finally providing a source to SOMETHING.
Apparently, caused by a couple of anomalous factors known as, snow and rain.
Wagathon wrote:
Apparently, caused by a couple of anomalous factors known as, snow and rain.
Oh. So it’s just short-term fluctuations in weather, not climate.
What’s the long-term trend characteristic of climate?
B A Bushaw:
Your reply is a perfect description of yourself!
Yes, and the sea ice continues to recede. What a paradox! /S
Yes, there is a decrease in Earth’s albedo due global greening, which should cause some temp. increase.
Has anyone ever estimated how much that would be?
The research on global brightening and dimming (changing albedo) Latest publication:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390801144_A_Perspective_onlobal_Dimming_and_Brightening_Worldwide_and_in_China
Global_Dimming_and_Brightening_Worldwide_and_in_China
My synopsis:
https://rclutz.com/2025/06/23/2025-evidence-of-natures-sunscreen/
Joachim, you should be angry at MDPI, not me. They scam people. Grok says the journal “Applied Science” charges CHF 2600 for an accepted paper. $3240! That’s terrible. They should be prosecuted for fraud. I’m sorry if you had to go through that.
In fact, I’ve written for a new site on the latest publications and the editors there forbid coverage of MDPI journals.
Joachim, here’s Grok:
“The concept of mutual carbon-temperature climate feedback, where warming temperatures release more carbon (e.g., from permafrost or forests) which in turn amplifies warming, was first substantively explored in the scientific literature in the late 1980s and early 1990s. One of the earliest researchers to articulate this feedback mechanism was George M. Woodwell, an ecologist who published influential work on the role of terrestrial ecosystems in the carbon cycle.
“In his 1987 paper, “The Warming World and the Carbon Cycle” (BioScience, Vol. 37, No. 7), Woodwell discussed how warming could destabilize carbon stored in soils and vegetation, leading to increased atmospheric CO₂ and further warming. This laid groundwork for understanding the positive feedback loop. Another key early contribution came from Roger Revelle and Hans E. Suess in their 1957 paper (Tellus, Vol. 9, No. 1), which, while primarily about ocean carbon uptake, hinted at terrestrial carbon release under warming conditions, setting the stage for later feedback studies.
“More explicit modeling of the carbon-temperature feedback emerged in the 1990s with researchers like Charles David Keeling and studies from the Hadley Centre (e.g., Peter Cox and colleagues in the early 2000s), who quantified these feedbacks in climate models. However, Woodwell’s work is often cited as a foundational step in recognizing the mutual reinforcement of carbon release and temperature rise.”
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw%3D%3D_e43dbcdd-e667-4180-bf55-4e083acb1a83
Joachim, you really should have done this little bit of basic research. And MDPI certainly should have caught it and told you.
CO2 doesn’t kill millions of people a year, pollution does. It’s time science learned the difference.
We have a better idea as time goes on about what the government and the institutions of academia believe is the average level of global warming. But, what is the average level of corruption in government and global warming science? It’s too bad we can no longer trust academia. Climatology is giving science a bad name.
So, the rest of us will just have to plod along, taking all the risks and arrows in our backs and productively providing value to society, all the while getting leeched off of by those who refuse to buy into the free enterprise economy.
Wagathon wrote:
We have a better idea as time goes on about what the government and the institutions of academia believe is the average level of global warming. But, what is the average level of corruption in government and global warming science? It’s too bad we can no longer trust academia.
Why should we not trust scientists?
Be specific.
You say global cooling is imminent. How will you ever know if you don’t trust the global temperature data?
Wagathon wrote:
So, the rest of us will just have to plod along, taking all the risks and arrows in our backs and productively providing value to society, all the while getting leeched off of by those who refuse to buy into the free enterprise economy.
Aren’t you so noble & sacrificing?
Why would anyone have to buy into any particular economic system in order to calculate the average global surface temperature?
Communists everywhere want to know.
Wagathon didn’t reply.
I wrote:
You say global cooling is imminent. How will you ever know if you don’t trust the global temperature data?
Wagathon wrote:
CO2 doesn’t kill millions of people a year, pollution does. It’s time science learned the difference.
Who in science says it does?
(At least yet.)
AI– during his presidency, Barack Obama frequently referred to carbon dioxide (CO2) as “carbon pollution” when discussing climate change and related policies.
More broadly, his administration, through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), also took actions classifying CO2 and other greenhouse gases as pollutants that endanger public health and welfare,
Socially, the Democrat party has used CO2 as a political pollutant since the insanity of Al Gore and the anti-science of Michael Mann.
Wagathon wrote: during his presidency, Barack Obama frequently referred to carbon dioxide (CO2) as “carbon pollution” when discussing climate change and related policies.
Obama was absolutely right–anthropogenic carbon IS a pollutant–an unwanted substance with deleterious impacts.
Melitamegalithic,
I find the lack of stratigraphic evidence and physical (astronomical) causality to be dispositive. Enjoy your studies.
BAB,
Thanks, I have; one side of me.
From another side, angry. I see enough to understand we have been led up the garden path, in many ways, and for various reasons, by various agents.
Evidence is there in proxies; plenty; but it is ambiguous and easily subject to wrong interpretation. The astronomical? It is there; from human experiences; in the ancient histories. However the scientific side, re gravity, it is still somewhat new. (Look at gravity the same you look at a magnetic circuit [remember the iron filings in the magnetic path]). Something to think about.
No, not something to think about: I’m not going to consider gravity the same as dipolar magnetic fields.
It is up to you to produce convincing evidence for your hypotheses. So far, you have failed. I understand the anger that comes from that. Good luck.
MM: BAB is right. If the Sun was causing modern warming, the stratosphere would be warming too (after adjusting for ozone loss). Instead it is cooling, a very basic prediction of greenhouse theory.
Anyone claiming solar warming for the last 50 years has to explain that.
@ BAB and DA
Something many are missing is that orientation is of great importance. The earth is in a way a rotary heat exchanger, absorbing from a point source and rejecting in several modes. A perpendicular axial orientation is best for rejection, meaning thermal residence time is lowest. The greater the tilt the greater the residence time, the higher the temperature reached. Solar insolation as a source varies very little. One can draw several conclusions; hypothetical.
Proof: This was a chance find that was key to moving forward.
See link: https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2022/10/31/searching-evidence-astronomy-for-the-heretic/
Up to a couple of years ago this was not evident. Earth axial tilt for yr 173ce was an outlier. D’Andrea’s paper changed the perception of more than a hundred years. The earth’s orientation is not as stable as was thought (much as humanity wished it). The paper could not explain the abrupt warming their research showed for that year as recorded in the sediment. A similar excursion for year ~2345bce opened a second door on the matter; it was a critical date in my research.
EArth’s obliquity can be effected and disturbed. What the several proxies indicated could now be pinpointed to one single effect; earth axial instability. The megalithic calendar was right; Stockwell and Newcomb had missed an important second driver in their research on obliquity. Plato was right, a “declination of the heavens”.
There are others working on the gravitational effect ‘changes’ due to planets. The dynamic secondary effect (re stability) is an aspect studied in the field of Mech Eng. The Physics on gravity is another matter, but appears similar to the magnetic circuit properties. It was that what I suggested to BAB (a retired physical scientist — a god-send?)
It is not “how much temp will rise or fall” but how and when will the drastic change occur. Ignorance of the matter is our own greatest enemy.
Beat the Shakespeare adage “the evil we leave behind, the good we take to the grave”.
melitamegalithic, I appreciate your posts.
You mention “The earth’s orientation is not as stable as was thought “, also “There are others working on the gravitational effect ‘changes’ due to planets.” You concluded: “It is not “how much temp will rise or fall” but how and when will the drastic change occur. Ignorance of the matter is our own greatest enemy.”
There was an unusually high number of planetary alignments over the last year.
I turn now to Earth’s magnetic field—Wagathon posted: “forget about global warming climate change and worry more about, e.g., another Adams Transitional Geomagnetic Event as occurred 42,000 years ago and lasted for over 400 years.”
There’s very little known about Adams Transitional Geomagnetic Event, also called the Laschamps event.
What I’m leading to is that there appears to be relationships with all these cosmic events.
Some choppy observations: Earth’s magnetic field has weakened 9% in the last 170 years; peer review indicates there’s been above average El Niño severity since the 1870’s; fewer clouds— among other observations. It’s possible that the Sun might be heading towards a Grand Solar Minimum phase.
Some scientists have suggested that Earth’s magnetic poles could flip at any time, the 9% weakening of the magnetic field may be an indicator. Neither Mauder, nor Dalton Grand Minima coincided with weakness in Earth’s magnetic field, however the Laschamps event did; it began with a weakening of Earth’s magnetic field that coincided with a Solar Grand Solar Minimum phase. There are other similar alignments, perhaps coincidental, that occurred before the Laschamps event.
“A global environmental crisis 42,000 years ago” is a very interesting paper. There’s no question that abrupt shifts in climate do occur, 42k years ago is a blip in geologic time, the Laschamp event:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abb8677
melitamegalithic, I enjoyed your post. There were an unusually high number of planetary alignments over the last year.
You mentioned: “The earth’s orientation is not as stable as was thought “, also; “There are others working on the gravitational effect ‘changes’ due to planets.” You concluded with: “It is not “how much temp will rise or fall” but how and when will the drastic change occur. Ignorance of the matter is our own greatest enemy.”
Laterally speaking, I’m curious if you have opinions about anomalies over the last century with the Earth’s magnetic field; Wagathon posted: “forget about global warming climate change and worry more about, e.g., another Adams Transitional Geomagnetic Event as occurred 42,000 years ago and lasted for over 400 years.”
There’s very little known about Adams Transitional Geomagnetic Event until recently, also called the Laschamps event.
What I’m leading to is that there appears to be tangential relationships in all these cosmic events.
Certain scientists who study Earth’s magnetic fields have suggested that Earth’s magnetic poles could flip at any time.
A few choppy observations: Earth’s magnetic field has weakened 9% in the last 170 years; peer review indicates the planet has experienced more severe El Niño’s since the 1870’s; It’s possible the Sun might be headed towards a Grand Solar Minimum phase.
Neither Mauder, nor Dalton Grand Minima coincided with weakness in Earth’s magnetic field, however, the Laschamp event did, it began with a weakening of Earth’s magnetic field. The Laschamp event also coincided with a Solar Grand Solar Minimum phase. There were other effects similar to today, perhaps these are coincidental.
“A global environmental crisis 42,000 years ago”, this is a very interesting paper. There’s no question that abrupt shifts in climate do occur periodically, 42 thousand years ago (a blip in geologic time) witnessed such an event:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abb8677
melitamegalithic, the above repeated post (sorry) was hung up, it got buried.
I find your topic very interesting. My prior comment is tangential to it, and superficial relative to your knowledge. I’d enjoy hearing further thoughts on these cosmic events you might have. Thanks
Jungletrunks:
To be clear: mine is a specific quest to find the answer to an anomaly. An interest in a historical curiosity that was intended to be a retirement past time (a medical advice to counter the stress of moving from an active engineering career to forced idleness). It led from ancient metaphorical ‘stories’ straight into a scientific anomaly. Ancient calendars were built to a much lower earth obliquity, which had changed several times, the more recent at about 2345bce.
The first of many questions were: Is it so? Then: how?, and why? Then the questions of what collateral effects. The answer to that first question now I have; unquestionably; mainly from those who lived those times. The answer to the next questions is from recent research: the mechanism.
The next to fathom is the unknown character of ‘gravity’. It is not something new; just unrecognised. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allais_effect One may see this as just a quirk of nature ( a conjunction of sun-moon-earth). Add more planets and it can turn cataclysmic.
That is about the long and short of it. But it is not ‘climate’ as presently perceived, but as in the Dragon kings or Black Swans metaphor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory
I add this, but it is in no way intended as advert. The link is to a book on Amazon. Available to read are the contents and preface, telling the whole story, however that was ten years ago. Many papers that provided partial answers to it were made public within the last ten years, some very recent.
https://www.amazon.com/Calendars-Megalithic-Malta-Resolving-Functions/dp/1502726572?asin=1502726572&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1
The standard idea that obliquity is a nearly fixed constant is very wrong. There is quite some research based on that false assumption.
@David Andrews: I will take a closer look at that publication before giving a conclusive answer. Here my preliminary takes:
ad 1: Even in the mentioned graphics, before 1990 it was a clear exponential decay, maybe with a slightly larger time constant.
ad 2: Your argument may apply before 1950, a time period I am not interested in. During and in particular after the bomb tests atmospheric 14C concentration was doubtless higher than oceanic or plant based concentration. So actually your argument of upwelling 14C is irrelevant for the time interval 1965-1990, from which I draw my conclusions.
David Appell:
It doesn’t matter whether the stratosphere is cooling, or not.
We live on the surface of the Earth, and it has warmed by 0.65 deg C between 1980 and 2022, due to the inevitable warming resulting from decreasing levels of atmospheric SO2 aerosol pollution.
@B A Bushaw: How cowardly of you to hide behind AI – not even informing the readers about the question and the context. From the given answers it is easy to see how shallow and biased the questions were.
It is a wonderful example validating my hypothesis that AI is only useful when NI (natural intelligence) > AI.
When you begin with an open mind, serious questions, and knowledge of the field, you get a very different result from AI: https://klima-fakten.net/?p=11416&lang=en
Yeah, and hopefully, Trump’s success with clawback bills will be successful in pulling back funding under Biden of global warming alarmist based spending.
The jig is up! The current administration has the courage stand up and tell a generation of graduates from the public-funded dropout factories that facts are facts: there is no such thing as a free lunch and there is a long road ahead.
Joachim, I’m not hiding behind AI. I gave a quotation of what AI said about your article. Too bad you can’t handle it. As I said, my personal belief is that your article is ‘much ado about nothing’.
What possess you to throw unwarranted insults
People like you, Jojo.
BAB: You remarked, “Clyde, I also appreciate your ad hom’s on CP. Let us know when you have convinced CP (or any other AI outlet) that A-GHGs are not the main cause of current climate change.”
I do not consider it to be an ‘ad hom’ to document past behavior of a ‘source’ repeatedly pleading ‘mea culpa’ when challenged on things that they or it claimed. CP has consistently demonstrated that it is an unreliable source that is prone to make unsupported claims that they at least have the intellectual integrity to acknowledge to be wrong when challenged. I have attacked the validity of claims made by a source that you cite, and it has acknowledged that its claims were wrong. That is quite germane to to discussion.
CP has backed off of all of its initial claims it made to me and got stuck in a loop where it then repeated things it had already acknowledged were either wrong or unsupported by evidence.
Like most climate computer models, CP may provide insights on lines of research, but its dogmatic statements are unreliable, which it has admitted.
Joachim Dengler
Do you have access to this study?
Seems it conflicts with most of the co2 data.
Do you have any thoughts on the validity of the study?
(my first impression is that it is an outliner and not overly stronger or robust)
oops – forgot to attached the link
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0958305X0701800206
I know about these studies, but refrain from judgment. I do not have the means to decide the validity. For my own studies I stick to the standard (mainstream) data about CO2-concentration.
My own studies, using only CO2 data from 1959 till today (Mauna Loa), confirm an equilibrium concentration of 270..290 ppm in the absence of anthropogenic emissions.
An we know from VOSTOK Ice core data, that during the last 800,000 years CO2 concentration varied from 200 ppm to 290 ppm, data which I was able to describe with the model of this post (see https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/15/7/743)
Joachim Dengler wrote:
I know about these studies, but refrain from judgment.
LOL
@Andrews: You arrogantly are drawing unjustified and completely false conclusions. Not having read your favorite article does not mean that I don’t know the difference between entities that I have written about in my own paper (equation 18). And it is absolutely foolish to be driven by prejudice based on others whose aims may be completely different.
I had hoped to find a strong, constructive discussion partner in you, but you messed it up by your arrogance.
Joachim,
Let’s reset and pursue constructive discussions going forward. I was perhaps goaded into making an arrogant response to an arrogant comment, not yours. I can understans why you don’t have much patience with some commenters.
“Henry’s Law underpins this relationship.”
–
It is another mistaken assertion about physics. Henry’s Law doesn’t apply to atmospheric gases/oceanic surface dynamical interactions.
Henry’s Law is a Law about gasses absorption in the laboratory’s equilibrium conditions.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Even given Henry’s Law the simple fact is that the ocean’s currently take in more CO2 than they give off– ‘a net sink.’
… and, for various reasons, one in particular being the explanation for why why global warming alarmists who fear ocean-acidification are simply wrong. Ocean acidification due to increased atmospheric CO2 is impossible because it is infinitely buffered.
CO₂ is not bad!
During this lull …
Chevron announced that just from the Permian it predicts it will produce 1M barrels of oil equivalent per day for the next 40 years.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Why-Chevron-Is-Scaling-Back-Its-Permian-Footprint.html
‘Peak oil’ keeps getting pushed farther away.
Something smells like a dead walrus…
So about a week earlier they say they are going to spend some of that cash flow on looking for more oil in the Arctic.
https://www.adn.com/business-economy/energy/2025/07/17/conocophillips-says-it-plans-significant-oil-exploration-this-winter-in-national-petroleum-reserve-alaska/
“The plans mark a shift back to aggressive exploration in the reserve for ConocoPhillips.”
My mistake! I googled Arctic oil and linked to the wrong article. Chevron has other plans now that they figured out how to get rid of the ‘produced water’.
Still the oil industry is still looking for and finding more hydrocarbons and I don’t think we will run out any time soon.
I appreciate your honesty and integrity, Jack. Wish others would, too.
“Peak oil” has been bandy about for decades. 2030 was the latest supposed date. But now that’s been ‘officially’ pushed back to 2035.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Oil-Boom-No-One-Wants-to-Talk-About.html
We’ll run out of oil about the time fusion is a practical energy source ;)
Bill
The experts haven’t done well on reports about the future of AGW, either.
This from a 1974 CIA report. Ohh, wait, that is over 50 years ago. Another prediction. Another whiff. I suspect in 2100 the public will wonder what the contemporary so called experts were thinking.
“The report said the adverse climate, according to the University of Wisconsin study, would mean that India will suffer a major drought every four years, resulting in the
starvation of 150 million people.”
“ Canada, a major exporter, would lose over 50 per cent in production capability and 75 per cent of its exporting
capabilities.”
Primitive societies were buying and selling Brooklyn Bridges before there was a Brooklyn Bridge. Nothing new under the sun.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Image464_shadow.png
cerescokid wrote:
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Image464_shadow.png
What data say these predictions were so wrong?
“Our baseline model indicates that ACC [Anthropogenic Climate Change] has reduced global agricultural TFP [Total Factor Productivity] by about 21% since 1961, a slowdown that is equivalent to losing the last 7 years of productivity growth.”
“Anthropogenic climate change has slowed global agricultural productivity growth,” Ariel Ortiz-Bobea et al, Nature Climate Change, v11 Apr 2021 306-312.
https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10342388
Appell – gets fooled by Paul Ehrilch level junk science.
wouda thought a science would recognize driven junk science – apparantly not in the pursuit of advocacy.
try spotting the flaws:
“Anthropogenic climate change has slowed global agricultural productivity growth,” Ariel Ortiz-Bobea et al, Nature Climate Change, v11 Apr 2021 306-312.
https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10342388
Appell
Do you need me to hold your hand? Have 150 million people died? Answer, no.
The list of failed predictions is inexhaustible.
Ceresokid – Seems Paul Ehrlich is still worshipped by the climate scientists
The climate cabal, or the USDA—you decide.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2024/september/global-changes-in-agricultural-production-productivity-and-resource-use-over-six-decades
cerescokid wrote:
Do you need me to hold your hand? Have 150 million people died? Answer, no.
What’s the correct number who had died?
You mentioned a CIA report. That is beyond what science produced. Why blame science for it?
Appell
I see I have wet nurse duty again. Are you really incapable of doing your own research? What is even more disappointing is that you should already know the essence of these data if not in specifics. It’s all down. Famine deaths. Deaths from climate related events. This is just general knowledge. That is unless you are a bunker sequestered cultist, deprived of common sense.
“ The last major famine in the British era occurred in 1943, which is also known as the Bengal Famine.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018GL081477
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rate-from-famines-by-year
https://x.com/BjornLomborg/status/1874465593371353387/photo/1
David Appell | July 23, 2025 at 1:59 am |
Appell makes this comment and links to this study:
“Anthropogenic climate change has slowed global agricultural productivity growth,” Ariel Ortiz-Bobea et al, Nature Climate Change, v11 Apr 2021 306-312.
https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10342388
Two important points
A – The study is an obvious piece of agenda driven junk science. Astonishing that such junk would make it through peer review. Astonishing that a person claiming to be a scientist would be so easily fooled.
B – Appell constently belittles anything not peer reviewed and belittles every thing published in a journal that is not one of the “top tier ” journals. Yet this study has been published in one of the top tier journals. That should seriously undercut any claim that the top tier journals weed out junk.
cerescokid wrote:
What is even more disappointing is that you should already know the essence of these data if not in specifics. It’s all down. Famine deaths. Deaths from climate related events.
Famine deaths and deaths from climate related events are not equal.
Famine deaths are often a result of government policies, government failures or war. (Like in Gaza right now.)
There is no basis for equating the two.
Palestinians are not now dying in Gaza because of climate change, but because of war, genocide and ethnic cleansing.
02 AKA Appell
The ice in Greenland is melting more rapidly than it is being formed…” 1902
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Screenshot-2016-01-25-at-04.19.37-AM-down.png
123 years and counting since this article and there is no relief. It seems like those with some common sense would wake up and say “what is wrong with this picture”.
But they don’t. And they don’t because they allow their belief system to dictate their cognitive functions. They get their sense of self esteem from believing they are intellectually superior to the rest of humanity. And, consequently they allow themselves to be manipulated. As time marches on another generation bites the dust having lived in abject terror that the waters of the ocean are going to engulf them. And those along the coast back up the U-Haul, load up their belongings and move to Denver, which they believe will give them a few more years of dryness.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, science marches on. A common theme in many climate science studies …….“knowledge is limited”. This study is among hundreds that have discovered dynamics in the Antarctica ice sheet that heretofore were unknown.
“ Fast-flowing ice has instead been
directed through inherited tectonic structures and fluvial valleys, leading to
the incision of overdeepened subglacial troughs between the flat surfaces and
thus modulating the responsiveness of the ice sheet to climate change.”
This study doesn’t prove anything. Except that insights into the earth’s reaction to change are always evolving.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-025-01734-z.pdf
Cerescokid:
Your little newspaper story is about short-term fluctuations.
Instead, see:
“Greenland Ice Sheet Mass Balance Reconstruction. Part III: Marine Ice Loss and Total Mass Balance (1840–2010),” Jason E. Box and William Colgan, J Climate, 15 Sep 2013, pgs 6990-7002.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00546.1
In particular, see figure 6 above or at this link:
t.ly/ysZKQ
cerescokid:
The ice in Greenland is melting more rapidly than it is being formed…” 1902
Again you’re talking about short-term fluctuations—weather—not climate.
Instead, see:
“Greenland Ice Sheet Mass Balance Reconstruction. Part III: Marine Ice Loss and Total Mass Balance (1840–2010),” Jason E. Box and William Colgan, J Climate, 15 Sep 2013, pgs 6990-7002.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00546.1
In particular, see figure 6 above or at this link:
t.ly/ysZKQ
“ In 1132 the earth opened, and the rivers and springs disappeared in Alsace. The Rhine was dried up. lo
1152 the heat was so great that eggs were cooked in the sand. In 1160, at the battle of Bela, a great number of soldiers died from the heat. In 1276 and 1277, in France, there was an absolute failure of the
crops of grass and oats.
In 1303 and 1304, the Seine, the Loire, the Rhine, and the Danube, were passed over dry-footed. In 1393 and 139%, great numbers of animals foll dead, and the crops were scorched
up.
In 1338, 1539, 1540, 1541, the
rivers were almost entirely dried up.
In 1556 there was a great drought over all Europe. In 1615 and 1616, the beat was overwhelming in
France, Italy, and the Netherlands.
In 1646 there were fifty-eight
consecutive days of excessive heat.”
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/2017_07_21_20_20_35-down.gif
cerescokid wrote:
“ In 1132 the earth opened, and the rivers and springs disappeared in Alsace. The Rhine was dried up. lo
1152 the heat was so great that eggs were cooked in the sand.
etc etc etc
All you’re doing is citing weather, not climate.
I think you know this. I think you’re purposely playing dumb.
That is essentially lying. The topic is climate change, not weather change. Even deniers should know the difference by now.
cerescokid ““ In 1132 the earth opened, and the rivers and springs disappeared in Alsace—–”
In 28th August 1132 earth and Jupiter were at closest approach, with full moon in between. Small gravity changes produce greater earth tides. Sites on earth that come in line with conjunction as the earth rotates experience abrupt tidal as well as atmosphere thermal variations (water vapour/moisture throttling).
One can make out specific planetary orientations linked to the dates and events.
In the above ‘tidal’ as in ‘land tides’. Reduced gravity may cause disruption in river flow, reversing flow upstream of gravity dip, ie reversing gravity gradient. Higher land tide may lead to earthquakes. Or, as in Mt St Helens, reduce rock burden (weight = m.g) and the chamber pressure does its thing.
There are forecasts for up to 30cm of snow this week in the Alps.
When I see so much blue on a map I think of Linda Ronstadt’s rendition of Blue Bayou, Elvis singing Blue Suede Shoes and Bobby Vinton’s Blue on Blue. Can’t go wrong on any of those songs.
https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/2025_Sommer-Kaelte.png?w=395&ssl=1
Those songs are a sign of — sadness (not that I knew that before listening).
Perhaps in similar vein the songs I heard two weeks ago, in mid July. They were a pair of gold-finches in the dried leftovers of a patch of sunflower. Migratory finches from Europe, more than two months before their past normal. Hadn’t heard any for the past forty years. Cold desperation?
Diane Renay– Blue, Navy Blue…
@David Appell,
You write: “Then, differentiating gives
dT/dS = T/4S
= 0.05 K/(W/m2) for the nongreenhouse surface temperature (called the brightness temperature, 255 K for Earth).
The global average temperature is simply NOT VERY SENSITIVE to changes in solar output.”
Ha-ha-ha – what a nice demonstration of ignorance of the most elementary pillars of climate science, visible for all.
All those who deny the greenhouse effect will be grateful to you for this foolish argument.
While the formula is still correct, you just ignore the SW radiation flow of S=240 W/m2, which changes dT/dS to 255/(4*240)=0.27 K/W/m2.
This is the expression that James Hansen used for the determination of primary CO2 climate sensitivity (https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1984/1984_Hansen_ha07600n.pdf) where he concludes “For example, a 2 percent change in solar irradiance would change T by about 0.5 percent, or 1.2-1.3°C.” before he dives into the feedback discussion.
I am not blaming you for making a mistake, but for arrogantly misusing a mistake (wrong by a factor of 240) to humiliate others.
As we say in Germany “Wer im Glashaus sitzt, soll nicht mit Steinen werfen” (AI may help you to translate).
Joachim Dengler,
“While the formula is still correct, you just ignore the SW radiation flow of S=240 W/m2, which changes dT/dS to 255/(4*240)=0.27 K/W/m2.”
–
But there is not any 255K for Earth. And there is not a radiation flow of S=240 W/m2.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Joachim:
Grok agrees with my number:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw%3D%3D_021c8cc6-608d-47a1-b075-336ff9799fef
Joachim:
IPCC 6AR says climate forcing of solar output from 1750-2011 is very small, about 0.1 K +/- about 0.15 K.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth111/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.earth111/files/Module8/Earth111Mod8pt2Fig1.png
Joachim Dengler wrote:
While the formula is still correct, you just ignore the SW radiation flow of S=240 W/m2, which changes dT/dS to 255/(4*240)=0.27 K/W/m2.
Your number isn’t right, mine is. Here’s why.
You’re using S to mean something different from what I am.
I’m using S to be the irradiance from the Sun at the top of Earth’s atmosphere, 1365 W/m2.
You’re using S to be the irradiance at the BOTTOM of the atmosphere.
Instead let’s call it W.
W=constant*S
where constant = epsilon*(1-albedo)/4
Then by the chain rule
dT/dS = (dT/dW)*(dW/dS)
so
dT/dW = (dT/dS)/(dW/dS)
dW/dS = constant = epsilon*(1-alpha)/4
epsilon is basically 1. alpha=0.3, so constant=0.175 so
dW/dS = 0.175 = 1/5.7
so
dT/dW = 5.7 * dT/dS
That’s gives your 0.27 number where I got 0.05
BUT the relevant quantity is S, not W, since it’s what represents the physical input–the Sun’s irradiance. That’s what changes. That’s what we want to know the change with respect to. So dT/dS is what we want to know, and it’s quite small.
Looks like the local DA is under indictment again, maybe the drive-by ambulance chaser can find expert testimony for his defense, surely there’s a parrot around.
“There are so many kinds of stupidity, and cleverness is one of the worst.”
Thomas Mann
Researching a retort, lol, quit trying to be clever, Polly.
Maybe you should research a better AI program, since your authentic self is so flapping boring.
The years of the Democrat party’s political corruption that began in 2016, that is only now coming to light, has also had the effect of extending the Left’s global warming hoax and subsequent meddling and undermining of the American economy for an additional 10 years; and, going forward, these acts present a serious impediment to the credibility and reliability of AI on the subject for years to come.
Joachim Dengler,
“While the rise in concentration growth is real, the cause is not a failure of sinks but a larger rise in temperature beyond the trend that corresponds to the CO2 level rise.”(Emphasis added)
Yes, exactly, thank you Joachim!
“a larger rise in temperature beyond the trend that corresponds to the CO2 level rise.”
He who lives in greenhouses shouldn’t throw stones- they might discover convection…
they might discover convection
As if climate scientists don’t know about convection LOL
Christos Vournas wrote:
Joachim Dengler,
“While the rise in concentration growth is real, the cause is not a failure of sinks but a larger rise in temperature beyond the trend that corresponds to the CO2 level rise.”
By how much?
Feedbacks exist, you know.
MM,
No need for AI. I would guess a collapse of the Laurentide Ice sheet or a medium meteor strike would be possibilities with non-vanishing probability.
5 years ago, global warming alarmists were saying Greenland had reached a tipping point. Now, 5 years later, Greenland is accumulating snow and is currently at a 25-year high!
“April 7, 1923 North Pole Melting”
102 years and counting….the slow walk
https://x.com/TonyClimate/status/1717041155001721099/photo/1
And the last couple of decades swamp these Box et al 2013 numbers–5000 Gt ice lost from Greenland Ice Sheet from 2004-2023:
https://arctic.noaa.gov/report-card/report-card-2024/greenland-ice-sheet-2024/
5000 Gt/20 years = 250 Gt/yr.
Mr. Appel, it is a bit disingenuous to highlight the 5,000 GT Greenland is losing for the past couple of years without mentioning how much ice is actually sitting on top of Greenland… 2,850,000 gigatons
Thomas Fuler wrote:
Mr. Appel, it is a bit disingenuous to highlight the 5,000 GT Greenland is losing for the past couple of years without mentioning how much ice is actually sitting on top of Greenland… 2,850,000 gigatons
No, it isn’t. Sea level rise is determined by the mass of ice that melts, not the fraction of ice that melts.
Wags, this is what a reference looks like:
https://nsidc.org/ice-sheets-today
cerescokid wrote:
“April 7, 1923 North Pole Melting”
102 years and counting….the slow walk
https://x.com/TonyClimate/status/1717041155001721099/photo/1
“Greenland Ice Sheet Mass Balance Reconstruction. Part III: Marine Ice Loss and Total Mass Balance (1840–2010),” Jason E. Box and William Colgan, J Climate, 15 Sep 2013, pgs 6990-7002.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00546.1
In particular, see figure 6.
It does seem to me that Joachim came to this question with a hypothesis he tested along various metrics and indicia with a degree of acumen. I certainly suspect the line of inquery could be inspired by the voice of activist science, which is to say some amalgam of climate science and its popularists claiming that carbon sinks are over (following the end of the gulfstream and the end of life as we know it because we are over 350 ppm). But that doesn’t invalidate the hypothesis.
This constant debate over whether the journal (or judith, for that matter) is an adequate gatekeeper has infected the lower skein of comments. It takes the basic form of: ‘I count on the publisher to weed out the bad stuff’ before i’ll spend time engaging with the substance. Fair enough, opportunity cost savings are a thing and even concern about the signaling that investing the time to criticize something suggests its is worthy of critique. Albeit Appell has certainly spent an inordinate amount of time engaging with his own hypothesis about how one should make that determination.
Most of us would not draw the line where he does. My instinct is that “predatoryjournals.org” is a useful concept in the abstract that is as subject to agenda and capture as the southern poverty law center. A bunch of anonymous people complaining about journals, that is surely where i’ll get my info.
So then it boils down to Judith’s willingness to publish; and that I trust. That doesn’t mean I take Joachim’s contribution to be definitive or correct, but that it raises a hypothesis worth considering and responding to. Appreciate those who have done so.
Would have been even more useful discussion if those who believe sinks are diminishing in some kind of feedback or other phenomenon beyond the temperature relationship would participate. But Judith and Climate etc. were long ago written off by so many (from both directions for that matter) that the idea of making this its bete noire and your interlocution as its saving conscience is LOL.
Joachim,
The future of the sinks is an important question. It is a reasonable hypothesis that “net global uptake of CO2” (what you call “sink capacity”) could decrease with higher ocean temperatures. I would call this a possible positive feedback mechanism as you suggest. I have been battling elsewhere with folks who refuse to accept that human activities cause the CO2 increase, so it is refreshing not to have to waste time arguing that point.
But I do think you need to either totally reanalyze or drop the 14C part of your argument. You claim to know the difference between Delta14C and 14C concentration, but you use them interchangeably, and their trajectories are quite different. Harde and Salby, who made the same mistake you did, did not help their credibility by defending their indefensible position. This is the kind of error that peer review should find.
David: Just trying to capture your argument.
Doesn’t he provide characterization by discriminating between delta14c and 14c?
“Why is this concentration decay representing “pure” absorptions? The CO2 emissions from the oceans have the much lower 14C concentration of the long-term equilibrium before the bomb tests”
David is right in stating that I did not present a full theory of the 14C exchange. This was not my intention here, it may well be the subject of a future paper. As I wrote in my first answer to David, my key concept about the 2 primary (antagonistic) drivers of the carbon sink effect, atmospheric carbon concentration and temperature, does not rely on the 14C section. The purpose of introducing the “bomb curve” was only to confirm the (concentration dependent) down-welling term of my model result. Therefore, I was only interested in the down-welling flow of 14C, more or less ignoring its potential upwelling flow. So while I am convinced that I got the down-welling part correct and perfectly matching numerically, I can accept David’s point that what I wrote about 14C is not complete when the aim is to reconstruct 14C concentration. Doing that requires to tackle a few open questions which deserve a deeper treatment than possible in an “auxiliary” chapter of another subject.
Thanks, Joachim.
Joachim,
There is another thing you have to be clear about in the 14C analysis, and that is the concept of “disequlibrium isotope fluxes”. Balanced flows between two reservoirs with different Delta14C values moves 14C from the higher to lower Delta14C reservoir WITHOUT MOVING NET CARBON. Therefore in this situation you cannot think of 14C as a “tracer” of carbon flow. You are interested in “absorption” of carbon, which I think implies that you want to study processes which change carbon levels. Disequilibrium isotope fluxes should be seen as simple mixing of reservoir inventories (going on in the background it you like) and tell you little about net carbon transfer. I encouraged you before to understand the first half of the 20th century data, the bomb pulse data, and the “post bomb pulse” data in this light. I encourage you again to do that.
If people insist on having something something to worry about it is essentially beyond their control, forget about global warming climate change and worry more about, e.g., another Adams Transitional Geomagnetic Event as occurred 42,000 years ago and lasted for over 400 years.
Western academia’s collusion with the Left to save the world from capitalism and Americanism by fomenting the AGW global warming hoax was a purposeful corruption of science to extort money from the productive and to excuse a relentless minting of fiat dollars to paper over the Left’s unkeepable promises.
A problem is that a lack of affordable energy carries with it immediate, very obvious, and dour consequences. Countries like the US that have kept up fossil fuel production are doing well, whereas European countries that haven’t are flailing economically.
Define “affordable.”
Wagathon – You have been saying much the same thing here at Climate Etc. for almost 15 years. Time to move on?
To where? Many globally argue America is the last great hope for positive change in the world and, California voters among others prove a deeper understanding and greater moral development needed.
‘However, the real problem isn’t questionable or fake science, hysterical claims and worthless computer models that predict global warming disasters. It’s that they’re being used to justify telling Africans that we shouldn’t build coal or natural gas electrical power plants. It’s the almost total absence of electricity keeping us from creating jobs and becoming modern societies. It’s that these policies KILL…’ (Fiona Kobusingye, Africa’s real climate crisis)
Wagathon wrote:
Many globally argue America is the last great hope for positive change in the world
Ha!
Not any more.
Yogi Berra would have said it’s time to move on because consensus says the same thing in greater numbers.
Your statement embodies an odd form of insecurity, considering that most of consensus is agreeably faith based.
Ah!… got it– the Left feeling worried about the threat to their supposed consensus of opinion. Hopefully, you are right and this is the beginning of the coming cognitive dissonance predicted by Philip Stott.
Yes, indeed.
I should perhaps entertain myself with fewer riddles, albeit, it’s less fun.
Wagathon wrote:
Ah!… got it– the Left feeling worried about the threat to their supposed consensus of opinion. Hopefully, you are right and this is the beginning of the coming cognitive dissonance predicted by Philip Stott.
W, for how long have you been denying consensus climate science?
Be honest, if you can.
Obliquity decrease:
” I like the suggestion of asking AI:
BAB: “Tell me about large, rapid obliquity changes for the earth in the last 10,000 years.”
CoPilot: “🌍 Obliquity Basics
Earth’s axial tilt varies between 22.1° and 24.5° over a cycle of about 41,000 years.
This tilt is responsible for the intensity of seasons—greater tilt means more extreme seasons.
📉 Recent Obliquity Trends
Around 10,000 years ago, Earth’s tilt was near its maximum (~24.2°).
Today, it’s about 23.44°, and slowly decreasing.
The change over the past 10,000 years has been gradual, not rapid—about 0.76° total, or roughly 0.000076° per year2.
🧊 Climate Implications
The high tilt 10,000 years ago coincided with the end of the last Ice Age and the onset of the Holocene, a warmer interglacial period.
As tilt decreases, seasons become milder—cooler summers and warmer winters—which can promote glacial growth over long timescales. ”
–
“As tilt decreases, seasons become milder—cooler summers and warmer winters—which can promote glacial growth over long timescales.”
–
But milder seasons – the less differenciated the planet surface temperatures – the higher the yearly average surface temperatures. Thus the tilt decrease doesn’t promote glacial growth – right the opposite happens – the tilt decrease promotes the global warming!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
‘Low summer insolation occurs when the tilt of the axis of rotation of the earth is small; the poles are pointing less directly at the sun; the Northern Hemisphere summer solstice is farthest from the sun; and the earth’s orbit is highly eccentric.’ ~eol.org
Christos Vournas wrote:
The change over the past 10,000 years has been gradual, not rapid—about 0.76° total, or roughly 0.000076° per year2.
The only relevant question is what is the change in obliquity’s climate forcing..
That’s a number measured in W/m2/yr
Currently, AI has a zero ability to to provide accurate information concerning the role of greenhouse gases relative to concerns about the issue of global warming. Currently, it would be like telling AI during the time of Galileo that the sun was the center of the solar system. AI would be quick to correct you and assure you that the Earth was in fact the center of the solar system. if you say to AI, e.g., ‘the assertion that warming caused by greenhouse gases is a corrupt science created by leftist Western academia for political purposes and has made AI irrelevant on the subject,’ the most AI can tell you is that assertion is a perspective that’s debated and challenged within the broader discussion on climate change.
>”AI has a zero ability to to provide accurate information”
All that proves is you don’t know how write LLM prompts.
DOGE builds AI tool to cut 50 percent of federal regulations
Free link 7/26/2025: https://wapo.st/45d5gqL
“Creative deployment of artificial intelligence to advance the president’s regulatory agenda is one logical strategy to make significant progress in that finite amount of time,” wrote James Burnham, who served as chief attorney for DOGE and is now managing partner at King Street Legal.”
It’s working!
https://www.reuters.com/business/us-economic-data-quality-worry-authorities-not-acting-urgently-enough-experts-2025-07-25/
US economic data quality a worry, authorities not acting urgently enough, experts say- Reuters poll
A decline in official survey participation rates and recent deep staff cuts at statistical agencies risk undermining the reliability of data that policymakers, companies and even households rely on to make decisions.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the principal agency for labor market and inflation data has, like other government departments, been hit by firings, resignations, early retirement and hiring freezes as part of a White House cost-cutting push.
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, who has held interest rates steady all year while keeping a close eye on whether President Donald Trump’s tariffs have added to already-elevated price pressures, last month warned cutbacks could degrade key economic surveys.
Most economists in a July 11-24 Reuters poll, 89 of 100, said they were concerned about the quality of official U.S. economic data, including 41 who said they were “very concerned”.
Jack – just to get you up to speed, the quality of labor data has been bad for a long time.
The quality of labor data relies heavily on random sampling and high response rates for the random sampling. For quite some time, the response rates have declined significantly. The labor dept has increased the sample size considerable with even lower response rates. As every statistician knows, that technique makes the statistical quality of the data worse, not better.
The departments reduction in personnel has had virtually nothing to do with the lower quality of the data. Please dont repeat talking points
Old business proverb; What get measured, gets done.
Yes the government labor statistics have been adjusted and re-quantified in the last 30 years as they attempted to smooth or seasonalize the employment and layoff data. One trick they used was redefined full employment from 5% down to 4% when they want to justify a particular economic policy. If they want to fix the quality of the employment source data I would suggest letting DOGe merge all state/local/national government and corporate payroll data. Seems to be working for homeland security & the IRS at identifying illegal migrants.
I think the government employment numbers today are synthetic.
If they want to do it I don’t think anybody is going to stop them.
Jack you missed the substantive issue
I stated the primary reason for the bad data
I am quite familiar with the process as I have several clients on the “ expanded” random sample “ list
The doge cuts are an excuse – a pathetic talking point at that
A brilliant example of AI accumen.
Meant as a reply to Wagathon’s post.
AI, it seems to me, lacks the power of rationation but, that’s probably a good thing as, depending on the data input for it to rely on, you could get feedback like, e.g., yes, yes there certainly is life on the dark side of the comet Hale-Bopp.
What we have with the issue of global warming alarmism and climate change catastrophism is a matter of speculation and hypothesis. Ratiocination in the absence of scientific proof, i.e. the instance where the null hypothesis (that all global warming we see is natural- nothing is happening that has not happened before) has not been rejected, can be referred to more accurately as, propaganda and a knowing perpetration of a hoax for political purposes. Snakeoil science!
An example of AI’s contribution- e.g., associating Nobel Prizes with recipients like Barack Obama, Al Gore, and Michael Mann is evidence of the politicization of science,
From AI–
‘Points of view
‘Arguments for politicization: Critics often point to these examples, particularly the Peace Prize, as evidence that the Nobel Committee has veered away from Alfred Nobel’s original intent, awarding prizes based on political leanings or to encourage future actions rather than concrete achievements. They may highlight the political affiliations or public advocacy of these recipients as influencing the award decisions.’
If you query AI with, e.g., scientifically based countervailing findings by noted scientists concerning the inadequacy of Michael Mann’s hockey stick, you will be sorely disappointed– you would have to conclude from the AI response that LIA and MWP never existed.
Finally, EPA has been towed to the junkyard. ‘In science, credible empirical data always trumps proposed theories, even if those theories are claimed to (or actually do) represent the current consensus.’ (see, e.g., Daubert case)
That was, 2013. AI apparently isn’t trained on the Supreme Court.
The Left and the UN believed their computer-generated hockey stick – depicting the ominous blade of global warming spiking up from the long flat handle of a history of a supposedly stable prior global climate – was their silver bullet. In reality, academia has accomplished nothing more than the reinvention of the square wheel. The Earth’s prior history is a record of ups and downs.