First, let me say that this is a wonderful article by Cliff Mass, who always bases his work on rock solid science. Also, WUWT is probably my favorite site because they bring more authentic climate science to the internet than almost all others combines.
Somebody decided to question Cliff on CO2 having any warming impact at all, which is complete nonsense. I've copied the responses for your entertainment.
Larry will especially love this!
From the Cliff Mass Weather Blog
Steve Oregon
August 8, 2023 6:54 am
Well done by Cliff.
However, this……
Human-caused global warming is a slowly growing, modest problem. Our planet has warmed by around 2F during the past 50 years and human emissions are probably the dominant cause.
Why is he so committed to this notion? It’s not science.
I borrowed this from a Terry Haskew post elsewhere.
I sure would like to see Cliff address it.
The “greenhouse effect” does not exist
Co2 and other trace gases in the atmosphere have no significant impact on temperature or climate
You ask i provide
The believers keep asking for evidence that they are wrong
They will never accept that fact but there are others who may be swayed by their unwavering blind belief
Lets take a few swings at the claims made
First strike there are two studies decades apart that show co2 has none of the magical properties ascribed to it
The first study by Berkley labs was looking for a filler for double glazed windows now the believers reject this study because a few millimetres of 100% co2 is not equivalent to kilometres of 0.04%
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6sn232sk
The second study was an experiment looking to directly confirm the qualities projected for co2 and they expected to find confirmation
They did not
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx….
Second strike if co2 has such a major impact on temperature there will be a very close correlation over geological time scales
There is no correlation
Third strike follows on from the second strike
Over a period of about 800,000 data from the vostok ice core shows a correlation between co2 and temperature
The believers point to that as evidence they are correct
It’s the exact opposite
If as claimed co2 causes warming it will cause the oceans to warm and keep warming
As the oceans warm they release gases which include co2 which causes more warming which starts a positive feedback loop which never happened
There was a claim that a warming ocean absorbs gases (ocean acidification ring a bell???)
In which case its a negative feedback that reduces atmospheric co2 and reduces temperature
Also note that co2 surges and temperature stagnated on the far right of the chart
Fourth strike is a paper that shows known solar cycles correlate with a very high r value to temperature over the last 2,000 years
https://benthamopen.com/FULLTEXT/TOASCJ-11-44
Fifth strike is a paper that uses known and accepted physics to predict surface temperatures of all planets with an atmosphere without using a “greenhouse effect”
Now all you need to do to refute these papers is cite some valid research that shows a “greenhouse effect” exists and that various trace gases are able to produce the effects claimed
Mike Maguire
Reply to Steve Oregon
August 8, 2023 12:28 pm
I can refute all that stuff with 1 thing. We have instrumentation that can measure the CO2 forcing in the atmosphere. This is THE EMPIRICAL DATA that trumps everything else:
RADIATIVE FORCING BY CO2 OBSERVED AT TOP OF ATMOSPHERE FROM 2002-2019
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.10605.pdf
“The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report predicted 0.508±0.102 Wm−2RF resulting from this CO2 increase, 42% more forcing than actually observed. The lack of quantitative long-term global OLR studies may be permitting inaccu-racies to persist in general circulation model forecasts of the effects of rising CO2 or other greenhouse gasses.”
gyan1
Reply to Mike Maguire
August 8, 2023 4:34 pm
Simplistic TOA energy balance estimates that ignore the actual internal dynamics going on are a fundamental flaw in alarmist projections.
Last edited 14 hours ago by gyan1
++++++++++++++++++
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to gyan1
August 9, 2023 3:12 am
Yup!
++++++++++++++++++
Steve Oregon
Reply to Mike Maguire
August 8, 2023 6:16 pm
That is not refuting. Not even close. It is old hat, lazy and presumptuous data. Not scientific measurement.
You’re naivety is duly noted.
++++++++++++++++++
Mike Maguire
Reply to Steve Oregon
August 8, 2023 9:14 pm
Old hat? Lazy? Presumptuous? naive? Seriously?
Is this the point when you expect the target of your name calling to:
Actually, I try to avoid conversations that feature name calling as they almost never yield anything productive or result in agreements.
I’m sure you understand why.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to Mike Maguire
August 9, 2023 3:01 am
Mike, surely you understand that the fact of CO2 being a radiative gas does not mean that the average surface temp of Earth can only go up when CO2 concentration in the air goes up?
Because that is what is presumed to be true by warmistas, not that there are radiative properties of CO2, but that it will necessarily and pretty much as a law of nature cause the planet to heat monotonically.
If the warmista hypothesis (to the extent they have even enunciated a clear and concise, let alone a testable and falsifiable hypothesis) is correct, what is clearly seen in such proxies as the ice cores, as well as in the surface records for entire multidecadal periods, would be flat out impossible.
CO2 does not trap heat, it allows for radiative transfer of certain wavelengths of thermal radiation.
Last edited 3 hours ago by Nicholas McGinley
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Mike Maguire
Reply to Nicholas McGinley
August 9, 2023 7:02 am
Thanks, Nicholas,
You’ve obviously decided to ignore a proven law of physics or must not be aware of the actual observations/empirical data that profoundly confirms it.
As an operational meteorologist for 42 years, the observations TRUMP the models. Your 800,000 year old data probably worked in the past, when the temperature went up first, then CO2 coming out of the oceans followed because of Henry’s Law. This likely resulted in a positive feedback and additional warming.
Today, we are seeing the CO2 go up first because of a different observation/empirically based proven reason.
Human emissions from burning fossil fuels.This is NOT what happened in the past.
You can’t use 800,000 year temp/CO2 graphs that apply to a different dynamic, while choosing to ignore this one.
In today’s climate, for instance we can note that the driest places(high latitudes of N.Hemisphere/deserts) are warming at a much higher rate than more humid locations.
The main greenhouse gas is still H2O. However, in the warm/humid regions, some of the CO2 radiation absorption bands are already saturated or partially saturated from higher H2O. Adding more CO2 is not having the same impact as it is in the drier locations, where CO2 has more opportunity to absorb and re emit long wave radiation.
All I can tell you is that this is whats being accurately observed and measured in the real world, with meteorological observations and it proves the physics of CO2.
If you don’t want to believe that………..I can’t do any better than providing the proof. .
BTW,. I didn’t go to a bunch of links to find this in order to regurgitate what somebody else stated because that’s what I want to believe.
This is my assessment from observing the atmosphere the past 4 decades. It’s not what I want to believe.It’s just the authentic science/physics.
++++++++++++++++++++++
cilo
Reply to Mike Maguire
August 9, 2023 6:47 am
I looked at your “refutation” long enough to see this:
They start with figures predicted by a model.
They find 75% of the expected quantity.
They declare proof.
Dude, 75% does not even qualify as correlation, never mind causation!
The guy you accuse of ad hominems is actually talking about the quality of your supportive science, not your character.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mike Maguire
Reply to cilo
August 9, 2023 7:07 am
cilo,
Please see my response to somebody that didn’t use name calling, whom you seem to think uses good communication skills needed for adults to have civil discussions.
Interesting! I just read the Cliff Mass post as well as the robust discussion sparked by Mike defending Mass on the existence of AGW.
For those who didn't read this, here is my Cliff Notes summary. Mass said 2F global warming over last 50 years was likely due to CO2 (aka AGW). That caused someone, who doesn't believe in AGW, to ask how he could say that. Then Mike defended Mass by saying that physics supports it. Then someone named gyan1 gave a rather uncivil response to civil Mike in response to Mike defending Mass. But in typical Mike fashion, he retained his civility.
I've learned about Mass for the first time during the last hour. He's not an AGW skeptic at all as per the above. But he is anti AGW alarmism. He feels that the alarmism takes away from the message of getting folks to believe that AGW is real and thus should be dealt with in some way. He appears to be kind of sort of middle of the road from what I can tell so far. He's been criticized by both AGW skeptics and AGW alarmists.
I think of Mike in sort of the same way. He believes in AGW having caused a few degrees of warming since the late 1800s or so. But he also feels there's too much AGW related alarmism, including connecting too many individual wx events fully to AGW without ample scientific proof. He feels that this is promoted by political and monetary forces as well as biased MSM. He feels that some of the models themselves also contribute to this alarmism as he feels they've been warming the globe too rapidly. Also, Mike feels that AGW is net beneficial.
Mike, is this an accurate summary of Mass and yourself?
Pretty close, Larry.
And the fact that none of the benefits, that greatly outweigh the negatives are ever discussed.
The increase of 130 ppm of CO2 for instance is increasing plant growth by 26%.
5ppm=1% 130 ppm=26% That applies to crop yields and world food production for all creatures.
Objective scientists wouldn't only tell us that all the good creatures are being killed by climate change, while telling us that all the bad creatures (ticks, flies, mosquitoes, bacteria, fungus, weeds and so on are thriving and helping to kill all the good creatures.
Good life AND bad life are impacted in many similar ways to the increase in CO2 and global warming.
What has happened, is that the reaction by one side to the junk, exaggerated science of the other is to turn extreme themselves and claim/believe there is NO impact from CO2 on global temperatures at all.
This would be like 2 people negotiating over a house/property that's been appraised at $500,000. The seller asks for $900,000, while the buyer claims it's worth $200,000.
In the end, if both are motivated to make a deal, the buyer and seller would negotiate and get closer and closer to a price close to the appraised value of $500,000 until they agree on the price.
However, in today's world of politics it's the complete opposite. Make no mistake that climate science was hijacked and absolutely, unquestionably is NOT science anymore. What we read and hear about is climate politics.
Back to the original analogy. In today's world of extremely divisive politics, including the fake climate crisis, the original bid was $200,000.
That would be followed up with an even lower bid of $150,000. The offer of $900K then goes to $1 million.
The next response is for the bid to drop to $100,000, then $50,000 with the offers going to $1.1, then $1.2 million.
Seriously think about this! People doing this sort of thing are NOT NEGOTIATING to come together or have an agreement. They are posturing to people on their extreme side to convince those people on that side that they are right.
Their tactic is not to adjust in the direction of the other side by seeing their views but to keep getting more extreme to prove they are right.
The slower than modeled warming should have resulted in new models being adjusted downward. But they did the complete. They created the most extreme model of all with almost impossible chances to verify.......then many entities presented that one for what it was intended..........a POLITICAL/CRONY CAPITALISM TOOL to sell their agenda using a fake climate crisis.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-climate-scientists-should-handle-hot-models/
The latest “CMIP6” generation of climate models includes a subset of “hot models” that point towards much greater warming than expected.
These models have high climate sensitivity, a measure of how much the planet warms in response to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations.
Yet multiple lines of evidence based on observations and our understanding of planetary physics suggest we can confidently narrow the range of climate sensitivity and, crucially, give less weight to high-end estimates.
++++++++++++++++
Here's an example of a place where EVERY model has been too hot so far.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
So the response to this type of data, has been for one side, that uses models for agenda to increase the CO2 sensitivity to make new hotter models to increase their power to motivate people into taking actions. Almost no climate scientists agree with this solution.
The most extreme people on the other side (true deniers-almost no scientists) have responded to double down with their position that CO2 is causing ZERO warming, not even ascertaining any warming from CO2 and insisting all of it was natural.
The authentic truth is in the middle on the temperatures but strongly goes against the alarmists on the impacts.
It was warmer than this several times in the last 10,000 years and CO2 is a beneficial gas with the optimal level for most life being double where it is now. The weather is not getting more extreme outside of 7% heavier rains and 2 deg. F hotter in heat waves with sea levels increasing just over an inch/decade.
That could accelerate the next few years because of the impact from the volcanic eruption that injected a massive amount of H2O into the stratosphere which is heating the planet alot right now.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/98049/
Of course that natural warming from the volcanic eruption that suddenly spiked us warmer this year is being exploited and we are hearing "Hottest in 125,000 years"
For much of this year, I had been uncertain about the actual causes for this huge temp spike up as El Nino could not have impacted the Atlantic like this but I was pretty sure that it wasn't from global warming because the oceans and atmosphere only change very slowly to climate change, natural variations are what cause the extreme fluctuations. Climate change is superimposed on top of those extreme fluctuations and can make them slightly worse or better but we still have the same atmosphere/oceans and same physical principles/meteorology along with the same chaos and natural variability.
It's sort of ironic to see how quickly that a huge volcanic eruption caused by nature can alter the weather/climate. If this was more SO2 and less H2O, we would be seeing cooling for a couple of years instead of heating, like we did with Pinatubo.
I still think we have more to learn about this last eruption and the impact.
Of course the biggest volcano eruption in our country's history was this:
https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/1816-the-year-without-summer.htm
I added this:
Reply to Mike Maguire
August 9, 2023 5:52 pm
We should also note that the ability for CO2 to absorb radiation as it increases is logarithmic. To replicate the amount of increased radiation absorption from the last 130 ppm would require an additional increase of 260 ppm, double that.
However, the flaw in using proven physics facts like that is they apply to CO2 absorption in DRY AIR! 95% of the greenhouse gas effect on the planet is from H2O. Most places have a significant amount of H2O. When H2O shares absorption bands with CO2, it greatly complicates calculating the additional impact from added CO2 to that air.
We have clearly seen from observations that humid places are not warming at nearly the same rate as dry places (deserts/high latitudes over land) because H2O in the humid places is already doing the greenhouse gas job which results in warming the planet in those places and added CO2 has less impact.
Interestingly, we hear that climate change also causes more extreme cold. Observations and physics tell us the complete opposite.
The coldest places over land, in the Winter are the high latitudes that receive very little solar radiation. They are also some of the driest…….and as a result of climate change and CO2 physics, they are warming faster at that time of year than any other places on the planet. So when air masses come from these places, they are NOT AS COLD as they would be with everything else equal but 130 ppm more CO2.
In fact, this applies to most places. The coldest times of year and nights are warming the most from the increase in CO2. The colder the place is over land in the northern hemisphere, the greater the warming from climate change.
But since the fake climate crisis religion tells us that EVERYTHING bad is caused by the increase in CO2, instead of acknowledging this warming benefit in the cold outbreaks of Winter, based on the physics, they spin up creative explanations for how even extreme cold was caused by global warming.
