The evidence that rising CO2 concentrations lead to inconsequential warming keeps piling up. [emphasis, links added]
In a new study, seven Viennese researchers provide more evidence the CO2 absorption band is already saturated at today’s concentrations (over 400 ppm).
Rising CO2 levels thus cannot drive significant global warming:
“Data from ground measurements indicate that the downward (backward) radiation of the atmosphere shows indeed full saturation of the IR CO2 bands and does not support noticeable additional Thermal Forcing (TF) by increasing CO2 in the lower atmosphere.”
“…we can expect full saturation already at current concentrations.”
As Table 2 from the study indicates, doubling CO2 from preindustrial levels (280 to 560 ppm) increases global mean infrared absorption by just 1.1% (82.1% vs. 83.2%).
This is an indicator of the decreasing effectiveness of CO2 as a warming agent as its concentration rises.
Indeed, a 400 to 800 ppm increase “shows no measurable increase in the IR absorption for the 15 μ-central peak,” and thus it can lead to just 0.5°C warming at most.
Read more at No Tricks Zone
Why not read the ORIGINAL study before criticizing its conclusions? Kenneth Richard is not one of the authors of the study. He is just reporting what the study finds, so whether he is a crackpot or not is irrelevant. William Happer, a now-retired member of the Princeton physics faculty, is not a crackpot, and he made the same point about CO2 saturation a few years ago:
The new study is consistent with Happer’s argument. Read it for yourself and see.
Greene has an MBA and no science degrees, even undergraduate, so take his rants with a huge dose of salt.
Looking for repeatable experiment that demonstrates the core premise of mann made global warming that doubling CO2 raises air temp 2.7F to 8.1F
CO2 is not saturated
Kenneth Richard is a crackpot
0.5 is below almost every prediction of the ECS of CO2, including all spectroscopy in lab measurements
Every article by Kenneth Richard should be ignored
The ECS of CO2 is unknown
No study will change that
The common range of guesses is from 0.7 to 5.5 degrees C. for CO2 x 2. Obviously, no one knows.
If all the warming since 1975 was caused by CO2, which is very unlikely, the ECS of CO2 would be between 1.8 and 2.4 degrees C.
Richard, selecting 1975 as a base line for a measurement of what ECS would be is cherry picking the data. That year was one of colder years in our history and people were concerned that a new ice age was coming. However, to give you credit you both stated that it is unlikely that all warming since then is from carbon dioxide and that we don’t know what the ECS is. The best indication is empirical data. There are multiple events that show carbon dioxide has little impact on warming. Earlier in this century there was a pause in warming despite the level of carbon dioxide continuing to increase at a rapid rate.
CO2 increased only 7% from 1940 to 1975 and then increased 25% after 1975. The tiny warming effect of CO2 from 1940 to 1975 was more than offset by increasing air pollution until about 1980
There was a warming trend after 1975 with CO2 emissions part of the cause. I presented worse case guesses of the ECS of CO2 by assuming all the warming after 1975 was caused by CO2. The rise of CO2 emissions and climate scaremongering started after 1975.
A worst case estimate is always biased — that’s why it is called worst case.
Empirical data for the ECS of CO2 are only from lab spectroscopy, which I discussed. It is impossible to measure the ECS of CO2 in the atmosphere directly, including various feedbacks. Back radiation can be measured but the causes are a mix of CO2, water vapor and clouds. The amount caused by CO2 is only a rough estimate.
Your claim of CO2 emissions increasing at a rapid rate earlier in the 20th century (I assume before 1975) obscures the reality of a mere 7% atmospheric CO2 increase in the 35 years from 1940 to 1975.
Kenneth Richard is a CO2 Does Almost Nothing Nutter so publishing a 0.5 degree C. guess is an improvement for him.
My climate science and energy blog with over one million lifetime page views. I recommend my articles from this website. The past few weeks have had especially good choices … until this one.
https://honestclimatescience.blogspot.com/
I said the carbon dioxide was increasing “earlier in this century.” You respond with data before 1975. That was the last century, this century is the twenty first century.
What I was referring to for earlier in this century was the pause in warming. During this period carbon dioxide continued to increase at a rate a little greater as it always had. Yet, there was what was called a pause in warming from 2003 to 2015. The climate activists came up with 68 excuses to explain it, so there is no doubt that this pause happened. What the pause shows is at least a partial disconnect from the narrative that carbon dioxide is the temperature control knob.
If the climate activists really believed we were facing a climate apocalypse they would have been delighted at the pause in warming and express hope that it would continue. However, they tried to explain the pause away. This clearly shows that the climate change movement is a collection of agendas not based on true science.
Negative feedback. Wikipedia says this in the article about Le Chatelier’s principle: “When a settled system is disturbed, it will adjust to diminish the change that has been made to it.”
I see the Typical Hollywood Hypocrites who are calling a End to Fossil Fuels with ground of Useful Idiots from Climate Defiance Meanwhile Hollywood useful idiots use Fossil Fuels everyday and so do those idiots from Climate Defiance
The scientists and science ignore that big ball of gas in the sky.
Dec 19, 2024 Earthspots – The Most Obvious Ignored Science By Suspicious0bservers
https://youtu.be/JMw5pw_fuF0?si=c_cphCM6e0nNX2yF