There are multiple studies from independent sources that have looked at deep ice cores. Trapped in tiny bubbles is air through which the snow which formed the ice thousands of years ago. This is a record of atmospheric CO2. Oxygen isotope ratios change with temperature at that same time.
Taking serial slices, a record of temperature and CO2 over long time periods is uncovered.
The killer observation: temperature ALWAYS changes first and hundreds of years later, CO2 changes in the same direction.
1. Something other than CO2 causes temperature to rise and fall.
2. CO2 changes are a consequence of warming and not a driver.
Most likely, solar output & orbital variations cause temperatures on Earth to vary.
Most likely, both the source of and sink for CO2 is the very large mass of ocean water, which holds less dissolved gas at elevated temperatures.
Most likely, the reason for the delay in linkage between temperature changes and atmospheric CO2 changes is the very large disparity between the mass of the atmosphere and the mass of the oceans.
By the way, there’s good evidence that those who view themselves as in charge of everything on earth, the ultrawealthy bloodline families, paid for the fake climate change crisis “science”. They also paid for the other Club of Rome main scare, overpopulation. The same people are lying to you about pandemics (non existent) of viral illnesses (there’s no scientific evidence for the existence of viruses), of their contagion (contagion has never been observed, certainly in my field of respiratory illnesses) and of the need for & utility of “vaccines” (not one of which is needed, safe or effective). The same people are arranging the financial meltdown of the currency system right now, so that their preferred control method of cashless CBDC can be installed & they’re also responsible for attempting to roll out a novel, digital ID which can be updated in real time. If these latter two instruments are successfully introduced, it’s a permanent end to human freedom,
If you ignore these warnings and I’m right, you’ll lose everything with no recourse. If you pay attention and I’m wrong, the worst that might happen is that some will laugh at you. These two paths have outcomes hugely different. I commend the first, narrow path. The second, easy path, well, you’ll understand the reference to wide and narrow paths I hope.
Ps: The ultrawealthy families are foundations including those we never hear of have run major events in the world for a very long time. The first time you learn this, you reject it as seemingly impossible and anyway frightening. It’s unfortunately true. They regard us as ignorant and “Useless eaters” (Yuval Harari, WEF). The WEF/UN/WHO/IMF/BIS etc clique are one & the same people behind the scenes. The UN2030 Sustainable Development Goals have the usual surface gloss, behind which is a totalitarian, digital dictatorship. With total power at the level of the individual, for the first time in history, these evil creatures can do anything they wish, including reducing the population quite markedly.
With respect to your first paragraph, I am starting to understand the concept of solar forcing. An ‘influencing mechanism’ enters at the poles (magnetic) and is forced towards the equator. This drives nearly all major changes in our climate cycles. My belief is our Sun is the only contributor to any significant climate change. Delve deeper and explore the 12k year catastrophe cycle and much more becomes evident. My advice…don’t listen to what they say, watch what they do. Example… the boring company. Think macro.
Good points...The most basic 101 gas laws explain dilute CO2 behaviors. CO2 partial pressure above a liquid that it is soluble in increases with increasing temperature. Henry's Law and Raoults Law are good ones.
No need for a PhD in climate science or at all actually..🤯
Very good common sense article with peer reviewed citations. The trouble these days is even peer reviewed articles are suspect due to the politicalization and corruption of science. Notheless, this article is very reasonable.
*Heat absorbing cloud cover from the bottom, combined with albedo at the upper reaches have orders of magnitude greater influence over earth temperatures than 420 ppm CO2.
One might even guess that would be the case given that the planet is covered by clouds about 65 % of the time per sat data that started way back with Apolo 8.
With regards to heat flux, the measurements and synthetic models error bars are greater than the proposed amount of heat flux that CO2 traps.
I disregard your comment because it's not peer reviewed. Terrible thing anyone would do that but here I am, doing it while at the same time complaining about it.
If CO2 is the main control knob for 'climate change' where is the correlation between CO2 and the the multitude of ice ages over the millennia ? What drove the increase or decrease in CO2 to cause the Earth to enter or leave an ice age ?
I really like this artice, I frankly had to read it a few times to get the gist of it.
Here is another by Nikolov, who was blackballed as a denier because his cience does not match the agenda.
Roles of Earth’s Albedo Variations and Top-of-the-Atmosphere Energy Imbalance in Recent Warming: New Insights from Satellite and Surface Observations
Our analysis revealed that the observed decrease of planetary albedo along with reported variations of the Total Solar Irradiance explain 100% of the global warming trend and 83% of the Global Surface Air Temperature interannual variability as documented by six satellite- and ground-based monitoring systems over the past 24 years.
I also admire John Clauser the 2022 Nobel laureate. He was also blackballed as a CO2 denier, and had some of his laureate lectures cancelled because of it.
He actually responded to one of my emails in answer to a question about quantum entanglement. Down to earth guy. See what he says about planetary forces (!)
You are welcome to borrow graphics and anything else from my humble articles. See my thermo graphics re CO2 and entropy in "needle in a hatstack" article.
Thanks for that. Great start. Hope parts 2-3 address the ultimate reason(s) that the clouds have thinned in the last couple hundred years. Then we might be getting someplace.
Part II will focus on CSW of various cloud types, with references to publications that attempt to translate this data to estimations on the effect on the GAT anomaly.
Part III will expand into what I call "The Externally Modulated Planetary Albedo Hypothesis" as the alternative to the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect hypothesis.
What you are referring to is extremely fundamental and needs to series in itself.
This is my Story of Climate Change. Not so eloquent as your presentation so far – but I hope enlightening - A billion-year proxy climate reconstruction, elucidation of the cyclic nature of paleoclimate over geologic timescales, the cosmic ray/cloud albedo hypothesis (Svensmark, Shaviv), tie it all together – past and future climate changes explained and predicted. Maybe not heavy the lifting but a spotter at least.
This is how I look at the global temperature system: Warming at the surface of the Earth causes more water evaporation which leads to more clouds and more reflection of sunlight back to space and hence cooling on the surface. Cooling on the surface produces less water evaporation and less clouds and more sunlight warming the surface. In other words, warming leads to cooling and cooling leads to warming. It’s a negative feedback system. Some such system must exist or the remarkably stable average temperature of the earth would not exist.
I don’t get this. 50 years ago “we” (well-informed laypersons) “knew” that incoming solar radiation must be closely balanced by the sum of light reflected by clouds or the earth’s surface and heat radiated by the upper atmosphere. We were told that the radiated fraction was around two thirds of the total. We “understood” that a photon of radiant heat typically (ignoring “windows” which released certain wavelengths) had no chance of escape from the lower atmosphere, because it was absorbed and reradiated by greenhouse gas molecules many times a second; at each such encounter, it had equal chances of radiating upwards or downwards; and such a “drunkard’s walk” would return it to the earth’s surface with overwhelming likelihood. The only major escape route was convection. Air over warm water or vegetation would carry water vapour upwards, often to high levels; the water vapour would condense out, releasing huge amounts of latent heat; and above maybe 6km (?) the drunkard would find it easier to reach space than to reach the ground. Latent heat was the big story, the essential negative feedback. (More heat, more evaporation and more convection…) Now nobody mentions that. I don’t see it in the IPCC assessment reports, and I don’t see it in skeptical sources like Dr Fournier. What happened? I’m confused. Help me out here.
I never covered these finer details of heat transfer mechanism within the lower troposphere, because these were not the objective.
Most people are not aware of the fact that clouds are a much larger GHE than rising CO2 concentrations, let alone that the rate by which they have been declining over the past two generations has been offsetting the growth of the later.
Thanks Joseph, , There is an expanding interest in bioprecipitation and the effects landform changes are having on cloud and rainfall patterns globally, from expanding heat domes to groundwater depletion and the alteration of the biotic pump with its effects cloud densities , temperature and precipitation This graph I found interesting especially with the effect of the 1991 eruption and El Nino
I want to add the following thoughts and thinking.
CO2 cannot trap heat in any way.
The downwelling long wavelength radiation that is measured is not staying.
It is not trapped.
Why is this?
Because it gets absorbed by earth surface and is re-emitted by earth’s surface.
Imagine the journey of a visible wavelength photon.
Especially the journey process that contributes to the downwelling long wavelength radiation.
The photon of the visible light that avoids the clouds (part is clear sky) hits the surface.
It gets converted into a long wavelength photon or multiple ones depending on the energy of the photon and energy of the long wavelength photons.
Consider one of these photons.
It gets re-emitted in the outwards direction towards the top of the atmosphere.
Before getting there it is intercepted by a CO2 molecule (with same probability depending on particular wavelength matching the absorption band of CO2).
It has 50% probability to be sent back to earth surface.
50% escapes into space.
The 50% is arbitrary and is just a means to think the process through.
The back to earth photon hits earth’s surface.
The process repeats.
It gets re-emitted by earth’s surface.
Gets intercepted by a CO2 molecule.
50% probability to escape
50% probability to be re-emitted towards earth’s surface.
This process is repeated until finally the photon has escaped.
So every photon escapes in the end.
No single photon is trapped!
So we should never ever use the word trapping.
Mathematically this is Fabry-Perot type exercise.
Note again the 50% number is an arbitrary number.
It has no consequence for trapping or not.
Note that talking about one photon is actually not correct.
Again it is serving the thinking process.
We know the photon or more appropriately speaking its energy gets converted into another wavelength and hence another photon or more photons of yes a different kind of different energy. This however complicates the process unnecessary for the main point.
Back to the 50% number.
Although it has no consequence for being trapped or not it surely does have a consequence for the magnitude of the downwelling irradiance number.
That number is the result of the sum of all the downwards re-directed fotons.
The Fabry-Peror infinite series summation.
Note also for better understanding that when using a small detector compared to earth’s surface is used to measure the downwelling radiation, photons that are re-emitted by the CO2 undergo and to earth etc. have gone through this process many many times.
They get effectively double, triple and multiple times counted by this detector.
Another way of saying this, the downwelling radiation does represent extra radiation.
It is not extra heat.
I think this reasoning should be included to improve the picture.
Lastly.
If CO2 does not trap any photon, why does it gives rise to a temperature increase?
That seems paradoxical but it is not.
It seems paradoxical to some because many people confuse heat and temperature.
Heat and temperature are of course not the same.
Heat is the energy flow.
Temperature enhancement can be thought of and is often modeled as the result of a thermal resistance (in this case of the CO2 layer) multiplied by the corresponding energy flow through it. The energy flow in the CO2 case is the flow with wavelengths corresponding to the bands were CO2 has non-zero absorption.
I appreciate your thought exercise and there are others that operate along a similar set of logical considerations.
The path I chose is somewhat arbitrary and it relies entirely on peer reviewed publications from sources that argue that CO2 produces a “greenhouse effect”.
I have demonstrated that this effect is offset by the much larger reduction in the greenhouse effect of declining cloud coverage over the Satellite Era.
In addition to these sources of downwelling also the source of downwelling from the (invisible) water vapor (humidity) in the air needs to be taken into account.
The idea of trapped heat is utter nonsense. Heat by definition is thermal energy travelling from one place to another by virtue of temperature differences. It makes sense to talk of trapped thermal energy, but not heat. The thermal energy could be considered to be trapped but it would mean no temperature differences anywhere and I suspect we would then all be dead.
We can trap thermal energy in a thermos flask which is useful for keeping the contents warm, but of no use if you want to keep warm in bed.
Your points are made well. However, my objective was to simply show evidence from the literature showing the hugely overlooked body of data on the relative influences of clouds versus CO2. Whether some terminologies are correct or not is in itself another topic. An important topic nonetheless.
Stop with the misinformation :D so your article is completely in contrast with thousands of peer-reviewed scientific articles and you just happen to be an oil industry ”scientist”. Sure buddy.
Prove me wrong, by showing clear evidence that heat flux out the TOA is declining as our CO2 emissions increase and that Kevin Trenberth is wrong about the offsetting relationship between declining clouds and CO2's IR radiative forcing effects and the first order attribution of declining clouds on surface warming.
FYI - The name is Dr. Joseph Fournier - not Buddy.
There appears to ba a missing 'and' in this sentence
Hans-Rolf Dubal et al’s study is of outmost importance as it shows that OLR out the TOA is approximately 500% higher than downwelling IR radiation intensity is increasing as a function of rising CO2 concentration.
should be
Hans-Rolf Dubal et al’s study is of outmost importance as it shows that OLR out the TOA is approximately 500% higher than downwelling IR radiation intensity AND is increasing as a function of rising CO2 concentration.?
My understanding from the literature examples I used in this article show that heat flux out the TOA is increasing 5x faster than downwelling IR is increasing as a function of rising CO2.
Two separate heat flux values - each increasing in opposition of each other (i.e., one towards the Earth and the other out to space).
This shows that the declining cloud greenhouse effect, which is much larger than that from CO2, is entirely offsetting the latter.
Warming is from increased absorption of sunshine as clouds decline. See Part II of III that came out a few days ago.
There are multiple studies from independent sources that have looked at deep ice cores. Trapped in tiny bubbles is air through which the snow which formed the ice thousands of years ago. This is a record of atmospheric CO2. Oxygen isotope ratios change with temperature at that same time.
Taking serial slices, a record of temperature and CO2 over long time periods is uncovered.
The killer observation: temperature ALWAYS changes first and hundreds of years later, CO2 changes in the same direction.
1. Something other than CO2 causes temperature to rise and fall.
2. CO2 changes are a consequence of warming and not a driver.
Most likely, solar output & orbital variations cause temperatures on Earth to vary.
Most likely, both the source of and sink for CO2 is the very large mass of ocean water, which holds less dissolved gas at elevated temperatures.
Most likely, the reason for the delay in linkage between temperature changes and atmospheric CO2 changes is the very large disparity between the mass of the atmosphere and the mass of the oceans.
By the way, there’s good evidence that those who view themselves as in charge of everything on earth, the ultrawealthy bloodline families, paid for the fake climate change crisis “science”. They also paid for the other Club of Rome main scare, overpopulation. The same people are lying to you about pandemics (non existent) of viral illnesses (there’s no scientific evidence for the existence of viruses), of their contagion (contagion has never been observed, certainly in my field of respiratory illnesses) and of the need for & utility of “vaccines” (not one of which is needed, safe or effective). The same people are arranging the financial meltdown of the currency system right now, so that their preferred control method of cashless CBDC can be installed & they’re also responsible for attempting to roll out a novel, digital ID which can be updated in real time. If these latter two instruments are successfully introduced, it’s a permanent end to human freedom,
If you ignore these warnings and I’m right, you’ll lose everything with no recourse. If you pay attention and I’m wrong, the worst that might happen is that some will laugh at you. These two paths have outcomes hugely different. I commend the first, narrow path. The second, easy path, well, you’ll understand the reference to wide and narrow paths I hope.
Ps: The ultrawealthy families are foundations including those we never hear of have run major events in the world for a very long time. The first time you learn this, you reject it as seemingly impossible and anyway frightening. It’s unfortunately true. They regard us as ignorant and “Useless eaters” (Yuval Harari, WEF). The WEF/UN/WHO/IMF/BIS etc clique are one & the same people behind the scenes. The UN2030 Sustainable Development Goals have the usual surface gloss, behind which is a totalitarian, digital dictatorship. With total power at the level of the individual, for the first time in history, these evil creatures can do anything they wish, including reducing the population quite markedly.
With respect to your first paragraph, I am starting to understand the concept of solar forcing. An ‘influencing mechanism’ enters at the poles (magnetic) and is forced towards the equator. This drives nearly all major changes in our climate cycles. My belief is our Sun is the only contributor to any significant climate change. Delve deeper and explore the 12k year catastrophe cycle and much more becomes evident. My advice…don’t listen to what they say, watch what they do. Example… the boring company. Think macro.
Sun and clouds and ocean and you are good to go re. cyclic climate change and earth's own self regulation.
That's the great thing about agendas, they don't require any factual basis🤝👍
Safe&Effective💉💉💉💉💉💉☠️🏁
Exactly.
Yes, it follows established gas law. Very easy to demonstrate. However not intuitive, colder water/sea can dissolve more CO2 relatively.
Good points...The most basic 101 gas laws explain dilute CO2 behaviors. CO2 partial pressure above a liquid that it is soluble in increases with increasing temperature. Henry's Law and Raoults Law are good ones.
No need for a PhD in climate science or at all actually..🤯
Very good common sense article with peer reviewed citations. The trouble these days is even peer reviewed articles are suspect due to the politicalization and corruption of science. Notheless, this article is very reasonable.
*Heat absorbing cloud cover from the bottom, combined with albedo at the upper reaches have orders of magnitude greater influence over earth temperatures than 420 ppm CO2.
One might even guess that would be the case given that the planet is covered by clouds about 65 % of the time per sat data that started way back with Apolo 8.
With regards to heat flux, the measurements and synthetic models error bars are greater than the proposed amount of heat flux that CO2 traps.
Keep up the good work Joseph!
Yes on the error bars - I believe the first generation of satellites produced data that after analysis is +/- 10 Watts/m2.
I disregard your comment because it's not peer reviewed. Terrible thing anyone would do that but here I am, doing it while at the same time complaining about it.
If CO2 is the main control knob for 'climate change' where is the correlation between CO2 and the the multitude of ice ages over the millennia ? What drove the increase or decrease in CO2 to cause the Earth to enter or leave an ice age ?
Great question! I will attempt to dive deeper into that topic later this year. Never enough time! lol
I really like this artice, I frankly had to read it a few times to get the gist of it.
Here is another by Nikolov, who was blackballed as a denier because his cience does not match the agenda.
Roles of Earth’s Albedo Variations and Top-of-the-Atmosphere Energy Imbalance in Recent Warming: New Insights from Satellite and Surface Observations
Our analysis revealed that the observed decrease of planetary albedo along with reported variations of the Total Solar Irradiance explain 100% of the global warming trend and 83% of the Global Surface Air Temperature interannual variability as documented by six satellite- and ground-based monitoring systems over the past 24 years.
https://www.mdpi.com/2673-7418/4/3/17
Yes, I am seriously impressed by that paper. Will be using it as part of either Part II or III.
Excellent.
I also admire John Clauser the 2022 Nobel laureate. He was also blackballed as a CO2 denier, and had some of his laureate lectures cancelled because of it.
He actually responded to one of my emails in answer to a question about quantum entanglement. Down to earth guy. See what he says about planetary forces (!)
You are welcome to borrow graphics and anything else from my humble articles. See my thermo graphics re CO2 and entropy in "needle in a hatstack" article.
Best,
TC
PhD Chem 1995
Now disgraced Ivy
Thanks for that. Great start. Hope parts 2-3 address the ultimate reason(s) that the clouds have thinned in the last couple hundred years. Then we might be getting someplace.
Oh sure, leave the heavy lifting to me!! lol
Part II will focus on CSW of various cloud types, with references to publications that attempt to translate this data to estimations on the effect on the GAT anomaly.
Part III will expand into what I call "The Externally Modulated Planetary Albedo Hypothesis" as the alternative to the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect hypothesis.
What you are referring to is extremely fundamental and needs to series in itself.
This is my Story of Climate Change. Not so eloquent as your presentation so far – but I hope enlightening - A billion-year proxy climate reconstruction, elucidation of the cyclic nature of paleoclimate over geologic timescales, the cosmic ray/cloud albedo hypothesis (Svensmark, Shaviv), tie it all together – past and future climate changes explained and predicted. Maybe not heavy the lifting but a spotter at least.
Spotter 👍😄
This is how I look at the global temperature system: Warming at the surface of the Earth causes more water evaporation which leads to more clouds and more reflection of sunlight back to space and hence cooling on the surface. Cooling on the surface produces less water evaporation and less clouds and more sunlight warming the surface. In other words, warming leads to cooling and cooling leads to warming. It’s a negative feedback system. Some such system must exist or the remarkably stable average temperature of the earth would not exist.
Thank you for your feedback Steve. Hope you stay tuned for continued explorations of this complex and important topic.
Thank you Joseph. I found this post informative and look forward to parts 2 & 3.
Hi Greg, I am glad that you found it palatable!
Good read, it is archived and rests among quite a few papers on climate change and its causes. Thanks!
Thank you!
I don’t get this. 50 years ago “we” (well-informed laypersons) “knew” that incoming solar radiation must be closely balanced by the sum of light reflected by clouds or the earth’s surface and heat radiated by the upper atmosphere. We were told that the radiated fraction was around two thirds of the total. We “understood” that a photon of radiant heat typically (ignoring “windows” which released certain wavelengths) had no chance of escape from the lower atmosphere, because it was absorbed and reradiated by greenhouse gas molecules many times a second; at each such encounter, it had equal chances of radiating upwards or downwards; and such a “drunkard’s walk” would return it to the earth’s surface with overwhelming likelihood. The only major escape route was convection. Air over warm water or vegetation would carry water vapour upwards, often to high levels; the water vapour would condense out, releasing huge amounts of latent heat; and above maybe 6km (?) the drunkard would find it easier to reach space than to reach the ground. Latent heat was the big story, the essential negative feedback. (More heat, more evaporation and more convection…) Now nobody mentions that. I don’t see it in the IPCC assessment reports, and I don’t see it in skeptical sources like Dr Fournier. What happened? I’m confused. Help me out here.
Hi Mr. Atkinson,
I like your rendition of the underlying physics.
I never covered these finer details of heat transfer mechanism within the lower troposphere, because these were not the objective.
Most people are not aware of the fact that clouds are a much larger GHE than rising CO2 concentrations, let alone that the rate by which they have been declining over the past two generations has been offsetting the growth of the later.
Thanks for the reply. But I’m still at a loss. 64% is not fine detail. I’ll keep reading.
Thanks Joseph, , There is an expanding interest in bioprecipitation and the effects landform changes are having on cloud and rainfall patterns globally, from expanding heat domes to groundwater depletion and the alteration of the biotic pump with its effects cloud densities , temperature and precipitation This graph I found interesting especially with the effect of the 1991 eruption and El Nino
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-temperature-anomalies-by-el-nino-la-nina?time=earliest..latest.
Thanks again I look forward to parts 2 and 3
Good work!
Thank you for sharing here on Substack!
I’m happy with that!
I want to add the following thoughts and thinking.
CO2 cannot trap heat in any way.
The downwelling long wavelength radiation that is measured is not staying.
It is not trapped.
Why is this?
Because it gets absorbed by earth surface and is re-emitted by earth’s surface.
Imagine the journey of a visible wavelength photon.
Especially the journey process that contributes to the downwelling long wavelength radiation.
The photon of the visible light that avoids the clouds (part is clear sky) hits the surface.
It gets converted into a long wavelength photon or multiple ones depending on the energy of the photon and energy of the long wavelength photons.
Consider one of these photons.
It gets re-emitted in the outwards direction towards the top of the atmosphere.
Before getting there it is intercepted by a CO2 molecule (with same probability depending on particular wavelength matching the absorption band of CO2).
It has 50% probability to be sent back to earth surface.
50% escapes into space.
The 50% is arbitrary and is just a means to think the process through.
The back to earth photon hits earth’s surface.
The process repeats.
It gets re-emitted by earth’s surface.
Gets intercepted by a CO2 molecule.
50% probability to escape
50% probability to be re-emitted towards earth’s surface.
This process is repeated until finally the photon has escaped.
So every photon escapes in the end.
No single photon is trapped!
So we should never ever use the word trapping.
Mathematically this is Fabry-Perot type exercise.
Note again the 50% number is an arbitrary number.
It has no consequence for trapping or not.
Note that talking about one photon is actually not correct.
Again it is serving the thinking process.
We know the photon or more appropriately speaking its energy gets converted into another wavelength and hence another photon or more photons of yes a different kind of different energy. This however complicates the process unnecessary for the main point.
Back to the 50% number.
Although it has no consequence for being trapped or not it surely does have a consequence for the magnitude of the downwelling irradiance number.
That number is the result of the sum of all the downwards re-directed fotons.
The Fabry-Peror infinite series summation.
Note also for better understanding that when using a small detector compared to earth’s surface is used to measure the downwelling radiation, photons that are re-emitted by the CO2 undergo and to earth etc. have gone through this process many many times.
They get effectively double, triple and multiple times counted by this detector.
Another way of saying this, the downwelling radiation does represent extra radiation.
It is not extra heat.
I think this reasoning should be included to improve the picture.
Lastly.
If CO2 does not trap any photon, why does it gives rise to a temperature increase?
That seems paradoxical but it is not.
It seems paradoxical to some because many people confuse heat and temperature.
Heat and temperature are of course not the same.
Heat is the energy flow.
Temperature enhancement can be thought of and is often modeled as the result of a thermal resistance (in this case of the CO2 layer) multiplied by the corresponding energy flow through it. The energy flow in the CO2 case is the flow with wavelengths corresponding to the bands were CO2 has non-zero absorption.
I hope that I have made my point clear.
I appreciate your thought exercise and there are others that operate along a similar set of logical considerations.
The path I chose is somewhat arbitrary and it relies entirely on peer reviewed publications from sources that argue that CO2 produces a “greenhouse effect”.
I have demonstrated that this effect is offset by the much larger reduction in the greenhouse effect of declining cloud coverage over the Satellite Era.
I can appreciate that.
One other thing.
You compare CO2 downwelling to cloud downwelling.
In addition to these sources of downwelling also the source of downwelling from the (invisible) water vapor (humidity) in the air needs to be taken into account.
I believe that is part of the clear sky downwelling IR spectra.
Visiting Michigan, chuck full of chemtrails here in Auburn Hills. Scary to me that my family here 'sees nothing'. Thanks for this discussion.
The idea of trapped heat is utter nonsense. Heat by definition is thermal energy travelling from one place to another by virtue of temperature differences. It makes sense to talk of trapped thermal energy, but not heat. The thermal energy could be considered to be trapped but it would mean no temperature differences anywhere and I suspect we would then all be dead.
We can trap thermal energy in a thermos flask which is useful for keeping the contents warm, but of no use if you want to keep warm in bed.
Your points are made well. However, my objective was to simply show evidence from the literature showing the hugely overlooked body of data on the relative influences of clouds versus CO2. Whether some terminologies are correct or not is in itself another topic. An important topic nonetheless.
Stop with the misinformation :D so your article is completely in contrast with thousands of peer-reviewed scientific articles and you just happen to be an oil industry ”scientist”. Sure buddy.
Prove me wrong, by showing clear evidence that heat flux out the TOA is declining as our CO2 emissions increase and that Kevin Trenberth is wrong about the offsetting relationship between declining clouds and CO2's IR radiative forcing effects and the first order attribution of declining clouds on surface warming.
FYI - The name is Dr. Joseph Fournier - not Buddy.
Please, let us all be respectful here. The snarky comments do nothing to enhance your point of view.
Earth needs CO2 for photosynthesis
Bunch of climate alarmist
There appears to ba a missing 'and' in this sentence
Hans-Rolf Dubal et al’s study is of outmost importance as it shows that OLR out the TOA is approximately 500% higher than downwelling IR radiation intensity is increasing as a function of rising CO2 concentration.
should be
Hans-Rolf Dubal et al’s study is of outmost importance as it shows that OLR out the TOA is approximately 500% higher than downwelling IR radiation intensity AND is increasing as a function of rising CO2 concentration.?
Thanks for critiquing my wording used.
My understanding from the literature examples I used in this article show that heat flux out the TOA is increasing 5x faster than downwelling IR is increasing as a function of rising CO2.
Two separate heat flux values - each increasing in opposition of each other (i.e., one towards the Earth and the other out to space).
This shows that the declining cloud greenhouse effect, which is much larger than that from CO2, is entirely offsetting the latter.
Warming is from increased absorption of sunshine as clouds decline. See Part II of III that came out a few days ago.