There is a new study, Time Dependent Climate Energy Transfer: The Forgotten Legacy of Joseph Fourier by Roy Clark, that finds "no ‘climate sensitivity’ to CO2."
The focus of this article is on the null hypothesis that changes in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases do not cause climate change. Short term climate change is related to quasiperiodic ocean oscillations with periods in the 1 to 7 and 10 to 70 year range. Longer term climate changes in the 100 to 1000 year time frame are related to variations in the solar activity as measured by sunspot cycles and other solar parameters. Ice age cycles with periods near 100,0000 years are caused by changes to the earth’s orbital and axial rotation known as Milankovitch cycles. Over longer geological time scales, climate change is produced by plate tectonics that alter the continental boundaries that determine ocean circulation, Clark and Rörsch (2023). Natural climate drivers were recently considered by Ollila (2023). The detailed energy transfer processes related to climate change are both subtle and complex. The first step is to abandon the pseudoscience of radiative forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity and consider instead the time dependence of the climate energy tranfer processes that determine the surface temperature, including the phase shifts that were described by Fourier almost 200 years ago.
According to Clark, the increase in long wave infrared radiation from an additional 140ppm of CO2 is overwhelmed by surface cooling from evaporation, which is dependent upon wind speed.
The sensitivity of the latent heat flux to the wind speed is approximately 15 W m-2/ms-1, Clark and Rörsch (2023). In addition, the 1 to 2 MJ m-2.day-1 variations in the total daily solar flux have no observable effect on the SST 1.5 diurnal temperature changes. The increase in downward LWIR flux to the surface produced by an increase of 140 ppm in the atmospheric CO2 concentration is approximately 2 W m-2 or 0.17 MJ m-2.day-1. This can have no measurable effect on ocean temperatures. It is simply absorbed within the first 100 micron ocean layer and dissipated as an insignificant part of the total surface cooling flux. The absorbed solar flux is decoupled from the wind speed driven latent heat flux. There is no ‘equilibrium average flux balance’ at the ocean surface on any time scale. The amount of heat stored in the ocean thermal reservoir depends on the accumulated net flux balance, including ocean transport effects. There can be no ‘climate sensitivity’ to CO2.
The fact is, emails leaked from the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University showed climate alarmists having a difficult time tying the increases in CO2 to increases in temperatures. It seems that it's only in theory that things work the way they say. In October of 2009 climate scientists Stephen Schneider, Kevin Trenberth, and Michael Mann conducted an email debate in course of which Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow...
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate...
Was 2009 about the time we went from Global Warming to Global Climate Change? A strategic change. Now, no matter what the temperature does, it's Global Climate Change caused by CO2, and it's catastrophic. Temperature change in either direction is now proof that levels of CO2 must be reduced.
A funny thing happened on the way to publishing this post. I was searching the internet for clarity on how increasing levels of CO2 are said to disrupt global climate. There is a theory of "radiative equilibrium" that says incoming radiation from the sun and outgoing energy emitted by earth should be in balance. However, by its nature the CO2 molecule is said to trap heat and prevent it from being emitted back into space. Thus, as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, more of the energy emitted by earth is "trapped." Earth's temperature rises and the imbalance created by higher levels of CO2 is said to be potentially catastrophic.
Here's the funny part. The first thing I ran across in my internet search for "radiative equilibrium," General Equilibrium Theory For Climate Change, doesn't talk about the balance between incoming and outgoing energy. By the way, this particular study is NOT the one I refer to in the title of this post. In this General Equilibrium Theory, the science is settled and the discussion is about taxes and regulations as a way to limit greenhouse gases.
1. Introduction
The mitigation of climate change requires the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of governmental regulation, market mechanisms have proven insufficient to achieve the necessary reduction. Various regulatory schemes—notably “carbon taxes” and cap and trade—have been proposed. However, these regulatory schemes have yet to be incorporated into a general equilibrium model of the generality and rigor of the Arrow-Debreu Model (Arrow and Debreu, 1954). In this paper, we do so.
In their general equilibrium theory paper, Robert M. Anderson and Haosui Duanmu offer two equilibrium models: quota equilibrium and emission tax equilibrium. The authors say, "Full Pareto Optimality of quota equilibrium can often be achieved by setting the right quota." In short the authors provide a study that attempts to determine the optimal quotas for greenhouse gases. The need for establishing these quotas is a given. The science is settled, say the authors. "The mitigation of climate change requires the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions."
The new study demonstrating that CO2 is not to blame for climate change will be ignored. A recent article in Maine's Portland Press Herald explains why.
Global spending on the clean-energy transition hit record highs as the world moves to rein in climate change, but it’s still not enough to get on track to net-zero emissions.
Total spending surged 17% last year to $1.8 trillion, according to a report Tuesday from BloombergNEF. These include investments to install renewable energy, buy electric vehicles, build hydrogen production systems and deploy other technologies. Add in the investments in building out clean-energy supply chains, as well as $900 billion in financing, and the total funding in 2023 reached about $2.8 trillion.
So forget that CO2 is an essential nutrient without which life on earth would cease to exist. Forget that there is legitimate disagreement about the impact of CO2 impact on the climate. $2.8 trillion say we're going to cut emissions of CO2. Money talks.
