New Study: CO2 Has “Considerably Lower” Atmospheric Warming Effect Than IPCC-Backed Models Suggest
A new study from The University of Alabama in Huntsville addresses the most crucial of all climate questions: How much warming can be expected from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere?
UAH Earth System Science Center Research Scientist Dr Roy Spencer and UAH Earth System Science Center Director and Alabama State Climatologist Dr John R. Christy have spent the past decade developing a climate model to answer this very question.
Their latest research, “Effective climate sensitivity distributions from a 1D model of global ocean and land temperature trends, 1970–2021”, was published in the September 2023 issue of Theoretical and Applied Climatology.
Spencer and Christy’s comprehensive climate model, which is based upon objective measured data, found that carbon dioxide does not have as big of an effect of warming of the atmosphere when compared with other IPCC-backed models.
“For over 30 years, dozens of highly sophisticated computerized climate models based upon theory have been unable to agree on an answer. That’s why we developed our own one-dimensional climate model to provide an answer,” said Dr Spencer.
Today’s climate models are not in agreement when it comes to the level of warming produced by a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide–what’s known as “effective climate sensitivity.” Despite mainstream proclamations of ‘settled science’, determining this crucial factor has remained elusive for decades.
While the current range rides as high as +5.6C for a doubling of CO2, Spencer and Christy’s one-dimensional climate model comes in near the bottom-end, at just +1.9C. The lower UAH value indicates that the climate impact of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations is much less that that based on other climate models, reports phys.org.
“An important assumption of our model, as well as the more complex models used by others, is that all climate change is human caused,” said Spencer, carefully wording: “If recent warming is partly natural, it would further reduce climate sensitivity.”
What distinguishes this model developed at UAH from others is that it is driven by actual observations, rather than theoretical assumptions about how the climate system responds to increasing greenhouse gases — the only logical way to conduct such a model.
The UAH model uses a variety of observational datasets between 1970 and 2021 of the deep ocean and land. These datasets produced a range of estimates of climate sensitivity based upon basic concepts of energy conservation.
The results of Spencer and Christy’s research showed a period of the most rapid growth in atmospheric carbon dioxide, continues phys.org. This is due to their climate model accounting for heat storage in deeper layers of land, which other climate models ignore.
“This should be a requirement that any physics-based model of global warming should meet,” Spencer asserted. “Current computerized climate models continue to have difficulty achieving this aspect.”
The takeaway, as written by Dr Spencer himself here (who wanted to achieve publication, remember)…
“If we assume ALL *observed* warming of the deep oceans and land since 1970 has been due to humans, we get an effective climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 of around 1.9 deg. C. This is considerably lower than the official *theoretical* model-based IPCC range of 2.5 to 4.0 deg. C.”
Related reading:
Go outside during the daytime…look up…see that Million + mile wide ball of Multi Million degree plasma…THAT is what controls Earth (And the other 9 Planets- YES Pluto is a Planet) not puny Humans. IF that was POSSIBLE than all of the Mega Nukes detonated in the 50-60’s would have heated Earths atmosphere. Hint – it never happened.
And everybody in America from Tulsa to Chicago to Atlanta and to the East coast better get ready for a very cold, snowy Winter.
https://www.zerohedge.com/weather/us-meteorologist-warns-winter-year-going-be-very-different-el-nino-ramps
And that’s a monster of an assumption. I know why they did it and I’m confident they don’t think that. Even if you simply start with the IPCC position that human influence began in the 1950’s. Warming started before that so right there the assumption is disproved.
If CO2 causes some warming but rapidly becomes saturated at fairly low concentrations and additional amounts cause very little additional warming it’s possible that the roughly 40ppm increase in the atmosphere from preindustrial times to the 1950’s caused almost as much warming as the 100ppm added since then, although the total warming due to CO2 would still be a lot less than the observed warming.
Prof Christy witnessed for Congress committee on Climate in 2015 and showed a very interesting graph.IPCC had pooled together 112 datasets from satellites to achieve a near perfect match that since 1979 lower troposphere temperature had increased exponentially in the nearly same manner as the IPCC computed surface hockey-stick curve ; “as in heaven as on earth” .However according to Christy if compare the real measurement made by real thermometers attached to weaterballones the lower troposphere had warmed 0,4 Degrees Celsius for the same period. The increase was nearly linear; not exponential “hockey-stick” like Which is a polite manner to say:IPCC fabricated an increase in earth atmosphere warming that does not exist, and this again show CO2 not to be as important as claimed. To be sure I did understood it right I wrote to Christy who confirmed my interpretation. If anyone has a good argument against such a fact please do not hestiate.