{"id":279409,"date":"2023-09-19T13:07:37","date_gmt":"2023-09-19T11:07:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=279409"},"modified":"2023-09-19T13:07:40","modified_gmt":"2023-09-19T11:07:40","slug":"new-study-the-rising-co2-causes-warming-perception-not-supported-by-real-world-observation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=279409","title":{"rendered":"New Study: The Rising-CO2-Causes-Warming Perception Not Supported By Real-World Observation"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From NoTricksZone<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Kenneth Richard<\/a>\u00a0on\u00a0<\/em>18. September 2023<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cOddly, while the principal direction suggested by the models is \u0394In[CO\u2082] \u2192 \u0394T,\u00a0the explained variance is impressively low (10-15%) in this direction and impressively high (reaching 90%) in the opposite direction, at \u0394T \u2192\u00a0\u0394In[CO\u2082].\u201d\u00a0 \u2212 Koutsoyiannis et al., 2023<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the most basic concepts in physics is that causes precede effects and effects follow causes. Determining the directionality sequence is thus essential in any causality analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The assumed CO\u2082\u2192T<\/em> causality direction cannot be scientifically supported<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The assumption in climate models is that CO\u2082 causes changes in temperature, or T<\/em>. More specifically, it is assumed modern global warming has been caused by increases in anthropogenic CO\u2082 emissions.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, scientists (Koutsoyiannis et al., 2023<\/a><\/strong>) have now expanded upon last year\u2019s 2-part study on stochastics-formulated causality published in The Royal Society<\/em> (Koutsoyiannis et al., 2022 (1)<\/a><\/strong> and Koutsoyiannis et al., 2022 (2)<\/a><\/strong>) where they notably contend:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cClearly the results [\u2026] suggest a (mono-directional) potentially causal system with T as the cause and [CO\u2082] as the effect. Hence the common perception that increasing [CO\u2082] causes increased T can be excluded as it violates the necessary condition for this causality direction.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A year later these same authors have again conspicuously demonstrated the assumed CO\u2082\u2192T<\/em> causality direction cannot be scientifically supported because observations clearly show that variance in T<\/em> leads or precedes growth rate variance in CO\u2082 by 6 or more months.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAll evidence resulting from the analyses suggests a unidirectional, potentially causal link with T [temperature] as the cause and [CO\u2082] as the effect.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Observational evidence overrules modeled assumptions, regardless of how compelling or mainstream the conventional wisdom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Image Source:\u00a0Koutsoyiannis et al., 2023<\/a><\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Cross-correlation analysis reveals CO\u2082-causes-warming trend alignment depictions are spurious<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because it is widely assumed human CO\u2082 emissions are the cause and temperature changes are the effect, tendentiously adjusting the axes on graphs to make it appear that the CO\u2082 and T<\/em> trends align (i.e., curve-fitting, as shown in the left-side chart below) has become a popular pursuit for those advancing the anthropogenic global warming narrative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It can be shown, however, that these trend alignments are spurious. Why? Because in the industrial era there have been periods when temperatures have risen rapidly with negligible CO\u2082 emissions (1700-1750), and decreasing temperatures while CO\u2082 emissions were rising (1880-1900, 1950-1970). When including all these counter-alignments together and differencing the time series (cross-correlation), the CO\u2082\u2192T trend alignment disappears. These non-correlations are clearly shown in the right-side charts below. If there are non-correlations, or if the correlations are spurious, causation cannot be established.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Image Source:\u00a0Koutsoyiannis et al., 2023<\/a><\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Natural CO\u2082 emissions induced by warming can be shown to be responsible for rising CO\u2082 concentrations<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fossil fuel emissions amount to 9.4 GtC\/year, which is only 4% of the total CO\u2082 emissions from all sources. In contrast, nature (respiration, freshwater outgassing, fire, volcanism, etc.) produces CO\u2082 emissions amounting to 216 GtC\/year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is assumed that the carbon cycle is, in its natural state (without human interference), in perpetual equilibrium, with emissions from natural sources almost perfectly balanced by natural sinks. This presumption is flawed, however, because nature\u2019s sinks don\u2019t decide to only absorb the 216 GtC\/year from natural sources as they simultaneously fail to absorb the 9.4 GtC\/year from human activities. The 216 GtC\/year from nature and 9.4 GtC\/year from fossil fuels are instantaneously combined, and nature\u2019s sinks absorb emissions proportionately from the total, ~225 GtC\/year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In their new paper\u2019s appendix, Koutsoyiannis and colleagues have used basic chemistry to show that outgassing from warming and respiration can be biochemically shown to produce emissions rates of 31.6 GtC\/year. This is 3.4 times more than the annual emissions from fossil fuels (9.4 GtC\/year). Thus, the observation that temperature may potentially a cause of rising CO\u2082 concentrations appears to be observationally supportable. A substantial portion of modern CO\u2082 rise may thus be natural.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Image Source:\u00a0Koutsoyiannis et al., 2023<\/a><\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Natural mechanisms for warming may include the natural increase in sunshine duration<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

If rising CO\u2082 concentrations cannot explain modern warming due to the violation of the requisite causality direction, what can?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As has been detailed extensively in many other observational studies<\/a><\/strong>, the recent decline in Earth\u2019s planetary albedo (clouds, aerosols) has been reflecting less solar radiation and increasing sunshine duration<\/a><\/strong> in recent decades. This, in turn, warms the surface.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A 0.01 change in planetary albedo can induce a radiative forcing of \u00b13.4 W\/m\u00b2 (Wielicki et al., 2005<\/strong><\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Koutsoyiannis and colleagues cite CERES data that depict a falling linear trend of -0.0019 per decade in planetary albedo since 2000. This can be shown to have elicited a +1.4 W\/m\u00b2 positive imbalance from incoming shortwave, which is sufficient to explain the modern radiative forcing associated with rising temperatures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So the warming in recent decades may be natural. The CO\u2082 increases resulting from the natural warming may be substantially natural too. And these results are observationally supportable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given the evidence presented in this new study, the claim that human CO\u2082 emissions are the cause of modern warming is not observationally supportable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"


Image Source:\u00a0Koutsoyiannis et al., 2023<\/a><\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n