Regardless how one might construe the atmospheric physics of CO2, a few critical facts remain, and the subject is academic:
(1) There is a statistically significant correlation between temperature and CO2 emissions and these data are robust.
(2) The current trend of increasing CO2 is a consequence (an effect) of warming, not the cause of warming.
(3) There is no correlation between changes in net atmospheric CO2 concentration and fossil fuel emissions. An estimated 300% increase in CO2 emissions from fossil fuels since 2000 is so small relative to the overall net natural CO2 increasing trend that it is undetectable in the data of CO2 trend, and
(4) since human-produced CO2 is not affecting the overall rate of CO2 trend, then by logical inference human-produced CO2 cannot be significantly affecting temperature, and
(5) these data are statistically robust.
(6) Warmer oceans desorb CO2 into air and colder water absorbs CO2 into the water. The atmospheric fraction of CO2 and the fraction of gaseous CO2 in ocean water has not changed. “..terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected….” This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ±1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero.”
” Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction [of CO2] can be found.”
(7) There is about 50 times more gaseous CO2 in the oceans than in the atmosphere, and the oceans are an infinite sink for ionized CO2, such that the oceans can never become acidic due to CO2. There is not enough carbon on earth to make the pH of the oceans less than 7, or acidic. The ocean has multiple buffering systems for ionic CO2 forms.
(8) Except for limited runs done of the Russian climate model, the other 100+ climate models fail to validate, that is, the models fail to predict known temperatures.
(9) The Russian climate model predicts cooling, not warming.
(10) The hypothesis of human-caused global warming due to CO2 is falsified. There is no empirical evidence that a trend of increasing global CO2 concentration causes a statistically significant trend of global warming. Empirical evidence contradicts the AGW hypothesis.
(11) The ONLY pathway for carbon to enter the food chain that sustains life on this planet is via atmospheric CO2 absorption by plants. Ice core data of paleo historic CO2 proxies shows that during the Jurassic period, which was very abundant with plant and animal life, CO2 concentration reached 2800 ppm. The current 400 ppm atmospheric CO2 concentration is historically very low, not far above the 150 ppm concentration causing mass extinction of plant life during the more than 50 million year period of the Carboniferous and Permian ice age.
(12) Since atmospheric CO2 concentration is not far above paleo historic lows, efforts to limit CO2 emissions are by definition self-destructive.
(13) Far more people die from cold than from warmth.
(14) According to satellite studies the planet is getting greener as CO2 concentration increases.
(15) The predicted sensitivity of climate to increasing CO2 which is found in many years of peer-reviewed science publication has been declining.
(16) Despite the large and continuing increase in total atmospheric CO2 concentration, of which 99.9% is non-human, no statistically significant increase is detected in the rate of change of sea level increase. This is contrary to AGW theory and UN IPCC predictions.
(17) Despite the continuing increase in total atmospheric CO2 concentration, of which 99.9% is non-human, no “tropical hotspot” is detectable, contrary to AGW theory and UN IPCC prediction.
(16) Earth is reliably predicted to have recently entered a cooling trend, although it may be years before we can measure this at the surface.
(17) CO2 trend and temperature trend are diverging, contrary to AGW theory.
In the words of Professor Richard S. Lindzen, “Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change? …The climate is always undergoing change, and if the changes due to increasing CO2 are smaller than the natural variability, then these changes will be of only modest concern except as an exercise in weak signal detection….”
References
- Professor Salby:
- Professor Munshi:
https://budbromley.blog/2019/05/06/no-correlation-between-fossil-fuel-emissions-and-atmospheric-co2/
- Professor Valentina V. Zharkova:
budbromley 
Reblogged this on Climate- Science.press.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The reference to Professor Salby says “Video unavailable”.
But a recent talk he gave, which speaks to claims of daveburton, is here:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for letting me know. I’ll fix the link and also add the one you provided.
LikeLike
Bud, many of your points are correct, but some are very wrong. This is just about some of the wrong ones.
You say, “(2) The current trend of increasing CO2 is a consequence (an effect) of warming”
But the annually averaged CO2 level has risen every year, since precise measurements began at Mauna Loa, for sixty consecutive years, and the rate or rise is accelerating.
Do you really think that the Earth has been warming continuously for sixty years, and that the rate of warming is accelerating?
Bud, you say, “(3) The 300% increase in CO2 emissions from fossil fuels since 2000 is so small relative to the overall net natural CO2 increasing trend that it is undetectable”
That contradicts what you just wrote. You just finished admitting to the “current trend of increasing CO2.”
In 2018 mankind’s documented direct emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels and concrete making were equivalent to about 4.5 ppmv. But now you say that amount is “undetectable.”
So, which is it? Is 4.5 ppmv (= 37 Gt) CO2 added to the atmosphere detectable, or not? Make up your mind!
You say, “(4) since human-produced CO2 is not affecting the overall net rate of CO2 increase…”
That’s nonsense. When mankind adds 4.5 ppmv (37 Gt) of CO2 to the atmosphere, that directly raises that atmospheric CO2 level by 4.5 ppmv. Of course.
When the measured CO2 level increases only about half that much, it means that other processes removed about 2.2 ppmv of CO2.
You can learn about those processes here:
http://sealevel.info/feedbacks.html#greening
You say, “(10) The hypothesis of human-caused global warming due to CO2 is falsified”
Wrong. It is well and truly proven that atmospheric GHGs, including CO2, make the Earth’s surface warmer than it otherwise would be. (That’s a Good Thing, btw.)
The proof of CO2’s warming effect is the big green notch in this measured emission spectrum:
If that is not clear to you, it is explained very thoroughly in #6-9, here:
https://sealevel.info/learnmore.html#brief
LikeLike
There you go again Dave.
I often do not post readers comments to avoid my reader’s public embarrassment.
The annually averaged CO2 level has risen every year, since precise measurements began at Mauna Loa, for sixty consecutive years.
I am not questioning that. I live on the northwest flank of Mauna Loa.
I have not read a definitive study about the second derivative of atmospheric CO2. If you have, then please send it to me.
There is no question that the earth has been in a warming trend since the last ice age.
I have not read a definitive study about the second derivative of earth’s warming. If you have, then please send it to me.
The 300% increase in CO2 emissions from fossil fuels since 2000 is so small relative to the overall net natural CO2 increasing trend that the human contribution is undetectable. The current trend of increasing CO2 has been increasing, almost monotonically, except for seasons, since the Maunder Minimum This is fact within the definitions of science.
In 2018 mankind’s documented direct emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels and concrete making were equivalent to about 4.5 ppmv. If you say so. That amount that is statistically undetected relative to the total net in natural (non-human) CO2 flux, the continuous absorption and desorption of CO2 by the environment. An orders of magnitude different. Most human-produced and non-human CO2 is re-absorbed in the environment. The small human component is “Undetectable,” as in buried in the noise, with regard to the overall natural trend of CO2 concentration. The human components is trivial compared to the total.
Professor Murry Salby elaborates precisely on that science using three different methods.
The “hypothesis of human-caused global warming due to CO2 is falsified.” That fact is true whether or not total CO2 causes global warming. These are two easily differentiated questions.
The hypothesis of human-caused global warming due to CO2 is falsified.
Whether or not total CO2 causes global warming is of academic interest only. Since our use of fossil fuels has no detected effect on the CO2 warming trend, we cannot, do not, affect the warming trend. Our affect is insignificant.
However, we do not yet have sufficient data with regard to the cooling trends.
It is a purely academic question, accepted by all scientists as far as I know, that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. Furthermore, infrared absorption by CO2 in bulk increases linearly as CO2 concentration increases. CO2 concentration has been increasing since the last age ended. On the other hand, a single CO2 molecule’s available IR absorption bands become saturated. Further absorption is impossible.
CO2 also emits infrared radiation. It also transfers energy by collisions. Many collisions. Absorption of radiation is not by and of itself a thermal event. No warming occurs. Collisions are thermal events. As I said, it is an academic question. Human CO2 is statistically insignificant to the CO2 trend and to the warming trend.
The human component of CO2 concentration is too small to have a detectable effect on temperature since the human component is too small to affect the total CO2 trend. 300% and gigatons sound impressive, but they are statistically insignificant compared to the total natural CO2 flux. If 1st derivative of human CO2 is insignificant with respect to the 1st derivative of total CO2, then human C02 is insignificant.
LikeLike