Within the last few years, over 50 papers have been added to our compilation of scientific studies that find the climate’s sensitivity to doubled CO2 (280 ppm to 560 ppm) ranges from <0 to 1°C.
When no quantification is provided, words like “negligible” are used to describe CO2’s effect on the climate.
The list has now reached 106 scientific papers.
Link: 100+ Scientific Papers – Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity
A few of the papers published in 2019 are provided below.
Krainov and Smirnov, 2019 (2X CO2 = 0.4°C, 2X anthroCO2 = 0.02°C):
The greenhouse phenomenon in the atmosphere that results from emission of its molecules and particles in the infrared spectrum range is determined by atmospheric water in the form of molecules and microdrops and by carbon dioxide molecules for the Earth atmosphere and by carbon dioxide molecules and dust for the Venus atmosphere.
The line-by-line method used the frequency-dependent radiative temperature for atmospheric air with a large optical thickness in the infrared spectral range, allows one to separate emission of various components in atmospheric emission.
This method demonstrates that the removal of carbon dioxide from the Earth’s atmosphere leads to a decrease of the average temperature of the Earth’s surface by 4 K; however, doubling of the carbon dioxide amount causes an increase of the Earth’s temperature by 0.4 K from the total 2 K at CO2 doubling in the real atmosphere, as it follows from the NASA measurements.
The contribution to this temperature change due to injections of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to combustion of fossil fuel, and it is 0.02 K. The infrared radiative flux to the Venus surface due to CO2 is about 30% of the total flux, and the other part is determined by a dust.
Ollila, 2019 (2XCO2= 0.6°C):
“If a climate model using the positive water feedback were applied to the GH effect magnitude of this study, it would fail worse than a model showing a TCS value of 1.2°C.
If there were a positive water feedback mechanism in the atmosphere, there is no scientific grounding to assume that this mechanism would start to work only if the CO2 concentration exceeds 280 ppm, and actually, the IPCC does not claim so.
The absolute humidity and temperature observations show that there is no positive water feedback mechanism in the atmosphere during the longer time periods… The contribution of CO2 in the GH effect is 7.3% corresponding to 2.4°C in temperature.
The reproduction of CO2 radiative forcing (RF) showed the climate sensitivity RF value to be 2.16 Wm-2, which is 41.6% smaller than the 3.7 Wm-2 used by the IPCC.
A climate model showing a climate sensitivity (CS) of 0.6°C matches the CO2 contribution in the GH effect, but the IPCC’s climate model showing a CS of 1.8°C or 1.2°C does not.”
Varotsos and Efstathiou, 2019:
“The enhancement of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to the increase in the atmospheric greenhouse gases is often considered as responsible for global warming (known as greenhouse hypothesis of global warming).
In this context, the temperature field of the global troposphere and lower stratosphere over the period 12/1978–07/2018 is explored using the recent Version 6 of the UAH MSU/AMSU global satellite temperature dataset.
Our analysis did not show consistent warming with a gradual increase from low to high latitudes in both hemispheres, as it should be from the global warming theory…
Based on these results and bearing in mind that the climate system is complicated and complex with the existing uncertainties in the climate predictions, it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities.”
Read more at No Tricks Zone
“Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming”
James Powell Published November 20, 2019 Research Article
“Abstract
The consensus among research scientists on anthropogenic global warming has grown to 100%, based on a review of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles on “climate change” and “global warming” published in the first 7 months of 2019.”
As the author mentions, a handful of the articles mention complication with some measurements without denying man-made global warming. Some other types of publications or articles in unrecognized journals e.g. questions the extent of man-made global warming based.
Please do not refer to a lot of often YouTube videos and manipulating denier homepages with retired people, lobbyists and non-scientists. Check deniers and their claims at skepticalscience.com and their scientific references please,
See the well-established scientific journal. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0270467619886266
You’re a troll-bot. There is no argument against human activities like deforestation and urban sprawl raising temperature locally. Carbon dioxide emissions have multiple sources, 95% of them are natural, like termites and micro – organisms. We’ve noticed that honest scientific research and government policy are strange bedfellows.
11,602 peer reviewed papers in 7 months to find the proverbial needle in a haystack. The nutters take that tidbit and scream from the rooftops that we need to ban oil, coal, natural gas and a balanced diet NOW, or the world will end.
Congratulations, Torsten. You’ve put stilts under millions of mental midgets.
Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming”
James Powell Published November 20, 2019 Research Article
“Abstract
The consensus among research scientists on anthropogenic global warming has grown to 100%, based on a review of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles on “climate change” and “global warming” published in the first 7 months of 2019.”
As the author mentions, a handful of the articles mention complication with some measurements without denying man-made global warming. Some other types of publications or articles in unrecognized journals e.g. questions the extent of man-made global warming based.
Please do not refer to a lot of often YouTube videos and manipulating denier homepages with retired people, lobbyists and non-scientists. Check deniers and their claims at skepticalscience.com and their scientific references please,
See the well-established scientific journal. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0270467619886266
The consensus is not the FACTS, you dumb you. Not too long ago 100 % of scientists had CONSENSUS that Earth is FLAT. And if you disagree they would make a nice barbecue out of you. Science is not about the CONSENSUS among the corrupted pseudo-scientists. It’s about the FACTS. And they have none. Only computer-generated MODELS.
Start from the long ago Club of Rome’s initiatives until today. In that narrative, that time line, where did you say “No” ? I said ‘no’ when Ontario Hydro CEO Maurice Strong spent my money on some Costa Rican swampland. That’s more than 25 years ago. If that makes me a ‘denier’, I’m a denier of what, exactly? I own a piece of foreign swamp that was supposed to stop global warming. Now I live in a countryside blighted by monstrous wind turbines and expansive solar farms that do as much as that POS swamp in Central America.
I say enough is enough, and enough is too much.
PS…there’s millions of people who have suffered more than I have from this ‘virus’. The glimmer of hope is in recent election results. Brexit is another setback for One World government. Long live democracy.
I’m a climate rejector. To deny, in this context, implies that I might believe what the doomsdayers are claiming, but reluctant to admit. This is not the case at all. We can bury our opponents with the truth about planetary processes and climate physics, but they won’t shut up until we can fully expose the truth about what they seek to accomplish by claiming that the “Climate Crisis” is a threat. They seek control, power, influence, and social victory at the expense of our freedom. Stop the environment tyranny.
sick of being called a denier? respond with “Climate Criers are Liars”
It’s a power, influence and money grab.
Nothing to do with reason, logic, evidence,…
You know, I don’t understand why the truth isn’t so ignored and censored by google AND thosenfact checkers. They always state this effort who speak the truth as wrong and those who support alarmism as right. Burn im pretty sure it’s the fact checkers that are wrong. Am I right?
Google aren’t the problem. Your government is; mine too. Governments promoted this anti-CO2 phobia. We must aim for a re-evaluation of the science by calling for a blue / red team examination of the core science. We can’t proceed until this is done. In USA, Trumps advisers blocked it; although Trump himself would support the re-evaluation. After the science is re-evaluated we can demand either abolition of the IPCC or a fundamental change in its charter and management. Abolition would make more sense.
1000’s of papers saying CO2 does not cause Global Warming will not make a bit of difference. And those that understand the actual science of the Global Warming Hoax are called “Science Deniers”. Apex of irony.