Simple solar system measurements show the irrelevance of Carbon Dioxide to present day earth temperature. By Dr Chris Barnes, Bangor Scientific and Educational Consultants, email manager@bsec-wales.co.uk

Homepage http://drchrisbarnes.co.uk

First Published and Released without full references in the interests of stimulating the scientific community 17^th December 2019. 1^st revision 18/12/2019, with hyperlinked references included.

Abstract

AGW and AGW politics is briefly discussed. Scientists with alternative and additional theories to AGW are named and their theories discussed and summarized. The author’s own previous work which also shows CO2 is not needed to account for recent UK temperatures is discussed. Other second order effects stronger than CO2 are discussed. In the rest of this work a treatment using simple solar system measurements to show the irrelevance of CO2 to excess planetary temperature is developed. The work while in support of Nikolov and Zeller does not directly prove their hypothesis, but it does show the irrelevance of CO2. The conclusion reached is that EITHER: Nikolov and Zeller are correct or that CO2 warming effect requires concentrations much, much higher than those we have a present. A small second order effect exists as the atmospheric composition approaches very high carbon dioxide concentrations. Given the exponential nature of the increase it is estimated that an atmospheric composition of 13.5% CO2 would cause some .8C of warming. Extrapolating to present levels of CO2 i.e. .0415% yields some 3 milli degrees Kelvin of warming i.e. totally insignificant and about an order of magnitude less than my previous estimates! CO2 could still be a ‘greenhouse’ gas of very minor, indeed irrelevant proportions but given our real and mobile atmosphere with convection as the main means of shifting heat we need not worry about CO2 induced warming in the foreseeable future. The author’s other personal concerns regarding climate warming, especially the cirrus cloud caused by aviation and the effects of power systems on clouds are re-iterated. Black carbon is also cited to be a real and genuine problem. Additionally, however and as an offset, the author’s previous work is suggestive that we are entering a period of perhaps substantial natural cooling for which we should all be prepared.

Introduction

Anthropogenic Global Warming or so called AGW especially as based on the radiative transfer hypothesis and CO2 gas has been the mainstay of climate science in recent times. Arrhenius (1896 ) and Callendar (1938) https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/qj.49706427503 were the first to propose that CO2 ought to cause greenhouse warming. It must be noted however that these hypotheses are based on notions of infra-red attenuation for isolated gas and not a real atmosphere. Callendar only predicted very modest warming of the order of milli-degrees per year.

No contemporary climate models IPCC or otherwise can, however, fully account for the observed temperature changes and the most recent models vastly overestimate either observed temperature change and/or so called climate sensitivity to doubling of CO2. Nor do these models account for the several hiatuses in warming between 1940 and the present day. Very recent ice core analysis shows beyond a doubt that CO2 increase lagged behind de-glaciation, see Lui et al ( 2018) https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/161348982.pdf who further concluded that the variation of aCO2 is an internal feedback in Earth's climate system rather than an initial trigger of the last deglacial warming. Other ice core analyses showed CO2 in phase with warming or even leading warming. It is illogical to suppose that at one time CO2 can cause warming and at another time it cannot.

The topic of CO2 AGW has also, of late, become highly politicized with thousands of scientists ( mainly those working and paid by Universities engaged in Climate Science) affirming to the idea that the science of global warming is ‘settled’ and that even an irreversible or uncontrollable climate disaster is about to happen. This in turn has led to climate alarmism and young people’s movements such as those of Greta Thunberg and semi – anarchist activist groups such as XR causing social disobedience in various locations throughout the world. Such has been the political pressure that it has resulting in several political parties and various governments around the world declaring a so called ‘climate emergency’ Internationally, trillions of dollars have probably already been expended on promoting CO2 AGW and associated ‘green technology’. Nevertheless, there is a growing body of scientists questioning the very extreme warming claims presently being made by the IPCC. More detail can be at https://www.amherst.edu/media/view/400467/original/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf

Some scientists have of course always doubted CO2 AGW theory, but they have always been in minority and moreover due to the above politicization they have found it very difficult, if not impossible to get their work published in reputable, peer- reviewed journals. Indeed the ‘Climate Gate’ scandals themselves are testament to the fact that even the main proponents of CO2 AGW had their doubts. Of course since they have been vindicated it seems that instead of becoming more cautious scientists working in the CO2 AGW field have become more and more embolden with evidence of data manipulation and tampering seemingly cropping up all around the world. Yet more problems in temperature measurement ensue because urban heat islanding is not properly taken into account. Satellite measurements post 1980’s are not properly comparable with previous methods of measuring. Tree ring methods are uncertain. Indeed, it seems most of the work has involved seeking signals so small as to be buried in noise, hardly surprising given Callendar’s original estimation of the degree of warming.

It is very easy to visualize how AGW effect, if any, can be minimized. To have AGW heat transfer in the atmosphere must be predominantly radiative. However, in the real world on all but the stillest, wind free, days convection dominates. Evaporation also features in shifting surface heat. The effect of wind on the proportions of convection and radiation are shown below:

The global average windspeed is 6.64 m/s, see for example https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/global_winds.html so this shows that on average all around the world convention dominates heat transfer from earth to the stratosphere.

Scientists with published work which questions, refutes, provides alternatives to or in any way even diminishes CO2 AGW theory can be counted almost on one hand. However, in very recent years there is a growing body of work which suggests that modern warming could indeed have causes other than AGW.

Briefly these are: Henrik Svensmark (born 1958) https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2019/03/SvensmarkSolar2019-1.pdf

is a physicist and professor in the Division of Solar System Physics at the Danish National Space Institute (DTU Space) in Copenhagen. He is known for his theory on the effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2 as an indirect cause of global warming and:

Nicola Scafetta who has studied harmonic relationships in solar TSI as a driving force for climate , his most recent paper to be found at Advances in Astronomy Volume 2019, Article ID 1214896, 14 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/1214896 and:

Professor Valentina Zharkova, Professor in Mathematics at Northumbria University who has considered Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale https://www.nature.com/articles/srep15689 and successfully predicts recent observed temperature changes and:

N.A. Morner, a paleo-geo-physicist who has discussed planetary beat http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/107/2013/prp-1-107-2013.pdf and solar-terrestrial responses and Scafetta’s work, more recently Morner discusses oscillating changes in sea level again not linked with CO2 https://www.graphyonline.com/archives/IJEES/2017/IJEES-137/ and:

Gervais ( 2016) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0012825216300277

has challenged CO2 AGW theory of warming by fitting time series of sea-level rise to a sinusoid of period ~ 60 years, confirming the cycle reported for the global mean temperature of the earth. He shows that this cycle appears in phase with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). The last maximum of the sinusoid coincides with the temperature plateau observed since the end of the 20th century. The onset of declining phase of AMO, the recent excess of the global sea ice area anomaly and the negative slope of global mean temperature measured by satellite from 2002 to 2015, all these indicators sign for the onset of the declining phase of the 60-year cycle. Once this cycle is subtracted from observations, the transient climate response is revised downwards consistent with latest observations. He concludes that there is only a tiny anthropogenic contribution to warming, and:

Dr Chris Barnes ( the present author). In my first paper I considered planetary beat and newly discovered solar magnetic year effects in combination, http://www.drchrisbarnes.co.uk/PBMAG1.HTM The critical hypothesis being:

Since the solar magnetic year and earth year length do not coincide exactly, it is proposed that maybe the solar magnetic effect on the earth would only maximise climatically 330x365.25 days i.e. once every 330 years or so and at other times would have lesser effect. Since the 330 day period would appear to be the time for magnetic bands to travel the entire solar pole to pole distance I would expect there may be hemispheric effects and harmonic multiple effects as well of circa 165 ( 1st sub-harmonic) and 990 days ( third harmonic) which following my original hypothesis would turn into sun-earth synchronisation periods of 165 and 990 years. Based on this, potentially the hottest part of our present warm period may not be reached until circa 2180. However with Scafetta’s shorter cycles are superimposed on recent global temperature change, I still expect the period 2025-2046 has the potential to be much colder before potentially solar warming resumes again.

In my second paper, http://www.drchrisbarnes.co.uk/Doc4.HTM

I consider Winter and Summer Temperatures in North Wales since 1917 under the influence of Solar Cycle and prediction of a QBO ( quasi-biennial oscillation) and thus define the average length of the QBO. I show that NAO and the QBO are strong indicators of winter temperature in Wales but are rather more irrelevant in summer. My work suggests Gwynedd’s recent extremes of weather could be due to changes in the solar cycle. Analysis of a century’s worth of UK climate anomaly data suggests that a shorter or longer than average solar cycle gives rise to an increased incidence of both colder than normal winters and hotter than average summers with a very high statistical result for summers. My work also suggests that Gwynedd will be on average 1.07 C warmer by 2099 which is closest to the IPCC B1 scenario and at the lower end of their predication scale but that most of the change could be solar induced. This is in good agreement with my first paper which suggests world temperatures peak after this date. However, if the recent very unusual 14 yearlong solar cycle is removed then the warming slope changes into a dramatic cooling slope showing a change of -5.7 C in the next 100 years. The data for winter and summer temperature anomaly also allows extraction of a sinusoidal varying QBO like component with a length of approximately 24.9 months if one constrains the solar cycle to its average length.

My third paper http://drchrisbarnes.co.uk/clipred01c.htm introduces a New Method for Medium Term Temperature (summer season) Anomaly Forecasting and Climate Prediction based solely on a polynomial data file linked QBO and temperature behaviour in North Wales since 1948. The key is in choosing two months to establish QBO rate of change, here the preceding January and April are employed. Complex climate modeling and CO2 is NOT required because the qbo via its tele-connections is a complex and multivariate indicator of drivers from above and below including natural drivers such as solar and volcanism in addition to anthropogenic drivers such as greenhouse gases, wind farms, power systems, radio transmitters and aviation. Taking a naïve approach to results leads to a perceived warming of about .22 C per decade which is consistent with the IPCC’s most recent estimates.

However, taking a more detailed analysis leads to a cyclic understanding of recent warming and cooling in terms of solar and volcanic activity. The infamous ‘hockey stick’ period of warming having been created by a coincidental combination of a fall in volcanism and a rise in solar activity the likes of which may only be seen either once every 792 years ; 2640 years or 5192 years based on combinations of the three known volcanic, seismic and Gleissberg cycles. The first two of these take us back to the medieval warm period and Roman warm period consecutively. Finally, I conclude that at least in North Wales it would appear we have now entered into a cooling phase which could last several decades. Again this is also consistent with Scafetta’s prediction.

All of the above science has a common thread, namely that Solar TSI, Solar magnetism and Cosmic Rays all have links with planetary cloudiness hence controlling planetary albedo, hence controlling warming or cooling. My paper ‘Putting the Meteors back in Meteorology’ brings together these drivers and also considers and additionally successfully revives a very old idea that of meteor showers as drivers of precipitation, via cloud nucleation. Indeed this is the very origin of the term meteorology. The paper is to be found here http://www.drchrisbarnes.co.uk/Putting%20the%20Meteors%20back%20in%20Meteorology%20%281%29%20%281%29%20%281%29.html

I show that, the combined effects of meteor showers, solar flux and GCR effectively are in total control of the interdecadal climate in the UK. Indeed UK temperature anomaly in the period 2005-2011 can be accounted for in its entirety by a simply algorithm.

Delta Temp = -.707 + 2.916* SFCM …………………………………………………………………(1)

Where SFCM = {(SF-C) +M} P<.023 so statistically significant

Where C = cosmic ray flux, SF = Solar Flux and M= radio meteor flux.

Moreover, I show that in the UK in the inter-decadal period 2005-2011 annual rainfall is most strongly correlated with cosmic ray flux. The much higher correlation coefficient for Cosmic Rays is supportive of the notion of a stronger, real physical effect and is also supportive of the work of Svensmark. Alternatively, and/or additionally meteoric debris does provide the nucleation material for rainfall but cosmic rays provide the correct atmospheric electricity conditions, see Tinsley (2000) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1026775408875

and Carslaw and Harrison (2002). https://science.sciencemag.org/content/298/5599/1732 .

My own work and that of the above mentioned scientists all either points to the irrelevance of CO2 or that it may at the most present as a very minor or second order climate driver.

In my other papers, I have gone on to investigate if other anthropogenic drivers which cross or inter-correlated CO2 could possibly be misleading traditional climate science.

A common denominator in the above natural drivers and other potential AGW drivers is their effect on earth’s clouds. In that work, I reached a conclusion that aviation as a secondary driver is having a profound effect on earth’s clouds. I am not the first to sate this but CO2 AGW protagonists seem to disregard this fact. For example, Boucher (2011) conclude that Contrails formed by aircraft can evolve into cirrus clouds indistinguishable from those formed naturally. These 'spreading contrails' may be causing more climate warming today than all the carbon dioxide emitted by aircraft since the start of aviation, https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1078 . Avila et al (2019) profoundly confirms my suspicions. We should stop pointing the finger at C02 and look more closely at aviation! Their conclusion was that Increasing cruise flight levels by 2000' to 4000' decreases Net Radiative Forcing by - 92%. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590198219300338

Moreover, I have also made the additional and very profound discovery that another unexpected secondary driver is earth’s electrical power systems via their effect on the Thermosphere ( Van Allen Belts) are also having a profound effect on clouds/climate. As far as I am aware this discovery is unique and I am the only scientist in the world to publish it. The background is as follows. Growth of earth’s power systems, particularly as they have become more interconnected allows more harmonic radiation to space. Rycroft (2012) explains in detail the earth’s global electric circuit especially in terms of coupling between the space environment and the troposphere, https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/recent-advances-in-global-electric-circuit-coupling-between-the-s

The circuit inevitably controls global and local cloudiness. The main solar-terrestrial (or space weather) influence on the global circuit arises from spatially and temporally varying fluxes of galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) and energetic electrons precipitating from the magnetosphere. Baker et al ( 2014) have discovered an unexpected and impenetrable barrier to ultrarelativistic electrons in the Van Allen radiation belts associated with 23 KHz radio transmissions from earth, explained fully by Foster et al (2016) https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/109263/VLF_Bubble_Preprint.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

I make the link the power line harmonic radiation at frequencies up to several KHz will behave similarly. This in turn will trap high energy electrons and tend to reduce cloudiness causing warming. I discuss these effects and others in relation to energetic particles here: http://www.drchrisbarnes.co.uk/eep.htm.

Finally, this introduction would not be complete without a discussion of the climate model of Nikolov and Zeller, the so called Unified Theory of Climate. In their paper Unified Theory of Climate Expanding the Concept of Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Using Thermodynamic Principles : Implications for Predicting Future Climate Change they discuss the greenhouse effect on planets with atmospheres compared with the lack of greenhouse effect on airless planets in terms of adiabatic compression with gravitational energy providing the excess heat. They conclude that the physical nature of the so-called Greenhouse Effect is in fact a Pressure-induced Thermal Enhancement (PTE), which is independent of the atmospheric chemical composition. Hence, the down-welling infrared radiation (a.k.a. greenhouse or back-radiation) is a product of the atmospheric temperature (maintained by solar heating and air pressure) rather than a cause for it, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309651389_Unified_Theory_of_Climate_-_Expanding_the_Concept_of_Atmospheric_Greenhouse_Effect_Using_Thermodynamic_Principles_Implications_for_Predicting_Future_Climate_Change

In other words, their results suggest that the GH effect is a thermodynamic phenomenon, not a radiative one as presently assumed.

The equations in Nikolov and Zeller’s paper are non –linear and have large error bars which have led to some criticism. Others simply dismiss the paper as junk science because they cannot perceive the link between gravitational and thermal energy. For me this does not present conceptual difficulty. The tube on my car tyre pump gets hot when it pumps the tyre. A young star glows before nuclear fusion ensues.

In the rest of this work, I develop my own treatment of using simple solar system measurements to show the irrelevance of CO2 to excess planetary temperature. The work while in support of Nikolov and Zeller does not directly prove their hypothesis but it does show the irrelevance of CO2. The conclusion I shall reach is that EITHER: Nikolov and Zeller are correct or that CO2 warming effect requires concentrations much, much higher than those we have a present.

Hypothesis

I consider that the maximum surface temperature reached on an airless planetary body ( planet or moon) is purely a function of solar TSI and albedo. I chose the moon and Phobos as the first two of my planetary bodies on the basis of these being close enough to approximate the TSI of earth and Mars respectively. I am forced to choose Mercury as my third planetary body as Venus does not have a moon. I further consider that a planet with an atmosphere will be warmer because of greenhouse warming however caused. I consider that if Nikolov and Zeller hold, the excess temperature of a planet with an atmosphere should be independent of its atmospheric composition. In order to test this part of the hypothesis I use Venus, Mars and Earth. The first two being examples of planets with atmospheres comprising of 95% plus CO2 and the later just over 400 ppm CO2. If XS temperature is independent of planetary atmospheric composition the hypothesis predicts that XS temperature of these three planets should be directly proportional to their atmospheric pressure. If CO2 is the dominant greenhouse gas than earth should not fall in the same linear extrapolation with the other two planets or at least should show a very large negative residual as it has hardly any C02 in its atmosphere, only .0415% as opposed to over 95%.

Method

I first calculate proportion of solar TSI arriving at surface of my three airless planetary bodies and linearly regress these values against know maximum temperatures for these bodies. I then insert known TSI’s for earth, mars and Venus into this algorithm arising to calculate surface temperatures of these planets as though they were airless, i.e. with no atmosphere and no cloud albedo.

I then calculate on known maximum measured temperatures for these planets and ascribe the difference to a parameter I call excess temperature. I then plot excess temperature against surface pressure for the three planets concerned and examine the quality of the regression factor and any residuals.

Raw Data

Body	Phobos	Moon	Mercury
Max T Kelvin	269	379	700
TSI	590	1367.6	9082.7
Albedo	0.071	0.12	0.068
Calc. Surface Radiation	589.4	1203	8467

RESULTS

The regression yields an algorithm T airless = 280.9 + .0464 * si

Where si = surface irradiance

Mars airless temperature maximum = 280.9 + .0464 x 590 = 317 K Mars actual maximum 308 K Difference = -15 K

Earth airless maximum = 280.9+ .0464 x 1367 = 343.42 K Earth actual maximum 329 K Difference = -14.42 K

Venus airless maximum = 280.9 + .0464 x 2622 = 401.66 K Venus maximum 735 K Difference = + 333.34 K

PRESSURE PLOT

Mars Pressure = .008 atmos

Earth Pressure = 1 atmos

Venus Pressure = 93 atmos.

Info; R = .9999692

Algorithm XS Temp = -16.6 + 3.763 x Pressure

XS Temp for Earth if atmosphere almost all CO2 (95.550%) = -12.84 K

XS Temp from above ( observed) = -14.42 K

Difference adding almost pure CO2 ( 95.5%) = +1.58 C ( and confirmed by residual plot)

Conclusions

The above work clearly shows that simple planetary albedo, excess temperature and pressure calculations indicate that to a very good first order approximation the maximum excess temperature of a planet depends only on its atmospheric pressure and is almost independent of atmospheric composition. Thus to a first approximation theory of Nikolov and Zeller is supported.

A small second order effect exists as the atmospheric composition approaches very high carbon dioxide concentrations. Given the exponential nature of the increase I estimate from the above that an atmospheric composition of 13.5% CO2 would cause some .8C of warming. Extrapolating to present levels of CO2 i.e. .0415% yields some 3 milli degrees Kelvin of warming i.e. totally insignificant and about an order of magnitude less than my previous estimates! CO2 could still be a ‘greenhouse’ gas of very minor, indeed irrelevant proportions but given our real and mobile atmosphere with convection as the main means of shifting heat I think we need not worry in the foreseeable future. An atmosphere only traps significant heat if it is pressurized to huge amounts as with Venus. Moreover, Venus also has multiple strong sources of internal heat.

That does not mean I do not have other personal concerns regarding climate, especially the cirrus cloud caused by aviation and the effects of power systems on clouds. I have outlined these elsewhere. Interestingly, Lindzen ( http://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Lindzen_On-Climate-Sensitivity.pdf ) has also commented on problems with cirrus cloud. Clouds are of course of critical importance because they shift the adiabatic lapse rate and thereby the cooling system of the planet. Moreover, I remain extremely concerned about the effects of Black Carbon from industrial, shipping, aviation and biomass burning sources which is being transported to polar regions, shifting ice albedo and causing melting. In a sense one could say Carbon and not Carbon Dioxide is a true bane of global change.

Further work

I hope to try and examine date links with the opening up of various earth bound vlf transmitters and power system interconnectors sometime in the future and I would hope to identify some kind of step changes in the climate record.

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments must go to Mr Peter Van Doorn of Torro UK for interesting discussions on weather, climate and aviation trails and also similarly to my wife Gwyneth.