One thing anyone who pays attention to the pro(re)gressive narratives on any policy issue will have come to understand is that they are masterful users of euphemism–they label issues in a manner completely different from their reality, gender-affirming care, which actually disaffirms gender, being a prime example. Climate change is another case of euphemistic euphoria. Even the labeling of “climate change” or “global warming” is typically misleading. The climate is always changing. What is climate? What time period are you measuring it on? To be “climate” as opposed to weather would imply some relatively long period of consistency in certain variables. What we routinely see is that over any, extended time period, say 100 years, there is change in major weather/climate variables. To be some unusual period, a very substantial departure from normal variability would need to be shown. It hasn’t been, unless of course you heavily manipulate the raw data, which is the hysterics forte. (FCS Article)
An new article by two climate scientists reframes the hysteric formulation of climate issues, starting with calling CO2 a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse is used intentionally because it implies that the gas in question will really heat the air up and the more you add the more it heats. The authors suggest replacing that with radiatively active gas, a more accurate description of CO2. This allows consideration of all the components of our atmosphere and their radiative effects across the spectrum. In this context, water vapor is by far the most radiative component and contributor to surface energy balance. CO2 contributes only 4% of total radiative activity and the human contribution to the proportion of CO2 in our atmosphere is only 4%, so 4% of 4% is pretty small!!
Their description of the complexity of factors relating to the atmosphere’s temperature profile is technical but if you read carefully you will at least get the big picture, which is that there is no way that temperature is affected only by a radiatively active gas, and in fact it is likely that a gas like CO2 is at best a very minor factor, not the control knob it is portrayed to be by the hysterics. My simplistic summary is that according to raw physics the atmosphere should have a constant temperature throughout, and the fact that it doesn’t suggests it is perturbed by various factors into have a temperature gradient by altitude. CO2 or any other radiatively active gas has little or nothing to do with that. According to the authors, that temperature gradient and changes in it are where climate research should be focused. If you read nothing else, read the introduction and the conclusions section. This is an important counterweight to the hysterics nonsense.
Kevin wrote: “the proportion of CO2 in our atmosphere is only 4%”
That is flat wrong, anthropogenic emissions of CO2 have increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations by about 50%; in other about 1/3 of the current CO2 is due to emissions. That is also not what the authors say. They say that “anthropogenic CO2 emissions are only 4% of the total”. That is a misleading and irrelevant statement. It is not clear if the authors intend to mislead or if they don’t understand why it is irrelevant.
One should always be suspicious when people claim to have an original explanation for something that has been well understood for a long time. That is usually the result of the person making the claim not actually understanding the prior work and either not realizing that their explanation is either not new or is wrong for a reason they don’t understand. Claiming that redefining terms is the first step in getting it right is a tell.
A great deal of climate science is solid. What is not understood is the continuous small (and occasional large) variations in climate. Since those are not understood, any attempts to predict such changes in future are castles built on quicksand. That part of climate science is mostly bunk.
The authors say that a transparent atmosphere would result in a surface temperature of about 255K. Yep, you can find that in any undergrad text that covers the subject. They seem to think that they have discovered that the vertical temperature gradient plays a role in making the surface warmer. That is the standard description of how the Greenhouse Effect works. But they confuse the phenomena that result from the gradient with the cause of the gradient.
The surface of the Earth is heated by solar radiation. Most radiation emitted from the surface gets readsorbed in the atmosphere. As a result, the radiation into space on average comes from middle troposphere. So heat must be transported from the surface to the middle troposphere; that requires a temperature gradient. So the surface is warmer than the radiative temperature of the Earth. That is called the Greenhouse Effect.
If you add IR absorbing gases (like CO2) to the atmosphere, the average emission altitude increase. That increases the temperature difference between the surface and the average emission altitude. As a result, the surface gets a little bit warmer. That much is solid. But the change is not a big deal without adding on a bunch of knock-on effects. Many of those are highly questionable.
I think you misunderstood my sentence. I said, and I believe this is what the article says, that CO2 is only 4% of radiative activity and humans contribute only 4% of the CO2 in the air. CO2 as a percent of the atmosphere is only .04%. But I appreciate your points and your always informed perspective. These authors are pretty solid, so I tend to trust their analyses, but recognize their can be differences. I think their point that the changes in gradient needs more focus and research is correct. Thanks.