Controlling for H2O and Urban Heat Island Effect; Greenland Validates CO2 Doesn’t Drive Warming


A previous post on CO2isLife demonstrated that if you isolate the impact of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures by controlling for H2O and the Urban Heat Island Effect, you discover that CO2 has had no measurable impact on atmospheric temperatures over the past 50+ years. (Click the Following Link)

Isolating the Contribution of CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature

Critics may attack that post because it only addressed the S. Hemisphere, which is fair, misguided and desperate, but fair. Now there is evidence that when the same approach is applied to the N. Hemisphere, this time using Greenland instead of Antarctica, the results are the same. CO2 has no measurable impact on atmospheric temperatures if efforts are made to control for H2O and the heat island effect. In reality, ground temperature measurements aren’t measuring the impact of CO2 on the atmosphere, they are measuring the impact of H2O and the Urban Heat Island effect on atmospheric temperatures, neither of which have to do with CO2.

The following finding is 100% exactly what we predicted here at CO2isLife…and none of us have Ph.Ds in Climate Science. We at CO2isLife have Ph.Ds in Common Sense specializing in the proper application of the Scientific Method. Our Imaginary Ph.Ds seem to trump the experts. Imagine that.

Schmithüsen and colleagues reached the conclusion that CO2-forcing is “rather small” and even “weak“ at the poles. They found the planet’s tiniest warming signal from CO2 occurs for central Antarctica; they characterized the CO2-forcing for the Arctic region as “comparatively weak”. For example, quadrupling CO2 concentrations over the Antarctic Plateau is poised to yield a net radiative forcing value of just 1 W m-2.

The authors even assert that increasing CO2 concentrations causes atmospheric cooling in some areas above the Antarctic continent. They characterize this as a “negative greenhouse effect” due to the “increased long-wave energy loss to space, which cools the Earth-atmosphere system”.

Key points from the paper are highlighted below.

Continue Reading

Why would CO2 actually cool the atmosphere? Well, we cover that here at CO2isLife as well. (Click the Following Link)

Climate “Science” on Trial; Evidence Shows CO2 COOLS the Atmosphere

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment


22 thoughts on “Controlling for H2O and Urban Heat Island Effect; Greenland Validates CO2 Doesn’t Drive Warming”

  1. Why would CO2 actually cool the atmosphere in Central Antarctica? The paper ( explains:

    “Like other greenhouse gases, CO2 absorbs terrestrial surface radiation and causes emission from the atmosphere to space. As the surface is generally warmer than the atmosphere, the total long‐wave emission to space is commonly less than the surface emission. However, this does not hold true for the high elevated areas of central Antarctica. For this region, the emission to space is higher than the surface emission; and the greenhouse effect of CO2 is around zero or even negative. … in the interior of the Antarctic continent the surface is often colder than the stratosphere; therefore, the emission from the stratospheric CO2 is higher than the emission from the surface.”


    1. That would then rule global warming out as the cause of “melting” mountain glaciers. I’m not sure that explanation works for the ghg effect, or the thermalization of radiation. Conduction and convection, yes, but those aren’t part of the ghg effect.


      1. Schmithüsen doesn’t say anything about the Arctic, despite what the NoTricksZone quote says. His paper they mentioned and I quoted explains why Antarctica is a special case.

        “Generally, the surface is warmer than the atmosphere. Thus, radiation emitted from the surface through the atmospheric window is higher compared to radiation from the stratosphere. This is clearly visible looking at the CO2 band around 15 µm, where the emission originates mostly from the stratosphere. … The interior of the Antarctic continent the surface is often colder than the stratosphere; therefore, the emission from the stratospheric CO2 is higher than the emission from the surface.”

        But all of this only addresses the increased energy trapped because of CO2 directly above any location. Air and wind currents carry heat northward to the Arctic but less so in the Antarctic.


      2. Yea, I think I’m going to write a post about, and tie everything back to the GHG effect. The GHG effect is changing energy in form, not general thermodynamics. The GHG effect converts EM Radiation into Thermal/Kinetic Energy. Energy from hot to cold is another issue. One is quantum physics issue one is a Newtonian physics issue. Also, LWIR between 13 and 18 has a black body temperature of -80 deg C. There simply isn’t that much energy there to start, and then that energy is dispersed between 2,499 other air molecules. Thanks for your comment, much appreciated.


  2. You are right that the way to measure the impact of CO2 is to find a way to remove water as a factor. A study released in 2015 measured downward infrared radiation in dry desert conditions from 2000 to 2011. They found that the radiation with a wavenumber between 600 – 800 cm-1 rose for the decade in proportion with the increased CO2 . The radiation also rose and fell with the seasonal changes in CO2. The trend was an increase of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade.


    1. CO2 increased from 370 to 390 over that time period. Now that we have a 0.2 W/M^2 value, we can look at the temperature change in those dry deserts. Thanks for the research report. I’ll try to work that into future post. We now have CO2 Change, we have W/M^2 Change, and we can find change in temperature, all controlled for H2O and the urban heat island effect. Thanks again.


      1. Is that link to the page you wanted? It only talks about precipitation. Other posts on the blog cover Alaskan temperatures. One shows that the daily maximum daily temperature in Fairbanks Alaska since 1930 shows an upward trend of 0.2 degrees F/decade.
        That agrees with Roy Spenser’s data for the Lower Troposphere. While the UAH satellite TLT global warming trend is 0.13F/decade from 1979-present, the North Pole (60N-90N) shows a warming trend of 0.25F/decade. The South Pole (90S-60S) shows a flat trend with no warming.


      2. I’ll take a look. The problem is, the N Pole is an ocean, and Alaska’s N Coast has plenty a H2O. Oklahoma has the same problem. If you warm the oceans, you can warm the arctic, and that has nothing to do with CO2. The ring of fire also skirts the Arctic providing Geothermal warming.


      3. Increased CO2 warms the ocean more than land. Liquid water absorbs wavelengths that water vapor won’t. Light around 700 cm-1 passes through water vapor but is absorbed then emitted by CO2. That downward Longwave radiation is fully absorbed by liquid water.

        The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is rising, but warming is driving the increased water vapor not the other way around. The 0.2 W/m^2 per decade increase warms the Earth, with aditional warming caused by
        increased water vapor. There is a reason the sea surface temperature varies while CO2 steadily increases. Changes like the El Nino/la Nina cycle constantly vary the amount of energy that stays at the ocean surface versus the deeper waters.


      4. I’m showing that H2O absorbs 666 wavenumber/15 Micron. My understanding is that those wavelengths do not warm H2O, and in fact cause cooling due to surface evaporation. H2O in the atmosphere would be activated by those wavelengths, negating CO2. Because the energy from 15 microns is so small, it is far more likely that the oceans are being warmed by more incoming radiation in the visible spectrum. The current temperatures seem to support that. Temperatures have been cooling rapidly since the end of El Nino, and the quite sun.


      5. Light Absorption in Sea Water 2007, ISBN 978-0-387-49560-6
        “Water itself is a very strong absorber of electromagnetic radiation in the infrared (IR) region; thanks to this property it plays a prominent and indispensable role for life on Earth in that the ocean absorbs solar IR radiation and converts it into heat. This process leads directly to the warming of the ocean’s surface waters, causing them to evaporate, and to the heating and circulation of the atmospheric air.”

        The textbook is solely about the physics involved in light absorption and makes no mention of climate.


      6. It is well known that IR between 13 and 18 microns is absorbed by water, but it does not penetrate water to any extent. It tends to as it mentioned, cause evaporation which will cool the water. You seem to be missing the point however both CO2 and H2O absorb the same IR spectrum. With or without CO2, 13 to 18 microns gets absorbed. H2O can be 4 parts per hundred, 4 parts per million don’t do much on the margins. Thanks for that source, but it simply reinforces the position that CO2 doesn’t do anything regarding water.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s