The Greenhouse Effect

I'm frequently asked to supply lists of studies supporting the scientific conclusions that we've understood for decades. Sometimes they challenge scientific conclusions that have stood the test of time for centuries. I thought it would be good collect my standard responses in one place. Links in the text descriptions following titles point to my posts that discuss the studies further.

Links to Sections:

I. CO2 Causes Warming

Scientists have understood that increasing CO2 causes global warming since the 19th century, but over the last decade or so, scientists have documented empirical evidence for causation from CO2 and GMST data,[1] observations at the surface, [2] observations at the top of the atmosphere,[3][4] and quantum mechanics.[5]
From CO2 & Temperature Data:
[1] Stips, A., Macias, D., Coughlan, C. et al. On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature. Sci Rep 6, 21691 (2016). https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691

From Surface Measurements:
[2] Feldman DR, Collins WD, Gero PJ, Torn MS, Mlawer EJ, Shippert TR. Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010. Nature. 2015;519 (7543):339‐343. doi:10.1038/nature14240. 
https://escholarship.org/content/qt3428v1r6/qt3428v1r6_noSplash_b5903aebfe105b4071103e11197138f8.pdf

From Satellite Measurements:
[3] Kramer, R. J., He, H., Soden, B. J., Oreopoulos, L., Myhre, G., Forster, P. M., & Smith, C. J. (2021). Observational evidence of increasing global radiative forcing. Geophysical Research Letters, 48, e2020GL091585. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL091585

[4] Teixeira, J., Wilson, R. C., and Thrastarson, H. Th.: Direct observational evidence from space of the effect of CO2 increase on longwave spectral radiances: the unique role of high-spectral-resolution measurements, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 6375–6383, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-6375-2024, 2024.
NASA presentation here.

From Quantum Mechanics:
[5] Wordsworth, R., Seeley, J. T., & Shine, K. P. (2024). Fermi Resonance and the Quantum Mechanical Basis of Global Warming. The Planetary Science Journal, 5(3), 67. DOI: 10.3847/PSJ/ad226d. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/PSJ/ad226d/pdf

II. CO2 Sensitivity

2.1. ECS: 2xCO2 Causes ~3 C Warming

The most thorough evaluation of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) arrived at a likely range of 2.6°C to 4.1°C.[1] A meta-analysis from 2017 shows that the value of 3°C is also a central estimate in the peer-reviewed literature, agreeing with the values estimated by the IPCC. This is reinforced by estimates of cloud feedbacks that make low estimates for ECS less likely.[3] A recent analysis, however, found that the models that do the best job of predicting global warming and changes in EEI trends are on the higher end of this estimate, especially when looking at models with strong trends of increasing absorbed solar radiation and a strong temperature response to forcings.
[1] Sherwood, S. C., Webb, M. J., Annan, J. D., Armour, K. C., Forster, P. M., Hargreaves, J. C., et al. (2020). An assessment of Earth's climate sensitivity using multiple lines of evidence. Reviews of Geophysics, 58, e2019RG000678. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000678

[2] Knutti, R., Rugenstein, M. & Hegerl, G. Beyond equilibrium climate sensitivity. Nature Geosci 10, 727–736 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo3017

[3] Paulo Ceppi, Peer Nowack. Observational evidence that cloud feedback amplifies global warming. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jul 2021, 118 (30) e2026290118; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2026290118 https://www.pnas.org/content/118/30/e2026290118

[4] Gunnar Myhre et al. Observed trend in Earth energy imbalance may provide a constraint for low climate sensitivity models.Science388,1210-1213 (2025).DOI:10.1126/science.adt0647

2.2. ESS: 2xCO2 Causes ~6 C Warming

ECS only accounts for rapid feedbacks. On longer time scales, slower feedbacks like reductions in glacial ice and the poleward movement of boreal forests continue to add warming on millennial time scales. Generally speaking, Earth System Sensitivity (ESS) is estimated to be about 2x ECS.
[1] D.J. Lunt, A.M. Haywood, G.A. Schmidt, U. Salzmann, P.J. Valdes, and H.J. Dowsett, "Earth system sensitivity inferred from Pliocene modelling and data", Nature Geoscience, vol. 3, pp. 60-64, 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/NGEO706

[2] Snyder, C. W. (2016). Evolution of global temperature over the past two million years. Nature, 538(7624), 226–228. doi:10.1038/nature19798

[3] The Cenozoic CO2 Proxy Integration Project (CenCO2PIP) Consortium, Toward a Cenozoic history of atmospheric CO2. Science 382,eadi5177(2023). DOI:10.1126/science.adi5177. Accepted version online at: https://oro.open.ac.uk/94676/1/Accepted_manuscript_combinepdf.pdf

[4] Emily J. Judd et al., A 485-million-year history of Earth’s surface temperature. Science 385,eadk3705 (2024).DOI:10.1126/science.adk3705

III. Answering Contrarian Misinformation
about the Greenhouse Effect 

3.1. Studies Showing GMST Lags CO2 in Paleoclimate and in the Instrumental Record

Scientific evidence has been clear that, while warming in Antarctica is triggered by orbital forcings, CO2 increases at about the same time[2] as a feedback, and global warming follows this increase in CO2.[1] The lead-lag issue is also resolved with causative analysis.[3] There is evidence that natural cycles like ENSO affect variability in the rates at which CO2 increases, but the the overall increase in CO2 since 1850 comes from human activity. We know that CO2 leads GMST.[4]
[1] Shakun, J.D., Clark, P.U., He, F., Marcott, S.A., Mix, A.C., Liu, Z., Otto-Bliesner, B., Schmittner, A., and Bard, E.: Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation, Nature, 484, 49–54, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10915, 2012.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223987444_Global_Warming_Preceded_by_Increasing_Carbon_Dioxide_Concentrations_during_the_Last_Deglaciation

[2] Parrenin, F. et al. “Synchronous Change of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature During the Last Deglacial Warming.” Science 339, 1060 (2013). DOI: 10.1126/science.1226368
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d61d/0fbcb5828af1d434d1bd0282ed36e0f00d2a.pdf

[3] Stips, A., Macias, D., Coughlan, C. et al. On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature. Sci Rep 6, 21691 (2016). https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691

[4] W. Wang, P. Ciais, R.R. Nemani, J.G. Canadell, S. Piao, S. Sitch, M.A. White, H. Hashimoto, C. Milesi, & R.B. Myneni, Variations in atmospheric CO2 growth rates coupled with tropical temperature, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110 (32) 13061-13066, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1219683110 (2013).

3.2. Studies Showing all the Increase in CO2 above Preindustrial Levels come from Human Activity

There are at least five lines of independent evidence demonstrating that humans are responsible for virtually all the increase in atmospheric CO2 above preindustrial levels. In many ways, the issue is fully decided by evidence we about human carbon emissions since 1750. Estimates of our carbon emissions from fossil fuels and industry (FFI) and land use change (LUC) show that humans have added 720 GtC to the atmosphere, which is more carbon than was in the atmosphere in 1750 (~600 GtC or ~280 ppm). But atmospheric CO2 has only increased by 50% (~300 GtC or ~140 ppm). So human emissions have actually been large enough not only to be responsible for 100% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 but also to add ~420 GtC to the land and ocean sinks. I made a chart that summarizes this below (data from the 2024 Global Carbon Budget and CO2 concentrations from Mauna Loa and ice core data).

[1] Friedlingstein, P. et al, Global Carbon Budget 2024, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 965–1039, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-965-2025, 2025.
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/17/965/2025/essd-17-965-2025.html

[2] Rebecca Lindsay. Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

[3] Akira Tomizuka. Why Is Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration Higher in the Northern Hemisphere. Environmental Science 26.4 (2013): 374-387. www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sesj/26/4/26_374/_pdf

[4] Iris Crawford and Andrew Babbin. How will future warming and CO2 emissions affect oxygen concentrations? Ask MIT Climate. https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-will-future-warming-and-co2-emissions-affect-oxygen-concentrations

[5] Graven, H., Keeling, R. F., & Rogelj, J. (2020). Changes to carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2 over the industrial era and into the future. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 34, e2019GB006170. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GB006170
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019GB006170

[6] Watson, A.J., Schuster, U., Shutler, J.D. et al. Revised estimates of ocean-atmosphere CO2 flux are consistent with ocean carbon inventory. Nat Commun 11, 4422 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18203-3

3.3. Studies Demonstrating that Solar Variability Does Not Explain Global Warming

There is a steady trickle of papers, mostly published in pay-to-play journals, that argue that the changes in Solar activity, or total solar irradiance (TS), is responsible for current warming.  A good number of them are written by Willie Soon (and his friends at Ceres) or Zharkova. None of these papers are convincing, all are full of errors, and some have been retracted.
[1] Benestad R. E. 2006 Solar Activity and Earth's Climate (Chichester: Springer/Praxis)

[2] Benestad, R. E. (2015). The debate about solar activity and climate change. Eathʼs Climate Response to a Changing Sun (Les Elis: EDP Sci.).
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1051/978-2-7598-1849-5.c008/pdf?licenseType=open-access

[3] Benestad, R. E., and G. A. Schmidt (2009), Solar trends and global warming, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D14101, doi:10.1029/2008JD011639.

[4] Rasmus Benestad, "How large were the past changes in the sun?"
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/author/rasmus/

[5] Mark T. Richardson and Rasmus E. Benestad 2022 Res. Astron. Astrophys. 22 125008
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/ac981c

[6] Kopp. "Historical Total Solar Irradiance Reconstruction, Time Series." https://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/data/historical_tsi/

[7] Lean, J. L. (2018). Estimating solar irradiance since 850 CE. Earth and Space Science, 5, 133– 149. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EA000357

3.4. Studies Demonstrating that Cosmic Rays Do Not Explain Global Warming

There are some attempts at blaming the Sun via the seeding of clouds from cosmic rays. This was a serious hypothesis, and so it was taken seriously and extensively investigated. But there simply no evidence that this is having a significant impact on global temperatures.
[1] Agee, E. M., K. Kiefer, and E. Cornett, 2012: Relationship of Lower-Troposphere Cloud Cover and Cosmic Rays: An Updated Perspective. J. Climate, 25, 1057–1060, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00169.1.

[2] Beer, J. et al (Oct 2003). Speculation on the influence of galactic cosmic rays on climate is scientifically untenable. Potsdam Institute statement.
https://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/archive-news/2004-2005/pm_Shaviv_Veizer_e.html

[3] Rasmus E Benestad 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 035049. DOI 10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/035049. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/035049

[4] Eimear M. Dunne et al. ,Global atmospheric particle formation from CERN CLOUD measurements. Science354,1119-1124(2016). DOI:10.1126/science.aaf2649

[5] Erlykin, A.D., Sloan, T. & Wolfendale, A.W. A review of the relevance of the ‘CLOUD’ results and other recent observations to the possible effect of cosmic rays on the terrestrial climate. Meteorol Atmos Phys 121, 137–142 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00703-013-0260-x

[6] Krissansen-Totton, J., and R. Davies (2013), Investigation of cosmic ray–cloud connections using MISR, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 5240–5245, doi:10.1002/grl.50996.

[7] Laken, Benjamin A., Enric PallĂ©, JaÅ¡a ÄŒalogović and Eimear M. Dunne. A cosmic ray-climate link and cloud observations. J. Space Weather Space Clim., 2 (2012) A18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/swsc/2012018

[8] Pierce, J. R., and P. J. Adams (2009), Can cosmic rays affect cloud condensation nuclei by altering new particle formation rates? Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L09820, doi:10.1029/2009GL037946.

[9] Rahmstorf, S., et al. (2004), Cosmic rays, carbon dioxide, and climate, Eos Trans. AGU, 85(4), 38–41, doi:10.1029/2004EO040002.

[10] Dana L. Royer, “CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate” GSA Today 14.3 (2004): 4-10.
doi: 10.1130/1052-5173(2004)014<4:CAAPDO>2.0.CO;2.
https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/14/3/pdf/i1052-5173-14-3-4.pdf

[11] Sloan, T and Wolfendale, A W. "Cosmic Rays and Global Warming." AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 972, no. 1, Jan. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2870330

[12] T. Sloan, A.W. Wolfendale, Cosmic rays and climate change over the past 1000 million years, New Astronomy, Volume 25, 2013, Pages 45-49, ISSN 1384-1076, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newast.2013.03.008.

3.5 Studies Investigating the Tropospheric Hotspot

You sometimes see people saying that the since a tropospheric "hotspot" is not detected by satellite data, a major prediction of climate science regarding a fingerprint of greenhouse gas warming has not materialized.  But as I've discussed in another post, much of the issue here has to do with uncertainties with satellite measurements, and the hotspot has been detected.
[1] Allen, R., Sherwood, S. Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds. Nature Geosci 1, 399–403 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo208
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228630146_Warming_maximum_in_the_tropical_upper_troposphere_deduced_from_thermal_winds

[2] Steven C Sherwood and Nidhi Nishant (2015) Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2). Environ. Res. Lett. 10 054007.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/meta

3.6 Reliability of Ice Core CO2

Some challenge the reliability of reconstructions of atmospheric CO2 from ice cores and even from locations like Mauna Loa. I respond to these challenges here. There are several good resources on this, which I cite below.
[1] Oeschger, Hans. (1995) Letters to the Editor. "Z. JAWOROWSKI: Ancient Atmosphere - Validity of Ice Records ESPR 1 (3): 161–171 (1994)." ESPR-Environ. Sci. & Pollut. Res. 2 (1): 60-61.
https://web.archive.org/web/20070927024724/http://www.scientificjournals.com/sj/espr/Pdf/aId/7394

[2] Alley RB. Reliability of ice-core science: historical insights. Journal of Glaciology. 2010;56(200):1095-1103. doi:10.3189/002214311796406130
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-glaciology/article/reliability-of-icecore-science-historical-insights/92910C4F70F7D55B05484DADD5C45236

[3] Meijer, Harro A.J. Comment on 180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods. Energy & Environment Vol. 18(2), 2007.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1260/0958-305X.18.5.635

[4] Keeling, Ralph F. Comment on 180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods. Energy & Environment Vol. 18(2), 2007.

[5] Steig. Sources of uncertainty in ice core data: A contribution to the Workshop on Reducing and Representing Uncertainties in High-Resolution Proxy Data. International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, Italy, June 9 - 11, 2008.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/ice-cores.pdf

[6] Ahn J, Headly M, Wahlen M, Brook EJ, Mayewski PA, Taylor KC. CO2 diffusion in polar ice: observations from naturally formed CO2 spikes in the Siple Dome (Antarctica) ice core. Journal of Glaciology. 2008;54(187):685-695. doi:10.3189/002214308786570764
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-glaciology/article/co2-diffusion-in-polar-ice-observations-from-naturally-formed-co2-spikes-in-the-siple-dome-antarctica-ice-core/8C8638D9EC90AEA53B90B3DE70E594C0

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Data Tampering by Shewchuk and Heller

Image
If you follow climate discussions on X, you're bound to see John Shewchuk and/or Tony Heller show graphs that reportedly show that NOAA is tampering with temperature data to fabricate global warming with spurious warming trends. I've gone over many of the reasons why this is nonsense before in posts about bias correction and so-called  ghost stations . I think it's good to show what's actually going on with the graphs they present as "proof" of data manipulation, though. I think it can be easily demonstrated here that it's actually Shewchuk and Heller that are tampering with data. Shewchuk (Top) and Correct (Below) Above are two graphs. The top graph shows what John Shewchuk claims shows that NOAA is manipulating data. It shows USHCN "raw" and "altered" Tmax data for 1900 to 2023. The bottom graph above is the correct plot of NOAA's published data from the current and correct dataset (nClimDiv) with a 5-year running mean to match S...
Read more

Was There a "Mike's Nature Trick" to "Hide the Decline?" Part 1 - Misreading CRU Emails

Image
In November 2009, someone likely stole[1] and publicly released over 1,000 emails from Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. Following this, people combed through all these emails  looking for evidence of frauds and coverups on the part of climate scientists. They found very little damaging information, but not everything they found was was good. There were, as best I can tell, four categories of content that were discovered: The normal kinds of communication you'd expect to find in correspondence between scientists Words and phrases that were twisted out of context and redefined to support an imagined conspiracy that had been imposed on the emails. Evidence of mean-spirited attacks on contrarian scientists and heavy-handed tactics intended to punish journals that published contrarian studies.  A single email describing the process of creating a graph for a WMO statement that used the phrase "hide the decline."  Here I plan to tackle the "hid...
Read more

Debunking the Latest CO2 "Saturation" Paper

Image
Update (12/29/2024):  The paper I discuss below was retracted a couple days ago, citing failures in the peer-review process. "Subsequent to acceptance of this paper, the rigor and quality of the peer-review process for this paper was investigated and confirmed to fall beneath the high standards expected by Applications in Engineering Science . After review by additional expert referees, the Editor-in-Chief has lost confidence in the validity of the paper and has decided to retract." A paper published earlier this year is the latest in the long history of attempts to show that CO2 is already "saturated" in the atmosphere, and therefore increased CO2 cannot cause any more warming. The latest in a series of these kinds of papers from Kubicki et al 2024[1] attempts to make this point by modeling the atmosphere in a couple different experiments. The result of their experiments suggested to them that we should question whether "additionally emitted CO2 in the atmosp...
Read more