Numeracy in Climate Discussions – how long will it take to get a 6C rise in temperature?

“But anyone with a little background in mathematics and physics should be able to understand how ridiculous a number like 6 C is.”
—
You’d think, but…

Doesn’t matter how ridiculous it is, I’m sure it’s coming soon to a billboard near you…

He’s using natural logarithms but global warming is man-made.

Joseph A Olson says:
April 18, 2013 at 4:29 pm
…or a functional conscious.

“Conscious” is not a noun. Which word are you misusing it for, ‘consciousness’ or ‘conscience’?

You can also use it to calculate what the current rise should be:
With 3C sensitivity: 3 x log2(400/270) = 1.7C
With 2C sensitivity: 2 x log2(400/270) = 1.1C
With 1.5C sensitivity: 1.5 x log2(400/270) = 0.85C
NOTE: log2(x) = ln(x)/ln(2)

As Dr. Happer points out, the claim of a 6 C temp increase fails even when the greenhouse effect of CO2 is assumed to increase in linear proportion to concentration in the atmosphere. It fails even more badly when you consider that the incremental greenhouse effect drops off rapidly as the CO2 concentration increases, so that doubling the concentration increases the greenhouse effect by only a few percent, and doubling it again increases the effect by a few percent of that few percent. And as other posters here point out, any such incremental effect that is observed is more than canceled in any event by negative water vapor feedbacks.
It’s apparent that the alarmies will go right on with their lies no matter how much they are confronted with the truth. They will stand there with the evidence against them right in their faces and keep on lying. It’s as though they have a black cat in their arms and insist on saying the cat is white.
Of course this should come as no surprise when the alarmies ascribe the [recent] record cold temperatures, severe winters and growing Antarctic ice cap and sea ice as due to global warming. They’re very good at saying that water freezes into ice when you heat it.

Bravo Dr Happer. I am still blown away by having the chance to talk to you.
Next time though, the dinner is on me!

Record low predicted here tonight. At least I’m doing my part to “heat the planet”–I burned leaves for three consecutive days, a few weeks ago.
Come on CO2, do your thing!

Andrew says: April 18, 2013 at 4:45 pm
Incidentally, if anyone out there can explain the alleged mechanism by which CO2 molecules “trap” heat, I’d be all ears. Somebody is having a laugh, for now
“Trap heat” or variations thereof is a phrase often used by AGW proponents. It sounds scary. But I’m not sure what it means. I’d be grateful if someone would define what is meant by “trap heat”. Does it mean “heat that can never escape, or heat that can escape but only under certain conditions”; and if so, “what are the conditions necessary for the “heat to escape”?

I think their scenario analysis is also a bit daffy, but that’s a whole nuther subject.

“He’s using natural logarithms but global warming is man-made.”
Well spotted. Outstanding!
Luckily, I had just finished my coffee.

geran;
An CO2 molecule in the atmosphere can be heated by infrared light from the Sun. Once the molecule is heated, it can lose heat by molecular collisons, or by re-emitting infrared.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not quite. The vast bulk of light from the sun is short wave which goes right through CO2. It gets absorbed by the earth which then radiates toward space in the infrared range. That’s when it gets “trapped” by CO2:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png
Of course “trapped” is the wrong word for it and what the sequence of events is after that is rather complex.
I suggest searching this site for articles by Ira Glickstein who did a very detailed series on the issue.

Yet another great example of logic, scientific analysis and ultimate truth to combat propaganda in a post on WUWT. Thank you!
One can only stifle the truth for so long through disinformation.
Just like the information Dr. Darko Butina, Dr. Spencer, and dozens of others bring to the forefront on this site.
I have a proposal for all who view this site. A proposal that will mimic that of other groups who cannot see things aside from their finely tailored vision.
You see, the climate alarmists are well organized, government funded, and sponsored by the media in all forms. The skeptics are not as well organized, not government funded and have limited funding from sponsors, and virtually no media exposure.
What if we could form an unified front and fight for truth in science as a group?
A union if you will.
Perhaps we could call it the “Union of Concerned Skeptical Scientists and Citizens” ?
Now, we would have to develop some standards around membership, but would certainly allow Kenji to join too ( on purpose )!
Perhaps it would be a good excuse for a formal meeting that could also be a fund drive to help improve what, how, and the way things are communicated on the “known science” of climate science.
I certainly realize that there are other organizations out there trying to do the same thing, but not many. The visibility and detail of this site provide a unique opportunity to take advantage of assets that may normally not be available to other groups.
It is obvious to me that many knowledgeable persons who are truly “in the know” are finally (with confidence) stepping up and out to expose the myths and untruths that are being purveyed as facts on climate, in an unchallenged manner, in too many instances.
If people can’t see or hear your reply, they simply don’t. That is why it is called mass media, no?
I can only hope to see on my cable guide one day the “WUWT-TV special with the Union of Concerned Skeptical Scientists and Citizens”
Hey,,,,, remember that you miss 100% of the shots that you do not take !
This world grows from opportunity, innovation, and most importantly, initiative! 🙂
Regards, and thanks again for the opportunity to be part of this revolution.

davidmhoffer says:
April 18, 2013 at 6:00 pm
‘Not quite. The vast bulk of light from the sun is short wave which goes right through CO2. It gets absorbed by the earth which then radiates toward space in the infrared range.’
>>>>>>>>
“Not quite”! LOL, you just love to be argumentative. Okay, let’s have at it.
During daylight, does an atmospheric molecule of CO2 receive more IR from the Sun or from the Earth?

As far as I can see the only way “heat” or energy is trapped on Earth is through :-
1. “Conversion” to mass by plants, algae etc. Mass obviously contains vast quantities of energy as burning wood for example amply demonstrates.
2. Melting ice into liquid water. The latent heat of fusion is thus “trapped” as long as the water remains liquid. Any latent heat of vapourisation is merely a temporary “trap” as it is released and radiated to space during condensation – ie rain or snow. Any increase in the temperature of liquid water is also likely to be transitory but may involve long timespans – besides it is likely to result in increased evaporation which is a very effective cooling mechanism as we animals demonstrate by our cooling mechanism – sweat.
The latest catchphrase is that GHGs “slow down” the radiative heat loss by “scattering” a portion – some say half – and therefore the Earth’s surfaces do not cool down as much as they would during the night as they would with less GHGs.
The problem with this argument is twofold :-
1. It requires the energy from the Sun to cause the extra heating as the Earth is starting from a warmer initial value next morning – and this contradicts the whole insolation is a quarter of the solar constant argument.
2. It requires consideration of the period of rotation of the Earth as cooling occurs when the Sun has set – ie at night. Unfortunately this brings up the comparison with the Moon which has a 14.75 Earth day long night. During the 531 Earth hours from lunar noon to the next dawn the Moon goes from ~390 K to ~100 K. This results in a cooling rate of 290/531 K per hour – about 0.55 K per hour.
There is little reason to suspect that the Earth’s gaseous radiative layer at close to 255 K would lose energy at anywhere near that rate.
In a 12 hour night the Earth would never cool to anything like the Moon – NEVER.
Both the Moon and Mercury – planetary surfaces subject to significant radiation both have extremely long nights.
The only other places we know about that get extremely cold – the poles – have long “nights” of some months and receive low levels of incident radiation.
Yet the period of rotation – obviously a major factor in explaining the loss of energy by a surface radiating to space – the Moon and Mercury for example have similar minimum temperatures – does not seem to have any place in this discussion yet it is one of the few real facts about planetary surface temperatures and heating and cooling we have.
The theoretical blackbody temperature is meaningless when the temperature varies from 390 K to 100 K for the Moon or from 700 K to 100 K for Mercury.
Mercury has a night time of 115.8 Earth days or 2779.2 Earth hours – even at the fastest rate of cooling observed for the Moon Mercury would only require 600 Earth hours to reach 100 K – less than one quarter of the night or about 1/7 of the time from noon to the next dawn.

“..with no feedbacks.”
Then Dr. Happer has absolutely no one to argue with. No one. JP

John West says: April 18, 2013 at 6:17 pm
@ Reed Coray
To “Trap Heat” is nonsensical because heat is energy being transferred, therefore if you trapped heat it wouldn’t be heat anymore.
What they’re actually referring to is the ability of certain gas molecules (GHG’s) to absorb IR (infrared radiation) into vibration.
Energy of vibration could be gained by absorbing IR or by collision and then could be released through either collisions or IR emission; thus a GHG can act as a cooling or warming agent with respect to the surrounding mass of gas.
I agree–especially do I agree that under certain circumstances a GHG can act as a cooling or warming agent with respect to the surrounding mass of gas. I believe that many AGW proponents (a) use the term “heat-trapping gas” to connote the IR absorption/IR emission properties of some gases, and (b) then argue that everything else being equal the heat-trapping nature of a gas is by itself sufficient to conclude that material possessing an internal source of thermal energy will when surrounded by a heat-trapping gas be warmer that it would be in the absence of the heat-trapping gas. There may be cases where this is true, but I believe there are cases where the opposite is true–i.e., surrounding material possessing an internal source of thermal energy will result in a lower material temperature.

We have a public meeting tomorrow night in our local market town where Tim Yeo – my MP – who is Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee responsible for climate and energy matters, is going to speak about the necessity to continue with aggressive pursuit of green policies.
Can anyone suggest some pertinent questions I can ask, without getting too technical so that other attendees can’t follow the import of them?
The man is a fanatic, and has invested heavily in green technology – a clear conflict of interests as many have remarked on WUWT before
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/08/tory-mp-amendment-energy-bill

Sam the First says:
April 18, 2013 at 7:30 pm
1) How much money will you make from your “green” investments?
2) Why haven’t the last 15-16 years shown any “global warming”?
3) Why are polar bear populations increasing?
4) What “green” policy has been financially successful AND reduced CO2 emissions?
5) Do scientists and engineers, non-salaried by green or gov, agree with AGW?
There you go….

LdB says:
April 18, 2013 at 6:32 pm
“I can not seriously believe that rational people can not understand how the greenhouse effect works”
—————————————————————————————————————–
LdB,
There is nothing wrong with radiative physics, it has just been incorrectly applied to atmospheric physics. This has lead to radiative gases being wrongly called “greenhouse”gasses.
Can radiative gases intercept surface IR and heat the atmosphere? Yes.
Can radiative gases emit IR to the surface (land only) and slow it’s cooling rate? Yes.
Will adding radiative gases to the atmosphere cause global warming? No.
The radiative green house hypothesis has a fundamental flaw. The basic calculations that predict warming are based on modelling the atmosphere as a static body or mathematical layer. However the gases in our atmosphere are free to move and this invalidates all AGW calculations. At first glance, failing to model a moving atmosphere does not look like a huge error. Radiative flux to and from the earth and space is the big concern right? Why would the movement of gases in the atmosphere need to be modelled? The answer is atmospheric temperature.
Failing to model a moving atmosphere leads to two fundamental errors in AGW calculations.
1. Conductive flux between the atmosphere and the surface.
In an atmosphere with moving gases, gravity keeps cooler gas near the surface during the day maximising conductive flux. At night gravity keeps cooler gas near the surface, minimising conductive flux. Basically for a moving atmosphere the surface is better at conductively heating the atmosphere than it is at conductively cooling it. Static atmosphere calculations give entirely the wrong answer for surface to atmosphere conductive flux. While land surface Tmin may be lower under a non-radiative atmosphere, this does not translate to a significantly cooler atmosphere.
2. Convective circulation.
Radiative gases play a critical role in convective circulation below the tropopause. Rising warm air masses lose energy at altitude by IR radiation to space from radiative gases. If the only way atmospheric gases could lose energy is by conductive contact with the night surface, tropospheric convective circulation would stall and our atmosphere would heat dramatically. Radiative cooling at altitude is critical for continued convective circulation. It is a common mistake to believe that adiabatic cooling will allow continued convective circulation, but this is matched by adiabatic heating on decent and plays no role in convective circulation. Energy loss at altitude is just as important for convective circulation as energy input near the surface.
When you take a moving atmosphere into consideration, radiative gases cool at all concentrations above 0.0ppm. Adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will only speed up convective circulation and tropospheric cooling. At 0.04% there is no hope of measuring any such effect from CO2. This is why the models keep failing.

geran says:
April 18, 2013 at 6:26 pm
davidmhoffer says:
April 18, 2013 at 6:00 pm
‘Not quite. The vast bulk of light from the sun is short wave which goes right through CO2. It gets absorbed by the earth which then radiates toward space in the infrared range.’
>>>>>>>>
“Not quite”! LOL, you just love to be argumentative. Okay, let’s have at it.
During daylight, does an atmospheric molecule of CO2 receive more IR from the Sun or from the Earth?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The greenhouse effect is a function of SW from the sun (which isn’t absorbed by CO2) being absorbed by the earth and radiated back out as LW (which is absorbed by CO2). In answer your question, I posted the link to atmospheric transmission, you can see for yourself. I also suggested reading more detailed explanations by Ira Glickstein. If you think you’ve scored some points by mocking me, you done nothing of the sort. I attempted to help you out with an error that you made, nothing more.

kirkmyers says:
April 18, 2013 at 7:03 pm
“There is plenty of research challenging the man-made-CO2-is-warming-the-earth theory. And that’s all it is: a theory.”
______________________________________________________________
Richard D says: I disagree. As demonstrated by empirical data, It’s a failed hypothesis.
I say it isn’t even that. I don’t think it was well-formed enough to be a hypothesis. It was an overblown speculation.

When you take a moving atmosphere into consideration, radiative gases cool at all concentrations above 0.0ppm. Adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will only speed up convective circulation and tropospheric cooling. At 0.04% there is no hope of measuring any such effect from CO2. This is why the models keep failing.

An interesting argument. However, I’d like to see more than just a verbal argument. Do you have any computations or numbers to support it? Or even a very simple model?
I agree with a lot of your assertions, e.g. the practical irrelevance of the adiabatic and hence essentially reversible ALR — the only mechanism that actually cools the atmosphere (permanently removes heat from it) is radiation, and that occurs in the upper troposphere where the atmosphere ceases to be opaque to e.g. LWIR (although it is more complex than this, this process occurs in depth and at different depths in different frequencies). But I find it somewhat difficult to believe that all of the climate models in the climate modeling universe ignore heat bulk transport either vertically or laterally. After all, it isn’t just dry air that carries up the heat — a lot of energy gets lofted up in the form of latent heat of vaporization of water, for example.
So, any papers, computations, models, actual evidence to support your assertion? I don’t have a good enough feel for the numbers to be able to assess whether or not to take this seriously, so you’ll have to help me out if you want me to believe it.
rgb

“If the Earth’s atmosphere were represented by a large swimming pool filled with 3,200 gallons of water:
2,498 gallons would be Nitrogen (78.084% of atmosphere by volume),
670 gallons would be Oxygen (20.9476% of atmosphere by volume),
30 gallons would be Argon (0.934% of atmosphere by volume),
1 gallon would be a mixture of Methane (0.002%), Neon (0.001818%), Helium (0.000524%), Krypton (0.000114%), Hydrogen (0.00005%) and Xenon (0.0000087%)
and
1 gallon would be Carbon Dioxide (0.0314% of atmosphere by volume).
I’m puzzled. First, 3200 gallons of water is a tiny, tiny swimming pool — about six feet by nine feet by six feet deep, or a bit wider if you want to make it shallower.
Second, slightly over one gallon is then not CO_2, but CO_2 and ALL THE REST of the trace gases put together. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmosphere_gas_proportions.svg.
Of these trace gases, there is no point in listing any of them but CO_2. But OTOH, this list leaves out the highly variable but roughly 1% of the troposphere that is water! As for what proportion of the gallon-plus that is CO_2 is “man made” or attributable to humans — that is debatable, but the debate is not served by presenting a pretty metaphor as if it is a fact. Pre-industrial CO_2 was around 300 ppm. That’s a fact. It is around 400 ppm now. That, too, is a fact. One argument, then, might make a full quart of your gallon human contributed CO_2. Another one — arguing that the bulk of the additional CO_2 is actually oceanic CO_2 released by warming — might make it less, but then one would have to explain how it appears that the actual measured concentration of CO_2 in the ocean appears to be at the very least holding its own if not increasing, if it is simultaneously the cause of more CO_2 in the air. At the very least, you should justify any number you cite, and be prepared to defend it, because ANY number that gets cited, either way, is highly dependent on the model used to compute it and the interpretation of measurements that are not at all straightforward to interpret.
Finally, at the end, after one gets through the entire tedious metaphor (correcting it along the way) one is forced to say — so what? It is a simple, measurable, observable fact that the one “gallon” of CO_2 in the “pool” is sufficient to be totally opaque to IR in its absorption bands from the surface all the way up to near the top of the troposphere, where the “murkiness” of the pool finally diminishes enough so that IR in this channel can escape to space. And what of the 30 gallons of the water that are — um — water?
Note well that I’m not asserting that CO_2 is or is not damaging or deadly, only that this metaphor might not be what one wants to present at any meeting or public discussion where you want to actually convince somebody that it is harmless, or that there is no such thing as the GHE, or whatever.
rgb

No pay walled document should be allowed to be cited in any action involving public policy. In effect it is giving a free hand for lies and corruption if information cannot be readily checked.

rgbatduke says:
April 18, 2013 at 10:15 pm
————————————————————————————————————–
Further to Experiment 4 above, here is a graphic of what happens in the two boxes –
http://tinypic.com/r/zmghtu/6
The following graphic shows what that means for the atmosphere –
http://i45.tinypic.com/29koww6.jpg
It should be noted that the panel on the right listed as non radiative atmosphere only shows what would happen shortly after radiative cooling was “switched off”. As Ferd Berple pointed out in a post above after this the atmosphere would go isothermal. Without radiative gases, atmospheric temperatures above the near surface layer would slowly rise to temperatures close to surface Tmax.
To observe the unusual characteristics of an atmosphere without radiative gases you only need to look at the stratosphere. Here there is no strong vertical convective circulation, the lapse rate reverses and molecular energy rapidly rises. It is also important to note that there are no planets or moons in the solar system that have managed to retain an atmosphere without radiative gases.

Dr. Happer, I hope you’re taking questions.
I would be interested to hear your take on this:
I understand your analysis, but the major underlying assumption of the classical theory is that pure black body radiative equilibrium is the primary method of heat rejection on earth, while ignoring an important distinction.
1) With the classical analysis, one simply measures the albedo of the earth, and with known incoming radiation, we can calculate the radiative balance temperature easily. We see the difference and attribute that to the greenhouse effect. Then we add the effect of a CO2 doubling to that to see what the impact is. And then we imagine that albedo will stay the same if more water is evaporated with the higher temperature, which will result in a still higher temperature, and that is why we use a feedback that is >0. We do not assume that albedo will increase on average to reject more heat, both through cloud SW rejection, and reduction of the distance water droplet LW needs to travel to escape to space.
2) This is backwards. The albedo is an output of the system, not an input, and is not stable. It is a result or property of the atmosphere and water vapor in a given volume under different conditions. The correct approach would be to take the albedo of the earth everywhere that there are not clouds, then with the given solar input, calculate the non-cloud radiative balance using this much darker albedo. Now you have the starting conditions of a planet that has no ability to use H20 convection processes. This temperature is much higher since more LW is absorbed. Now we see the difference and attribute the difference to the effect of (1) albedo due to clouds, and (2) all other GHG’s (including water vapor). Not much left for “all other” is there?
3) Planets that are like ours but that are more distant from the sun will have fewer cloud processes than ours (less power delivered, less to reject). Planets that are closer will have more. In other words, all else being equal, a rock / water planet closer to the sun will be brighter, one more distant will be cooler and won’t require active heat rejection.
4) there is an equilibrium distance to the sun for a given baseline (rock & water) albedo at which convection begins to occur at lower latitudes. As the distance to the sun decreases, (and more power is delivered to the planet) the convection will move up the latitudes (and probably form bands), but the albedo will increase with cloud activity. Planets farther than this distance are controlled purely by the classical blackbody equilibrium equations. Planets closer are actively managed via active H20 albedo control, which flattens the temperature profile and creates temperature stability at the surface. Planets very much closer have even more stability and higher albedo. The very fact that albedo changes is indication of a very strong heat rejection mechanism. I don’t want to call it a feedback because I think the entire feedback argument suffers from this same fundamental flaw in thinking. But the fact that the system has a wide band of stability at the surface over a wide range in power input indicates a system in negative feedback control.
5) This active cooling process works in concert with, but certainly would overwhelm CO2’s tiny signature. So, as Willis points out, the effect might be earlier onset or later dissipation of a convective event. Longer duration = higher average albedo over a day. I would also add that the altitude to which water droplets are delivered so that they LW radiate out faster may increase with added CO2.
6) Combining 3,4, and 5, albedo is the system output that manages temperature when planets are close to the sun. The heat capacity of the earth can cause the albedo output to overshoot and undershoot, creating chaotic or cyclical change in temperatures. Likewise, polar regions may contain ice which both insulates LW from the oceans and reflects SW. It’s not hard to imagine a stable planet that has quite a bit of natural variation simply due to other processes kicking in that contribute to under damp the system. For example, we are seeing that after the most recent warm period, stratospheric water vapor is in decline, which is effectively shunting even more LW to space. This process may take years or decades to reverse, which could produce a long cool period before this shutter cycles back to a higher level IR blocking state, and warming would begin again. There are probably countless of these unknowns acting on the system.
7) If you buy that albedo control buys stability at the surface, this means the H20 feedback is negative.
I suspect it is also incorrect to average the 1/2 earth’s input facing the sun with the dark half radiating to space, since these have much different properties and temperatures and this is also a big problem for the classical analysis. Each grid area on earth needs to be integrated to find the values over a day and year (and on and on) for the radiative exchanges going on.
I just saw an article today that mentioned in one sentence that NASA now seems to understand this albedo difference (or at least has me convinced they have an inkling of it). This also means that the classical radiative balance theory that starts with albedo and calculates the effect of CO2 on top of it, then water vapor on top of that (which is absurd) is being abandoned by even the big pro-warmers, something even most skeptics still largely accept, just with low feedback. I’m thinking the whole feedback issue is a result of poorly defining the problem. It gives me hope that NASA might start learning something about this planet now that Hansen is gone. That the classical theory has failed is now beyond dispute, everyone is doing the climb down.
Do you think my order of looking at the problem is more correct than the classical (static albedo) view ? What flaws do you see? Any insights? THANK YOU !!!

Andrew says:
April 18, 2013 at 4:45 pm
Doesn’t it get ever more difficult to increase the ppmv of CO2 in the atmosphere? CO2, as I understand it, partitions at a ration of 50:1 between water and air.

You are confusing total amounts in the oceans with the changes observed at equilibrium.
The oceans indeed contain 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere, but that is not important. What is important is what happens when the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases (by whatever cause). With increased CO2 (partial) pressure in the atmosphere, according to Henry’s Law, the same increase in CO2 pressure in the ocean surface must occur to reach a new equilibrium. Thus the 30% increase over the past 1.5 century increased the free CO2 level in the oceans with 30%. So far so good and simple.
But free CO2 is only 1% of all CO2 in the oceans. Most are bicarbonates and carbonates, which don’t count as free CO2. What happens next? Somewhat more difficult: free CO2 is in chemical equilibrium with bicarbonates and carbonates, thus more CO2 gives more of the other and at the same time more hydrogen ions (that is acidity, or in this case less alkalinity). But more hydrogen ions push the equilibrium back to free CO2.
The total result is that a 30% change of CO2 in the atmosphere indeed gives a 30% change of free CO2 in the oceans surface, but only a 3% change in total dissolved CO2 (called DIC, that is free CO2 + bicarbonate + carbonate) in the oceans surface. As the oceans surface contains about 1000 GtC, the increase over the past 1.5 century was not more than 30 GtC.
Thus instead of a 50:1 ratio, the real ratio is 1:10 for the ocean surface/atmosphere partitioning.
The absorption of any CO2 increase in the deep oceans is where the bulk of CO2 change can go (together with long term capture of carbon by land plants). The difference is in timing: the equilibrium between ocean surface and atmosphere is reached in 1-3 years half life time, but the deep oceans-atmosphere exchanges are limited in flux and need much longer periods to reach equilibrium (half life time ~40 years).

For the past 20 years the Mauna Loa CO2 concentration trend is almost perfectly linear.
If, as usually postulated, a fixed fraction (ca. 50%) of anthropogenic CO2 remains in the atmosphere, a linear trend is generated ONLY WHEN THE YEARLY CO2 EMISSION IS CONSTANT THROUGHOUT.
However, we know that the emission has been increasing for those 20 years throughout, and hence the CO2 concentration curve should be superlinear.
This is an all-time enigma for me.

“Martin A says: April 19, 2013 at 1:14 am ……”
I guess the ∆T ~ ln C is an empirical formula from the fact that the 15-micron O2 band is practically saturated at the peak, and hence the additional CO2 causes essentially slow band broadening, which is approximated by the ∆T ~ ln C formula.

Happer seems to be the only person estimating how much CO2 is needed to get a 6C rise from 2013 concentrations of ~400ppm rather than pre-industrial concentrations of ~270ppm. This makes a substantial difference in the answer (1600 vs 1080ppm).
In assuming that CO2 concentrations will continue to rise at 2ppm/yr, he is making some very strong assumptions about future emission scenarios. Without strong intervention, it is much more likely that the increase in CO2 concentrations per year will continue to rise (tokyoboy April 19, 2013 at 12:42 am – don’t just eyeball the data, calculate the slope – it is superlinear).
The Happer argues that a climate sensitivity of 1C per doubling is more plausible. This is a fantasy not supported by the empirical evidence. Nic Lewis’s paper had a modal sensitivity of 1.6C. Happer’s suggestion that climate sensitivity might be negative is a joke. If he really thought this plausible, it should scare him, as increasing CO2 concentrations would cool the planet! Has he really thought this through?

“Michael D Smith says:
April 19, 2013 at 12:13 am”
You might find this helpful.
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Understanding_the_Atmosphere_Effect.pdf

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
April 19, 2013 at 1:55 am
Sorry,
That means that the sinks follow the increase in the atmosphere at a near fixed ratio to total CO2 in the atmosphere.
must be:
That means that the sinks follow the increase in the atmosphere at a near fixed ratio to total CO2 in the atmosphere in excess above the (temperature controlled) equilibrium.

@Konrad says:
April 18, 2013 at 8:04 pm
This is a great explanation of why “greenhouse effect” does not work.
Consider this – surface of the Moon in sunlight is over 100deg Celsius. Surface of Earth in sunlight is not 100deg C anywhere on the planet, therefore, whatever atmosphere we have, has cooling effect.
Greenhouses on Earth work only by stopping heated gases rising, i.e. by literally trapping heated gas, and not by trapping radiation. Your “greenhouse” can be a shipping container made of steel, and it still will be warmer inside even on a dull day than outside. CO2 is not a rigid structure with a roof.
If our atmosphere was “trapping heat” then the Sun will have even easier job of heating the surface in the morning, (i.e not starting with minus 150, or whatever, as it is on the Moon), then you would expect Earth surface temperatures to be significantly higher than on the Moon.

richardscourtney says:
April 19, 2013 at 2:18 am
joeldshore makes a ridiculous assertion when he claims the rate of rise in atmospheric CO2 has doubled from 1 to 2 ppm “over the last 40 years”.
Dear Richard,
The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere indeed was rising near linear from slightly less than 1 ppmv/year to near 2 ppmv over the past 40+ years:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em.jpg
The question is if this linear increase will be maintained over the next 50-100 years or will flatten when industrialisation reaches maturity in developing countries and/or new types of non-fossil production of cheap energy will emerge.

Konrad says:
April 18, 2013 at 8:04 pm
I agree with RGBs call for the numbers, and I do understand that a GHG both warms and cools. I like to charterize it as a function of time; ie, “the only way to change the energy content of any system (in this case the atmospher, the earth, and the oceans) in a radiative blance is to change the residence time of some aspect of those energy, or to change the input.”
So the only way to quantify all this is to produce the engineering quality paper Steve McIntyre has called for, but never recieved. How much of the energy within the atmosphere is other then radiative, conducted from the surface to convection currents, and or latent heat moved via evaporation? I have never seen the numbers.
Furthermore, what are the relative percentages of energy to and from CO2, conducted, vs radiative? How often does the CO2 molecule recieve energy through collision via the establishment of a LTE? (Local thermodynamic equalibrium) If a GHG recieves energy via conduction, then radiates to space, its net effect is cooling. If it recieves same energy from surface emitted LWIR, and redirects said energy downwards, then it is warming. If it recieves energy via conduction, from the latent heat of evaporation released via condensation, then it is cooling. If it recdieves said energy via conduction, and releases via conduction, then it acts just as any othe non radiative gas. I imagine that the chances of a GHG both recieving and releasing energy via conduction accelerates relative to the density of the molecules it is encountering, but think it likely more complicated then that.
I imagine that the physical location, both latitude, longitude, and altitude of any GHG affects the warming cooling properties of said gas. In a non GHG world, where would all the conducting energy go. Would it not have to conduct back to the surface, in order to radiate to space? However, would not it first continuesly conduct to cooler molecules above it, untis the majority of said molecules reached an equalbrium, establihing a fairly even enrgy vibrational rate, only registering a different T due to the relative, per SQm density of molecules? (Lapse rate based primarily on atmospheric density) Yes, of couse convection, evaporation, and relative conduction spreads would continuesly conduct said atmosphere.

Wilson and Gea-Banacloche, Am. J. Phys. 80 306 (2012).
The paper is paywalled. Is it available anywhere for those without library facilities nor budget to access paywalled info?

Thanks Richard, and “we do not know” is actually an excellent answer. Without humility we have very poor science.

@David
If you build and run the experiments linked above, you should find the results so robust (tm climate science) that you will not require precise numbers. They have gotten the “basic physics” of the “settled science” so wrong it beggers the imagination.
Experiment 3 shows the importance of energy loss at altitude to convective circulation. Experiment 4 shows what happens when radiative cooling at altitude is not occurring. Build the columns tall enough and use 1C cooling water and 80C heating water and you should achive a 30C+ differential between gas columns. AGW? Game over man! Game over!
I think we should dust off and nuke “climate science” from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure 😉

AGW is based on, as was eugenics, bigotry, ignorance and a thin veneer of science. All combined with rent seeking and self promotion.
That 6.0o is both ridiculous and embraced by the loudest of the AGW hypesters is not surprising.

TerryS says:

The rate of increase of CO2 is expected to accelerate as countries like China and India industrialise, however, it isn’t expected to be exponential (that would require industrialisation rates to be exponential). If we take a linear acceleration of 1ppm/40 years then it would still take 240 years to reach the 1600ppm in the article.

The history of such growth processes has generally been that they are roughly exponential. Doubling every 40 years assumes a modest growth rate of about 1.8% per year in CO2 emissions. At the rate China and India are currently industrializing, that may well be an underestimate.

To get to ~1100 at 2ppm/year would still require 355 years, or, with an accelerating CO2 increase 171 years.

Again, that depends on the acceleration. You are assuming a low acceleration. That also assumes that no saturation occurs in the sinks that are currently sequestering about half of our emissions. Many scientists find that assumption to be implausible.

As for the accelerating rate of CO2, do you seriously believe that it will take China, India etc anywhere near a 100 years to industrialise? Once they have industrialised their CO2 emissions should level off (they same way they have in the industrialised nations).

In general, CO2 emissions have continued to grow in industrialized countries over the last several decades, although not as rapidly as in the industrializing ones.
I will leave it to Ferdinand Engelsteen to correct the blatant falsehoods that Richard S Courtney is spewing (and, unfortunately, continuing to spew) in this thread.

richardscourtney says:
April 19, 2013 at 5:05 am
Come on Richard,
The seasonal variation has nothing to do with the year by year variability in rise of CO2 levels nor with the trend itself. For the same year by year variability and trend one can use the South Pole data or one of the other SH stations, where hardly any seasonal variability is visible. The seasonal cycle simply is a false argument, as that doesn’t influence the trend (neither do the tides for sea levels…). Only the change over a full seasonal cycle is of interest. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/month_2002_2004_4s.jpg
and
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends.jpg
Joel was discussing the year by year rise in CO2 over the past 40 years. That significantly doubled over that period, even taking into account the year by year variability in increase rate. That is undoubtedly true, no matter how you try to hide that by choosing a graph that doesn’t show the important details. If you can provide another curve of the year by year CO2 increase rate that doesn’t show a linear increase over time, I am very interested to see that.
Thus the choice of Happer for a constant increase rate is his assumption, probably based on the expectation (as is mine) that CO2 emissions in the future will flatten with maturing industrialisation and/or newer energy production techniques. But it is an assumption, not more reasonable than expecting an ongoing increase in CO2 emissions / increase in the atmosphere for the next 50-100 years.

-ddavidmhoffer says:
April 18, 2013 at 8:24 pm
The greenhouse effect is a function of SW from the sun (which isn’t absorbed by CO2) being absorbed by the earth and radiated back out as LW (which is absorbed by CO2). In answer your question, I posted the link to atmospheric transmission, you can see for yourself. I also suggested reading more detailed explanations by Ira Glickstein. If you think you’ve scored some points by mocking me, you done nothing of the sort. I attempted to help you out with an error that you made, nothing more.
>>>>>>>>
Sir, I see you finally responded last night after I had left. Your response helps me to understand your confusion now, so let me see if I can help:
Your link has a presentation of “transmission”. I think you are confusing transmission with total solar energy the atmosphere receives, ie, the atmosphere receives more energy from the Sun than does the Earth, due to the losses/heating/reflections of the atmospheric layer. Your link presents what “gets through” the atmosphere. Here is a link to total solar output:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation
And a relevant pasting from the iink:
“Sunlight in space at the top of Earth’s atmosphere at a power of 1366 watts/m2 is composed (by total energy) of about 50% infrared light, 40% visible light, and 10% ultraviolet light.[3] At ground level this decreases to about 1120–1000 watts/m2, and by energy fractions to 44% visible light, 3% ultraviolet (with the Sun at the zenith, but less at other angles), and the remainder infrared. Thus, sunlight’s composition at ground level, per square meter, with the sun at the zenith, is about 527 watts of infrared radiation, 445 watts of visible light, and 32 watts of ultraviolet radiation.”
Hope that helps.
Oh, and as to “mocking” you–you blindsided me with a non-constructive comment trying to start an argument. When I asked one question that you realized lost your case for you, you then did not respond for hours. When you finally responded, you tried to fake victory, while at the same time claiming “victimhood”. Hint: The perp is the victim only in unside-down justice systems.

geran says:
April 19, 2013 at 7:46 am
sunlight’s composition at ground level, per square meter, with the sun at the zenith, is about 527 watts of infrared radiation, 445 watts of visible light, and 32 watts of ultraviolet radiation.
Be careful, the incoming infrared radiation of the sun and the outgoing IR radiation of the earth are quite different in wavelengths. CO2 has only a small absorption band in solar IR, water has a lot more. Most IR captured by CO2 is in the earth radiation band, not in the solar one.
See page 4 of 7 in:
http://www.nat.vu.nl/CondMat/rw/DuEnSBI/DuurzEn4HeatBalanceOfEarth.pdf

geran says:
April 19, 2013 at 7:46 am
…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation
And a relevant pasting from the iink:
“Sunlight in space at the top of Earth’s atmosphere at a power of 1366 watts/m2 is composed (by total energy) of about 50% infrared light, 40% visible light, and 10% ultraviolet light.[3] At ground level this decreases to about 1120–1000 watts/m2, …
——
That’s odd. No problem with TOA 1366 W/m^2, but then I’ve always read that you have to adjust for surface area of a sphere as opposed to a disk (disk RPI, sphere 4RPI, so divide by 4), and then adjust again for albedo (1-0.3), which gives about 240 W/m^2 at the surface. Is this wrong?
This said, I’ve always thought this adjustment a bit odd as well. It’s only half a sphere during the day when solar radiation is coming in after all. Also, obviously solar power varies substantially with the cos of the zenith angle; I.E., time of day and date. And the prevailing weather. etc.
One of these days I’m going to spend the time and effort to actually measure the solar radiation in my backyard….

Geran;
Oh, and as to “mocking” you–you blindsided me with a non-constructive comment trying to start an argument. When I asked one question that you realized lost your case for you, you then did not respond for hours. When you finally responded, you tried to fake victory, while at the same time claiming “victimhood”. Hint: The perp is the victim only in unside-down justice systems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I did not realize that you are such an important person that I must sit attentively at my desk, doing nothing else for an entire day, waiting in breathless anticipation of a comment from you to respond to.
Your initial response to how CO2 traps energy was wrong. The GHG effect has nothing to do with CO2 absorbing LW from the sun. Get over it. Check out the links I provided to you and follow closely the responses of this thread by rgbatduke, richardscourtney, Ferdinand Englebeen, Joel Shore and others. Perhaps you’ll figure out your mistake or perhaps you’ll continue you’ll continue to spout drivel while insulting and mocking those who make an honest effort to help you understand.

Richard M;
Also keep in mind that he GHE is the strongest closest to the surface which should promote more convection. The cooling effect is strongest in the upper atmosphere where there is less water vapor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Agreed with all your comments save this last one. With water vapour hitting 40,000 ppm over ocean in the tropics, CO2’s effects are pretty much lost in the noise. As you rise in altitude, temps drop and water vapour precipitates out while co2 concentrations stay the same, and so become more significant in terms of their ratio to water vapour. Hence I think your statement is correct, but that point much occur at an altitude above the water vapour layer rather than close to earth surface. Then it gets more complicated when we consider that the water vapour layer gets thinner by latitude, and also by season (winter vs summer) and also over deserts.
so my expectation is that where CO2 becomes significant enough to promote a measurable amount of convection varies by altitude, latitude, season, and geography. I expect also that this is almost impossible to measure.

“joeldshore says:
April 19, 2013 at 6:02 am
Again, that depends on the acceleration. You are assuming a low acceleration. That also assumes that no saturation occurs in the sinks that are currently sequestering about half of our emissions. Many scientists find that assumption to be implausible.”
Give me a break Joel. As a physiologist I’ve seen no data that plants will not increase sequestration of soil CO2. Unless of course, you confound the data with assumptions of increasing temperature and/or less rainfall. Those scientists you allude must be climate scientists…………….
Increased production of stover in response to co2 enrichment:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=245953
http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108
Leads to increased sequestration of carbon in the soil:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2845980?uid=3739672&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102066143131
http://www.bio.anl.gov/environmental_biology/terrestrial_ecology/CO2.html
The results indicated that CO2 enrichment increased soil carbon by an average of 5.6% over 2-9 years, at a median rate of 0.19 Mg C ha‑1 y‑1. We also observed increases in soil carbon, at rates exceeding 0.4 Mg C ha‑1 y‑1 for 5-8 years, in Tennessee sweetgum forest and Kansas prairie exposed to elevated CO2. Carbon accrual in both systems was measurable because the vegetation responded to CO2 enrichment with large increases in the production of root litter.

Henry Galt says:
April 19, 2013 at 10:28 am
First time for ages I have ticked the ‘Notify me of follow-up comments via email’ box – the exchange between geran and davidmhoffer looks like it may be a doozy 😉
>>>>>>>>>>
Nah. Courtney, Englebeen and Shore. That’s turning into a doozy.

Richard111 says:
April 19, 2013 at 9:34 am
Thank you for the link. Lot of useful information there. I have posted the link on another forum.
Sadly I failed to find any information on the ‘heat trapping’ capability of CO2 and why this is a problem if the current levels of CO2 double.
Maybe the following link and the next pages from Clive Best is of some help:
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169
Also puzzled as to why atom bomb generated C-14 has a half life of 5 years but natural C-14 has a half life of 6,000 years which is useful for carbon dating.
Different half lives: the 5 year calculated from the bomb spike is about how fast 14C (natural or not) disappears out of the atmosphere, but is not destroyed: it simply is gone into other reservoirs (oceans and plants) and/or replaced by stable carbon (12C and 13C) from the other reservoirs. The 6,000 years is for the real destruction of 14C when it radiates a beta ray (an electron) and converts into 14N. That is the base for the carbon dating.

Tim Clark says:

Give me a break Joel. As a physiologist I’ve seen no data that plants will not increase sequestration of soil CO2. Unless of course, you confound the data with assumptions of increasing temperature and/or less rainfall. Those scientists you allude must be climate scientists…

Yes, the confounding effects of climate change do indeed play a potentially important role. However, your whole argument does not even address my point. The question is not whether sequestration increases as the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases. Rather, it is whether sequestration increases linearly…i.e., whether it continues to increase at the same rate or whether it eventually starts to slow down. Since there are likely rate-limiting factors affecting sequestration other than atmospheric concentration of CO2, such a slow-down seems likely.

richardscourtney says:
April 19, 2013 at 10:58 am
Richard, are you really so obtuse?
Of course the trend in CO2 is the difference over a full seasonal cycle, as I said before, but the seasonal cycle doesn’t cause the trend, doesn’t influence the trend and simply has nothing to do with the trend, whatever the real cause of the trend is.
With your type of reasoning, you would say that the waves and tides are the cause of any trends in sealevel.
Any change in CO2 levels should be calculated from calendar year averages or 12 month moving averages to remove the seasonal cycle. That is the only way to see the real trend not disturbed by a seasonal cycle which is of not the slightest interest in this case, it is only noise.
BTW, the measurements at the South Pole started before Mauna Loa, but as they miss a few years of continuous measurements (but still had regular flask samples), the Mauna Loa series are mostly used as longest continuous series.

richardscourtney says:
April 19, 2013 at 12:53 pm
Thank you Richard. I have been aware of the contretemps for some years and read with interest. My position is I believe CO2 has no effect on the climate whatsoever. 🙂
Do you know snow is reported in Soweto, South Africa, weeks before it normally appears?
http://snowreport.co.za/

“joeldshore says:
April 19, 2013 at 12:47 pm ”
Yes, of course. But the only RLS I know of at this time is the upper concentration cap where increasing [CO2] doesn’t induce heightened plant growth. Which, of course, is >1000 ppm.

While I don’t doubt the way the amount of IR absorption by CO2 increases due to spectral detuning (I’ll accept the quantum mechanics expert’s opinions on that), for the life of me I can’t see why that should carry over to the average surface Temperature of the whole planet.
So I for one do not accept the supposed logarithmic relationship.
Besides, I know what a logarithm is, and if going from 280 ppm to 560 ppm of CO2 is a “doubling”, so is going from 1 ppm to 2 ppm, or one molecule of CO2 in the whole atmosphere to two molecules of CO2 in the whole atmosphere.
So maybe the theoretical relationship, can at best be claimed to be non-linear.
Unfortunately, we have no experimental data to show that logarithmic is any better than linear is.
We DO know that CO2 and Temperature do NOT even go in the same direction (always) simultaneously. And no time offset, will make them go in the same direction (always).
So something else must override any effect CO2 has.
So I agree with Prof Happer, that the 6 deg C claim is silly. I just don’t think one needs to invoke, ANY kind of CO2-Temp relationship. I can directly observe what cloud variations do to Temperature.

richardscourtney says:
April 19, 2013 at 1:52 pm
Richard, we may go again over our longstanding discussion, to not much avail, except for entertaining (or boring) others here.
In summary for new readers:
– according to Richard, the seasonal cycle does show that the earth can accept a lot of CO2 in short term, thus also the (relative) tiny amounts that humans emit each year. Thus it is not necessary that humans are the cause of the increase. It may be humans. but there may be other causes.
– according to me, the seasonal cycle indeed does show what fast processes can do with CO2, as result of temperature changes. The flows involved are huge (about 90 GtC exchange with the oceans, 60 GtC with the biosphere), but the effect is very limited: about 5 ppmv (10 GtC) global change in CO2 for a global change of 1°C over a year, where oceans vs. vegetation and NH vs. SH work in countercurrent for temperature changes.
– the seasonal change of 5 ppmv/°C is caused by fast processes: leaves growth an decay and ocean surface warming and cooling. Both are fast but limited in capacity. Thus it is not obvious that the extra release of CO2 by humans is captured by oceans or trees, as these processes are mainly temperature dependent, if there is no extra pressure in the atmosphere to do that work.
– any extra CO2 above the old time equilibrium will cause an extra uptake by plants and oceans. But that is not a doubling for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. Currently the extra uptake is about 2 ppmv/year while the extra CO2 is already 100 ppmv above the temperature controlled equilibrium.
– humans currently emit about 4 ppmv/year CO2. That is about twice the observed increase and about twice the year by year variation in increase rate. Thus nature is a net sink over the past 50+ years from about 1 ppmv/year in the 1960’s to 2 ppmv/year in the latest years, not a net source.
– while the seasonal fluxes completely dwarf the human input, the latter is a one-way addition and the seasonal fluxes near completely compensate each other with slighlty more sinks than sources.
Thus in my informed opinion, supported by all available data, humans are the sole cause of the increase in the atmosphere, except for a small contribution of the temperature increase since the LIA (in the order of 8 ppmv/°C).
See further for more detailed arguments:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html#The_mass_balance
The effect of the increase of CO2 on temperature is a complete different topic and is the main topic of what Dr. Happer wrote…

“Richard111 says:
April 19, 2013 at 1:50 am
You might find this helpful.
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Understanding_the_Atmosphere_Effect.pdf
I sure did. Thank you Richard, that is most insightful on a detailed level. It makes the notion of a major controlling influence of CO2 on temperature even more preposterous than I thought it was. That’s saying a lot.
Thanks again.

Michael D Smith says:

You might find this helpful.
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Understanding_the_Atmosphere_Effect.pdf
I sure did. Thank you Richard, that is most insightful on a detailed level. It makes the notion of a major controlling influence of CO2 on temperature even more preposterous than I thought it was. That’s saying a lot.

You have unfortunately just revealed the fact that you are unable to distinguish real science from scientific-sounding gibberish.

davidmhoffer says:
April 19, 2013 at 11:57 am
Yeah – looks like he ran away – and after accusing you of doing so. Whoda thunkit.

(sarc) I have this sudden desire to spout some scientific sounding gibberish. I can’t help it. Really. (/sarc)
How does a CO2 molecule, somewhere up in the middle troposphere, KNOW that it is only allowed to absorb upwelling radiation photons from the surface and must ignore all the other photons coming at it from all around in the atmosphere?
Well, it can’t know. It will absorb a suitable photon when it is good and ready, the direction it arrived from is irrelevant. It will then emit a photon in any direction. Again when it is good and ready.
Thus the temperature profile up the atmosphere, set by gravity, will direct the flow of photons in the 15 micron band up through the atmosphere. The flow rate of that specific IR band has been slowed somewhat, but there has been minimal loss of the ‘bulk’ of photons, not much heat transfer into the atmosphere. And back down on the surface the ‘back radiation’ from the lower CO2 molecules has reduced the surface emission in 15 micron band, reduced not stopped, which again is not a heating effect. So the surface at 15C, radiating a total of 390W/m^2 had some 8% of the IR reduced by some fraction. If that fraction went into heating the air, so what? The air loses temperature at a much, much higher rate. See here: http://www.milfordweather.org.uk/atmospheric.php
My local air temperature dropped over 9 degrees in just 12 hours. Calculate that loss of energy in a metre square column of air and then see how energy was replaced by 4% of 390W/m^2. No contest.
End of gibberish,

Tim Folkerts says:
April 19, 2013 at 9:36 am
“Lots of things happen between the surface and the top of the troposphere, but the net result is that the CO2 cools the top of the atmosphere, but warms the bottom.”
———————————————————————————————-
Yes, Tim. Absolutely correct. And then?
What happens to a free moving body of gas in a gravity field when you heat at the bottom and cool at the top?
Could it be strong vertical convective circulation?
Does all the strong vertical convective circulation in our atmosphere occur below the tropopause? Where are 99.99% of all radiative gases?
Is our lower atmosphere cooler or hotter due to radiative gases and their critical role in tropospheric convective circulation?
Radiative gases are critical to tropospheric convective circulation and atmospheric cooling. There is no escape. You got the “basic physics”of the “settled science” totally and utterly wrong.