Putting Human-Caused Warming in Proper Perspective

Guest Post by Ira Glickstein

Some of the net Global Warming since 1880 is undoubtedly due to human actions, but how much?

[Update 10 April. My PowerPoint Show that includes the following graphic is available for download here: https://sites.google.com/site/iraclass/my-forms/2014%20Global%20Warming%20Civil%20Discourse.ppsx?attredirects=0&d=1 ]

The height of the bars on the graphic indicates the relative magnitude of Natural Processes and Cycles (in BLUE) versus Human-Caused Warming (in RED). The scale on the left is in °C with corresponding °F on the right.

GWNaturalVsHumanWarming

Going from left to right:

The first BLUE bar represents the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect, responsible for about 59°F (33°C) warming. This is the Natural Process that makes life as we know it possible on Earth. The mean temperature on the surface of the Earth is about 59°F (33°C) warmer due to Atmospheric absorption of long-wave radiation by water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), and other so-called “Greenhouse” gases, and the subsequent “back-radiation” of some of this heat energy towards the Earth surface. (See my WUWT Visualizing series [Physical Analogy, Atmospheric Windows, Emission Spectra, and Molecules/Photons
Light and Heat])

The second bar represents the major Natural “Ice Age” Cycles that have occurred about every 100,000 years according to the ice core records from the past 400,000 years. The climate is always changing, with up and down temperature jigs and jags at all time scales. The major Ice Age Cycles change temperatures over a range of about 13°F (7°C ).

The third bar represents the Human-Caused Warming that my wife and I experienced when we retired from full-time employment and moved from Upstate New York to Central Florida. The average temperature in Florida is about 20°F (11°C ) warmer than that in New York. I miss cross-country skiing a bit, but, overall, we are happy here and we enjoy water aerobics. While not exactly “Global” Warming, this warming was certainly caused by our Human-Caused decision to move and, of course, we enjoy the resulting moderately higher temperatures :^).

The fourth and fifth bars represent the YEARLY 43°F (24°C ) temperature range (July mean minus January mean), and the DAILY 19°F (11°C ) temperature range we experience here in Central Florida. Please notice that these ranges are much larger than the Ice Age Cycles, and they recur on a daily or yearly basis.

The sixth bar represents the mean Global Warming since 1880 based on the official NASA GISS accounting. It is 1.4°F (0.8°C). According to the IPCC, the majority of this Global Warming is due to human activities (mainly unprecedented burning of fossil fuels and land use that has reduced the albedo of the Earth). I have interpreted “majority” to mean about 70% and have therefore allocated 1°F (0.6°C) to Human-Causation and the remaining 0.4°F (0.2°C) to Natural Cycles.

The seventh bar represents my personal opinion as to the actual Global Warming since 1880, discounting the “adjustments” made by the official Climate “Team” that I believe have inflated the temperature record. We know that the US thermometer record is so unreliable that it has had to be “adjusted” several times by the official US Climate “Team” at GISS, see The Past is Not What it Used to Be, and Skeptic Strategy.

2007 email from Sato to Hansen details seven analyses of 1934 vs 1998. 1934 starts off with a 0.5ºC lead and ends up in a dead heat.

The above GISS email from Makiko Sato to James Hansen details seven adjustments to the US thermometer record, made from 1999 to 2007. According to GISS, the very warm year 1998 was originally thought to be 0.541°C (0.97°F) COOLER than 1934, which, in a warming world, would be, let us say Inconvenient. It took multiple “adjustments” to bring them to a dead heat. Further adjustments to the thermometer records subsequent to the 2007 Sato email have brought 1998 up to a significant lead over 1934 :^).

When this email came to light due to a Freedom of Information request, it was explained away by Warmists as follows:

1) The adjustments correct for differing Times of OBServation (TOBS). OK, that could be true, but why did it take so many analyses to come to the correct result? It seems one or two would be sufficient. Also, the 1998 data has been warmed more by the TOBS adjustments than the 1934 data has been cooled. Are we to believe that TOBS was less standardized in 1998 than it was in 1934?

2) The US is only 2% of the Globe. Therefore, any adjustment to US data would have only a minor effect of Global data. True enough, but, if US data is so unreliable that it has had to be adjusted so much, are we to believe that world data is any better? Does anyone really think that years-old data from Asia, Africa, South America is more reliable than US data? That ocean data based on some seaman dropping a bucket overboard, hauling it back, and sticking a thermometer into it, is any better than US thermometer data?

So, unless we believe that the world temperature record is more reliable than the US record, it is likely the world record has also been similarly “adjusted”. Therefore, I have discounted the GISS estimate of Global Warming by about 30%, so actual warming is about 1.0°F (0.6°C). As for allocation of this actual warming to Human- vs Natural-Causes, I believe the IPCC has over-estimated Climate Sensitivity by a factor of two or three, so I have allocated the majority of the warming 0.8°F (0.5°C) to Natural Cycles, and the remaining 0.2°F (0.1°C) to Human-Causation.

I’d appreciate comments on my estimates and conclusions. advTHANKSance

Ira

About these ads

99 thoughts on “Putting Human-Caused Warming in Proper Perspective

  1. I like the point you are making, but that’s a pretty confusing graph. A straightforward bar graph, without the pictures, would be easier to follow.

  2. The graphic is too cluttered. The valid points being made in the text are not being reinforced as well as they should be.

  3. It would be nice to see a bargraph of typical daily/yearly variation (range) before warming next to the same thing after warming, it would illustrate that the warming was insignificant compared to daily/yearly fluctuations and that for most of each day/year the temperature after warming was within the normal range that occured before warming.

    This is, of course, why the climate deceit community prefer to use a temperature anomaly instead of actual temperatures, because the numbers just aren’t scary at all.

  4. Love the article but have to respectfully disagree – I don’t think we’re causing any warming as they relate it to CO2. I will never be convinced that the heat supposedly coming off our tiny percentage of CO2 can compare to the heat coming from these (all of them, not just this one): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmMSgkSwgQU

  5. The reason the hockey stick graph made such a huge impact was the clarity of the message-whatever we may think of it. The graph you have used is simply too cluttered to follow easily and distracts from your message.

    We could do with a roster of talented volunteers at WUWT willing to take information we provide them and turn them into compelling visual images. This would greatly augment the written information we try to put over.

    tonyb

  6. Layman thinking oke danger’s global warming. Lets see over 100 years the temperature went up 0,7 degrees Celsius that’s 0,007 degrees per year. Considering the fact that were just leaving an ice age ore maybe are still in one 0,007 degrees per year is nothing let alone danger es. Take In account the upward data fudging and the number will be even lower.

    Danger’s global warming is 15 degrees in 10 years then you cane consider it danger’s global warming.

  7. So, unless we believe that the world temperature record is more reliable than the US record, it is likely the world record has also been similarly “adjusted”.

    Sea level is also being adjusted.

  8. Finn, if you double 1C you get 2C. If you double 34F you get 68F. If you double 274K you get 548K.

    Or if you want double the heat content, as in “what’s twice as hot as 1C”, you need some complicated sums.

    Not a very meaningfull question, really.

  9. There is no Greenhouse effect to warm the planet by 33C. This ”need” is produced from the poor energy exchange graphic in AR4/5 which displays a complete misunderstanding of energy exchange. It assumes a flat earth, 24/7 sunshine and in fact the 33C is calculated on the wrong figure. Reality has a rotating planet so a night/day cycle and the sun producing more than enough heat to produce the +14C average.
    The theory of the GHE is a political construct not based on empirical data. It violates the laws of thermodynamics so cannot work.

    [Sorry, johnmarshall, but the Atmospheric "Greenhouse" Effect is real and 33 °C (59 °F) is a reasonable estimate of how much it raises the average temperature of the Earth Surface. I am not sure that it is exactly 33 °C, since there are some assumptions and simplifications involved in the estimate, but I am certain it is within the range 20 °C to 50 °C. The point I am making in this posting is that even the IPCC's extreme and high estimate of mostly Human-Caused Global Warming of 0.8 °C (1.4 °F) is only a tiny, tiny fraction of the Global Warming due to Natural Processes and Causes. A short explanation of the Atmospheric "Greenhouse" Effect from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

    If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody were the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C. However, since the Earth reflects about 30% of the incoming sunlight, this idealized planet's effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) would be about −18 °C.The surface temperature of this hypothetical planet is 33 °C below Earth's actual surface temperature of approximately 14 °C.The mechanism that produces this difference between the actual surface temperature and the effective temperature is due to the atmosphere and is known as the greenhouse effect.

    Ira]

  10. The warm atmosphere (of about 59°F/33°C above a planet without atmosphere) that enables a temperate climate in most parts of the World is not only due to so-called greenhouse gases.

    According to the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram:
    – approx 30% of incoming sunlight is readily reflected back to the outer space (by UV scattering, clouds, atmosphere, and ground surface).
    – approx 23% is absorbed by the atmosphere as incoming shortwave UV/Vis electromagnetic radiation (responsible gases are mostly oxygen, nitrogen and water vapour)
    – and the rest 47% is absorbed by the ground and re-irradiated back to the atmosphere – and ultimately to the outer space – as long wave IR electromagnetic radiation. Parts of it is absorbed by greenhouse gases (water vapour, CO2, methane, etc.) which is the source of the so-called forcing mechanism.

    The controversy about man-made warming (women apparently don’t play a role in it) lies in the CO2 emitted since the beginning of the industrial era which has produced a concentration increase from approx. 280 ppm to 400 ppm today (this is a non-controversial fact).
    To know the climate sensitivity to this concentration difference is like to look for the Holy Grail.

    see also: https://db.tt/lLY2eW9C

  11. Too iffy. These two premises are reasonable: (1) GISS exaggerates the warming trend; and (2) the IPCC exaggerates climate sensitivity. However, in my opinion there’s too much noise and uncertainty to attempt to quantify the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere if we rely on the surface station data sets, or models that rely upon them. (This follows from a Cartesian principle of inquiry that you should admit when you’re flummoxed and need to give it a rest.) On the bright side, we have enough precise satellite data now to start doing good science.

    Also–and maybe it’s just me–but I think there’s some theoretical confusion about the exact mechanism by which CO2 warms the atmosphere. If the mechanism isn’t clearly specified and tested against quality data, it’s bunkum.

  12. People were shorter back in 1934, so when they read the thermometers the parallax would alter the reading, and so we had to adjust the old temperatures to make them correct. Really correct.

    Right.

    So anyway, since we’re putting things in proper perspective, I’ll dig out my old Galva, Illinois annual average Tmin and Tmax plotted against Dr Mann’s hockey stick. Same scale.

  13. Michel says:
    April 7, 2014 at 3:24 am
    The warm atmosphere (of about 59°F/33°C above a planet without atmosphere) that enables a temperate climate in most parts of the World is not only due to so-called greenhouse gases….

    …The controversy about man-made warming (women apparently don’t play a role in it) lies in the CO2 emitted since the beginning of the industrial era which has produced a concentration increase from approx. 280 ppm to 400 ppm today (this is a non-controversial fact).
    To know the climate sensitivity to this concentration difference is like to look for the Holy Grail.

    see also: https://db.tt/lLY2eW9C

    I don’t believe it has been fully established that the CO2 rise is solely from “man-made” sources and not from the ocean releasing CO2 due to the slight increase of temperature in combination with man-released CO2. When the little ice age ended the oceans began warming. This warming would allow it to release a rather large amount of CO2 since its carrying capacity is temperature dependent. I think ONE of the many problems with global warming (climate change, thermogeddon, insert term of the day here) analysis is that the “scientists” have never adequately differentiated these sources. There has been hand waving and dismissal,but never any real analysis or laboratory empirical evidence presented. I guess they can’t figure out how to properly misrepresent the process in a computer model.

    [Thanks Owen in GA, I mostly agree! While it is most likely that the majority of the undoubted increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past fifty years is Human-Caused, a substantial portion of the rise in CO2 is due to outgassing from the slight warming of the oceans. The key point here is that the IPCC models assume a value for Climate Sensitivity that is double or triple the actual value, and thus attribute much more temperature raising power to CO2 than is justified. Thus, even if most of the CO2 rise is Human-Caused, only a small fraction (perhaps 1/5th) of the net warming is Human-Caused. Ira]

  14. Here is an excellent review of a new book which covers much of the same ground as this post and also explains why the West has got itself into this situation :

    The game is up for climate change believers
    Charles Moore reviews The Age of Global Warming by Rupert Darwall

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/non_fictionreviews/10748667/The-game-is-up-for-climate-change-believers.html

    The review puts a lot of things in perspective and is well worth reading. See also the Readers Comments section below the article. Some are very amusing.

    [Can anyone confirm that the latest IPCC hysteria had 4000 contributors but only 60 were scientists?]

  15. The premise is that 5% of human emitted Co2 which is 4/100 of 1 % of atm. gas by weight ’causes’, ‘forces’, ‘impacts’ climate. This concept is counter to the reality that the climate system is not a greenhouse – that is simply warmist propaganda – but a convection system [they used to teach this in grade 9 science]. .05 x .01 is a lot of nothing. Co2 does not ‘force’ a host of many-to-many relationships; nor would it impact local/regional physical thermodynamics. Further there is not a glass ceiling in the troposphere that I am aware of which ‘traps’ said trace chemical.
    Humans do impact the environment, but climate is a different and little-understood complexity.

  16. @ johnmarshall says: ” … It assumes a flat earth, 24/7 sunshine and in fact the 33C is calculated on the wrong figure. Reality has a rotating planet so a night/day cycle and the sun producing more than enough heat to produce the +14C average….”

    I am afraid that this simple fact can not be appreciated by the vast majority of people at the present time. Someday, after the warm-mongering scare is over and the alarmists have moved on to another “the sky is falling” story then perhaps they will be able to see that one must model reality and not fantasy if one wants to understand a thing.

    Disclaimer: Those of us who took science in the 60s and 70s still remember a more rational and believable theory of the effects of an atmosphere and that does tend to keep us from joining the present crowd who claims to see the emperors fine garments.

  17. What “human-caused warming”? There very well could be a tiny amount, but if there, it gets lost in the noise of a complex, multi-layered, somewhat chaotic, and not well understood system. For all intents and purposes, even if theory says it should be there, it is non-existant. It is too small to ferret out, and too small to matter in the slightest.

  18. it’s hard enough to keep my house warm with a roof and all the insulation.

    what hope an open atmosphere.

  19. steveta, looks like you fell for the trick question.

    The language used by climate change believers and alarmists is often filled with deliberately confusing statements and concepts. In order to double a temperature you need to be aware of where your zero is (and I don’t mean the Oval Office). The only zero that makes universal sense is K.

    It was 10C today. Tomorrow will be 20C. The temperature will not even remotely double.

  20. Owen in GA says:
    I don’t believe it has been fully established that the CO2 rise is solely from “man-made” sources …

    In a balance between what was emitted (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.html) since the beginning of the industrial era (1’406 billion m. tons CO2) and what accumulated in the atmosphere (a 400-280=120 ppm rise that corresponds to 960 billion m. tons of CO2), it can be calculated that only 68% of the emitted quantity remained in the air and 32% were captured by oceans, biomass,etc.
    In other words if all emitted CO2 would have remained in the atmosphere its concentration should be today at 456 ppm.
    Without emission by artificially burning fossil fuels and making cement there is no great possibility that the CO2 concentration would have changed in such a significant manner.
    This is why I consider this as non-controversial.

  21. Finn says:
    April 7, 2014 at 12:19 am

    > Here’s a trick question: If you double the temperature at 1C, what do you get?

    The wrong answer.

  22. Finn,
    Double 1 C and get 275 C. But what is the point? I also basically agree that your guesses are reasonable, but they are still just guesses, and thus not useful (but likely much more useful than the GISS misinformation).

  23. The sixth bar represents the mean Global Warming since 1880 based on the official NASA GISS accounting. It is 1.4°F (0.8°C). According to the IPCC, the majority of this Global Warming is due to human activities (mainly unprecedented burning of fossil fuels and land use that has reduced the albedo of the Earth).

    Does the IPCC claim that the majority of the warming since 1880 is anthropogenic or do they claim that the majority of the warming since 1950 is anthropogenic?

    [JohnWho, thanks for your question. It almost does not matter whether the IPCC claims Human-Caused (anthropogenic) warming is since 1950 or 1880 because, according to the official temperature record, the Anomaly in 1880 was -.12 °C and the Anomaly in 1950 was about the same, at -.10 °C. The current anomaly is about + 0.6 °C, so the difference is either 0.48 °C or 0.50 °C. Ira]

  24. Satellite data not adjusted for Aqua in 2001 shows a 0.8 deg max climb in 34 years, if you adjust the pre Aqua satellite measurements up 0.3 deg as they NOW do (Aqua maintains its orbit so doesn’t require corrections) the 34 years show a Max of 0.5 deg up trend. Considering the equipments margin of error is 2 deg at best, and that all satellite measurements are are a mathematical average of swirling weather systems in a range of plus 40c to minus 60c the conclusion is the temp is dead ass flat for over 34 years

  25. “Some of the net Global Warming since 1880 is undoubtedly due to human actions” . . . . ? Where is the evidence . . I don’t mean theoretical explanations . . I mean EVIDENCE . . . I can’t show that your statement is untrue – it might be, it might not be – but it would be very nice if people who make such claims supported them with evidence that shows conclusively that they’re true . . The word “undoubtedly” places an onus upon you to support the claim with evidence that shows there is no room for doubt, or to refer to sound evidence based elsewhere . . . If you’d said “might be due to human actions” any reasonable person could have accepted that, though they’d still be entitle to ask why and to have doubts . . . whether they believe in conspiracy theories or not . . I personally believe that there was a moon landing or several, that the twin towers fell as a result of being struck by aeroplanes, and that cigarettes do cause cancer (in vast numbers), but on AGW I think we don’t really know very much at all. . . . except maybe that we generate a huge of amount of heat across all of the colder zones just to keep ourselves warm . . more than that . . . I wonder . .

  26. It’s always ‘radiation transfer’ with both sceptics and warmists. I’ve heard very little discussion about kinetic energy. A gas does not have ‘temperature’, it has kinetic energy that manifests itself as ‘temperature’ when it is involved in a physical contact with a surface or another molecule of gas ie exchange of energy. Why this process is never mentioned, I don’t understand.

  27. Here in Ottawa we have a 60-70 degree C yearly temperature range..a good reason why rational Canadians should ignore the alarmism.

    On a related note: in the recently released IPCC impact statement the positive benefits to Canada of warming are trivialized. I cannot think of any negative impacts of 1-2C warming. I am sure the same case could be made for Russia, Scandinavia, Mongolia, etc.

  28. I like the concept a lot. Thanks.

    We are told that animals can’t adapt and species are being lost and salamanders (or moose or chickens or mental illness) are bigger or smaller or more severe or something, ALL because of a fraction of a degree change over one century, It is absurd. Yet these animals experience way more variation day to day, year to year, season to season. They always have and an imperceptible change means nothing to them.

    Your presentation addresses an important issue.

    Yes the chart might be cleaned up, but a great start,

    This is good. Thanks.

    CAS

  29. if anyone has proved human co2 causes warming better tell the ipcc. they would be delighted to know.

  30. How much of the 1880-2012 average temperature rise is in Tmin and how much is in Tmax?

  31. I think that human contribution to world-wide climate is somewhere between minimal and negligible. In essence, it is so small that it can not be measured in any meaningful way.

  32. Ira
    I have revisited your previous posts and I find I can’t agree with you on most of them. I appreciate your time and trouble to do them but I don’t agree with your conclusions. Some of your assumptions are based on fallacies. There are too many for me to go into any detail . One day I may submit something to WUWT, but at the moment I am a little lazy and also prefer 97% thinking and 3% opening my mouth and making a fool of myself.

    [Alex, right on! Better to sit quietly in a corner and let people think you are a fool than open your mouth and prove it :^). I appreciate your time and trouble in revisiting my previous posts and finding false assumptions too numerous to detail. Perhaps some day you will let us all know in detail where I have gone astray. Till then, best wishes from Ira]

  33. The projected warming for 2100 is then about half the magnitude of an ice age cycle. Think about that.

  34. Without water vapour and CO2 the clear skies radiation loss would be 360 W/m^2 @ Ts 25 C assuming an emissivity of 0.8. The short wave heat input could be very much greater than this at or near the equator of course leading to wide day/night temperature swings. The convective heat transfer to the atmosphere would be 140 W/m^2 (depending on the temperature difference ) which would steadily heat up the atmosphere; however to heat up the atmosphere 33 C would require a heat input of 172.6 x 10^18 kilojoules which might be achievable if the Earth didn’t spin on its axis.
    The atmosphere does contain wv and CO2 however but their emissivities are quite low (much lower than 0.8) and it is difficult to see them contributing the above heat requirement to the atmosphere

  35. Ira, I like where you are trying to go with this post. It is what any good engineer does when they are sorting through variables that are affecting the outcome of something they are trying to understand. That is they compare those variables to each other in terms of order of magnitude. They set aside the variables that have minor impact and focus on the variables that have major impact. I will suggest however that you haven’t quite taken your thinking far enough.

    First I would suggest that you consider where the data might be unnecessarily focussed by faulty mathematical emphasis. What do I mean? Consider what averaging does to the variable everyone is having kittens about – temperature. Averaging over what time scale?

    If you average temperature over a few minutes or hours, what does the resulting signal illustrate?
    What is the expected “span” or “range” of the signal?
    Are there absolutes and geographically different ranges?
    Why is it not acceptable to average different geographical regions over minutes or hours if you expect to understand what the signal represents over a short time span?
    Here is the most important question:
    What variability in range have we come to accept as normal? Why?

    So now if we change the time over which we are averaging what happens to the range, to absolutes, and to geographically different values?
    Doesn’t the “range” shrink? Doesn’t it also represent a different “signal”?
    What do we attribute to causing that signal?
    As we increase the time scale even further why do we have to go to an even more bizarre value called “anomaly” to discern any kind of signal at all? Does this signal represent anything at all when it has such a minor range compared to a daily range that is so much larger and when that much larger range is clearly cyclical, and obviously “controlled” (ie. not run-away) by some other variable (eg. water cycle) to always return to an approximate mean? Regardless of geographical location?
    What would happen to our tiny temperature variance signal if we instead measured atmospheric average energy content by for example measuring total atmospheric water vapor or ice crystal content (ie the stored or potential energy), and aveage wind velocity at all altitudes (ie the kinetic energy).

    When you are talking about that small a minor range variation over such a long time scale, I would still look at possible alternative variables that could cause such long term changes, if that has you somehow worried. For example, when I look at the planet, what it looks like today, and I can see with my own eyes that man has clearly had a dramatic inflence on the albedo of the planet by the way he has geoengineered vast swatches of the land to produce the planet’s human’s vital food needs; when I compare those geoengineered regions to the year and decade-scale average temperature changes, I see greater contribution of anthropogenic influence by farmers, city planners, parking lot, highway, and airport constructors, and forest harvesters, than I do from the minor, minor signal that might be caused by CO2. Heck even natural albedo varying effects like desertification, algal blooms, forest fires, lava flows that grow land masses, and variation in snow/ice coverage from year to year, will produce greater albedo change and therefore signal range variance over year and decade scale than will CO2.

    You asked, so those are my thoughts.

    [DonV, good thoughts and thanks for sharing them with us. Does anyone know what portion of Human-Caused Global Warming the IPCC attributes to Land Use changes that affect albedo (reflectiveness) vs CO2? I've always assumed that Land Use was considerably less than CO2 because three-quarters of the Earth Surface is water, and, despite our building and paving and agriculture, most land is unchanged or, even if planted with crops, at about the same albedo as in the past. Ira]

  36. I just checked wiki and must admit New York has an average temp of 12 C and Miami of 24 C. My only excuse is, that a northern German experienced the New York temperatures as very hot:>))

  37. There are a few errors in the conversions from Fahrenheit to Celsius on the graphic. 59 F = 15 C, not 33 C. 13 F = -11 C and not +7 C. And 43 F = +6 C not +24 C.

    [Rabelad, my temperature conversions are correct because they are based on the CHANGE in temperature, and Fahrenheit is 9/5 times Celsius, thus a CHANGE of 33 °C is 33 x 9/5 = 59 °F. Of course, if we are considering absolute temperature readings, we have to take into account that freezing is 0 °C and 32 °F. So, if you and I are standing together and my Fahrenheit thermometer reads 59 °F, your Celsius thermometer will read 15 °C. But, if we both travel to a colder place and my Fahrenheit thermometer reads 50 °F (a 9 °F change), your Celsius thermometer will read 10 °C (a 5 °C change). Got it? Ira]

  38. The graphs would have benefited from preliminary reading about “data-ink ratio” in Tufte’s “The Visual Display of Quantitative Information.”

  39. Ira,
    Nice discussion. I actually liked your illustration, pictures and all. It illustrates a point often made by Richard Lindsen in his talks: The total rise in temps since the ’50’s is tiny compared to diurnal and seasonal variations. Your migration to Florida is a nice addition to that.
    – Jerry

  40. Rabelad says:
    April 7, 2014 at 10:32 am

    There are a few errors in the conversions from Fahrenheit to Celsius on the graphic. 59 F = 15 C, not 33 C. 13 F = -11 C and not +7 C. And 43 F = +6 C not +24 C.

    This is going to be tricky but here goes ….. you are confusing a temperature measurement with a temperature change. You need to remember that the Fahrenheit scale has an offset of 32 degrees F. The above conversions are correct.

    Without the greenhouse effect earth’s average temperature would be -18 deg C (or 0 deg F). The actual average temperature is 15 deg C (or 59 deg F). The greenhouse effect is, therefore, responsible for 33 deg C (or 59 deg F)

  41. “1) The adjustments correct for differing Times of OBServation (TOBS). OK, that could be true, but why did it take so many analyses to come to the correct result? It seems one or two would be sufficient. Also, the 1998 data has been warmed more by the TOBS adjustments than the 1934 data has been cooled. Are we to believe that TOBS was less standardized in 1998 than it was in 1934?”

    The changes in TOBS are all validated.
    A climate skeptic did the validation.. all the way back in John Daly’s day.
    Its been rechecked many times.

    [Steven Mosher, thanks for the information. I said correction for TOBS "could be true", but which one of the SEVEN analyses (from 1999 through 2007) reported by Makiko Sato in her 2007 email to James Hansen is "true"? Please look at the second graphic in my posting above which reproduces the Sato email accounting. The "adjustments" are all different and they differ by tenths of a degree! And, if one of the Sato analyses is correct, why is the data for 1934 and 1998 that I obtained from the GISS website last month different from all of her numbers? For example, 1998 is now listed as 1.328 and the last value for 1998 in the Sato email is 1.226, a difference of 0.102. If TOBS correction methodology is "validated", why does it seem to change EIGHT times for the same raw data?

    Also, please address why 1998 data has warmed up more than 1934 data has cooled down. I think that 1998 Times of OBServation would have been standardized to current values and therefore require less "adjustment". Inquiring minds want to know! Ira]

    Finally, you can avoid the TOBS adjustment entirely by doing one simple thing.

    Station A: location (x,y); Thermometer (model X). Time of observation ( 7pm)

    When station A CHANGES its location or its instrument or its method of observing you simple do
    what every skeptic demanded: you call it a different station. Why? because it IS a different station. When you change the location, you no longer have the same station. When you change the instrument its a new station. And when you change the TOB its a new station.

    Methods like GISS and CRU however MUST do adjustments. Why? because they need long records. So they adjust for station moves, and instrument changes and TOBS changes.

    Berkeley used the method recommended by skeptics. Take the record and slice it when the station changes. A station that moves from sea level to 1000meters high.. its a new station. Instrument changes from LIG to MMTS.. new station. Change in TOB.. new station.

    Here is what you will find. This empirically driven approach to “adjustments” just cutting the data because the station is different, yeilds roughly the same answer as theoretical adjustments.

  42. As a non scientist layman, I agree strongly with what the text says. However, I could not make heads or tails of the graphs. They look like sunday morning paper comics section.
    So after a couple of moments I just stopped trying.

    Sorry.

  43. nutso fasst says:
    April 7, 2014 at 8:09 am

    How much of the 1880-2012 average temperature rise is in Tmin and how much is in Tmax?
    ————–

    I figure bout 98% of the 1880-2012 average temperature rise is in the Tmin column.

    Averages are like boats, ….. they rise regardless of which “end” of the “temperature” tide is rising. Either the “low” end or the “high” end, …. makes no difference unless the “high” end is falling at the same time.

    And if the “high” end is rising at the same time ….. then you get a 2X rise in average temperature. Tmin % increase + Tmax % increase.

  44. Michel says:
    April 7, 2014 at 5:07 am

    what accumulated in the atmosphere (a 400-280=120 ppm rise that corresponds to 960 billion m. tons of CO2),
    ————————–

    By my calculations a 120 ppm rise would correspond to 600 billion metric tons of CO2.

    To wit:
    The average mass of the atmosphere is about 5 quadrillion (5,000,000,000,000,000) metric tons.
    The current atmospheric CO2 is 400 ppm ….. or 0.04% of the atmosphere
    And 0.04% of 5 quadrillion metric tons is 2 trillion (2,000,000,000,000) metric tons
    And 2 trillion metric tons per 400 ppm CO2 … equals … 5 billion metric tons per 1 ppm CO2.
    Therefore, 120 ppm times 5 billion metric tons equals 600 billion metric tons.
    =======================

    Without emission by artificially burning fossil fuels and making cement there is no great possibility that the CO2 concentration would have changed in such a significant manner.
    This is why I consider this as non-controversial.

    ——————–

    Well now, in the grand scheme of things, ….. the artificially burning fossil fuels and making cement, ……. beer, wine, soda pop, … and the baking of breads …. hardly puts a ripple in the natural emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere.

    A warming ocean as a whole emits CO2 ….. and a bi-yearly warming of the ocean surface emits CO2 whereas a bi-yearly cooling of the ocean surface absorbs CO2.

    Green growing biomass and raindrops strip CO2 from the atmosphere and the rotting and decaying of biomass emits CO2 into the atmosphere.

    Damp and increasing surface temperatures greatly enhances the rotting and decaying of biomass whereas dry and/or cooling to freezing surface temperatures greatly retards and/or inhibits the rotting and decaying of biomass.

    The bi-yearly cycling of the Keeling Curve Graph’s CO2 ppm measurement is ample proof/evidence of the above.

  45. To all who had trouble understanding my first graphic:

    When I presented that graphic this morning to our local “Civil Discourse” Club in our Central Florida retirement community, it was animated such that the leftmost bar and associated images appeared first and I described it. Then, the second bar and images appeared, and I explained that, and so on. Everyone in the mostly non-technical audience seemed to understand. Perhaps it would help if you placed a piece of paper over the graphic and moved it to the right to expose each bar in turn.

    Again, I am sorry for the confusion and I hope the text description was sufficient to get my basic point, namely that even the anthropogenic Global Warming claimed by the IPCC is a small fraction of the warming and cooling we experience every day, year, and whenever we travel.

    Ira

  46. A busy chart can be useful when a person is giving a live talk. You keep the one chart on the media display and move from topic to topic. It keeps the entire argument within the visual range of the student. However, this fails when it appears in a paper or any sequential media. It is better to have each point displayed in a simple graphic right before discussing it.

  47. “How much of the 1880-2012 average temperature rise is in Tmin and how much is in Tmax?”
    ————–
    I figure bout 98% of the 1880-2012 average temperature rise is in the Tmin column.

    If anything close to 98% of temperature rise is in the Tmin column, then why should we be concerned with global warming? Most people would welcome warmer minimum temperatures as long as max temperatures don’t rise. It would be net beneficial. Can anyone verify the 98% estimate?

  48. Green growing biomass and raindrops strip CO2 from the atmosphere and the rotting and decaying of biomass emits CO2 into the atmosphere. — Samuel C Cogar

    That comment prompts a question. If rotting, decaying, or burning biomass emits greenhouse gasses, do cows really make much difference? The biomass is going to decay over time anyway, so it seems to me that a cow’s digestive system only speeds up the process. But does it really make any difference in the amount of GHG emitted into the atmosphere in the long run? If so, please explain how.

    [Louis, GREAT point! From the point of view of Atmospheric CO2, it seems to me that only long-term sequestered fossil fuels make a significant difference. Fossil fuels contain carbon that was absorbed from the Atmosphere eons ago when the trees and plants and animals were growing and when they got buried and turned into coal, gas, and oil. Thus, CO2 from fossil fuels we dig up or pump out of the ground is, in effect, "additional" carbon added to the Atmosphere. On the other hand, as you point out, when a tree or plant grows it absorbs CO2 (aka "Plant Food") from the Atmosphere. That CO2 is released back into the Atmosphere in a relatively short time if the tree or plant dies and rots away, or if it gets eaten by an animal that breaths it out or that dies and rots away. So, net GHG in the Atmosphere is pretty much unaffected by the short-term growth and digestive carbon cycle of plants and animals. On the other hand, our burning of unprecedented quantities of fossil fuels that would otherwise have remained undisturbed underground does increase Atmospheric GHG. Ira]

  49. Great post. AGW certainties are an endless amazement to any ISO 17025 accredited laboratory.

    Temperatures, gas concentrations, sea level variations – in an earth sized sample – up to fraction of a degree, percentage, millimeter accuracy. Any of these measurands could be illustrated in a nice graph like that – perhaps next to solar radiation variations, which AGW proponents claim to be constant.

    This is why I suspect the term oxymoron will wear out before the politicians have finished brushing AGW under carpet.

  50. @Bruce Cobb –
    Agreed – the effect may exist, but doesn’t with any certainty, and in any event is too small to be separable from the noise and normal variation in all other factors influencing climate. I believe the historical record alone is sufficient to demonstrate beyond question the nugatory effect of CO2 on climate.

  51. I second Samuel Cogar’s calculations of the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the mass per ppm.

  52. @Samuel Cogar & Chad Wozniak
    Somehow someone has to have his calculation wrong.
    Sorry to say that this is you by forgetting that air has an average molecular weight of 44 while air is at 29 (one fifth oxygen, 4 fifth nitrogen). The ppms are related to molecular parts not to weight.

    Here is my calculation: https://db.tt/tNSjFy0D
    And the spreadsheet can be downloaded: https://db.tt/JrQUytGd

  53. Ira: I think your graphic is fine. It tells am interesting story. For publication elsewhere it could be simplified – for example, remove the last column. I would also expand the “Glacial” graph, and maybe plot CO2 on it. Still, your point: whatever little warming the IPCC (International Parade of Climate Clowns?) is projecting, is a drop in the bucket compared to what nature throws at us.

  54. @Samuel Cogar
    Biomass is growing and rotting (equivalent of slowly burning) all the time. The yearly variations of the CO2 concentration curve is an indicator of seasonal changes (and of inbalance of land surface between North and South hemisphere).

    But the continuous ramping at approx 2 ppm per year cannot be explained by biomass continuously growing and not decaying in the same quantities. If that would be true all carbon should have now, after millions of years, passed and stayed in the atmosphere.

    I’m heretic on the climate sensitivity to CO2 emissions, in my opinion grossly overestimated by warmists and catastrophists.
    But it is wrong to try to look away from fossil fuel burning since the beginnning of the industrial era and its impact on CO2 atmospheric concentration, or to deny that CO2 and H2O absorb energy in the long wave IR spectra. These facts should be non-controversial.

  55. Sorry Ira, but I couldn’t get past the first bar (the graph, not the establishment). The Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect is not 33C – the value arrived at by Climate Science is based on a faulty assumption and a gross misapplication. To use your quote from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

    “If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody were the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C.”

    This is a faulty assumption. As it stands this point is correct (plus or minus a few degrees, depending on what the current average insolation is calculated to be), assuming the earth is absorbing the solar radiation as a blackbody and radiating as a blackbody. You will notice that I say radiating as a blackbody, not emitting as a blackbody – that is because if the surface of the Earth was emitting as a blackbody it would have a temperature of 0K on the nightside and a varying temperature on the dayside depending on the latitude and the solar time at the longitudes. If you then calculate the average surface temperature on what it is emitting, you will find that the average surface temperature is considerably less (~173 K based on my own dubious calculations). What Climate Science has done is adopted a principle from Astronomy for calculating the surface temperature of a body radiating like a blackbody. While this is perfectly valid for solar bodies which radiate approximately like a black body evenly across their surfaces, it is faulty when used to estimate the surface temperature of planetary bodies, which emit radiation at levels determined by the temperature of their surfaces. This is compensated for by assuming that we have an ‘ideally thermally conductive blackbody’ to overcome the impossibility of the equal distribution of temperatures across the surface of a body as large as the Earth.

    Continuing the quote:
    “However, since the Earth reflects about 30% of the incoming sunlight, this idealized planet’s effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) would be about −18 °C.The surface temperature of this hypothetical planet is 33 °C below Earth’s actual surface temperature of approximately 14 °C.The mechanism that produces this difference between the actual surface temperature and the effective temperature is due to the atmosphere and is known as the greenhouse effect.”
    This is the gross misapplication. If the earth is reflecting 30% of the incoming sunlight then, by definition, it is no longer a blackbody and cannot be treated as a blackbody for either emitting or radiating. Looking at the Stefan-Boltzman equation, a commonly overlooked part is the emissivity coefficient, which is frequently taken as equal to 1 because the equation is usually applied to a blackbody. Since, with the application of a 30% reflectivity, the Earth is no longer a blackbody, this value is less than one. With a reflectivity of 30%, it can be readily assumed that the emissivity is 0.7, and when this value is plugged into the equation the resultant temperature rises to the value given in the first quoted statement. Juggling a few of the equations involved with Thermodynamics, you will quickly realize that the temperature of the surface being radiated upon is a product of the ratio of the absorptivity and emissivity properties of the surface.

    You can confirm that the commonly used value, as calculated, is wrong by doing some calculations with the absorptivity and emissivity values from different materials rather than using the blackbody assumption – I got this idea when I visited NASA’s site and found that the side of the ISS exposed to the sun would rise above 100C while the dark side would fall below 0C. You will find that, contrary to the claims of AGW agitators, the temperature that the surface of the earth is dependent on the thermal and optical properties of the surface materials being subjected to solar radiation, not the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect.

  56. Steven Mosher says: April 7, 2014 at 11:27 am

    “1) The adjustments correct for differing Times of OBServation (TOBS). OK, that could be true, but why did it take so many analyses to come to the correct result? It seems one or two would be sufficient. Also, the 1998 data has been warmed more by the TOBS adjustments than the 1934 data has been cooled. Are we to believe that TOBS was less standardized in 1998 than it was in 1934?”

    The changes in TOBS are all validated.
    A climate skeptic did the validation.. all the way back in John Daly’s day.
    Its been rechecked many times. …

    I made the following comment as an addendum within Steven Mosher’s comment above, and I am concerned he might not see it up there. So, here it is again:

    Steven Mosher, thanks for the information. I said correction for TOBS “could be true”, but which one of the SEVEN analyses (from 1999 through 2007) reported by Makiko Sato in her 2007 email to James Hansen is “true”? Please look at the second graphic in my posting above which reproduces the Sato email accounting.

    The “adjustments” are all different and they differ by tenths of a degree! And, if one of the Sato analyses is correct, why is the data for 1934 and 1998 that I obtained from the GISS website last month different from all of her numbers?

    For example, 1998 is now listed as 1.328 and the last value for 1998 in the Sato email is 1.226, a difference of 0.102. If TOBS correction methodology is “validated”, why does it seem to change EIGHT times for the same raw data?

    Also, please address why 1998 data has warmed up more than 1934 data has cooled down. I think that 1998 Times of OBServation would have been standardized to current values and therefore require less “adjustment”. Inquiring minds want to know!

    Ira

  57. @Michel –
    Calculating by mass considers the molecular weight of CO2; therefore the calculations are correct.
    You don’t measure salinity by the number of sodium and chloride ions, but by the weight of NaCl dissolved.

  58. Had another thought, Ira, that I also wonder whether anyone has thought of analyzing before.

    It is clear to me that the CO2 increase has clearly followed the growth in the world-wide human population. So the question I have is, has the increase also tracked with the change in land use from forest, untilled grasslands and brushland to tilled and annually utilized farmland to feed that growing population. Just the difference between tilled and untilled will change at least three things. Land that is covered year round with biomass will have different average annual albedo, different CO2 converting capacity and different water retention than land that is tilled and left uncovered with biomass for half the year because of weather. And land that is stripped of trees and either tilled or left barren will have even more dramatically differences in those effects, especially the annual capacity for extracting CO2 from the atmosphere. Not to mention that the land that used to be covered with grassland or forest that is now completely covered in building, parking lots and streets will have dramatically different albedo as well as change the turbidity of runoff into creeks, stream, and rivers. The land use changes will also have a cumulative affect.

    Remember it is your analysis that has put things into perspective. We are talking about a long term variation that is .2 out of 43 for an annual variation, or .2 out of 59 for an eon variation. Has human repurposing of land affected 1 part in 200 of the tillable land on the planet? How about 1 part in 300? If either of these fractions seems plausible, then the entire change in “average” temperature might be solely attributed to human repurposing of available grass and forest lands, human destruction of forest for cheap fuel (think the entire island of Madagascar), human conversion of the Aral Sea (dark green) to the Aral salt desert (bright white), and human destruction of the Amazon. Is it possible that human repurposing of land has also been the sole cause of the change in CO2 because of the steady decline in the net CO2 sink this has caused?

  59. Mike Tremblay says: April 7, 2014 at 5:06 pm

    Sorry Ira, but I couldn’t get past the first bar (the graph, not the establishment). The Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect is not 33C – the value arrived at by Climate Science is based on a faulty assumption and a gross misapplication. …

    This is the gross misapplication. If the earth is reflecting 30% of the incoming sunlight then, by definition, it is no longer a blackbody and cannot be treated as a blackbody for either emitting or radiating. Looking at the Stefan-Boltzman equation, a commonly overlooked part is the emissivity coefficient, which is frequently taken as equal to 1 because the equation is usually applied to a blackbody. Since, with the application of a 30% reflectivity, the Earth is no longer a blackbody, this value is less than one. With a reflectivity of 30%, it can be readily assumed that the emissivity is 0.7, and when this value is plugged into the equation the resultant temperature rises to the value given in the first quoted statement. …

    Mike Tremblay, thanks for your long detailed comment, but I need some help understanding it. I should start by noting that, as a System Engineer, rather than a physicist, I am often satisfied by approximate parameter values, so long as they are within some reasonable percentage of the “truth”.

    So, if the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect is not exactly 33 °C, I don’t really care, so long as it is, say, in the range 20 °C to 50 °C.

    You make a point about the Earth not being a perfect “blackbody” because some 30% of incoming Solar radiation is reflected rather than absorbed. It seems to me that for an approximate solution, we could simply assume that the incoming Solar radiation is 30% less than it actually is, and then only count the long-wave outgoing radiation.

    You also mention that the dark side of the Earth will be cooler than the sunlit side, which, of course is obviously true. But, since the Earth rotates every 24 hours, and since the surface has the ability to store heat, the dark side will never cool to 0 K, will it? So, how much will it cool in 12 hours?

    These are the types of simplifying assumptions I, as a System Engineer, am used to making to get an approximate answer to check against the supposedly exact value the analysts provide. Once I’ve made these “back of the envelope” calculations (which used to actually be done on scrap paper in the early days, but are now done using spreadsheets :^) to obtain an estimate, I then wait for the analysts to come up with the supposed more precise result. If my estimate is reasonably close, I accept the more precise value from the analysts. If not, either I or they have made a serious mistake, most likely a misinterpretation of the situation.

    In this case, based on calculations I have seen here at WUWT (by WIllis Eschenbach I believe) I believe the 33 °C value is close enough to the truth for my purposes, and I will accept it until I am convinced otherwise.

    BOTTOM LINE: You have raised a number of valid points, but you have not provided an estimate of the APPROXIMATE warming effect of Atmospheric “Greenhouse” gases. At the end of your comment you say:

    …contrary to the claims of AGW agitators, the temperature that the surface of the earth is dependent on the thermal and optical properties of the surface materials being subjected to solar radiation, not the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect.

    Do you really mean to claim that there is no warming effect on the Surface of the Earth from the downwelling radiation from H2O and CO2 gases in the Atmosphere? Or that there is no downwelling radiation from the Atmosphere to the Earth Surface?

    If that is your claim, pleas read my WUWT series on “visualizing” the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” effect. If I have missed your point, please clarify. advTHANKSance

    Ira

  60. Ira – you’re wrong, and Hansen is correct. Circa 70% of the warming since the ’50’s IS due to humans. But not because of CO2. It’s due to the incessant adjustments of older temperatures down, down, down. Never up. And never any concrete explanation “why” for each mass adjustment, just because.

    Great article.

    [Barry Cullen, THANKS for your comment. Yes, a large portion of the GISS/IPCC REPORTED WARMING is due to human activities, namely questionable "adjustments" to the thermometer record by the humans working at GISS/IPCC :^). However, I do not believe the data "adjustments" are anywhere near the 70% you attribute to them. Possibly in the range of 30% though. Reminds me of a comment made by a friend many years ago: "Half of the current air pollution is due to auto exhaust and the other half is due the spouting of untruths by the radical environmentalists." Ira]

  61. “The mean temperature on the surface of the Earth is about 59°F (33°C) warmer due to Atmospheric absorption of long-wave radiation by water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), and other so-called “Greenhouse” gases, and the subsequent “back-radiation” of some of this heat energy towards the Earth surface.”

    The oceans are a thermal reservoir that is heated at depth, which raise the mean surface temperature of a substantial proportion of the Earth’s surface regardless of atmospheric greenhouse effects.

  62. DonV says: April 7, 2014 at 5:55 pm

    Had another thought, Ira, that I also wonder whether anyone has thought of analyzing before.

    It is clear to me that the CO2 increase has clearly followed the growth in the world-wide human population. …

    Remember it is your analysis that has put things into perspective. …

    Is it possible that human repurposing of land has also been the sole cause of the change in CO2 because of the steady decline in the net CO2 sink this has caused?

    Thanks, DonV for continuing our conversation. But, no it is NOT “… possible that human repurposing of land has also been the sole cause of the change in CO2 …” [my bold] The unprecedented burning of fossil fuels that have sequestered carbon for eons is, IMHO, the primary cause of the approximately 40% increase in Atmospheric CO2 we have experienced over the past century. Increased outgassing of CO2 from slightly warmer oceans and reduced uptake of CO2 to slightly warmer waters have also contributed, as have land use changes. However, unless someone provides a convincing analysis I find it hard to believe that land use on a mostly water-covered planet could have a larger effect on Atmospheric CO2 than burning of fossil fuels.

    Ira

  63. Louis says:
    April 7, 2014 at 2:30 pm

    The biomass is going to decay over time anyway, so it seems to me that a cow’s digestive system only speeds up the process. But does it really make any difference in the amount of GHG emitted into the atmosphere in the long run? If so, please explain how.

    Simple – Methane vs CO2 !

    Everyone knows that methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2.

  64. Mike Tremblay says:
    April 7, 2014 at 5:06 pm

    If the earth is reflecting 30% of the incoming sunlight then, by definition, it is no longer a blackbody and cannot be treated as a blackbody for either emitting or radiating. Looking at the Stefan-Boltzman equation, a commonly overlooked part is the emissivity coefficient, which is frequently taken as equal to 1 because the equation is usually applied to a blackbody. Since, with the application of a 30% reflectivity, the Earth is no longer a blackbody, this value is less than one. With a reflectivity of 30%, it can be readily assumed that the emissivity is 0.7, and when this value is plugged into the equation the resultant temperature rises to the value given in the first quoted statement.

    A lot of people make this error. It is true that the blackbody emissivity and absorptivity are the same at a specific frequency (wavelength). However, since the solar absorptivity and the thermal emissivity are at different wavelengths, it makes sense that the Earth has a solar absorptivity of 70% (30% albedo) and a thermal emissivity of ~98% (close to one).

  65. Ira, Thanks for the reply.

    “So, if the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect is not exactly 33 °C, I don’t really care, so long as it is, say, in the range 20 °C to 50 °C.”

    I tend to believe that the AGE is not so much an increased temperature in absolute terms but that it is a moderating influence, acting as a thermostat to maintain the temperature range within a band between the two extremes. For example, if the highest temperature that can be achieved by any surface material on earth directly due to insolation is 100C, without an atmosphere, then the greenhouse effect will be responsible for reducing the highest temperature which would be possible. By the same effect, the lowest temperature will occur on the dark side when there is no insolation, so the AGE will be responsible for slowing the rate of temperature decline (cooling) of the surface and maintaining it above the absolute minimum.

    “You make a point about the Earth not being a perfect “blackbody” because some 30% of incoming Solar radiation is reflected rather than absorbed. It seems to me that for an approximate solution, we could simply assume that the incoming Solar radiation is 30% less than it actually is, and then only count the long-wave outgoing radiation.”

    A blackbody absorbs radiation across the full spectrum and emits across the full spectrum at the same rate. As an example of how this varies with wavelength, if you expose CO2 to the full spectrum from the Sun it will still absorb (poorly) across the full spectrum, but it absorbs the majority of the energy at three specific wavelength bands within the far IR range. If you reduce the total incoming radiation by 30% the total absorbed by CO2 would also be reduced by 30% (based on simple calculations). Most of the solar radiation that is actually reflected by the Earth is within the visible band of radiation, so in reality CO2 is absorbing the full amount it was before calculating the reflection reduction. CO2 is not the only material which this would affect since water vapour and ozone both absorb far more solar energy than CO2 but also at very specific wavelength bands.

    “You also mention that the dark side of the Earth will be cooler than the sunlit side, which, of course is obviously true. But, since the Earth rotates every 24 hours, and since the surface has the ability to store heat, the dark side will never cool to 0 K, will it? So, how much will it cool in 12 hours?”

    That is true, but it is also something that the calculation of Earth’s effective temperature did not take into account. For the blackbody supposition, ideal thermal conductivity is assumed. This effectively negates the heating and cooling effect of the rotation of the Earth and allows a supposition of an equal temperature across the surface of the Earth. We all know that the nightside is cooler than the dayside, the problem arises when determining how fast the temperature changes. This is because the thermal flux does not vary in direct proportionality to the temperature IE an object with an absolute temp of 100K is not radiating at a rate of 1/2 of that of an object at 200K, it is radiating at a rate which is 1/16th of the object at the higher temp. How fast an object heats up or cools down also depends upon the heat capacity, mass, and surface area of the object – thus it is possible to almost instantly freeze boiling water if it is sprayed into the air which is at a temp of -40C, whereas a boiler full of water at 100C could take hours to freeze under the same conditions. How long does it take a blackbody to heat up, and what is the highest temperature it will reach? Assuming ideal thermal conductivity negates the necessity of knowing the mass and heat capacity of the blackbody material, but it does not negate the ratio difference between temperatures and radiative thermal flux – which makes averaging a difficult task.

    “These are the types of simplifying assumptions I, as a System Engineer, am used to making to get an approximate answer to check against the supposedly exact value the analysts provide. Once I’ve made these “back of the envelope” calculations (which used to actually be done on scrap paper in the early days, but are now done using spreadsheets :^) to obtain an estimate, I then wait for the analysts to come up with the supposed more precise result. If my estimate is reasonably close, I accept the more precise value from the analysts. If not, either I or they have made a serious mistake, most likely a misinterpretation of the situation.”

    Having operated steam systems for over 20 years, I agree, and have followed the same procedures, but if the initial simple assumptions are wrong, or based on wrong assumptions themselves, then the whole analytical process is useless, and it’s back to the drawing board.

    “In this case, based on calculations I have seen here at WUWT (by WIllis Eschenbach I believe) I believe the 33 °C value is close enough to the truth for my purposes, and I will accept it until I am convinced otherwise.”

    I can’t dispute what you believe to be correct because my own calculations show a huge disparity from the assumed temperature. I can say with relative confidence that the value of 33C is wrong and the actual assumption should be closer to 8C – well below the range that you are using.

    “BOTTOM LINE: You have raised a number of valid points, but you have not provided an estimate of the APPROXIMATE warming effect of Atmospheric “Greenhouse” gases. At the end of your comment you say:
    …contrary to the claims of AGW agitators, the temperature that the surface of the earth is dependent on the thermal and optical properties of the surface materials being subjected to solar radiation, not the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect.
    Do you really mean to claim that there is no warming effect on the Surface of the Earth from the downwelling radiation from H2O and CO2 gases in the Atmosphere? Or that there is no downwelling radiation from the Atmosphere to the Earth Surface? ”

    As I said above, it is my view that the effect of the AGE is to moderate the temperature extremes – as far as applying that to an average global temperature, that is difficult task since the two boundaries of the extremes are 0K (actually about 4K based on other observations) and approximately 393K. Calculating an average value would require dividing the surface of the Earth into sectors based on latitude and the time of solar day, measuring or deducing the radiation absorbed by the surface and then emitted from the surface based on the thermal properties, calculating the temperatures for each of those areas and then averaging those values over the entire surface. The temperature extremes are determined by the properties of the surface materials, since they absorb and emit the largest proportion of the solar radiation. The role of the atmospheric gases is limited to how fast they absorb and emit the energy, which in turn controls the range of the extremes.

    There is a common misconception which is perpetuated by Climate Scientists when they talk about downwelling radiation from the atmosphere “warming” the surface. When they are talking about downwelling radiation they are referring to Radiative Flux, which is a scalar quantity and has no direction therefore the term is technically incorrect – it should be referred to as just atmospheric radiation or something else like that. When talking about heat they should be talking about Thermal Flux, which is a vector quantity and has direction – Radiative thermal flux is the difference between the radiative flux of two objects and is given a direction by the fact that the radiative flux of the higher temperature object is greater than the radiative flux of the lower temperature object. Therefore thermal flux always flows from a higher temperature to a lower temperature. So, the only time the atmosphere is going to heat or warm the surface is if the temperature of the atmosphere is higher than the temperature of the surface.

    Another misconception about flux is that it represents a temperature rise. It doesn’t, it is a rate (Watts or joules/sec) so it represents how fast the temperature will rise. An interesting side note is that it also means that the flux represents how fast the temperature will fall. That means that Greenhouse gases like CO2 will experience a more rapid rise in temperature when exposed to an object which is at a higher temperature, but their temperature will also fall faster when they are at a higher temperature than their surroundings.

  66. Robert Clemenzi says:
    April 7, 2014 at 8:21 pm
    ——————————-
    You are correct, because I made a general assumption, but that is largely unimportant to determining what temperature the material will rise to since an object cannot emit more energy than it absorbs.

    The whole point of the blackbody assumption is that since the values for absorptivity and emissivity are 1, you don’t have to take into account the heat capacity or the mass of the material. The insolation radiation values are the rate at which energy is arriving at the surface per unit of area. How much energy that is absorbed is dependent upon the wavelength of the radiation, the absorptivity coefficient of the material, and the area of the surface being irradiated. The temperature is determined by heat capacity of the material, how much energy has been absorbed, and the mass of the object. The radiation being emitted by the object is dependent upon the temperature of the object, the surface area of the object, and the emissivity of the material. You will notice, if you try some plugging in hypothetical values, that in some circumstances you end up with impossible situations where the material is emitting more energy than it is absorbing – theoretically this is possible if you assume that radioactive decomposition is happening, but for practical purposes I think we can assume that in the extreme circumstances where this occurs the coefficients of absorptivity or emissivity (which were determined experimentally) are no longer valid.

    I conducted some calculation experiments using the absorptivity and emissivity values for different materials (and heat capacities for the real materials), assuming a sphere of that material with a cross-sectional area of 1 m^2 at the same orbit as the Earth. The size of the sphere eliminates the need for conduction calculations and rotational effects. A blackbody sphere will reach a temperature of 279K. A polished aluminum sphere will reach a temperature of 367K. A granite sphere will reach a temperature of 310K. A water sphere (assuming it doesn’t freeze or evaporate and that it is thick enough to reach the full absorption) will reach a temperature of 271K. All of these spheres exhibit temperatures which are at least 16K higher than the effective temperature assumed by the conventional effective temperature calculations made by Climate Science. To me, since these have no atmospheres, there is conclusive evidence that surface temperatures are largely dependent upon the properties of the surface materials and not upon the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Something seems to be fundamentally wrong with their basic assumptions.

  67. These are the absorption bands I have found for the various gasses in the air.

    Water 2.7 microns, 6.3 microns, 19.51 microns
    Nitrous Oxide 3.8 microns, 4.5 microns, 7.78 microns, 17 microns
    Methane 3.3 microns, 7.7 microns
    Ozone 9.65 microns
    Oxygen 0.69 microns, 0.76 microns, 1.26 microns
    Carbon Dioxide 2.7 microns, 4.3 microns, 15 microns

    You can see CO2 has to compete with other gasses, in particular water, pretty much leaving methane all on its own so can absorb all that IR at those bands making it more “potent”. But at ~18ppBILLION/v isn’t much to worry about, unless we can eradicate all termites.

  68. @Chad Wozniak
    Chad, we may not have had the same lectures in chemistry or physics.
    Concentrations of gases in gases are expressed by volume in vol% or ppm, thus they relate to mole ratio (the “n” in ideal gas law: PV=nRT). And molecules of different compounds have a different mass: 44 for CO2, 12 for C, 29 for the mixture called air, 18 for water.
    Look at my calculation and you may understand, if you wish to.

  69. “Michel says:

    April 8, 2014 at 12:03 am”

    Yes, I am aware there are dependancies and I realise compete wasn’t the best choice of word to use. But these graphs you link to are some of the best I have seen. Thanks!

  70. Mike Tremblay says:
    April 7, 2014 at 11:04 pm

    A blackbody sphere will reach a temperature of 279K. A polished aluminum sphere will reach a temperature of 367K. A granite sphere will reach a temperature of 310K.

    Please share the details. I agree for the blackbody, but I am not sure what numbers were used for the others.

    Also, I disagree – if you are using heat capacity, then the rotational rate is critical.

  71. Michel says:

    April 8, 2014 at 12:18 am

    In mixtures, absorptions are additive, not competitive.

    When CO2 and water vapour are present together the absorption is not the sum of the separately calculated effects, because each gas is somewhat opaque to the other.

  72. Ira says:
    April 7, 2014 at 2:30 pm

    Louis, GREAT point! From the point of view of Atmospheric CO2, it seems to me that only long-term sequestered fossil fuels make a significant difference. …………… On the other hand, as you point out, when a tree or plant grows it absorbs CO2 (aka “Plant Food”) from the Atmosphere. That CO2 is released back into the Atmosphere in a relatively short time if the tree or plant dies and rots away, or if it gets eaten by an animal that breaths it out or that dies and rots away. So, net GHG in the Atmosphere is pretty much unaffected by the short-term growth and digestive carbon cycle of plants
    ———————-

    Ira, I would like to point out that there was one (1) more long-term sequestered CO2 sink of gigantic proportions that was like 50+-% released back into the atmosphere in a relative short time. And that “short time” being the same period now being discussed concerning the rising CO2 ppm quantities from 1880 to present.

    And the CO2 sink I speak of was the vast virgin forests across all of North America that began being “clear-cut” in the early 1800’s and really increased in tempo by the mid to late 1800’s with land being cleared for farming and billions n’ billions of board feet of timber being cut, sawed into lumber and shipped eastward to build the great cities, etc. And the tree residue from said “farm clearing and lumber production” was either burned or left to rot on the ground and thus its sequestered CO2 was returned to the atmosphere.

    Now to give you an idea what the once beautiful “green” mountains of virgin timber in West Virginia looked like in circa 1910, …. after being “clear-cut”, ….. here is a picture of said, to wit:

  73. Michel says:
    April 7, 2014 at 4:18 pm

    @Samuel Cogar & Chad Wozniak
    Somehow someone has to have his calculation wrong.

    ——————-

    Michel, most every proponent of CAGW agrees with my calculations. And I know that to be a fact because they used the “5 billion metric tons” figure in their “fuzzy math” calculations to reverse-calculate the yearly total of CO2 emissions via human causes.

    Ya see, via the Keeling Curve that knew that atmospheric CO2 had been steadily and consistently increasing by an average of 2 ppm/year, … every year since 1958. And a 2 ppm increase per year times 5 bmt equals ….. 10 billion metric ton increase each year. Thus, the 10 bmt figure became the “benchmark” for human emitted CO2 (fossil fuel, cement) in the atmosphere that could not be exceeded ….. and all their emission sources were “reverse-calculated” to insure it didn’t happen.

    Michel says:
    April 7, 2014 at 4:50 pm

    @Samuel Cogar
    Biomass is growing and rotting (equivalent of slowly burning) all the time. The yearly variations of the CO2 concentration curve is an indicator of seasonal changes (and of inbalance of land surface between North and South hemisphere).

    ——–
    @Michel, that is what you are told to believe ….. but that claim is neither based in/on fact or reason.

    First of all, there is absolutely nothing in nature that is “steady and consistent” year after year for like sixty (60) years in succession ….. other than the bi-yearly procession of the equinoxes and solstices. Now the aforementioned stipulate the “time” of the changes in the “seasons” but they do not stipulate the surface conditions (seasonal changes) of the land masses in either of the hemispheres. Early Spring, late Fall, late Spring and early Fall are testimony of said. And 2014 Spring is nigh onto 30 days late where I live.

    But anyway, there is no way in ell that the imbalance of land surface between the North and South hemispheres can account for …. the steadily and consistent average 6 ppm bi-yearly cycling of atmospheric CO2 during the past 55 years (1958-2014).

    First of all, the “switch” in that bi-yearly cycle is “timed” or “triggered” by the equinoxes and occurs shortly thereafter. And that “switch” time can be verified by checking the equinox dates of March (mth 3) and September (mth 9) against NOAA’s complete monthly average Mona Loa CO2 ppm data, to wit:
    ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt

    And secondly, it would be in direct violation of my Refrigerator/Freezer Law that governs biomass decomposition.

    And if one takes a look-see at this modified copy of a Keeling Curve graph they can easily see said equinox “trigger” points as well as the average changes in ppm.

  74. DonV says:
    April 7, 2014 at 5:55 pm

    It is clear to me that the CO2 increase has clearly followed the growth in the world-wide human population.
    —————

    Now I pondered that question sometime ago and thus I compiled the following statistics via reliable sources and the results were, to wit:

    Increases in World Population & Atmospheric CO2 by Decade

    year — world popul. – % incr. — Dec CO2 ppm – % incr. — avg increase/year
    1940 – 2,300,000,000 est. ___ ____ 300 ppm
    1950 – 2,556,000,053 – 11.1% ____ 310 ppm – 3.1% —— 1.0 ppm/year
    1960 – 3,039,451,023 – 18.9% ____ 316 ppm – 3.2% —— 0.6 ppm/year
    1970 – 3,706,618,163 – 21.9% ____ 325 ppm – 2.7% —— 0.9 ppm/year
    1980 – 4,453,831,714 – 20.1% ____ 338 ppm – 3.8% —– 1.3 ppm/year
    1990 – 5,278,639,789 – 18.5% ____ 354 ppm – 4.5% —– 1.6 ppm/year
    2000 – 6,082,966,429 – 15.2% ____ 369 ppm – 4.3% —– 1.5 ppm/year
    2010 – 6,809,972,000 – 11.9% ____ 389 ppm – 5.1% —– 2.0 ppm/year
    2012 – 7,057,075,000 – 3.62% ____ 394 ppm – 1.3% —– 2.5 ppm/year

    Source CO2 ppm: ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt

    Based on the above statistics my learned opinion is, to wit:

    Fact #1 – In 70 years – population increased 198% – CO2 increased 29% – Heat Islands increased est. 300/400%

    Fact #2 – Atmospheric CO2 has been steadily and consistently increasing at a rate of 1 to 2 ppm per year for the past 70 years, …… whereas human generated CO2 releases have been increasing exponentially every year for the past 70 years.

    Fact #3 – Global Temperatures have been steadily and consistently increasing a few hundredths or tenths of a degree for the past 70 years, ……. whereas human created infrastructure, housing, vehicles, etc. (Heat Islands) have been increasing exponentially every year for the past 70 years.

    My conclusions are:

    Given the above statistics, it appears to me to be quite obvious that for the past 70 years there is absolutely no direct association or correlation between:

    • Increases in atmospheric CO2 ppm and world population increases.
    • Increases in Average Global Temperature and world population increases.
    • Increases in Average Global Temperature and Heat Islands construction increases.
    • Increases in Average Global Temperature and atmospheric CO2 ppm increases.

    But then of course, …… I am not looking through Rose Colored Glasses.

  75. @ Samuel C Cogar
    You even didn’t look at the calculation and persist in ignorance.
    Sorry for you and those others (¿¡most of the CAGW proponent …!?) who don’t even want to know that air and CO2 don’t have the same molecular weight and dont want to accept that gaz concentraztions are expressed by volume.

    And yes there is a correlation between between energy consumption (thus fossil fuel uses) and CO2 emissions, as this diagram shows (source NOAA and CDIC): https://db.tt/izK01oOd
    One may argue that correlation is not necessarily causation, but in this case we are quite close to such conclusion. According to the latest first grade chemistry classes, burning fossil fuels and rotting biomass produce CO2 (and water and other stuff), or would this also be a scandalous disinformation?
    In Wikipedia mention is made that biomass production is 104.9 petagram (104.9 E+15 g) or 105 billion m. tons per year. During the same time about the same quantity is decaying, otherwise the biomass would have ovewhelmed the earth since millions of years. This compares to the ~34 billion m.ton CO2 emitted every year by burning fossil fuels and making cement.
    The yearly score looks like ±6 ppm for nature versus +2 ppm for humans (who are also a part of nature, of course). Astonishingly close to the Mauna Loa curve: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png

  76. Robert Clemenzi says:
    April 8, 2014 at 3:32 am
    Please share the details. I agree for the blackbody, but I am not sure what numbers were used for the others.

    Also, I disagree – if you are using heat capacity, then the rotational rate is critical.
    ——————————
    Hi again Robert,

    To begin, a caveat – Some of my calculations are still ‘a work in progress’ so I may be wrong.

    Some of the values for the absorptivity and emissivity were obtained from http://www.solarmirror.com/fom/fom-serve/cache/43.html
    but they can also be found at other sites – mainly ones which deal with construction materials.
    For the polished aluminum absorptivity was 0.09 and emissivity was 0.03
    For the granite (can’t remember where I got the values but I believe it was for granite countertops) absorptivity 0.69 emissivity 0.45
    For water (another one I can’t remember where I got the values) absorptivity 0.85 emissivity 0.95

    Using a cross-sectional area of 1 m^2 and a solar constant of 1366 W/m^2 and the absorptivity coefficient of the material, the total power in was calculated.
    Given that, in order to reach equilibrium, the total power in must equal the total power out, I then used the Stefan-Boltzman equation, with the emissivity coefficient for the material, to calculate the resultant temperature.

    I was using the heat capacities in an attempt to determine how fast the objects would heat up, so I believe that, for objects that are this small – relative to the Earth, I can ignore the conduction rates and assume that the temperature of the sphere would be the same for the whole body.
    Either that, or you could assume a rapid rotation to achieve the same desired effect.

    Just a note for interest sake – you may already know what I am about to tell you, but one thing that made me look into this was something I read about chrome door handles on cars. When they were first used, people found that if they left their cars out in the sun the handles would be too hot to touch. How could this be, when chrome is so reflective? Well, the automobile engineers examined the problem and determined that it was because the chrome handles, even though they absorbed only a small amount of the solar radiation, they emitted even less. The key is that since the radiation being absorbed is actually power and is thus the rate at which the energy in the object increases, and the temperature of the object when multiplied by the emissivity coefficient, determines the rate at which energy in the object decreases, the temperature of the object will rise until the rate of energy increase equals the rate of energy decrease. if the absorptivity coefficient is higher than the emissivity coefficient then the temperature of the object will be higher than the temperature of a blackbody surface exposed to the same power. If the reverse is true, then the temperature will be lower than the temperature of a blackbody surface. The engineers then designed a coating and a new ‘chromelike’ material to use for door handles which increased the emissivity coefficient of the chrome surface above the absortivity coefficient so the door handles felt cool when touched.

  77. I find it odd that the claimed increase in surface temperature since 1880 is less than the lifespan margin of error of thermometers made in the 1950s. Most of these temperature readings were made in 1°C increments and were often read from above producing the same error you get from a science class reading a mencius on the side of a graduated cylinder. Since the hardware used for most of 100 years had to be HAND SPUN down in reading, its Occam’s that ALL the data is corrupted beyond any usable accuracy. Something as simple as a batch of bad thermometers dispersed over space-time would cock-up the entire dataset. I know from my own astigmatism that even well corrected eyesight can be off by up to 15%. Trying to produce historical accuracy out of blown sand without knowing which way the wind is going on a given day is as close to heresy as claiming to know how relativity works.

    [prjindigo, thanks! great point. Ira]

  78. Michel says:
    April 8, 2014 at 10:12 am

    @ Samuel C Cogar

    Sorry for you and those others (¿¡most of the CAGW proponent …!?) who don’t even want to know that air and CO2 don’t have the same molecular weight
    —————

    Michel, which weighs the most, … one (1) pound of air … or one (1) pound of CO2?

    I don’t want to know how many molecules are in each sample volume, I just want to know which sample volume has the greatest mass weight.

    You can calculate the number of CO2 molecules in the pure CO2 sample because you know the molecular weight of a CO2 molecule.

    But you can not do the same for the other sample volume because you don’t have a clue as to what the concentration (ppm) is for all the different gasses within that sample volume of air.

    Michel, iffen you know the ppm of all the different gasses in the sample volume of air then “BINGO”, you can do your calculating.

    And ps, Michel, the average mass of the atmosphere (5 quadrillion [5,000,000,000,000,000] metric tons) is calculated via the measured “air pressure” at sea level, which is about 14.7 lbs per square inch.

    Now that 5 quadrillion metric tons is not an exact weight …… but its close enough for horseshoes. And one ell of a lot closer than the ESTIMATED volume of fossil fuels that are being oxidized ….. or the amount of cement that is being cooked n’ cured.

  79. Michel says:
    April 8, 2014 at 10:12 am

    The yearly score looks like ±6 ppm for nature versus +2 ppm for humans (who are also a part of nature, of course). Astonishingly close to the Mauna Loa curve: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png
    —————

    Sure nuff, Michel, that’s what it looks like on that graph you cited …. because that is what you were told it looked like ….. and you believed it to be true.

    But it isn’t true. And according to the latest 2nd grade botany and bacteriology classes there is no way in ell it can be true.

    Michel, look at this graph of the Mona Loa curve ….. which I added notations on … so that one could better understand what they are looking at, to wit:

    Please note that the graph shows a steady increase of CO2 from 317 ppm in 1958 to 387 ppm in 2006, which was an increase of 70 ppm in 47 years ….. or an average of 1.5 ppm/year increase in CO2.

    Michel, the graph shows that the CO2 starts decreasing about the 1st of May after the Spring (March) Equinox and continues to decrease all summer long …. and then starts increasing again about the 1st of October after the Fall (September) Equinox and continues to increase all winter long until the Spring equinox.

    Note that the average bi-yearly decrease of CO2 is 6 ppm from Spring to Fall …. and the average bi-yearly increase of CO2 is 8 ppm from Fall to Spring. And the difference of 2 ppm between the two is the annual average increase in CO2 which defines the Mona Loa curve.

    But that average yearly 2 ppm increase has been steady and consistent for the past 48 years therefore you can not attribute it to human emissions ….. because human emissions have been increasing exponentially for the past 48 years.

    And you can not attribute that average 8 ppm bi-yearly “Fall to Spring” increase of CO2 to the rotting and decaying of biomass in the Northern Hemisphere because the latest 2nd grade botany and bacteriology classes stipulates that there will be no rotting or decaying of biomass if it is dry (lack of moisture) …… and/or, …. the rotting or decaying of biomass will be severely reduced if the temperatures fall below 60F …… and/or the rotting or decaying of biomass will virtually cease if the temperatures fall below 40F. (Sam’s Refrigerator/Freezer Law of Biomass Decomposition) Or … Cold Beer Law iffen you prefer because refrigerators are good for both.

  80. David says:
    April 9, 2014 at 7:31 am

    I took some of this data and added some of my own to make a chart that is perhaps more clear and easy to read. Let me know what you think.
    ——————–

    David, I liked your chart.

    It sure puts that IPCC “fear mongering” temperature in perspective doesn’t it?

    Seeing that projected temperature in “its place” …… would have no affect whatsoever on the winter migration of Snow Birds out of NYC or any other parts of the northeast.

    And no help to/for the Wacky Tobacca growers up thataway either.

  81. My studies of CO2 absorption of LWIR have brought me to the conclusion that a doubling of CO2 to 700ppm would have no effect on global temperatures. I use spreadsheets to calculate Earth IR emissions and absorption by CO2. Using mean beam lengths and CO2 partial pressures, I use PcL charts by Hoyt C hottel to obtain the emissivity of CO2 in the atmosphere. For current CO2 partial pressure or concentration I calculate a distance of 3000 m of traverse through the earth’s atmosphere by ‘LWIR radiation’ before the absorbable LWIR is ‘filtered out’ and reduced to zero. I then calculate that by doubling the atmospheric CO2 to 700ppm or so the ‘absorption distance’ is reduced to <2000 m say 1500m but with no additional LWIR absorption by CO2. Therefore I conclude no global warming from increasing atmospheric CO2.

  82. Samuel C,

    I hate to be late to a party, especially when the dope must be so good.

    “And the CO2 sink I speak of was the vast virgin forests across all of North America that began being “clear-cut” in the early 1800’s and…’

    While you disclaimed non-use of wacky tobacco, you still came up with this? What forests existed across the great plains, the deserts and the great basin areas of the US? I can tell you the answer! NONE. And the forests of places like the Rocky Mountains might as well be none. I’m glad I found this early. I saved me from wasting time on other nonsense. All of North America my…

    pbh

  83. @ McComberBoy
    April 9, 2014 at 2:30 pm
    —————-

    McComber,

    Me thinks that the virgin forests of the 1700s as defined on this map of North America does indeed represent a gigantic carbon sink.

    Of course for one to visualize said “carbon sink” they first have to understand the meaning of “virgin forests” relative to the “butt size” diameter (or circumference) of the timber growing thereon said forested land. To wit:

    The Allegheny Forest – Before Man

    Very little descriptive data is available on the original forests. It remained for George Washington while exploring the valley of the Great Kanawha to leave one of the first meager description of trees in this wild uncharted land. On November 4, 1770, while traveling along the Kanawha River he wrote in his journal, “Just as we came to the hills, we met with a Sycamore…..of a most extraordinary size, it measuring three feet from the ground, forty-five feet round, lacking two inches; and not fifty yards from it was another, thirty-one feet round.” As late as 1870, we read that “at least 10,000,000 acres (of the 16,640,000 acres of land in West Virginia) are still in all the vigor and freshness of original growth“.

    http://www.patc.us/history/archive/virg_fst.html

    —————————-

    Pringle Tree – From about 1764 to 1767, the brothers John and Samuel Pringle lived in the hollow cavity of a big sycamore tree near the confluence of Turkey Run and the Buckhannon River in present Upshur County. The hollow was supposed to have been so big that an eight-foot fence rail could be turned inside the tree.

    http://www.wvencyclopedia.org/articles/1923

    So, McComber, how was that for “other nonsense” for you to be pondering about?

    • My dear SCC. Your original comment was “all the way across”. Patently wrong. Handwaving about where forests were or whether or not those forests were a carbon sink is a distraction. My question still stands. What forests existed across the great plains, the deserts and the great basin areas of the US?

      The answer was none in the 1700’s and it is still none today.

  84. McComber, have you ever flown in an airplane “all the way across” the US from NYC to LA?
    You probably have never driven a car “all the way across” town for any reason whatsoever, right?

Comments are closed.