Guest essay by Saburo Nonogaki
It has been said that the averaged earth surface temperature would be 255K if no green-house-effect(g-h-e) gases were contained in the atmosphere, and is 288Ｋ at present where the atmosphere contains g-h-e gases. The estimation of 255K is based on the earth’s long-term radiative equilibrium and Stefan-Boltzmann’s law which states that the total amount of radiative energy from a black body at absolute temperature T is proportional to T 4.
As the earth’s long-term radiative equilibrium will be reached also in the case where the atmosphere contains g-h-e gases, we obtain the following equation under the condition that the long-term input energy from the sun remains constant.
(1–a )T 4 = constant (1)
Here, T is the averaged earth surface absolute temperature and a the ratio of radiative energy retained by the g-h-e gases in the atmosphere to the total radiative energy. By replacing T in equation (1) with 255Ｋ and 288Ｋ, we obtain the following equation.
(1–0)×2554 = (1–a )×2884 (2)
From equation (2), we obtain the value of a as follows.
a = 0.385 (3)
Jack Barrett* has reported that, in the case of 100m-thick atmosphere, the doubling of pre-industrial concentration of CO2 will result in the increase in infrared absorption by g-h-e gases by 0.5%. The reason why the increase is so small is based mainly on the saturation tendency of infrared absorption by CO2. As the re-emission of a part of energy absorbed by g-h-e gases into the universe takes place, the increase in a is less than 0.5%. According to equations (1), (2) and (3), the increase in a by less than 0.5% results in the increase in T by less than 0.6K.
As the actual thickness of the atmosphere is about 8000m at ordinary atmospheric pressure, the saturation of infrared absorption by CO2 will be almost complete and the actual increase in a caused by the doubling of CO2 concentration must be much less than 0.5% and the resulted increase in T must be also actually much less than 0.6K.
*http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/barrett_ee05.pdf (p. 1042)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
wrong
So far, Planet Earth is saying: Right.
That was impressive.
Mosher is correct, in saying wrong, i.e. 0.6K forcing projection is wrong. CO2 feedback has nearly reached saturation point and any further warming may occur only when solar Grand Maximum returns, and that may be 60-80 years away, so in meantime Happy Christmas to all !
Vuk
The post does not project a 0.6K forcing, but says that 0.6k is the maximum. In other words (am I typing slowly enough?) less than 0.6k.
My understanding is that a doubling will do nothing that we can measure and hence we can not scientifically say that a doubling will do anything. Unfortunately we will all be dead by the time the doubling of CO2 happens — and with no warming that can be attributed to said CO2 rise.
Happy Christmas, Vukcevic.
This one’s for you….. a… er…. an allegory of how forces deep within the earth’s mantle control the climate…. er… weather… .
#(;))
“Mister Heat Miser” — “The Year Without a Santa Claus” (youtube)
Ms Moore
Thank you for your kind greeting, it’ll be treasured till 7th of January.
As for the world of the web, I graph fiction with specks of the nature’s obscured reality.
You’re welcome (smile), Vukcevic.
Re: “nature’s obscured reality” {and I realize you and I may be on two different channels, here, heh} … While there are, indeed, subtle lessons waiting to be discovered by the discerning… science is also announced boldly by the creation: “The heavens declare … the skies proclaim… . Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge.” Psalm 19:1,2.
#(:))
Wrong.
Way to be original, Rich.
Legend. This was a correction of Moshers usual poor English. There were no other replies at the time I hit the button, and now I can’t delete the post, or even reply to you, I’m having to reply to myself?
Rich,
Did you remember to instruct Mosher on the correct usage of the apostrophe, in the possessive case ?
Mr. Mosher, in his typical drive-by method, showing no data, no code, no premise, no argument, no equations, nothing. He’s mimicking the “McLaughlin Report” parody by Dana Carvey on SNL.
I give permission for everyone to ignore him until such time he presents a cogent argument.
It may be wrong, but showing why would be valuable to everyone.
Merry Christmas.
I <3 Anthony Watts. Though your humility may never allow you to accept it, you are a hero for the greater good of all humanity.
Mosher is right because policy-led science is in every way superior to data-led science. Eny fule kno that.
Mosh was really cranky today in another thread, so I figure that he’s nursing a great big hangover from the department Christmas party.
“Nature admits peer review filters out controversial “champion” papers
Classical peer review is a form of scientific gatekeeping (it’s good to see that term recognized in official literature). Unpaid anonymous peer review is useful at filtering out some low quality papers, it is also effective at blocking the controversial ones which later go on to be accepted elsewhere and become cited many times, the paradigm changers.”
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/12/nature-admits-peer-review-filters-out-controversial-champion-papers/
As in:
Cheers!
MERRY CHRISTMAS, AN-THONY!! #(:))
Correct! In Esperanto ‘Mosher’ means move on to the next item.
Merry Christmas to you, Mr Watts. I for one would be interested in an update on your hearing and the impact on your life over the last few months.
I agree with Mosh on his conclusion, even though he was short on detail. The post is wrong. I expanded on the subject on a later comment below. This is a case where the final answer may be correct but for all the wrong reasons.
CC Reader,
Here is an interesting bit from Nature.
It should come as no surprise when ‘good’ sceptical climate papers get rejected.
Could be worse. He could copy Dan Ackroyd’s character from SNL’s “Point/Counterpoint” and start every comment like this:
Showing why would be lost on everyone here.
Merry Christmas to you too Anthony. The usual Christmas music, must have been a welcome new experience for you. Happy new year too.
G
Steven Mosher said @ur momisugly December 25, 2014 at 4:09 pm
Supercilious prick!
Thanks Jimbo.
Mosher is a seagull … flies in sh8ts on you and flies off … leaving a nasty mess behind. Hence the term “seagulling”.
There is no such things as an average earth surface temperature. Hence the equations are wrong.
The equations may be wrong as equalities, but can typically be written correctly as inequalities. replace equal with less than or equal or greater than or equal.
your message was truncated by software?
(mebbe in your wet computer?)
Are you referring to this study?
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/12/24/ed-hoskins-temperature-reduction-outcomes-from-de-carbonisation/
The table below shows the likely range of warming arising from these divergent (sceptical and IPCC) views, (without feedbacks, which are questionably either negative or positive: but probably not massively positive as assumed by CAGW alarmists), that would be averted with an increase of CO2 for the full increase from 400 ppmv up to 1000 ppmv.Screen Shot 2014-08-10 at 11.33.54The results above for countries and country groups show a range for whichever scenario of only a matter of a few thousandths to a few hundredths of a degree Centigrade.
well reasoned mosh.
your posts read like a transcript of the “argument clinic” by monty python.
lol #(:))
Thanks for the idea…
“Argument Clinic” –Monty Python (youtube)
No, that Monty Python sketch was much cleverer and far more erudite. !
Ah, HA! Andy G! We meet again.
(remember how mad you were at me that time I (intending it as a compliment) compared you with Buzz Lightyear v. a v. “to infinity and beyond!” (SMILE)?
Well!
To answer you: No. It wasn’t! It was MUCH duller and suitable for a mule.
Merry Christmas (almost 8am Christmas Day in Australia :))…. WAKE UP! (figured you “celebrated” in your preferred fashion last night) O Jovial and Highly Intelligent Math Professor.
Your American ally for truth,
Janice
#(:))
[trimmed]
Mosher is as annoying as usual, but in this case I have to say he is correct.
The equations shown above do not account for the wavelength specific absorption/emission properties of the atmosphere.
In actuality, short wavelength radiation passes through relatively unhindered, while long wavelength radiation tends to be more absorbed/emitted. Hence, the idea is that the atmosphere is to some degree a one way trap for heat.
By contrast, the equations above effectively treat the incoming shortwave radiation as though it were substantially reflected at the top of the atmosphere. That doesn’t happen.
Looking at my post above, I didn’t really express my point very well.
The problem is that in the article the incoming radiation is effectively treated as though it were long wave, and thus absorbed/reflected by the atmosphere. Instead, the incoming radiation is shortwave and is transparent to the atmosphere.
TYoke
Increasing the CO2 concentration increases the number of molecules radiating into space while backscatter from, say, 12 km altitude is trapped before reaching the ground with 50% sent back up again. This has been modelled and modelled and the models show a temperature increase in the region of 8-16 km above the surface the heats at 3 times the rate of the surface because of all the back and forth.
That is the theory. The hotspot as it is known, is not there. Millions of measurements confirm this. Reality doesn’t agree with theory. It therefore appears that the “one way valve” mechanism which sounds like an effective heat trap, isn’t. It might not be trapping heat because the “trap” is itself increasing the effectiveness of energy loss. If it’s indeed working, the effect is undetectable.
I don’t think anyone is dead certain why, but it is not working according to theory.
Crispin in Waterloo December 24, 2014 at 9:33 pm Thank you. It is extremely difficult even on this blog to get people to accept observed data over the ‘Green House Gas’ hypothesis. as you say:
The ‘rasiative gases trap heat’ hypothesis is really neat, it is just not happening in reality in the way claimed despite all the clever maths. In fact it is so appealingly simple that it is difficult for some people to accept its falsification.
Well, you would say that, wouldn’t you?
(With apologies to the late Mandy Rice-Davis)
Is there anyone else here who remembers Mandy and Christine?
“Well he would say that, wouldn’t he?” ☺
I do. Ended the career of Profumo. Big sensation at the time, but I don’t recall all the details.
Mandy was thrown out of Heathrow airport for fiddling with the undercarriage of a Viscount… [ducking and running]
What a complete argument that is, very well reasoned.
Agreed.
The author has misinterpreted Jack Barrett.
We Really Ought Not Go? With Righteous Obnoxious Nutty Garbage?
It’s a Christmas puzzle in anagram style? Right Mosh? Cool, I love those. Thanks a bunch and merry Christmas to you to 🙂
Without a Reason, One Naturally Growls
#(:))
[With no food, two tummies growl. 8<) .mod]
wrong == grown
I would say GROAN would be more appropriate for your sniping, short, unintelligent, silly habit of drive by one word comments.
Indeed, the author Mosher knows better. Why, he’s an expert. Oh, wait…
Mark
• No hotspot can be found.
• Global sea ice anomaly at ‘normal’.
• No signs of climatological trends in extreme weather caused by greenhouse gases can be found (the opposite maybe).
• Global agricultural output at record levels.
• Biosphere has greened in recent decades.
I can go on and on. I suspect
‘global warming’‘climastrology’ has so far been net beneficial.PS these folks are trying on the biggest heist in eCONomic history. The internet messed up their evil plans………result: Gleick, Climategate, failed warming model projections, Wadhams’ changed Arctic ‘ice-free’ prediction et al. It’s funny looking at these people flap about despite the massive financial and media backing. Bloody useless lot, they could not organise a drunken brawl in a hard liqueur brewery.
Well one of the original premises of this story is complete nonsense.
Namely, that sans green house gases in earth’s atmosphere, the global mean Temperature would be 255 K.
Without GHGs, there are no clouds, and no precipitation, which eventually means very little land ice or snow, which would all melt in summer and run off, never to be replaced.
Earth’s albedo would be very much lower that the 35 or so percent we now have, and the surface solar insolation would be much higher. I have done the BB calculation of the BB equilibrium Temperature, that corresponds to a TSI of 1362 W/m^2, and it is a lot higher than 288 K.
I’m not going to do it again to show you what the number is. Try doing it for yourselves.
We easily get to more than 288 K with no clouds and no other GHGs. The 255 number is obtained sans CO2 etc, but retaining the present albedo number which is an absurd proposition.
Even without any clouds, water vapor takes a lot of incoming solar radiant energy out of the input number, so you will get a lot more than 1,000 W/m^2, with the sun at the zenith.
But of course, the earth without GHGs is silly. Peter Humbug did a “model run” on his Playstation, removing every last molecule of water from the atmosphere. His model run got it all back in three months.
So you would need to get rid of the oceans first, to get rid of GHGs.
It would have helped if the author had known where the value of 255K came from. The he would have written
(1-0.3)*255^4 = (1-a)*288^4
and gotten a different value of a.
However that would be pointless as the only way to make the equation balance is to make the emissivity and absorptivity have different values, which is not possible.
And even if you somehow get passed that, it is useless as the GHE does not depend upon radiation from the surface, but from high up in the atmosphere.
The replies to the post illustrate the principle that you can write anything on a blog and someone will believe it.
Mosher is actually over generous to just say that it is “wrong”
Less than 0.6K. My estimates ranged from no change at all over the equatorial doldrums to 2.4 degrees over the North Pole, averaging 0.3K globally
What then is this “Carbon Pollution”?
A sinister, evil collusion?
CO2, it is clean,
Makes for growth, makes it green,
A transfer of wealth, a solution.
http://lenbilen.com/2014/02/22/co2-the-life-giving-gas-not-carbon-pollution-a-limerick-and-explanation/
Lenbilen
Good point – wealth transfer. Rich countries generate new CO2 and it is distributed equally to all humanity. They can freely tap this resource and increase their production of food and fuel crops. No questions asked, no payment sought. Sorry about the promised warming. Maybe next time.
Ladies and Gentlemen, faites vos jeux.
I bid 0.2K or less.
My bid is 0.2k or more less than your bid. 🙂
Since this 0.6ºK is not equally distributed around the world what is the impact at say, 47º latitude where I live, what is the longitudinal distribution going to look like, and how can we know with any certainty? What will be the knock-on impact on localities of these regional variations? This would be the emergent phenomena created as a result of unequal distribution of this energy that produces 0.6ºK averaged temperature around the globe.
I get <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/68018872@N08/6184340351/"0.7 K using HadCET, which is at your latitude.
In practice anything less than 1 C/doubling is harmless if you do the arithmetic. At that level there aren’t enough extractable fossil fuels in the world to produce dangerous warming.
Apology, for the link error. It should be this: 0.7 K/doubling
Less than .6K is obviously enough to bring about all the climate catastrophes predicted by the IPCC and its disciples in the MSM.
A weather forecast from the future:
sigh…
Roy, you are going to have explain that sigh, for those like me who have trouble catching nuances.
I wouldn’t presume to speak for anyone but myself, but I suspect this relates:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/05/global-warming-causing-carbon-dioxide-increases-a-simple-model/
Tail wagging the dog deal – climate effects CO2 – not so much the other way.
While playing at fathoming quantum effects in a lets just do some maths anyway, I have read:
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169
It is thoughtful anyway.
I imagine that you are contemplating discussing the fact that pressure broadening of CO2 absorption spectrums in the real world environment has shown the saturation assumptions to be overstated, just as you did at the end of the “climate debate” at heartland 2012. . .
The prevailing public view seems to be that as CO2 is added to the atmosphere it is as if another quilt and then another is added to your body until you are too hot when in fact it is more like quilts are being added to your lower legs only. Good analogy?
How about the additional quilts only being one tenth as thick as the initial one? Just a guess.
A better analogy would be measuring the temperature of a mannequin under several quilts, when a hot lamp is directed downward on the quilts.
The more quilts you use, the less the mannequin is warmed, since the quilts re-radiate the lamp heat upwards.
I should hasten to add that the real situation is a lot more complicated since the incoming radiation is on the whole much shorter wavelength than the outgoing, and therefore the wavelength specific absorption/emission properties of the quilts matter a lot to the final result.
You need a slight modification.
There has to be a plain glass window in the quilts that permits visible light in, and blocks IR out.
…
I’m sure you’re familiar with how sunshine can warm your skin.
Depending of course on the quilt pattern.
Re: “pre-industrial concentration of CO2″
A scientifically inaccurate pro-AGW bias is indicated by the use of this term.
1. Native Sources of CO2 = 150 (96%) gigatons/yr; Human CO2 = 5 (4%) gtons/yr.
{at 36:34 on the following video}
2. Re: Net Native CO2 — Native sinks approximately balance native sources.
{at 37:01 on the following video}
Conclusion: Native CO2 emissions are 2 orders of magnitude greater than human (or “industrial”), thus, “approximately” means that even a small native CO2 imbalance can overwhelm all the human CO2.
That is, Jack Barrett (and or Saburo Nonogaki) would be more accurate if he/they described current CO2 levels in terms such as “current net CO2 from all sources and sinks, both native and human.”
Source: Dr. Murry Salby, Hamburg lecture (2013) – YouTube video
only we have a balanced account which proves that there is a net natural sink:, where did half of all fossil fuel co2 go?
My vegetable garden where it is sequestered until I make compost from the crop residues 😉
Most estimates of biogeochemical carbon cycle fluxes are about 33 to 50 times human. i.e. humans add about 3 percent to the global biogeochemical carbon cycle.
Some newer estimates of deep ocean magmatic carbon sources are much higher than previously guessed. How much carbon resides at the ocean bottoms are more guess than estimate. Sea water at the surface contains at least 50 times more carbon than the atmosphere above the ocean surface.
Salby is basically right, fossil carbon added to the atmosphere is just diluted into a much larger carbon cycle.
But as is well known there are other factor which could warm earth other then CO2 or H20 gas.
Clouds have a warming effect. Also the ocean mixing affect air temperature.
Or if mixed entire ocean the ocean surface temperature would around 3 C. And if ocean surface temperature was 3 C and since earth ocean cover 70% of surface area and warm tropical ocean is largely causing the world to have 15 average temperature, then Earth temperature would plunge to near freezing. And not mixing and flows of surface water cause large amount warming in places like European. And there other factors which effect earth’s average surface temperature other than greenhouse gases.
How does the fact that the earth is not a black body affect these calculations?
Racist.
That was better than Mosh’s answer.
Massively, emissivity can vary significantly depending on the surface and is a direct multiplier in the S-B equations. Warmists keep using an emissivity of 1 for CO2 instead of the probable emissivity of 0.0017. They also assume that CO2 radiates like a black body but then ignore the fact that at its 15µm peak as a black body it would radiate at ~193°K… making Antarctica in deep winter the only place that could possibly get any radiative energy transfer from it unless one ignores the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (which along with the 1st, they regularly do.)
Of course there is no -193 K, cannot go lower than absolute zero. -193 C =+80K, still wrong, 15 micron radiation has its Planck peak at – 80 C. Be of good cheer everyone, but not too good…
And I see that Michael Moon read your tilde as a minus sign., and didn’t even notice that his -80 deg. C is the same roughly as your 193 K.
Read everything before doing anything.
0.6K(A) = 4-6K(P)
(Where A=actual and P=political)
So good to have Mosher’s thoughtful and considered opinion to take away and mull over for the Christmas holiday.
While as a statistical scientist this reeks of oversimplification, I don’t know enough about atmospheric physics to know where to attack. I suppose Mosher and Spencer could help?
However, you do know that it just has to be attacked, because, well sigh, it just is wrong, because, well because, because because.
Mosher has no clue – he is just a know-it-all that thinks he can learn us all some science (look up his actual background). Spencer’s opinion is apparently the opposite: warming causes CO2, i.e., there is no forcing.
Mark
Aren’t we missing a few feedbacks here? And is the earth truly a blackbody? and does anybody care that earth has been radiating its own geologic heat to space for around 4.5gigayears regardless of incoming solar energy?
The irony is CAGW enthusiasts are claiming such catastrophic warming which would in ‘reality” reduce the use of energy from fossil fuels etc. …. they should embrace a warmer planet. Cheers!
Folks, I’ve spent more than forty years in the aerospace industry, and I’ve developed ATMOSPHERIC flight vehicles that fly at altitudes well in excess of 8000m. The sensible atmosphere is about 400,000 feet thick, and spacecraft suffer atmospheric drag at much, much higher altitudes (700km IIRC). So, any calculations based on the atmosphere being 8000m thick are a bit off.
And you will certainly not be experiencing “ordinary atmospheric pressure” at 8000m. According to the Prat and Whitney “Aeronautical Vest-Pocket Handbook”, the “US Standard Atmosphere – 1962”, shows pressure at 26,000 ft to be 10.64 inches mercury, and the sea level value is 29.92 inches.
Having said that, is the author trying to say that the effects of g-h-e are only observed to 8000m? If so, on what science is that based?
I’m hoping that there is a simple explanation.
He is trying to say that the actual thickness of the atmosphere doesn’t matter, only the absolute number of gas molecules in a vertical column, and that compressing the atmosphere to a layer of homogeneous pressure makes calculations of absorption simpler.
The OP simplified Earth’s atmosphere to uniform 1 ATM surface pressure. Weight divided by density at the surface, 10100 kg per square meter divided by 1.225 kg per cubic meter is about 8200 meters.
The atmosphere is 82 times the thickness used in the Barrett calculation.
I mistrust all such ‘back of the envelope’ calculations. They are based on oversimplifications of oversimplifications. Similar calculations once ‘proved conclusively’ that bumblebees cannot fly. If, for simplification, one assumes that a bumblebee is a fixed-wing aircraft, then the aerodynamic lift its *fixed* wings generate is not sufficient to overcome it’s weight.
In empirical work we call such oversimplified models ‘spherical cows,’ and leave it to the mathematicians to ride herd on them.
I would rather trust laboratory measurements of the energy absorbtion of an enclosed sample of air with and without added CO2 – as a model for CLEAR DAY heat absorbtion.
Then there remain (as yet unaddressed) the issues of (1) what happens to the sunlight that does not get absorbed by the air but reaches the ground to become absorbed, converted to heat, and transferred BY CONDUCTION to the air (surely the air does not care whether it gets heated by radiation orconduction), and (2) how does convection of air heated in the lower atmosphere into the upper atmosphere (I’ve seen convection cells 15 miles tall) affect the overall heating dynamics?
In my understanding the only solar radiation that does NOT end up as atmospheric heat is the part that gets reflected into space by clouds, bodies of water, and ground albedo – NONE of which are CO2-dependant.
Do any current models contain this information? I’d be curious to see the influence.
I don’t think the folks in the UN, the White House, the Washington State Governor’s office, or the EU Big House give one wit about the size of this number.
I’m curious, though.
Merry Christmas and Season’s Greetings.
Cute. And Merry Christmas to you (again) :).
Mosher may have under stated the problem.
With apologies to Einstein, this isn’t right, its not even wrong.
nope, Pauli: “Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!”
Happy Xmas.
That was Pauli.
and the resulted increase in T must be also actually much less than 0.6K…..
Using his method…..if you discredit all of their wonky adjustments……since CO2 rising….the increase in T was ~ .6
…so it’s a safe bet to say it will be even less that .6 accounting for saturation
and we’re there!
I believe Professor Richard Lindzen had a paper suggesting that the climate sensitivity was about 0.5C. Sounds close to me. It’s certainly not anywhere near Hansens 4.5C.
255K is pretty darned cold. Thank you green house gases!
Other calculations suggest that the greenhouse effect of anthropogenic CO2 is non-existent.
For an empirically based refutation of the CAGW meme see
http://www.seipub.org/des/paperInfo.aspx?ID=21810
which states
“The planetary radiative balance is maintained by the equilibrium cloud cover which is equal to the theoretical equilibrium clear sky transfer function. The Wien temperature of the all sky emission spectrum is locked closely to the thermodynamic triple point of the water assuring the maximum radiation entropy. The stability and natural fluctuations of the global average surface temperature of the heterogeneous system are ultimately determined by the phase changes of water. Many authors have proposed a greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. analysis shows that The present analysis shows such an effect is impossible.”
Dr.Page, quiet please, that topic is not allowed, you run the risk of being called a bad name. And caricatured with pointy teeth and knobs on your head.
That peer-reviewed and recently published paper also states;
“In our view the greenhouse phenomenon, as it was postulated by J. Fourier (1824), estimated by S. Arrhenius (1906), first quantified by S. Manabe and R. Wetherald (1967), explained by R. Lindzen (2007), and endorsed by the National Academy of Science and the Royal Society (2014), SIMPLY (sic) DOES NOT EXIST” (bold highlighting is mine).
It was only a hypothesis this whole time, if it does not exist then the sensitivity is ZERO per doubling/halving/tripling. Not about zero, but zero.
Happy Holidays everyone, whatever your thoughts are on this topic.
Cheers, KevinK
Amen… and considering that using Gas Law gives you an “accurate” number for atmospheric temperature based on density and gravity (completely ignoring the miniscule radiative modes of the gases) and considering that no one, anywhere has ever proven that so called “greenhouse gas” makes any difference. That does NOT mean water vapor (which I get tired of saying is NOT a gas and does not behave like one) as water moves a considerable amount of energy around our planet.
What’s wrong with this:
Simple arithmetic says 4.5°C isn’t possible. Here’s why.
We already have 400 ppm CO2. That represents 4 doublings since 25 ppm and 7 or 8 since 1 or 2 ppm. The question is, at what point does the logarithmic nature of CO2’s Climate Sensitivity begin? I’ve heard “Around 20 ppm”. I also know that Methane (CH4) at not quite 2 ppm is said to be a very strong Green House Gas for the simple reason it doesn’t take much to double its concentration. The obvious question is, if CH4 is logarithmic at 2 ppm then in the world of Geese, Ganders and Greenhouse Gas wouldn’t CO2 also be?
So if you go with 20 ppm and 4 doublings, 4 x 4.5° = 18° or 54% of the 33° Green House Effect. Does anyone claim CO2 is over 50% of the Green House Effect? If 2 ppm is considered, 8 x 4.5° = 36° and I think you can see why I said it’s not arithmetically possible.
The contribution percentage of CO2 to the Green House effect is said to be anywhere from 9% to 26%. If you work backwards from 26% using 20 ppm as a logarithmic beginning and a 33° for the total Green House Effect, the Climate Sensitivity of CO2 with all its feed backs can’t be over 1.7°C. If you work backwards from 9% it can only be as much as 0.6°C.
There is a rebuttal to this over at Skptcl-Scnce
Comment #53 – Glenn Tamblyn – 21 September 2010
The basic argument says climate sensitivity varies with the current climate and the physical world namely the cryosphere.
So it requires that you lower the sensitivity for lesser concentrations of CO2 and colder more ice covered climates.
As it turns out, you have to do some serious manipulations in order to make the 4.5°C work. If you lower CO2’s sensitivity down to zero at around 10 to 15 ppm you can make it fit.
So what’s wrong with all of that? I assume it’s wrong but I really haven’t seen a good answer.
Methane’s effect is linear @ur momisugly 2ppm.
There must be some physics that dictate when a Green House Gas makes the transition from linear to logarithmic.
To Steve Case,
Over the period for which we have any reasonable CO2 data SPECIALLY in light of what the OCO map has now shown us, there is no credible logarithmic relationship between CO2 and temperature.
Let me put it this way.
You can plot Log (CO2 vs T; or CO2 vs T ; or CO2 vs log(T) ; and get equally good linear graphs.
There also is no VALID theoretical reason to expect a log relationship.
Bouguer’s Law, commonly misnamed as Beer’s Law, or the Beer-Lambert Law only applies to the ABSORBED component of an incident beam of EM radiation.
It DOES NOT apply to the TRANSMITTED EM radiant energy through media which are themselves radiative.
I.E. Bouguer’s law applies ONLY when the absorbed photons stay dead, and are converted to “HEAT” (adjective) ENERGY; NOT when the absorbed photon energy is re-emitted as EM radiant energy (photons) of some other (usually longer) wavelength.
And with a “logarithmic” doubling concept, going from 280 ppm to 560 ppm, is the same as going from 1 ppm to 2 ppm.
Talking about a function being logarithmic for a value within the range of 1.0 to 1.25 (Mauna Loa), is total horse feathers. Logarithmic, means logarithmic, for any real data range: period.
Ln(1+x) = x for small x And we have an x of about 0.27. 315 – 400 ppm.
So it’s indistinguishable from linear.
Process engineer for 40 years. We lived by the rule that “no validation”, “no moving full forward” with projects. We would have been able to run the company out of money many times over if we did what the IPCC and others are doing. Unfortunately they won’t have to worry about running the money presses out of our ink. 0.6 or 600 at this point in the discussion doesn’t really matter; it’s more the point are we going to let ourselves be lead as humans by lies or the truth?
As a process engineer, have you ever seen a process where all feedbacks (forcings?) are positive as the CAGW crowd have define the Earth’s climate system? (I suspect they defined and use the term ‘forcing’ so most would not associate it with a feedback.)
As far as money, I also suspect we are not far from the point where an awful lot of ‘Climate Scientists’ are going to be looking for new jobs. I just hope the damage they have done to the reputation of (real) science hasn’t set it back too far in the public eye.
If there weren’t firm negative feedbacks in the system, we wouldn’t have a record of life stretching back ~1B years in a recognizable form. Example, the Ordovician nautiloid (archimedes screw type shells some linear, some coiled) are not so different to what is in the sea today. They had to make shells so there must of been ample CO2 and lime in the seas – still alkaline, although perhaps less so than today. They must have eaten something non unlike what their present day similar types.
https://www.tonmo.com/community/pages/nautiloids/
The earth has been hit with large asteroids that wiped out many species on a number of occasions. Each time, the earth recovered to somewhere within a few degrees up or down of where we are now. We have had 9000ppm CO2 in our atmosphere during the billion years of life and it seemed to result in a lush plenty and variety of species. We’ve had snowball earths (apparently), at least numerous ice ages that the earth rebounded from, etc. It is a hundred percent certainty that the climate system restores itself from extremes and the extremes themselves, although perhaps unpleasant for many species, actually amount to deviations from some norm by ~2% of the K temperature.
Why we don’t inform our science from the top down in this case and recognize that so much of the calculations and worry are wasteful impossible fantasies. It is so simple-minded and telling of those who would take the CO2 molecule in isolation and calculate all the horrors that await. Negative feedbacks are a certainty. Get over it. Even the high temperature extremes that exist are distributed in an essentially benign way: The tropical convergent zone in the oceans does not and therefore cannot exceed ~31C. So the warming is transfered to the polar regions where a good deal of the 5-7C or so increase in these regions basically heats up -30C to -25C (Arctic, Antarctica) and fringing areas maybe to -10C (WAG). Yeah the average goes up but know one notices. Who are these people anyway?
You ask the question “Who are these people anyway?” I have a simple answer there are either conmen or useful idiots. One thing I have to say is the conmen have made themselves rich and most of us poorer, to bad there are so many useful idiots, the only good thing about the present crowed of useful idiot is that the conmen have not murder as many people as they did the last time, although I think Stalin and Mao may be turning in their graves after their cons were much more difficult, they need guns to get the people to give them the peoples money. Funny in both cases were are told it for the greater good.