January 2008 – 4 sources say "globally cooler" in the past 12 months

TD: “The formula for carbonic acid is H2CO3, not CO2, and a Nobel Prize winning Chemist would know that”
Yes and if you’d actually bothered to read the paper (which is widely available on the internet) you would know that:
a.) Carbonic acid (H2CO3) is in equilibrium with CO2 (assuming constant TPV) in the presence of water (or water vapour in the atmosphere)
b.) Because CO2 concentrations were particularly difficult to measure 100 years ago, that H2CO3 (which was easy to measure) was a bit of a proxy measure at the time.
If you knew any chemistry you’d also know that ‘bit of a proxy’ understates the situation. Given the “acidity of air” aka “carbonic acid” you can precisely determine the concentration of CO2.
You’d also know that Arhennius was a bit of a demon for data and could crunch data like there was no tommorow. He tended to gather shedloads of observations, crunch them and produce results.
Since he couldn’t get shedloads of CO2 observations he used shedloads of H2CO3 observations which he could get. And from them – given the precise mathematical relationship to CO2 concentrations – he could quite reasonably quantify the greenhouse effect.
I’ll give you a tip. Ill informed blog posters who can’t be bothered to do the most minor research (that would be you) but want to question 100 year old established science in the bizarre belief that they can use mere semantic trivia to uncover flaws allegedly unnoticed by the intervening 5 or 6 generations of proffesional scientists, run a serious risk.
A serious risk of a bollocking from a semi-informed blog poster (that would be me) who can actually read.
Ok, I got that off my chest, I’ll be nice now.
You need to be real careful when reading old papers because terms change and often there’s a lot of dross surrounding the gold – Keplers writings are full of neoplatonist mystisicm about perfect forms and Newtons writings have all sorts of weird alchemy in them, but Keplers laws are still the only laws of planetary motion, and Newtonian gravitation got us to the moon.
Words in a paper may not mean what you think they do, and a simple alphanumeric equality check is not enough to say they are different.
Yes, Arhennius said “carbonic acid”, but he was talking about CO2

Hey TD,
You are not wasting anyone’s time.
Keep asking the critical questions and insisting on getting factual answers based on hard data rather than on computer generated hype.
The world needs you (and others like you) out there to cut through the fog.
Regards,
Max

Max: “If someone out there has seen a serious scientific study refuting the conclusions of this paper, I’d be interested in seeing it.”
Max, the paper is refuted on its face. It is simply wrong.
A good place to start would be here
There are two links in that article, the first is long but informal. The second “Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect” is a link to a formal paper debunking G&T at Cornell University.

Hi JM
Thanks for your message on Gerlich+Tscheuschner. You wrote: “Max, the paper is refuted on its face. It is simply wrong.”
You provided a link to a very recent rebuttal by A.P. Smith.
I am certainly not going to claim that the G+T paper is “right” (and that the greenhouse theory is therefore false).
However, I did not see a clear refutation of it in the Smith rebuttal you cited, but rather a succinct explanation of how the greenhouse theory works, including a calculation method for estimating its impact on a hypothetical “global average temperature”.
Smith states that the “average temperature is mathematically constrained to be less that the fourth root of the average fourth power of the temperature”.
Smith concludes that “the only way the fourth power of the surface temperature can exceed this limit” (i.e. a “value determined by the incoming stellar flux and the relative reflectivity and emissivity parameters”) is to be covered by an atmosphere that is at least partly opaque to infrared radiation. This is the atmospheric greenhouse effect.”
G+T state that “the popular climatologic ‘radiation balance’ diagrams describing quasi-one-dimensional situations…do not properly represent the mathematical and physical fundamentals”. G+T also state that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation used in calculating “heat transfer for a radiation-exposed body” is “invalid for real objects”.
G+T apparently question the method of calculation used as a “standard in global climatology” (p.63), in other words the basis for the conclusion reached by Smith.
As I understand it, part of this has to do with whether the “fourth root is drawn before averaging” rather than afterward.
It seems strange to me that Smith did not specifically refute this statement in G+T.
Another objection I saw in G+T (p.66), which Smith also did not refute directly, is to the concept of a “global average temperature”. G+T quote another study (Essex et al.) that says that: “there is no physically meaningful global temperature for the Earth in the context of the issue of global warming” and “a given temperature field can be interpreted as both ‘warming’ and ‘cooling’ simultaneously, making the concept of warming in the context of the issue of global warming physically ill-posed.”
The point G+T make here (whether it is valid or not) is that one cannot make simplified calculations based on a hypothetical “global average temperature”, since the influence of local factors is far too great. Again, I did not see a refutation of this statement by Smith.
A final point I saw was that G+T referred to a paper by Schack, which referred to CO2 as “ an absorbent medium”, but not in the context that atmospheric CO2 would radiate heat back to a warmer ground, causing surface warming.
Again, I am not taking either side on this issue, but I can see that the Smith paper was a rebuttal but not a refutation of the specific points raised by G+T.
Regards,
Max

Hi JM,
You wrote: “Specific points? Perhaps not. But the refutation is more fundamental. G&T are arguing that a.) the greenhouse effect does not exist at all, and b) that the second law doesn’t work. The paper points out the absurdity of a, the discussion points out the ridiculousness of b).
ie. G&T refute themselves by “disproving” the 2nd law. G&T is psuedoscience, not science.”
This is disappointing, JM. If Smith could really refute the specific points made by G+T this would be a robust refutation.
Since he did not, it is a well-written rebuttal, but not a robust refutation.
I am not taking either side on this, JM, but I am looking for a specific scientific refutation of G+T, and I do not find it in the Smith paper.
Do you?
Regards,
Max

Erik Z raises a good question: “How warm is it SUPPOSED to be?”
This kinda depends on where you are at what time of year and time of day, and whether it is a clear or cloudy/rainy day, etc…
The concept used by “climatologists” of a “globally averaged land and sea surface temperature” is very dicey, with so many adjustments, corrections, interpolations, etc. being applied to surface station data that are, in themselves, suspect for many reasons, which have been brought to light by Anthony Watts on this site as well as many others.
I guess the scientist would say that this has increased from a 1951-1980 average of 288.0K to an average value over the past 10 years of 288.5K, which now seems to be tapering off or reversing.
But back to Erik Z’s question: In the USA, for example, there are a lot of people (who have the choice) moving from harsher northern climates to the South and Southwest, where it is warmer.
These folks have apparently decided that it is SUPPOSED to be a bit warmer (to where they are relocating) than it is (from where they are departing).
But Erik Z raises a valid question, which is hard to really answer.
Max

Sorry Guys
The formatting got lost on the table it should have columns separated by tabs and it did in the comments box
The headings are :
Absorbent layer in
Lost in space
Send down
The two Sum amounts are for
Lost in Space
Send Down
I am making a habit of apologizing here

Hi TD,
No need to apologize. I think that the equations, the concepts as well as the practical implications of the greenhouse theory are difficult for anyone to understand fully.
Your spreadsheet for understanding the Smith statement (p.8) of what happens to the absorbed and re-emitted heat (or IR waves) makes sense to me, since there is basically no creation of heat, i.e. what comes in goes out. What your spreadsheet shows is that there is no net heat created.
As I understand it, the GH theory states that the GH mechanism is one of absorption of heat (from IR waves) and re-emission of this heat, partly out to space, and partly back to Earth. It is not a mechanism of reflection, as you would have from a mirror, for example.
Smith confirms this, as well, on p.8 when he writes of IR absorption in the atmosphere (by GH gases) and thermal re-emission.
This is where G+T have problems with the theory (pp.76,77). Their point is that it is not possible, according to the second law of thermodynamics, for heat to be transferred from a body at a lower temperature (the atmospheric CO2 layer, which is at well below 0C) to a body at a higher temperature (the surface of the Earth, which is at a “global average temperature” of around 15C), without the addition of work from an outside source. The reflection mechanism could do this (the mirror doesn’t have to be warmer than the surface to which it is reflecting heat waves), but absorption/emission cannot.
Smith presents the “proof” that GH warming exists on p.8: “The only way for a planet to be radiatively warmer than the incoming sunlight allows [minus what is reflected from its surface albedo] is for some of the thermal radiation to be blocked from leaving.”
This is not, in the true sense, a scientific proof that GH warming exists; it is, at best, a “proof by default”, which could be restated as follows:
“We (think we) know how much energy the sun is bringing in, we (think we) know how much is reflected back into space, and since a calculation shows that something else is going on that we cannot explain otherwise, which results it temperatures that are higher than those we calculated based on our assumptions, we conclude that it is greenhouse warming.”
Like you, I am waiting for someone to bring a reference to a true scientific refutation of G+T, since Smith does not provide this.
Regards,
Max

The trouble i have with all the info from the greens is this ,the measurements of c02 ,if you take c02 away will that control oceans, weather patterns , volcanoes etc? i dont think so we cannot live without it ,methane is the killer gas for our planet but forests produce more than anything else and being 5 per cent is a lot lot more than 0.03 in c02 as methane turns into sulphuric acid in the upper atmoshphere and also eats at the ozone layer i think they are barking up the wrong tree ,but then again you cant tax people for forests can you.

Hi Jack,
You are 100% right, of course, on CO2 being an essential atmospheric component for all life on this planet. No CO2 = no plants = no animals = no people.
And studies have shown that increased atmospheric CO2 actually helps plants (and crops) grow more quickly. IPCC has “assumed” that all measured increases in CO2 are caused by humans, which is unlikely.
Methane, on the other hand, is a “pollutant”, most of which is naturally caused, but a small percentage of which is caused by humans. IPCC “assumes” again that all increases are caused by humans, which is even more unlikely.
Here’s the theory on CO2 versus methane as a greenhouse gas, using the Arrhenius theory according to IPCC.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm
dE is change in forcing
using Stefan-Boltzmann:
dT/dE = 1 / (4 [sigma] T^3)
then:
dT = [alpha] ln ( [CO2] / [CO2] orig) / 4 [sigma] T^3)
where alpha is a constant for “radiative efficiency” = 5.35 for CO2
and sigma is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant = 5.6705E-08
A doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560 ppmv,
And substituting T = 15 degrees C = 288.16K
dT = 5.35 ln (560 / 280) / (4 *5.6705E-08 * (288.16^3))
or
dT = 0.6833 centigrade for a doubling of CO2
where the radiative forcing of doubling CO2 is equal to:
5.35 ln (560 / 280) or 3.71 W/m^2
IPCC says that CO2 has increased from 280 to 381 ppmv to date, resulting in a radiative forcing of 1.66 W/m^2, while methane has increased from 715 to 1774 ppbv, resulting in a RF of 0.48 W/m^2 (IPCC uses a different formula for calculating the greenhouse impact of methane than they do for CO2, but that’s the RF they calculate).
This means CO2 has theoretically caused an increase in temperature of around 0.3C and methane 0.1C to date (from 1750 to 2005).
And if CO2 really increases to 560 ppmv by 2100, that adds another 0.4C and methane, if it doubles again, adds another 0.1C by 2100.
That’s the greenhouse theory (be it right or wrong). Everything else is models, feedbacks and hype.
You are right that methane is “more potent” on a concentration basis than CO2, since it is measured in ppbv (parts per billion by volume) while CO2 is measured in ppmv (parts per million by volume).
But your key observation is “but then again you can’t tax people for forests can you?”
You are spot on. That’s the REAL difference.
Max

To put the whole Climate Change issue into perspective vis-a-vis the Peak Oil Crisis, everyone needs to ask themselves, their associates, all sitting elected officials and those seeking office, especially the office of President of the United States, “What is more threatening in both the long and short terms, a beneficial 1 degree F rise in average world temperatures over the past 100 years, or a 1 percent decline in world oil production over the last 100 weeks – with steepening declines forecast? Furthermore, can our economy better deal with declining fuel inventories in an environment of persistent warming, or in an environment of declining average temperatures over the next several decades, the most likely scenario given the highly reliable solar inertial motion (SIM) model forecasts of climate change?” Solar cycle # 24 will tell the tale. The problem is not AGW. The problem is the end of cyclical warming coincident with the onset of Peak Oil.