This article from NASA’s Earth Observatory came up in a reply prompted by one of Gore’s “presenters” who comment bombed a previous thread. I thought it interesting to present here because while Arrhenius is in fact credited with the CO2 LW trapping discovery, he also later went on to say that the end result be beneficial. This is something Gore’s “trained presenters” don’t mention in their AIT presentations. See the last paragraph. – Anthony (h/t to Tom in Florida)
A hundred years ago, Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius asked the important question “Is the mean temperature of the ground in any way influenced by the presence of the heat-absorbing gases in the atmosphere?” He went on to become the first person to investigate the effect that doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide would have on global climate. The question was debated throughout the early part of the 20th century and is still a main concern of Earth scientists today.
Ironically, Arrhenius’ education and training were not in climate research, but rather electrochemistry. His doctoral thesis on the chemical theory of electrolytes in 1884 was initially regarded as mediocre by his examination committee, but later was heralded as an important work regarding the theory of affinity. In 1891, Arrhenius was a founder and the first secretary of the Stockholm Physical Society, a group of scientists whose interests included geology, meteorology, and astronomy. His association with this society would later help stimulate his interests in cosmic physics-the physics of the Earth, sea, and atmosphere. In 1903, Arrhenius was awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry for his work on the electrolytic theory of dissociation. In the years following his international recognition, Arrhenius lectured throughout Europe and was elected to numerous scientific societies.
Arrhenius did very little research in the fields of climatology and geophysics, and considered any work in these fields a hobby. His basic approach was to apply knowledge of basic scientific principles to make sense of existing observations, while hypothesizing a theory on the cause of the “Ice Age.” Later on, his geophysical work would serve as a catalyst for the work of others.
In 1895, Arrhenius presented a paper to the Stockholm Physical Society titled, “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground.” This article described an energy budget model that considered the radiative effects of carbon dioxide (carbonic acid) and water vapor on the surface temperature of the Earth, and variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. In order to proceed with his experiments, Arrhenius relied heavily on the experiments and observations of other scientists, including Josef Stefan, Arvid Gustaf Högbom, Samuel Langley, Leon Teisserenc de Bort, Knut Angstrom, Alexander Buchan, Luigi De Marchi, Joseph Fourier, C.S.M. Pouillet, and John Tyndall.
Arrhenius argued that variations in trace constituents—namely carbon dioxide—of the atmosphere could greatly influence the heat budget of the Earth. Using the best data available to him (and making many assumptions and estimates that were necessary), he performed a series of calculations on the temperature effects of increasing and decreasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere. His calculations showed that the “temperature of the Arctic regions would rise about 8 degrees or 9 degrees Celsius, if the carbonic acid increased 2.5 to 3 times its present value. In order to get the temperature of the ice age between the 40th and 50th parallels, the carbonic acid in the air should sink to 0.62 to 0.55 of present value (lowering the temperature 4 degrees to 5 degrees Celsius).”
During the next ten years, Arrhenius continued his work on the effects of carbon dioxide on climate, and published a two-volume technical book titled Lehrbuch der kosmischen Physik in 1903; but this work was not widely read, as it was a textbook for a discipline that did not yet exist. A few years later, Arrhenius published Worlds in the Making, a non-technical book that reached a greater audience. In this book Arrhenius first describes the “hot-house theory ”of the atmosphere, stating that the Earth’s temperature is about 30 degrees warmer than it would be due to the“ heat-protection action of gases contained in the atmosphere,”a theory based on ideas developed by Fourier, Pouillet, and (especially) Tyndall. His calculations demonstrated that if the atmosphere had no carbon dioxide, the surface temperature of the Earth would fall about 21 degrees Celsius, and that this cooler atmosphere would contain less water vapor, resulting in an additional temperature decrease of approximately 10 degrees Celsius. It is important to note that Arrhenius was not very concerned with rising carbon dioxide levels at the time, but rather was attempting to find an explanation for high latitude temperature changes that could be attributed to the onset of the ice ages and interglacial periods.
By 1904, Arrhenius became concerned with rapid increases in anthropogenic carbon emissions and recognized that “the slight percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere may, by the advances of industry, be changed to a noticeable degree in the course of a few centuries.” He eventually made the suggestion that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide due to the burning of fossil fuels could be beneficial, making the Earth’s climates “more equable,” stimulating plant growth, and providing more food for a larger population. This view differs radically from current concerns over the harmful effects of a global warming caused by industrial emissions and deforestation. Until about 1960, most scientists dismissed the notion as implausible that humans could significantly affect average global temperatures. Today, however, we know that carbon dioxide levels have risen about 25 percent—a rate much faster than Arrhenius first predicted—and average global temperatures have risen about 0.5 degrees Celsius.
Internet References
Svante August Arrhenius, The Electronic Nobel Museum
Print References
Fleming, James Rodger, 1998: Historical Perspectives on Climate Change, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 194 pp.
Smokey says:
Ah, the delicious irony of you using the term “ad hominem attacks” to describe a rather balanced statement in regards to Lindzen (in which I called him “a very accomplished atmospheric scientist”) in the same sentence when you twice use the denigrating term “alarmist” to describe the point of view of those who agree with the conclusions of the IPCC, the NAS and analogous bodies in all the other G8+5 nations!!!
By the way, have you also failed to notice all of the ad hominems in this thread going in the other direction, such as this from Mike Bryant?:
tokyoboy says:
This blog article contains graphs showing the behavior both for the case of a greenhouse gas forcing and for the case of a solar forcing: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/ As you can see, what it shows is that the amplification of the temperature trend as one goes up in the tropical atmosphere is a more general prediction than just due to the mechanism of increased CO2. In fact, it is a quite general consequence of what is called “moist adiabatic lapse rate theory” and is predicted not only for the multidecadal temperature trends but also for temperature fluctuations such as those that occur on yearly timescales.
And, as Santer et al (2005) showed, this amplification is seen for the case of those fluctuations. Whether or not it is seen for the multidecadal trends is difficult to determine because of well-known issues with the radiosonde and satellite data that can contaminate these trends. For example, while you mention the UAH satellite record, using the RSS satellite record gives very different results. And, for radiosondes you can also essentially get any result that you want depending on which data re-analysis you look at.
It is worth noting that one distinct difference in those plots that I linked to above for solar vs GHG forcing is the behavior in the stratosphere where solar forcing would predict warming and GHG forcing would predict cooling. The data in fact show cooling (and, because of the greater signal-to-noise, this result is robust to issues of artifacts in the data). The story is complicated somewhat by the fact that the effect of ozone depletion is also expected to be responsible for some cooling in the stratosphere. However, as I understand it, both the magnitude and vertical structure of the cooling in the stratosphere are not compatible with this cooling being due to ozone depletion alone.
Joel Shore is, as usual, arguing with everyone here — and using the wannabe-important Realclimate censoring blog as backup ‘authority’. Please. Realclimate doesn’t matter.
May I suggest that Joel cease linking to Realclimate here — until that blog stops censoring any uncomfortable/inconvenient posts? Censorship is never pretty, and the odious Gavin Schmidt constantly deletes polite but uncomfortable posts. He has no real confidence in his climate alarmist position, if he feels that he must censor different points of view.
Shore’s argument comes down to every climate alarmist’s argument: that an increase in the necessary and beneficial trace gas CO2 will result in runaway global warming. But where’s the real world evidence?
CO2 concentrations have been well above 7,000 ppmv, compared with today’s ~380 ppmv, and there was never runaway global warming triggered by CO2 in the past. Therefore, CO2 is inconsequential. QED.
To Shore I say: I’m a skeptic. So prove it. Prove, or at least show with convincing, empirical evidence, that an increase in a very minor trace gas will trigger runaway global warming, leading to climate catastrophe. Because that is the hypothesis that alarmists are trying to scare the populace with.
So far, Shore, and every other climate alarmist, has completely failed to to explain why the planet is cooling at the same time that CO2 levels are rising — except to claim that models show that global warming causes global cooling… Ri-i-i-i-i-ght.
I want a credible explanation, using solid, real world evidence [not the always wrong models, or grant-seeking papers culled from a search engine], why the climate is cooling while CO2 is rising.
Everything else is deliberate obfuscation.
tokyoboy (01:57:55) : “May I ask someone to lead me to a colorful drawing, obtained from computer simulation, which shows that the atomosphere above the tropical region and at a height around 10 km is to undergo most pronounced warming due to increased CO2, according to the AGW theory.”
Best place is IPCC Report AR4, chapter 9, page 675, Fig 9.1 panels (c) wellmixed greenhouse gases and (f) all forcings.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf
You are welcome to use anything from my document on the subject (but make sure you check everything to your own satisfaction first)
http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/TheScientificCaseAgainstAGW9.doc
Seems to me that there may be more mileage from the difference between troposphere and surface than just troposphere alone, since there is some warming in the troposphere even if only minimal.
“No, what I am doing … is just briefly[sic] explaining why George E. Smith’s learned expositions do not trump the expositions and research findings of those who have spent decades studying these issues.”
Now what all the drive-by, gawker traffic cannot fail to notice as Joel casts heaps scorn on Miskolczi and Lindzen who are not present, and limp backhand compliments to accomplished engineers who are is that young Shore never addresses their science with derivations of his own.
He only offers manifestly fallacious appeals to authority, multiplying words into a monotonic drone like the mosquitos of an early summer’s eve.
This proclivity reeks poseur and passes no one’s smell test.
Nasif Nahle (18:51:14) :
Do you agree alpha = 5.35 W/m^2 is not constant?
Clear alpha from the algorithm taking deltaT = 6 K (deltaT deduced by Arrhenius) and tell me what the value of alpha you obtained.
I don’t really under stand you. Alpha is a constant, T is not a constant. This is my equation::
The effect of CO2 on temperature is the Arrhenius law.
dE=[alpha]ln([CO2]/[CO2}orig), where alpha is 5.35 (Myhre et al.)
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm
E is change in forcing
using the derivative of Stefan-Boltzmann:
dT/dE = 1/(4[sigma] T^3)
gets:
dT=[alpha]ln([CO2]/[CO2}orig)/(4[sigma] T^3)
This is the equation without all feedbacks.
The blackbody equilibrium temperature for incoming radiation is -18 degreesC
Applying this to the Myhre Stefan-Boltzmann equation yields:
T= -18 degreesC = 255.15K
dT=5.35ln2/(4*5.6705E-08*(255.15^3))
or
dT=0.9843 centigrade for a doubling of CO2
http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/howmuch.htm
Joel Shore (04:04:08) :
Nasif Nahle says:
In 2007, Schwartz found that the climate sensitivity equivalent to equilibrium temperature for doubling CO2 is 0.6 to 1.6 K. It’s not too different from Arrhenius’ deduction of α, though Schwartz amplified the range. α depends on partial pressure and emissivity of CO2 and it refers to flux of energy.
And in 2008, in response to comments on his original paper (see http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/pubs/BNL-80226-2008-JA.pdf ), Schwartz updated his estimate of the sensitivity to be between 0.9 to 2.9 C which, while still on the low side of most estimates, does have a considerable amount of overlap with the IPCC “likely” range of 2 to 4.5 C.
Yes, he did it. In his amended paper he concludes:
This upward revision results in an increase in climate sensitivity ls1 to 0.51 ± 0.26 K/(W/m^2), corresponding to an equilibrium temperature
increase for doubled CO2 DT2 = 1.9 ± 1.0 K….. The value of the climate system sensitivity determined by the empirical approach of S07, revised as presented here, is more consistent with the best estimate of this sensitivity presented by the recent assessment report of the IPCC [2007], DT2 = 3.0 (+1.5/1) K (66% probability) than the value given by S07, ls1 = 0.30 ± 0.14 K/(W m2), corresponding to DT2= 1.1 ± 0.5 K.
It seems they got the idea and look for evidence to sustain the idea. Science doesn’t work this way but on the opposite one. He says also that he used unbiased empirical data; however, it’s quite clear that he gave for a fact that only the CO2 in the atmosphere was the cause of the fluctuations of temperature during the lapse he considered to make his study.
However, if we consider the real unbiased empirical data, the climate sensitivity derived exclusively from doubling of CO2 is quite low: 0.08 K ± 0.01 K.
“only the CO2 in the atmosphere was the cause of the fluctuations of temperature during the lapse he considered to make his study.”
I concur. Early in his paper, in the area called the study’s motivation, a stated assumption: All of the observed warming is assumed due to the increase CO2.
Joel, you’ve been corrected on this very item before. What gives?
Hans Erren (07:52:52) :
Nasif Nahle (18:51:14) :
Do you agree alpha = 5.35 W/m^2 is not constant?
Clear alpha from the algorithm taking deltaT = 6 K (deltaT deduced by Arrhenius) and tell me what the value of alpha you obtained.
I don’t really under stand you. Alpha is a constant, T is not a constant. This is my equation::
Yes, that’s the way I use the formula also. The point where you and I disagree is on that alpha is a constant. Alpha changes as Pp of CO2 changes, thus it’s not a constant.
Alpha is Total Emittancy, and as it is TE, then it changes as emissivity, mass, Cp and Pp change. Given this state of things, alpha is not a constant.
Clearing up α:
α = ∆T/ [Ln2 /4 (σ) (K^3)]
Here we have two variables: ∆T and CO2 concentration. If ∆T changes, so α will change. If [CO2] changes, α changes. However, if we clear up σ, it would’t change if we introduce real values for α, ∆T and [CO2].
We can use the same algorithm for calculating ∆T under other conditions, for example, at the current concentration of CO2; however, to get a real value for α, we must take into account, unavoidably, the partial pressure of the atmospheric CO2.
If we assume α is constant, we would be in complete disagreement with heat transfer science. Consider the following equation taken from Manrique. Heat Transfer. 2002. Oxford University Press:
α = ePp * σ * T ^4
The term ePp is for “emissivity reliant on Partial pressure”.
Applying the formula on empirical conditions:
α = ePp * σ * T ^4
α = ?
ePp = 0.001 (emissivity at current Pp of CO2 = 0.00034 atm
σ = 0.000000056697 W/m^2 K^4
T ^4 = 300.15 K (T on August 14, 2007)
α = 0.001* 0.000000056697 W/m^2 K^4 * (300.15 K)^4 = 0.46
Now let’s apply the formula for calculating ∆T:
∆T = (α) (Ln 2 [CO2]) / 4 (σ) (K^3)
∆T = (0.460 W/m^2 * 0.693) / 3.77 W/m^2 K = 0.08 K
The value 5.35 W/m^2 is equivalent to α if CO2 Pp was more than ten times higher than it actually is (i.e. 0.0034 atm); the latter assumption would match with a percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere higher than 0.34. The current percentage of atmospheric CO2 is 0.034.
gary gulrud:
Actually, I don’t recall being “corrected” on that before and, furthermore, I actually think that you and Nasif are not correct on that point. At the very least, could you please show me where Schwartz claimed that he made this assumption? It is not a necessary assumption from what I understand of his methodology…and, in fact, it would appear to be in conflict with the last paragraph of his original paper ( http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/pubs/BNL-79148-2007-JA.pdf ) where he used what he had derived to calculate an estimate of the net forcings his result implies and then commented on how that value compares to the forcing due to GHGs alone and what this then implies regarding aerosol or other forcings.
Secondly, Nasif…not I…was the one who was pointing to Schwartz. I was just pointing out the most current climate sensitivity estimate from him after others had a chance to point out faults with his work. I am not claiming that Schwartz’s estimate is perfect…and, in fact, I imagine some of the scientists who critiqued his method would argue that his estimate of the time constant, and hence of the climate sensitivity, is still biased low.
gary gulrud:
The point is that both Miskolczi and Lindzen (in various different ways) challenge the prevailing scientific understanding. I gave a link to an explanation of what rendered Miskolczi’s theory hopelessly flawed (and commented myself on one of the points there). As for Lindzen, Chris Colose has a good explanation of the problems with his most recent post here.
The reason I don’t present “derivations of [my] own” is because I am not challenging the prevailing scientific understanding which is summarized elsewhere. By all means, if you think yourself another Albert Einstein then go ahead and come up with your own theory of climate. However, I am under no such illusions about myself and hence prefer the prevailing scientific view, after having found most of the challenges to it to be quite clearly fallacious.
Smokey says:
Correct science is not decided by a popularity contest on the web, nor is it determined by seeing which site censors the fewest comments. (I have complimented Anthony before on his relatively open and fair policies, although I am certainly not without my complaints in how he…or other moderators…have exercised their authority to delete my comments or parts of my comments, just as “skeptics” who post comments over at RealClimate are not without their complaints.)
Rather, it is decided by the scientific process as it plays itself out in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
You are misusing the term “runaway” again. Almost no scientists (except Hansen for certain extreme circumstances) is arguing that there will be a runaway effect. Rather, the scientific consensus is that a doubling of CO2 will likely lead to a rise in the global mean temperature of about 2 to 4.5 C.
As for evidence from the past, you may want to look at what scientists who actually study past climates have learned from that study. Here is a paper in Science that addresses this question and gives this summary of their conclusions http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;306/5697/821 :
Joel Shore:
BZ-Z-Z-Z-ZT!! WRONG.
The prevailing scientific view is not what you purport it to be. You are misrepresenting the situation. Here, let me help:
“No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperatures changes are a consequence of natural variability.”
~Dr. Roy Spencer
That has been the prevailing scientific view since before you were born. And no AGW/CO2 challenge has ever been able to falsify the theory of natural climate variability. In order to do so, any new hypothesis must explain reality better than the current theory. The AGW/CO2 hypothesis clearly fails.
We all know that computer models were not able to predict this past winter’s severity. At all. None of them did. They are all wrong, all of them: click
By pretending that the repeatedly falsified AGW/CO2 conjecture is the ‘prevailing scientific view,’ you are being as mendacious as all the other climate alarmists who suffer continuous bouts of projection and cognitive dissonance. In fact, it is you who are unable to falsify the long-accepted theory of natural climate variability with your failed AGW/CO2 alarmist hypothesis, which cannot predict the future, and so is worthless. It is a scam. Its purpose is to garner grant money and to raise taxes.
But as a hypothesis, AGW/CO2 cannot explain reality [unless the latest goal-post move, claiming the ridiculous “global warming causes global cooling” is invoked]. Therefore, the hypothesis fails.
.
In the novel 1984, Orwell’s protagonist,
Joel ShoreWinston Smith, wonders if the State might declare that“the AGW/CO2 hypothesis”“two plus two equals five” is a fact; he ponders whether, if everybody believes in it, does that make it true?Joel Shore (13:21:57):
I was just pointing out the most current climate sensitivity estimate from him after others had a chance to point out faults with his work.
In my last post on this thread, I’ve given a comprehensive explanation on why α has been incorrectly calculated by Arrhenius, Schwartz, the IPCC, etc. I’ve also explained why it cannot be considered a constant. Now try to find errors, flaws, biases, etc. in my calculations, if any exists.
Regarding Schwartz assumption, you don’t need to read in on bold lines, just see what’s the main actor in his writings.
I won’t participate on semantic debates of the Sod’s kind because I’m not a linguistic, but only on clarifications related to science.
Joel Shore (13:41:31),
Don’t be duplicitous. You know very well that if the climate alarmist contingent said that a few degrees rise in temperature was benign, there would be no money in it.
So they must alarm the populace with their incessant, high-pitched warnings of climate catastrophe.
See, your spin doesn’t work here. We’re knowledgeable. This isn’t the Weekly World News, and I don’t know of a single skeptic you’ve ever converted in hundreds of impotent posts.
BTW, I subscribed to the AAAS journal Science for over twenty years. It’s interesting that in the mid to late 1990’s, Science began advocating for the AGW/CO2 side. It became very noticeable. This was before both points of view had access to sites like the “Best Science” site WUWT, where all the facts could come out. Science used to be a good resource. Now, they advocate under the guise of [corrupted] peer review.
It costs a lot of money every year to subscribe to Science. Over $100 a year, last I checked. Eventually I decided I didn’t need to pay for propaganda, and I let my subscription lapse. But I saw the change, and Science no longer has credibility with me. Now they have an agenda.
I meant to comment on this point…Smokey says:
For the same reason that you can find weeks here in Rochester in, say, April where the temperature is cooling despite that fact that the seasonal cycle predicts that we should be warming at this time of year. The technical statement is that when you have a signal that consists of a slow trend with some random “noise” (i.e., variability) superimposed, then one will only obtain an accurate measure of the underlying trend if one looks over a long enough period of time that the noise is no longer such a dominant component. This is also easy to demonstrate with artificial data sets and is also such periods of cooling are also seen in the very same climate models that are used to in the projections of the climate under rising CO2 levels (e.g., see here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/langswitch_lang/in ).
Smokey says:
Indeed…They do have an agenda, which is to publish and advocate for the best science. I am sure that you would find that they are not neutral in the evolution vs intelligent design debate either.
Joel Shore: “They do have an agenda, which is to publish and advocate for the best science.”
*cough* horsemanure *cough* Heh. You’re young, aren’t you? And naive. You just go on believing that ‘publishing the best science’ is at the top of their list. And if you clap your hands, Tinkerbell will live!
Joel Shore (04:24:56) & Mike Jonas (05:47:34)
Thanks for your prompt guiding me to the point.
I’ll use the drawing today (16 April, 13:40-14:15 JST).
Nasif says:
I don’t understand what you are saying here. You seem to be saying the because Schwartz talks, like all climate scientists, talks about the effects of CO2, his calculation of the climate sensitivity is somehow assuming that it is the main actor. This statement is wrong. His calculation makes no such assumption. Instead, it determines the heat capacity by looking at the rise in heat content in the oceans over the years vs the rise in global mean surface temperature. It determine the time constant of the system by looking at autocorrelations in the global surface mean temperature. It then takes the quotient of these numbers to determine a climate sensitivity in terms of temperature rise per W/m^2 of forcing. And, finally, it uses the value for the W/m^2 of forcing produced by a doubling of CO2 (a value accepted even by skeptical scientists like Lindzen and Spencer) to get the climate sensitivity for a doubling in CO2. There are no assumptions made by him about what is causing the rise in the temperature and ocean heat content.
As for your own calculations, they seem to consist of grabbing random equations from the literature and misapplying them. I am not surprised you get the wrong answer.
Joel Shore (06:19:35):
As for your own calculations, they seem to consist of grabbing random equations from the literature and misapplying them. I am not surprised you get the wrong answer.
I’m applying quite common algorithms from heat transfer science. My algorithms can be found in all books on heat transfer. It’s amazing that you have not read them from your 101 Physics books, or you didn’t learn them at high school.
How many formulas are for each mode of heat transfer, besides the algorithms I have used in my articles?
On the other hand, Schwarts paper is all about doubling CO2. He didn’t make a single calculation taking into account physical boundaries. Schwartz work was trying to justify a constant which was exaggerated by the IPCC. Show my algorithm to any physicist you know, and see how I applied real science, not AGW “pseudoscience”.
I’m sorry, but you talk only because you have a mouth. You’ve not shown a single scientific rebuttal to any of my calculations.
Given that you cannot sustain a scientific debate, I do finish my interventions on this topic.
Nasif says:
I have been a teaching assistant for introductory physics courses and have seen how students take formulas and misapply them, as you have here. It is not enough simply to scribble down some formulas and plug in some numbers. You have to explain in words the meaning of the calculation that you are doing (and how that relates to the physics of the problem you are solving), what that calculation is assuming, and whether these assumptions are reasonable. You have done none of that.
Your calculation is wrong for the following basic reasons:
(1) It doesn’t appear to go beyond the direct effects due to CO2 to include feedback effects. The whole difficulty of calculating the climate sensitivity is not calculating the direct effect of the increase in CO2 but rather calculating how feedback effects (such as changes in the concentration of water vapor, in clouds, and in the earth’s albedo due to the melting of ice) modify the result. From what I can tell, you do not address that at all.
(2) Even for just the direct effect, your result is nowhere close to the accepted value (which is somewhere around 0.9 to 1.2 C) of doubling CO2, i.e., this is the accepted value before feedback effects. This calculation basically follows directly from applying the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation to the radiative transfer problem of the earth-sun system with the incorporation of the forcing of ~4 W/m^2 that results from doubling of CO2 levels. This result for the forcing is obtained from radiative transfer calculations of the atmosphere and accepted by essentially all serious climate scientists, including ones like Spencer and Lindzen who disagree with the consensus (because they believe that net feedback effects are negative rather than positive).
Well yes, Schwartz’s paper is all about doubling CO2 because the definition of climate sensitivity is the amount of global temperature rise that occurs due to a doubling of CO2. (Although, he actually calculates the more fundamental quantity of change in temperature change due to any radiative forcing and then uses the known value for the radiative forcing due to CO2 to determine the climate sensitivity to a doubling.) However, his calculation (which is not without its problems, as I have noted above) makes no assumption about what the rise in temperature and ocean heat content over the last century (that he uses to derive this climate sensitivity) has been due to.
Fine, I just showed it to myself. I have a PhD in physics from one of the top universities in the U.S. and, while radiative transfer is not my particular specialty, I have in fact done radiative transfer calculations in my real-life job. What exactly is your background that makes you so confident that you have applied the equations correctly and everybody else hasn’t?
Joel Shore (12:24:50):
Words and more words… No one scientific demonstration on why my work is wrong.
Do you know the emissivity, the total emittancy, the absorptancy, the partial pressure of CO2? If you knew those thermal characteristics of CO2, you would not talking as you are.
You are clearly saying that Peixoto is wrong in his book on Physics of Climate, besides the other authors of books, articles, etc.