Estimated CO2 Warming Cut By 65%
Submitted by Doug L. Hoffman, Resilient Earth via ICECAP
Any competent researcher involved with the science behind climate change will admit that CO2 is far from the only influence on global climate. It has long been known that short-lived greenhouse gases and black-carbon aerosols have contributed to past climate warming. Though the IPCC and their fellow travelers have tried to place the blame for global warming on human CO2 emissions, decades of lies and erroneous predictions have discredited that notion. For anyone still clinging to the CO2 hypothesis, a short perspective article on the uncertainty surrounding climate change in Nature Geoscience has put paid to that notion. It states that not only did other factors account for 65% of the radiative forcing usually attributed to carbon dioxide, but that it is impossible to accurately determine climate sensitivity given the state of climate science.
In “Short-lived uncertainty?” Joyce E. Penner et al. note that several short-lived atmospheric pollutants – such as methane, tropospheric ozone precursors and black-carbon aerosols – contribute to atmospheric warming while others, particularly scattering aerosols, cool the climate. Figuring out exactly how great the impacts of these other forcings are can radically change the way historical climate change is interpreted. So great is the uncertainty that the IPCC’s future climate predictions, which are all based on biased assumptions about climate sensitivity, are most certainly untrustworthy. As stated in the article:
It is at present impossible to accurately determine climate sensitivity (defined as the equilibrium warming in response to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations) from past records, partly because carbon dioxide and short-lived species have increased together over the industrial era. Warming over the past 100 years is consistent with high climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide combined with a large cooling effect from short-lived aerosol pollutants, but it could equally be attributed to a low climate sensitivity coupled with a small effect from aerosols. These two possibilities lead to very different projections for future climate change.
All truthful climate researchers know these facts, yet publicly the party line is that catastrophic changes are in the offing and CO2 emissions are to blame. The perspective authors argue that only by significantly changing the amounts of these other pollutants and carefully measuring the impact on global climate over a period of several decades will science be able to figure out what is going on. “Following this strategy, we will then be able to disentangle the warming and cooling contributions from carbon dioxide and short-lived pollutants, hence placing much tighter constraints on climate sensitivity, and therefore on future climate projections,” they state. See chart below, enlarged here.
And they said it was all carbon dioxide’s fault.
Most of the factors under discussion have relatively short lifetimes in the atmosphere, several less than two months. We do not know how the relative influences of these various substances (referred to by climate scientists as “species”) may change in a warming climate. It is also not clear how to reduce short-lived species under present conditions but the uncertainties in atmospheric chemistry and physics must be resolved if Earth’s environmental system is to be understood. Again quoting from the paper:
Of the short-lived species, methane, tropospheric ozone and black carbon are key contributors to global warming, augmenting the radiative forcing of carbon dioxide by 65%. Others – such as sulphate, nitrate and organic aerosols – cause a negative radiative forcing, offsetting a fraction of the warming owing to carbon dioxide. Yet other short-lived species, such as nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds, can modify the abundance of both the climate-warming and climate-cooling compounds, and thereby affect climate change.
Quantifying the combined impact of short-lived species on Earth’s radiative forcing is complex. Short-lived pollutants – particularly those with an atmospheric lifetime of less than two months – tend to be poorly mixed, and concentrate close to their sources. This uneven distribution, combined with physical and chemical heterogeneities in the atmosphere, means that the impact of short-lived species on radiative forcing can vary by more than a factor of ten with location or time of emission. The situation is further complicated by nonlinear chemical reactions between short-lived species in polluted areas, as well as by the interactions of clouds with aerosols and ozone. These processes add further uncertainty to the estimates of radiative forcing.
Unfortunately, climate models neither accurately deal with local effects of these pollutants nor are the complex interactions among these substances understood. That not withstanding, the report is clear – CO2 does not account for even a majority of the warming seen over the past century. If other species accounted for 65% of historical warming that leaves only 35% for carbon dioxide. This, strangely enough, is in line with calculations based strictly on known atmospheric physics, calculations not biased by the IPCC’s hypothetical and bastardized “feedbacks.”
Of course, the real reason for the feedbacks was to allow almost all global warming to be attributed to CO2. This, in turn, would open the door for radical social and economic policies, allowing them to be enacted in the name of saving the world from global warming. The plain truth is that even climate scientists know that the IPCC case was a political witch’s brew concocted by UN bureaucrats, NGOs, grant money hungry scientists and fringe activists.
Now, after three decades of sturm und drang over climate policy, the truth has emerged – scientists have no idea of how Earth’s climate will change in the future because they don’t know why it changed in the past. Furthermore, it will take decades of additional study to gain a useful understand climate change. To do this, climate scientists will need further funding. Too bad the climate science community squandered any public trust it may have had by trying to frighten people with a lie.
Be safe, enjoy the interglacial and stay skeptical. Read full post here.
Icecap Note: Whatsmore, this totally ignores the other external and internal global factors like solar, ocean multidecadal cycles related to variations in the thermohaline circulation or ocean gyres.
=============================================================
Here is the paper at Nature Geosciences:
Short-lived uncertainty?
Joyce E. Penner1, Michael J. Prather2, Ivar S. A. Isaksen3,4, Jan S. Fuglestvedt4, Zbigniew Klimont5 & David S. Stevenson6
- University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-2143, USA
- University of California, Irvine, California 92697, USA
- University of Oslo, PO Box 1022, Blindern, 0315 Oslo, Norway
- Center for International Climate and Environmental Research (CICERO) Oslo, PO Box 1129 Blindern, 0318 Oslo, Norway
- International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Schlossplatz 1, 2361 Laxenburg, Austria
- School of Geosciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JN, UK.
Correspondence to: Joyce E. Penner1 e-mail: penner@umich.edu
Abstract
Short-lived greenhouse gases and black-carbon aerosols have contributed to past climate warming. Curbing their emissions and quantifying the forcing by all short-lived components could both mitigate climate change in the short term and help to refine projections of global warming.
Earth’s climate can only be stabilized by bringing carbon dioxide emissions under control in the twenty-first century. But rolling back anthropogenic emissions of several short-lived atmospheric pollutants that lead to warming — such as methane, tropospheric ozone precursors and black-carbon aerosols — could significantly reduce the rate of climate warming over the next few decades1, 2, 3.
> “measured proofs”
Henry, you really should consider reviewing the IPCC’s discussion on ozone. You can evaluate for yourself the evidence they provide in the AR4 for how they arrive at the numbers and the error bars for both its heating and cooling effects. Unfortunately the depth of the questions you have will not be addressed in the easily linkable summaries, but the appropriate level of discussion (with research evidence cites) can be found in the PDF download.
In the case of ozone the appropriate discussion is in Section 2.3.6.(1&2) appropriately named “Ozone”. You will find it here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf
(PDF warning: Chapter 2 is about 100 pages although the ozone discussion is only a few pages long.
“I am not sure about that. I think this is not following the principles of light. Light has to keep moving. It cannot stand still to convert to heat. My idea has always been:
light hits on the molecule from a certain direction (either sun or earth), is absorbed at certain wavelengths until filled (if the spectra of the molecule shows absorptions or absorptive regions), and is then re-emitted in all directions, including (50 -62,5%) back in the direction where it came from. So once filled it seems to me the molecule acts like a little round mirror, at that specific wavelength where it absorbs.”
This a bit too simple. Firstly light can easily convert to heat (hold your hand in front of an electric radiator for proof). Secondly molecules can act like little mirrors, but they do not always do so. You are dealing with quantum mechanics here – the same event (the arrival of a photon) can have several different outcomes. The photon could simply be reflected (elastic scattering), or it could absorbed and a photon of a slightly different frequency emitted (inelastic scattering) , or it could be absorbed and transformed into thermal energy. The latter occurs because when IR is absorbed it activates the vibrational modes of the molecule i.e the nuclei move about with greater kinetic energy. If another molecule collides with this activated molecule then the energy can be transferred into kinetic energy of the first molecule i.e it gains thermal energy. This delays the ultimate radiation of energy out of the atmosphere and is an important part of the greenhouse effect – it is called collisional deactivation if you want to look it up.
You are asking for quantitative information, but you have to get the qualitative description correct first so you know what the real questions are.
>>”The latter occurs because when IR is absorbed it activates the vibrational modes of the molecule i.e the nuclei move about with greater kinetic energy.”
Cool animation for the 4 vibrational modes of CO2 (scroll past the SO2 animation):
http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEWWW/articles/www0001/index.html
Jimi:
Firstly light can easily convert to heat (hold your hand in front of an electric radiator for proof).
Henry@jimi
Well, let us stop right there. I think that is not correct. Heat is light but just at a higher wavelength. That is why we built infra red ovens to dry paint. Here in Africa you cannot stand in the sun for longer than 10 minutes because of the heat on your skin. This is because the sun also emits infra red (heat).
Wait for a very damp, moist morning and watch the sun come up. Look around you and see how the light just seems to be everywhere. Then you can see what is really happening when absorption takes place. (because water vapor also absorbs a bit in the visible area)
Just for reference: Light consists of photons. I believe photons transfer most of the energy emitted from the surface of the sun. Heat is kinetic or motional energy primarily manifested as random high-frequency (extreme extra-sonic) vibration in solids and liquids. In each case we are talking of interchangeable forms of energy.
The energy of a photon is equal to the product of Planck’s constant, h, and the frequency of the photon. Thus the high frequency photons of visible light carry more effective heat energy per photon that infra-red photons. A 0.5 micron photon of green light has 30 times the energy of a 15 micron CO2 emission photon.
So:
It seems all the clever guys are here now. I appreciate your comments and your patience. But it is now up to us. Together.
We may differ of opinion slightly as to the exact processes involved
which probably may have something to do with the fact that I was educated 40 years ahead of you
but the 2 real questions remain:
how much warming is caused by CO2 by the trapping of radiation from earth between 14-15 um
and how much cooling is caused by CO2 by the re-radiating of sunshine at various wavelenghts between 0 and 5 um, as per the evidence of that whole absorption spectrum of CO2 coming back from the moon
I am probably the only scientist in South Africa sceptical of global warming being caused by CO2
See
http://letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
but I cannot prove anything without some actual results from measurements.
Now, let us say you were in charge to design an experiment that would prove conclusively that the net effect of an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is warming or cooling, how would you do it?
MODTRAN raw CO2 effect results seem to indicate that the 350 org people might have a point if they changed the name of their organization to 3500 org or 6800 org which would set their limit of concern at the point where 31 to 64 times more anthropogenic CO2 has been added to the atmosphere as we have just added in the last 100 years. I believe these MODTRAN results are based on out-going surface radiation absorption only and do not account for the convective and reflective cooling capacity of H2O in the troposphere.
Spector says:
“Thus the high frequency photons of visible light carry more effective heat energy per photon than infra-red photons. A 0.5 micron photon of green light has 30 times the energy of a 15 micron CO2 emission photon.”
I thought it was the opposite: the longer the wavelength, the hotter (on your skin).
If this (what Spector says) is true then in my mind the balance would shift towards an increase in CO2 causing cooling rather warming. At best warming and cooling could be more or less equal. But the final test has to give us results in Watts/m2/m3 (relevant conc. CO2 in 80/20 nitrogen/oxygen)/24 hours or month
In our test method, I think we must try and keep water (vapor) out if it, as water is not distributed equal in the atmosphere as is CO2 and so it just confuses everything.
oh, come on you guys! Surely the first part of the problem (experiment),
that is to determine how much warming is caused by CO2, (in the relevant range),
is not that difficult?
How about a 5000 liter vessel, which has a circular bottom (exactly 1 m2), which can be heated via electrical heating below, so that measured amounts of energy can be released into the vessel. Convection in the vessel is provided by a small blower, engine outside the vessel. Temperature outside the vessel must be kept very constant. We have calibrated probes at various places inside the vessel connected to temp. recorders outside the vessel. You flush the vessel with pure 80/20 N2/O2. Your base (blancs, blanco) is the increase in the area in your temperature curves when succesive measured amounts of energy are released into a pure 80/20 nitrogen/ oxygen medium.
We now add 100 ppm CO2 and do our first series of tests and carry on adding lots of CO2 at a time untill we reach 1000 ppm or even more. Obviously we now look at the differences in the curves when compared to the blancs that are caused by the succesive additions of CO2 (when the same amounts of energy were released).
In the end, I’m sure that from such a range of experiments we must be able to get a result of the warming caused by CO2 in W/m2/100ppmCO2/m3/24hours that approximates the reality?
What do you think?
Henry,
Respectfully, You are reinventing the wheel here. This kind of experiment was first done in 1859 by Tyndall (shining a light through various gasses in cylinders and measuring the change in temperature). His lab was very crude but others improved upon his techniques and by 1896 Arrhenius had discovered the warming effect was logarythmic (not linear) and that the effects of GHGs were best calculated based on halving or doubling the gas quantities.
These kinds of experiments have been done many times. The problem is that in the real world there are many feedbacks and it is very complex. Your experiment (although basically valid) will only reconfirm facts long known. It does not include changes in humidity, clouds, convection, latent heat distribution, ocean and ice feedbacks, lapse rates etc. etc. etc. that determine what the outcome will be in the real world. Much research has been done in all these areas. Unfortunately the only conclusive proof for the big picture will come in hindsight after the experiment has been run using the earth (or an identical planet). Gotta spare planet?
The Discovery of Global Warming by Spencer Weart is a good place to learn about these early experiments. You can get it through your favorite book vender, or you can read it for free on line (the free version is even annotated).
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
Hope that helps,
Yuba
(I think I invented a new dance step for geeks.)
Yubha
I found out that Weart is useless. He was also very impolite with me. He could not accept the fact that I did not agree with him on more CO2 being bad for us.
If you already have recent results on the warming of CO2 in W/m2/100ppmCO2/m3/24hours(time),
or that can be converted to the above,
why not just give them to me?
What I have been trying to explain here, is that we need to determine the radiative warming of CO2 (by trapping earthshine) versus the radiative cooling of CO2 (by sending sunshine out to space). What is the net effect?
All the other factors, including wheather and water, must be kept out. We just want to see the net effect of the radiative warming and cooling of CO2.
If you did not catch my earlier post, see here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/12/peer-reviewed-study-co2-warming-effect-cut-by-65-climate-sensitivity-impossible-to-accurately-determine/#comment-508922
Now, the real question is: how are we going to measure the radiative cooling caused by CO2, as evidenced by the whole spectrum of CO2 coming back from the moon?
Henry,
I’m sorry I don’t have the numbers you want. Even if I did they would be close to irrelevant.
First off the absorption/ reemission properties of CO2 are not linear – they are logarithmic. Adding 100 ppmv is only relevant if you specify the starting concentration. The response will be very different (by about an order of magnitude) depending upon whether you start from 10 ppmv or 100 ppmv. This is why the effects of adding CO2 are usually calibrated in CO2 “doublings” You should get roughly a similar temperature rise by changing the total CO2 from 10 ppmv to 20 ppmv as you do from 100 ppmv to 200 ppmv.
Second – I don’t see why you specify 24 Hrs. Depending upon the mass of the gas, the containment vessel and the sensing devices, and the amount and type of energy you apply you may or may not see a new equilibrium in you system in 24 hours.
Thirdly since the absorption spectrum of CO2 overlaps with that of H2O to get any kind of useful number you can’t just add and subtract values for H2O and CO2. H20 content of the gas needs to be specified. Even doing this does not give you a relevant number because CO2 content of the troposphere/stratosphere is much more evenly distributed than that of H2O. (This is why you need to have different layers/values/concentrations in your experimental atmosphere to get any useful values)
I could go on but I think a more relevant number than the one you are looking for is:
***About 1 degree C temperature rise in the earth’s climate per doubling of CO2***.
This number includes both the incoming cooling effects of CO2 and the outgoing warming and cooling effects of CO2. It does not include any feedbacks and assumes absolute humidity and all other parameters remain unchanged. It is generally accepted in the climate community.
Yuba
1) we need to determine whether the hysteria on adding 100ppm Co2 to the atmosphere (as happened during the past 50 years) has a significant and measurable effect and whether such hysteria is justified. Our personal opinions are not relevant, we need tests + measurements, not models based on what?
2) the problem we have is that the (radiative) warming (by re-radiating earthshine) carries on for 24 hours a day whereas the radiative cooling (by re-radiating sunshine) takes place for only 12 hours a day. Not so?
3) we had agreed to leave water and weather out. We need to determine the net effect of the cooling and warming of CO2. I don’t see how anyone could have obtained the results you are quoting when they did not even consider the radiative cooling effect of CO2; in fact it was never even tested. If it was, can you direct me to those results?
I don’t even know how we are going to test it, I was hoping someone here could shed some light on that!
Henry,
The most often cited source for forcing values is Ramaswamy, V., et al., 2001: Radiative forcing of climate change. (IPCC, TAR) available here: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-06.pdf
Like everything the IPCC puts out is a summary of the research. It provides sources for where the basic numbers are derived.
Your claim that researchers do not take into effect the cooling of CO2 is in error. Ramaswamy, in his chapter summary for the TAR makes the following statement:
>>”The short-wave effect results in a negative forcing contribution for the surface-troposphere system owing to the extra absorption due to CO2 in the stratosphere; however, this effect is relatively small compared to the total radiative forcing (< 5%).”<<
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/212.htm
I realize that what you are asking for is the raw data for how these numbers are derived. I suggest you review the multiple sources cited in Section 6.3.1 (my first link) before you make any claims about these numbers not existing however. I suspect that they have been derived multiple times. The implication of your claim that such a basic and well established fact that the cooling effect of CO2 has been ignored by researchers is quite extraordinary and would indeed be significant if it were true, but it is up to you to provide the evidence. I have provided you with evidence that it is untrue. You might want to take your question to ClimateAudit. If anyone would care to champion your cause (and be qualified to do so) I suspect they would be there.
Yuba
RE: HenryP : (October 20, 2010 at 6:03 am)
“I thought it was the opposite: the longer the wavelength, the hotter…”
I think you may have been confused by the description of infra-red radiation as ‘heat waves.’ What this means is that infra-red radiation is coming from relatively ‘hot’ objects on the Earth such as your body at 37 degrees C. when the temperature around you is ten degrees C. By contrast, visible light is being emitted from the surface of the sun at a ‘white hot’ temperature of 5505 degrees C. The Earth is not vaporized by this radiation because its energy has been spread or thinned out over a huge sphere the diameter of the Earth’s orbit by the time it reaches us. Nonetheless, most of the energy we that we do receive from the sun is concentrated in the visible wavelength band of ‘white hot’ light.
Henry
If you have not already done so, you should review:
PLASS, G. N., 1956: The influence of the 15 micron carbon dioxide band on the atmospheric infra-red cooling rate.
Quart. J. Roy. Met. Soc.
Unfortunately do not find it for free online (I didn’t look very hard perhaps you can find it).
I do find “The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change
By GlLBERT N. PLASS (1956)” online however:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x/pdf
Since this is well respected and seminal work I think you should be familiar with it to defend your point that the cooling effects of CO2 have been ignored.
Yuba
I do find “The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change
By GlLBERT N. PLASS (1956)” online however:
Yuba
I had a quick look at this. Read it carefully. They only looked at the 12-18 um range.
This is where earthshine is at its highest intensity…
They all made the same mistake as S.Arrhenius because they only looked at the heat (radiation) being trapped. Nobody ever thought to look at the sun’s radiation being deflected by CO2 to outer space, never mind measuring it, as to how much cooling it causes. Believe me, I have spoken to the experts. They all went blank when I ask them by how much it cools.
And I am talking here about several absorptions in the 0-5 um range of CO2.
There are even UV absorptions of Co2 that have been only discovered recently (in fact this is one way why they now can look at the planets to see if there is CO2.)
There are weak absorptions at around 1,6 and 3 strong absorptions around 2 um. There is very, very strong absorption at 4-5 um. So how can anyone claim that this or that is only 5%, when nobody tested it, and when they did not even know all of this?
Look at the peaks of the whole spectrum bouncing back from the moon and tell me again that CO2 does not also have a significant cooling effect.
People saying that it is or must be less than 5% must bring me that proof. I want to see those test results. Unfortunately, I already looked everywhere and found these results do not exist. So, really, like I said before, it is just us.
At the moment I am still trying to figure out if there is a way how we can measure it.
Line analysis will not work. You have to come up with an actual experiment that will use sunshine and give a result (of the radiative cooling) in W/m2/m3 ppm CO2/24 hours.
I was hoping you people might have some ideas.
Henry,
You are the one making extraordinary claims (“the entire field of climatology has been overlooking something very basic which they have been claiming for years that they have not overlooked”). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to prove. Something more than “my amateur efforts on line and at armature blogs have not turned up anything” (known as an argument from ignorance). The ball is in your court
There is quite a bit of material that you should be familiar with at the Ramaswamy link I provided you with that you seem to be ignoring. Don’t expect others to do your work for you.
I would not be surprised if the experts that have gone blank when you asked them have done so because they have not understood your question or why you are asking it.
There is currently a very rare “open thread” over at RC. This would be a chance for you to ask your off- topic question there. I suggest to you that you keep your question very basic such as “can anyone here tell me how the values used in the models for the heating and cooling effects of CO2 are derived. Original citations would be appreciated.” or something to that effect. Don’t clutter the question or make it accusatory and leave “earthshine” out of it.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/10/unforced-variations-3-2/
BTW, beware of using terms like “you people”.
yuba
Ok. Have not been at RC yet. I don’t have high hopes…
RE: Yuba Yollabolly: (October 22, 2010 at 2:31 pm)
“…and leave ‘earthshine’ out of it.”
‘Earthshine’ is *not* a standard scientific term. I have used it myself at times as a simple way to explain a concept. Perhaps ‘terrestrial thermal radiation’ would be more correct (but less convenient) as it insures that reflected solar energy is not included.
Spector,
Fair enough,
Henry’s basic concept -that they have all missed something so basic- is one naturally rather offensive to professionals, particularly when posed by amateurs. Henry has already demonstrated that he can be patient and polite; the problem is that he is trying to ask a complex question using imprecise terms – leading to misunderstandings. Folks at RC also appreciate people having done their homework before allowing any hint of accusing come in.
Of course Henry is free to ask what he wants, and some times it is actually the more accusatory comments that get the personal attention from Gavin, but in general, it seems the polite questions of clarification are the ones that often get the most helpful responses there. Keeping it simple and build a dialog; is my advice (for what it is worth).
I would also spend some time with Google Scholar tracking down the places the earthshine paper has been cited so I would be aware of general criticisms about it (if any).
I’m not personally qualified to address Henry’s questions. I want him to get honest answers. I am not trying to set him up.
HenryP,
Thank you for taking your questions to RC and for persevering there. Obviously some responses were more helpful than others, but I think a couple were useful.
I have noticed that your “Basic effects of CO2 as a GHG (in isolation – exactly)” is a Judy Curry question. Is that where you got it from? Since you are a chemist I can see how you might expect “exactly” in an answer, but your question is not a simple chemistry question. Even “exactly” has its limitations. It is always possible to go out another order of magnitude beyond “exactly”. Therefore to expect “exactly” in an answer will always smell like a red herring to folks that deal with reality.
Henry@Yuba
I am sorry for the guys who tried to answer me, but the problem on RealClimate is the censorship. I do not take lightly to my “inanities” being wiped by a “gavin”.
I told them that if they wanted to see my whole point of view, i.e. the results of my own investigations, they can go to my blogg site. It is regularly updated with new information that fits in with my observations.
You have to put everything together to see the whole picture.
http://letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
They will probably throw that comment off as well.
Henry@Yuba
As indeed they did. No reference to my blogg site allowed. What is so “dangerous” about my blogg site? In all honesty now, what does that tell you about RealClimate?
Like the others, they are really worried about a simple chemist like me uncovering the whole global warming scam.