From the press package:
The findings confirm that carbon dioxide is the most potent greenhouse “control knob”
This seems like a last ditch effort (in the face of falling public opinion) from Gavin Schmidt et al. to make CO2 more important than water vapor in regulating the temperature of the planet.
Via emailed press package, embargoed until 2PM EST 10/14/2010:
Of all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide exerts the most control on Earth’s climate, researchers report. Although carbon dioxide’s greenhouse effect has been known for more than 100 years, its primary role in climate warming is still not universally acknowledged.
For example, water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas and is more abundant in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. But, it condenses and precipitates from the atmosphere and thus plays a different role than carbon dioxide and other, noncondensing greenhouse gases, such as ozone, methane and chlorofluorocarbons. Andrew Lacis and colleagues conducted a set of idealized climate model experiments in which various greenhouse gases were added to or subtracted from the atmosphere, in order to illustrate their roles in controlling the temperature of the air.
The findings confirm that carbon dioxide is the most potent greenhouse “control knob” and that its abundance determines how much water vapor the atmosphere contains. Without carbon dioxide, the Earth would plunge into a frozen state, the researchers report, though they caution that increasing levels of this atmospheric gas are also worrisome. “This makes the reduction and control of atmospheric CO2 a serious and pressing issue, worthy of real-time attention,” they write.
[Seems a bit out of balance though.]
- Fig. 1. Attribution of the contributions of individual atmospheric components to the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, separated into feedback and forcing categories. Horizontal dotted and dashed lines depict the fractional response for single-addition and single-subtraction of individual gases to an empty or full-component reference atmosphere, respectively. Horizontal solid black lines are the scaled averages of the dashedand dotted-line fractional response results. The sum of the fractional responses adds up to the total greenhouse effect. The reference atmosphere is for conditions in 1980.
Article #14: “Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature,” by A.A. Lacis; G.A. Schmidt; D. Rind; R.A. Ruedy at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, NY.
Contact: Andrew A. Lacis at alacis@giss.nasa.gov (email).
Here’s the paper: lacis101015 (PDF)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@ur momisugly Jimmy Haigh says:
October 14, 2010 at 11:08 am: ‘ …the most potent greenhouse “control knob” ‘
Oh – there are quite a few candidates for that exalted position…’
Very droll (and very true)! You owe me a new keyboard; mulled wine splutterings …
“Andrew Lacis and colleagues conducted a set of idealized climate model experiments in which various greenhouse gases were added to or subtracted from the atmosphere, in order to illustrate their roles in controlling the temperature of the air.”
Once again the CAGW camp use models rather than research to try and prove their case. This is a sign that the IPCC’s climate cabal is getting desperate and an admission by default that the observational evidence refutes their case – no statistically significant global warming for 15y.
Time to move along from this falsified theory and start doing some real-world science to find out how climate works. Hint, the sun could have something to do with climate oscillation at all time scales.
GISS? Isn’t that place under water from all that sea level rise they warned us about? Well then, it’s obvious that this article is totally bogus, since the place is under water.
It is truly amazing how “reputable” journals accept from some few selected fellows their trivial hypothesis and publish as a scientific paper. This clearly demonstrates that the “peer review” system is corrupt. Poor Gavin spends most of his time on Real Climate site and other fun activities and has no time for comprehensive research that we, all taxpayers, are expecting from him. The references to Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius look kind of sad… Is it time for us to stop paying these gentlemen their six figure salaries?
That knob is a loosen knob from someone’s head!
BTW: Al Gore had the best lunch of his life in Peru:
http://peru21.pe/noticia/653936/al-gore-tuvo-mejor-almuerzo-su-vida-peru
http://www.3r3.pe/
(he has been sposored by Telefonica del Peru, a branch of Telefonica of Spain -a member and contributor of the malthusian group “The Club of Rome” ).
Will. Not. Make. Jokes. About. “Control Knob”.
As TerryS said, this is the prize statement: “conducted a set of idealized climate model experiments”.
Idealized. Great… that’s a good starting point. Now try and match it against the real world. If that fails, please try again. It’s called the scientific method. They appear to have stopped after the first step…
I’m more than happy to be corrected but haven’t we seen CO2 at 7000 ppm in the past? If so the “tipping” point must be beyond that otherwise we wouldn’t be here.
So that means nothing to worry about, yes?
Regarding figure 1: The feedback and the forcing is on a scale to balance or to tip. The models or the calculations of the formulas as set up by NASA must only have positive feedback for water vapor. Dr. Roy Spencer has shown that water vapor has a negative feedback as well, but those designing the models don’t agree and probably will only accept postive feedback.
There are definitely a lot of knobs (urban dictionary definition) at work on this one.
The only reliable and repeatable model that NASA has is the one where they feed in the latest alarmist theory, turn the handle and out comes complete bo**ocks every time.
Reminds me of toy Ray Guns and Transformers. With a little imagination, kids can have a lot of fun.
Mighty expensive toys, though, in this case.
“Andrew Lacis and colleagues conducted a set of idealized climate model experiments […] The findings confirm […]”
Still need some climate researchers? Sounds pretty easy to me. I’m a fast learner.
Mike says:
October 14, 2010 at 11:43 am
“The point is we do not have control over the amount of H2O in the atmosphere. We do have some control over to amount of CO2. ”
Well, hate to bring it to you… but, you know… they’re sort of intermingled.
Jimmy Haigh says:
October 14, 2010 at 11:08 am
‘ …the most potent greenhouse “control knob” ‘
Oh – there are quite a few candidates for that exalted position…
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Beautiful…..lol
Gavin,
It’s the rates of evaporation and condensation that are controlling the rate of radiation to space, not “greenhouse” gases. http://www.kidswincom.net/CO2OLR.pdf.
Don B – I like the sub headline for that article.
“Top international experts prove British numbers on carbon dioxide are wrong. Royal Society blunder grossly exaggerates climate impact.
And this!!
“German chemist, Dr Klaus Kaiser has published evidence that proves the Royal Society (RS), London, has been caught out making schoolboy errors in mathematical calculations over the duration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth’s atmosphere. ”
I wonder how many more times these brainiacs have to be exposed as frauds before they finally just give up.
Read more at Suite101: Royal Society Humiliated by Global Warming Basic Math Error http://www.suite101.com/content/royal-society-humiliated-by-global-warming-basic-math-error-a296746#ixzz12MTJlGZk
http://www.carbontracker.eu/index.html
Very interesting plot there. It looks like an IR temperature profile of the atmosphere rather than a CO2 loading. This makes sense as the absorption/emission profile of CO2 is temperature dependent.
Also, why is it that they continue to beat this dead horse about residence time? That is immaterial to the subject as it is the average amount at any one time that is important and it is quite clear that the percentage is 100x of CO2.
Jimmy Haigh says:
October 14, 2010 at 11:08 am
Definitely! LOL Think it may be very much UK humour though.
DaveE.
An amazing piece of science! Amazing in the sense that I continue to be called an idiot and an evil villain because I don’t find such sterling logic completely convincing. Admittedly they did convincingly demonstrate the presence of a number of “knobs” in climate science. Those “knobs” would seem to be named Lacis, Schmidt, Rind, and Ruedy, as in “Dumber than a sack of doorknobs.”
I just have one thing to say to NASA GISS;
It’s mostly the Sun Stupid.
I think we should start the campaign to constantly email the winter stories to those guys, nonstop till next spring. Here I’ll start.
Snow to Hit Britain
Winter will come early to Britain next week as snow is forecast for the north while the south will shiver in frosty sub-zero nights.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/8061737/Snow-to-hit-Britain.html
Just finished my first run at the paper…….I’m not sure I’ll go any deeper than that. From the paper, In round numbers, water vapor accounts for about 50% of Earth’s greenhouse effect, with clouds contributing 25%, CO2 20%, and the minor GHGs and aerosols accounting for the remaining 5%.
This article casts a clear insight into the mindset of Climatology. Computer models and simulations have replaced theory and observations (real data), just as Lindzen wrote about in his famous paper:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ClimateScience-arXiveRSLindzenRev3a.pdf
Absolutely amazing that a computer simulation is passed off as an “experiment”. Such a claim is so misleading, it is more than just unethical — actually, it is a frank lie.
Climatology, the science of how to become a couch potato sitting in front of a computer screen.
bring on global warming where freezing down under snow down to 500 mt in the snowy area
“Hey, Mr. Spaceman, won’t you please take the Gore Lites along for a ride.”
Quote:
“But, it condenses and precipitates from the atmosphere and thus plays a different role than carbon dioxide”
And when it does it releases 40.7 kJ of energy for every 1 mole=18g of H2O
Now where would all that energy go to?
I’m working on a model that will conclusively and indisputably show that the sharp increase in the numbers of crooked politicians and activist scientists is unequivocally responsible for the earth warming :).