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.
A Lacis says:
October 14, 2010 at 3:27 pm
It is discouraging that most of the commentators here appear to be lacking enough of a basic physics background to comment intelligently on the global warming problem. The world that we live in operates according to the laws of physics, you know. You will do better in understanding global warming if you pay attention to the physics involved.
That’s just the problem: Many of us HAVE investigated the physics involved and don’t think “climate scientists” have a proper handle on it. Besides, I’ve run hundreds of geologic and engineering models and if incorrect or inapplicable algorithms are used or you fail to add other pertinent factors, your models are bunk.
You have castigated many of us as clueless but I rebuff that charge and say “look in the mirror”. But this is something I can agree with you–being wrong can be very discouraging, but not for the reason you’ve stated.
A Lacis says:
October 14, 2010 at 3:27 pm
“You will do better in understanding global warming if you pay attention to the physics involved.”
I am sorry Mr. Lacis. I have a MSc degree, and I’ve been working with computers and control loops for 30 years now.
A Control Knob?
hahahahaha!!!
What makes GISS’s claim nothing short of hilarious is the fact that the so-called “greenhouse effect” is neither a forcing (it produces no energy) nor a feedback (it doesn’t affect insolation). It’s purely a capacitive, insulating effect. But try telling that to a model jockey riding a nag named “Junk for Money.”
A Lacis says:
“It is discouraging that most of the commentators here appear to be lacking enough of a basic physics background to comment intelligently on the global warming problem… You will do better in understanding global warming if you pay attention to the physics involved.”
As a commentator that an esteemed psychic mind-reader such as yourself believes lacks a basic physics background, and cannot comment intelligently on the global warming “problem,” I have a few questions:
Are you in agreement with Dr Lewis regarding his complaint that the APS was wrong to refuse to abide by its written policy? And are you are opposed to the shoddy “adjustments” that GISS does to the temperature record under the leadership of the publicity hound, scofflaw and general lunatic James Hansen?
Just wondering, boss.
A new publication in “Science”? Gavin Schmidt? Models? Idealized models? Without CO2 the terrestial greenhouse would collapse?
This publication is composed of only slogans, badly referenced, with very old references. No correlation, only reasoning, reasoning with a predetermined outcome.
And then they start “experimenting”. With what? what was their experimental set up? No information otherwise than the completely non informative GISS 4*5 Model E.
They tested the addition or deletion of single atmospheric constituents for a one year period.
This is not experimenting, this is testing whether the parameters for that particular atmospheric constituent is according to observed values. This is model testing/model training.
And this kind of paper is accepted by Science?
We have seen a formidable degradation of the scientifivc method in climate science, if it has ever been present at all.
This paper is a shame. Life on this planet stops much earlier, below 180 ppm photosynthesis stops for most photosynthesizing organisms.
‘…it has been asserted that “about
98% of the natural greenhouse effect is due to
water vapour and stratiform clouds with CO2
contributing less than 2%” (1). If true, this would
imply that changes in atmospheric CO2 are not
important influences on the natural greenhouse
capacity of Earth, and that the continuing increase
in CO2 due to human activity is therefore
not relevant to climate change.’
This is a new admission. Previously it was the case that H2O was the major GHG but that the change in CO2 initiated a positive feedback that increased H2O until a tipping point was reached. This isn’t true any more?
Mike says:
October 14, 2010 at 11:43 am
“It is good that you are willing to post science research that shows you are wrong. It is too bad you can’t understand it.”
Anyone who claims that a model run amounts to research is simply confused. Computer models are analytical tools. They can be used to learn about the implications of what has been programmed into them. Maybe that analytical work is what you mean by research. However, empirical or experimental research requires going beyond computer models and using physical hypotheses to make predictions about phenomena that are in the world rather than in the computer. As I have asked many times over the years, if you believe that the warming effects of CO2 are amplified by “forcings” in cloud behavior or whatever, then produce the reasonably well-confirmed physical hypotheses which can be used to explain and predict the phenomena in question. You have not produced any such hypotheses. You are not even trying. You have retreated into your study and you are spending all your time with your computers. Nothing less than the physical hypotheses will be taken seriously.
Jimmy Haigh October 14, 2010 at 11:08 am
Lol. Thanks now I have to get that coffee cleaned off of the keyboard.
A Lacis,
This world does operate according to the laws of physics. But claiming that you do know all the laws of physics appliccable to the planetary system is in IMHO hubris. Even when you would know all the laws, their interactions will be unknown.
I can model any syatem without any knowledge of the physics. I can invent new chemistry and apply that to the world and fit it. Anything can be fitted by anything.
Correlation does not mean causation.
When do these modelling idiots get the drift?
Have they never played a computer game with “modelled”physics?
I perosnally love the physics of the Boomer in Gears.
A. Lacis,
To get the ball rolling can you persuade us that you know the difference between the real world and a computer simulation?
A Lacis says:
October 14, 2010 at 3:27 pm
It is discouraging that most of the commentators here appear to be lacking enough of a basic physics background to comment intelligently on the global warming problem. The world that we live in operates according to the laws of physics, you know. You will do better in understanding global warming if you pay attention to the physics involved.
If you are offering up the piece of circular logic hogswallop that is the topic of this thread as an exemplar of your own mastery of the role of physics in the natural world, I would remind you of a certain injunction regarding people who live in glass houses.
A Lacis says: October 14, 2010 at 3:27 pm “It is discouraging that most of the commentators here appear to be lacking enough of a basic physics background to comment intelligently on the global warming problem.”
Ed Markey (co-author of the Cap & Trade Climate Bill) said recently, “The last nine years have been amongst the top ten warmest in the history of the planet.” Do you buy that? Do you suppose those politicians pushing the issue have enough basic science backgrounds to comment intelligently on the matter, let alone pass legislation to stop it?
You are missing an important point: The “global warming problem” is not about science really. In the early 1990s I though it was just a matter of narrow time-period data analysis that ignored the longer term geo-physical analysis of what was typical or “normal” for an Interglacial climate. Within a few years, I became suspicious that there was a political agenda underlying the “problem.” As time went on, I am now convinced it is all about a Progressive Collectivist agenda that includes “environmental justice” and redistribution of resources and wealth. Look at Maurice Strong’s statements in the early 1970s through the 1980s as he got the IPCC established. Then consider the bad behavior of the CRU gang. Add to that their reaction to the failure of the computer models to anticipate the direction of the climate trend. We’re cooling now. Some are even saying that global warming is causing the cooling.
It is not unlike the Eugenics movement (again promulgated by the Progressives) a hundred years ago. Remember how that turned out?
wws says:
October 14, 2010 at 12:55 pm
“Since the “climate change wars” are now almost exclusively political now, I think it’s amusing to note that Joe Romm is the man who started the made-up claims about the Chamber of Commerce which Obama and Axelrod picked up and ran with. (and which are now backfiring spectacularly)”
OMG! Unbridled rage mixed with utter desperation. No one could have expected them to be this hollow.
A Lacis says:
October 14, 2010 at 3:27 pm
It is discouraging that most of the commentators here appear to be lacking enough of a basic physics background to comment intelligently on the global warming problem. The world that we live in operates according to the laws of physics, you know. You will do better in understanding global warming if you pay attention to the physics involved.
===================
My nomination for quote of the weak. 😉
For those waiting for the new thing, this could be it. From today’s UK Telegraph:
“Cancer is a modern man-made disease caused by the excesses of modern life, a new study suggests.”
So all we need to do to cure cancer is to eradicate modern life.
last ditch? you must be joking. The AGW rhetoric is set to flow for many years yet. And it doesn’t care for the finest refutations the science community can muster.
A Lacis says:
October 14, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Give us some actual physical hypotheses about “forcings” and we will get right to work. What you have programmed into your model does not amount to actual physical hypotheses.
“Cancer is a modern man-made disease caused by the excesses of modern life, a new study suggests.”
Yes, and its greatest excess is its great length.
John Christy and I looked through this paper, and agreed that it seems to *imply* that we should worry about global warming from more CO2 because the climate change from a 100% *removal* of CO2 from the atmosphere has 8 times the effect as a 100% *addition* of CO2 to the atmosphere.
If that line of reasoning doesn’t make any sense to you…..then join the club.
To Andy Lacis – First, congratulations for an excellent paper in Science. It has succeeded in being clear without sacrificing accuracy. I have a small technical question regarding one of the points. If you differentiate the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, and use a value of 240 W/m^2 for absorbed radiation, 3.7 W/m^2 for the forcing from doubled CO2, 255 K for the effective radiating temperature, and an assumption of unchanged lapse rate, the surface temperature change to restore balance calculates out to about 1 deg C rather than the 1.2 deg C cited. Of these inputs, it would appear that the fixed lapse rate assumption may be the one that is not precisely followed in the model results. Is this a correct interpretation, and if the actual estimates require a slightly elevated lapse rate, are there observational and theoretical bases for postulating this deviation from earlier assumptions about the lapse rate?
Fred:
Lapse rate change in the troposphere is considered a feedback. So, when a surface warming of X deg. is stated for the situation without feedbacks, it means the entire troposphere is assumed to change uniformly by X deg. This is by definition, for the purpose of talking about the influence of different individual effects (such as a change in lapse rate).
Phillip Bratby
“Not more climate model evidence. These people have just proved that they are not scientists.”
True, Gavin Schmidt is a mathematician.
It seems to me the key statement in the article is:
Ref 5, BTW is to a monograph by Hanson from in 1984 (interesting year…). If they’re assuming a 4 deg C surface warming, no wonder they get the results they claim.
A Lacis says:
October 14, 2010 at 3:27 pm
It is discouraging that most of the commentators here appear to be lacking enough of a basic physics background to comment intelligently on the global warming problem. The world that we live in operates according to the laws of physics, you know. You will do better in understanding global warming if you pay attention to the physics involved.
Right, especially Climate Science’s most basic “physic”: GIGO
Re: A Lacis says:
October 14, 2010 at 3:27 pm
“It is discouraging that most of the commentators here appear to be lacking enough of a basic physics background to comment intelligently on the global warming problem. The world that we live in operates according to the laws of physics, you know. You will do better in understanding global warming if you pay attention to the physics involved.
Your paper (assuming you are who you claim to be) doesn’t amount to anything more than a Gish-gallop of bullcrap and cannot be responded to intelligently. So instead, I will respond to your comment.
Physics? You think you are in a position to lecture anyone about atmospheric physics? Who do you think you are kidding? You think that because water condenses in the atmosphere that it isn’t radiantly important? I have news for you Einstein, liquids and solids are the only forms of matter that continuously emit IR energy. Gases cannot do that.
Most of the water in the troposphere is its liquid and solid phases. Water vapor is the minority fraction. Tropospheric liquid water and water ice are the source of the downwelling IR received at the surface and the OLR to space. Gases don’t have anything to do with it. Not even water vapor. It’s not possible.
I think you need a remedial course in radiative physics studying the absorptivities and emissivities of the various components of the atmosphere, including water in all three phases. If you did that, you may understand the mistake that you are making.
This paper of yours is nothing but junk.