By Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.
Andy Lacis has posted two guest contributions on my weblog;
Guest Post “CO2: The Thermostat That Controls Earth’s Temperature” By Andy Lacis
Further Comment By Andy Lacis On CO2 As A Climate Thermostat
I very much appreciate this collegial interaction.
Today, I want to comment on his conclusions.
First, I agree with Andy’s conclusion that if CO2 were removed from the Earth’s atmosphere, the climate system would rapidly cool. I also concur that CO2 is a first order climate forcing and is a non-condensing greenhouse gas forcing.
The more interesting question, however, is how this applies both to how the Earth’s climate system actually evolved, and how incremental increases in CO2 above what was present in pre-industral times alter the climate.
With respect to the early Earth atmosphere, CO2 was emitted from volcanic eruptions but so was water vapor. The two acted together to warm the climate. Indeed, this is one explanation proposed to explain the warm, wet period in the earlier atmosphere of Mars and Venus. While, the model experiment presented by Andy and colleagues is quite interesting, it does not reflect the real climate system.
The second issue is, of course, directly relevant to our future climate. As I posted in
we have examined the effect of incremental increases in CO2 (and water vapor) as described in detail in
Relative Roles of CO2 and Water Vapor in Radiative Forcing
Further Analysis Of Radiative Forcing By Norm Woods
In regards to the effect of an incremental effect on radiative flux of an increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2, there is an informative figure at Watts Up With That in a post by David Archibald titled The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide. The figure is from 2006 by Willis Eschenbach which was posted on Climate Audit.
What is of importance to our future climate is the added downwelling radiative fluxes as given by the green and black lines. The Lacis and colleagues study examined the effect of the radiative forcing from red line.
The issue with respect to our future climate is how will it be altered in response to these incremental increases, part of which (particularly in the humid parts of the world) overlaps with water vapor absorption).
In terms of how environmentally and societally important resources are altered, as I have often posted on (e.g. see), in terms of climate, this involves how droughts, floods, tropical cyclones, heat waves, etc are altered. This means the focus should be on alterations in regional ocean and atmospheric circulations, mesoscale weather patterns, and so forth rather than on trends in the global average surface temperatures. The addition of CO2 is one factor (both radiatively and biogeochemically) but is not the single ”control” of these climate metrics.
The equilibrium temperature of Earth is just one of these metrics, and, indeed is not adequate to explain how regional and local climate could change. In fact, even with respect to global warming and cooling, the use of ocean heat content is a much more robust way to diagnose these climate system heat changes than a global average surface temperature trend, as discussed most recently in
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55.
Andy’s posts (and paper) do clearly show that
“ there is a clear demonstration that without the radiative forcing provided by the non-condensing GHGs, the terrestrial greenhouse effect collapses because there is no structural temperature support to restrain the current climate water vapor from condensing and precipitating.”
However, there needs to be a recognition that the human influence on the climate system, including global warming and cooling, involves much more than the non-condensing greenhouse gases, and that the role of natural climate forcings and variability remain incompletely understood. We have discussed this in our paper
Pielke Sr., R., K. Beven, G. Brasseur, J. Calvert, M. Chahine, R. Dickerson, D. Entekhabi, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, H. Gupta, V. Gupta, W. Krajewski, E. Philip Krider, W. K.M. Lau, J. McDonnell, W. Rossow, J. Schaake, J. Smith, S. Sorooshian, and E. Wood, 2009: Climate change: The need to consider human forcings besides greenhouse gases. Eos, Vol. 90, No. 45, 10 November 2009, 413. Copyright (2009) American Geophysical Union.
I invite Andy to discuss where he agrees, and where he disagrees, with our conclusions and recommendations in the above paper.
Mike:
“to which one has to consider various feedbacks which are mostly positive”
stable systems do not have mostly positive feedbacks. If models say they do, the most likely explanation is that the models are wrong. The earth would have gone to hell in a handcart a long time ago if positive feedbacks from c02 were more important than negative feedbacks.
An exponential increase of c02 being put in the atmosphere is also not the same as an exponential increase in c02 in the atmosphere – 370 to 372 is not an exponential increase even when compared to 370 to 371. There does not even seem to be a lot of evidence that if you put enough c02 in the atmosphere to increase the ppm by 10 that it will increase by 10 – some of the extra may be absorbed by photosynthesis or end up in the oceans. When the only evidence for a crisis is the models – and the models have all of the most important processes missing – there is no crisis. If you are missing one negative feedback or have overstated a positive feedback your models are hopelessly alarmist. Any computer model with an excess of positive feedback will predict that the system it is modelling is unstable, pretty much by definition.
Excerpt from end of By Dr. Roger Pielke Sr’s post.
——————-
I thank Dr Pielke Sr for arranging with Anthony for this post. I think finally we have some centrally focused meat to chew on regarding AGW theory on GHG effects.
It will take some time for me to adequately chew it before swallowing.
I was taken by Dr Pielke Sr’s parting message. It seems to me he is saying IF CO2 is reduced then a cooling effect will be enhanced provided that Andy’s post (and paper) are right. What an extremely sobering thought that is.
Back at ya after examining all the post and paper references by Dr Pielke Sr and Andy Lacis . Problem is always time.
John
Bryan says:
November 12, 2010 at 4:04 am
“Would snow fall on the Oceans?”
Is there snow and ice on the surface of the arctic and antarctic oceans?
The global ocean below the thermocline is only 3 degrees C above freezing – that’s everywhere whether it be the Arctic ocean or the tropical Pacific. 90% of the global ocean is below the thermocline. Once the atmosphere above the ocean surface drops below freezing it’s only a matter of time until ice forms on the surface. Once ice forms it prevents the water below it from being heated by the sun and because ice is highly reflective it doesn’t absorb much energy from the sun either which also limits any melting. Only ocean and air currents driven by convection from lower unfrozen latitudes can remove the sea ice once it forms. As ice forms at lower and lower latitudes there is less and less warmth delivered by convective currents to melt it. The end result is runaway cooling. This has happened a few times in the history of the earth and it’s been happening for the past 3 million years which handily explains why the global ocean today is, on average, barely above freezing.
This is only theoritical. We need to use actual empirical data to see if it is right.
The temperature impact is logarithmic. If CO2 becomes very low, temperatures and water vapour levels should decline as well.
But it only takes tiny changes in the logarithmic formula (in the real climate that is) to change Lacis’ results considerably.
The evidence to date is that CO2 does NOT control 85% of the greenhouse effect as Lacis theorizes, as the climate model results parrot back the assumptions built in. The evidence to date is only 30% to 50%.
Here is the Logarithmic Warming to date chart based on the data to date (based on Hadcrut3 – the trendlines with the satellites is quite a bit lower).
http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/4530/logwarmingillustratedse.png
This is how it looks against time (versus the above chart which is against CO2 levels). This is the warming adjusted for the ocean cycles such as the ENSO.
http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/4126/hadcrut3warmingsept10.png
And here is the Logarithmic chart going back into the Paleoclimate as far back as we have estimates for – 545 million years ago. Almost looks like a random scatter really. And it certainly indicates that water vapour levels are NOT controlled by CO2. The last time the Earth was really wet, certainly more humid and wetter than today, 10 million years ago, CO2 was under 280 ppm.
http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/289/logwarmingpaleoclimate.png
I’m not sure whether this is on topic or off but I’m going to say it anyway. I have come to the point in all these discussions where I find myself thinking that the scientific and political worlds have simply become mad. I’ve just finished reading the CCS post below this one and simply had to stop because outright despair and rage kicked in at the lunacy and irrationality of the geo-engineering proposals involved. A while back I read an article about my home country, Wales, in which the politicians there were setting up legislation which would mean all cattle would have to be kept indoors, to control their CO2 and methane outputs. I’m also beginning to think that there is absolutely no hope for those of us here who believe in logic and the scientific method and that collective insanity and medieval thought patterns have finally and firmly taken over (aided significantly by the prospects of financial gain, increased governmental control and research grants resembling lottery wins). Toddlers believe themselves to be omnipotent, are entirely narcissistic and magical in their thinking; madmen suffer similarly and are grandiose in their view of themselves and their place in the world. Almost all those on the extreme warmist side seem to suffer from these attributes, as well as liberal doses of malignant narcissism, with the world centred around them and their needs and beliefs, along with their hatred for anyone who frustrates or questions those beliefs. I’m about to give up reading anything more to do with climate because I just can’t bear the lunacy anymore. With apologies for the self-indulgence but this is de profundis.
“It’s the sun stupid”. Low Solar Activity may increase temperature oscillations.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/11/low-solar-activity-may-increase.html
The role of CO2 in our climate system is irrelevant compared to to the dominating processes.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/7394/
and
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/11/12/are-climate-scientists-really-as-clueless-as-they-claim/
CO2 therefore doesn’t deserve the current “scientific” focus.
Scientists in their popular reporting should be aware that CO2 has become the center of an environmental religion and has been highjacked by a political doctrine.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure they’ve discovered sulphur-based life forms around underwater volcanic vents Alan
Dr. Pielke Sr.,
Science missed the rotational wind sheer speed. This is where hurricane, cyclones and tornados get their energy from. In doing so, they missed ALL the actual physical evidence that this planets pressure has built up and is alining the lower atmosphere to the rotation of this planet. This cause the average wind speeds to die down which would blow away precipitation build-up.
Oliver Ramsay says:
November 11, 2010 at 10:50 pm : …”Is there any chance that you could save the world more quietly?”
And inexpensively?
R. de Haan says:
November 12, 2010 at 5:25 am
“I wonder what’s a bigger disaster for humanity.
The warmists or the luke warmers.”
Ron – that’s a good question.
(SarcOn)I’m getting the impression that the real problem is the O2, if we didn’t have so much of that there wouldn’t be a CO2 problem. Yes, the REAL problem is that there’s just too much O2 and we need to sequester it under ground somehow. Right?(SarcOff)
It should also be noted that Lacis’ assertion that CO2 is the control knob controlling the vast majority of the greenhouse effect is …
… equivalent to the 3.0C per doubling proposition.
They are exactly the same thing – 3.0C per doubling implies that CO2/GHGs control the rest of the greenhouse effect as well, that is how the math works.
He couldn’t come up with any other result otherwise it would have indicted global warming theory as incorrect.
I see CO2 as more of a pilot light, as in gas furnace for example, than a thermostat. The thermostat of the Earth is a lot more complicated, I betting.
Mike: Looks like a lot of others have responded to your comment, but let me reply to your comment about the oceans.
You wrote, “However the temperature rise in the oceans is directly affecting coral reefs and causing phytoplankton decline, plus the impact of lower ocean pH threatens many life forms needs to be taken into account when deciding if mitigation measures should be taken.”
Unfortunately for AGW proponents there is no evidence that Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gases have caused the rise in Sea Surface Temperature (SST). The rise in SST is proof that the oceans integrate the effects of ENSO, and that’s all it’s proof of.
Giss hiding the decline.
Earth thermostat duped by false data.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/11/12/giss-hiding-the-decline/
Thank you David Springer
Dave Springer writes, “There seems to be a decided lack of long term perspective amongst the CAGW cabal. They’re being penny wise and pound foolish – all worried about preserving the exact status quo of human civilization at this exact point in time while completely ignoring what’s going to happen a few thousand years in the future when the Holocene interglacial period ends.”
This may be the first time that CAGW believers have been labeled penny wise. Agreed, the lack of perspective about what’s coming, i.e. the eventual end of the Holocene, is widespread. Nonetheless, the hundreds of billions spent already do not constitute wisdom of any kind.
Mike Borgelt says:
November 12, 2010 at 12:17 am
Anybody care to comment if pressure broadening of the CO2 absorption lines is dependent on absolute pressure or just partial pressure of CO2?
Lacis claims Mars is cold because of lack of pressure broadening.
And he’s right, compare the spectra at surface conditions for both planets:
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/Mars-Earth.gif
Ehm, I’m just looking at that graph and it seems to be saying that the forcing due to CO2 is about 258 watts/metre squared. Isn’t that a bit large? I mean, the average global insolation is only 240 watts/metre squared. Something not quite right.
jorgekafkazar says:
November 11, 2010 at 11:57 pm (Edit)
Mr Barney says: In reply to 899:
“I (can) tell you the difference between mars and venus, it’s called density.
The atmospheric pressure on mars is a minute fraction of what it is on earth and on Venus it’s almost 100 times as dense as it is here. I guess you missed science class in high school…”
No to mention parts of kindergarten.
Could be right. That’s where I learned that Venus is much closer to the sun and Mars is much further away from the sun than Earth is.
Simon says:
November 12, 2010 at 6:21 am
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure they’ve discovered sulphur-based life forms around underwater volcanic vents Alan
Firstly, that’s under water so may not count in my example 😉 However, if you can find a link I’d be genuinely interested in reading about it!
Mars has got about 9x as much CO2 in the atmosphere as Earth, it’s atmosphere is less dense than ours, there is very little water vapor in it’s atmosphere, and it gets around half the energy of the sun.
That said (and including any other factors I have missed), does the CO2 theory hold up on Mars? In other words, if we plugged in all the physical information of Mars into the equations for warming, would the result be close to the known temperature range that we see on Mars?
Simon says:
November 12, 2010 at 6:21 am
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure they’ve discovered sulphur-based life forms around underwater volcanic vents Alan
A quick google search has revealed nothing. Only speculation of what life may be based upon elsewhere in the galaxy or solar system. There are of course life forms (carbon based I add) that thirve in the nutrient rich sulphur environment surrounding the vents. I must say I had to check my diary for a moment just in case it was April 1st!
A clever sales/marketing tool is all that I find to be the nature of Lacis posts at Dr Pielke Sr’s blog about “The Science Paper ‘Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature’ by Lacis Et Al 2010” .
We are presented with a very graphic anthropogenic image that is tailor made for the news media. Climate Control Knob, indeed. Clever, I must say.
But we are only just presented with another CGM run that postulates once again that the only important ‘first order’ (primary) forcing to be atmospheric CO2. They set up the model to give the response they want, thus giving an impression that the sales/marketing tool represents the only conclusion possible regarding atmospheric CO2 changes.
The difference with this paper and preceding IPCC supported AGW-by-CO2 literature is just the addition of the Climate Control Knob sales/marketing gimmick. Without the new sales/marketing gimmick it is the same problematical climate science of the consensus variety we have seen in the past 20+ years.
Lacis’ posts are both very clever and completely misleading. Congratulations on that great scientific looking achievement in sales/marketing . . . not.
Now, can we please get back to the important task of reclaiming climate science from the biased ideologies of the past 20+ years?
John
Dave Springer
…….”The global ocean below the thermocline is only 3 degrees C above freezing – that’s everywhere whether it be the Arctic ocean or the tropical Pacific. 90% of the global ocean is below the thermocline. Once the atmosphere above the ocean surface drops below freezing it’s only a matter of time until ice forms on the surface.”……
Remember that a radiatively active CO2 has a cooling effect in the upper atmosphere during daylight.
Your previous reference to the Moon indicates that with a reduced radiative effect the daylight temperatures would be slightly higher – so, no snow forming on oceans.