Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Andrew Lacis and the good folks at GISS have a new paper, Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature, Andrew A. Lacis, Gavin A. Schmidt, David Rind, Reto A. Ruedy 15 OCTOBER 2010 VOL 330 SCIENCE [hereinafter “Lacis10”]. Although most commenters have dismissed their work as being derivative and not containing anything new, I find that they have actually made a couple of unique and novel errors. I have two main difficulties with their paper. I have a problem with one of their theoretical claims, and I also have large issues with their model results. First, the theoretical claim. Lacis10 says:
Because the solar-thermal energy balance of Earth [at the top of the atmosphere (TOA)] is maintained by radiative processes only, and because all the global net advective energy transports must equal zero, it follows that the global average surface temperature must be determined in full by the radiative fluxes arising from the patterns of temperature and absorption of radiation. This then is the basic underlying physics that explains the close coupling that exists between TOA radiative fluxes, the greenhouse effect, and the global mean surface temperature.
Figure 1. Global Energy Budget from Trenberth et al.
Let me examine this claim one piece at a time.
They start by saying:
Because the solar-thermal energy balance of Earth [at the top of the atmosphere (TOA)] is maintained by radiative processes only …
This is not clear. What does “maintained” mean? I think they mean that on average outgoing radiation must perforce equal incoming solar radiation, which is true. As seen in Fig. 1, 341 W/m2 of incoming solar is balanced by the 102 W/m2 of reflected solar plus 239 W/m2 of outgoing longwave.
Next they say:
… and because all the global net advective energy transports must equal zero, …
“Advection” is defined by the American Meteorological Society as “the process of transport of an atmospheric property solely by the mass motion (velocity field) of the atmosphere;”
Since advection merely moves energy around, you’d think that advection wouldn’t change the average global temperature. However, while energy is conserved, temperature is not conserved. Suppose we take two equal areas, say the part of the planet from 30N to 30S (average 25°C) and the rest of the planet including the poles (average 4°C).
Advection (also called “atmospheric transport”) moves about 20 W/m2 from within the tropical and subtropical area of 30°N/S to the temperate and polar area outside of 30°N/S http://www.sp.ph.ic.ac.uk/~arnaud/PAPER/Czaja_Marshall_jas06.pdf. Using blackbody calculations for simplicity, from the 20 W/m2 energy transfer the equatorial area cools by three degrees, while the same area at the poles warms by five degrees. And as a result, the average temperature of the two areas warms by a full degree, simply from advection.
So while the authors are entirely correct to say that the net advective energy transports equals zero, the same can not be said about the effect of net advective energy transport on temperature.
However, let’s ignore that. Let’s say that both of those statements are true for the purposes of this analysis. Given those statements, they then say:
… it follows that the global average surface temperature must be determined in full by the radiative fluxes arising from the patterns of temperature and absorption of radiation.
Here’s where we really part company, on two points. First, surface temperature is not “determined in full by the radiative fluxes”. There are also sensible heat fluxes from the surface to and through the atmosphere (conduction/convection, called “Thermals” in Fig. 1) as well as latent heat fluxes (evaporation and transpiration, or “Evapo-transpiration in Fig. 1). Both of these cool the surface without changing the TOA “solar-thermal energy balance of the earth.” Either I don’t understand their conclusion, or I disagree with it. What am I missing?
Second, there is no logical “it follows” path to get from the two statements
“solar in = solar + longwave out”
and
“net advective energy transport = 0”
to their conclusion
“global average surface temperature must be determined in full by the radiative fluxes”.
I cannot think of, and they do not provide, any logical chain of reasoning that connects the third statement to the first two.
So that’s the theoretical problem with the paper. They claim that the surface temperature of the planet is “determined in full by the radiative fluxes”. I say no.
Next, the model problem. They base all of their claims on making very large changes in the variables of the GISSE global climate model. The model problem is that like many other climate models, GISSE has the cloud feedback backwards. The GISSE model says that clouds are a positive feedback. There’s a good study of the question by De-Zheng Sun et al., 2009, Tropical Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks in Climate Models: A Further Assessment Using Coupled Simulations, Journal of Climate, 22, 1287–1304 [hereinafter Sun09].
Among other things, Sun09 says:
A more serious concern raised by the study of Sun et al. (2006) is the finding of a common bias in the simulation of the cloud albedo feedback in the leading climate models: with the exception of the GFDL model, all the models they analyzed in that study underestimate the response of cloud albedo to the surface warming.
This finding from Sun 2006 were reconfirmed in Sun09. Here’s an illustration of the problem:
Figure 2. Solar (albedo) cloud feedback (blue bars), cloud longwave (yellow bars), and net cloud feedback (red bars) in models and observations of the equatorial Pacific (5°S-5°N, 150°E-250°E). Net feedback is the sum of the longwave and albedo feedbacks. Period of study 1983-2004. DATA SOURCE Sun09 Table II. See Sun09 notes for Table I and Table II for details on the data.
Note the errors in the modelled albedo feedback (blue bars). In the tropics, solar albedo feedback works as follows. Increasing warmth means increasing clouds. Increasing clouds means more sunlight is reflected into space. This cools the earth, and is a negative feedback.
While most of the of the models at least get the sign of the cloud albedo (solar reflection) feedback correct (more clouds means less sunshine hitting the earth, a negative feedback), the UKMO Hadgem1 and the GISS EH models don’t even get the sign of the albedo feedback correct. The rest of the models underestimate the size of the albedo feedback, with values as low as 16% of the observed cloud albedo feedback.
There are also a very wide range of values for the longwave, some of which are very small compared to the actual observations.
In addition to the albedo and longwave problems, a larger issue is the net cloud feedback (red bars). All but one of the models show positive net cloud feedback. The observations and one model show negative feedback.
Now, the Lacis10 authors are using their model to determine (among other things) what happens in the deep Pacific tropics when the non-condensing GHGs are removed from the atmosphere.
Obviously, the first thing that would happen if GHGs were removed is that the planet would start to cool. The immediate response in the tropics would be that daytime cumulus would decrease. This would allow more sunshine to heat the earth, which would be a negative feedback on the cooling from the lack of GHGs.
In addition, the number of tropical thunderstorms would decrease. This would slow the Equator-to Poles atmospheric transport. Once again, this would warm the earth, and would also be a strong negative feedback on the cooling.
The GISS model, on the other hand, says the opposite. It says that as the Earth cools from the lack of GHGs, the change in clouds would make it cooler yet … and unsurprisingly, it says that the net result would be that the planet would spiral into a permanent snowball. Fig. 3 is a figure from the Lacis10 paper, showing how they think it would evolve:
Figure 3. Lacis10 description (their Fig. 2) of the evolution of GISSE model when non-condensing GHGs (everything but water vapor) is removed.
I find this graph quite odd. Immediately after the GHGs are removed, surface temperature starts to drop. That makes sense. But concurrently, there is a steep increase in clouds, from 59% coverage to 69% coverage in one year. This doesn’t make sense. A warmer world is a wetter world. A warmer world is a world with more moisture in the air, and a world with more rainfall and more clouds. Conversely, a cooler world is a dryer world, with less clouds. What would cause the modelled clouds to increase in coverage as the earth cooled? This may be related to the reversed sign of the GISS albedo feedbacks shown in Fig. 2.
(In addition, the GISS Model E normally shows about 10% less cloud coverage than the real Earth. See Present-Day Atmospheric Simulations Using GISS ModelE, (PDF 2.2 Mb), page 169.)
Finally, Fig. 4 shows the atmospheric transport feedback and the total atmospheric feedback, again from Sun09. This is the net cloud feedback shown in Fig. 2, plus the water vapor feedback and the atmospheric transport feedback. (Water vapor feedback is similar in observations and models, and is not shown.)
Figure 4. As in Fig. 2, for atmospheric transport feedback (blue bars) and total atmospheric feedback (red bars). Total atmospheric feedback is the sum of the feedbacks of water vapor, cloud longwave, cloud shortwave, and atmospheric transport. Fewer models are shown than in Fig. 2, because of lack of data for the remainder. See Sun09 for details.
As with the net cloud and the cloud albedo feedbacks, the atmospheric transport feedback is also underestimated by many models. Atmospheric transport is the movement of energy out of the Equatorial area of the study. This transport of energy out of the area increases as the temperature goes up, so it is a negative feedback. It reduces the size of an expected increase.
And as a result of all of the model underestimations, the net feedback for the observations is much larger than any of the models. And indeed, some of the models go so far as to claim positive feedback in the deep tropics area studied.
So that’s my second problem with the Lacis10 paper. Given the huge variation in the feedbacks of the different models, and given that all but one of them show positive cloud feedback in the tropics, there is absolutely no reason to place the slightest credence in the GISS ModelE results reported in Lacis10. Let me close with this quote from James Hansen, pp 2-3 (bulleting mine):
2.4 Principal Model Deficiencies [of the GISS ModelE climate model]
Model shortcomings include
• ~25% regional deficiency of summer stratus cloud cover off the west coast of the continents with resulting excessive absorption of solar radiation by as much as 50 W/m2
• deficiency in absorbed solar radiation and net radiation over other tropical regions by typically 20 W/m2
• sea level pressure too high by 4-8 hPa in the winter in the Arctic and 2-4 hPa too low in all seasons in the tropics
• ~20% deficiency of rainfall over the Amazon basin
• ~25% deficiency in summer cloud cover in the western United States and central Asia with a corresponding ~5C excessive summer warmth in these regions.
I mean, how could you not trust a model with specs like that?
w.
‘I seem to get so far is that everyone is too busy arguing the radiative effects to even think about what would seem to be a larger negative feedback in E-T (evaporative cooling + latent heat)’
If we put would put 4 walls , a roof and a floor around the world, we would be living in a swamp cooling system.
Willis, wouldn’t a reduction in water vapor reinforce the cooling (more than the reduction in clouds would make up for)?
Has anyone run MODTRAN with and without CO2? I am curious as to the amount of forcing lost with a cloud free column. I wonder if there is an estimate for the positive feedbacks (warming) of fewer thunderstorms and fewer clouds. Comparing those two, it seems likely that the energy lost by missing CO2 entirely will not be gained (or even close to gained) by the lack of clouds and other weather. Thus the earth will cool as suggested and loss of water vapor will cool it further.
Willis, the graph is 2D — its flawed and thus the logic is; 101 problem in climate science.
Juraj V. December 9, 2010 at 11:52 am
…Maybe those guys are mixing foots, meters, pounds, Fahrenheits and Celsius altogether. At the end, Gavin is British. There is no other reasonable explanation.
As an Englishman, I should take offence at this … you … you …Swede 🙂
But I cannot deny your argument 🙂
Gavin cooks the books, which probably explains why they are cooked so bad, given English cooking 🙂
Mr. Eschenbach
I fully agree with you observation that the author’s claim that surface temperatures of the plants is “determined in full by the radiative fluxes” is dubious.
Indeed this was a primary reason I became a skeptic. When I started to look at the “energy balance” equations used by climate scientist it immediately became clear the equations were dead wrong – precisely because their equations failed to account for heat transfer due to conduction, convection, evaporation, and condensation.
In short, in AGW theory, there is a near complete reliance on radiative transfer as a the “only” means of energy transfer within the atmosphere. Consequently It became crystal clear “climate science” required a “simplifying” assumption that the mechanisms of conduction and convection in air were negligible. This reality “lapse” is particularly evident when I looked at purely vertical GHG models (where horizontal air movement is ignored).
As a chemical engineer I knew full well this was an absurd set of assumptions. It was also clear that this assumption leads to a second absurd simplifying assumption. Specifically that atmospheric radiative transfer is a reversible adiabatic process (i.e., involves no addition of heat). The “adiabatic” assumption is absurd; because radiative transfer to a body with mass, is and always has been, a subset of thermal heat transfer (symbolically represented as Q). At the molecular level both thermal and radiative transfer are the result of photon exchange – real photons (light) for radiative transfer and virtual photons for heat or thermal exchange.
Simply put, one cannot have an adiabatic process (where Q is equal to zero) and simultaneously have radiative heat transfer (where Q is a fixed value). A fundamental tenet of any thermodynamic analysis of radiative transfer is that the transfer can be described by the formula Q = hr*A*(Ts1 – Ts2); where Q = the heat transferred, hr is the radiative heat transfer coefficient (a function of temperature that can be derived from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation), A is the area, and Ts1 & Ts2 are the respective temperatures of given bodies. (See the text “Momentum, Heat, and Mass Transfer”; by Bennet and Myers, McGraw-Hill, 1974, 2nd edition; pages 309 & 435).
The absurd “adiabatic” assumption leads to a non-physical situation where one has no energy exchange between molecules “heated” by radiative transfer. In other words, in AGW climate science, a heated CO2 molecule is not expected to hit a nearby colder molecule – resulting in a transfer of energy. Clearly we don’t live in a thermodynamic world where an isolated volume of gas at temperature (T) consists of many molecules all at different temperatures. Nor do we live in a world where a heated molecule will not move kinetically without hitting an adjacent molecule. In short, the entire concept violates the statistical basis upon which the 2nd law of thermodynamics is based (from the perspective of two molecules in close proximity [in a gas] existing at different temperatures and not exchanging “heat” thru kinetic impact). Not to mention the impact on the ideal gas law. PV = nRT any one?
I also observed a complete lack of understanding of or of use reaction kinetics for assessing the conversion of radiative energy to thermal energy when light (photons) hit matter. My former physical chemistry professor is likely rolling in his grave. This was all the more disturbing given that both Einstein and Neils Bohr provide a fairly sound basis for evaluating the predicted behavior of photons and atoms. (For a good entry level description I recommend Chapter 12 of the text book “Fundaments of Phononics” by Bahaa E. Saleh and Malvin Teich; John Wiley & Sons, 1991 edition). I have read two papers that used the Bohr/Einstein approach both of which call into question AGW theory due to AGW failure to fully account for thermal transfer due to light/mass interaction (i.e. the saturation effect).
While the above simplifying “science” assumptions are useful in metrological prediction (where one has measured temperatures as a starting point for weather prediction); it is not at all surprising that this “simplified” approach starts to break down in a matter of days. Nor is it surprising that AWG “climate scientist” cannot accurately predict the tropical temperature profile with altitude. Simply put, from my view, their highly “simplified” non-physical thermodynamic model quickly falls apart with time – as the impacts of conduction, convection, evaporation, condensation and other effects overwhelm the simplified model.
As a side note. If one is to be fully and scientifically accurate, there can be no “radiative” balance at the outer atmosphere unless you assume that no energy stroage. In other words you assume 1) atmospheric reactions are not occurring, 2) no photosynthesis is occurring, and 3) there are no other geological mechanisms for “storing” radiative energy. I would submit, we have enough fossil fuels and plant life to demonstrate that radiative energy is being stored. Hence, In = Out + Stored + Reactions. Not, as assumed, In = Out.
Regards,
Kforestcat
Ed P says:
December 9, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Yes, and there’s also the missing outward flow of thermal energy from the Earth’s volcanism. The diagram shows net flow inwards yet we know that the Earth is inherently exothermic due to radioactivity, remnant formation heat and friction from gravitational effects. I understand that the net flow outwards is only small, tenths of a Wm-2, but I also know that it is poorly understood and I don’t even know how it has been “measured”.
Similarly, we are always given longwave radiation as the form of energy transfer away from the earth to free space, the “balancing” flow to provide the stasis. I guess this is because longwave (ie infra-red) is in the middle of the power spectral band of a blackbody of the Earth’s average temperature, but I have never seen a Power Spectral Density diagram showing the actual power vs frequency of the outgoing radiation. Does one exist? Is the earth a perfect blackbody? What is the true emmisivity function of the planet?
Naive issues perhaps. Just curious.
I love the way they call computer generated fantasy “research”. Get off your duff and do an experiment already, or collect some honest data.
Computer models of systems you don’t understand are not science no matter how many “peers” review it.
Ah, I see my question was at least partly answered before I asked it. Even if CO2 is just 10% of the GH effect, that is a significant chunk of the 79 W shown for clouds in the Trenberth diagram. Even with no clouds, it seems to me that the loss of the water vapor feedback at that point would lead to significant cooling. If CO2 is closer to 25%, then cooling is a certainty, the lack of CO2 plus the reduced water vapor would easily exceed the gain from having no clouds.
I JUST got through posting about the cold weather in Cancun when I saw this title!!!! KNOBS! Now I have a mess to clean up on my computer.
Nice article Willis.
This is about as clear as it can get.
They really did increase the cloud cover numbers in their simulation when CO2/GHGs are removed. I mean really. [I didn’t read the actual paper when it came out but now that I have, they really did this].
I mean pull out the CO2/GHGs and water vapour falls by 90%. Yet, cloudiness increases 15 percentage points or so. There is almost no water vapour yet cloudiness increases to levels probably never seen before on the planet. It is completely ridiculous.
All these climate scientist simulations are “tuned” to get the result they want. But magically, it gets published.
It’s the water vapor…. No matter how you cut this climate pie, CO2 is always gonna be just the crumbs.
Willis Eschenbach says:
December 9, 2010 at 6:07 pm
Dave Wendt says:
December 9, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Evans and Puckrin 2006, a study which used spectral analysis to quantify the separate contributions of the various atmospheric component gases to total downwelling long wave radiation at the surface
http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
found that in the presence of DLR from H2O of more than 200W/m2 the DLR attributable to CO2 was dramatically suppressed
Thank you for that fascinating study by Evans, Dave.
Glad you enjoyed it. I’ve been intrigued by it since I first came across it several years ago. The logical implications I offered were of course my own and not those of the authors, who seemed to have missed the most compelling point in the data they collected, although they did devote a short sentence to the suppressive effect in their conclusion.
What has, to me, been most interesting thing about this work is that almost no one has expanded on this technique in the more than a decade that has passed since E&P did their experimental work. I’ve made a number of serious Google dumpster dives in the years since and have only come across one study that also utilized the spectral analysis technique. It was done at the South Pole with predictable results. I had actually expected a gold rush of studies, because the technique seems to provide the first real opportunity to develop a data set with empirically quantified numbers for the contributions of the various components the atmosphere to the GHE. The fact that no one is trying to expand on this data has always been puzzling. If I were of a more conspiratorial mindset, I would almost suspect that the people doling out grant money really don’t want here the answers it could provide.
The “control knob” is albedo. Trenberth shows a net absorption (imbalance) at the surface of (rounded up) 1 w/m2. To negate that imbalance requires an albedo increase of just 0.33% from say 35.00% to 35.33% then BOOYAH all anthropogenic greenhouse net forcing is eliminated.
The only sensitivity our climate has at the moment is the tendency to cover half the northern hemisphere land mass with a glacier and that happens not from any radical change in greenhouse gases or solar variability but rather a couple of degrees of axial tilt which does absolutely nothing to change the amount of energy the earth receives or radiates it simply changes the distribution of it triggering runaway cooling from the higher albedo of glacial ice. Fortunately the so-called greenhouse gases put a floor on how far the runaway cooling can go just as the water cycle puts a cap on how far runaway warming can go.
@Eric (the Skeptic)
> Has anyone run MODTRAN with and without CO2? I am curious as to
> the amount of forcing lost with a cloud free column
Here, try it yourself:
http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/Projects/modtran.orig.html
The page should default to CO2=377 ppm. Just hit the ‘Submit’ button and it will compute outgoing radiation of 287.844 w/m2. Then zero out CO2 and submit again. Will show 318.396 w/m2. About 31 watts difference.
“I think they mean that on average outgoing radiation must perforce equal incoming solar radiation, which is true.”
Well, that is still not precise. You need to specify here that you mean average OVER TIME.
At any particular time, ingoing and outgoing can be different, as the planet cools or warms. They are only the same when planetary temperature is stable.
Bah!! Humbug!!!!
Everyone continues to miss the point….. The Trenberth paper is mis-direction.
Radiative flux is not a transfer of energy. Radiative Heat Transfer is the flow of energy from a warm object to a cooler object. In the case of the Earth’s surface to the atmosphere the net energy transfer is 63 W/m2. 40 W/m2 of which freely escapes the atmosphere. That leaves only 23 W/m2 to be absorbed by the atmosphere!
That leaves CO2 with a paltry 3% of the total energy balance.
The Earth’s Energy Balance
John Kehr
The Inconvenient Skeptic
Kforestcat says December 9, 2010 at 6:15 pm:
Yep, energy in hotter CO2 molecules surely gets quickly sucked up, moved and dumped elsewhere by water – which has double the thermal capacity, never mind the relative concentration of the two. So where does that leave so-called ‘back-radiation’? Can we actually measure it in a normal atmospheric mixture or is it a myth born of pure gas observation and theory?
Water has a huge 2257 kJ latent heat payload compared to its couple of kJ/kgK thermal capacity. How many state changes are going on all the time and where – is this not what clouds are really all about?
If you think this is wrong or too simplistic please explain why.
If I’m not mistaken, about 100 tons or more of “space dust” and rocks and such enter our atmosphere every day. At the very least, there is kinetic energy transfer into the Earth’s system asthey burn up in the atmosphere.
Has anyone calculated the energy input of “space dust” to our climate?
Willis Eschenbach says:
December 9, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Because energy can be neither created nor destroyed. So all you are doing with advective transfers is moving it around, and what one place gains, another loses. Net zero.
Energy can be stored, and as you showed in your discussion, temperature is not energy.
If there were no winds from the Sahara, our seas would radiate down to winter temperatures (~14C). At the moment, they are a comfortable 18C because the warm nights with the winds from the Sahara , 16-18C keep them so even with the cloud cover. It takes long averages to average out to “net zero” the heat stored in the oceans, what PDO etc show us. See the SST anomaly in our region.
The first effect of cooling an ocean surface would be to create a fog layer which explains the increased cloud albedo. I think Willis’s reasoning on cloud feedback falls apart when fog is considered.
He also seems surprised by the inference that the net radiative energy loss due to removing CO2 leads to a cooler average surface. I don’t follow why that is a surprise. It seems quite obvious.
Willis,
Nice job. I hope you publish a rebuttal to this paper in a high impact journal. There is one bit I think you have wrong. You say a warmer world is a wetter world. I’ve heard it before but I just don’t buy it. In the 1930s, the US was very warm. It was the Dust Bowl years. No rain. Howard Hughes was frustrated in the filming of one of his movies because they went for months without any clouds in the sky he needed for an air combat scene. In the 1990s, it was warm again and again we had droughts and falling water levels in lakes and reservoirs.
Atmospheric humidity and cloud formation are not the same thing. I do not pretend to understand the processes involved, I just know the observations are undeniable. A warmer world is a drier world. Let’s stay away from the theories and the models and trust our eyes.
Best wishes to you!
Willis PLEASE READ;
Quite apart from the issues you raise, there is a very fundamental error in the global energy budget from Trenberth et al, the diagram you start your article with. It claims surface emission from Earth 40 watts/sqM, cloud top emission 30 watts/sqM and atmospheric emission 169 watts/sqM. Now the atmosphere can only emit at the ghg wavelengths, its emissivity is essentially zero at other wavelengths. Further more, it is only the top of the atmosphere that can radiate to space, radiation from lower down in the atmosphere is reabsorbed by the ghg’s higher up and the amount of emission depends only on the emissivity (which will be 1 at the ghg wavelengths and zero at other wavelengths) and the temperature of the emitting gas. In fact the emission altitude is approximately that of the tropopause confirmed by the emission profile as seen from space (from the IRIS experiment on the Nimbus satellite). (The emission altitude is also confirmed by the fact that the tropopause is colder than the atmosphere both below and above- consider how such a situtation can come about all over the planet in view of the second law of thermodynamics!). The tropopause is at a temperature of 220K and a black body at 220K would emit 132 watts/sqM. Since the atmosphere only emits at the ghg wavelengths which occupy far less than the complete spectrum the atmosphere must be emitting far less than 132 watts/sqM.
All this is again confirmed by a simple look at the Nimbus data. The overlayed black body plank curves show where the emission is coming from. In the atmospheric window between 8 and 14 microns the emission temperature is that of the surface. The only emitter that hot is the surface itself so that must be where the radiation is coming from. The total area under the curve represents the total emission to space and simply by inspection the area under that portion of the curve between 8 and 14 microns is at least 70% of the total area ie: the surface (and cloud tops) are emitting at least 170 watts/sqM.
What this means is that Trenberth is grossly overestimating atmospheric emission and grossly underestimating surface emission. In effect, Trenberth is grossly overestimating the degree to which ghg’s are incrementally affecting radiation to space.
Since this global energy budget is a fundamental basis of most of the global circulation models it means the models are at best seriously flawed and cannot be relied on.
I can explain this is considerably more detail if necessary but I suspect such a lengthy explanation would be inappropriate in a comment.
anna v says: “The basic flaw in this paper, in my opinion, is that it thinks that nature can separate green house gasses, that the photons know if the greenhouse gases are CO2 or H2O. Hand waving “H2O is variable while CO2 is cumulative” does not make a scientific argument and is indicative of scientific cognitive dissonance. ”
Doesn’t part of the CO2 get washed down into the ocean by rain?
I also remember a story about Ernest Rutherford giving a lecture with Lord Kelvin in the audience…..