Paul Ostergaard writes via email:
Here is an interesting new paper that Miklos Zagoni has pointed me to via Judith Curry’s blog. This researcher in Germany has carried out a spectroscopic analysis of the impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases’ contribution to warming.
It arrives (surprise!) at a value one seventh of the IPCC best estimate for Climate Sensitivity for a CO2 doubling. Looks intriguing at first blush…
The climate sensitivity CS as a measure for the temperature increase found, when the actual CO2-concentration is doubled, assumesCS = 0.41 ̊C for the tropical zone, CS = 0.40 ̊C for the moderate zones and CS = 0.92 ̊C for the polar zones. The weighted average over all regions as the global climate sensitivity is found to be CS = 0.45 ̊C with an estimated uncertainty of 30%, which mostly results from the lack of more precise data for the convection between the ground and atmosphere as well as the atmospheric backscattering…. The values for the global climate sensitivity published by the IPCC [3] cover a range from 2.1 ̊C – 4.4 ̊C with an average value of 3.2 ̊C, which is seven times larger than that predicted here.
Here is the link to the abstract:
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2011/EGU2011-4505-1.pdf
The paper is being presented at the EGU General Assembly 2011 in Vienna.
Perhaps our WUWT readers can dissect this and see how well it holds up. It is important to verify if the paper’s methodology is sound.
===============================================================
How much CO2 really contributes to global warming? Spectroscopic
studies and modelling of the influence of H2O, CO2 and CH4 on our
climate
Hermann Harde
Helmut-Schmidt-Universität Hamburg, Germany
Based on the actual HITRAN’2008 database [1] detailed spectroscopic studies on the absorbance of the greenhouse gases water, carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere are presented. The objective of these investigations was to examine and to quantify with these newly available data the influence of these gases on our climate.
The line-by-line calculations for sun light from 0.1 – 8 m (short wavelength radiation) as well as those for the emitted earth radiation from 3 – 60 m (long wavelength radiation) show, that due to the strong overlap of the CO2 and CH4 spectra with the water vapour lines the influence of these gases is significantly reducing with increasing water vapour pressure, and that with increasing CO2-concentration well noticeable saturation effects are observed limiting substantially the impact of CO2 on the warm-up of the atmosphere.
For the water vapour, which in its concentration is considerably varying with the altitude above ground as well as with the climate zone, separate distributions for the tropes, the moderate zones and the polar regions are presented.
They are based on actual GPS-measurements of the water content in these zones [2] and are applied for calculating the absorbance in the respective regions. The vertical variation in humidity and temperature, in the partial gas pressures and the total pressure is considered for each zone separately by computing individual absorption spectra for up to 228 atmospheric layers from ground level up to 86 km height.
The propagation length of the sun light in these layers, which depends on the angle of incidence to the atmosphere and therefore on the geographic latitude, is included by considering the earth as a truncated icosahedron (bucky ball) consisting of 32 surfaces with well defined angles to the incoming radiation and assigning each of the areas to one of the three climate zones.
To identify the influence of the absorbing gases on the climate and particularly the effect of an increasing CO2- concentration on the warming of the earth, a two-layer climate model was developed, which describes the atmosphere and the ground as two layers acting simultaneously as absorbers and Planck radiators. Also heat transfer by convection between these layers and horizontally by winds or oceanic currents between the climate zones is considered.
At equilibrium each, the atmosphere as well as the ground, delivers as much power as it sucks up from the sun and the neighbouring layer or climate zone.With this model for each climate zone the temperature progression of the earth and the atmosphere is calculated as a function of the CO2-concentration and several other parameters like ozone and cloud absorption, short- and long-wavelength scattering at clouds as well as the reflection at the earth’s surface.
The simulations for the terrestrial and atmospheric warm-up show well attenuating and saturating progressions with increasing CO2-concentration, mainly caused by the strongly saturating absorption of the intensive CO2 bands and the interference with water lines. The climate sensitivity CS as a measure for the temperature increase found, when the actual CO2-concentration is doubled, assumesCS = 0.41°C for the tropical zone, CS = 0.40°C for the moderate zones and CS = 0.92°C for the polar zones. The weighted average over all regions as the global climate sensitivity is found to be CS = 0.45°C with an estimated uncertainty of 30%, which mostly results from the lack of more precise data for the convection between the ground and atmosphere as well as the atmospheric backscattering.
The values for the global climate sensitivity published by the IPCC [3] cover a range from 2.1°C – 4.4°C with an average value of 3.2°C, which is seven times larger than that predicted here.
studies and modelling of the influence of H2O, CO2 and CH4 on our
climate
Hermann Harde
Helmut-Schmidt-Universität Hamburg, Germany (harde@hsu-hh.de)
Based on the actual HITRAN’2008 database [1] detailed spectroscopic studies on the absorbance of the greenhouse
gases water, carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere are presented. The objective of these investigations
was to examine and to quantify with these newly available data the influence of these gases on our climate.
The line-by-line calculations for sun light from 0.1 – 8 m (short wavelength radiation) as well as those for the
emitted earth radiation from 3 – 60 m (long wavelength radiation) show, that due to the strong overlap of the CO2
and CH4 spectra with the water vapour lines the influence of these gases is significantly reducing with increasing
water vapour pressure, and that with increasing CO2-concentration well noticeable saturation effects are observed
limiting substantially the impact of CO2 on the warm-up of the atmosphere.
For the water vapour, which in its concentration is considerably varying with the altitude above ground as well as
with the climate zone, separate distributions for the tropes, the moderate zones and the polar regions are presented.
They are based on actual GPS-measurements of the water content in these zones [2] and are applied for calculating
the absorbance in the respective regions. The vertical variation in humidity and temperature, in the partial gas
pressures and the total pressure is considered for each zone separately by computing individual absorption spectra
for up to 228 atmospheric layers from ground level up to 86 km height.
The propagation length of the sun light in these layers, which depends on the angle of incidence to the atmosphere
and therefore on the geographic latitude, is included by considering the earth as a truncated icosahedron (bucky
ball) consisting of 32 surfaces with well defined angles to the incoming radiation and assigning each of the areas
to one of the three climate zones.
To identify the influence of the absorbing gases on the climate and particularly the effect of an increasing CO2-
concentration on the warming of the earth, a two-layer climate model was developed, which describes the atmosphere
and the ground as two layers acting simultaneously as absorbers and Planck radiators. Also heat transfer by
convection between these layers and horizontally by winds or oceanic currents between the climate zones is considered.
At equilibrium each, the atmosphere as well as the ground, delivers as much power as it sucks up from the
sun and the neighbouring layer or climate zone.With this model for each climate zone the temperature progression
of the earth and the atmosphere is calculated as a function of the CO2-concentration and several other parameters
like ozone and cloud absorption, short- and long-wavelength scattering at clouds as well as the reflection at the
earth’s surface.
The simulations for the terrestrial and atmospheric warm-up show well attenuating and saturating progressions with
increasing CO2-concentration, mainly caused by the strongly saturating absorption of the intensive CO2 bands and
the interference with water lines. The climate sensitivity CS as a measure for the temperature increase found, when
the actual CO2-concentration is doubled, assumesCS = 0.41°C for the tropical zone, CS = 0.40°C for the moderate
zones and CS = 0.92°C for the polar zones. The weighted average over all regions as the global climate sensitivity
is found to be CS = 0.45°C with an estimated uncertainty of 30%, which mostly results from the lack of more
precise data for the convection between the ground and atmosphere as well as the atmospheric backscattering.
The values for the global climate sensitivity published by the IPCC [3] cover a range from 2.1°C – 4.4°C with an
average value of 3.2°C, which is seven times larger than that predicted here.
The temperature data since 1880 suggests a sensitivity of about 1 degK assuming all is due to CO2 and feedbacks. But as we’ve been coming out of the Little Ice age this lower result is not unreasonable particularly if the overlap of CO2/H2O/CH4 absorption has previously been underestimated.
Prof Lindzen etc need to give this a good going over and compare and contrast with his results for outgoing radiation with Choi from 2009.
From the abstract of the paper…
If you compare Moberg’s NH Medieval Warm Period reconstruction to HadCRUT3 NH, it might currently be 0.1°C to 0.2°C warmer than it was during the MWP… Which is right about where if ought to be if the sensitivity is ~0.5°C and CO2 really was only ~285ppmv back in the MWP.
Science…
If you assume that all of the warming since 1850 is due to CO2, the maximum possible sensitivity (including feedbacks) is ~2.0°C.
Junk Science…
Jimbo says:
March 3, 2011 at 1:29 am
It’s funny how each week it seems to get worse and worse for the IPCC / Warm.
Estimated CO2 Warming Cut By 65%
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/estimated-co2-warming-cut-65
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n9/full/ngeo932.html
In your first link, the author has posted a correction saying that the estimated CO2 warming cut is 39%, not 65%.
Anthony,
Thanks for this. Almost each month that passes we are seeing that claims for the so-called ‘feedback’ from CO2 are increasingly negligible. Slowly we are getting towards the null hypothesis.
Very soon the entire scientific community will agree with the authors of ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ that there is no atmospheric GHG effect and such claims were borne from junk science all along.
I’d like to respond to:
Svein S says:
March 3, 2011 at 1:58 am
I find it amazing that people … responsible for [this blog] place faith in an abstract [that is unclear in some areas and unchecked]. If you wish to pinch a hole in the consensus view of climate sensitivity, please apply some elements of scientific thinking, rigour and analysis.
I think that’s a fair precis of the comment.
My response is to ask ‘what people’, ‘what faith’ and ‘what wish’?
A propos of my question ‘What people?’:
When you speak of ‘the people responsible for the blog’ I infer that you perceive WUWT as a conspiracy of Science Deniers. People who will have faith in anything except for the revealed truths of Science, which we dogmatically refuse to accept, due to prejudgment by reason of politics, religion or insanity.
Insofar as that ‘conspiracy’ goes, Svein S you are now a poster at WUWT. How well does that description fit you? It’s my judgment that it fits everybody else here as badly as it does you. But if I’m wrong, even if there were some such here, it does not impact on the rest of us. I mention that last possibility, simply because the very liberal policies of the site are that anyone can post comments, subject to reasonable restrictions against incivility and relevance. ‘Anyone’ would include a ‘Science Denier’ blinded by prejudice, although the next time I see one will bee the first time, and the other commentators will at best charitably ignore him if not outright ridicule him.
The people responsible for this post on this blog is one person, Anthony Watts. It’s no secret; he spells it out clearly. He tells us who told him, what that person had to say, where and how he got it. There is no conspiracy here.
Apropos of ‘what faith?’:
Faith is the domain of religion, not science. Nobody here places faith in the paper. What you see before you shows we do the exact opposite. Note that the person who e-mailed it to Anthony Watts, Paul Ostergaard writes ‘Perhaps our WUWT readers can dissect this and see how well it holds up. It is important to verify if the paper’s methodology is sound.’ This is not the wording of a believer.
We do indeed dissect it. See how many commentators criticise it for being model-based. (I admit, I didn’t interpret it that way, and must re-read it.) Others criticise it for not being based on a round earth. Others, including yourself, point out that it has not been subject to peer review. These are just the early comments.
See that the post’s heading itself states that it is a claim.
We (Anthony, in this case) are informing each other of the existence of the paper. We’re hypothesising the implications if it should turn out to be true. We’re subjecting it to what criticisms we’re currently able to make. None of this is ‘placing faith’.
Apropos of my question ‘What wish?’, your assumption that this site ‘wish[es] to pinch a hole in the consensus view of climate sensitivity’ is mistaken. This blog does not hold a pre-determined position. Admittedly, most of us are unpersuaded by the consensus viewpoint. However, you will note that Anthony links to pro-AGW sites, though they don’t return the courtesy. He has often invited their representatives to post or comment here.
He does not censor posts with which he disagrees, a fact that cannot be said about some of the advocacy sites. (That practice, combined with their advocacy, seems to me to be anti-scientific.)
This site exists to comment on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology and recent news., not to deliver ‘the truth’ from any one viewpoint. Many of those interesting or puzzling things do not support the ‘consensus view’. This means that you can only learn about them from the sceptic blogs, such as WUWT.
Not all of those things pan out, of course. But many of them do. Without Anthony Watts, the surfacestations project, and the Alarmists’ counter-project would not exist.
Without sceptics’ blogs, people would believe the ‘hockey stick’ was statistically valid, and that the medieval warm period didn’t exist. Hansen’s records would incorrectly cobble together two data sets, etc.
Now that you’ve become a WUWT poster, you’ve seen some of what this blog is about. Do stick around and do it again. If we’re factually in error, tell us so. Do try and avoid being trapped by faulty assumptions. And enjoy the site. It offers a lot of interesting things.
And we’ll all aspire to meet your call for scientific thinking, rigour and analysis.
I was interested to learn more about this paper and the author, so I’m posting what I found:
Paper is for this Event
European Geosciences Union
General Assembly 2011
Vienna | Austria | 03 – 08 April 2011
Aims & Scope of event
The EGU General Assembly 2011 will bring together geoscientists from all over the world into one meeting covering all disciplines of the Earth, Planetary and Space Sciences. Especially for young scientists the EGU appeals to provide a forum to present their work and discuss their ideas with experts in all fields of geosciences. The EGU is looking forward to cordially welcome you in Vienna!
URL: http://meetings.copernicus.org/egu2011/
This paper comes under:
Poster Programme CL2.6
Earth radiation budget, radiative forcing and climate change
Convener: Martin Wild
Co-Conveners: Rolf Philipona , Paul Stackhouse
URL: http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2011/poster_programme/6420
Dr. Hermann Harde
URL: http://www.hsu-hh.de/laser/index_xf8dd16rfJ6hg6A6.html
Other work:
A New Tool for Computation and Display of Spectra from the HITRAN Database (HITRAN is an acronym for high-resolution transmission molecular absorption database.)
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/HITRAN_conf06_presentations/Session5/5.5-Harde.pdf
His theortical calculations are probably wrong
Go to “Climate at Glance” at the NCDC’s website. Plot the annual mean temp for Texas. The trend for the 1895 to 2010 interval is 0.00 deg F.
The conc of CO2 in dry air has increased by ca 38% since ca 1900.
It this trend continues, doubling the conc of CO2 will have no effect on Texas annual mean temperature.
I really do like Texas cherry pie!
I have to say I like this study – not only does it confirm what I have thought all along, but it also seems to tie-in nicely with observed temperatures while leaving room for some of the recent warming being caused by other factors ( Solar maximum, ENSO and other human-driven influences like land-use changes and UHI.)
It will be interesting to see how well the methodologies and interpretations stand-up to the closer scrutiny they will undoubtedly get from the warmists should this study achieve any sort of prominence in the media (if it doesn’t, it will simply be ignored). If they can’t refute the results, then “SS Increasing levels of CO2 are going to cause major changes to the Earths climate” is going to be holed below the waterline.
Re the issue of computer climate models, we have tended to be skeptical of all such things because of how they get manipulated and are obviously prone to GIGO. But it’s important to remember that computer modelling is actually a very good tool scientists use in many fields with good results – when the models are comprehensive enough, the underlying science is understood, that science is applied correctly, and most importantly when there is a real data feedback system that keeps it empirically sound.
The question with computer model used in this study should merely be “does it accurately reflect the underlying physics of the system under study?” And, of course, does its results conform to observed data? On the first issue, we can only say that the researcher has made a serious effort to create a model which reflects the actual physics of the earth’s atmosphere and the interactions of the dominant hydrolic cycle with the radiative effects of CO2. Is it perfect? Undoubtedly not. It will take a lot more investigation to see how well it takes all the physics involved into account. But off the bat, it sounds like a sound approach. And the results do have the clear advantage of conforming to the observed data. Remember, the IPCC results do not conform to observed data, but require that we assume the 20th century would have gone through a rather sever cooling period if not for CO2 greenhouse gas effects. This result requires no such magical thinking. It merely requires that we infer some small effect on the existing period of otherwise natural warming.
Point being that computer models are not inherently bad ideas. They really can be useful tools in science when used with integrity and awareness of their limits. One goal of climate science really would be to create computer models that actually do take into account the total physics of the earth’s atmosphere and thus reflect relatively closely its actual functional variations and workings. It doesn’t always have to be GIGO. It’s possible that over time we will have TITO (truth in, truth out).
Could someone explain the assumesCS, in that first excerpt?
Assume global warming therefore global warming is not a valid argument.
Also, regarding the criticism “wouldn’t it be better to use a spherical earth than one broken into 32 surfaces”, this simply isn’t how computer models work. As in every “calculus” of a sphere, one always breaks the surface down into a series of flat planes. The more planes one uses, the closer it resembles a sphere. At no point does it ever become a true “sphere”. So all computer models do this. If there is a criticism to be made here, it’s that using only 32 surfaces is a very rough model. The bigger climate models have supercomputers and use grids with much smaller areas.
So one can say that this model is still a bit on the rough side, and might benefit from a more intensive calculative process with a tighter grid. Follow up work could certainly be done if this fellow can get further grant money and access to faster computers and more complex modelling. But that is probably only going to refine the uncertainty the researcher already has stated of +/30%, not dramatically alter the outcome. The more serious issues are the underlying scientific assumptions about how atmospheric physics works. That’s where the model needs to be rigorously examined and tested.
RE: Weather Noise for Feb in Utah is 2 deg F.
I downloaded tbe Utah Feb monthly mean temperature for the interval 1900 to 2010 from the NCDC site just mentioned.
For each decade I computed Tmean +/- AD, where AD is the classical average deviation from the mean. I then computed the average Tmean +/- AD and got 31 +/- 3 deg F.
I propose that AD = weather noise (WN) + resolution of field therometer (RFT). Since RFT = 1 deg F, WN = 2 deg F.
If you all have any objections to this simple but powerful method of computinf weather noise, I want to them.
Responders get coffee and Texas cherry pie al a mode!
I serving coffee
I would love to see more on this. I know some people have reservations about any model. But these guys need a model to explain spectroscopy data. The surfacial difference between this and the IPCC models is this: A CLEAR QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY, AND IT’S SOURCE.
The verbiage from CAGW proponents here indicates panic, given the early status of this paper. Those who attack it primarily because it is still early in the process reveal their closed mindedness. Those who attack it because of some imagined geometric imperfection are ignoring the fact that the deviation from sphericity is insignificant. Almost 3/4 of the earth is ocean, for which finer gridding is pointless. Current GCM’s use a grid that is nowhere near as fine as the observed microclimate pattern over the remaining 1/3 of the globe. The difference between an icosahedron and a sphere in this application is trivial and will not affect the estimated sensitivity significantly.
“When in trouble, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.” –anon
@Jimbo says:
March 3, 2011 at 1:29 am
It’s funny how each week it seems to get worse and worse for the IPCC / Warm.
——
Yeah, really! Do I hear the sounds of rats leaping off of a sinking ship? Maybe disputing CAGW models will be the newest research funding scam!
I feel sorry for Hermann.
Now that the climategate team know how big the threat is, they will be pulling out the stops to “keep (it) out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” . No doubt they’ll already be starting to pull strings to get this “delayed” indefinitely or “revised” to include so many caveats that it is meaningless.
I also wouldn’t want to be in his shoes at the conference because he is bound to be heavily attacked.
Has anyone here yet figured out that this is not an abstract for a paper?
Re: Keith Minto @ur momisugly March 2, 2011 at 11:27 pm
The polyhedron mentioned replaces your example using 20 triangles with 20 hexagons.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TruncatedIcosahedron.html
Why “bucky ball” was mentioned along with truncated icosahedron is because of its connection to carbon 60- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckminsterfullerene
It can also be thought of as this- http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Football_Pallo_valmiina-cropped.jpg
This paper clearly has no credibility: he omitted to say at the bottom: “BTW, AGW is reely trooly happening!”
syphax says: March 2, 2011 at 10:34 pm
“If someone published a paper that found a sensitivity of 5 degrees C, and the paper abstract included the phrase “considering the earth as a truncated icosahedron (bucky ball) consisting of 32 surfaces”, how well would that fly around here?”
If you are prepared to accept interpolation of temperatures from stations 1,200 km apart then you may as well be modelling the earth as a truncated icosahedron.
Before everyone gets all worked up into a conspiratorial tizzy… please go here to put this abstract into context.
It’s an abstract for a talk that Dr Harde is giving at the EGU meeting. As yet there are no papers by Dr Harde with the same title. That doesn’t mean there won’t be one forthcoming but science takes time to run its course.
Getting closer, but I think they are still overestimating.
MikeN says:
March 3, 2011 at 9:58 am
Could someone explain the assumesCS, in that first excerpt?
Assume global warming therefore global warming is not a valid argument.
MikeN, I think that is “lost in translation”. What he likely means is that when the model is run the CS is found to have VALUES of xx.x deg C
John_in_Oz says:
March 3, 2011 at 8:43 am
I’d like to respond to:
Svein S says:
March 3, 2011 at 1:58 am
I find it amazing that people … responsible for [this blog] place faith in an abstract [that is unclear in some areas and unchecked]. If you wish to pinch a hole in the consensus view of climate sensitivity, please apply some elements of scientific thinking, rigour and analysis.
I think that’s a fair precis of the comment.
My response is to ask ‘what people’, ‘what faith’ and ‘what wish’?
>>>
Nicely done John. JUst beautiful. I’m guessing that Svein won’t be responding, though I really wish he would. Anthony W. put this up with all appropriate qualifications and caveats, which Svein evidently did not read in his eagerness to be dismissive.
Easy to dismiss. Much, much harder to actually think.
Because of the huge interest in this paper, I’ve delved further into the subject to see if I can make more sense of it.
It’s a long post so for a full analysis please see my blog:
http://scottishsceptic.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/how-much-co2-really-contributes-to-gw-further-analysis/
Conclusion
From this investigation, the main reason for a difference in calculated warming appears to be the more sophisticated modelling of trace gas absorption using the improved ability of the HITRAN database.Moreover as they also model the effect of temperature and pressure(?), the absorption spectra will change for each layer of the atmosphere being modelled even if they contain the same gas proportions.
However, whilst the paper mentions cloud and H20, there is no explicit mention of feedback such as additional atmospheric H20 and there is no reason to suggest from the known background of the Author that he would have incorporated such feedback which would seem to be outside his field of expertise.