Numeracy in Climate Discussions – how long will it take to get a 6C rise in temperature?

kirkmyers says:
April 18, 2013 at 7:03 pm
“There is plenty of research challenging the man-made-CO2-is-warming-the-earth theory. And that’s all it is: a theory.”
______________________________________________________________
Richard D says: I disagree. As demonstrated by empirical data, It’s a failed hypothesis.
I say it isn’t even that. I don’t think it was well-formed enough to be a hypothesis. It was an overblown speculation.

When you take a moving atmosphere into consideration, radiative gases cool at all concentrations above 0.0ppm. Adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will only speed up convective circulation and tropospheric cooling. At 0.04% there is no hope of measuring any such effect from CO2. This is why the models keep failing.

An interesting argument. However, I’d like to see more than just a verbal argument. Do you have any computations or numbers to support it? Or even a very simple model?
I agree with a lot of your assertions, e.g. the practical irrelevance of the adiabatic and hence essentially reversible ALR — the only mechanism that actually cools the atmosphere (permanently removes heat from it) is radiation, and that occurs in the upper troposphere where the atmosphere ceases to be opaque to e.g. LWIR (although it is more complex than this, this process occurs in depth and at different depths in different frequencies). But I find it somewhat difficult to believe that all of the climate models in the climate modeling universe ignore heat bulk transport either vertically or laterally. After all, it isn’t just dry air that carries up the heat — a lot of energy gets lofted up in the form of latent heat of vaporization of water, for example.
So, any papers, computations, models, actual evidence to support your assertion? I don’t have a good enough feel for the numbers to be able to assess whether or not to take this seriously, so you’ll have to help me out if you want me to believe it.
rgb

“If the Earth’s atmosphere were represented by a large swimming pool filled with 3,200 gallons of water:
2,498 gallons would be Nitrogen (78.084% of atmosphere by volume),
670 gallons would be Oxygen (20.9476% of atmosphere by volume),
30 gallons would be Argon (0.934% of atmosphere by volume),
1 gallon would be a mixture of Methane (0.002%), Neon (0.001818%), Helium (0.000524%), Krypton (0.000114%), Hydrogen (0.00005%) and Xenon (0.0000087%)
and
1 gallon would be Carbon Dioxide (0.0314% of atmosphere by volume).
I’m puzzled. First, 3200 gallons of water is a tiny, tiny swimming pool — about six feet by nine feet by six feet deep, or a bit wider if you want to make it shallower.
Second, slightly over one gallon is then not CO_2, but CO_2 and ALL THE REST of the trace gases put together. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmosphere_gas_proportions.svg.
Of these trace gases, there is no point in listing any of them but CO_2. But OTOH, this list leaves out the highly variable but roughly 1% of the troposphere that is water! As for what proportion of the gallon-plus that is CO_2 is “man made” or attributable to humans — that is debatable, but the debate is not served by presenting a pretty metaphor as if it is a fact. Pre-industrial CO_2 was around 300 ppm. That’s a fact. It is around 400 ppm now. That, too, is a fact. One argument, then, might make a full quart of your gallon human contributed CO_2. Another one — arguing that the bulk of the additional CO_2 is actually oceanic CO_2 released by warming — might make it less, but then one would have to explain how it appears that the actual measured concentration of CO_2 in the ocean appears to be at the very least holding its own if not increasing, if it is simultaneously the cause of more CO_2 in the air. At the very least, you should justify any number you cite, and be prepared to defend it, because ANY number that gets cited, either way, is highly dependent on the model used to compute it and the interpretation of measurements that are not at all straightforward to interpret.
Finally, at the end, after one gets through the entire tedious metaphor (correcting it along the way) one is forced to say — so what? It is a simple, measurable, observable fact that the one “gallon” of CO_2 in the “pool” is sufficient to be totally opaque to IR in its absorption bands from the surface all the way up to near the top of the troposphere, where the “murkiness” of the pool finally diminishes enough so that IR in this channel can escape to space. And what of the 30 gallons of the water that are — um — water?
Note well that I’m not asserting that CO_2 is or is not damaging or deadly, only that this metaphor might not be what one wants to present at any meeting or public discussion where you want to actually convince somebody that it is harmless, or that there is no such thing as the GHE, or whatever.
rgb

No pay walled document should be allowed to be cited in any action involving public policy. In effect it is giving a free hand for lies and corruption if information cannot be readily checked.

rgbatduke says:
April 18, 2013 at 10:15 pm
————————————————————————————————————–
Further to Experiment 4 above, here is a graphic of what happens in the two boxes –
http://tinypic.com/r/zmghtu/6
The following graphic shows what that means for the atmosphere –
http://i45.tinypic.com/29koww6.jpg
It should be noted that the panel on the right listed as non radiative atmosphere only shows what would happen shortly after radiative cooling was “switched off”. As Ferd Berple pointed out in a post above after this the atmosphere would go isothermal. Without radiative gases, atmospheric temperatures above the near surface layer would slowly rise to temperatures close to surface Tmax.
To observe the unusual characteristics of an atmosphere without radiative gases you only need to look at the stratosphere. Here there is no strong vertical convective circulation, the lapse rate reverses and molecular energy rapidly rises. It is also important to note that there are no planets or moons in the solar system that have managed to retain an atmosphere without radiative gases.

Dr. Happer, I hope you’re taking questions.
I would be interested to hear your take on this:
I understand your analysis, but the major underlying assumption of the classical theory is that pure black body radiative equilibrium is the primary method of heat rejection on earth, while ignoring an important distinction.
1) With the classical analysis, one simply measures the albedo of the earth, and with known incoming radiation, we can calculate the radiative balance temperature easily. We see the difference and attribute that to the greenhouse effect. Then we add the effect of a CO2 doubling to that to see what the impact is. And then we imagine that albedo will stay the same if more water is evaporated with the higher temperature, which will result in a still higher temperature, and that is why we use a feedback that is >0. We do not assume that albedo will increase on average to reject more heat, both through cloud SW rejection, and reduction of the distance water droplet LW needs to travel to escape to space.
2) This is backwards. The albedo is an output of the system, not an input, and is not stable. It is a result or property of the atmosphere and water vapor in a given volume under different conditions. The correct approach would be to take the albedo of the earth everywhere that there are not clouds, then with the given solar input, calculate the non-cloud radiative balance using this much darker albedo. Now you have the starting conditions of a planet that has no ability to use H20 convection processes. This temperature is much higher since more LW is absorbed. Now we see the difference and attribute the difference to the effect of (1) albedo due to clouds, and (2) all other GHG’s (including water vapor). Not much left for “all other” is there?
3) Planets that are like ours but that are more distant from the sun will have fewer cloud processes than ours (less power delivered, less to reject). Planets that are closer will have more. In other words, all else being equal, a rock / water planet closer to the sun will be brighter, one more distant will be cooler and won’t require active heat rejection.
4) there is an equilibrium distance to the sun for a given baseline (rock & water) albedo at which convection begins to occur at lower latitudes. As the distance to the sun decreases, (and more power is delivered to the planet) the convection will move up the latitudes (and probably form bands), but the albedo will increase with cloud activity. Planets farther than this distance are controlled purely by the classical blackbody equilibrium equations. Planets closer are actively managed via active H20 albedo control, which flattens the temperature profile and creates temperature stability at the surface. Planets very much closer have even more stability and higher albedo. The very fact that albedo changes is indication of a very strong heat rejection mechanism. I don’t want to call it a feedback because I think the entire feedback argument suffers from this same fundamental flaw in thinking. But the fact that the system has a wide band of stability at the surface over a wide range in power input indicates a system in negative feedback control.
5) This active cooling process works in concert with, but certainly would overwhelm CO2’s tiny signature. So, as Willis points out, the effect might be earlier onset or later dissipation of a convective event. Longer duration = higher average albedo over a day. I would also add that the altitude to which water droplets are delivered so that they LW radiate out faster may increase with added CO2.
6) Combining 3,4, and 5, albedo is the system output that manages temperature when planets are close to the sun. The heat capacity of the earth can cause the albedo output to overshoot and undershoot, creating chaotic or cyclical change in temperatures. Likewise, polar regions may contain ice which both insulates LW from the oceans and reflects SW. It’s not hard to imagine a stable planet that has quite a bit of natural variation simply due to other processes kicking in that contribute to under damp the system. For example, we are seeing that after the most recent warm period, stratospheric water vapor is in decline, which is effectively shunting even more LW to space. This process may take years or decades to reverse, which could produce a long cool period before this shutter cycles back to a higher level IR blocking state, and warming would begin again. There are probably countless of these unknowns acting on the system.
7) If you buy that albedo control buys stability at the surface, this means the H20 feedback is negative.
I suspect it is also incorrect to average the 1/2 earth’s input facing the sun with the dark half radiating to space, since these have much different properties and temperatures and this is also a big problem for the classical analysis. Each grid area on earth needs to be integrated to find the values over a day and year (and on and on) for the radiative exchanges going on.
I just saw an article today that mentioned in one sentence that NASA now seems to understand this albedo difference (or at least has me convinced they have an inkling of it). This also means that the classical radiative balance theory that starts with albedo and calculates the effect of CO2 on top of it, then water vapor on top of that (which is absurd) is being abandoned by even the big pro-warmers, something even most skeptics still largely accept, just with low feedback. I’m thinking the whole feedback issue is a result of poorly defining the problem. It gives me hope that NASA might start learning something about this planet now that Hansen is gone. That the classical theory has failed is now beyond dispute, everyone is doing the climb down.
Do you think my order of looking at the problem is more correct than the classical (static albedo) view ? What flaws do you see? Any insights? THANK YOU !!!

Andrew says:
April 18, 2013 at 4:45 pm
Doesn’t it get ever more difficult to increase the ppmv of CO2 in the atmosphere? CO2, as I understand it, partitions at a ration of 50:1 between water and air.

You are confusing total amounts in the oceans with the changes observed at equilibrium.
The oceans indeed contain 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere, but that is not important. What is important is what happens when the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases (by whatever cause). With increased CO2 (partial) pressure in the atmosphere, according to Henry’s Law, the same increase in CO2 pressure in the ocean surface must occur to reach a new equilibrium. Thus the 30% increase over the past 1.5 century increased the free CO2 level in the oceans with 30%. So far so good and simple.
But free CO2 is only 1% of all CO2 in the oceans. Most are bicarbonates and carbonates, which don’t count as free CO2. What happens next? Somewhat more difficult: free CO2 is in chemical equilibrium with bicarbonates and carbonates, thus more CO2 gives more of the other and at the same time more hydrogen ions (that is acidity, or in this case less alkalinity). But more hydrogen ions push the equilibrium back to free CO2.
The total result is that a 30% change of CO2 in the atmosphere indeed gives a 30% change of free CO2 in the oceans surface, but only a 3% change in total dissolved CO2 (called DIC, that is free CO2 + bicarbonate + carbonate) in the oceans surface. As the oceans surface contains about 1000 GtC, the increase over the past 1.5 century was not more than 30 GtC.
Thus instead of a 50:1 ratio, the real ratio is 1:10 for the ocean surface/atmosphere partitioning.
The absorption of any CO2 increase in the deep oceans is where the bulk of CO2 change can go (together with long term capture of carbon by land plants). The difference is in timing: the equilibrium between ocean surface and atmosphere is reached in 1-3 years half life time, but the deep oceans-atmosphere exchanges are limited in flux and need much longer periods to reach equilibrium (half life time ~40 years).

For the past 20 years the Mauna Loa CO2 concentration trend is almost perfectly linear.
If, as usually postulated, a fixed fraction (ca. 50%) of anthropogenic CO2 remains in the atmosphere, a linear trend is generated ONLY WHEN THE YEARLY CO2 EMISSION IS CONSTANT THROUGHOUT.
However, we know that the emission has been increasing for those 20 years throughout, and hence the CO2 concentration curve should be superlinear.
This is an all-time enigma for me.

“Martin A says: April 19, 2013 at 1:14 am ……”
I guess the ∆T ~ ln C is an empirical formula from the fact that the 15-micron O2 band is practically saturated at the peak, and hence the additional CO2 causes essentially slow band broadening, which is approximated by the ∆T ~ ln C formula.

Happer seems to be the only person estimating how much CO2 is needed to get a 6C rise from 2013 concentrations of ~400ppm rather than pre-industrial concentrations of ~270ppm. This makes a substantial difference in the answer (1600 vs 1080ppm).
In assuming that CO2 concentrations will continue to rise at 2ppm/yr, he is making some very strong assumptions about future emission scenarios. Without strong intervention, it is much more likely that the increase in CO2 concentrations per year will continue to rise (tokyoboy April 19, 2013 at 12:42 am – don’t just eyeball the data, calculate the slope – it is superlinear).
The Happer argues that a climate sensitivity of 1C per doubling is more plausible. This is a fantasy not supported by the empirical evidence. Nic Lewis’s paper had a modal sensitivity of 1.6C. Happer’s suggestion that climate sensitivity might be negative is a joke. If he really thought this plausible, it should scare him, as increasing CO2 concentrations would cool the planet! Has he really thought this through?