Guest essay by Dr. Ira Glickstein
We’ve reached a turning point where it is hard for any Global Warming Alarmist to claim (with a straight face) that the world as we know it is about to end in the coming decades unless we stop burning fossil fuels. Anyone deluded or foolish enough to make such a claim would be laughed at by many audiences.
GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL
Yes, the world has warmed 1°F to 1.5°F (0.6°C to 0.8°C) since 1880 when relatively good thermometers became available. Yes, part of that warming is due to human activities, mainly burning unprecedented quantities of fossil fuels that continue to drive an increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels. The Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect is a scientific fact!
BUT GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT A BIG DEAL
Alarmist Theory is Handcuffed to High Estimates of Climate Sensitivity
As the animated graphic clearly indicates, the theoretical climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are handcuffed to inordinately high estimates of climate sensitivity (how much temperatures are expected to rise given a doubling of CO2). Since the advent of good satellite-based global temperature data in 1979, observed temperatures have risen at a fraction of the IPCC predicted rate even as CO2 continues to rise.
Relax, there is not and never has been any near-term “tipping point”. The actual Earth Climate System is far less sensitive to CO2 than claimed the IPCC climate theory, as represented by their computer models. Global Warming since 1880 is mainly due to Natural Cycles and Processes not under human control. Yes, the same Natural Cycles and Processes that were responsible for the many Ice Age cycles that repeatedly occurred about every 100,000 years or so.
A GREAT TIME TO PUT ALARMISTS IN THEIR PLACE
Last week, by a stroke of good fortune, I happened to be scheduled to present “Visualizing the Atmospheric ‘Greenhouse’ Effect – Global warming is real, but how much is due to human activities and how big is the risk?” to the Philosophy Club in the Central Florida retirement community where I live.
Everyone in the highly interactive and supportive audience was aware of newspaper and TV reports of the drama of those ill-fated Global Warming “Research” activists whose Russian ship, the Academik Shokalskiy, got stuck in the summer ice of the Antarctic. (Fortunately, those people are safe, having been rescued by a helicopter from a Chinese icebreaker.) In addition to the Antarctic adventure gone wrong, in the week leading up to and following my talk, the media was overrun by stories of the “polar vortex” literally freezing large parts of the US and even causing Florida temperatures to drop below 30°F (0°C).
Of course, everyone knows that the cold wave is only anecdotal evidence and “weather is not climate”. However, photos and videos of researchers stuck in the Antarctic summer ice as well as scenes of American life frozen in place for days on end, when combined with clear and irrefutable evidence of a slowdown in warming since 1979 and no statistically significant warming since 1996 (as depicted in the graphic above), has considerable emotional impact. Audiences often react more to emotions than their reason.
My animated PowerPoint Show, which should run on any Windows PC, is available for download here. (NOTE: I knew that many members of the Philosophy Club audience, while highly intelligent and informed, are not particularly scientifically astute. Therefore, I kept to the basics and invited questions as I proceeded. Since most of them think in Fahrenheit, I was careful to give temperatures in that system. By contrast, my 2011 talk to the more scientifically astute members of our local Science and Technology Club Skeptic Strategy for Talking about Global Warming was more technical. Both presentations make use of animated PowerPoint charts and you are free to download and use them as you wish.)
My presentation is based on my five-part WUWT series entitled “Visualizing the ‘Greenhouse Effect'” – 1 – A Physical Analogy, 2 – Atmospheric Windows, 3 – Emission Spectra, 4 – Molecules and Photons, and 5 – Light and Heat. The series, which ran in 2011, generated tens of thousands of page views at WUWT, along with thousands of comments. I wrote the series this website attracts some viewers who reject the basic physics of the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect.
HOW A REAL GREENHOUSE WORKS
I explained how a real physical Greenhouse works and how that is both similar and different from the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect. The Greenhouse descriptions I learned in high school, as well as those available on the Internet, consider only the RADIATIVE effect. The glass roof of the Greenhouse allows visible light to pass through freely, heating the soil, plants, and air, but is opaque to the resultant infrared radiation, which is partly re-radiated back down into the Greenhouse, warming it further. That part is true, but far from the whole story. The MAIN reason a Greenhouse stays warm is that it is airtight to restrict CONVECTION and it is insulated to restrict CONDUCTION. In fact, it is possible to construct a successful Greenhouse using a roof made from materials that allow both visible and infrared to pass freely, but is impossible to make a working Greenhouse that is not both airtight and insulated.
HOW THE ATMOSPHERIC “GREENHOUSE” EFFECT WORKS
All warm objects emit radiation at a wavelength dependent upon the temperature of the object. The Sun, at around 10,000 °F, emits “short-wavelength” infrared radiation, centered around 1/2 micron (one millionth of a meter). The soil, plants, and air in the Greenhouse, at around 60°F to 100°F (15°C to 40°C), emit “long wavelength” radiation, centered around 10 microns (with most of the energy between 4 and 25 microns).
The Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect works because:
- Short-wavelength radiation from the Sun passes freely through the gases that make up the Atmosphere,
- About a third of this Sunlight is reflected back by white clouds, dust, and light-colored objects on the Surface, and that energy is lost to Space,
- The remaining two-thirds of the Sunlight energy is absorbed by the Sea and Land Surface and causes it to warm,
- The warm Surface cools by emitting long-wavelength radiation at the Bottom of the Atmosphere, and this radiation passes towards the Top of the Atmosphere, where it is ultimately lost to Space,
- On the way to the Top of the Atmosphere, much of this radiation is absorbed by so-called “Greenhouse” gases (mostly water vapor and carbon dioxide) which causes the Atmosphere to warm,
- The warmed Atmosphere emits infrared radiation in all directions, some into Space where it is lost, and some back towards the Surface where it is once again absorbed and further warms the Surface.
- In addition to the RADIATIVE effects noted in points 1 through 6, the Surface is cooled by CONVECTION and CONDUCTION (thunderstorms, winds, rain, etc.)
THANK GOODNESS FOR THE ATMOSPHERIC “GREENHOUSE” EFFECT
If not for the warming effect of “Greenhouse” gases, the Surface of the Earth would average below 0°F (-18°C), which would prevent life as we know it. This effect is responsible for about 60°F (33°C) of warming. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Earth Surface has warmed about 1.5°F (0.8°C) since good thermometer data became available around 1880. Some skeptics (including me) believe the actual warming is closer to 1°F, and that government agencies have adjusted the thermometer record to exaggerate the warming by 30% or more. However, it doesn’t really matter whether the actual warming is 1°F or 1.5°F (0.6°C or 0.8°C) because we are arguing about only 0.5°F (0.2°C), which is less than 1% of the total warming due to the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect.
HOW SENSITIVE IS THE CLIMATE TO HUMAN ACTIVITIES?
The IPCC claims that the majority of the warming since 1880 is due to human activities. It is true that we are burning unprecedented amounts of fossil fuel (coal, oil, gas), and that we are making land use changes that may reduce the albedo (reflectiveness) of the Surface. Most of the increase in Atmospheric CO2 (a 40% rise from about 270 to nearly 400 parts per million by volume) is due to human activities.
The IPCC claims that Climate Sensitivity (the average increase in Surface temperatures due to a doubling of CO2) is between 3°F and 8°F (1.5°C and 4.5°C). Some skeptics (including me) believe they are off by at least a factor of two, and possibly a factor of three, and that Climate Sensitivity is closer to 1°F to 3°F (0.5°C to 1.5°C). As evidence for our conclusions, we point to the fact that virtually ALL of the IPCC climate models have consistently over-estimated future temperature predictions as compared to the actual temperature record. Indeed, for the past 17 years as CO2 levels continue their rapid climb, temperatures have leveled off, which is proof that Natural Cycles, not under human control or influence, have cancelled out warming due to CO2 increases. Thus, Natural Cycles must have a larger effect than CO2.
VISUALIZING THE ATMOSPHERIC “GREENHOUSE” EFFECT
As I noted above, I wrote the “Visualizing” series for WUWT (1 – A Physical Analogy, 2 – Atmospheric Windows, 3 – Emission Spectra, 4 – Molecules and Photons, and 5 – Light and Heat) because some WUWT viewers are “Disbelievers” who have had an “equal and opposite” reaction to the “end of the world” excesses of the Global Warming “Alarmists”. By failing to understand and accept the basic science of the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect, they have, IMHO, “thrown the baby out with the bathwater”.
Albert Einstein was a great theoretical physicist, with all the requisite mathematical tools. However, he rejected purely mathematical abstraction and resorted to physical analogy for his most basic insights. For example, he imagined a man in a closed elevator being transported to space far from any external mass and then subjected to accelerating speeds. That man could not tell the difference between gravity on Earth and acceleration in space, thus, concluded Einstein, gravity and acceleration are equivalent, which is the cornerstone of his theory of relativity. Einstein never fully bought into the mainstream interpretation of quantum mechanics that he and others have called quantum weirdness and spooky action at a distance. He had trouble accepting a theory that did not comport with anything he considered a reasonable physical analogy!
So, if you have trouble accepting the atmospheric “greenhouse” effect because of the lack of a good physical analogy, you are in fine company.
Well, getting back to the Atmospheric “Greenhouse Effect, a “disbelieving” commenter on WUWT suggested we think of the Sunlight as truckloads of energy going from the Sun to the Earth Surface, and the infrared radiation from the Surface as equal truckloads going the other way. How, he asked, could these equal and opposite truckloads do anything but cancel each other out as far as the amount of energy on the Surface of the Earth? In reply, I posted a comment with an analogy of truckloads of orange juice, representing short-wave radiation from Sun to Earth, and truckloads of blueberry juice, representing longwave radiation between Earth and the Atmosphere and back out to Space.
That thought experiment triggered my creativity. I imagined the Sun as a ball-pitching machine, throwing Yellow balls towards the “Earth” Surface (representing short-wave radiation) and Purple balls (representing long-wave radiation) bouncing back towards Space and interacting with the Atmosphere. The graphic below is one of my depictions of the physical analogy. Follow this link for more graphics and detail.
I imagined the Earth as a well-damped scale. The Yellow balls would bounce off the Surface and turn into Purple balls (representing long-wave radiation as the Earth absorbed the short-wave radiation and then emitted an equal quantity of long-wave radiation). The scale would read “1” unit.
If there was no Atmosphere, or if the Atmosphere contained no “Greenhouse” gases to obstruct the flight of the Purple balls, they would fly out towards Space.
I then imagined the Atmosphere as an obstacle that absorbed the Purple balls, split them in two, and emitted half of the smaller balls to Space and the other half back towards the Earth. The balls going towards Earth would be absorbed, further heating the Earth, and the warmed Earth would emit them back towards the Atmosphere. The process would be repeated with the balls being absorbed by “Greenhouse” gases in the Atmosphere, and then emitted with half going out to Space, and half back to the Earth. The sum of 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 +1/16 … = 2 (approximately), so the scale reads “2” units.
Thus, in my simplified analogy, the “Greenhouse” gases in the “Atmosphere” cause the scale reading to double. So, the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect causes the Earth Surface to be warmer than it would be absent the “Greenhouse” gases. I think Einstein would be pleased! Read more detail, including the 340 responses.
A real greenhouse has windows. So does the Atmospheric “greenhouse effect”. They are similar in that they allow Sunlight in and restrict the outward flow of thermal energy. However, they differ in the mechanism. A real greenhouse primarily restricts heat escape by preventing convection while the “greenhouse effect” heats the Earth because “greenhouse gases” (GHG) absorb outgoing radiative energy and re-emit some of it back towards Earth.
There are two main “windows” in the Atmospheric “greenhouse effect”. The first, the Visible Light Window, on the left side of the graphic, allows visible and near-visible light from the Sun to pass through with small losses, and the second, the Longwave Window, on the right, allows the central portion of the longwave radiation band from the Earth to pass through with small losses, while absorbing and re-emitting the left and right portions.
Sunlight Energy In = Reflected Sunlight Energy Out + Thermal Energy Out
The graphic is an animated depiction of the Atmospheric “greenhouse effect” process.
On the left side:
(1) Sunlight is shortwave radiation with a wavelength centered around 0.5μ (microns, millionths of a meter). That energy streams through the Atmosphere towards the surface of the Earth.
(2) A portion of the Sunlight is reflected by clouds and other high-albedo surfaces and heads back through the Atmosphere towards Space. The remainder is absorbed by the Surface of the Earth, warming it.
(3) The reflected portion is lost to Space.
On the right side:
(1) The warmed Earth emits longwave radiation with a wavelength centered around 10μ towards the Atmosphere. This consists of thermal energy from about 4μ to about 25μ. For convenience in description, I have divided this range into three bands: ~7μ, ~10μ, and ~15μ.
(2) The ~10μ portion passes through the Atmosphere with litttle loss. The ~7μ portion gets absorbed, primarily by water vapor (H2O), and the 15μ portion gets absorbed, primarily by H2O and CO2. The absorbed radiation heats the H2O and CO2 molecules and, at their higher energy states, they collide with the other molecules that make up the air, mostly nitrogen (N2), oxygen (O2), ozone (O3), and argon (A) and heat them by something like conduction. The molecules in the heated air emit radiation in random directions at all bands (~7μ, ~10μ, and ~15μ). The ~10μ photons pass, nearly unimpeded, in whatever direction they happen to be emitted, some going towards Space and some towards Earth. The ~7μ and ~15μ photons go off in all directions until they run into an H2O or CO2 molecule, and repeat the absorption and re-emittance process, or until they emerge from the Atmosphere or hit the surface of the Earth.
(3) The ~10μ photons that got a free-pass from the Earth through the Atmosphere emerge and their energy is lost to Space. The ~10μ photons generated by the heating of the air emerge from the top of the Atmosphere and their energy is lost to Space, or they impact the surface of the Earth and are re-absorbed. The ~7μ and ~15μ generated by the heating of the air also emerge from the top or bottom of the Atmosphere, but there are fewer of them because they keep getting absorbed and re-emitted, each time with some transfered to the central ~10μ portion of the longwave band.
Read more detail, including the 489 responses.
The Atmospheric “Greenhouse” effect has been analogized to a blanket that insulates the Sun-warmed Earth and slows the rate of heat transmission, thus increasing mean temperatures above what they would be absent “greenhouse gases” (GHGs). Perhaps a better analogy would be an electric blanket that, in addition to its insulating properties, also emits thermal radiation both down and up. The graphic below, based upon actual measurements of long-wave radiation as measured by a satellite LOOKING DOWN from the Top of the Atmosphere as well as from the Surface LOOKING UP from the Bottom of the Atmmsphere, depicts the situation.
,
Description of graphic (from bottom to top):
Earth Surface: Warmed by shortwave (~1/2μ) radiation from the Sun, the surface emits upward radiation in the ~7μ, ~10μ, and ~15μ regions of the longwave band. This radiation approximates a smooth “blackbody” curve that peaks at the wavelength corresponding to the surface temperature.
Bottom of the Atmosphere: On its way out to Space, the radiation encounters the Atmosphere, in particular the GHGs, which absorb and re-emit radiation in the ~7μ and ~15μ regions in all directions. Most of the ~10μ radiation is allowed to pass through.
The lower violet/purple curve (adapted from figure 8.1 in Petty and based on measurements from the Tropical Pacific looking UP) indicates how the bottom of the Atmosphere re-emits selected portions back down towards the surface of the Earth. The dashed line represents a “blackbody” curve characteristic of 300 K (equivalent to 27ºC or 80ºF). Note how the ~7μ and ~15μ regions approximate that curve, while much of the ~10μ region is not re-emitted downward.
“Greenhouse Gases”: The reason for the shape of the downwelling radiation curve is clear when we look at the absorption spectra for the most important GHGs: H2O, H2O, H2O, … H2O, and CO2. (I’ve included multiple H2O’s because water vapor, particularly in the tropical latitudes, is many times more prevalent than carbon dioxide.)
Note that H2O absorbs at up to 100% in the ~7μ region. H2O also absorbs strongly in the ~15μ region, particularly above 20μ, where it reaches 100%. CO2 absorbs at up to 100% in the ~15μ region.
Neither H2O nor CO2 absorb strongly in the ~10μ region.
Since gases tend to re-emit most strongly at the same wavelength region where they absorb, the ~7μ and ~15μ are well-represented, while the ~10μ region is weaker.
Top of the Atmosphere: The upper violet/purple curve (adapted from figure 6.6 in Petty and based on satellite measurements from the Tropical Pacific looking DOWN) indicates how the top of the Atmosphere passes certain portions of radiation from the surface of the Earth out to Space and re-emits selected portions up towards Space. The dashed line represents a “blackbody” curve characteristic of 300 K. Note that much of the ~10μ region approximates a 295 K curve while the ~7μ region approximates a cooler 260ºK curve. The ~15μ region is more complicated. Part of it, from about 17μ and up approximates a 260ºK or 270ºK curve, but the region from about 14μ to 17μ has had quite a big bite taken out of it. Note how this bite corresponds roughly with the CO2 absorption spectrum.
Read more detail, including the 476 responses
In this part, we consider the interaction between air molecules, including Nitrogen (N2), Oxygen (O2), Water Vapor (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2), with Photons of various wavelengths. This may help us visualize how energy, in the form of Photons radiated by the Sun and the Surface of the Earth, is absorbed and re-emited by Atmospheric molecules.
The animated graphic has eight frames, as indicated by the counter in the lower right corner. Molecules are symbolized by letter pairs or triplets and Photons by ovals and arrows. The view is of a small portion of the cloud-free Atmosphere.
- During the daytime, Solar energy enters the Atmosphere in the form of Photons at wavelengths from about 0.1μ (micron – millionth of a meter) to 4μ, which is called “shortwave” radiation and is represented as ~1/2μ and symbolized as orange ovals. Most of this energy gets a free pass through the cloud-free Atmosphere. It continues down to the Surface of the Earth where some is reflected back by light areas (not shown in the animation) and where most is absorbed and warms the Surface.
- Since Earth’s temperature is well above absolute zero, both day and night, the Surface radiates Photons in all directions with the energy distributed approximately according to a “blackbody” at a given temperature. This energy is in the form of Photons at wavelengths from about 4μ to 25μ, which is called “longwave” radiation and is represented as ~7μ, ~10μ, and ~15μ and symbolized as violet, light blue, and purple ovals, respectively. As noted above, the primary “greenhouse” gases (GHG) are Water Vapor (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2). The ~7μ Photon is absorbed by an H2O molecule because Water Vapor has an absorption peak in that region, the ~10μ Photon gets a free pass because neither H2O nor CO2 absorb strongly in that region, and one of the 15μ Photons gets absorbed by an H2O molecule while the other gets absorbed by a CO2 molecule because these gases have absorption peaks in that region.
- The absorbed Photons raise the energy level of their respective molecules (symbolized by red outlines).
- The energized molecules re-emit the Photons in random directions, some upwards, some downwards, and some sideways. Some of the re-emitted Photons make their way out to Space and their energy is lost there, others back down to the Surface where their energy is absorbed, further heating the Earth, and others travel through the Atmosphere for a random distance until they encounter another GHG molecule.
- This frame and the next two illustrate another way Photons are emitted, namely due to collisions between energized GHG molecules and other air molecules. As in frame (2) the Surface radiates Photons in all directions and various wavelengths.
- The Photons cause the GHG molecules to become energized and they speed up and collide with other gas molecules, energizing them. NOTE: In a gas, the molecules are in constant motion, moving in random directions at different speeds, colliding and bouncing off one another, etc. Indeed the “temperature” of a gas is something like the average speed of the molecules. In this animation, the gas molecules are fixed in position because it would be too confusing if they were all shown moving and because the speed of the Photons is so much greater than the speed of the molecules that they hardly move in the time indicated.
- The energized air molecules emit radiation at various wavelengths and in random directions, some upwards, some downwards, and some sideways. Some of the re-emitted Photons make their way out to Space and their energy is lost there, others back down to the Surface where their energy is absorbed, further heating the Earth, and others travel through the Atmosphere for a random distance until they encounter another GHG molecule.
- Having emitted the energy, the molecules cool down.
Read more detail, including the 743 responses
As noted above, Sunlight Energy In = Reflected Sunlight Energy Out + Thermal Energy Out ! That’s old news to those of us who understand all energy is fungible (may be converted to different forms of energy) and energy/mass is conserved (cannot be created nor destroyed).
Answering Some Objections to the Atmospheric “Greenhouse”Effect
Some WUWT commenters seem to have been taken in by scientific-sounding objections to the basic science behind the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect. Their objections seemed to add more heat than light to the discussion. This section is designed to get back to basics and perhaps transform our heated arguments into more enlightened understanding :^)
The main scientific question for me, is how much does the increase in human-caused CO2 and human-caused albedo reduction increase the mean temperature above what it would be with natural cycles and processes? My answer is “not much”, because perhaps 0.2ºC to 0.4ºC (0.1ºC to 0.2ºC) of the supposed 1.5ºF (0.8ºC) increase since 1880 is due to human activities. The rest is due to natural cycles and processes over which we humans have no control. The main public policy question for me, is how much should we (society) do about it? Again, my answer is “not much”, because the effect is small and a limited increase in temperatures and CO2 may turn out to have a net benefit.
So, my motivation for this Visualizing series was not to add to the Alarmist “the sky is falling” panic, but rather to help my fellow Skeptics avoid the natural temptation to fall into an “equal and opposite” falsehood, which some of those on my side, who I call “Disbelievers”, do when they fail to acknowledge the basic facts of the role of H2O and CO2 and other gases in helping to keep temperatures in a livable range.
Objection #1: Visual and near-visual radiation is merely “light” which lacks the “quality” or “oomph” to impart warmth to objects upon which it happens to fall.
Answer #1: A NASA webpage targeted at children is sometimes cited because they say the near-IR beam from a TV remote control is not warm to the touch. Of course, that is not because it is near-visual radiation, but rather because it is very low power. All energy is fungible, and can be changed from one form to another. Thus, the 240 Watts/m^2 of visible and near-visible Solar energy that reaches and is absorbed by the Earth System, has the effect of warming the Earth System exactly as much as an equal number of Watts/m^2 of “thermal” mid- and far-IR radiation.
Objection #2: The Atmosphere, which is cooler than the Earth Surface, cannot warm the Earth Surface.
Answer #2: The Second law of Thermodynamics is often cited as the source of this falsehood. The correct interpretation is that the Second Law refers to net warming, which can only pass from the warmer to the cooler object. The back-radiation from the Atmosphere to the Earth Surface has been measured (see lower panel in the above illustration). All matter above absolute zero emits radiation and, once emitted, that radiation does not know if it is travelling from a warmer to a cooler surface or vice-versa. Once it arrives it will either be reflected or absorbed, according to its wavelength and the characteristics of the material it happens to impact.
Objection #3: The Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect is fictional. A glass greenhouse works mainly by preventing or reducing convection and the Atmosphere does not work that way at all.
Answer #3: I always try to put “scare quotes” around the word “greenhouse” unless referring to the glass variety because the term is misleading. Yes, a glass greenhouse works mainly by restricting convection, and the fact that glass passes shortwave radiation and not longwave makes only a minor contribution.
Thus, I agree it is unfortunate that the established term for the Atmospheric warming effect is a bit of a misnomer. However, we are stuck with it. But, enough of semantics. Notice that the Earth System mean temperature I had to use to provide 240 Watts/m^2 of radiation to Space to balance the input absorbed from by the Earth System from the Sun was 255 K. However, the actual mean temperature at the Surface is closer to 288 K. How to explain the extra 33 K (33ºC or 58ºF)? The only rational explanation is the back-radiation from the Atmosphere to the Surface.
Read more detail, including the 958 responses
I think few if anyone would state that no global warming exists.
The problem is as we get MORE and more hard numbers we find the effects seems to be LESS and LESS and LESS! How low can you go?
The amount of man’s CO2 output in the last 100 years is trivial. In fact in the last 16 years we output the SAME amount of as the previous 248 years. That means in just the last 10 years we DWARF the outputs of the post war industrial boom and about 100 years of co2 output in just 10 years!!!
Ironic that in the last 16 years we output the SAME amount of co2 as from 1766 to about 1998. So if the last 16 years in which we see NO warming is any indication of the effects of our C02, it sure is rather darn trivial.
As more data and info comes in, then I even question if the effect of our CO2 output can be seen or felt above the noise levels of temperature variation with todays much better equipment. At this point in time we don’t even see a math correlation between our CO2 output and temperature.
At the end of the day, it is REALLY hard to make a case that our CO2 output is affecting anything in any way that even worthy of debate.
So while global warming is real, the numbers show that we are HARD pressed to even “see” the effects of our co2 on temperature. On the other hand, slowing down some recent cooling is likely a good thing of our co2 output if it can be shown to be effecting temperatures by even .1 of a degree.
Great IPCC science summary Ira though you seem to have included so many other stated-as-fact statements that I know after reading so many of your prior posts that those are but your firmly held beliefs, too many to counter right now. Great effort as usual though.
richardscourtney says:
January 12, 2014 at 3:52 pm
Claims that humans have or have not added to the observed global warming are equally false because nobody can know the truth of the matter in the absence of any evidence. What can be said is that to date there is no evidence for discernible global warming from human activities so any human contribution to observed global warming is trivial if it exists.
============
spot on Richard. Agree 100%
1.5F over 130 years is insignificant. We get order of magnitude bigger swings in temperature between morning and night. It is less than previous warmings (medieval, roman, minoan, holocene optimum). It is much less than the rapid warming/coolings seen in the ice cores at the end of previous interglacials. So that is no way to know if humans are the cause or if nature is the cause.
Now there are those that believe humans are the cause, and others that believe that humans are not the cause. And in evidence both groups turn water into wine and raise Lazarus from the dead as proof they are correct. And both these groups are practicing religion, they are not practicing science.
January 12, 2014 at 5:06 pm : Simon says:
Maybe Murray Selby disagrees with you … it’s not that cut and dried.
Dr. Ira Glickstein says
“The MAIN reason a Greenhouse stays warm is that it is airtight to restrict CONVECTION and it is insulated to restrict CONDUCTION.”
“The Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect works because
7. In addition to the RADIATIVE effects noted in points 1 through 6, the Surface is cooled by CONVECTION and CONDUCTION (thunderstorms, winds, rain, etc.)
So “The Atmospheric Greenhouse” Effect works because the Atmosphere is not restricted like a “Greenhouse”? The above statements contradict each other!
Leif: THANKS for looking at my PowerPoint slides and for finding my error in numbering the Solar Cycles. I plan to fix that chart and upload the corrected version. Ira
Tom
In your reply, you raised an entirely different mechanism in heat transfer, namely, (blocked) convection – blocked by the blanket.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
lowercasefred is entirely correct. One thin blanket is all that is required to block convection. Two thin blankets warms you up more than one. Three thin blankets stop no more convection than do two or one, but keep you warmer than both. Etc.
IraG, RichardC,
Tx to both of you, have learned a great deal from each of you over the years.
Tom 5:25
While any analogy will fall short in some respect, the effect of enhanced radiative cooling when the dry air of a cool front passes is well known and accepted for a long time. The effects are not just convective.
The earth is a heat source, space is a sink, any absorber between them will slow the rate of heat transfer..
Since CO2 lags temperature by approximately 800 years, does anyone here know what happened 800 years ago to effect the increase from about 270 to nearly 400 parts per million in the last 100 years or so?
Don’t tell me Global Warming is real and don’t tell me it’s marginal. Global Warming is one big pile of BS, especially because the highest temps were measured in the thirties of the past century.
We never matched those temperatures again.
wayne says:
January 12, 2014 at 5:33 pm
Great IPCC science summary Ira though you seem to have included so many other stated-as-fact statements that I know after reading so many of your prior posts that those are but your firmly held beliefs, too many to counter right now. Great effort as usual though.
=============
Just say when.
R Taylor says:
January 12, 2014 at 5:23 pm
It is possible that the agricultural revolution, clearing the boreal forest and the industrial revolution have been factors in surface temperature.
======================
In 1880 humans used 4% of the land surface in total for agriculture and cities. Today we use 4% for cities alone and 40% for agriculture. Where there was farmland there is now pavement. Where there was forests is now fields. Perhaps that explain why the thermometers are reading 1.5F higher?
Could it be that there is a much better correlation between temperature and the rate of urbanization than there is with CO2?
This seems to be yet another posting that is all about radiation and only momentarily touches on the amount of heat moved upward by convection, then ignores the subject further. I have yet to find an authoritative source of information, but it looks as if the convection mechanism is at least as important as the radiative. (I have seen much higher values and I have seen lower.)
IanM
The greenhouse effect is real, but negative feedback totally negates it’s potency beyond a certain threshold. My reasoning for thinking this is this:
1.) Ice ages are a perturbation to Earth’s complex climate system. They are not a direct driving force. Why? Well the forcing of Milankovitch cycles is too weak to directly drive Earth’s climate into and out of ice-ages (at least according to ‘models’). Also Ice-ages are synchronized with the weakest of the Milankovitch cycles. This only makes sense if Milankovitch cycles are perturbations which Earth’s climate synchronized to over millions of years, and not a direct driver.
2.) Strong delayed positive feedback drives the Earth’s climate into and out of ice-ages. It must be strong feedback in order to make such a large difference in climate and it must be delayed in order to create such strong periodic oscillations. Such feedback is probably mostly albedo (ice creation or loss) and water vapor. No CO2 is even required (in my opinion). The greenhouse effect works perfectly fine without it.
3.) When the Earth is coming out of an ice-age the very strong feedback makes dramatic changes over relatively short periods of time e.g. getting rid of up to a mile of ice in some places in just 10,000 years. But then, it suddenly stops. How is that possible? It can only be possible if at the end of this rise the positive feedback is cancelled by an equally strong negative feedback (such as changes in albedo due to cloud cover) or the system has reached saturation (no more ice left to melt).
In either scenario, once you are at the peak and negative feedback and/or saturation has kicked in, a small change in some other forcing is not going to make much difference. If the major positive feedback coming out of an ice-age is stopped cold by some mechanism, then climate is unlikely to respond much to some other minor perturbation such as an increase in CO2. CO2 increases dramatically throughout the warming cycle and continues to rise after temperature increase has stopped. How is it possible for it to continue to rise after temperatures have stopped rising – unless of course it is relatively unimportant (more than canceled by the negative feedback mechanism).
Just some thoughts I had. It bothers me that we still don’t understand ice-ages and somehow this doesn’t seem to concern climatologists in the slightest. If we don’t have a full and solid theory of how ice-ages work, how can we pretend to understand the effect of a small change in a minor trace gas?
@lowercasefred 5:46pm
Nearly there …
Agreed – any analogy can fall short in some respect; however, an inappropriate analogy is designed to obfuscate and mislead and needs to be called out, lest we be taxed, for no reason.
Any heat source, transferring heat to any sink, can never be warmed beyond its starting temperature by any intermediate exchange on the way to the sink, in the absence of a new energy source in the system. If you disagree with that then I’d really like to see your experimental evidence.
R. de Haan
“Warming is one big pile of BS, especially because the highest temps were measured in the thirties of the past century.”
That’s very interesting. Do you have a reference for that? I have one that says you are talking nonsense.
Have a look at the first graph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
This is the whole point of this article. The days are gone when you can spout rubbish like this and get away with it.
“(2) The ~10μ portion passes through the Atmosphere with litttle loss. The ~7μ portion gets absorbed, primarily by water vapor (H2O), and the 15μ portion gets absorbed, primarily by H2O and CO2. The absorbed radiation heats the H2O and CO2 molecules and, at their higher energy states, they collide with the other molecules that make up the air, mostly nitrogen (N2), oxygen (O2), ozone (O3), and argon (A) and heat them by something like conduction. The molecules in the heated air emit radiation in random directions at all bands (~7μ, ~10μ, and ~15μ). The ~10μ photons pass, nearly unimpeded, in whatever direction they happen to be emitted, some going towards Space and some towards Earth. ”
The energy levels are the ones on which H2O and CO2 absorb AND emit; N2 and O2 absorb and emit next to nothing. For all practical matters only H2O and CO2 and O3 are IR-active. Therefore, energy they give to neighbouring molecules must and will pass back to a CO2 or H2O or O3 again before it is re-emitted; most likely and nearly always on exactly the same frequency where it was absorbed. N2 and O2 can only play the role of intermediaries.
Here’s the absorption spectrum of H2o vapor. It basically cannibalizes CO2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_absorption_by_water
What kills the theory of the cult of Steve Schneider is the interplay of CO2 and H2O. They needed positive water vapor feedback for their alarmism and it doesn’t happen. Exists only in models and explains the total failure of the models.
Any attempt to model an Earth’s climate without taking a biosphere into account (that is, picturing Earth as a black body with [atmosphere]) is destined to fail. Glickstein’s pictures are no better than IPCC’s graphs: simplistic self-supporting mind games. There is plenty of scientific evidence of the increase of temperatures precedingthe increase of carbon oxide concentration in the atmosphere. Ignoring this evidence could be only explained by self-delusion or intentional dissembling.
Simon says:
January 12, 2014 at 6:06 pm
“This is the whole point of this article. The days are gone when you can spout rubbish like this and get away with it.”
Because you operatives now have a new propaganda outlet? Doesn’t sound THAT convincing. Not that everything in the wikipedia is false. But the page you linked to is pure propaganda; a William M. Connolley creation.
richardscourtney says:
“We do not know to what degree human activities have altered GHGs in the atmosphere and we do not know to what degree altered GHGs in the atmosphere have contributed to the natural global warming which is recovery from the Little Ice Age.
“Claims that humans have or have not added to the observed global warming are equally false because nobody can know the truth of the matter in the absence of any evidence.
“What can be said is that to date there is no evidence for discernible global warming from human activities so any human contribution to observed global warming is trivial if it exists.”
Ira, Richard Courtney is stating facts.
The entire debate is over a minuscule rise in CO2: from only 3 parts per 10,000, to only 4 parts per 10,000, over the past century and a half. Some of that rise may be due to human activity. However, as noted upthread: past rises in CO2 follow rises in global temperature. But there is little if any evidence that ∆CO2 causes ∆T.
This is a good article, Ira. I liked it. But I think you’ve gone a bridge too far in assuming — without any verifiable, testable scientific evidence — that human CO2 emissions are unequivocally the cause of global warming.
That is a question that has not been decided. It may turn out that human activity is the primary cause of global warming. Or, it may turn out that human emissions are but a tiny cause of global warming. Or, it may be that human emissions — and even CO2 itself — have no effect on global warming at all.
There is certainly no current scientific evidence showing conclusively that CO2 causes global warming. None at all. That is only the presumption of computer models, of radiative physice, and of peer reviewed papers. But doesn’t it seem strange that the real world does not provide any measurable, empirical evidence to support those presumptions?
It pays to be skeptical. When the real world does not validate a conjecture, it seems there may be something wrong with the conjecture.
My mistake: the Boreal forest is still mostly with us. A better word for the forest cleared from Asia, Europe and North America is temperate.
Is it conceivable that the Earth managed to cool from white heat to a comfortable temperature over a period of around four and a half billion years, then magically stopped cooling, and started to increase its temperature in 1880 or thereabouts?
According to Dr. Glickstein, warming is due to the introduction of reasonable thermometers.
Solution to imaginary global warming? Ban reasonable thermometers, and the Earth will immediately recommence cooling.
Problem solved.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Simon says:
January 12, 2014 at 6:06 pm
==============
Wow,
you throw Wiki “global warming” out there, with no mention of climate change.
You bet all your horses to win, too?
Sorry, but I can’t buy into this nonsense. There is no evidence that man is causing the climate to warm, and in fact there is NO evidence of any warming whatsoever. Anthony’s Surface Station project proved that the alleged warming was caused by improper siting of temperature instruments and not a real increase in temperature.
lowercasefred says:
January 12, 2014 at 4:57 pm
Wrong analogy. Think of yourself in bed, warm under a layer of blankets in a room that is cooler. You are not warm because the blankets draw heat from the air, but because they retain your heat.
————————————————–
Then Earth needs a wife, who will steal the blanket every night.