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
Global Warming was real the day ice started melting during the last ice age – perhaps this Dr would care to answer why that ahppened? Otherwise we’d be still in an ice age, correct? And who caused that CO2 to melt the ice?
JJ says:
January 12, 2014 at 6:19 pm
While I have some sympathy for what you said, I did not say it. Please change your handle to help others avoid confusing us.
Thx,
JJ
RE the updated Mod request of
[Request you explain the (negative ?) values on the scale on the right side of this plot. Mod]
to my 8:49 pm post
…they are the Temperatures at the location the Ice Cores were taken. That location is in Central Greenland, and the average Temperature is in the -30 Celsius range (and on a 10K downward arc, as you can see)
Here is the NASA writeup on the cores
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_Evidence/paleoclimatology_evidence_2.php
You can also look at their mapping of the data on that NASA page, and although expanded out greatly in both directions, you can still mark the 1,000 year periods (the hashes are every 500 years) and see the spikes happen at absolutely every single 1K marker over the entire timeline, like clockwork. (might help looking at the graph at 2x or higher though, it’s a pretty small image)
The jumps at 9,000 and 6,000 are smaller than the others, but you can still spot the rise. The one we are in right now is also small in comparison, ironically. (but this one apparently spells “immanent doom”, somehow, to the AGW crowd) Those three smaller spikes are easier seen in the condensed closeup image I provided earlier (which was here: http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png ) Oh, and the 5,000 one is rather extreme, but follows a huge drop that happens so quick it is extremely difficult to pick up on the condensed NASA page.
…really, it seems unbelievably obvious to me that we should not only disregard the alarmists concerns over CO2 causing warming, but should honestly even expect large temperature spikes around every 1,000 year mark (conveniently, they are even tracking rather perfectly with our year system as well, making for extremely easy factoring.) This plays out with our known history too; see Vikings, Romans, etc – other known periods of extremely warm temperatures.
And with that being the case, how likely is it that this very minor jump (relatively speaking) we have been witnessing at a current 1K period is somehow caused by CO2, some other GHG or whatever else other then the (unknown, but visible) natural pattern you can see for yourself we have been experiencing for at least 20,000 years (seems pretty unlikely to me, at least. I mean that would be one hell of a coincidence if 19,000 years worth of perfectly placed 1K spikes went off exactly on time, then this one didn’t at all… but we conveniently raised CO2 or whatever to make a similar spike happen instead, right?)
I’ll just stick to the unbelievably easily spotted natural cycle I can instantly see with my own two eyes, and place good money on other spikes coming and going at all the 1K marks in the future. (hopefully one day soon others will even catch on and try to figure out why the temps consistently spike at 1K marks, instead of chasing their CO2 boogeymen)
A foolish and deceptive comment. The Volt limits how full or empty its battery gets, quite aggressively. Those mileage figures for it are at standard testing speeds (~55 mph) in varied conditions. The 400 mile “claim” for Tesla was a controlled max range challenge, at 25 mph, in warm, dry, weather, in dead flat Florida. (Actually achieved 428 miles). The EPA figure for its battery is 265 miles, and many do this routinely, and some exceed it with careful driving. Others get much less because they drive more aggressively, often just to enjoy the superb acceleration.
“Point 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.)”
Point 7, with all due respect SHOULD BE POINT 1, A VERY, VERY, VERY, BIG POINT ONE, and certainly not “an addition” but a primary driver of our weather machine.
Only the fact you put this most important driver of atmospheric dynamics at place 7 points out you really overestimate the effect of radiative influence heat distribution in our atmosphere.
Ever asked yourself why the hottest place we have in the USA during the day time is the colder place in the USA during the night. (57 degrees Celsius high, minus 9 degrees Celsius, low).
In short where is your greenhouse in Death Valley?
To claim AGW is Real you keep the argument alive for the warmists and government apparatchiks to apply the” precautionary principle” which today is the biggest stick in the EPA propaganda machinery.
You don’t need to make your case the way you do in your header of your article. This is IMO because the influence of CO2 and human activity is so minor that with the exception of the urban heat island effect which is by definition a local effect, we can’t measure the radiative effect in a dynamic system, let alone point a finger to the human influence. Especially now we have increased CO2 levels for over more than a decade coinciding with declining temperatures.
There is a reason why NASA and NOAA are “playing with our historic temperature records”, making the past colder to get a hockey stick.
This and all above tells me the entire AGW theme is just a pile of hog wash.
Please treat it accordingly and deny it any standing.
It is my understanding that the existence of the hot spot is one of the “projections” made by the general circulation models (GCM’s), based on the premise that greenhouse gases, particularly CO2, initiates a forcing on the temperature. Yet, to date, there has still been no conclusive evidence of such a hot spot being created. Whether or not other sources of warming could also heat this area bears no consequence to the fact that these models remain inaccurate on this count, and as such, are not valid.
Any “forcing” should result in a Hot Spot. It actually shows up as a Cool Spot. Perfect!
The greenhouse gas theory seems plausible but does it pass the reality check?
Every now and then several plausible explanations are given about some physical process.
Take the science of tides.
People debate the influence of Sun Moon and Earth rotation, each theory with different emphasis.
The science of climate is no exception.
IPCC science is plausible enough, but does it pass the reality check?
Orthodox physics was quite clear after R W Woods experiment that the greenhouse theory was false.
There is no description in any fundamental physics or thermodynamics book of the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
Kittel now includes it as a footnote but refers back to IPCC for support.
A perfect example of circular reasoning.
Lets be quite clear what the atmospheric greenhouse effect claims.
A 33K increase of temperature inside a glass fronted shoebox.
Since the glass is a better radiator than air its a fair test.
The long list of failures now include Vaughan Pratt, Roy Spencer , De Witt Paine and others.
Some claim success if any tiny difference between a box topped with a radiator such as glass and a non radiator such as polyethylene.
The historical temperasture record shows no evidence of CO2 driving temperature.
Quite the reverse .
Warmists and sceptics agree that CO2 lags temperature in the historical record.
Another reality check is the pause of the last 17 years in surface temperature increase despite CO2 rising considerably.
If Ian is correct then why is reality failing to support him?
Simon says:
January 12, 2014 at 6:06 pm
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.”
You refer to a MANIPULATED WIKIPEDIA GRAPH and I spout rubbish?
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/06/nasa-destroying-evidence-in-2011/
When I spout rubbish, so does Burt Rutan.
Please have a look at the graphs he produced and than tell me again Global Warming, let alone Anthropogenic Global Warming is real (I posted the link below).
The reality is that with with the exception of a few warming periods (the Minoan warming period, followed by the Roman Warmth Period followed by the Medieval Warming Period where the Minoan Period was warmer than the Roman Period and the Medieval Warming Period was cooler than the Roman Warmth Period, the planet is slowly but clearly cooling down over the past 9000 years. Wattsupwiththat?
However I have limited my argument to the first half of the past century.
Temperatures achieved during that period (the years of the Dust Bowl) have not been matched since, as the (not manipulated graph published at Goddards blog shows).
Burt Rutan’s comprehensive report on Global Warming science fraud:
Version 4.3 dated January, 2011
http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm#
Have a nice day.
A few other links that make you go Mmmmmmmm.
Global Warming Scamsters celebrating 40 years of ignoring actual science:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/12/global-warming-scamsters-celebrating-40-years-of-ignoring-actual-science/
NASA 1990, No Global Warming Surface Temperature Record, Should be replaced by more accurate Satellites:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/nasa-1990-no-global-warming-surface-temperature-record-should-be-replaced-by-more-accurate-satellites/#
In 1989 NOAA said there had been no warming in the US and no correlation with the climate models: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/1989-noaa-said-that-there-had-been-no-warming-in-the-us-and-no-correlation-with-climate-models/
NASA and NOAA data tampering makes legitimate climate science impossible.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/04/nasa-and-noaa-data-tampering-makes-legitimate-climate-science-impossible/
World’s hottest day was 100 years ago: http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/07/10/death-valley-temperature-record-anniversary-134-degrees/2505333/
Radiation is transport of energy not heat. High frequency radiation has high energy levels and low frequency radiation has low energy levels. Planck’s rule.
If you could create a laser that emits a very narrow band of radiation of about 2 or 3 microns wide and direct that radiation at a black body, Wien’s Law will predict the maximum possible temperature. The black body, being a black body, will be radiating a much wider band of radiation and thus will not quite reach the predicted temperature. EVER!
CO2 molecules in the atmosphere are effectively black bodies with an emissivity/absorbance factor of 1 over the electromagnetic range 13 to 17 microns and two further bands centred around 2.7 and 4.3 microns. The CO2 molecules have ZERO emissivity/absorbance at all other radiation frequencies (apart from one very weak band at ~1.9 microns which seems to be ignored).
CO2 is a gas with a lower heat capacity than standard air thus the CO2 easily aquires the local air temperature via kinetic collisions with other molecules in the atmosphere. These collisions effect the vibrational levels of the CO2 molecule to raise the molecule’s temperature to the local air temperature.
Peak radiative temperature of 13 microns is ~223K (-50C) from Wien’s Law.
From the surface to the tropopause, some 80% of the total atmosphere, the air temperature is much warmer than -50C. Thus all the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, from the surface to the tropopause, will be fully occupied RADIATING over the 13 to 17 micron band. These molecules are in no condition to ABSORB any 13 to 17 micron radiation from the surface. Also the surface will be unable to absorb any so called ‘back radiation’ from the CO2 as IT IS ALSO TOO WARM!
When the sun is shining the CO2 in the atmosphere can absorb energy in the 2.7 and 4.3 micron bands and little, if any, of that energy will reach the surface. The CO2 molecules are unlikely to re-radiate in the 2.7 and 4.3 micron bands as this requires the molecules to reach temperatures in excess of 200C, not encountered in the atmosphere, but those CO2 molecules can emit strongly at the lower frequency levels of 13 to 17 microns but the surface is too warm to absorb at those bands. CO2 has some 3,800 lines of absorbance/emittance over the 13 to 17 micron band making it quite effective at converting high energy radiation to low energy radiation.
Increasing or decreasing the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere will not change the radiative characteristics of the CO2.
CO2 cools the atmosphere but is most effective above the tropopause where radiation can escape directly to space. By cooling the top of the atmosphere CO2 helps maintain the convective path for heat up through the atmosphere otherwise known as the lapse rate.
To blame CO2 in the atmosphere for hurricanes and other extreme weather events is absolutely ludicrous.
Jimbo says:
January 12, 2014 at 4:56 pm
I should add that humans will likely not be around in 500,000 years.
—-l
Don’t write humankind off so easily – there may be the option of cloning. Not so much fun, but passes the species survival test 🙂
Bob:
At January 12, 2014 at 4:53 pm you ask me
David Archibald provides a fine answer to each of these questions with several clear graphs in his WUWT article WUWT at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
I commend use of the WUWT Search facility. Yours is the third time in 24 hours that someone has questioned me but could have obtained what they wanted by use of the WUWT Search facility. Its use is quicker than waiting for me and it provides references which I have to look up (or not get complete).
Richard
Simon:
At January 12, 2014 at 5:06 pm you assert
Sorry, but you are completely wrong.
The isotope ratio change is in the correct direction to agree with your assertion (there is equal chance that any change would be in that direction or the other), but it is wrong by a factor of three.
It cannot be known whether or not ALL the isotope change is caused by an unknown natural effect when most of the change is certainly caused by an unknown natural effect. Indeed, ENSO induces change in isotope ratio similar to the change from burning fossil fuels; see
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/
At present, available information does not enable determination of whether the recent observed rise in atmospheric CO2 is entirely natural, entirely anthropogenic, or some combination of natural and anthropogenic causes.
(ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) )
Richard
Yes, part of that warming is due to human activities,
Show the proof !! There is none! Is a gut feeling.
Bonus ??? for anyone. The basic assertion is “the average temperature of the earth would be 33K colder without the green house effect,”
What is the relationship between conduction, convection and radiation? This is a serious question, purely academic.
If an atmosphere, currently in a radiative balance, suddenly has reduced GHG molecules, then it will be cooler, relative to the warmer surface, correct? The cooler atmosphere will then receive an increase in conduction from the surface, correct? This same atmosphere will then, while simultaneously receiving increased conduction from the surface, also lose less heat to space due to fewer GHGs, and lose less heat back to the ground, also due to reduced GHGs, correct? This triple factor, more conduction to the atmosphere, less atmospheric heat loss via radiation to space, and back to the ground, will in fact to some degree reduce or cancel the affect of less GHGs, correct.??
Someone please talk me through this. Notice I put no numbers on my questions. The point is, SOME of the decrease in energy into the atmosphere (due to reduced number of GHG molecules) is made up by an increase in conduction, and an increase in energy staying within the atmosphere due to the fact that less energy now radiates to space, or to the ground. Now it seams likely that some of the increased energy, now in the atmosphere through greater conduction, which will stay there longer due to the fact that it cannot radiate as often, will be conducting energy to other molecules instead of radiating to the ground or space.
How would anyone quantify this “Newtonian” relationship, and where did I go wrong in my basic assertions? By Newtonian, I am drawing a metaphor to the phrase “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”. The action is less GHG The reaction is more conduction, and greater in atmosphere residence time of energy. So again, what is the relationship between conduction and radiation.
Bonus ??? for the brave and kind. If a GHG molecule receives a burst of energy from some LWIR radiation, will it always re-radiate that energy before it can possibly impact another molecule and conduct to it?
Feel free to throw convection into the equation. Keep in mind, less convection, means more time to conduct heat within the atmosphere. An increase in GHG molecules means some energy in the atmosphere, which is always partially made up of conducted energy from the surface, not just radiated energy, will now exit sooner due to increased GHG molecules.
If there were no GHGs in the atmosphere, that conducted energy would have to bounce around far longer. During the time it was bouncing along in the atmosphere, instead of leaving it via GHG, more energy would conduct from the surface steadily warming the atmosphere.
So there must be a negative feedback ratio, between conduction, convection and GHGs.
This is an excellent article, Ira. Congratulations.
Unfortunately, the comments seem to be swamped by what you call the true ‘Disbelievers’. There is nothing to be done about that. It is no good explaining, even those who are capable are determined not to believe. What they don’t realise is that such wilful ignorance plays into the hands of the alarmist doom-mongers. It provides ample evidence that sceptics are simply scientifically illiterate and, when I read some of the comments, I have to agree with them.
Correction: The climate sensitivity is the change in the EQUILiBRiUM temperature from a doubling of the CO2 concentration. Unlike the temperature, the equilibrium temperature is not an observable.
Simon:
At January 12, 2014 at 6:42 pm you say
Well, all the data sets do not NOW say “it was warmer in the 30′s” but they did say it was warmer then before they were altered; see e.g.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/giss/hansen-giss-1940-1980.gif
Perhaps you can explain why aggregations of measurements taken decades ago need to be altered as a result of measurements taken now? Or do you prefer to simply ignore the facts?
Richard
MikeB
Am I mistaken in the belief that the entire topic is not really about global warming/climate change but rather the ideology that humans,by some act of doing or undoing, can control the planet’s temperature like one would a thermostat ?.
The article not only muddies the distinction between common sense and a cult ideology but actually gives those unfortunate people a footing in climate science where they really haven’t any – it is really climate done through Simcity,no offence to the modeling game.
This an old story, but useful to illustrate a point. A man says to a Lady in a party “would you make love to me for £1,000,000 ? The Lady shyly agrees that she would. He then asks “Would you make love to me for £1 ?” She angrily replies, ‘No! What do you take me for’? He replies, that what she is has been established, they are now negotiating a price. In a similar way when I see the statement “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!” I get a similar feeling, the principle has now been agreed, we are moving into detail regarding the effect. It is a good day for us warmists.
Steven Mosher:
At January 12, 2014 at 9:58 pm you assert
The “hot spot” is warming at altitude which is at a rate ~3 times greater than at the surface in the tropics. This has not happened: radiosonde measurements from weather balloons (since 1958) and microwave sounding unit measurements from satellites (since 1979) each show this has not happened.
So, the “hot spot” is missing and you assert that “any warming, including warming due to solar, will cause it”.
Your assertion is a claim that there has been no global warming – from any cause – since 1958.
Perhaps you would care to explain why the data sets of global temperature indicate there has been warming since 1958?.
Richard
Mr Phillips
You are spot on in your analogy because the terms of agreement are based on human control over planetary temperatures and running this ideology through atmospheric insulation,normally an issue that would be number 8 on a list of 20 things important to global climate, has roughly the same effect as Copernicus once noted –
“They are just like someone including in a picture hands, feet, head, and other limbs from different places, well painted indeed, but not modeled from the same body, and not in the least matching each other, so that a monster would be produced from them rather than a man. Thus in the process of their demonstrations, which they call their system, they are found either to have missed out something essential, or to have brought in something inappropriate and wholly irrelevant, which would not have happened to them if they had followed proper principles. For if the hypotheses which they assumed had not been fallacies, everything which follows from them could be independently verified.” De revolutionibus, 1543
Quite incredible,truly !.
Global warming: it was nice while it lasted. The geologic record suggests quite strongly, however, that the Holocene interglacial has about run its course. So much ado about a trifling variation in temperature…
No idea if it’s answered here, but can I just get a simple answer to this:
Can a cool molecule heat a warmer molecule through IR emittance/absorption?