Guest Post by Ira Glickstein
Some of the net Global Warming since 1880 is undoubtedly due to human actions, but how much?
[Update 10 April. My PowerPoint Show that includes the following graphic is available for download here: https://sites.google.com/site/iraclass/my-forms/2014%20Global%20Warming%20Civil%20Discourse.ppsx?attredirects=0&d=1 ]
The height of the bars on the graphic indicates the relative magnitude of Natural Processes and Cycles (in BLUE) versus Human-Caused Warming (in RED). The scale on the left is in °C with corresponding °F on the right.
Going from left to right:
The first BLUE bar represents the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect, responsible for about 59°F (33°C) warming. This is the Natural Process that makes life as we know it possible on Earth. The mean temperature on the surface of the Earth is about 59°F (33°C) warmer due to Atmospheric absorption of long-wave radiation by water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), and other so-called “Greenhouse” gases, and the subsequent “back-radiation” of some of this heat energy towards the Earth surface. (See my WUWT Visualizing series [Physical Analogy, Atmospheric Windows, Emission Spectra, and Molecules/Photons
The second bar represents the major Natural “Ice Age” Cycles that have occurred about every 100,000 years according to the ice core records from the past 400,000 years. The climate is always changing, with up and down temperature jigs and jags at all time scales. The major Ice Age Cycles change temperatures over a range of about 13°F (7°C ).
The third bar represents the Human-Caused Warming that my wife and I experienced when we retired from full-time employment and moved from Upstate New York to Central Florida. The average temperature in Florida is about 20°F (11°C ) warmer than that in New York. I miss cross-country skiing a bit, but, overall, we are happy here and we enjoy water aerobics. While not exactly “Global” Warming, this warming was certainly caused by our Human-Caused decision to move and, of course, we enjoy the resulting moderately higher temperatures :^).
The fourth and fifth bars represent the YEARLY 43°F (24°C ) temperature range (July mean minus January mean), and the DAILY 19°F (11°C ) temperature range we experience here in Central Florida. Please notice that these ranges are much larger than the Ice Age Cycles, and they recur on a daily or yearly basis.
The sixth bar represents the mean Global Warming since 1880 based on the official NASA GISS accounting. It is 1.4°F (0.8°C). According to the IPCC, the majority of this Global Warming is due to human activities (mainly unprecedented burning of fossil fuels and land use that has reduced the albedo of the Earth). I have interpreted “majority” to mean about 70% and have therefore allocated 1°F (0.6°C) to Human-Causation and the remaining 0.4°F (0.2°C) to Natural Cycles.
The seventh bar represents my personal opinion as to the actual Global Warming since 1880, discounting the “adjustments” made by the official Climate “Team” that I believe have inflated the temperature record. We know that the US thermometer record is so unreliable that it has had to be “adjusted” several times by the official US Climate “Team” at GISS, see The Past is Not What it Used to Be, and Skeptic Strategy.
The above GISS email from Makiko Sato to James Hansen details seven adjustments to the US thermometer record, made from 1999 to 2007. According to GISS, the very warm year 1998 was originally thought to be 0.541°C (0.97°F) COOLER than 1934, which, in a warming world, would be, let us say Inconvenient. It took multiple “adjustments” to bring them to a dead heat. Further adjustments to the thermometer records subsequent to the 2007 Sato email have brought 1998 up to a significant lead over 1934 :^).
When this email came to light due to a Freedom of Information request, it was explained away by Warmists as follows:
1) The adjustments correct for differing Times of OBServation (TOBS). OK, that could be true, but why did it take so many analyses to come to the correct result? It seems one or two would be sufficient. Also, the 1998 data has been warmed more by the TOBS adjustments than the 1934 data has been cooled. Are we to believe that TOBS was less standardized in 1998 than it was in 1934?
2) The US is only 2% of the Globe. Therefore, any adjustment to US data would have only a minor effect of Global data. True enough, but, if US data is so unreliable that it has had to be adjusted so much, are we to believe that world data is any better? Does anyone really think that years-old data from Asia, Africa, South America is more reliable than US data? That ocean data based on some seaman dropping a bucket overboard, hauling it back, and sticking a thermometer into it, is any better than US thermometer data?
So, unless we believe that the world temperature record is more reliable than the US record, it is likely the world record has also been similarly “adjusted”. Therefore, I have discounted the GISS estimate of Global Warming by about 30%, so actual warming is about 1.0°F (0.6°C). As for allocation of this actual warming to Human- vs Natural-Causes, I believe the IPCC has over-estimated Climate Sensitivity by a factor of two or three, so I have allocated the majority of the warming 0.8°F (0.5°C) to Natural Cycles, and the remaining 0.2°F (0.1°C) to Human-Causation.
I’d appreciate comments on my estimates and conclusions. advTHANKSance
Ira
Ira, Thanks for the reply.
“So, if the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect is not exactly 33 °C, I don’t really care, so long as it is, say, in the range 20 °C to 50 °C.”
I tend to believe that the AGE is not so much an increased temperature in absolute terms but that it is a moderating influence, acting as a thermostat to maintain the temperature range within a band between the two extremes. For example, if the highest temperature that can be achieved by any surface material on earth directly due to insolation is 100C, without an atmosphere, then the greenhouse effect will be responsible for reducing the highest temperature which would be possible. By the same effect, the lowest temperature will occur on the dark side when there is no insolation, so the AGE will be responsible for slowing the rate of temperature decline (cooling) of the surface and maintaining it above the absolute minimum.
“You make a point about the Earth not being a perfect “blackbody” because some 30% of incoming Solar radiation is reflected rather than absorbed. It seems to me that for an approximate solution, we could simply assume that the incoming Solar radiation is 30% less than it actually is, and then only count the long-wave outgoing radiation.”
A blackbody absorbs radiation across the full spectrum and emits across the full spectrum at the same rate. As an example of how this varies with wavelength, if you expose CO2 to the full spectrum from the Sun it will still absorb (poorly) across the full spectrum, but it absorbs the majority of the energy at three specific wavelength bands within the far IR range. If you reduce the total incoming radiation by 30% the total absorbed by CO2 would also be reduced by 30% (based on simple calculations). Most of the solar radiation that is actually reflected by the Earth is within the visible band of radiation, so in reality CO2 is absorbing the full amount it was before calculating the reflection reduction. CO2 is not the only material which this would affect since water vapour and ozone both absorb far more solar energy than CO2 but also at very specific wavelength bands.
“You also mention that the dark side of the Earth will be cooler than the sunlit side, which, of course is obviously true. But, since the Earth rotates every 24 hours, and since the surface has the ability to store heat, the dark side will never cool to 0 K, will it? So, how much will it cool in 12 hours?”
That is true, but it is also something that the calculation of Earth’s effective temperature did not take into account. For the blackbody supposition, ideal thermal conductivity is assumed. This effectively negates the heating and cooling effect of the rotation of the Earth and allows a supposition of an equal temperature across the surface of the Earth. We all know that the nightside is cooler than the dayside, the problem arises when determining how fast the temperature changes. This is because the thermal flux does not vary in direct proportionality to the temperature IE an object with an absolute temp of 100K is not radiating at a rate of 1/2 of that of an object at 200K, it is radiating at a rate which is 1/16th of the object at the higher temp. How fast an object heats up or cools down also depends upon the heat capacity, mass, and surface area of the object – thus it is possible to almost instantly freeze boiling water if it is sprayed into the air which is at a temp of -40C, whereas a boiler full of water at 100C could take hours to freeze under the same conditions. How long does it take a blackbody to heat up, and what is the highest temperature it will reach? Assuming ideal thermal conductivity negates the necessity of knowing the mass and heat capacity of the blackbody material, but it does not negate the ratio difference between temperatures and radiative thermal flux – which makes averaging a difficult task.
“These are the types of simplifying assumptions I, as a System Engineer, am used to making to get an approximate answer to check against the supposedly exact value the analysts provide. Once I’ve made these “back of the envelope” calculations (which used to actually be done on scrap paper in the early days, but are now done using spreadsheets :^) to obtain an estimate, I then wait for the analysts to come up with the supposed more precise result. If my estimate is reasonably close, I accept the more precise value from the analysts. If not, either I or they have made a serious mistake, most likely a misinterpretation of the situation.”
Having operated steam systems for over 20 years, I agree, and have followed the same procedures, but if the initial simple assumptions are wrong, or based on wrong assumptions themselves, then the whole analytical process is useless, and it’s back to the drawing board.
“In this case, based on calculations I have seen here at WUWT (by WIllis Eschenbach I believe) I believe the 33 °C value is close enough to the truth for my purposes, and I will accept it until I am convinced otherwise.”
I can’t dispute what you believe to be correct because my own calculations show a huge disparity from the assumed temperature. I can say with relative confidence that the value of 33C is wrong and the actual assumption should be closer to 8C – well below the range that you are using.
“BOTTOM LINE: You have raised a number of valid points, but you have not provided an estimate of the APPROXIMATE warming effect of Atmospheric “Greenhouse” gases. At the end of your comment you say:
…contrary to the claims of AGW agitators, the temperature that the surface of the earth is dependent on the thermal and optical properties of the surface materials being subjected to solar radiation, not the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect.
Do you really mean to claim that there is no warming effect on the Surface of the Earth from the downwelling radiation from H2O and CO2 gases in the Atmosphere? Or that there is no downwelling radiation from the Atmosphere to the Earth Surface? ”
As I said above, it is my view that the effect of the AGE is to moderate the temperature extremes – as far as applying that to an average global temperature, that is difficult task since the two boundaries of the extremes are 0K (actually about 4K based on other observations) and approximately 393K. Calculating an average value would require dividing the surface of the Earth into sectors based on latitude and the time of solar day, measuring or deducing the radiation absorbed by the surface and then emitted from the surface based on the thermal properties, calculating the temperatures for each of those areas and then averaging those values over the entire surface. The temperature extremes are determined by the properties of the surface materials, since they absorb and emit the largest proportion of the solar radiation. The role of the atmospheric gases is limited to how fast they absorb and emit the energy, which in turn controls the range of the extremes.
There is a common misconception which is perpetuated by Climate Scientists when they talk about downwelling radiation from the atmosphere “warming” the surface. When they are talking about downwelling radiation they are referring to Radiative Flux, which is a scalar quantity and has no direction therefore the term is technically incorrect – it should be referred to as just atmospheric radiation or something else like that. When talking about heat they should be talking about Thermal Flux, which is a vector quantity and has direction – Radiative thermal flux is the difference between the radiative flux of two objects and is given a direction by the fact that the radiative flux of the higher temperature object is greater than the radiative flux of the lower temperature object. Therefore thermal flux always flows from a higher temperature to a lower temperature. So, the only time the atmosphere is going to heat or warm the surface is if the temperature of the atmosphere is higher than the temperature of the surface.
Another misconception about flux is that it represents a temperature rise. It doesn’t, it is a rate (Watts or joules/sec) so it represents how fast the temperature will rise. An interesting side note is that it also means that the flux represents how fast the temperature will fall. That means that Greenhouse gases like CO2 will experience a more rapid rise in temperature when exposed to an object which is at a higher temperature, but their temperature will also fall faster when they are at a higher temperature than their surroundings.
Robert Clemenzi says:
April 7, 2014 at 8:21 pm
——————————-
You are correct, because I made a general assumption, but that is largely unimportant to determining what temperature the material will rise to since an object cannot emit more energy than it absorbs.
The whole point of the blackbody assumption is that since the values for absorptivity and emissivity are 1, you don’t have to take into account the heat capacity or the mass of the material. The insolation radiation values are the rate at which energy is arriving at the surface per unit of area. How much energy that is absorbed is dependent upon the wavelength of the radiation, the absorptivity coefficient of the material, and the area of the surface being irradiated. The temperature is determined by heat capacity of the material, how much energy has been absorbed, and the mass of the object. The radiation being emitted by the object is dependent upon the temperature of the object, the surface area of the object, and the emissivity of the material. You will notice, if you try some plugging in hypothetical values, that in some circumstances you end up with impossible situations where the material is emitting more energy than it is absorbing – theoretically this is possible if you assume that radioactive decomposition is happening, but for practical purposes I think we can assume that in the extreme circumstances where this occurs the coefficients of absorptivity or emissivity (which were determined experimentally) are no longer valid.
I conducted some calculation experiments using the absorptivity and emissivity values for different materials (and heat capacities for the real materials), assuming a sphere of that material with a cross-sectional area of 1 m^2 at the same orbit as the Earth. The size of the sphere eliminates the need for conduction calculations and rotational effects. A blackbody sphere will reach a temperature of 279K. A polished aluminum sphere will reach a temperature of 367K. A granite sphere will reach a temperature of 310K. A water sphere (assuming it doesn’t freeze or evaporate and that it is thick enough to reach the full absorption) will reach a temperature of 271K. All of these spheres exhibit temperatures which are at least 16K higher than the effective temperature assumed by the conventional effective temperature calculations made by Climate Science. To me, since these have no atmospheres, there is conclusive evidence that surface temperatures are largely dependent upon the properties of the surface materials and not upon the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Something seems to be fundamentally wrong with their basic assumptions.
These are the absorption bands I have found for the various gasses in the air.
Water 2.7 microns, 6.3 microns, 19.51 microns
Nitrous Oxide 3.8 microns, 4.5 microns, 7.78 microns, 17 microns
Methane 3.3 microns, 7.7 microns
Ozone 9.65 microns
Oxygen 0.69 microns, 0.76 microns, 1.26 microns
Carbon Dioxide 2.7 microns, 4.3 microns, 15 microns
You can see CO2 has to compete with other gasses, in particular water, pretty much leaving methane all on its own so can absorb all that IR at those bands making it more “potent”. But at ~18ppBILLION/v isn’t much to worry about, unless we can eradicate all termites.
@Chad Wozniak
Chad, we may not have had the same lectures in chemistry or physics.
Concentrations of gases in gases are expressed by volume in vol% or ppm, thus they relate to mole ratio (the “n” in ideal gas law: PV=nRT). And molecules of different compounds have a different mass: 44 for CO2, 12 for C, 29 for the mixture called air, 18 for water.
Look at my calculation and you may understand, if you wish to.
@Patrick
It’s a little bit more complicated.
Absorption lines are discrete and temperature dependant.
Look at the spectra of CO2 and water in air here: https://db.tt/QeNwYzem
with zoom here: https://db.tt/bB87DiXK
and in wet tropical air: https://db.tt/dqEFkF7l
In mixtures, absorptions are additive, not competitive.
“Michel says:
April 8, 2014 at 12:03 am”
Yes, I am aware there are dependancies and I realise compete wasn’t the best choice of word to use. But these graphs you link to are some of the best I have seen. Thanks!
Mike Tremblay says:
April 7, 2014 at 11:04 pm
Please share the details. I agree for the blackbody, but I am not sure what numbers were used for the others.
Also, I disagree – if you are using heat capacity, then the rotational rate is critical.
Michel says:
April 8, 2014 at 12:18 am
In mixtures, absorptions are additive, not competitive.
When CO2 and water vapour are present together the absorption is not the sum of the separately calculated effects, because each gas is somewhat opaque to the other.
Ira says:
April 7, 2014 at 2:30 pm
“Louis, GREAT point! From the point of view of Atmospheric CO2, it seems to me that only long-term sequestered fossil fuels make a significant difference. …………… On the other hand, as you point out, when a tree or plant grows it absorbs CO2 (aka “Plant Food”) from the Atmosphere. That CO2 is released back into the Atmosphere in a relatively short time if the tree or plant dies and rots away, or if it gets eaten by an animal that breaths it out or that dies and rots away. So, net GHG in the Atmosphere is pretty much unaffected by the short-term growth and digestive carbon cycle of plants ”
———————-
Ira, I would like to point out that there was one (1) more long-term sequestered CO2 sink of gigantic proportions that was like 50+-% released back into the atmosphere in a relative short time. And that “short time” being the same period now being discussed concerning the rising CO2 ppm quantities from 1880 to present.
And the CO2 sink I speak of was the vast virgin forests across all of North America that began being “clear-cut” in the early 1800’s and really increased in tempo by the mid to late 1800’s with land being cleared for farming and billions n’ billions of board feet of timber being cut, sawed into lumber and shipped eastward to build the great cities, etc. And the tree residue from said “farm clearing and lumber production” was either burned or left to rot on the ground and thus its sequestered CO2 was returned to the atmosphere.
Now to give you an idea what the once beautiful “green” mountains of virgin timber in West Virginia looked like in circa 1910, …. after being “clear-cut”, ….. here is a picture of said, to wit:
http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af315/SamC_40/1917MountainHomeinClayCounty.jpg
Michel says:
April 7, 2014 at 4:18 pm
“@Samuel Cogar & Chad Wozniak
Somehow someone has to have his calculation wrong.”
——————-
Michel, most every proponent of CAGW agrees with my calculations. And I know that to be a fact because they used the “5 billion metric tons” figure in their “fuzzy math” calculations to reverse-calculate the yearly total of CO2 emissions via human causes.
Ya see, via the Keeling Curve that knew that atmospheric CO2 had been steadily and consistently increasing by an average of 2 ppm/year, … every year since 1958. And a 2 ppm increase per year times 5 bmt equals ….. 10 billion metric ton increase each year. Thus, the 10 bmt figure became the “benchmark” for human emitted CO2 (fossil fuel, cement) in the atmosphere that could not be exceeded ….. and all their emission sources were “reverse-calculated” to insure it didn’t happen.
Michel says:
April 7, 2014 at 4:50 pm
“@Samuel Cogar
Biomass is growing and rotting (equivalent of slowly burning) all the time. The yearly variations of the CO2 concentration curve is an indicator of seasonal changes (and of inbalance of land surface between North and South hemisphere).”
——–
@michel, that is what you are told to believe ….. but that claim is neither based in/on fact or reason.
First of all, there is absolutely nothing in nature that is “steady and consistent” year after year for like sixty (60) years in succession ….. other than the bi-yearly procession of the equinoxes and solstices. Now the aforementioned stipulate the “time” of the changes in the “seasons” but they do not stipulate the surface conditions (seasonal changes) of the land masses in either of the hemispheres. Early Spring, late Fall, late Spring and early Fall are testimony of said. And 2014 Spring is nigh onto 30 days late where I live.
But anyway, there is no way in ell that the imbalance of land surface between the North and South hemispheres can account for …. the steadily and consistent average 6 ppm bi-yearly cycling of atmospheric CO2 during the past 55 years (1958-2014).
First of all, the “switch” in that bi-yearly cycle is “timed” or “triggered” by the equinoxes and occurs shortly thereafter. And that “switch” time can be verified by checking the equinox dates of March (mth 3) and September (mth 9) against NOAA’s complete monthly average Mona Loa CO2 ppm data, to wit:
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt
And secondly, it would be in direct violation of my Refrigerator/Freezer Law that governs biomass decomposition.
And if one takes a look-see at this modified copy of a Keeling Curve graph they can easily see said equinox “trigger” points as well as the average changes in ppm.
http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af315/SamC_40/keelingcurve.gif
DonV says:
April 7, 2014 at 5:55 pm
“It is clear to me that the CO2 increase has clearly followed the growth in the world-wide human population.”
—————
Now I pondered that question sometime ago and thus I compiled the following statistics via reliable sources and the results were, to wit:
Increases in World Population & Atmospheric CO2 by Decade
year — world popul. – % incr. — Dec CO2 ppm – % incr. — avg increase/year
1940 – 2,300,000,000 est. ___ ____ 300 ppm
1950 – 2,556,000,053 – 11.1% ____ 310 ppm – 3.1% —— 1.0 ppm/year
1960 – 3,039,451,023 – 18.9% ____ 316 ppm – 3.2% —— 0.6 ppm/year
1970 – 3,706,618,163 – 21.9% ____ 325 ppm – 2.7% —— 0.9 ppm/year
1980 – 4,453,831,714 – 20.1% ____ 338 ppm – 3.8% —– 1.3 ppm/year
1990 – 5,278,639,789 – 18.5% ____ 354 ppm – 4.5% —– 1.6 ppm/year
2000 – 6,082,966,429 – 15.2% ____ 369 ppm – 4.3% —– 1.5 ppm/year
2010 – 6,809,972,000 – 11.9% ____ 389 ppm – 5.1% —– 2.0 ppm/year
2012 – 7,057,075,000 – 3.62% ____ 394 ppm – 1.3% —– 2.5 ppm/year
Source CO2 ppm: ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt
Based on the above statistics my learned opinion is, to wit:
Fact #1 – In 70 years – population increased 198% – CO2 increased 29% – Heat Islands increased est. 300/400%
Fact #2 – Atmospheric CO2 has been steadily and consistently increasing at a rate of 1 to 2 ppm per year for the past 70 years, …… whereas human generated CO2 releases have been increasing exponentially every year for the past 70 years.
Fact #3 – Global Temperatures have been steadily and consistently increasing a few hundredths or tenths of a degree for the past 70 years, ……. whereas human created infrastructure, housing, vehicles, etc. (Heat Islands) have been increasing exponentially every year for the past 70 years.
My conclusions are:
Given the above statistics, it appears to me to be quite obvious that for the past 70 years there is absolutely no direct association or correlation between:
• Increases in atmospheric CO2 ppm and world population increases.
• Increases in Average Global Temperature and world population increases.
• Increases in Average Global Temperature and Heat Islands construction increases.
• Increases in Average Global Temperature and atmospheric CO2 ppm increases.
But then of course, …… I am not looking through Rose Colored Glasses.
@ur momisugly Samuel C Cogar
You even didn’t look at the calculation and persist in ignorance.
Sorry for you and those others (¿¡most of the CAGW proponent …!?) who don’t even want to know that air and CO2 don’t have the same molecular weight and dont want to accept that gaz concentraztions are expressed by volume.
And yes there is a correlation between between energy consumption (thus fossil fuel uses) and CO2 emissions, as this diagram shows (source NOAA and CDIC): https://db.tt/izK01oOd
One may argue that correlation is not necessarily causation, but in this case we are quite close to such conclusion. According to the latest first grade chemistry classes, burning fossil fuels and rotting biomass produce CO2 (and water and other stuff), or would this also be a scandalous disinformation?
In Wikipedia mention is made that biomass production is 104.9 petagram (104.9 E+15 g) or 105 billion m. tons per year. During the same time about the same quantity is decaying, otherwise the biomass would have ovewhelmed the earth since millions of years. This compares to the ~34 billion m.ton CO2 emitted every year by burning fossil fuels and making cement.
The yearly score looks like ±6 ppm for nature versus +2 ppm for humans (who are also a part of nature, of course). Astonishingly close to the Mauna Loa curve: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png
Robert Clemenzi says:
April 8, 2014 at 3:32 am
Please share the details. I agree for the blackbody, but I am not sure what numbers were used for the others.
Also, I disagree – if you are using heat capacity, then the rotational rate is critical.
——————————
Hi again Robert,
To begin, a caveat – Some of my calculations are still ‘a work in progress’ so I may be wrong.
Some of the values for the absorptivity and emissivity were obtained from http://www.solarmirror.com/fom/fom-serve/cache/43.html
but they can also be found at other sites – mainly ones which deal with construction materials.
For the polished aluminum absorptivity was 0.09 and emissivity was 0.03
For the granite (can’t remember where I got the values but I believe it was for granite countertops) absorptivity 0.69 emissivity 0.45
For water (another one I can’t remember where I got the values) absorptivity 0.85 emissivity 0.95
Using a cross-sectional area of 1 m^2 and a solar constant of 1366 W/m^2 and the absorptivity coefficient of the material, the total power in was calculated.
Given that, in order to reach equilibrium, the total power in must equal the total power out, I then used the Stefan-Boltzman equation, with the emissivity coefficient for the material, to calculate the resultant temperature.
I was using the heat capacities in an attempt to determine how fast the objects would heat up, so I believe that, for objects that are this small – relative to the Earth, I can ignore the conduction rates and assume that the temperature of the sphere would be the same for the whole body.
Either that, or you could assume a rapid rotation to achieve the same desired effect.
Just a note for interest sake – you may already know what I am about to tell you, but one thing that made me look into this was something I read about chrome door handles on cars. When they were first used, people found that if they left their cars out in the sun the handles would be too hot to touch. How could this be, when chrome is so reflective? Well, the automobile engineers examined the problem and determined that it was because the chrome handles, even though they absorbed only a small amount of the solar radiation, they emitted even less. The key is that since the radiation being absorbed is actually power and is thus the rate at which the energy in the object increases, and the temperature of the object when multiplied by the emissivity coefficient, determines the rate at which energy in the object decreases, the temperature of the object will rise until the rate of energy increase equals the rate of energy decrease. if the absorptivity coefficient is higher than the emissivity coefficient then the temperature of the object will be higher than the temperature of a blackbody surface exposed to the same power. If the reverse is true, then the temperature will be lower than the temperature of a blackbody surface. The engineers then designed a coating and a new ‘chromelike’ material to use for door handles which increased the emissivity coefficient of the chrome surface above the absortivity coefficient so the door handles felt cool when touched.
I find it odd that the claimed increase in surface temperature since 1880 is less than the lifespan margin of error of thermometers made in the 1950s. Most of these temperature readings were made in 1°C increments and were often read from above producing the same error you get from a science class reading a mencius on the side of a graduated cylinder. Since the hardware used for most of 100 years had to be HAND SPUN down in reading, its Occam’s that ALL the data is corrupted beyond any usable accuracy. Something as simple as a batch of bad thermometers dispersed over space-time would cock-up the entire dataset. I know from my own astigmatism that even well corrected eyesight can be off by up to 15%. Trying to produce historical accuracy out of blown sand without knowing which way the wind is going on a given day is as close to heresy as claiming to know how relativity works.
[prjindigo, thanks! great point. Ira]
Michel says:
April 8, 2014 at 10:12 am
“@ur momisugly Samuel C Cogar
Sorry for you and those others (¿¡most of the CAGW proponent …!?) who don’t even want to know that air and CO2 don’t have the same molecular weight”
—————
Michel, which weighs the most, … one (1) pound of air … or one (1) pound of CO2?
I don’t want to know how many molecules are in each sample volume, I just want to know which sample volume has the greatest mass weight.
You can calculate the number of CO2 molecules in the pure CO2 sample because you know the molecular weight of a CO2 molecule.
But you can not do the same for the other sample volume because you don’t have a clue as to what the concentration (ppm) is for all the different gasses within that sample volume of air.
Michel, iffen you know the ppm of all the different gasses in the sample volume of air then “BINGO”, you can do your calculating.
And ps, Michel, the average mass of the atmosphere (5 quadrillion [5,000,000,000,000,000] metric tons) is calculated via the measured “air pressure” at sea level, which is about 14.7 lbs per square inch.
Now that 5 quadrillion metric tons is not an exact weight …… but its close enough for horseshoes. And one ell of a lot closer than the ESTIMATED volume of fossil fuels that are being oxidized ….. or the amount of cement that is being cooked n’ cured.
I took some of this data and added some of my own to make a chart that is perhaps more clear and easy to read. Let me know what you think. Also, point out any mistakes.
http://www.davesuncommonsense.blogspot.com/2014/04/a-warming-perspective.html
[David: Nice chart! THANKS for your efforts and I hope WUWT readers follow the above link to your blog. Ira]
Michel says:
April 8, 2014 at 10:12 am
“The yearly score looks like ±6 ppm for nature versus +2 ppm for humans (who are also a part of nature, of course). Astonishingly close to the Mauna Loa curve: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png ”
—————
Sure nuff, Michel, that’s what it looks like on that graph you cited …. because that is what you were told it looked like ….. and you believed it to be true.
But it isn’t true. And according to the latest 2nd grade botany and bacteriology classes there is no way in ell it can be true.
Michel, look at this graph of the Mona Loa curve ….. which I added notations on … so that one could better understand what they are looking at, to wit:
http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af315/SamC_40/keelingcurve.gif
Please note that the graph shows a steady increase of CO2 from 317 ppm in 1958 to 387 ppm in 2006, which was an increase of 70 ppm in 47 years ….. or an average of 1.5 ppm/year increase in CO2.
Michel, the graph shows that the CO2 starts decreasing about the 1st of May after the Spring (March) Equinox and continues to decrease all summer long …. and then starts increasing again about the 1st of October after the Fall (September) Equinox and continues to increase all winter long until the Spring equinox.
Note that the average bi-yearly decrease of CO2 is 6 ppm from Spring to Fall …. and the average bi-yearly increase of CO2 is 8 ppm from Fall to Spring. And the difference of 2 ppm between the two is the annual average increase in CO2 which defines the Mona Loa curve.
But that average yearly 2 ppm increase has been steady and consistent for the past 48 years therefore you can not attribute it to human emissions ….. because human emissions have been increasing exponentially for the past 48 years.
And you can not attribute that average 8 ppm bi-yearly “Fall to Spring” increase of CO2 to the rotting and decaying of biomass in the Northern Hemisphere because the latest 2nd grade botany and bacteriology classes stipulates that there will be no rotting or decaying of biomass if it is dry (lack of moisture) …… and/or, …. the rotting or decaying of biomass will be severely reduced if the temperatures fall below 60F …… and/or the rotting or decaying of biomass will virtually cease if the temperatures fall below 40F. (Sam’s Refrigerator/Freezer Law of Biomass Decomposition) Or … Cold Beer Law iffen you prefer because refrigerators are good for both.
David says:
April 9, 2014 at 7:31 am
“I took some of this data and added some of my own to make a chart that is perhaps more clear and easy to read. Let me know what you think. ”
——————–
David, I liked your chart.
It sure puts that IPCC “fear mongering” temperature in perspective doesn’t it?
Seeing that projected temperature in “its place” …… would have no affect whatsoever on the winter migration of Snow Birds out of NYC or any other parts of the northeast.
And no help to/for the Wacky Tobacca growers up thataway either.
My studies of CO2 absorption of LWIR have brought me to the conclusion that a doubling of CO2 to 700ppm would have no effect on global temperatures. I use spreadsheets to calculate Earth IR emissions and absorption by CO2. Using mean beam lengths and CO2 partial pressures, I use PcL charts by Hoyt C hottel to obtain the emissivity of CO2 in the atmosphere. For current CO2 partial pressure or concentration I calculate a distance of 3000 m of traverse through the earth’s atmosphere by ‘LWIR radiation’ before the absorbable LWIR is ‘filtered out’ and reduced to zero. I then calculate that by doubling the atmospheric CO2 to 700ppm or so the ‘absorption distance’ is reduced to <2000 m say 1500m but with no additional LWIR absorption by CO2. Therefore I conclude no global warming from increasing atmospheric CO2.
Samuel C,
I hate to be late to a party, especially when the dope must be so good.
“And the CO2 sink I speak of was the vast virgin forests across all of North America that began being “clear-cut” in the early 1800’s and…’
While you disclaimed non-use of wacky tobacco, you still came up with this? What forests existed across the great plains, the deserts and the great basin areas of the US? I can tell you the answer! NONE. And the forests of places like the Rocky Mountains might as well be none. I’m glad I found this early. I saved me from wasting time on other nonsense. All of North America my…
pbh
@ur momisugly McComberBoy
April 9, 2014 at 2:30 pm
—————-
McComber,
Me thinks that the virgin forests of the 1700s as defined on this map of North America does indeed represent a gigantic carbon sink.
http://www.naturalhistoryonthenet.com/Continents/images/namerica_climate.gif
Of course for one to visualize said “carbon sink” they first have to understand the meaning of “virgin forests” relative to the “butt size” diameter (or circumference) of the timber growing thereon said forested land. To wit:
“The Allegheny Forest – Before Man
Very little descriptive data is available on the original forests. It remained for George Washington while exploring the valley of the Great Kanawha to leave one of the first meager description of trees in this wild uncharted land. On November 4, 1770, while traveling along the Kanawha River he wrote in his journal, “Just as we came to the hills, we met with a Sycamore…..of a most extraordinary size, it measuring three feet from the ground, forty-five feet round, lacking two inches; and not fifty yards from it was another, thirty-one feet round.” As late as 1870, we read that “at least 10,000,000 acres (of the 16,640,000 acres of land in West Virginia) are still in all the vigor and freshness of original growth“.”
http://www.patc.us/history/archive/virg_fst.html
—————————-
“Pringle Tree – From about 1764 to 1767, the brothers John and Samuel Pringle lived in the hollow cavity of a big sycamore tree near the confluence of Turkey Run and the Buckhannon River in present Upshur County. The hollow was supposed to have been so big that an eight-foot fence rail could be turned inside the tree.”
http://www.wvencyclopedia.org/articles/1923
So, McComber, how was that for “other nonsense” for you to be pondering about?
My dear SCC. Your original comment was “all the way across”. Patently wrong. Handwaving about where forests were or whether or not those forests were a carbon sink is a distraction. My question still stands. What forests existed across the great plains, the deserts and the great basin areas of the US?
The answer was none in the 1700’s and it is still none today.
McComber, have you ever flown in an airplane “all the way across” the US from NYC to LA?
You probably have never driven a car “all the way across” town for any reason whatsoever, right?
SCC,
You are an idiot. Address my point or go to bed.
pbh