Hot on the heels of the Lewis and Curry paper, we have this new paper, which looks to be well researched, empirically based, and a potential blockbuster for dimming the alarmism that has been so prevalent over climate sensitivity. With a climate sensitivity of just 0.43°C, it takes the air out of the alarmism balloon.
The Hockey Schtick writes: A new paper published in the Open Journal of Atmospheric and Climate Change by renowned professor of physics and expert on spectroscopy Dr. Hermann Harde finds that climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels is only about [0.6C], about 7 times less than the IPCC claims, but in line with many other published low estimates of climate sensitivity.
The paper further establishes that climate sensitivity to tiny changes in solar activity is comparable to that of CO2 and by no means insignificant as the IPCC prefers to claim.
The following is a Google translation from the German EIKE site with an overview of the main findings of the paper, followed by a link to the full paper [in English].
Assessment of global warming due to CO2 and solar influence
Currently climate sensitivity (discussed for example here ) is claimed by the IPCC mid-value to be 3.0 C (AR4) as the most probable value, but others have determined much lower values of 1.73C or 1C or even 0.43C. Prof. Hermann Harde, renowned physicist and Spektral analytiker has determined from his new paper the climate sensitivity is [0.6 C]
Advanced Two-Layer Climate Model for the Assessment of Global Warming by CO2
Hermann Harde* , Experimental Physics and Materials Science , Helmut-Schmidt-University, Hamburg , Germany
Open Journal of Atmospheric and Climate Change, In Press
Abstract
CO2 concentration, based on a combination of thermally and solar induced cloud feedback.
Based on the HITRAN-2008 database [4] detailed spectroscopic calculations on the absorptivities of water
vapour and the gases carbon dioxide, methane and ozone in the atmosphere are presented.
The line-by-line calculations for solar radiation from 0.1–8 mm (sw radiation) as well as for the
terrestrial radiation from 3–100 mm (lw radiation) show, that due to the strong overlap of the CO2 and
CH4 spectra with water vapour lines the influence of these gases significantly declines with increasing
water vapour pressure, and that with increasing CO2-concentration well noticeable saturation effects are
observed limiting substantially the impact of CO2 on global warming.
based on actual data of the water vapour content, which is considerably varying with altitude above ground
as well as with the climate zone and, therefore, with the temperature. The vertical variation in humidity
and temperature as well as in the partial gas pressures and the total pressure is considered by computing
individual absorption spectra for up to 228 atmospheric layers and then integrating from ground level up
to 86 km altitude.
atmosphere and therefore on the geographic latitude and longitude, is included by considering the Earth
as a truncated icosahedron (Bucky ball) consisting of 32 surface elements with well defined angles to the
incident radiation, and assigning each of these areas to one of the three climate zones.
by the atmosphere itself, as well as their variation with temperature are derived from radiation transfer
calculations for each zone.To identify the influence of the absorbing gases on the climate and particularly the effect of an
increasing CO2-concentration on global warming, we developed an advanced two-layer climate model,
which describes the Earth’s surface and the atmosphere as two layers acting simultaneously as absorbers
and Planck radiators. Also heat transfer by convection and evaporation between these layers is considered.
At equilibrium each, the surface as well as the atmosphere, deliver as much power as they suck up from
the sun and the neighbouring layer or climate zone.
considering multiple scattering between the surface and clouds. It also includes the common feedback
processes like water vapour, lapse rate and albedo feedback, but additionally takes into account the
influence of a temperature dependent sensible and latent heat flux as well as temperature induced and
solar induced cloud cover feedback.
budget scheme of Tremberth et al. [20], which at a reference CO2 concentration of 380 ppm and a ground
temperature of 16 °C can well be reproduced.
and the lower atmospheric temperature are calculated as a function of the CO2 concentration. From the
temperature variations, found at doubled CO2 concentration, the CO2 climate sensitivity and air sensitivity
are derived.
are extensively discussed. While the albedo- and to some degree the lapse rate feedback are adopted from
literature, the water vapour feedback is derived from the sw and lw absorptivity calculations over the
different climate zones. With an amplification at clear sky conditions of 1:5 and at mean cloud cover of
1:2 these values are smaller than assumed in other climate models [27, 28].Since it is found that with increasing CO2 concentration the air temperature is less rapidly increasing
than the surface temperature, the convection at the boundary of both layers rises with the concentration.
As a consequence more thermal energy is transferred from the surface to the atmosphere. Similarly, with
increasing temperature also evaporation and precipitation are increasing with the ground temperature.
Both these effects contribute to negative feedback and are additionally included in the simulations.
A special situation is found for the influence of clouds on the radiation and energy budget. From
measurements of the global cloud cover over a period of 27 years it is deduced that the global mean
temperature is increasing with decreasing cloud cover [25]. However, it is not clear, if a lower cloud
cover is the consequence of the increasing temperature, or if the cloud cover is influenced and at least to
some degree controlled by some other mechanism, particularly solar activities. In the first case a strong
amplifying temperature induced cloud feedback had to be considered, this for the climate sensitivity as
well as for a respective solar sensitivity, whereas in the other case the temperature induced cloud effect
would disappear for both sensitivities and only a solar induced cloud feedback had to be included due to
the solar influence.
on the climate and solar sensitivity can be derived from model simulations, which additionally include
the solar effect and compare this with the measured temperature increase over the last century. These
simulations, considering both effects, show that the observed global warming of 0.74 °C [51] can only
satisfactorily be explained, when a temperature feedback on the clouds is completely excluded or only has
a minor influence. Otherwise the calculated warming would be significantly larger than observed, or the
thermally induced cloud feedback would have been overestimated. With a combination of temperature and
solar induced cloud feedback we deduce a CO2 climate sensitivity of CS = 0.6 °C and a solar sensitivity,
related to 0.1 % change of the solar constant, of SS = 0.5 °C. An increase in the solar activity of only 0.1
% over 100 years then contributes to a warming of 0.54 °C, and the 100 ppm increase of CO2 over this
period causes additional 0.2 °C in excellent agreement with the measured warming and cloud cover.
From our investigations, which are based on actual spectroscopic data and which consider all relevant
feedback processes as well as the solar influence, we can conclude, that a CO2 climate sensitivity larger
1 °C seems quite improbable, whereas a value of 0.5 – 0.7 °C – depending on the considered solar anomaly
– fits well with all observations of a changing solar constant, the cloud cover and global temperature. A
climate sensitivity in agreement with the IPCC specifications (1.5 – 4.5 °C) would only be possible, when
any solar influence could completely be excluded, and only CO2 induced thermal cloud feedback would
be assumed, then yielding a value of 1.7 °C.
variations over some time period and, therefore, have to solve complex coupled nonlinear differential
equations with countless parameters, for tracing the climate sensitivity this is of no significance. We
calculate an equilibrium state and can average over larger local variations, for which a partitioning into
three climate zones is quite sufficient. In addition, a simple energy balance model, focussing on the main
physical processes, is much more transparent than any AOGCM and can help to better understand the
complex interrelations characterizing our climate system.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anthony: I find the dark, serif typeface used in this thread much easier to read than the ordinary light gray, sans serif typeface.
PS–Anthony: After my comment posted, the typeface changed back to gray sans serif!
Look at the impact factor of the journal.
No wait, it doesn’t have one.
That’s because it is a pay-to-publish vanity “Journal” by a predatory publisher
http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/01/02/list-of-predatory-publishers-2014/
Why is anyone taking this paper seriously? A high-school essay could get published in this Journal is they paid the fee.
“Simulations including an increased solar activity over the last century give a CO2 initiated warming of 0.2 ̊ C and a solar influence of 0.54 ̊ C over this period, corresponding to a CO2 climate sensitivity of 0.6 ̊ C (doubling of CO2) and a solar sensitivity of 0.5 ̊ C (0.1 % increase of the solar constant).”
0.1% of solar constant is 0.34 W/m^2 forcing and it gives 0.5 C sensitivity. Doubling CO2 gives 3.7 W/m^2 forcing and sensitivity of 0.6 C. The only way to explain this is solar forcing has strong positive feedback and CO2 forcing has strong negative feedback. This mystery must be explained by the paper.
The W/m^2 is measured, in both instances, at the surface. The trick is that CO2’s effect only slowly builds through the atmosphere and, effectively, only at 15 micron wavelengths – and penetrating an average of 4 microns into the ocean. The solar effect is filtered through the entire atmosphere, imparting energy in a wide spectrum throughout, then passes through the interface layer of the ocean and warming beneath it directly (as well as imparting energy to the interface layer [cool-skin layer]).
At least that’s my understanding. That would give solar impacts an easy 10X greater warming efficiency, thereby making the effects equal.
Oh, BTW, current added CO2 forcing is only ~1.4 W/m^2. 3.7 is what we should be added by ~560PPM. So another 0.5C (or less, most likely). My own figures put atmospheric sensitivity at 1~1.6C based on current data per doubling of CO2, so by 2100, if that holds, CO2 could outpace solar variation. That figure, however, is idealized and will likely not be achieved, IMHO… there are too many unknowns, and absolutely too many unknown unknowns.
looncraz commented
On a cool dry day you can measure zenith temps of -40F to less than -60F, with the difference being how much water vapor there is. At -50F 3.7W/m^2 would make an effective zenith temp of say -46F. That’s the base temp prior to adding lots of water, water vapor can add +50F or more.
Let me summarize:
Co2 adds maybe 4F to the -50F or colder space the surface of the planet radiates to.
Water vapor can warm that same apparent surface 50-80F.
Water vapor controls surface temps, not Co2.
“At -50F 3.7W/m^2 would make an effective zenith temp of say -46F. That’s the base temp prior to adding lots of water, water vapor can add +50F or more.”
Yes, water vapor controls the equation. However, CO2 can be seen at work in the arctic’s temperature profile. The cold winters are warming, and the summer is cooling. This is, likely, due to CO2’s increasing effects in the absence of significant water vapor (such as during very low temperatures). It was also something I predicted would happen that many warmists violently fight.
They fight it because of what the changing temperature profile must ultimately represent: a shrinking melt season and inevitable Arctic ice rebound – even while the average temperature is higher – and the winters considerably warmer.
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/ArcticGISS/fig2.jpg
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2004.png
looncraz commented
I’m not sure, the Arctic is poorly sample at the surface, many stations are near water. And unless it’s ice, you’re likely getting a lot of impact from water temps.
“The W/m^2 is measured, in both instances, at the surface.”
Nope. The figures I gave are at TOA. Sunlight originates up in the sky not on earth’s surface in case you haven’t noticed.
“Oh, BTW, current added CO2 forcing is only ~1.4 W/m^2.”
Read my post again. I’m referring to doubling of CO2 not the current added. BTW current is not 1.4 W/m^2 it’s 1.88 W/m^2. Nice try but you haven’t explained the mystery.
“The trick is that CO2’s effect only slowly builds through the atmosphere and, effectively, only at 15 micron wavelengths”
It is absorbed from 8 to 15 um which covers the entire longwave spectrum.
“and penetrating an average of 4 microns into the ocean.”
Opacity is not a measure of heat transfer. A thin sheet of aluminum is opaque to light. Expose it to sunlight and it will warm.
“The solar effect is filtered through the entire atmosphere, imparting energy in a wide spectrum throughout,”
The atmosphere is largely transparent to solar radiation. Only 20% is absorbed by the atmosphere. Nice trick but the mystery remains.
Things are really looking dismal for the CAGW warmunists…:
1) The Lewis & Curry paper putting ECS at 1.67C.
2) This Harde paper putting ECS at 0.6C.
3) The Javrejeva et al 2014 paper showing sea level rise stuck at 7 inches per century.
4) The Cazenave et al 2104 paper showing the rate of sea level rise has fallen 30% over the past decade.
4) No global warming trend for 18+ years and counting (RSS).
5) Falling global temp trends for 14+ years and counting (RSS).
6) IPCC’s 2013 AR5 report finally admitting no increasing trends of severe weather in in 50~100 years…
7) The satellite data showing higher CO2 levels increasing global greening by 16%.
8) Australia rescinding the most expensive and stupid CO2 tax the world has ever seen.
9) Russia, China, Canada, Australia and India not sending any delegates the the UN Climate summit.
10) CAGW’s model projections vs. reality now exceeding their 95% confidence intervals.
11) The Antarctic setting a 35-yr record ice extent a few weeks ago.
12) The Arctic ice extent showing strong signs of recovery since 2007
13) The US 2013/14 winter was one of the worst in 40 years.
14) Taxpayer polls showing belief in CAGW is falling.
15) Internet activity data shows interest in Global Warming collapsing.
16) The weakest solar cycle since 1906 peaked in January 2014 and it’s all down hill from here…
And the hits just keeeeep on comin’….
I really can’t see how the CAGW hypothesis can take many more broadsides like the aforementioned and still be taken seriously. Absolutely NONE of the catastrophic predictions of the CAGW hypothesis are coming close to matching reality and voters are just not drinking the CAGW Kool-Aid anymore….
The average voter may not be aware of all the particulars, but they do understand something is terribly wrong with the CAGW hypothesis; namely it doesn’t work… When CAGW becomes a political liability, the CAGW funding will stop and CAGW will die off.
We’ve got one more El Nino cycle for the warmunists to blame on CAGW, but when it’s followed by a La Nina, I think that’ll be all she wrote.
Excellent, I’ve always had belief that once the normal scientific process was allowed to progress (despite the best efforts of alarmist activists to shut down the process), climate sensitivity would be found to be a little below 0.7 degC, through a combination of back-calculating using known temperature and CO2 from 1850 onwards which shows more or less net neutral feedback as opposed to any positive feedbacks (coupled with Lindzen/Choi and others), and moreover gradual confirmation of dampening / self-regulation via. clouds (small negative net feedback).
One of the concluding statements, that solar influence would have to be entirely excluded to obtain a CO2 sensitivity even at 1.7K, at the low end of the IPCC range, is particularly significant. To get higher, I guess you have to reverse cloud feedback!
If Ta is suppose to represent the temp of the sky you’d see from the surface, those temps would require very high humidity, under clear sky I rarely see temps > 0C (even over the summer), unless I’m pointing at the bottom of a cloud.
I’m not sure what was considered mid/high latitude, and I’m only measuring at 41N.
I’d call 41 N mid latitude.
Funny how it works on sites like this:
Models are not to be trusted, models aren’t to be believed, models get it all wrong, and on and on..
OH – wait. We like the result of this paper so now we completely believe this model and call the paper “significant” and accept it uncritically.
Actually, it’s more about pointing out the conflicting views created and supported by similar methods while the science is supposedly already settled.
Each time a new study comes out that conflicts with the establishment assertion, that is all most of us here are doing. That is why many of the comments are arguing about the merits of the data, methods, or results and their implications if correct. On web-sites such as [REDACTED] the comment sections are horrendously one-sided with very little constructive discussion and considerable censorship. Interestingly, many of the comments on these sites are just personal attacks against “deniers.”
Here, people post graphs with opposing views, yell at each others’ data – or views on that data, but seldom tolerate ad hominem attacks. It is a more constructive environment with a considerable proportion of well-educated individuals. Often, the comments section is where the true beauty and values resides, IMHO, for almost any web-site.