Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I greatly enjoy reading old science. Back fifty years or more ago, they actually did real science, not the “my model says it must be true” kind of thing that we are treated to today. In that regard, I’ve been fortunate to stumble on one of the earliest papers on the greenhouse effect, “The Artificial Production of Carbon Dioxide and its Influence on Temperature” by G. S. Callendar. There were a lot of curious and interesting things in the paper, which I’d heard of but never read, and which I’ll touch on in no particular order.
I was greatly encouraged by the description of Callendar in the header of the paper, where he is listed as the “Steam technologist to the British Electrical and Allied Industries Research Association”. I liked the guy already, he is a hands-on man, someone who describes himself as a “technologist”, and working in industry. What’s not to like? Plus, he wrote the article by himself, no team of 24 “co-authors”.
One of the first things I noticed was that although I’ve at times complained of the long lag time between submission to a journal and eventual publication, this one says:
Manuscript received May 19, 1937-read February 16, 1938
Eight months before it was “read”, and the paper was eventually published in April of 1938.
Moving on, here is his abstract, or “Summary” as it was called in that time and place:
SUMMARY
By fuel combustion man has added about 150,000 million tons of carbon dioxide to the air during the past half century. The author estimates from the best available data that approximately three quarters of this has remained in the atmosphere.
The radiation absorption coefficients of carbon dioxide and water vapour are used to show the effect of carbon dioxide on sky radiation. From this the increase in mean temperature, due to the artificial production of carbon dioxide, is estimated to be at the rate of 0.005°C per year at the present time.
The temperature observations at 200 meteorological stations are used to show that world temperatures have actually increased at an average rate of 0.005°C. per year during the past half century.
Being a numbers man, this interested me because as early as 1938 he’d estimated the total emissions, estimated the airborne fraction, and calculated the global temperature. So of course I had to go check it out, to see how his estimates compare to modern estimates.
The CDIAC has the carbon emissions data. The “past half century” from 1937 would have been 1887 to 1937. The CDIAC data puts the emissions during that time at 38,201 million tonnes of carbon. To convert to tonnes of carbon dioxide, we need to add the weight of the oxygen. The atomic weight of carbon is 12, and the atomic weight of oxygen is 16. The atomic weight of CO2 is 12 + 2 * 16 = 44. So we need to multiply 38,201 million tonnes of carbon times 44/12, which gives us 140,000 million tonnes of CO2, compared to Callendar’s estimate of 150,000 million tonnes … not bad, not bad at all.
As to the “best available data” estimate of the airborne fraction, Callendar says:
I have examined 21 very accurate set of observations (Brown and Escombe, 1905), taken about the year 1900, on the amount of carbon dioxide in the free air, in relation to the weather maps of the period. From them I concluded that the amount of carbon dioxide in the free air of the North Atlantic region, at the beginning of this century, was 2.74 ± 0.05 parts in 10,000 by volume of dry air.
This translates to 274 ppmv in the year 1900. I note that this is significantly less than the value given by the ice core data, which is about 295 ppmv.
The “pre-industrial” value in 1750 is usually set at 274 ppmv. This difference raises lots of interesting questions I won’t go into here. Unfortunately, although the Brown and Escombe 1905 paper is online here, it makes no mention of the “21 very accurate sets of observations”. I wish I had the data, particularly since his error estimate is ±5 ppmv.
I did like his method, though, which appears to consist of looking at the observations and the weather maps at the time of the observations. This would allow him to infer the source of the air being sampled at a given time, and to choose samples from say off of the ocean rather than from the town. Clever. From this he calculates a 6% increase in CO2 by 1937. Curiously, he had no actual figures for the CO2 in 1937, he estimated it. What do the modern ice core records say the increase in CO2 was from 1900 to 1937?
6% …
He then goes on to say:
Since calculating the figures in Table I, I have seen a report of a great number of observations on atmospheric CO2 , taken recently in the eastern U.S.A. The mean of 1,156 “free air” readings taken in the years 1930 to 1936 was 3.10 parts in 10,000 by volume. For the measurements at Kew in 1898 to 1901 the mean of 92 free air values was 2.92, including a number of rather high values effected by local combustion, etc.; and assuming that a similar proportion of the American readings are affected in the same way, the difference is equal to an increase of 6 per cent.
What truly impressed me, though, was the final sentence of that paragraph, which reads:
Such close agreement with the calculated increase is, of course, partly accidental.
Gotta love a scientist as honest as that.
From there he goes into a fascinating discussion of the physics of the absorption of upwelling longwave radiation, and the characteristics of downwelling longwave radiation. This is followed by another most interesting description of how he has estimated the temperature changes since 1900. Not having HadCRUT or Berkeley Earth or GISSTEMP datasets, of course, he had to go out, find the station data, and analyze it.
Surprisingly, he goes on to discuss the “urban heat island” (UHI) effect, saying:
It is well known that temperatures, especially the night minimum, are a little higher near the centre of a large town than they are in the surrounding country districts; if, therefore, a large number of buildings have accumulated in the vicinity of a station during the period under consideration, the departures at that station would be influenced thereby and a rising trend would be expected.
Clearly a man ahead of his time.
How well did he do? Here’s the comparison of his results with those of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature dataset.
Comparison, global temperature anomaly estimates of Callendar (1938) and Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (2014)
Now, I gotta give Callendar full marks for that one. Despite the difference in the linear trends, which may be due to his reducing the trend to adjust for the UHI effect, his results correlate very well (0.84) with the modern estimate.
Then, another surprise. He talks about how the climate system is not static, but instead it responds to changing temperature, saying (emphasis mine):
On the earth the supply of water vapour is unlimited over the greater part of the surface, and the actual mean temperature results from a balance reached between the solar “constant” and the properties of water and air. Thus a change of water vapour, sky radiation and temperature is corrected by a change of cloudiness and atmospheric circulation, the former increasing the reflection loss and thus reducing the effective sun heat.
This is the earliest of the very few examples I’ve found of people expounding the concept that the temperature of the planet is self-correcting, that is to say that the Earth has inherent temperature-regulating mechanisms, and that it naturally balances at a certain temperature, and it corrects itself when it departs from that balance. As I have spent some years investigating, measuring, and writing about just exactly how that system works in practice, I tip my hat to him. In fact, I’m in the middle of writing yet another post about the clouds and the temperature interact to establish that balance.
From there, he segues into a speculation on whether changes in carbon dioxide levels could have caused the ice ages. He states that he doubts CO2 could have done it, saying:
I find it almost impossible to account for movements of the gas of the required order because of the almost inexhaustible supply from the oceans, when its pressure in the air becomes low enough to give a fall of 5 to 8°C in mean temperatures.
Now, here’s the beauty part. I’m so indoctrinated by decades of being inundated with alarmism that I fully expected Callendar to conclude by warning of the dangers of rising CO2, impending Thermageddon, plagues, famines, rains of frogs, and the like. But to my great surprise and pleasure, here’s what he actually wrote:
In conclusion it may be said that the combustion of fossil fuel, whether it be peat from the surface or oil from 10,000 feet below, is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power. For instance the above mentioned small increases of mean temperature would be important at the northern margin of cultivation, and the growth of favourably situated plants is directly proportional to the carbon dioxide pressure (Brown and Escombe, 1905): In any case the return of the deadly glaciers should be delayed indefinitely.
You can’t say fairer than that.
My best to all,
w.
PS—A final thought. I was most impressed by a practice which I don’t see in the modern scientific journals. The journal invited comments and questions on the paper from no less than six other people knowledgeable in the field. Then the journal published their comments and questions along with Callendar’s answers to them, not three issues down the line, but at the bottom of Callendar’s study itself.
When I saw that, I had to laugh. Why? Because it’s identical to the format of a blog post. Someone puts up a head post, you read it, and at the bottom of the head post you read other people asking questions and raising issues, and the author of the head post responding to them right there.
How fascinating. The journals have abandoned that format of publishing the article along with the questions and responses at the same time … and instead, it’s become the format of the web.
DATA: Callendar’s paper, THE ARTIFICIAL PRODUCTION OF CARBON DIOXIDE AND ITS INFLUENCE ON TEMPERATURE, is here. When I said above that I “stumbled across” the paper, to be clear I came across it doing what I do from time to time. I go to the AGWObserver and do a search for the words “FULL TEXT”. His content changes, he’s always adding new stuff, and best of all, he tags everything that’s not paywalled. As a working man with no university library to call on, that’s invaluable to me … or if not invaluable, at least valued at the usual price of $39.50 per paper, which adds up very fast. So I was cruising along at the Observer looking at “FULL TEXT” items when I came to Callendar … my great fortune.
AS ALWAYS: If you disagree with someone, please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU DISAGREE WITH. It’s the easiest and most accurate way for us all to be clear about exactly what you are objecting to. I can defend my words. I cannot defend your paraphrase of my words. If you disagree, I implore you, QUOTE.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Willis: We have a small group in Calgary named The Callender Club after the British engineer you so interestingly wrote about today. We have two members. We took the name not because of Callendar’s work but because of his motto, which we adopted by unanimous vote at our first meeting about 10 years ago: “Climatology is a difficult subject. By long tradition the happy hunting grounds for robust speculation, it suffers much because so few can separate fact from fiction.”
Richard
Wow, quite refreshing to read a scientist actually practicing science. He was clearly intrigued with the idea of CO2 and global temperature, but he approached his ideas honestly and with admirable scientific rigor. Sadly missing today.
So I I can only hope journalists focus more on journalism and not entertainment for ratings and scientists focus on practicing science and not politcial buffonery.
Steven Mosher November 14, 2014 at 10:31 am Edit
Mosh, perhaps you could actually show us the calculations instead of just making assertions. I ask because MODTRAN puts the warming from a doubling of CO2 not at 1.5°C, but at 0.9°C.
What I did was to first set CO2 in MODTRAN to 400 ppmv, and run the calculation. I then noted the outgoing radiation.
Then I doubled the CO2 to 800 ppmv, and interactively adjusted the ground temperature offset until the warming of the ground restored the initial outgoing radiation.
At that point, the ground temperature is 0.9°C warmer.
So I’m quite curious why you think that “basic physics” gives us 1.5°C warming. As I said … an actual calculation which clearly spells out your “simplifying assumptions” would be valuable here, rather than science by assertion.
w.
Willis, this paper might interest you:Don’t forget the study by Romps et al in Science Magazine: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6211/851.
Although it is about lightning, the change in lightning rate is inferred from the calculated change in energy flow rate. I did a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation that I wrote about at Climate Etc. I’d appreciate it if you would let me know if you (might be interested enough to) find errors.
Thanks for that, Matt. I’d actually already looked at it, and I wasn’t all that impressed. First, here are the variables (CAPE and precipitation), their product, and lightning.
Note that their algorithm (lower left) shows two big hotspots for lightning strikes—around Louisiana, and the entire Florida Peninsula. It also shows no significant lightning around New Mexico.
Now look at the reality—no Louisiana hotspot, only one part of the Florida Peninsula being a hotspot, and plenty of lightning around New Mexico, which I remember well from when I lived there.
The other curious thing about the study is the purported rate of change—12% oer degree change of temperature. This seems excessive, although I have no actual data to contradict it.
Finally, they’ve gotten their purported rate of change (12% per degree) from a study of … you guessed it … climate models. It appears that the alarmism settings of the models have been adjusted to the “Full Hansen” level … the mean results of these models say that by 2085, the globe will be 3.6°C (6.5°F) warmer than it is now. To do that, we’d have to warm at half a degree per decade for the next 70 years … I’m not seeing that even in my worst imaginings.
Now, hyping that kind of alarmism just destroys any semblance of objectivity. These guys are not in search of the truth, they’re on a full-tilt FUD mission … doesn’t make their results wrong, but it sure makes a man suspicious.
Anyhow, that’s my thoughts about the study.
All the best,
w.
Willis,
This is my first time ever commenting directly to you (it should be directed at the comment you’re replying to, pergaps). I’d like to first say that I mostly read on this site, as I don’t have a solid grasp of most of the science in order to provide additional information. I want to extend my thanks to you and all other contributors, and especially to Mr. Watts, for this site. For a layperson, like me, this site has been very helpful in understanding, at least as much as possible, more difficult concepts.
The reason for my reply to you is your comment regarding the study about lightning flashes. I fully understand the automatic recoil at, what appears to be, overhyped alarmism by the authors. But, I’m wondering if you can take a closer look at what they’re saying and explain it to someone like me. As I said, it would seem I should direct this to the commenter that posted it, but I seem to be able to understand more from what you write. This may seem like a little brown-nosing, but that is purely coincidental.
The part of the study that piqued my curiosity is in the observed data. It shows Florida with only one hotspot, as you mentioned. However, Florida is known as the “lightning strike capital of the world”, so it seems the observed data may just be limited to a smaller timeframe, when lighting flashes are not all that common (winter time, perhaps).
Your thoughts?
(Any other commenters that wish to reply would also be appreciated)
justincaselawgic November 15, 2014 at 10:00 am
You are most welcome.
Basically I liked the study, or at least the part without the climate models. They theorize that lightning is related to precipitation and CAPE, or Convective Atmospheric Potential Energy. This is basically a measure of the instability of the atmosphere.
However, given their results, it appears that there is much more to the story. I say this because the observed data is not that great a match for CAPE * precip.
Hard to tell. They’ve measured lightning centered at 0:00 and 12:00 GMT. Part of the problem in my opinion is that this is not the same local time across the US. In California that’s 4 AM and 4 PM … but in Florida it’s 7 AM and 7 PM.
So I suspect (as you did) that it’s a timing issue, but of a different kind, because thunderstorms peak in the afternoon.
Finally, the unfortunate fact faced by the authors is that the relevant datasets only overlap for one year, 2011. This extremely short time span makes it hard to draw solid conclusions.
All the best, thanks for the comment,
w.
Willis,
Thanks for the quick reply and the additional insight. Very helpful.
Willis Eschenbach: Anyhow, that’s my thoughts about the study.
Thank you very much. I have written one of my many letters to the Editor of science (all never sent!) I think that my letter on this paper will eventually have some merit. I don’t “believe” the result, but I think the basic method is sound: multiply the available energy (computed from temperature), times the rainfall rate (which has to match the evaporation rate over long-enough periods, in mass units), to get the rate of non-radiative transfer of energy — from that they get the lightning flash rate. As I have written, if they are accurate enough, then they have shown that the increase in power from increased CO2 is insufficient to have raised the surface temp by 0.9C over the last 150 years; and the doubling of CO2 concentration will not provide sufficient increased power to raise the surface temp 1C in the future. I am not confident that I have mastered their method, but if I am close enough, they have thrown a wrench into the CO2-based theory of climate warming. The biggest problem ever since the theory was first proposed is that they do not have enough information on the rates of energy transfers, and the assumptions of “equilibrium” don’t have a substantive base.
A comment on your comment regarding Callendar’s publication being in “blog” format:
I would just note that while the format was that of a blog, the actions were more like Real Climate-ish: only “qualified, invited” individuals can comment.
Would that be a symptom of the era where fewer people had access to the education and tools to be able to materially contribute, as opposed to deliberate exclusionary practice as exists today?
General P. Malaise November 14, 2014 at 8:09 pm
Thanks, Gen. Malaise. Actually, it’s not a problem, because it is obvious when they are getting clean air and when they are not. I go over all of these questions about Mauna Loa in the link I gave above … I put those kind of links into my responses for exactly that reason.
w.
One of the first things I noticed was that although I’ve at times complained of the long lag time between submission to a journal and eventual publication, this one says:
Manuscript received May 19, 1937-read February 16, 1938
Nothing unusual about that delay, my first journal publication, back in the early 70s, took just over a year.
Back then you had to mail off the draft, the editor would then mail it to reviewers and then eventually you’d get their comments. Once you responded to them the editor would decide whether to accept or not. Then you’d eventually receive the typeset proof, which you would then proofread for errors, then you’d wait for the final version to be published. Some parts of the process have been stream lined now, no typesetting or waiting for snail mail. It always has been a slow process.
Thank you for the article Willis.
Phil.,
After decades of experience and presumably of learning, how is it that you ended up on the wrong (losing) side of the global warming debate?
Since I’m not participating in any debate on global warming I can’t be on any side, neither winning nor losing. What I do discuss is the science and on that I’m on the right side.
Co2, the well mixed gas. Here is Callendar 20 years later.
Here are some earlier publications
Jimbo,
This result is not in accordance with recent radio carbon data, but the reasons for the discrepancy are obscure
Callendar probably didn’t know at that time that the above ground nuclear bomb tests 1945-1960 were producing a lot of extra 14C in the atmosphere.
Some old values, showing a remarkable fall of CO2 in high southern latitudes, are assembled for comparison
And some of these historical measurements, including sailing towards and at the Antarctic base of the US (Little America III) were taken with equipment which wasn’t calibrated (it should be done during the back trip, but the -glass- device was broken in a storm). Besides that, the large variability in CO2 readings between 140 ppmv and 1700 ppmv (yes, over a tenfold) and similar variability of O2 measurements, don’t give much confidence in the accuracy of the device (theoretically +/- 0.03% in air, that is +/- 300 ppmv, yes that is what the report says) and/or the sampling/handling and/or the chemicals used…
See: http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/070/mwr-070-05-0093.pdf
That kind of data have not the slightest resemblance to the real CO2 levels of that time. Callendar rejected similar data for his compilation, just because they were to far off reality…
The real values were obtained by the NDIR equipment of Keeling, starting in 1958 at the South Pole which did show very little variability (less than +/- 1 ppmv seasonal), only a steady increase…
Recent measurements show practically the same CO2 levels all over Antarctica and the Southern Oceans.
Here is Callendar in 1961.
It is more like one to two years if you compare the near sea level stations in the SH with these in the NH. See the graph I provided November 16, 2014 at 6:24 am
That last quote from Callendar is something I can use–and will. –AGF
I like Callendar’s basic style. Here are a few thoughts that take his approach a little further and with the same fundamental simplicity:
Could the long-term effect of increasing CO2 be a reduction in global temperature?
The study of local weather effects for my paragliding sport has led me to the conclusion that, with a substantial lag of several decades, an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will have a net cooling effect through a series of local weather related mechanisms. As a cross-country paraglider pilot I’m always looking for “lift” to keep me airborne. And “lift” is all about local weather. The sun heats some types of terrain faster than others, the heated air rises and the Paraglider goes up in these “thermals”. We can actually fly many miles cross-country this way without landing and without motorized power.
Now look at what happens with an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. We’re already seeing it. Vegetation explodes everywhere even into former desert areas. First, leaves collect the energy of sunlight to incorporate CO2 into plant growth while transpiring out water, a product of photosynthesis. And as plant life flourishes the local terrain is modified. (1) Plant debris accumulates over decades that, together with microscopic and larger fauna, creates topsoil. This debris and topsoil absorb rainwater, which would otherwise have flowed away to the nearest ocean, creating numerous local water “reservoirs” that then promote more plant growth, particularly in the dryer regions. (2) Some of the water that is transpired during photosynthesis, together with some of the water absorbed by the debris and topsoil, evaporates by absorbing heat from the atmosphere. Even the local ferrets know that forests are cooler during the day than un-forested grasslands or tundra. So far there’s nothing new here. But what happens to the water vapor? Water vapor decreases the density of the air into which it is mixed. This lighter (and usually warmer) air then rises as thermals, taking Paragliders up with it.
In more barren landscapes, on the outskirts of a forest, for example, the air is warmed faster and to a higher temperature by the sun, thus reducing the air’s density. (And as already mentioned, water vapor is lighter than dry air reducing the air density still further.) This hotter, less dense air rises in thermals and is replaced by humid air flowing out of the forest, which in turn, is heated and rises too creating a circulation that takes moisture to higher elevations. Once the rising air has cooled through expansion at higher elevations to the local dew point, clouds are formed as the moisture in the air condenses. Much of this moisture is the moisture that was transpired by the plants and from the vaporized water stored in the accumulated plant debris and topsoil. Paragliders use these clouds to find lift. But as these clouds develop they block sunlight from reaching the ground. The shaded areas cool very quickly, cutting off the lift. The clouds have absorbed or reflected the sunlight back into space. So what does this mean for “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming”?
We already know that the Earth is greening—barring deforestation to produce more cropland—as a result of increasing CO2. And this growth is global including encroachment into formerly more arid areas. (I’ll note here that an increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere makes all photosynthetic plants more tolerant of dryer air. This is because the stomata, holes, on the underside of the leaves or needles and through which water is lost, do not need to open as wide, or to stay open as long, to take in the CO2 needed for the photosynthetic process. As a direct result less water is lost through the stomata.)
So this globally very local phenomenon may add up to a truly global effect. Increased plant life modifies local terrain resulting in the storage of more water, increasing the moisture content in the atmosphere, and ultimately, increasing the quantity of clouds and, globally, the reflectivity, or albedo, of the planet. Can this cooling effect be modeled globally? I’ll suggest that it can be modeled (using existing data) to test whether or not it might be expected to have a global cooling effect: (a) to counteract heating due to increased CO2, or (b) to even overpower this heating and produce a net cooling of the planet several decades in the future. If this proves to be true and significant, an accurate quantification of this mechanism would then become very important due to its potential economic impacts, both positive and negative.