Guest essay by Saburo Nonogaki
It has been said that the averaged earth surface temperature would be 255K if no green-house-effect(g-h-e) gases were contained in the atmosphere, and is 288Ｋ at present where the atmosphere contains g-h-e gases. The estimation of 255K is based on the earth’s long-term radiative equilibrium and Stefan-Boltzmann’s law which states that the total amount of radiative energy from a black body at absolute temperature T is proportional to T 4.
As the earth’s long-term radiative equilibrium will be reached also in the case where the atmosphere contains g-h-e gases, we obtain the following equation under the condition that the long-term input energy from the sun remains constant.
(1–a )T 4 = constant (1)
Here, T is the averaged earth surface absolute temperature and a the ratio of radiative energy retained by the g-h-e gases in the atmosphere to the total radiative energy. By replacing T in equation (1) with 255Ｋ and 288Ｋ, we obtain the following equation.
(1–0)×2554 = (1–a )×2884 (2)
From equation (2), we obtain the value of a as follows.
a = 0.385 (3)
Jack Barrett* has reported that, in the case of 100m-thick atmosphere, the doubling of pre-industrial concentration of CO2 will result in the increase in infrared absorption by g-h-e gases by 0.5%. The reason why the increase is so small is based mainly on the saturation tendency of infrared absorption by CO2. As the re-emission of a part of energy absorbed by g-h-e gases into the universe takes place, the increase in a is less than 0.5%. According to equations (1), (2) and (3), the increase in a by less than 0.5% results in the increase in T by less than 0.6K.
As the actual thickness of the atmosphere is about 8000m at ordinary atmospheric pressure, the saturation of infrared absorption by CO2 will be almost complete and the actual increase in a caused by the doubling of CO2 concentration must be much less than 0.5% and the resulted increase in T must be also actually much less than 0.6K.
*http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/barrett_ee05.pdf (p. 1042)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
0,24K http://butler.cc.tut.fi/~trantala/opetus/files/FS-1550.Fysiikan.seminaari/Fileita/KauppinenJ-IREPHY-21Nov13.pdf
Richard Petschauer write: “However CO2 is a strong absorber near 15 microns wavelength, and in this region the final emission level moves up into the troposphere where the temperature increases with altitude, hence more radiation around 15 microns. The effect of this is to reduce the reduction of heat leaving from 3.76 to under 3 W/m^2. ”
There is an obvious error here: in the troposphere the temperature decreases with altitude. Did you mean to say “stratosphere”? If so, do you you have any evidence that the emissions at 15 microns are mostly from the stratosphere? Can you cite ant calculations to back up your claims?
Mike M.
This analysis misses to entire point of how the atmospheric greenhouse effect works. It is the raising of the average altitude of radiation to space, not the near surface absorption/emission change that matters. this average altitude changes with CO2 for two reasons. The first is that unlike water vapor, CO2 does not condense at increasing altitude, and actually becomes more important compared to water vapor at high altitudes. The second is that the concentration of any component of the atmosphere that does not condense with increasing altitude will increase at a particular altitude for a give concentration increase, and this is most important at the higher altitudes. However, this issue does not address a separate point: the possible change in albedo due to changing cloudiness (which may increase or decrease). Thus the net effect of CO2 increase is presently a poorly understood issue, and may or may not result in significant warming. However, it is becoming clear that any warming will likely be much smaller that the CAGW supporters predicted, and may in fact be overwhelmed by natural variation.
the raising of the average altitude of radiation to space
===================
that explanation relies upon the lapse rate, which ties in with PE/KE conversion by gravity of the vertical circulation created by warming due to the sun, which suggests that the extra 33C is a result of earth’s atmosphere, not GHG.
the earth is warmer because it has an atmosphere, energy from the sun, and vertical circulation. And would be warmer even if the atmoshpere contained only oxygen and nitogen. The thicker the atmosphere, the warmer the earth’s surface would be.
The GHE is based on the difference of the atmosphere being completely transparent and being opaque to frequencies absorbed by GHG. So 37% of the energy emitted by a 290k surface plus 63% of the energy emitted by a 210K surface equals that emitted by a 250K surface (without GHG in the atmosphere). So, roughly, 1% more that has to be emitted by the colder surface equates to 1K higher temperature of both to emit the same as a 250K surface.
That is just an indication of how a small amount of a GHG can affect the temperature. Its pure rubbish for calculating the effect of a small increase in GHG.
No Fred, it would not be warmer if the atmosphere were only N2 and O2. There would still be a lapse rate, but the surface level would be not be increased (it would be more uniform, due to wind distributing surface energy to higher latitudes). The lapse rate is a gradient not level, and some process has to determine the level. It is the average altitude of outgoing radiation to space that sets the level.
So what is the effective radiating altitude at present?
The present effective (average) radiating altitude in near 5 km
This analysis misses to entire point of how the atmospheric greenhouse effect is calculated. There world is much more complicated than two surfaces that are black bodies.
Yep, a simple-minded calculation by someone who does not know what he is talking about obviously trumps careful calculations by people who actually understand the physics.
The direct effect of doubled CO2 is about 1.1 K. Taking into account changes in water vapor (causing increased IR absorption and decreased lapse rate) increases that to something like 1.8 K. That seems to be pretty well established physics. The big question is how will cloud distributions and properties change as a result of that warming? No one knows and the models are incapable of providing an answer that can be trusted,
Mike M.
We could assume cloud changes will be like those of the past. For instance, at each average temperature we have certain local regimes of clouds. We might assume clouds have and continue to be a stablizing influence.
Mike, the answer to your question is that the earth definitely has negative feedbacks that keeps it within + or – 2% of the Kelvin temperature, no matter what CO2 does – it could be double the sensitivity you say and it would be countered by clouds as you’ve partly suggested, the enthalpy of the changes in waters state, currents, winds…. see my full reponse to someone else above:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/24/calculations-suggest-that-global-warming-caused-by-the-doubling-of-co2-will-be-less-than-0-6k/#comment-1821300
Gary,
At the link you provided, you wrote “Negative feedbacks are a certainty”. Every climate modeller agrees with you. It is a fact that the climate system is a negative feedback system.
The dominant climate feedback is the Planck feedback: as temperature increases, radiation to space increases. The role of positive feedbacks is to make the net feedback less negatice than it would be from the Planck feedback alone.
Mike M.
It so happens that water vapor is a negative feedback. Those who say otherwise are in error.
So, the never-before seen, non-catastrophic and certainly helpful manmade CO2 warming should kick in any day now. We’ll wait…
Equivocation on the word “surface”.
288K is the estimated AIR temperature.
255k is the (wrongly) estimated GROUND temperature.
You cannot simply subtract one from the other – they are completely different things!
They both are measured in the same units. Can’t you take the same thermometer you use to measure the air and stick it in the ground?
“They both are measured in the same units.”
So are the speed of light and the speed of sound, but don’t subtract one from t’other – it isn’t meaningful.
Temperature is a measure of heat energy content. For a given temperature, a kilo of air does not have the same heat content as a kilo of water, or a kilo of rock: they’re different things.
255k is the (wrongly) estimated GROUND temperature.
No, 255K is the Effective Black Body temperature of earth. In other words, the earth as seen from space. As seen from space, the earth doesn’t have a “surface” per se. It is a ball of dirt and water surrounded by a fuzzy thing called an atmosphere. Energy emitted to space could originate as photons from the surface, from the top of atmosphere, or from anywhere in between. The sum total of the energy/sec escaping, regardless of the altitude any given photon escaped from, defined the EFFECTIVE black body temperature of earth.
288K is the estimated AIR temperature.
No, it isn’t. It is the estimated surface temperature of earth using air temps over land and water temps of the oceans. Note, I’m not saying it is a good estimate.
You cannot simply subtract one from the other – they are completely different things!
Yes you can. 33 degrees is the difference between the effective black body temperature of the earth and the estimated (such as it is) surface temperature of earth. Nothing wrong with that.
So are the speed of light and the speed of sound, but don’t subtract one from t’other – it isn’t meaningful.
Well sure it is. If you want to know how much faster light travels than sound does, how else would you do it?
Temperature is a measure of heat energy content. For a given temperature, a kilo of air does not have the same heat content as a kilo of water, or a kilo of rock: they’re different things.
You are confusing heat capacity and energy flux. Heat capacity is a measure of how much energy it takes to raise the temperature of a given mass by one degree. Temperature provides a measure of the energy radiated by a body at a given temperature (Stefan-Boltzmann Law) which is quite independent of the heat capacity. A kilo of rock and a kilo of water may have different heat capacities, but at the same temperature, they radiate the same w/m2. The one with the higher heat capacity simply cools off more slowly than the one with low heat capacity.
Not following the thread closely, but your statement does contradict Einstein’s special theory of relativity.
Thanks davidm. All correct. I appreciate your patience too.
The 255K vs 288K number is solely based on Albedo, 100% absorption and 70% emissivity.
If emissivity equals absorptivity, which it does in equilibrium, then the equilibrium number would be 278K or 5˚C, which just happens to be the average temperature of the ocean.
The whole 255K – 288K number doesn’t take into account the energy flux through the system, primarily the ocean.
Genghis, 4 C is a better estimate with a nice little regulating effect to boot. 5C would require perfect efficiency, not likely, 4 C would allow for 4% loss. The neat regulating effect is the maximum density of fresh water at 4 C. While the oceans are salty, the fresh water density limits the base of the thermocline. What ever the average salinity is you will still have a stable 4 C layer. Kind of fortuitous doncha know. Early climate scientists seem to have assumed their butts off instead of figuring out that on a world 70% covered with water, you might want to start there. Leave it to Astrophysicists to screw up a wet dream.
this may be a case of so wrong, it’s right. Who knows… i cant prove it.
But i have a pretty good visual of the inputs/outputs and just by guesstimation the outcome sensitivity may be right.
However, i would like tadchem to tell me how that heat transfer ‘by conduction’ works,
Also another commenter referenced measurement in a controlled environment. Meaning, i suppose, a Bell Jar. That doesnt work, we dont live in one. We live in the opposite of a bell jar.
All energy ends in heat, All heat ends in space.. and there’s no pyrex to reflect it.
The surface temperature and lapse rate can be calculated without any reference to GHG radiation. Surely then, GHG radiation has no effect or is an effect not a cause. I’m going for zero as a sensitivity as many fairly good physicists have suggested (Milkosczi, G&T, Postma, N&K). The GHE/AGW hypothesis has been shown to be particularly weak.
Martin, “The surface temperature and lapse rate can be calculated without any reference to GHG radiation.”
I can show that atmospheric radiation cools the oceans surface temperature by promoting evaporation.
I can also show that increased cloud coverage causes cooling and decreased coverage causes warming. It is hard to show that GHG’s do anything at all.
Global warming- it is generally warmer when the sun is shining than when it isn’t. But that isn’t anything to get alarmed about.
Until there is some way to measure the impact of man, these kinds of estimates are no better than scrying the intestines of small furry animals.
If natural cycles dominate it may well soon be empirically established that CO2’s effect is insignificant.
That experiment is running as we observe, anthropogenic emissions of CO2 continue to rise, Estimated Global average temperate is standing still, possibly poised to repeat history and fall for 30 or 40 years.
If measured honestly, we will see soon enough.
Personally I doubt the utility of this AGT, GAT, WAG as these claims of trends less than the measuring error are idiotic.
White noise on an audio signal has greater information value.
However this post appears to be another refutation of the meme, utilizing that classic technique;using the claimants methods and standards, the results differ from their claims.
Failure to replicate in other words
Is the 255 & 288K based on a sphere of uniform temperature, with surface representing daily average? or high? Because of the T**4 relation, we cannot use a (linearly weighted) average. So we really the “typical” 24 hour temp pattern by latitude to determine the greenhouse effect, plus other factors.
Merry Christmas!
Although I favor the old time religion. If it was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for me.
The consensus view of climate science is that man-made global warming is caused by increased emissions of carbon dioxide which is the (misnamed in my opinion) ‘greenhouse gas effect’. We can all agree that at least total concentration levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is supposed to increase the average temperature of the planet regardless if those levels come from natural sources or from anthropogenic activities or both. This consensus view is held by both the alarmists as well as the luke-warmer types; with the disagreement coming over how much warming one should expect with increasing levels of CO2.
But this hypothesis is under increased pressure due to the fact that despite decades of higher CO2 emissions (or concentration levels) we have had not increase in temperature for 18 years or more according to even government funded data sets. (see WUWT and Lord Monckton’s many posts on the issue) Climate scientists have been at a loss to explain the “pause”.
According to the climate experts more CO2 is supposed to mean more warming, but 18 years of no warming seems to have invalidated that theory. My question is: “how long do we have to go without any rising temperatures if CO2 continues to skyrocket before we might stop and say — hey, maybe this simplistic idea that CO2 warms the planet might be wrong?”
Its about 12 years of the pause. Monckton’s 18 years comes from his view of what RSS shows – but that’s one global data set out of 5 – and which just happens to be the one showing the least change. He is a cherry picker.
James Abbott:
Have you contacted GREENPEACE leaders to express your disapproval of the vandalization of the Nazca site in Peru? I understand that GREENPEACE (your party, James Abbott) refuses to disclose to the Peruvian authorities the names of those involved, despite the request of Peru that they do so.
Okay, Mr. Abbott. While I am convinced by Lord Monckton’s evidence showing over 18 years of no warming, ad argumentum, let’s say that the “global temperature” (a fiction, but, granted, again, ad argumentum, here) HAS NOT RISEN IN TWELVE YEARS….
… while human CO2 has continued to increase by leaps and bounds.
You see? Your quibble did nothing but draw attention to the fact that AGW is a ridiculous proposition. Yes, I said RIDICULOUS. And….. say….. was that the glimmer of a smile playing about your lips….. Ah, ha! … 🙂 … so you KNOW….
oh, …. Mister Abbott … now, ….. don’t smile….. dooonn’t smile…… . There! You ARE smiling! Oh, I just KNEW you were an honest fellow at heart. (smile) Now, come on down off that ledge. Here, take my hand, I’ll help you….. . Aaaand … there. Now, off we go to the WUWT café for some cheerful camaraderie with all the WUWT “Den1al1st Club”… perhaps, you could even engage M. Painter in a friendly discussion about Greenpeace, hm?
#(:))
Are you suggesting that the others are any better?
Climategate has shown the dishonesty inherent in this.
Mark,
Others started asking that question years ago.
It all has to do with climate sensitivity, and this hypothetical figure has been variously derived from 0.5°K to over 8°K per doubling of CO2, according to who does the figuring, and figures never lie, do they?
Here are the facts:
The warming trend circa 1918-45 could not have been due to anthropogenic CO2 because that was at too slight a level to have any effect on temperature (at ~300 ppm).
We have now seen that a number of studies showing increased insolation circa 1980-2000 and this accounts for that warming trend. Be mindful that these studies are based on solid data, and they are irrefutable, while the AGW crowd can show _NO_ evidence whatsoever for their hypothesis except for some laboratory measurements.
I regard AGW theory as a collapsed house of cards.
To complete the joke: figures never lie but liars figure.
Think it’s more likely that the G H E warming from CO2, is presently masked by a similar cooling effect of the PDO which means the 1978- 1998 warming was a combination of the two, and we will return to warming maybe around 2030 when the PDO turns positive unless the AMO changes that and unless a solar grand minimum changes that and unless- darn all these unquantifiable forcing variables!
On the problem of CO2 sensitivity, it is small. I have discovered a truly marvellous proof of this, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
Hi Fermat. How ya been?
By the way, why the “pochas” nom de plume?
I must use a medium nowadays.
A good discussion of the absorption and emission of radiation by CO2:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/239526963/Argonne-National-Lab-Talk-Happer
Why Has Global Warming Paused?
Argonne National Laboratory
March 22, 2013
William Happer, Princeton University
Given that we already have 0.6 K warming since about 1980, that CO2 has not yet reached even 50% above pre-industrial levels and that the system equilibrium response lags, then even on a very basic level, real world evidence suggests Saburo Nonogaki is wrong.
James Abbott
What about Nazca? Do you approve of that?
Hello mpainter
You have a short memory. I have already said that what they did was totally wrong and re your other post on this, greenpeace is not a political party.
Wrong , James Abbott,
I have a long memory.
Now, I ask again, have you expressed your disapproval of the Nazca vandalism to GREENPEACE leadership? After all, you are a member, are you not?
… but Greenpus is a political lobbyist organisation masquerading as an environmental NGO.
Nope. With regards to GW by CO2, the devil is in the details . . . and there are a lot of details.
See the presentation above by Happer.
James Abbott December 24, 2014 at 2:58 pm
What has caused the warming if not CO2 ? Occam’s Razor applies.
What caused the MWP and the LIA? What caused the steady increase in temps from the LIA until CO2 levels started to increase in a meaningful way since about 1920? If CO2 is the simplest answer, why does the period of largest CO2 increase (the last 20 years) not correspond to the largest change in temperatures? You cannot apply Occam’s Razor to this question because CO2 increases fail to explain the behaviour of the system as a whole over time. Occam’s Razor requires that the simplest answer be valid under all conditions, and so CO2 is falsified by Occam’s Razor in this instance.
That assumes that 100% of the observed warming is caused by increased CO2, which is just an assumption, it hasn’t been proven.
The above was meant as a reply to James Abbott.
What has caused the warming if not CO2 ? Occam’s Razor applies.
Are you sure you know what Ockham’s razor is? It has nothing to do with simplicity… It is about the number of assumptions. AGW theory is nothing if not full of unknowns and assumptions. Heck, you can’t even spell it correctly, hardly a surprise you don’t know how to apply it.
Mark
He is a prominent researcher in the field of plastics, so how can you be sure that he might be off in his small referential paper about climate change?
James Abbott
0.6 or 0.8 degrees since 1980… All of it by 1996, yes? Then nothing since. Is that about right? Want to quibble about a couple of years? Why didn’t it go up another 0.6 since then?
Because GHG forcing is overwhelmed by natural variation which immediately begs the question, “How much of the 0.6-0.8 was caused by natural variation? All? Most?
Most or all.
@Mosher, all AGW-promotors and everyone who feels invited to react
I have a null-hypothesis: a doubling of C02 will have no effect at all.
Prove me wrong. And please take into consideration all feedbacks. Otherwise I will not be impressed.
The Ice Age oscillations prove you are wrong.
I live now and am told that a doubling of co2 will be catastrophic. Proof?
Since the feedbacks are not known in their entirety, your challenge is impossible to satisfy. However, in isolation, we can understand what the direct effects are, and these can be measured in the lab.
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
I recommend that you read the zip file at the top of the page to understand the limitations of this experiment in terms of drawing any conclusions about the atmospheric air column as a whole. That said, the direct effects of doubling of CO2 are readily quantified on this scale, and are most decidedly not zero. Not being able to quantify the feedbacks, I cannot say that the sum total will be zero, but that chances that it would be are vanishingly small.
Exactly, yet I’m told that the science is settled. I think we know not much yet. And given the non relation between co2 and temp during earth’s history my null-hypothesis is more likely true than not. AGW is the wrong fight to fight. Poverty and illlnesses are our greatest threats. AGW is a sinister religion, nothing more and nothing less. It certainly has nothing to do with science.
Most, if not all of the apparent greenhouse effect is from the old PV=nRT. Temperature is proportional to pressure. On all planets with an atmosphere, as you go higher(and thus lower pressures) the temperature gets predictably cooler, including Venus. Mars has a rather thin atmosphere, but is 95% CO2-why is Mars not warmer?? Venus has 92-93 x the pressure at ground level as well as more solar radiation-little wonder it is hot as hell. Jupiter also gets hotter as the pressure builds, but it gets very little solar radiation. Brainless warmists- think about it.
As most of the IR bandwidth absorption occurs in the first 20 ppm (note, plant life stalls at 150-200 ppm), there is very little potential to get warmer from doubling CO2. I would predict that at 800 ppm CO2 an increase in temperatures of 0.15 Kelvin if that. This will make no significant or even measurable effect on planet earth. Certainly will not be detrimental, probably will be good. However, if we foolishly listen to the doomsayers and their paranoid fantasies, we will destroy the technology that IS humanity’s niche in the world. If we had to rely on our physical attributes only to survive in the jungle, we would not get very far.
Could it be that the stupidity of some humans that have been allowed to breed to plague proportions renders the entire species extinct?
Is this a joke ?
If not, how do you explain the temperature response to changing CO2 levels during the last 3 million years or so of the ice age oscillations ? There would have been almost no response according to your theory.
Also, you are completely wrong about Jupiter – the internal heat has nothing to do with solar radiation and it has no solid surface as we would recognise. Venus is hot because it closer to the Sun than Earth, has a dense atmosphere AND especially because it is almost all CO2.
Q: “how do you explain the temperature response to changing CO2 levels”?
A: The underlying assumption you make is in error: CO2 levels lag temperature by a quarter cycle per ice proxies (see Dr. Murry Salby’s 2013 Hamburg lecture posted by me above on this thread).
CO2 never causes temperature changes. CO2 follows temperature changes. That’s been known from the ice core data for at least 10 years. Temperature changes from changes in planetary albedo and milankovitch cycles.
High Treason December 24, 2014 at 1:56 pm
Most, if not all of the apparent greenhouse effect is from the old PV=nRT. Temperature is proportional to pressure.
An instantaneous change in P is proportional to an instantaneous change in T provided all other values are held equal. However, the vessel at equilibrium has a temperature before the change in pressure, and after the change in pressure will eventually cool down to the exact same equilibrium temperature.
Mosher’s comment would be most appropriate here.
You guys do realize you only have 20 years to work with…..1980 – 2000
@Mosher
I just visited Real-Science and a perfect post for you is presented there:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/12/24/a-christmas-gift-from-dr-bill-gray/
Stop Climate Fear Mongering – CO2 Increases Can Cause Only Minimal Warming
by William M. Gray – Professor Emeritus – Colorado State University
Please read the whole essay over there. I’m looking forward to you response.
Except when it is only one word.
If you can’t or don’t react on the substance of that essay, then YOU are wrong.
Anyway, Merry Chistmas!
The Dr. Gray essay is very interesting and would make a good post at WUWT. I suspect he is on to something and the data appears to back him up.
I totally agree. The presentation and logic were very persuasive. I certainly hope we see his essay here or at Climate etc. or anywhere else to get greater discussion of his ideas. That is what science is supposed to be all about.
It’s funny how this article references another work which actually has much more dire conclusions than it itself reaches. Also, the author seems to be quite the expert…On plastics engineering.
T occurs once in equation 1 but is substituted for twice which is absurd.
The number which has to be matched in terms of CO2’s effect on Earth’s spectrum is the 279K +- 2.3 from perihelion to aphelion equilibrium mean temperature of a grey ball in our orbit .
There is no way the 0.3% variation in our estimated mean temperature this whole politically useful hysteria is over starting from such a crude extreme assumption as the ( 0.7 solar absorption ; 1.0 emission ) coefficients which generate the 255K meme . At the very least , one should start with the approximately 274 of an ocean blue ball leaving about 15K to be explained .
I can believe that the 0.6K ( 0.2% ) might be about right . It’s pretty close to the simple linear extrapolation of the bit we’ve see since the steam engine .
This image illustrates why we should expect damn little effect on our temperature from additional CO2 :
http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/radiativeforcing/66122-3.jpg .
It shows a simulation of the effect on our spectrum as seen from 70km for 280ppm ( blue ) versus 560ppm ( red ) CO2 . The little bits of blue showing thru are the total change in the spectrum . And our temperature will be that temperature for which the dot product of that temperature’s Planck spectrum with that observed spectrum equals the dot product of the Sun’s spectrum with that observed spectrum .
I trust you and yours are having a copacetic and productive NH winter solstice correlated holiday month .
( See my current news letter , http://cosy.com/CoSy/CoSy/NL20141222.html , mostly about progress on my 4th.CoSy APL in Forth computing environment . )
It shows a simulation of the effect on our spectrum as seen from 70km for 280ppm
It isn’t about what you can “see” from 70km. It is about what altitude (on average) you are seeing it escape from. See Leonard Weinstein’s comment upthread.
Yes , I point out it’s a “simulation” . But I assume that it is showing the expected perturbations from the observed . If the underlying curve is not observational , does someone have a link to the Earth’s observed absorptivity=emissivity spectrum ? I must admit I am at a loss to understand Give me a full spectrum and I’ll give you its implied ( and experimentally testable ) equilibrium temperature .
As DonB points out , alarmists are now trying to contend that the second order effect of the change in altitude , and therefore temperature , at which CO2 is emitting as the supposed cause of catastrophe . Realistically , I think that simulation shows the magnitude such effects are likely to have .
Every now and then papers or posts appear here which merely serve to embarrass serious sceptics. Challenging well established physical principles just gives the climate establishment more ammo to fire contemptuously at their opposition. And the feeble supportive comments which follow just add to the cringe factor.
There may be -and in my opinion there are – good reasons why CO2 sensitivity is very low – but this sort of thing isn’t one of them.
Quite so