From the “this ought to shut up the “Skydragon slayers” department. Despite sophomoric claims that I’m a “denier”, I’ve never disputed that CO2 has a role in warming via retardation of IR transfer from the surface to the top of the atmosphere. What is really the issue related to AGW claims are the posited/modeled but not observed feedbacks and the logarithmic (not linear) saturation curve response of CO2. Along those lines, eyeballing the graph presented from the north slope of Alaska, it appears there might be a bit of a slowdown or “pause” in the rate of forcing from about 2007 onward. Hopefully, LBL will release the data for independent analysis.
First direct observation of carbon dioxide’s increasing greenhouse effect at the Earth’s surface
Berkeley Lab researchers link rising CO2 levels from fossil fuels to an upward trend in radiative forcing at two locations
Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide’s greenhouse effect at the Earth’s surface for the first time. The researchers, led by scientists from the US Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), measured atmospheric carbon dioxide’s increasing capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface over an eleven-year period at two locations in North America. They attributed this upward trend to rising CO2 levels from fossil fuel emissions.
The influence of atmospheric CO2 on the balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing heat from the Earth (also called the planet’s energy balance) is well established. But this effect has not been experimentally confirmed outside the laboratory until now. The research is reported Wednesday, Feb. 25, in the advance online publication of the journal Nature.
The results agree with theoretical predictions of the greenhouse effect due to human activity. The research also provides further confirmation that the calculations used in today’s climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2.
The scientists measured atmospheric carbon dioxide’s contribution to radiative forcing at two sites, one in Oklahoma and one on the North Slope of Alaska, from 2000 to the end of 2010. Radiative forcing is a measure of how much the planet’s energy balance is perturbed by atmospheric changes. Positive radiative forcing occurs when the Earth absorbs more energy from solar radiation than it emits as thermal radiation back to space. It can be measured at the Earth’s surface or high in the atmosphere. In this research, the scientists focused on the surface.
They found that CO2 was responsible for a significant uptick in radiative forcing at both locations, about two-tenths of a Watt per square meter per decade. They linked this trend to the 22 parts-per-million increase in atmospheric CO2 between 2000 and 2010. Much of this CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels, according to a modeling system that tracks CO2 sources around the world.
“We see, for the first time in the field, the amplification of the greenhouse effect because there’s more CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb what the Earth emits in response to incoming solar radiation,” says Daniel Feldman, a scientist in Berkeley Lab’s Earth Sciences Division and lead author of the Nature paper.
“Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect,” Feldman adds.
He conducted the research with fellow Berkeley Lab scientists Bill Collins and Margaret Torn, as well as Jonathan Gero of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Timothy Shippert of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and Eli Mlawer of Atmospheric and Environmental Research.
The scientists used incredibly precise spectroscopic instruments operated by the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility, a DOE Office of Science User Facility. These instruments, located at ARM research sites in Oklahoma and Alaska, measure thermal infrared energy that travels down through the atmosphere to the surface. They can detect the unique spectral signature of infrared energy from CO2.
Other instruments at the two locations detect the unique signatures of phenomena that can also emit infrared energy, such as clouds and water vapor. The combination of these measurements enabled the scientists to isolate the signals attributed solely to CO2.
“We measured radiation in the form of infrared energy. Then we controlled for other factors that would impact our measurements, such as a weather system moving through the area,” says Feldman.
The result is two time-series from two very different locations. Each series spans from 2000 to the end of 2010, and includes 3300 measurements from Alaska and 8300 measurements from Oklahoma obtained on a near-daily basis.
Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade. This increase is about ten percent of the trend from all sources of infrared energy such as clouds and water vapor.
Based on an analysis of data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s CarbonTracker system, the scientists linked this upswing in CO2 -attributed radiative forcing to fossil fuel emissions and fires.
The measurements also enabled the scientists to detect, for the first time, the influence of photosynthesis on the balance of energy at the surface. They found that CO2 -attributed radiative forcing dipped in the spring as flourishing photosynthetic activity pulled more of the greenhouse gas from the air.
###
The scientists used the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC), a DOE Office of Science User Facility located at Berkeley Lab, to conduct some of the research.
The research was supported by the Department of Energy’s Office of Science.
That’s a nice study, but it looks like as of Feb. 25th 2015, 48 out of 50 US states have some snow:
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims/ims_gif/DATA/cursnow_usa.gif
[But Hawaii has snow on top of its volcanic mountains on the Big Island. .mod]
I have no snow…and it’s 78F 😀
Oops, OK – 49 out of 50. Failed to check on Hawaii…
http://www.weather.com/storms/winter/news/hawaii-white-christmas-blizzard-warning
I would expect there should be an increase in spectral down radiation from CO2 molecules due to the increase in atmospheric CO2, I question however the magnitude of the increase in spectral down radiation, in this recent calculation.
There are multiple observations and analysis results that support the assertion that for some physical reason the increase in forcing due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 is less than theoretically estimated and that the planet resists rather than amplifies forcing changes.
We know for example that there has been no increase in planetary temperature for 18 years. We know also that there has been almost no tropical region warming. Those observational facts limit the amount of CO2 forcing and/or require smart mechanisms that exactly hide the warming.
There are other analysis results that directly supports the assertion that the amount of forcing due the increase in atmospheric CO2 is small not large.
http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1690262
“The research also provides further confirmation that the calculations used in today’s climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2”
I disagree with this statement. Only a small fraction of the warming predicted by climate models is attributed to the greenhouse effect of CO2. Most of the predicted warming is attributed to forcings and this research does nothing to confirm the forcings used in the climate models.
22 ppm rise for 0.2 W/m2 power equivalence. That is 2.5 W/m2 for doubling CO2 from 280 ppm. Does this field measurement include water vapor?
Really not sure what this means wrt CAGW models. And how it ties to the hiatus. Gives natural variation a +/- 0.2W/m2 limit?
Two points to describe/quantify/confirm global warming? I think not.
Although I linked to this paper elsewhere I think it is critical. The full data appears to be from 1997-2011. Why did they cherry pick 2000-2010?
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2011JCLI4210.1?journalCode=clim
“The AERI data record demonstrates that the downwelling infrared radiance is decreasing over this 14-yr period in the winter, summer, and autumn seasons but it is increasing in the spring”
Richard M: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2011JCLI4210.1?journalCode=clim
Thank you for the link. Surprisingly, it isn’t paywalled.
Yep, I remember this one. Seems to be the same location as the Oklahoma site used in the current study. This one’s much more interesting, actually. Shows you exactly how dependent such measurements are of specific local conditions. These studies, then, can’t really tell us anything about global trends.
Cheers 🙂
Although the AERI record extends from 1995 to the present, temporally resolved
estimates of the CO2 concentration profiles from CT201120, which were necessary
for validation of the radiative transfer model (see below), were only available
beginning in 2000 and extending through 2010, resulting in an analysis period
of 11 years. Overall, the AERI is a very robust instrument that inherently produces
continuous, reliable operational data. Quality control for the spectra was achieved
by ensuring that valid sky spectra were being observed by the instrument with the
hatch open, and that unphysical radiance values, anomalously low variances in
brightness temperature across the infrared window band (800–1,200 cm21
) and
scenes with substantial variability in the view of the hot blackbody were removed
The problem is 2000 is at the depth of a La Nina and 2010 is the peak of a El Nino. The US is quite sensitive to ENSO. I suspect this is the entire reason for the trend. All trends are sensitive to end points.
“The problem is 2000 is at the depth of a La Nina and 2010 is the peak of a El Nino. The US is quite sensitive to ENSO. I suspect this is the entire reason for the trend. All trends are sensitive to end points.”
If you look at the graph during the middle years (away from the end points) – say 2004-2007, the slope is still positive and steady, with each successive year showing higher CO2 and forcing than the prior year.
From the press release;
“The influence of atmospheric CO2 on the balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing heat from the Earth (also called the planet’s energy balance) is well established.”
It is a well established hypothesis, but all alleged “energy budgets” prepared from actual measurements yield uncertainty values as much as ten times larger than the alleged imbalance. The alleged imbalance when proper uncertainty is acknowledged is anywhere from -15 to +15 mW/sq m. It could be exactly zero when averaged over time.
Again from the press release;
“But this effect has not been experimentally confirmed outside the laboratory until now.”
COMPLETE HOGWASH.
This experiment measured the correlation between the amount of CO2 and the flux intensity of the back radiation. Nothing else, it does not even mention any correlation to “rising temperatures” anywhere in the data in the press release because there ain’t any rising temperatures.
This experiment is simply a careful measurement of back radiation, so what. Back radiation is like “back emf”, or “back pressure” nothing more.
The ceiling in my residence (8 feet above my head and 3 feet below ~0 degree F outside air) is currently back radiating at me from its temperature of about 65F. That back radiation DOES NOT ADD extra energy above that which was provided by my furnace. The insulation between the ceiling and the outside air does slow the velocity of heat travelling from 65F inside to 0F outside. This extends the time it takes for the energy added to my interior spaces by my furnace to escape to the outside spaces. It does not “retard” the transmission of energy.
CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” do not “retard” the flow of IR energy though the system. They simply delay the total travel time of the energy through the system by milliseconds.
If you put an energized light bulb inside an optical integrating sphere (hollow sphere with a highly diffuse/reflective interior and an “exit port”, the “high tech” version of wrapping a light bulb with tin foil)) it will emit energy towards the interior of the sphere. This energy will be “reflected” (like absorption and re-emission without a time delay) back towards the light bulb. But it does not add to the energy leaving the light bulb. You can measure this back radiation with a radiometer (nobody does because it is useless information). And if you increase the reflectance of the interior of the sphere this measured flux increases (just like the measurements in this experiment), but it does not add energy to the system.
There is a well known error source (self absorption) present when you do this that looks (to untrained practitioners) like the “back radiation” is making the light bulb brighter. But in fact this back radiation is simply changing the efficiency/efficacy of the filament and the power supply (as a interacting system) allowing more photons to be emitted with the same number of electrons. This error source has been turned on its head to become the “radiative greenhouse effect”. In optical engineering we know to consider this error in our calculations, in climate science they think they have discovered an “effect”.
How many decades of rising CO2 and no rising temperatures will it take before folks take a few steps back from the blackboard, scratch their head a few times and think; “holy cow there does not seem to be ANY evidence of the “GHE” in ANY of the temperature data” ???
Cheers, KevinK
This seems like a very tight piece of research. Which means that replication is possible using other locations and at other times. If the results are different what we have is a lack of robust results. If the results are the same it would be useful to discuss, “So what?”. There are lots of interesting things that happen on Earth that just don’t matter in the long run in terms of natural variation. In other words, the result can be minutely measured by instruments, but cannot be detected by someone standing at the same spot the instrument is sitting on.
Pamela Gray: This seems like a very tight piece of research. Which means that replication is possible using other locations and at other times.
That’s my thought as well. Now that it has been done, and gotten a resulting interesting to all but a few (I think), it will be repeated.
I agree. It would be nice if sites such as Boston were selected.
Let’s try not to get all exited about Hansen’s claim of detecting the greenhouse effect in 1988. He absolutely did not prove that greenhouse warming exists. As “evidence” of having observed it he presented a hundred year long warming curve, a third of which turned out to be not greenhouse warming at all but part natural warming and part cooling. This nullified his claim to having observed the greenhouse effect but IPCC nevertheless used his claim as proof of the existence of AGW. These Berkeley people will have to stand on their own feet and not try to use Hansen’s claim to support their cause.
Who the heck cares? Fourier discovered CO2 is a greenhouse gas in 1824 and Tyndall figured out CO2 absorbs LWIR in the 1850’s, if I recall my history correctly…
The forcing effect of CO2 per doubling is the logarithmic equation of 5.35*ln(560ppm/280ppm)=3.7 watts/M^2. Again, who cares???
This teeny tiny amount of forcing only has the GROSS potential of increasing global temps by 1.2C, and once NEGATIVE feedbacks are accounted for, the NET amount of CO2 forcing is perhaps around 0.05~0.6C by 2100, which is almost an order of magnitude LESS than the stupid CAGW hypothesis projects.
Since 1850, which marked the end of the LITTLE ICE AGE, the Earth has managed to RECOVER about 0.8C (likely less given all the temp data fiddling) of warming, of which CO2 perhaps contributed 0.2C. Since the forcing effect of CO2 is logarithmic, by 2100, perhaps CO2 will contribute another 0.3~0.4C of CO2 induce warming, plus or MINUS whatever the SUN decides to do.
Global temps could well be LOWER than now by 2100 if the Sun continues its weak phase, so any CO2 warming effect may well be a NET benefit–oh, the irony…. Moreover doubling CO2 will increase crop yields and forest growth by 50%, which is a fantastic benefit.
CAGW is dead. The only thing that’s rapidly rising in the field of climatology is IPCC’s-disgraced ex-chairman Pachauri’s legal fees, required to keep him out of jail for sexual harassment charges…
CAGW is a bunch of scoundrels chasing skirts and government grants. It’s a disgrace that need to end.
The alleged increase of 22 parts per million is a percentage, which happens to be .0022%.
An increase of 22 thousandths of a percent is not very dramatic, and will do little to convince anyone that the anthropogenic contribution is little more than an anecdotal side note
Lies…Damned Lies…and more Statistics.
No, an increase of 22 ppm is not .0022%. An increase in CO2 from 378 ppm to 400ppm is an increase of 22 above a starting point of 378. That’s an increase of 22/378 = 5.8%
Wow. So impressive. Over two hundred comments and hardly one recognizing the importance of this paper if it pans out.
A direct measurement of forcing, one that falls right in the middle of the theoretical calculations that we have been using for the last 20 years.
This paper, like Mann’s hockey stick paper, is transformative in that it will illimiate a really big bunch of wrong ideas (called hypothesis, if you are interested).
So maybe you should read the paper before saying dumb things?
**“We see, for the first time in the field, the amplification of the greenhouse effect because there’s more CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb what the Earth emits in response to incoming solar radiation,” says Daniel Feldman, a scientist in Berkeley Lab’s Earth Sciences Division and lead author of the Nature paper.**
To me it sounds like they measured something and it is because there is more CO2. Does not sound like they measured only CO2.
I’m waiting for Mosher to show up and lecture us on the settled physics of line by line radiative codes that showed without any doubt that the effect of doubling co2 is 3.71 watts / m2. And anyone that disagreed was a ‘foolish’ skeptic that was outside the conversation.
And lo and behold we have some experimental evidence that the value might in fact be less than 2 watts / m2 if we double co2 to 800 ppm.
This number if shown to be correct completely blows the CAGW argument out of the water even under the most agressive feedback scenario.
If this whole thing was anything but a political power grab the fat lady would be singing and the houselights would be going down.
read the paper.
0.2 w/m2/decade
Assuming an average surface temperature of 15 C = 288K
Plugging into Stefan-Boltzmann Law
P(w/m2)=5.67*10^-8*T^4
Arrives at a temperature increase of 0.037 degrees per decade
Even assuming a linear response, which would be foolish, that’s only 0.37 degrees per century
Even assuming water vapour feedback TRIPLES the effect, that’s only about 1 degree per century.
But, the earth isn’t average so running the same math:
at -30 C + .2 w/m2/decade = 0.06 degrees/decade
at +30 C + .2 w/m2/decade = 0.032 degrees/decade
I’m good with this result. Embrace it. It debunks the alarmism nicely.
On the other hand there is something interesting in the last few years of the graph. CO2 continues to rise, but forcing actually FALLS. Look at the peak in 2011 vs 2010 and 2009. There are other things at play here that are affecting downward IR, else the peaks would continue upward rise with Co2, even if more poorly correlated, but they wouldn’t go DOWN. Regardless what this shows is that surface forcing is so minute that the impact on temperature can barely be measured at all.
They very clearly truncated their data set at end-2010 to show the effect they needed to be published by the AGW gatekeepers at Nature mag. Had they shown through-2013 data, the decreasing measured IR would have made a mockery of any claim on CO2 forcing. It is clear from the whole SGP data set available that downwelling IR fell significantly from 2011 onward.
The author (first author D.R. Feldman, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Earth Sciences Division, 1 Cyclotron Road, MS 74R-316C, Berkeley, California 94720, USA. D.R.F. implemented the study design, performed the analysis of all measurements from the ARM sites, and wrote the manuscript.) of the paper at Berkeley cherry-picked the end date to give the desired result.
“Although the AERI record extends from 1995 to the present, temporally resolved
estimates of the CO2 concentration profiles from CT201120, which were necessary
for validation of the radiative transfer model (see below), were only available
beginning in 2000 and extending through 2010, resulting in an analysis period
of 11 years. Overall, the AERI is a very robust instrument that inherently produces
continuous, reliable operational data. Quality control for the spectra was achieved
by ensuring that valid sky spectra were being observed by the instrument with the
hatch open, and that unphysical radiance values, anomalously low variances in
brightness temperature across the infrared window band (800–1,200 cm21
) and
scenes with substantial variability in the view of the hot blackbody were removed
Mosh …. it doesn’t change the fact the study starts at the depths of a La Nina and ends at the peak of a strong El Nino. Why didn’t they wait until they had the profiles to publish complete data? I suspect they really didn’t want them as that would invalidate the wanted results.
davidmhoffer: I’m good with this result. Embrace it. It debunks the alarmism nicely.
Good for lukewarmers, and likely to be welcomed by all of them, I should think.
Yeah, it still keeps the notion that climate sensitivity is something above 0.00 alive …
… for a while longer
Philincalifornia,
not for too much longer 😉
This study really just detects CO2 in a new way. It tells you nothing about the role of radiative gases in our radiatively cooled atmosphere, nor its effect on near surface temps. The idea of an atmosphereic radiative GHE remains a flawed assumption.
But the Lukewarmers at WUWT clutching at this study tells us plenty. Lukewarmers are now the most desperate to have the AGW hypothesis accepted. The AGW true believers are shameless, they will just move on to the next hoax. And they will get away with it. The Lukewarmers will let them.
Both alarmists and lukewarmers are now working to the same goal “warming, but far less than we thought because blah, blah, blah”. And both groups motivation is now identical. Escaping the shame of saying our radiatively cooled atmosphere was heating the planet.
Konrad please don’t spite your allies against CAGW. I am one of those lukewarmers.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10203896333144707&set=pcb.10203896335264760&type=1
I’m trying to get my calcs (done in Math Cad) published here. I get more like .7 degrees per century. I think the “emissivity” I use has something to do with that. None the less, the same magnitude as you have Dave.
My conclusion: NONE PROBLEM! This is wonderful work if correct.
Dave: Look down and find my most recent post. A good, tight analytical work with the calculations all laid out. I think you and I only are off by the emissivity coef. we used.
So in summary, they’ve upended a couple of spectrometers and measured the seasonal ups and downs of aggregate IR detected at particular frequencies emanating from one side of a turbulent gas mixture, of varying composition with suspended liquids and solids, irradiated from both sides over a varying pressure gradient. Great, diffusion confusion is alive and well.
Where are the magic stationary point sources the spectrometers are pointing at that allows them to draw the conclusions listed?
Energy diffusion by all forms of transfer is integrated and operates in three dimensions simultaneously. You cannot do two-dimensional aggregate spectroscopy like this and expect it to tell you the net effect of changing composition on surface temperature or measure net energy throughput of the entire atmosphere. It makes no sense.
All that this shows is that the CO2 composition has changed. We knew that already.
Heh!
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=integrity
I don’t have a real feeling for Watts / M2 – Decade so I did a quick estimate of what is that in temperature rise.
Given (approximate values):
E = 0.2 W/M2
A = 5.10X10^14 M2 = surface area of the earth
Cp = 0.28 W-Hr/Kg-C = specific heat of air
M = 5.15X10^18 Kg = mass of the atmosphere
C = 8760 Hrs / Year = time conversion factor
dT = E * A * C / Cp / M = 0.62 C / Yr
But the temperature data don’t show an increase of anything like this.
Something is wrong here.
Could someone check this?
I quote Anthony:
“…The influence of atmospheric CO2 on the balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing heat from the Earth (also called the planet’s energy balance) is well established.”
Nonsense. CO2 has no influence on the energy balance of the earth. If it did we would be subject to uncontrollable temperature swings, even runaway greenhouse effect. From geologic history we know that there never has been a runaway greenhouse effect on earth despite much higher past levels of CO2. . Hansen has threatened us with a runaway greenhouse effect like the one on Venus if we keep burning fossil fuels. This is one more aspect of the greenhouse effect that he gets dead wrong.
“CO2 is responsible for 80% of the radiative forcing that sustains the earth’s greenhouse effect.” So CO2 does influence the energy balance of the earth.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html
Chris,
CACA is GISS´rice bowl. Of course their GIGO model found a disproportionate role for CO2.
Their “experiment” was worse than worthless garbage. In the real world, the GHE of CO2 is negligible, as shown by past ice ages under CO2 concentrations far higher than now, with solar radiance only slightly lower than now.
Even when the strength of the sun was about the same as now, a mere 40 to 55 Ma (less than half a percent weaker), there was no runaway, catastrophic global warming, despite CO2 levels up to ten times higher than now.
Pearson, P. N., 2010: Increased Atmospheric CO2 During the Middle Eocene. Science, 330, 763-764.
(Maybe too many acronyms.)
They also claim that Earth’s temperature can only remain stable if the outgoing radiation equals the incoming radiation, which is absurdly false.
Milo,
I went into your paper. Here is a line from the summary paragraph: “On page 819 of this issue, Bijl et al. (1) provide the first direct evidence that very high CO2 levels occurred about 40 million years ago during the Middle Eocene Climatic Optimum (MECO), one of the hottest intervals in Earth’s climate history.”
A bit more detail from the abstract: “Organic molecular paleothermometry indicates a warming of southwest Pacific sea surface temperatures (SSTs) by 3° to 6°C. Reconstructions of pCO2 indicate a concomitant increase by a factor of 2 to 3. The marked consistency between SST and pCO2 trends during the MECO suggests that elevated pCO2 played a major role in global warming during the MECO.”
Thanks for providing me with this, it’s further confirmation of the link between CO2 and temperature!
So during the pause the CO2 created more trapping of energy, that is Global warming… Great way to demonstrate cliamte and CO2 are disconnected. Thanks guys!
So what happens between 2009 and 2012? There’s a pretty obvious visual downward trend while CO2 was presumably still rising.
date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:41:57 -0800
from: “Peter H. Gleick”
subject: Integrity of Science testimony at Senate Hearing
to: ???@pacinst.org
Dear Friend and Colleague,
In case you missed it, I submitted written testimony at last Wednesday’s Senate Commerce
Committee
hearing on climate change and the integrity of science:
[1]http://www.pacinst.org/press_center/press_releases/20070207.html.
Follow the links on that page to the actual testimony.
Sincerely,
Peter Gleick
Dr. Peter H. Gleick
MacArthur Fellow
President
Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security
654 13th Street
Oakland, California 94612
510 251-1600 phone
510 251-2203 fax
20 Years of Research for People and the Planet: 1987-2007
[2]www.worldwater.org (World Water site)
[3]www.pacinst.org (Pacific Institute site)
?</b?
It's an upside down world we live in.
Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade.
That’s a good start. In no time at all such instrumentation will be established all over the surface of the Earth to confirm or deny or moderate their estimate. Notice that a simple projection (obviously not reliable from such a short series), works out to 2 W/m^2 per century, way below what is forecast for a doubling of CO2 concentration over such a time span. So everyone will be motivated to improve upon this result.
The claim that “the results agree with theoretical predictions” is false. Global warming models do not make predictions. They make “projections.” Predictions are made be scientific models. Projections are made by pseudo-scientific models.
wrong. they are not talking about climate models
“In principle, CO2 forcing can be predicted from knowledge of the
atmospheric state assuming exact spectroscopy and accurate radiative
transfer. Forcing can then be estimated using radiative transfer calculations
with atmospheric temperature, the concentrations of radiatively
active constituents including water vapour, O3, CH4, N2O, and less prominent
well-mixed greenhouse gases, and changes in CO2. However,
experimental validation of this forcing is needed outside the laboratory
because CO2 spectroscopy is an area of active research10–13. Furthermore,
the fast radiative-transfer algorithms that drive regional and global climate
models approximate spectroscopic absorption line-by-line calculations
with errors of about 0.6 W m22 (ref. 14), an amount comparable
to the forcing by anthropogenic CH4 and N2O.”
I have only been able to read the first page of the study online. But it appears they modeled, rather than measured in situ, CO2 concentrations to get a 22 ppm estimated increase for both locations. This assumption may not be warranted given what we know about actual mixing of the atmosphere, particularly in the general vicinity of two major centers of oil and gas production.
However, the instruments were capable of detecting wavelengths specifically related to CO2. So is there sufficient precision (and accuracy) in these measurements to support the paper’s conclusion (which to a large extent hinges on the exact increase in local CO2 concentrations over time)?
Can I have a do over? E is W/M2-Decade not W/M2
I don’t have a real feeling for Watts / M2 – Decade so I did a quick estimate of what is that in temperature rise.
Given (approximate values):
E = 0.2 W/M2-Decade
A = 5.10X10^14 M2 = surface area of the earth
Cp = 0.28 W/Hr-Kg-C = specific heat of air
M = 5.15X10^18 Kg = mass of the atmosphere
C = 87600 Hrs / Decade = time conversion factor
dT = E * A / C / Cp / M = 0.81X10^-10 C
Could someone check this?
If this is correct I can see why it took so long to detect it, it’s minuscule.
Reply
Ralph,
This is very ambitious, well attempted, but it’s not the way to do it.
The way to do it is given in the 1st IPCC report.
In its simplest form the equation reduces to, surface temperature(dT) =dF/3.3
So a change in forcing of 2 W/square metre would give a temperature change of 0.6 deg. C in the no-feedback case.
Thanks MikeB, I misread the report and blew it. I get dT=dF/3.1 which is pretty close to the IPCC number.
I’ll go with the IPCC on this one.
Ralph Kramden Feb 25 at 7:54 is incorrect, I miss read the report.
My apologies.