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.
The fact that they can detect emission of IR from CO2 says NOTHING about how much warming may or may not be occurring.
This is a total waste of bits and bytes.
You getting worried about ending up on the investigations list Anthony??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
“The fact that they can detect emission of IR from CO2 says NOTHING about how much warming may or may not be occurring.”
Bingo!
All they have done is find a new IR detection method. This tells them nothing about the effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere on the solar heated surface of our planet.
The idea that adding radiative gases to our radiatively cooled atmosphere reduces it’s ability to cool our solar heated oceans remains as inane an idea as it ever was.
Just for the fun of kicking the entire Co2 discussion into an entire different direction (and to express the fact that I am tired and board by the endless recycling of this subject I provide you with the link that deals with a quite relevant question made by Chiefio: Is weahter change on the planets in sync earth?
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/weather-change-on-planets-in-sync-with-earth/
Have a nice day.
Even the 15 micron band which would be the CO2 sweet spot is overlapped by water absorption. It is simply impossible to separate photons emitted by one molecule from the other. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “A rude, stinking pile.”
Nonsense, it’s called spectroscopy!
Here’s a comparison of the spectra:
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/H2OCO2.gif
Would you mind overlaying the spectra and power of the outgoing LIR coming from the surface on those 2 graphs?
Pretty flat around 0.15W/m^2.sr.cm^-1
Hi Phil, it’s weird I was replying on WUWT and some kind of infarction happened and it was “sorry we can’t post this comment”. Anyway, my point was that within the same wave number it is impossible to distinguish the photons. I had an email conversation with Daniel Feldman posted further down the thread where he explained that their separation approach was to use the linear vs exponential pressure broadening pattern to distinguish CO2 photons. It is not clear to me that this is a valid approach and he did not respond further.
I agree with the aim of the the experiment and Co2 must have some effect on surface temperature but I am not sure that this study is accurate,I would like to see more studies and know when they took the measurements if the figures given are average 24 hour values or max/min values.
The results agree with theoretical predictions of the greenhouse effect due to human activity. The research also provides further confhttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/25/almost-30-years-after-hansens-1988-alarm-on-global-warming-a-claim-of-confirmation-on-co2-forcing/#comment-form-load-service:Twitterirmation that the calculations used in today’s climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2.
They appear to be correct. Theory is 3.7 w/m2 per doubling (natural log function)
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
2000 = 369.5 ppm
2010 = 389.9 ppm
Quick calc I get 0.199 w/m2
So that justifies their position on the models getting CO2 forcing right. They just leave out from their statement that the models are still wrong because of a host of other factors. Sort of like getting 5% on a 20 question test and pointing out that well, you got the first question right, just ignore the rest of the test.
I have NO idea where most of that text in the first paragraph comes from. I hate computers. They always do exactly what I tell them to, it takes me forever to figure out what it is I told them and how I did it.
AND I got the math wrong.
F=5.35*ln(c2/c1)
F= 0.29 w/m2
OK, so now I confused. Don’t know how computers work and I don’t know how they use this measurement to justify saying that the models get the physics right.
Oh wait, that’s the formula for RF (radiative forcing) which IPCC AR4 said was not equal to SF (surface forcing). I don’t feel like grubbing through AR4 trying to find the exact section, but I do recall them saying that SF would be less than RF.
“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.” What complete nonsense. Look at Trenberth’s diagram and weep for physics.
I’m not a scientist so maybe someone out there can explain my woolly thinking. If you make an IR source that only radiates over the 15 micron band (okay, 13 to 17 microns), and direct this radiation at a blackbody, I claim the blackbody CANNOT warm up above -30C over any timescale longer than the initial warm up time.
I’m not a scientist ,,,,, I claim the blackbody CANNOT warm up above -30C over any timescale longer than the initial warm up time.
lovin it
Lovin’ it were we Mosh?
Are our oceans a “near blackbody” or an extreme SW selective surface? Care to hazard an answer my petulant little warmulonian.
Be a shame if all of climastrology were based on the inane assumption that our SW translucent, IR opaque oceans were a “near blackbody” now wouldn’t it? That would mean the net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere was actually surface cooling not warming.
Say Mosh, Nice socialist UN you got there. Be a shame if something happened to it…
Where did you get that figure from Richard, just out of interest? And what does “any timescale longer than the initial warm up time” mean, just out of bemusement?
(The final temperature achieved will, of course, depend on the intensity of the source)
MikeB, Wien’s Law tells us there is a peak emission level for any given temperature. Also a large blackbody cannot heat up a smaller blackbody above it’s own emission temperature.
Richard, what you say now is right, but your earlier conclusion doesn’t follow.
The peak emission only tells you the wavelength where most radiation will be emitted. It doesn’t tell you how much. This is unlimited; it only depends on the power of the emitting source.
The blackbody will absorb all the radiation falling on it (this is what blackbodies do). Its temperature will rise until it emits as much power as it is receiving. If it receives, say, 100 watts at wavelengths around 15 micron then it will emit 100 watts, but the emission will be spread over all wavelengths in a Planck distribution (this is what blackbodies do).
The steady state temperature, when the body emits as much as it receives, depends entirely on how much power it receives. The final temperature is given by the Stephan-Boltzmann Law which states that power emitted is proportional to the 4th power of temperature.
P = 5.67 * 10⁻⁸ * T⁴
….so I can get any temperature, just by increasing P
I suggest you go back to the books, I can use a mid-IR source at 10.6 microns to cut steel!
That’s impossible. Everyone knows steel is IR opaque.
Yes a mid-IR LASER source at 10.6 microns can cut steel. Might want to check a book about lasers. They do not behave as a blackbody source, undergraduate level knowledge my boy.
KevinK,
Heat a large piece of plate steel up to just below glowing and stand two meters away from it. Despite being opaque to IR, you will get plenty warm when all those non-coherent photons strike your clothing and skin.
KevinK February 26, 2015 at 4:38 pm
Yes a mid-IR LASER source at 10.6 microns can cut steel. Might want to check a book about lasers. They do not behave as a blackbody source,
Having run a laser lab for thirty years I don’t need a book kid!
In the post that I responded to where do you find a blackbody source referred to?
” If you make an IR source that only radiates over the 15 micron band (okay, 13 to 17 microns), and direct this radiation at a blackbody, I claim the blackbody CANNOT warm up above -30C over any timescale longer than the initial warm up time.
Clearly ‘an IR source that only radiates over the 15 micron band’ is not a bb source.
So Richard’s premise is incorrect.
Notice that the so-called “forcing” does not match the RSS/UAH temperatures values.
Natural variation FAR FAR out-weighs ANY pseudo-warming effect of CO2
for people who hope that the data will be made availble..
here is a hint.
Read the abstract first.
Then skip the paper and goto methods
The methodology for this investigation focused on analysing time series of downwelling
infrared spectra to determine the effects of CO2 on these measurements
and thereby to estimate its surface radiative forcing. The analysis also used temporally
coincident measurements of atmospheric temperature and water vapour,
retrievals of cloud occurrence, and assimilation estimates of CO2 to construct
simulated counterfactual measurements where CO2 is held fixed.
Code and data availability. The measurement data sets used for this analysis are
freely available through the ARM data repository (http://www.arm.gov). The radiative
transfer codes are also freely available at http://rtweb.aer.com. CarbonTracker
results were provided by NOAA/ESRL (http://carbontracker.noaa.gov). CarbonTrackerCH4
results were provided by NOAA/ESRL (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/
carbontracker-ch4/). The MERRA data used in this analysis are freely available
for download at ftp://goldsmr3.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/s4pa/MERRA/MAI3CPASM.
5.2.0/. The Broadband Heating Rate Profile (BBHRP) data files, used to assess fairweather
bias, are freely available on the ARM BBHRP web page at http://www.arm.
gov/data/eval/24 under http://dx.doi.org/10.5439/1163296 for the time-varying data
stream and http://dx.doi.org/10.5439/1163285 for the fixed CO2 data stream. The
computer routines used in this analysis will be made available upon request.
Mosher CO2 went up in 2002, the Radiative forcing went down.
CO2 went up in 2009, the Radiative forcing went down.
Falsified. 2 out of 10 years 20% went DOWN while CO2 went UP.
To be precise the annual Average Radiative Forcing went down.
Thank you for the details.
Are you not impressed by the small size of the increase in DWLWIR in that time span? Is there anyone who predicted both that it would increase AND that the increase would be so slight?
Anthony asked about the data. I found it in two seconds.
OK, sorry about the double similar post, I expected the post to appear at the bottom, but its a few posts up.
Something is stuffed up .
The nature preview is here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14240.html
Unfortunately the physical equipment is not listed nor its accuracy.
The statistical uncertainties are here:
The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m−2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m−2 per decade and ±0.07 W m−2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W m−2.
It is interesting that while this upwards force in temperatures has been measured’ the measured temperature has flat lined…..
They have used the Actual downward changes in annual average forcings as their Uncertainties.
The authors exhibit lack of understanding basic physics and have become victims of the BIG BLUFF, as described by Professor Claes Johnson here:
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.nl/2015/02/klimatupplysningen-2-big-dlrback.html
While it is possible to measure the presence of a down-welling electromagnetic wave spectrum, energy transfer from the (colder) atmosphere to the (warmer) surface is not possible. “Back radiation” does therefore not exist.
Accepted explanation is that increasing CO2 slightly raises the effective radiative altitude where an IR photon becomes likely to radiate to space. Because of the adiabatic lapse rate, this means that emission occurs at a lower T. This shifts the surface T higher to maintain energy flux equilibrium.
Science Counts,
You exhibit a lack of understanding basic physics. Net flux will always be in the direction of the cooler body. So long as the cooler body is above absolute zero it can, and will, transfer energy to the warmer body, it will simply do so at a lower rate than the warmer one until such time as thermal equilibrium is achieved.
Were it not so, you would feel just as toasty warm standing outside in a New England blizzard stark naked as you would bundled up in a hat, parka and heavy gloves. For that matter, you would not feel warmer going back inside to your 26° C living room, a temperature which would feel especially toasty after a brisk -10° C winter day even though your core body temperature is a comparatively whopping 37° C.
The warmer living room reduces the rate of heat loss from your body surface relative to the much cooler outside winter environment. So it is with downwelling LWR, which IS “back radiation”, and it does exist as you yourself note — it’s possible to measure it.
Has anyone found out why they attribute the observed trend to the changes in CO2? I hope it Is not due to them being unable to think of “any other explanation” than the hypothesis/theory that they were supposed to test.
Poor Mosh,
All this tiny forcing , yet the global and tropospheric temperature is dead flat, and the minor deviations don’t match these so-called forcings at all.
Must be very hard for you to keep up the salesman act !!
But do keep trying, your employment depends on it, and its funny to watch. 🙂
Let’s see, on the “AGW is happening” side we have the vast majority of national governments, the same for scientific organizations, the same for large companies, and even the same for the oil majors (Exxon, Shell, BP). I very much doubt Mosh’ job is at risk.
Massive levels of green energy, carbon trades, and science funding and reputations are at risk if Gaia doesn’t bend to the consensus science. Not to mention the environmentalists who oppose economic development of any kind that requires a hole to be dug, or a tree to be cut.
Richard Feynman called that malpractice “pseudoscience.”
Yes, and if Gaia does “bend to the consensus science”, massive levels of funding in the fossil fuel industry are at risk.
“I very much doubt Mosh’ job is at risk.”
its just that he is a woeful salesman.
Plenty of Dodgy Bros car yards about though.
The lack of trend after 2007 is puzzling!
Your observation of their plotted data is correct.
It’s called cherry picking to confirm the hypothesis.
The AERI data to 2014 shows a decreasing forcing trend (measured downwelling IR). Meanwhile pCO2 has marched ever upward (as evidenced by thousands of published CO2 world-wide measurements from 2010 to 2014). Global temp anomalies have remained flat during time with small ups and downs related to the Pacific and ENSO cycles.
In total, this paper, beyond its attempt to confirm CO2 GHE theory, the 2 W/sm/decade and the temp hiatus provide a very inconvenient, uncomfortable message to the CAGW faithful.
I think Tony Heller (AKA Steven Goddard) makes a good point about this paper over at Real Science, linked here:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/junk-science-award-for-the-evening/
His point is that the start and end dates for the project
Which could account for the extra DWLWIR. Just sayin …
An earlier paper, also with Jonathan Gero as one of the authors, used 800,000 readings taken every 10 minutes over 12 years, found a downward trend. The paper is Long-Term Trends in Downwelling Spectral Infrared Radiance over the U.S. Southern Great Plains. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2011JCLI4210.1
Southern Great Plains is the same Oklahoma site used in the current study. It appears to be in southeastern Grant County which, by Oklahoma standards, has fairly sparsely distributed oil and gas fields. Here is a link to a map showing Oklahoma oil and gas fields (which typically emit CO2 and CH4 into the local atmosphere). http://www.ogs.ou.edu/fossilfuels/MAPS/GM-36.pdf
I did not investigate whether the closest fields were currently active but there is no question that many such fields exist in Oklahoma and Kansas and could potentially contribute to local GHG measurements. Given that the authors adopted a model estimate of 22 ppm increase in CO2 over the period of their study, I wonder if any potential error (otherwise unaccounted for) could have been introduced by local and regional emissions?
Those graphs are a little bit suspicious. They both suggest that the trend reversed right at the end of the graph. So, did they stop making measurements at the end of 2010? Or were the measurements from 2011 onwards a bit – shall we say – inconvenient?
If the data after 2010 shows a fall in the ‘forcing’ and the scientists withheld the data, then it’s a case of scientific fraud.
So: why did the data stop at the end of 2010?
Another thought just occurred.
The only peak that is smaller than the previous one is the very last one. It does suggest that the trend was starting to reverse.
Let’s suppose that it is actually a sawtooth curve. The ascending part is 11 years long, so the period of the sawtooth would be 22 years. Does this ring any bells? Is it possible that solar activity could have a part to play in this?
I hope the authors will be seriously questioned as to why the data apparently ends four years ago. As the data seemed to strongly support their beliefs, it’s difficult to believe they simply lost interest and stopped taking measurements. Also, as it seemed to support AGW, it’s unlikely they lost their funding. And, if they stopped taking data for whatever reason, why did they wait four years before publishing? Were they hoping to see the positive trend return?
Unless there is an innocent explanation – however unlikely – then it looks as if the trend reversed at the end of 2010, they waited for several years assuming and hoping that the trend would return. But they couldn’t wait too long. If the trend stayed negative, the longer they waited, the bigger the gap and the more suspicious it would seem. So, they published in 2015 and simply left out the data that disproved their theory.
Unfortunately this kind of fraudulent practice is common in climate science. The ‘adjustments’ recently discussed here are a good example.
There may be an innocent explanation as to why the data ends four years ago. Maybe their pet dogs ate the data. But, in the absence of an innocent and provable explanation, this looks extremely suspicious.
Plot the Annual Average Forcings and their Differences and you get this.
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
0 0.02583908 0.033586957 0.026244275 0.077522523 0.094078431 0.101633238 0.145447661 0.165984305 0.220432314 0.213569405 0.229509494 0.265666667
0.007747876 -0.007342682 0.051278248 0.016555909 0.007554806 0.043814424 0.020536643 0.054448009 -0.006862909 0.015940089
I am not sure how the formatting will come out as it is from Excel.
Damn, that is crap.
I’d like to see a similar graph of water vapor and forcing so both of them could be compared.
Considering that for the whole duration of this experiment (2000-2011) the planet did not experience any warming whatsoever, it would be pertinent for the scientists to tell us WHY the increased forcing as measured in one cold place (Alaska) and a less cold place (Oklahoma) along these years failed to result in an increased global temperature.
It must be noted that the experiment has measured the first order effect of an energised CO2 molecule , but what about explaining what happens afterwards to that retained energy? For how long does it stay in the atmosphere? All energy is ultimately ejected to space; that’s how the planet keeps its equilibrium. In my book, the measured increased forcing at two spots on the surface of the planet has resulted in ZERO effect on the climate.
This proves that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels have no resultant increased forcing on the energy retained inside the atmosphere. It’s the scientific principle: If nature/observation does not support the theory, then that theory is wrong, no matter who says it.
Alarmist climate scientists now need to explain why the observed increased forcing failed to result in an observed increased temperature.
I’m waiting with baited breath.
Not quite true. Look at the satellite data.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2000/plot/rss/from:2000/to:2011/trend
It is simply a matter of cherry picked end points. That is likely the entire reason they found any increase.
Exactly, that’s why it gets funnier …:-)
My above reply is to Pete Ross…:-)
https://quantpalaeo.wordpress.com/2014/08/17/holocene-forcing-trends-and-conundrums/
The data shows through out the Holocene CO2 is increasing while the temperature is not.
CO2 is a product of the climate(oceans), environment (forestation) and biological activity.
CO2 is in response to the above.
Of the total concentrations of greenhouse gasses human contribution is 0.28%!
I would like an explanation of why the radiative trend is different between the two sites in Fig 2 and reverses over the yearly cycle at SGP. Their data suggests that increasing C02 cools the back radiation in winter at SGP so how is that to be explained? I wonder how well they actually solved the clear sky problem… I suspect the necessary corrections to extract this tiny signal from the large and variable IR background is very problematic.
There is no way this research could stop “Slayers”. They are already too deep in their own universe to accept it and will have no problems inventing reasons why this result is wrong. Nothing is impossible in the land of fantasy physics.
It, however, comes out as a surprise to me that this fairly basic and predictable research result is given such publicity. There is nothing special on it: no surprise, no breakthrough, no controversy. Definitely no first page material under normal conditions. It rather feels like the “climate establishment” just needs to pat itself on the back to feel more secure in suppressing the real opposition of intelligent and studied people who have no problems with basic physics but are asking inconvenient questions or even giving inconvenient answers.
As a sceptic, I do hope that this paper will stand up to all tests and questions, as it puts an end to all Catastrophe tales.
First 0,2 W/m2, decade is energy, not temperature.
In one hundred years, the forcing will increase with 2 W/m2, from 396 today to 398, if Trenberth is to be trusted.
The Stefan-Bolzman law says that energy is proportionat to absolute temp T^4 power.
Let T = future temperature in 100 years from now.
Energy increase 398/396 = T^4 / 288^4
My pocket calculator says T=288,36 or 0,36 warmer than today
Game, set and match over.
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/bond_updated.png
The above graph is an excellent representation showing CO2 concentrations have no relationship to the climate.