Guest essay by Richard J. Petschauer
A skeptic that believes in global warming? How can that be? We have been told that climate skeptics, sometime incorrectly called “deniers”, still believe the earth is flat and disagree with 97% of scientists. Well, first of all, most of us have seen a globe and know what it represents. Second, do you know on what these scientists agree? If not, don’t feel bad. Those making these claims, mostly politicians, probably don’t know either. Actually, a rather poor survey was done looking at a summary of many technical papers. If any one of many climate related points were made, they were put in the 97% camp. This article would probably have qualified too.
But the real question, not covered in the survey: How fast will the earth warm if we do nothing to curtail the growth of man made carbon dioxide emissions? And how much can we reduce the warming if we cut world emissions by some factor? The impact and costs of doing nothing or something will not be covered here, but it is obvious they would depend on how fast warming will occur. This we will discuss.
So what are the skeptics skeptical about? It is the amount and rate of the man made warming estimated by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the claims of some spokespeople, many in government, who go much beyond what the IPCC says, like “the planet is having a fever” or “things are getting worse than expected”. But data shows global temperatures have increased much less than models predicted. In fact, unknown to many, accurate satellite data shows very little if any warming in the last 18 years.
Where there is general agreement
There are many areas where most skeptics and the “alarmists”, as they are called, agree. First is the idea of “climate sensitivity”, a useful benchmark for making estimates. It is the final average global temperature rise that would be caused by a doubling of the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, assuming there are no natural changes. Second, most agree on well established methods to estimate how greenhouse gases absorb and emit heat, and that doubling of CO2 will reduce the heat leaving the planet by a little more than 3.5 watts per square meter. This compares to both estimates and satellite measurements of the total now leaving of about 235 watts per square meter. If the value of 3.5 watts out of 235 seems low, it is because CO2 only absorbs the infrared wavelengths that involve about 20% of the heat leaving the surface, and in this region its action is partially saturated and the second doubling will reduce heat loss by about another 3.5, not 7 watts. A 1% change in energy from the sun or a 7% change in cloud cover would cause about the same change as doubling CO2. Third, there is general agreement on how much the average surface will warm to make up for this heat loss: about 1 C (1.8 F). But here is the rub: this estimate is before the atmosphere and the surface, including oceans, react to this temperature change.
Where there is not agreement
How the climate reacts to the initial warming is the main area where most skeptics have problems with the IPCC and others. These reactions are called “feedbacks”. Positive ones amplify any temperature change (warming or cooling from any cause, not just from CO2). Negative ones diminish a change. There are general agreements on the equations used to define the feedback strengths and how they are combined into one net temperature change multiplier that can be either greater or less than one. The major disagreements are the magnitudes of the feedback values and for clouds, even if it is positive or negative. The final IPCC warming estimates for doubling CO2 range from 1.5 to 4.5 C. The skeptics have no common voice, but their values range from about 0.5 to 1.2 C, a significant reduction. IPCC also uses a 1% annual growth of the CO2 content in the atmosphere, while data shows only about 0.55%. This increases CO2 doubling time from about 70 years to 140.
Two different approaches
One primary complaint is the IPCC and most government funding research have abandoned improving the simple energy balance model and the feedback concept and gone to complex climate models that try to estimate many conditions across the globe and layers in the atmosphere over many years and then a temperature change. Small errors can propagate into unknown large ones. There are over 100 of these models written by different teams and their results differ by a range to 3 to 1. And nearly all overestimate warming compared to observed data. This is settled science? No! And it is bad engineering practice, which some scientists apparently don’t understand, to try to solve such a complex problem without breaking it down into smaller steps that each can be verified and corrected. What is causing the errors in the climate models that cause them to overestimate global warming? How will any proposed correction be tested without waiting about 10 to 30 years?
Corrections to the complex computer models
We believe the complex computer models overestimation of warming is mostly based on a combinations of three factors: overestimating positive water vapor feedback, underestimating negative feedback from increased sea surface evaporation and treating cloud feedback as positive feedback while it is very likely negative. For water vapor (a major greenhouse gas) the climate models show it increases about 7% per degree C of warming. But extensive data over 30 years from 15,000 stations at many latitudes over land and sea show an increase of only about 5% at the surface, the atmosphere’s main water vapor source. (Dia, “Recent Climatology and Trends in Global Surface Humidity”, American Meteorological Society, August, 1997). Water vapor is also an absorber of incoming solar energy, reducing what reaches the surface. Reduced greenhouse action and increased solar absorption cut the computer models positive water vapor feedback in about half. Regarding the cooling effects of increased evaporation, mostly over the oceans, both data (Wentz, et al, “How Much More Rain Will Global Warming Bring?, Science, 13 July, 2007) and basic physics indicate an increase of about 6% per degree C of warming, over double what the climate models average. Finally, the models estimate a value of positive feedback for clouds only because this amount is needed to boost the initial 1 C prefeedback warming up to the models final average estimate. It is more likely that more evaporation and water vapor will increase cloud content, a net cooling effect. Using simple energy balance models with proven greenhouse gas absorption/radiation tools, the result of these changes indicates a warming from double CO2 in a range of 0.6 to 0.9 C, much less than IPCC’s value of 1.5 to 4.5 C. Note the uncertainty range drops by a factor of 10, from of 3 degrees C to 0.3 C, because of the elimination of unreliable complex computer models and their net positive feedback.
A skeptics summary
About 1 C warming in the next 140 years does not seem to be a problem. (It will actually take longer because the ocean heat storage will delay the warming). Furthermore, both simple models and data show that most of the warming will be in winter nights in the colder latitudes. Less water vapor here reduces its competition with CO2. An example is in Minneapolis, Minnesota at 45 degrees latitude. About half of July record highs were set in the 1930s, with only 3 since 2000. However 80% of the record January lows were from 1875 to 1950. This winter warming is a benefit. And what makes people think the climate around 1900 represents the ideal? In 2014 we just saw a very cold winter, typical of that era. Finally, warmer temperatures increase evaporation and precipitation and since CO2 is a plant food, food crop production will increase, contrary to some other estimates. And any climate model that estimates a small, slowly increasing temperature will “disrupt” the climate should be looked at with great skepticism.
Digging deeper – does carbon dioxide really trap heat?
We have heard that carbon dioxide “traps” heat high in the atmosphere somewhat like a blanket that covers everything and is getting thicker as emissions increase, trapping more heat. Well, it’s not so simple and fortunately not that bad. Let us explain what happens.
The above figure is taken from an often cited paper, including by the IPCC, titled “Earth’s Annual Global Energy Budget” by Kiehl and Trenberth from the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 1997, with notations that we added. The top curve shows how the intensity of the average heat leaving the earth’s surface varies with infrared wavelength. The lower jagged curve is that leaving at the top of the atmosphere under average cloudy conditions. The area under a curve is its total heat in watts per square meter. Note the large downward notch leaving the atmosphere in the 12 to 18 microns range caused by CO2. It is such a strong absorber here that it cannot release its heat outward until the density of its molecules drops significantly at high altitudes where the temperature is about –60 F. Hence the low radiation rate. If the amount of CO2 increases, the escape altitude moves up causing both the temperature and heat loss to drop further. The area of the CO2 notch below the dashed line is about 22 watts per square meter and represents the impact of the total CO2 given the existing clouds and water vapor. Doubling CO2, taking over 100 years at the current growth rate, would move the notch downward and increase the area by about 3.5 watts per square meter, or 16%. When the heat loss drops, since the net heat from the sun remains at 235, the atmosphere gains heat and warms about 1 degree C until its emissions rise back to 235, restoring balance. A warmer atmosphere reduces the heat loss from the surface, and it also warms about 1 C. This is all that CO2 does. And very slowly. The feedback processes can increase or decrease this warming, as they do for any other temperature change.
Correction: The 140 years cited in two places as the time for CO2 doubling for the compound annual increase of 0.55 % of the last 20 years should be 126 years (1.0055 ^126.4 = 2.0003). The 140-year value is for 0.50 %, consistent with the last 35 years.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Excellent post.
But I wonder if you could expand on this, which is new information to me: “both data (Wentz, et al, “How Much More Rain Will Global Warming Bring?, Science, 13 July, 2007) and basic physics indicate an increase of about 6% per degree C of warming, over double what the climate models average.”
Also, I’m curious about how this result was arrived at: “[About 1 C warming] will actually take longer [than 140 years] because the ocean heat storage will delay the warming.”
Again, I appreciate your effort.
Actually Joe, that Wentz et al paper says 7% increase in total global evaporation, and 7% increase in total global precipitation (lucky for us) and 7% increase in total atmospheric water content for a one deg C increase in Temperature.
I wonder if a 7% increase in total global precipitation is accompanied by any perceptible increase in cloud cover, either as increased cloud area or increased cloud optical densoity, or increased cloud persistence time, or some hodgepodge of all three.
Where I live we always get clouds when it rains.
And the GCMs agreed with Wentz on the 7% evap and precip rates, but said 1-3% for the increase in total atmospheric water (unless I got those two mixed up again) . In any case it is as much as a factor of seven disagreement between X-Box models, and measured reality.
If that doesn’t spell cloud modulation (of INCOMING SOLAR ENERGY) feedback !
The climate feedback system has incoming TSI solar energy as the INPUT, and global Temperature as the OUTPUT.
Re radiation to the surface is NOT the feedback signal; cloud modulation is and it goes directly back to varying the input amount which is the incoming (captured) solar energy.
There was a study by Susan Wijffels and others a while ago on extreme storms (or something like that. Sorry I can’t find the paper quickly). A major finding was that precipitation from extreme storms increased ~7% per global 1 deg C. She was pretty excited about it – a finding that demonstrated theory – and she is a mainstream climate scientist. Fortunately some do real science. The main problem for certain others was that her finding was at odds with the 2-3% allowed in the climate models. At a presentation where the question arose, the “warmist” scientist accepted her finding, but argued that there was no evidence that non-extreme weather followed the 7% pattern. A very suspect argument, I thought, but … well, that’s climate science for you.
Consider the reduction in aerosols that some say have caused more increase in precipitation than that suggested by Global Warming MODELS:
EXCERPT:
“For precipitation changes, the effects of declining aerosols are larger than those of increasing GHGs due to decreasing atmospheric absorption by black carbon: 63% of the projected global-mean precipitation increase of 0.16 mm per day is caused by declining aerosols. In the Northern Hemisphere, precipitation increases by 0.29 mm per day, of which 72% is caused by declining aerosols. ”
++++++++++++++++++++++
From:
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Unio
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 10883-10905, 2013
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/10883/2013/
doi:10.5194/acp-13-10883-2013
© Author(s) 2013. This work is distributed
under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Article
Metrics
Related Articles
Research Article
07 Nov 2013
Projected effects of declining aerosols in RCP4.5: unmasking global warming?
L. D. Rotstayn1, M. A. Collier1, A. Chrastansky1, S. J. Jeffrey2, and J.-J. Luo3
1Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Aspendale, Vic, Australia
2Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts, Dutton Park, Qld, Australia
3Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
Received: 21 June 2013 – Published in Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss.: 11 July 2013
Revised: 01 October 2013 – Accepted: 11 October 2013 – Published: 07 November 2013
Abstract. All the representative concentration pathways (RCPs) include declining aerosol emissions during the 21st century, but the effects of these declines on climate projections have had little attention. Here we assess the global and hemispheric-scale effects of declining anthropogenic aerosols in RCP4.5 in CSIRO-Mk3.6, a model from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5). Results from this model are then compared with those from other CMIP5 models.
We calculate the aerosol effective radiative forcing (ERF, including indirect effects) in CSIRO-Mk3.6 relative to 1850, using a series of atmospheric simulations with prescribed sea-surface temperatures (SST). Global-mean aerosol ERF at the top of the atmosphere is most negative in 2005 (−1.47 W m−2). Between 2005 and 2100 it increases by 1.46 W m−2, i.e., it approximately returns to 1850 levels. Although increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) and declining aerosols both exert a positive ERF at the top of the atmosphere during the 21st century, they have opposing effects on radiative heating of the atmosphere: increasing GHGs warm the atmosphere, whereas declining aerosols cool the atmosphere due to reduced absorption of shortwave radiation by black carbon (BC).
We then compare two projections for 2006–2100, using the coupled atmosphere-ocean version of the model. One (RCP45) follows the usual RCP4.5; the other (RCP45A2005) has identical forcing, except that emissions of anthropogenic aerosols and precursors are fixed at 2005 levels. The global-mean surface warming in RCP45 is 2.3 °C per 95 yr, of which almost half (1.1 °C) is caused by declining aerosols. The warming due to declining aerosols is almost twice as strong in the Northern Hemisphere as in the Southern Hemisphere, whereas that due to increasing GHGs is similar in the two hemispheres.
For precipitation changes, the effects of declining aerosols are larger than those of increasing GHGs due to decreasing atmospheric absorption by black carbon: 63% of the projected global-mean precipitation increase of 0.16 mm per day is caused by declining aerosols. In the Northern Hemisphere, precipitation increases by 0.29 mm per day, of which 72% is caused by declining aerosols.
Comparing 13 CMIP5 models, we find a correlation of –0.54 (significant at 5%) between aerosol ERF in the present climate and projected global-mean surface warming in RCP4.5; thus, models that have more negative aerosol ERF in the present climate tend to project stronger warming during 2006–2100. A similar correlation (–0.56) is found between aerosol ERF and projected changes in global-mean precipitation.
These results suggest that aerosol forcing substantially modulates projected climate response in RCP4.5. In some respects, the effects of declining aerosols are quite distinct from those of increasing GHGs. Systematic efforts are needed to better quantify the role of declining aerosols in climate projections.
Citation: Rotstayn, L. D., Collier, M. A., Chrastansky, A., Jeffrey, S. J., and Luo, J.-J.: Projected effects of declining aerosols in RCP4.5: unmasking global warming?, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 10883-10905, doi:10.5194/acp-13-10883-2013, 2013.
For Joe Born,
For Wentz see: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5835/233
For evaporation,
Water evaporation is primarily dependent on the difference of the water vapor pressure of the water and the air at the interface. The water vapor pressure has been accurately measured. We use Bolton’s equation (Bolton, D., The computation of equivalent potential temperature, Monthly Weather Review, 108, 1046-1053, 1980. More accurate than Clausius-Clapeyron.
+- 0.3% from -35C to +35C.
With T in degrees C, the water vapor pressure is:
P=6.112 * exp((17.67*T) / (T+243.5))
The vapor pressure of the air equals that of water at the air’s temperature times the air’s relative humidity (RH) expressed as a fraction.
However as evaporation starts, the water at the interface cools and the air RH increases, reducing the initial evaporation. But the cooler water drops and the moist air rises, refreshing the interface, so some evaporation continues. In the oceans, wind and waves accelerate this and are key factors besides air and water temperatures and air RH.
For the same wind and wave action,
E = (K + a)(VP(water temp) – VP( air temp)*RH))
Where K is a function of wind speed which also determines wave action (ignoring the time lags). Taking the ratio of two E values, the values of “K” and “a” cancel out.
For constant water and air temperatures and fixed RH, from 15C to 16C we only need the ratios of the vapor pressures and get a value of 1.066 or an increase of 6.6%. At 17C to 18C it is 6.5%. If the air temperature tracks within +-2 degrees of the water temperature, there is little change in the percent change and is within 6% to 7%.
However small changes in RH (relative humidity) can make big differences. At a typical 70% initial humidity, a rise of 1C and 1% increase in RH will cut the evaporation increase from 6.6% per C down to only 3.1%. The IPCC models get values in the 2.5 to 3% range. We think this is because they underestimate cloud formation and the resulting precipitation, the latter of which is the primary driver in reducing humidity. Incidentally, if the water vapor increase supports only a 5% increase in water vapor or a 0.5% drop in RH per C warming as data shows, evaporation will increase about 8% to 10% per C of warming, further increasing the negative feedback.
Regarding the140 years, thanks for spotting a problem. The 140 years corresponds to an annual compound increase of CO2 of 0.05%. For the last 20 years it has been closer to 0.055%, which gives about 126 years, still much longer than about 70 years per IPCC at a 1% growth rate.
log(2)/log(1.0055) = 126.4 or 1.055 ^126 =1.996.
Thank you very much. That was very helpful. (And refreshing; I’ve recently suffered a blizzard of evasions and non-answers, so your response was a welcome contrast.)
“Second, most agree on well established methods to estimate how greenhouse gases absorb and emit heat, and that doubling of CO2 will reduce the heat leaving the planet by a little more than 3.5 watts per square meter. ”
This is oversimplified and does not reflect the real heat exchange process.
The heat exchange between surface and CO2 happens within a short distance of less then 50 meters. If CO2 increases in the atmosphere the distance where this heat exchange happens will be only shorter.
The way how the climate sensitivity to CO2 is calculated as well as the total greenhouse effect and the CO2 part of it is far away of being settled science to put it mildly.
Models do include a lot of aerosol forcing to compensate for the lack of warming that should happen with the increase in CO2:
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/climate-unsettled-science
From historical records we know that in the past we have seen warm and cold periods with low and respective high CO2 concentrations exactly as it shouldn’t be if CO2 would be driving anything in the climate. It is rather the oceans and the respective currents.
Even if one would accept the 1°C hypothesis for CO2 doubling this cannot cause any issue. The climate was relative stable in the past and was gradually cooling:
http://climate4you.com/ClimateAndHistory.htm#General%C2%A0
On a longer timescale even more.
On the other side, most plants do like CO2 and would do better with more.
In reality increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere is one of the few things that we did well. Accidentally we did the right thing.
Who would like to live in a CO2 starved world with 280 ppm? That would mean that more then 1 billion people would be in danger to starve. Even reducing CO2 to 350 ppm would reduce global food production.
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject_a.php
The benefits from increased CO2 outweighs by far the potential dangers. There are other much more important things to fix like pollution, famine, underdevelopment. Once we fix these we have the time in 50 -60 years to look with more data and cool heads at what we do with CO2, if there is any need.
Excellent.
The global carbon cycle is biological. I think biologists understand the atmosphere better than physicists.
Lars P. says:
…most plants do like CO2 and would do better with more.
In reality increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere is one of the few things that we did well. Accidentally we did the right thing.
Excellent point, and one which the alarmist crowd cannot ever accept. The rise in CO2 has been entirely beneficial. There has never been any global harm identified due to rising CO2.
If the IPCC honestly accepted those facts, they would be out of business.
It has always been Climate Catastrophism, not Climate Change or even Global Warming, that brings out our skepticism. We have to call CAGW what it is, Climate Catastrophism. The other two terms I’ve always been generally okay with, right up until I try to explain the difference to a Catastrophist. In their black and white worldview either one believes that the End is Nigh and its all our fautl, or one is a “denier.”
The reason for that is something the Catastrophists have on their side and we don’t. Money. They have 100 times as much as we do (or 1000 times from another article this week). But the reason for the money differential is something else they have on their side, Tikkun Olam, Hebrew for The Repair of the World. According to Judaism, the repair of the world is the very definition of Happiness. You don’t have to be the least bit Jewish to feel that way.
To me, it matters that the alarmists are harming the world and badly. But just saying this is unlikely to convert any of them. They need to repair the world. You will be a lot more fun if you look at NASA’s graph of global CO2 patterns and realize the high spots are places where vegetation is being burned in primitive agriculture plus Turkey and Brazil with new dams killing a lot of Life. And yes, China’s coal plants. Western civilizations are carbon sinks. Killing of Life on a grand scale–ooh, that sounds horrible, doesn’t it?
And it has the wondrous advantage of being true. That means they can actually make the differences they want to make. Truth is kinda essential for that.
Get books on permaculture and Restoration agriculture, which solve many of the real problems. Look up the website http://www.originalsonicbloom.com and use it, if only on houseplants. Realize that dams are the most destructive energy source, followed by bird slicers and solar PV panels, both of which involve Chinese rare earths extracted under poisonous conditions.
Now, if you study this stuff, you will no longer take all their fun away, and that will be the end of the CAGW meme. In fact, we will all be able to work together.
Thanks, Richard J. Petschauer. A very good article.
The Berkeley Earth Land + Ocean Data anomaly dataset shows no global average temperature increase since 1998.
It shows a warming from 1910 to 1940 of 0.45°C, then a pause to 1975, and a warming to 1998 of 0.55°C.
That’s about it, and doesn’t seem catastrophic at all.
“There are over 100 of these models written by different teams and their results differ by a range to 3 to 1.”
Should be:
“There are over 100 of these models written by different teams and their results differ by a range from 3 to 1.”
Its a bit like this blog http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/dont-be-a-skeptic-the-noun-problem
I understood that a little bit of CO2 was supposed to warm the atmosphere which increased humidity…
The increased humidity would then increase the temperature…
It was a snowball effect of warmer…humidity….warmer…more humidity……wash rinse repeat
Run away global humidity
Which we all knew was crazy think………
As long as the increased humidity would not increase clouds. Damn them clouds.
like Global Warming morphed into Irritable Climate Syndrome…..did run away global humidity morph into “all about CO2”?….because it was never supposed to be all about CO2
YES Latitude! That was indeed the meme not that long ago, that CO2 would drive the earths atmosphere into the wall of Venus’ type hell world concrete wall. Run away CO2 and sulfuric acid rain was the prediction after reaching …. oooooo ahhhh …. Tipping Points …. scary . Clearly this is not happening.
Yes, but if the feedback factor is less than 1, it is like an infinite series that converges to a final of multiplier of 1 / (1 -F ). For example if F = +0.5 and the initial change is 1C, we get 1 + 0.5 + 0.25 + 0.125 +0.0.625 + . . . that with enough terms sims very close to 2. For F= -0.5, we get 1 – 0.5 + 0.25 -0.125 + 0.0625 + . . . that takes more terms but converges to 1/(1 + 0.5) or 0.6667.
This one will make you laugh …..or cry
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/21/university-offering-free-online-course-to-demolish-climate-denial
Laugh.
I have an image of a horde of graduates emerging all wearing polar bear suits waving hockey sticks exclaiming something like “repent oh ye deniers before Armageddon!”.
“The impact and costs of doing nothing or something will not be covered here, but it is obvious they would depend on how fast warming will occur. This we will discuss.”
Why is it obvious that the impact and costs of doing nothing depend on how fast warming will occur? What empirical evidence have we so far for this?
No evidence, but seems likely. But not a major point, except what most of the gloom and doom the alarmists predict is based on large warming in the middle of the century.
Where is research that shows the optimum climate for our biosphere? The first question must be: where is our current climate and trend in relation to this finding.
Strangely, nobody seems interested in this vital comparison. Not so strangely, the solutions that are frequently demanded in the most urgent voice, all converge on a socialist worldview: statism, bigger government, higher taxes, less personal liberty, even fewer people. That bigger picture tells me all that I need to know about “climate science”.
When their primary answer is make more billionaires out of Wall St. millionaires and/or give the governments more tax money and power it all seems so shallow.
On top of it all, everybody knows it will not affect the earth’s temperature.
with 2% of the planet urbanized and 27% of the temp stations in these areas not hard to come up with some warming. Throw in all the estimated areas- more easy salaaming upwards of temps, especially across Africa where the WMO want to install 5000 temp stations. I call bull on all of it.
That’s why the satellte data should be more reliable and shows less warming. And no need to “adjust” the data.
While I agree with much of what Petschauer says there are some points I disagree with strongly. Firstly at 280 ppm the total absorbance of the CO2 column is about 2000 abs. The logarithmic effect starts once he line center saturates which can be considered to be somewhere between about 1-2 abs. The logarithmic effect comes about because further increase in concentration causes line broadening so that the CO2 absorbs over a slightly greater wavelength span. That means at 280 ppm we have about 10 doublings since onset of saturation. If the total impact of CO2 is 22 watts/sqM then each doubling will increase energy retained by 2.2 watts/sqM not 3.5 wats/sqM. In fact my calculation of the total impact of CO2 is more like 28 watts/sqM but that’s still only 2.8 watts/sqM per doubling not 3.5.
The second point is his claim that with increasing concentration the emission altitude will rise and thereby further drop the emission temperature. Emission to space only occurs from the top 2 abs of the CO2 column which at 280 ppm means the top 1/1000 of the CO2 column. This is in the stratosphere not the troposphere and in the stratosphere temperature rises with altitude it does not fall. However if CO2 in the stratosphere was indeed well mixed as I have seen claimed then the emission altitude would be so high the temperature would be around 0C not -60C and the impact of CO2 would be about zero. In fact CO2 is a heavy molecule and the stratosphere exhibits negligible convection and is indeed very calm and this allows the CO2 to stratify or pool in the lower stratosphere just above the tropopause, a region that is at about the same temperature as the tropopause. This also explains why most of the CO2 notch shows constant temperature corresponding to the tropopause temperature – there is a lot of CO2 in a small altitude region just above the tropopause. It also explains the very small spike in the middle of the emission notch. This is at the line center and comes about because of the very small amount of CO2 higher in the stratosphere emits at the higher temperature that prevails there. Given the pooling, increasing the concentration has only a very small impact on the altitude of the top of the pooled CO2 column. Further it would tend to increase the emission temperature not lower it. Of course one could argue that the increased emission would cool the lower stratosphere so that higher emission temperature would not occur in practice. Against that however is the strong likelihood that the temperature of the tropopause is also strongly impacted by a balance between near infrared absorption of solar energy by water vapour (in the 0.8-2 micron range) and far infrared emission by water vapour (beyond 20 microns) which dilutes the impact of CO2. Note the emission temperature in the 20 micron + spectral region also corresponds to the tropopause temperature and the tropopause almost by definition sets the top of the water vapour column in the atmosphere.
Michael, at 400 ppmm there is one CO2 molecule per 2500 air molecules. That means that on average any single CO2 molecule is surrounded by about 13.6 spherical shells of air molecules, before you get to any nearest neighbor (on average ) CO2 molecule.
So the CO2 molecules are totally unaware that there is another like them in the entire universe.
They act ALONE which is exactly how photon absorption is anyway.
So any notion that somehow there is a “line broadening” because of the density of CO2 molecules is just total BS; that is the only polite way to describe that theory.
Phil posted the paper that purports to show that the T versus CO2 is linear at very low concentrations, then changes to logarithmic at intermediate concentrations, and then changes again to a square root relationship at higher concentrations.
I took a look at the paper, and it is a grossly simplified one dimensional analysis, that presumes a collimated beam passing straight line through a uniform slab of medium.
That too is total BS as the LWIR in the atmosphere is essentially isotropic at any point, with radiation going in every which way, and being re-emitted in uncontrolled isotropic re-radiation directions.
In other words you have a nonsense analysis of an absorption process, which isn’t even real.
The absorption of a 15 micron or thereabouts LWIR photon by a single CO2 molecule in no way can have any physical effect on the likelihood of any other CO2 molecule absorbing any wavelength of photon which might come along, to which it is receptive.
This CO2 band (edges or shoulders) “broadening” with CO2 abundance is sheer poppycock.
The CO2 molecules do not conspire to gang up on the infrared radiation spectrum and decide to absorb a photon which previously was of no interest to them.
Photon absorption in gases at least is an individual atom or molecular event, and it is unaffected by the presence or absence of any other molecule whether the same or a different species..
And certainly at one in 2500 there is no “group effect.”
And no I am NOT saying that 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is simply not enough to do anything. It most certainly is.
We are ALL having this chat, because we own some silicon that has areas into which impurities have been deliberately introduced at concentrations in the neighborhood of “ONE” ppm or less; and those negligible impurities give the silicon the important properties we have come to take for granted.
Typical single crystal semi-conductor grade raw silicon, today probably has something like 8 “nines” purity, as in 99.999999 % purity; certainly seven nines.
When I was in the LED business, we routinely made our own seven nines purity raw gallium from our scrapped material including the sawdust from slicing up GaAs single crystal ingots.
So at 400 ppm in the atmosphere, CO2 is very noticeable; but each molecules think it is unique, and they behave as if they believe that; so they do not gang up on radiation.
Thanks, George. Very well explained, I liked your solid-state physics analogy.
The density of silicon atoms in single crystal silicon is around 5 x 10^22 atoms per cc.
In CMOS circuits such as you will find in your ipad/ped/pid/pod/pud, or laptop or mainframe, there will be devices with layers carrying dopant atoms at levels between 10^16 and 10^19 atoms per cc to create the CMOS transistors.
So that is a range of one in five million to one in five thousand.
So the notion that a doping level of 400 ppm can’t possibly do anything in the atmosphere is a position of ignorance.
Efficient LEDs employ doping levels in the same range as CMOS transistors, as they are just junction diodes in different semiconductor materials.
Higher doping levels lead to higher numbers of dislocations, and an increase in non radiative recombination sites, which drops the internal quantum efficiency. Current leading technology LEDs have internal quantum efficiencies pushing very close to 100% (photons per electron). Their lower external efficiencies are due to internal optical trapping by TIR at the interface between very high (3.5) refractive index semiconductors, and lower (1.5) index of compatible encapsulants.
g
Sorry George you are wrong! Simple explanation, the absorption spectrum of a green house gas is very close to a Gaussian. If I double the CO2 concentration its the equivalent of putting 2 of the original CO2 layers one on top of the other. The output of the first is the input of the second so the overall effect is the square of the original Gaussian or if you like the original Gaussian multiplied by itself. The interesting property of Gaussian profiles is that the product of two Gaussians is itself a Gaussian but with a larger standard deviation (ie: a broader spread). It has nothing what so ever to do with CO2 molecules mysteriously interacting with each other.
By the way I should mention, I have spent the last 40 odd years carrying out research for a major international spectroscopic instrument manufacturer.
Ganging up like this?
George, Doppler and Pressure broadening of absorption lines is a well known and measured effect, the Curve of Growth has been used for interpreting observed absorption lines by Astrophysicists for about 50years.
@ur momisugly Michael Hammer April 26, 2015 at 12:57 am
Me thinks you were talking silly on that one.
If you double the atmospheric CO2 concentration (ppm) ….. then all you are doing is doubling the “odds” that a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere will be struck by a photon of IR energy. And because of all the “free space” …. the output of one might never be the input of a 2nd one.
“””””…..
Phil.
April 27, 2015 at 8:12 am
George, Doppler and Pressure broadening of absorption lines is a well known and measured effect, the Curve of Growth has been used for interpreting observed absorption lines by Astrophysicists for about 50years…….””””””
Well Phil, you are not telling me anything that I didn’t learn in school sixty years ago.
So I completely agree with this statement of yours that I cut and pasted above.
But we are not talking about how the emission or absorption spectral line widths vary with gas Temperature (Doppler) or Pressure (collisions). I don’t have any argument with that.
We are talking about how such absorption or emission by ONE CO2 or other GHG molecule can be affected in any way, by the very remote presence of another molecule of the same species.
Unless two CO2 molecules collide with each other or come into close proximity with each other I don’t see how one such molecule can affect the absorption spectrum of another identical molecule.
Whether the mole abundance of say CO2 was 100 ppm or 1,000 ppm, I don’t see how the Doppler and pressure broadened absorption spectral lines of one CO2 molecule, at some specific atmospheric pressure and Temperature, can be affected by the presence of another remote CO2 molecule.
Absorption of a photon in gases is a property of a single molecule of a given species; they don’t remotely share in the capture of any single photon, by ganging up on it.
Well unless quantum mechanics is even crazier than the QM experts tell me it is. (crazy wild, not crazy invalid).
@M.H.
Actually the “emission height” for final IR emission from CO2 mainly occurs in the troposphere, except in cold polar regions where the tropopause is located in the stratosphere. But here the low temperature means emission rate is low anyway. Satellites looking down at upwelling IR detect the emission height through temperature and demonstrate this point. The “notch” in the emission spectrum is the true quantum energy, whereas the “line broadening” effects are kinetic sharing of photon energy with other molecules, and thus are pressure (not CO2) dependent.
Atmospheric species, including CO2 are reasonably well mixed whether in the stratosphere or not. Not just convection, but importantly kinetic motion produce such. Only very light gases like He show significantly different scale heights.
For a given wavelength and distance the probability be transmitted (T) (not absorbed) is raised to a power equal to the increased factor in CO2 concentration. For example for doubling CO2, T2 = T1^2. If P1 = 0.6 for example, then T2 = 0.36. The corresponding probabilities of being absorbed, A, are 1 – T. In this case A1 = 1 – 0.6 or 0.4 and A2 is 1 – 0.36 or 0.64. Note probabilities cannot exceed 1.The same relationship holds if the concentation is constant and the distance of travel changes.
Michael Hammer,
I don’t think this matters at the surface, I know (and I think so does Richard P.) that from the ground an IR thermometer reads very cold sky temperatures (at least @41N), I know my thermometer does not measure Co2 IR, but we can add that, and when the humidity is low I measure temps 80-100F colder than my air temp.
I don’t know what altitude I’m measuring, again not sure it matters, as that is the sky the surface “sees”.
So, my point is there could be a layer (or more) between what the surface “sees” and what a satellite “sees” that is a buffer between them (surface and space).
Now I will point out I don’t particularly care if the stratosphere’s(or???) temp changes, if the surface doesn’t.
‘Hence the low radiation rate. If the amount of CO2 increases, the escape altitude moves up causing both the temperature and heat loss to drop further.”
So, where’s the hot spot?
So, where’s the hot spot?
Exactly.
I do not claim any hot spot no understand why it was expected by some.
I have very little science background but I simply do not have confidence in agw. Why ? Because over my lifetime I have heard many many times PhDs from prestigious schools announce cures for diseases like cancer, which the media hypes up. These cures never seem to see reality. Most of the time the studies or models do not translate to reality.
A mouse is a medical model for a human. Drugs are tested and developed for mice, and work on mice. But the mouse model does not translate to human being reality.
We see the mouse model is not all that great. In general the more complex the thing a model is trying to model the less reliable the model will be.
I believe in evidence based science.
And dubious science and dodgy statistics are used for deceptive marketing purposes. Example: “Doing this can reduce your chance of X by 50%!” Not mentioned is that the 50% reduction is from 0.01 to 0.005. And the test mouse was fed 7 pounds of Bad Stuff.
The impact of water on our climate is extremely interesting. There are two quite separate effects. The first is the “green house” impact of water vapour in the atmosphere. This like any “green house” gas causes warming and again like any green house gas the impact rapidly becomes logarithmic as the concentration rises. The second impact is of course clouds which are droplets of liquid water not water vapour. Here the repeated rapid changes in refractive index between that of liquid water and the air between the water droplets causes scatter and reflection which is a broad band effect occurring at all wavelengths. The amount of incoming solar energy reflected back out to space exceeds the long wave thermal energy reflected back towards the earths surface so the net impact of clouds is cooling. This impact is much more nearly linear (ie: double the percentage cloud cover. roughly double the impact). At very low water vapour concentrations green house warming dominates over cloud cooling so the net impact is warming but as the concentration of water increases the diminishing incremental impact of warming coupled with the close to linear incremental impact of cooling means the balance shifts in favour of cooling. The result is that the impact of water on our climate is to set an equilibrium point for temperature, an equilibrium point that is maintained by strong negative feedback. The strength of that feedback is underlined by the exponential relationship between saturation water vapour partial pressure and temperature. Yet another of the utterly remarkable properties of water and the impact it has on life as we know it.
Isn’t there a third impact of water? It absorbs heat as it evaporates, cooling the surface. Then it releases that heat when it condenses higher in the atmosphere, where some of the heat radiates into space. So this is another negative feedback, I think.
To Bryan,
Yes, you are correct! And this is the biggest error in the climate models, I think. They claim to include this in negative “lapse rate” feedback, but with their low estimates of evaporation increase with warming they underestimate it and I doubt if they include the added heat lost to space from warmer clouds as you point out. I cover this here:
http://climateclash.com/improved-simple-climate-sensitivity-model/
Hi Bryan; wrt to a third impact of water, it depends in what context. Certainly latent heat effects have a big impact on heat distribution within the atmosphere. If you argue (as I think your are) that this heat distribution affects energy loss to space, that can only be by changing the temperature profile of the atmosphere with altitude and indeed in this context I would agree with you. I was thinking only in terms of direct radiation to space and absorption of incoming solar energy from space. My back of the envelope calculations suggest however that radiative processes even within the atmosphere are larger than normally thought and the convective + latent heat processes possibly somewhat smaller but the less your point is well made.
You are correct Bryan, but I would put it differently:
It evaporates as it absorbs heat, cooling the surface. Then it condenses when it releases that heat higher in the atmosphere, where some of the energy radiates to space. Heat does not radiate to space.
Key difference is it is the ABSORPTION of the heat (from the surface) that causes evaporation, and it is the loss of that heat to cooler surroundings by conduction or by thermal radiation, that causes condensation. Condensation does NOT result in any Temperature rise as a result of the loss of the latent heat. The water droplets do not get any higher Temperature than the water vapor Temperature was.
When steam condenses on your skin (and scalds you) your skin NEVER gets any hotter than the steam Temperature was .
I don’t know why people think that latent heat causes clouds to get higher Temperature than the water vapor was before it condenses into water. The latent heat has to be lost to something cooler for condensation to occur, or energy has to be lost by radiation, and water vapor is a good LWIR radiator.
Clouds, fog and mists are all forms of water vapor which have collected into larger “droplets” of water and are visible to the naked eye, …. and are the same as humidity which can not be seen with the naked eye. And that is because of the density of the larger “droplets” of water and the fact that any source of light that strikes them will be absorbed more readily and/or reflected away from them more easily.
But now the effects of clouds, fogs and mists relative to incoming solar energy and re-emitted energy from the earth’s surface ….. are quite different (extremely more pronounced) than the effects of humidity. Again, this is because of their density (mass).
Clouds, fogs and mists act as a unidirectional buffer to both the incoming solar energy and the re-radiated energy from the earth’s surface. And the best way to explain this is by examples.
Night time cloud cover or fog will prevent near surface air temperatures from cooling off as fast because they per say buffer the re-radiated energy.
Day time cloud cover or morning fog will prevent near surface air temperatures from warming up as fast because they per say buffer the incoming solar energy.
And this conundrum is what confuses the ell out of scientists who are trying to calculate “average surface air temperatures” ….. and which wrecks havoc with their Climate Modeling Programs ….. because it is such an important but indeterminate variable. ……. And thus, because they can not accurately calculate their affect, …… they completely ignore and omit said from any of their calculations …… and attempt to CTA by blaming everything on atmospheric CO2.
There is probably as much, or maybe even more, fog and mist coverage of the surface of the earth each and every 24 hour day ….. as there is cloud coverage, … but no one that I know of tries to keep track of that coverage ….. which could be just as important as cloud cover.
Does anyone believe in the next 20 years we will reach a tipping point of no return? Given the last 20 years I would say not. So why not let Bill Grays ideas play out and see where global “temperatures” stand by 2030. The current climate cycle is very close to the late 1950s. We have been showing that on Weatherbell constantly. We have been measuring via satellite since the flip in the PDO to warm in the late 1970s, so of course it started at a cooler point. In the late 50s we saw the same kind of thing go on as now, after the overall flip in the early 50s, there was 3 years of warmth in the PDO. When it was done, the Atlantic went into the cold AMO , so they were cold in tandem for 2 decades, almost like we have had that lead to the warmth
Bills paper
http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf
I have stated time and time again, and showed time and time again, the drop of mixing ratios over the tropical oceans is almost a perfect fit with the PDO. We are constantly looking at temps, when the greatest warming is where its dry and cold in the N polar winters ( please see Danish site) while summers have started to cool) WATER VAPOR IS THE CLIMATE CONTROL KNOB AND SPECIFICALLY OVER THE TROPICS! The trapping hot spot theory is shot to the 4 winds when one simply watches the multi year reaction to enso events. Remember these people were pushing multiyear warm ensos, and for good reason, that would lead to their conclusion. The past 7 years overall has blown that away, and so that is why they go nuts when they see a warm event. The cooling event after this is liable to be a monster drop, and this time the Atlantic will be heading to the cold AMO. That is why you are seeing summer ice melt less and less, as that is a key idea behind the ice cap theory. This year again, is likely to be nowhere close to the death spiral years that had these people speculating about an ice free arctic as early as 2013. There seems to be an intuitive cap on temps, we now have the means to measure without all the nonsense with pre satellite normalization that goes on. It seems more obvious every day that people simply do not want to let this play out, for when we get to the end, it would have been as Bill Gray outlined years ago. And alot of people will be out of jobs and have egg on their face. Of course never underestimate the idea that it simply will be played as worse than we thought, but just later
Joe, I know some physics, but I don’t have your uncanny ability to relate current patterns to the past patterns.All I can say, given the current state-of-art of General Circulation Models, I would always bet on you.
Don’t worry about people out of jobs and with eggs on their faces. After losing their bets, they will be presidential science advisors.
thanks Joe….
Joe, do you think they will find a way to make it “anthropogenic” if we get substantial cooling during SC25 and beyond?
Sure. It’ll be aerosols from developing countries. It’s always “our” fault.
Joe Bastardi,
Your contributions are appreciated here!
I really look forward to your Saturday Summaries on http://www.weatherbell.com/ as well!
Mac
Thanks for pointing to William Gray’s 2012 paper. It is an important study.
Completely agree Joe. Solar activity was at the highest in about 1,000 years during the late 1950’s – the ‘happy’ days – when solar F10.7cm flux averaged 139 sfu/day, as compared to the 1960’s during SC#20, when flux averaged 113 per day. Cycle 21 was 135, #22 was 123, #23 was 122, and this cycle so far is at 104, the lowest in 100 years, and by the time it reaches the next minimum, the daily average solar flux for SC#24 will be in mid 90’s.
Since the next cycle is looking to be even lower, we will definitely be seeing temps drop as they did in the 1960’s and early 70’s, and probably lower – a monster drop indeed. Some of us solar researchers have good reason to think the AMO and PDO are solar-controlled overall, which fits in with your commentary.
Which is why I say The cause of the ‘pause’ was the cause before the ‘pause’. The Sun.
“And alot of people will be out of jobs and have egg on their face.” ~ J. B.
The left wing in America will claim that the Obama climate rules and regulations mitigated “our” CO2 contributions and hence stopped the march toward Thermo-Armageddon. This is like tossing virgins in a volcano and shouting that the sacrifice did, indeed, keep the volcano from erupting.
So , in 2030 skeptics hovelled in the Greenpeace Gulag can cough out “See we were right.”.
Joe is right on target with several points. The PDO cycle, has in the the past been defined with ~30 years, with a tendency to be in a +PDO, then ~30 year with a -PDO.
We’ve been in a -PDO regime for ~ 15 years, so one might suspect be at the halfway point.
During the previous -PDO regime, the halfway point was the late 1950’s and there was a spike higher into +PDO territory that lasted for a couple of years, then back down into the -PDO regime that lasted for another ~15 years.
You can see that here:with monthly PDO values:
http://research.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest
Of importance is the recent spike higher(starting in early 2014) to some impressively high values late last year into +PDO territory.
This is huge. Does it mean we are repeating what happened at the halfway point of the last -PDO in the late 1950’s?
Or, does it mean that the -PDO regime has ended after only ~15 years?
It’s huge because the meaning to those following this powerful oceanic oscillation can be interpreted completely different, depending on which way it goes.
Generally speaking, if we are back to a +PDO for the next decade, we should expect more El Nino’s and more global warming. If this was just a spike higher(like the late 50’s) and go back to another ~15 years with a -PDO, we would expect a tendency to have more La Nina’s and at the very least, a continuation in the global warming “hiatus”.
Also, if we back to a +PDO, then the periodicity of the PDO phases must be shortening.
The last -PDO cycle was ~30 years but this was followed by a +PDO(with global warming) that started in the late 1970’s that looks like it only lasted a bit over 20 years.
If this -PDO regime has lasted even less than that, it will have a profound meaning for us in understanding the Pacific ocean and it’s circulations.
Another great point that Joe made, is why aren’t we letting this play out? By playing out, he is speaking with regards to authentic atmospheric scientists(in this case, operational meteorologists) that are actually looking at the atmosphere every day and have been for decades.
Right here and now, the PDO is in a critical place, along with the AMO for instance, the global warming hiatus, the weak solar cycle. We are at a point in time when we will quickly be learning more than ever before that can be applied to climate science and maybe even dialed into global climate models to make them MUCH better.
Based on what we will learn during the next 5 years, this is the dumbest time imaginable for our governments be so hard pressed to make decisions that will ultimately cost trillions of dollars……..here at a point in time when the rate of the global temperature increase is projected to be lower and lower by legit atmospheric scientists using observational science.
Knowledge is power. We have an abundance of climate science knowledge that will be entering the picture right around the corner. This includes our first detailed views of an accurate measurement of global CO2 levels/sources taken from satellite. Why are we not waiting for this?
Answer: Because it doesn’t matter to those that have already made up their minds and care less about the scientific method.
” 6.Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory”
http://www.livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html
Instead, the driving force has more to do with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Joe,
“without all the nonsense with pre satellite normalization that goes on.”
It doesn’t have to be this way, I’ve taken NCDC’s Global Summary of Days, and calculate the previous day’s warming from min and max, then subtract last night’s falling temps, and for stations with greater than 360 samples per year and the daily average is slightly negative for 50 of the last 74 years, 30 of the last 34 years, and the overall average is negative.
What ever is causing warming it isn’t from a lack of cooling over night.
Just averaging stations with a full year of data.
Joe Bastardi respect for you and a lot of health.
Richard writes “Second, most agree on well established methods to estimate how greenhouse gases absorb and emit heat, and that doubling of CO2 will reduce the heat leaving the planet by a little more than 3.5 watts per square meter.”
A little more than 3.5W/m2 ? Well I don’t believe that because it implies feedbacks must be positive when in fact they’re unknown. Furthermore my instinct on physical processes tells me feedbacks are likely to be negative so count me out of that one…
The most qouted number is 3.7 Wm-2 before feedback.
Joe Born- does this help: Wentz, et al – Science (DOI: 10.1126/science.1140746) GK
Yes, thanks.
Actually, I had gotten a link (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5835/233.full) but haven’t read it all yet. The issue, though, is whether the mainline climate models had taken this into account. George E. Smith says above that they accept the precipitation figure but nonetheless assume a significantly lower atmospheric H2O-concentration increase.
I can’t say I’ve sorted out what it all means, so I was hoping Mr. Petschauer might expand on what he sees as the implications.
If I remember correctly, the ipcc and the team were busy raising the alarm as to devastating AGW induced droughts, when Wentz released his surprise results. Considerable pressure was put on Wentz to not publish his results until later. I think the 5% figure was agreed upon as a “better” number, despite the results. This is when they came up with the “yes, precipitation will increase, however it will only fall in flood zones – NOT in arid areas – meme.
Btw – http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/planning-picnic-in-warming-world-satellite-forecasts-more-rain/ is an article reference. There used to be a good comment debate following the article, however, SA decided years later to edit the skeptical arguments out completely. They are so Unscientific American. GK
Joe, See my paper on WUWT
Major Errors Apparent in Climate Model Evaporation Estimates
WUWT, April 15, 2014 in Modeling.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/15/major-errors-apparent-in-climate-model-
evaporation-estimates/
I think the reason the climate models underestimate evaporation is because they alr low on precipitation (very hard to estimate this and cloud formation). Precip reduces humidity which increases evaporation.
G. Karst & Richard Petschauer.
Thank you both again for your help. Even though I’ve recognized for a long time that H20 was the real controller, I’ve for some reason allowed its behavior to remain a mystery to me. To an extent it will undoubtedly remain so, but your responses may help me narrow the issues.
Physicists correct me if I am wrong. My understanding is that energy entering as sunlight will exactly balance energy leaving as heat or other forms. Carbon dioxide causes the energy to bounce around more, thus slowing the escaping heat. The system will still reach an equilibrium where that equality has been achieved. With more CO2 (or methane or any other greenhouse gas), the temperature near the planet’s surface will be slightly higher at that equilibrium.
This is similar to the “warming” you get from a blanket or sweater. The blanket does not actually warm you unless it is an electric blanket. It simply slows down the rate of heat loss from your warm body until you are more comfortable.
Or so goes the theory. A few years ago, WUWT posted an article on NASA measurements of heat loss in the upper atmosphere, showing that more CO2 meant lower temperatures. They said that this meant incoming heat was being bounced back to space, while the effect would be the opposite nearer the surface.
Last summer, a physicist post here experiments indicating that “radiative gases” would have a cooling effect over the oceans. I bought me a dual thermometer with a humidity gauge and some yeast for generating CO2 but never went outside enough to do the research.
Paleontology graphs of temperatures versus carbon dioxide over eons suggest that there is no important effect at all.
The claim is that the energy gets in through the “blanket” without warming it, then warms the surface but has to warm the blanket on the way out, keeping the surface warm. Idiotic for many reasons, but reason was never a strong point with believers.
wickedwenchfan April 25, 2015 at 5:16 pm
The claim is that the energy gets in through the “blanket” without warming it, then warms the surface but has to warm the blanket on the way out,
Evidence shows the claim is wrong. The atmosphere ( blanket ) takes up 20% of incoming energy from the sun and warms it. It is not warmed from the surface up , it warmed from the top down.
Suppose you throw a blanket over your house in mid-winter. If you don’t turn down the heat, you are going to get hot. If the rate of heat inout doesn’t change and the blanket retards the flow rate, the temperature will have to rise to push that heat trough the blanket. But that thermostat on the wall senses the temperature rising and turns down the gas. This was a hot discussion topic on RealScience.
You are bundled up & out chopping wood on a cold day. After an hour you start to sweat. As the sweat evaporates it cools you body because evaporation absorbs heat, evaporating water vapor has a large negative feedback.
Even IPCC knows this.
IPCC AR5 7.2.1.2 Effects of Clouds on the Earth’s Radiation Budget
The effect of clouds on the Earth’s present-day top of the atmosphere (TOA) radiation budget, or cloud radiative effect (CRE), can be inferred from satellite data by comparing upwelling radiation in cloudy and non-cloudy conditions (Ramanathan et al., 1989). By enhancing the planetary albedo, cloudy conditions exert a global and annual shortwave cloud radiative effect (SWCRE) of approximately –50 W m–2 and, by contributing to the greenhouse effect, exert a mean longwave effect (LWCRE) of approximately +30 W m–2, with a range of 10% or less between published satellite estimates (Loeb et al., 2009). Some of the apparent LWCRE comes from the enhanced water vapour coinciding with the natural cloud fluctuations used to measure the effect, so the true cloud LWCRE is about 10% smaller (Sohn et al., 2010).
!!!!!The net global mean CRE of approximately –20 W m–2 implies a net cooling!!!!
(emphasis mine)
Per IPCC AR5 between 1750 and 2011 anthropogenic GHGs added less than 3 W/m2. The water vapor thermostat, i.e. evaporation and CRE cooling is six times as powerful as GHG warming
ladylifegrows,
Your understanding is mostly sound. But it is not a matter of energy bouncing around. More CO2 means the emission into space is from higher in the troposphere, where it is colder; so emission is less until those altitudes warm, which requires that the surface warms.
The cooling in the stratosphere occurs because the stratosphere is not heated from below, it is heated by absorption of solar UV. So more IR emitters means that a lower T is needed to balance the absorption.
“Paleontology graphs of temperatures versus carbon dioxide over eons suggest that there is no important effect at all.”
Actually, periods of high CO2 are warm and low CO2 ages are cold. During the ice ages, the correlation is surprisingly good. The problem is that the implied climate sensitivity is two or three times the IPCC values. So there must be something else going on.
@ur momisugly ladylifegrows April 25, 2015 at 4:04 pm
You can correct yourself via 10 seconds worth of “common sense” thinking.
Just ask yourself …… “How is it possible for the earth to have experiences the per se Late 20th Century Warming?”
“Still Obsessing On Climate Sensitivity”
The consensus “greenhouse effect” does not exist in the real atmosphere (on Earth or on Venus, as the definitive evidence shows and I have tried for 4 and 1/2 years to inform everyone). Quite obviously, it is the vertical temperature gradient (as defined in the Standard Atmosphere, which my definitive evidence precisely confirms as the stable reality) that governs the global mean temperature (at any given pressure, such as at the surface). And this is entirely despite the fact that this stable atmosphere is subject to continuous, localized and transient variations, known as winds and weather–those variations (even between night and day, even between the seasons) simply don’t, ever, override (or even come close to overriding) that stable global state (their transient temperature effects are largely relegated, indeed, to the bottom kilometer or so of the atmosphere). The real-world data don’t support the consensus climate models, because the “settled science” used in those models is fundamentally wrong (it has nothing to do with the size or sign of the supposed “feedbacks”), and the Venus/Earth temperature-vs-pressure comparison makes the reason why obvious, to any competent physical scientist (which alarmists and “lukewarmers” are definitely not).
And the vertical temperature gradient is not dependent upon any of the causes and effects touted by both sides in the ongoing climate science arguments–which are at best transient and localized, not global– and especially not large-scale convection of heat from the surface. It only depends upon the hydrostatic condition of the atmosphere–which is a fundamental constraint upon the pressure as a function of depth in the atmosphere–and as such, it is conduction (because that, and nothing else, is what pressure entails, all you atmospheric “thermodynamics experts” who believe otherwise–such as Chris Colose, “ScienceOfDoom, and “Eli Rabbitt”), not convection, that maintains it. The governing lapse rate owes nothing to a spurious, radiative, “greenhouse effect” either (again, it is just conduction, via the hydrostatic pressure distribution); it is supreme in the real atmosphere. The troposphere is warmed by direct absorption of incident solar infrared radiation; heat from the separately, and quite unevenly, warmed surface does not further heat the atmosphere, globally–its vertical component merely “falls down” the ruling temperature gradient, without affecting it, while its horizontal component drives the winds and weather–without changing the global mean surface temperature (and at this point, the light bulb should go on in your heads, and you “experts”, at least, should SEE the truth of this). I do not believe the physics can be any simpler, or those who oppose it (on such ridiculous grounds as the belief that the surface radiates IR of the same intensity as a blackbody, at the same temperature, radiates into a surrounding vacuum) can be any more fundamentally deluded, than they are in their continued opposition to the definitive Venus/Earth evidence–which, after all, merely reveals WHY all the other evidence does not support the consensus science, and, by itself, corrects climate science so fundamentally and precisely, on so many points.
Thank you! I am with you all the way! What is most gauling is that you can see acknowledgement of this physics in standard text books about the gas giants whilst a stubborn refusal to even consider the same process remains for solid planets with atmospheres remains.
Jupiter at 20Bar has a mean temperature of 20C but we are expected to believe that Venus’s surface temperature at 92Bar is all due to a “Greenhouse Effect”. Madness!
http://www.universetoday.com/15097/temperature-of-jupiter/
“Quite obviously, it is the vertical temperature gradient (as defined in the Standard Atmosphere, which my definitive evidence precisely confirms as the stable reality) that governs the global mean temperature”
So why isn’t the temperature at any altitude 50 degrees colder, or warmer, than it is? And how could it have been different during the ice ages?
harrydhuffman, you truly do not understand the difference between a temperature gradient, and a value of the temperature. The simple fact is that a gradient is only a slope, not a level. You have to separately determine an absolute temperature value at a fixed altitude and combine that with the gradient to get surface temperature.
Leonard Weinstein April 25, 2015 at 8:20 pm
You have to separately determine an absolute temperature value at a fixed altitude and combine that with the gradient to get surface temperature.
I don’t agree.
Surface temperature = fixed temperature + (fixed gradient x variable height of tropopause)
= tropopause temp + ( Lapse rate x tropopause height )
= 220K + 6.5K/km x tropopause height
tropopause height determines surface temperature
Roger Clague ,
You wrote “tropopause height determines surface temperature”. But you contradict yourself since, from your calculation, you also need tropopause temperature, just as Leonard Weinstein said. And what determines tropopause height and T?
You need a temperature at some altitude. The way it works in the Earth’s atmosphere is that the temperature, 255 K, is determined by what is needed to radiate the energy received from the sun. The altitude, about 5 km, is determined by the optical density of the atmosphere, radiation from much lower does not make it to space and there is not much radiation from much higher.
Of course, the above is an oversimplification since the optical depth of the atmosphere varies with wavelength and at any given wavelength the emission to space comes from a wide range of altitudes. So the above numbers are really suitably defined averages that are complicated to calculate.
Roger Clague says, April 26, 2015 at 9:46 am:
“tropopause height determines surface temperature”
Er, no. Surface temperature (and, quite likely, the IR opacity of the atmosphere) determines the tropopause height.
Unfortunately if you look at this https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/ there has been no warming. Its quite likely that the earth is cooling somewhat. LOL
BTW there is going to be a major inquiry into the temperature Fraud.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-scientists-start-to-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html
Quick question, is the spectrum in Figure 1 even a typical midday above the tropics example?
Figure 1 came from the source indicated (Keihl and Trenberth). It is supposed to represent the global average situation under typical cloudy conditions of about 60% and with, I think, giobal average evaporation based on estimates of rainfall equaling evaporation over the long term.
I have to admit , I’m a skeptic who hopes for global warming to continue as it has for the present interglacial period. at least as long as I live…
But i’m not a climate skeptic, I’m an alarmism skeptic.
The problems go much deeper for deniers like myself. It’s the violition of basic arithmetic and the numerous examples where one part of the theory directly contradicts another part. It is the inability of proponents to even agree on the starting contribution of each gas to the proposed 33C greenhouse effect. Does CO2 contribute 9% or 26% to the 33C? Or is it somewhere inbetween? Was this percentage calculated before the industrial revolution, sometime during it, or when the Wikipedia info claiming it was written? Is the claimed effect of 33C a claim before man supposedly added 120ppm and 0.8C of temperature to the planet, or is 33C the total greenhouse effect as of today?
Until warmists and skeptics alike can answer simple questions like these and still make sense, you will excuse me if I reject the theory in its entirety!
Richard Petschauer wants to know:
” How fast will the earth warm if we do nothing to curtail the growth of man made carbon dioxide emissions?”
The question is not well phrased because it pre-supposes warming in response to growth of man made carbon dioxide emissions. But contrary to this warming propaganda drummed into us for decades, direct observation tells us that man made carbon dioxide simply does not warm the air.This follows most immediately from the existence of the hiatus/pause/cessation of warming (pick one) we are living through now. The relevant fact is that carbon dioxide is constantly increasing yet the greenhouse warming that should follow it according to the Arrhenius greenhouse theory is absent. This is an unequivocal prediction failure that falsifies the Arrhenius theory in use by the IPCC. This theory should be cast into the waste basket of history, along with phlogiston, another wrong theory of warming. With it dies AGW, that anthropogenic global warming which IPCC imputes to the non-existent greenhouse warming. The correct greenhouse theory to use is the Miskolczi greenhouse theory, MGT. It tell it like it is: addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere does not warm the atmosphere. If you still want to play with the greenhouse warming concept, consider the fact that at no time within the last 200 years has global temperature followed atmospheric carbon dioxide content as displayed by the (extended) Keeling curve. Keeling curve is smooth but it goes contain a repetitive seasonal oscillation that is totally absent from all global temperature curves. Put temperature side by side with the Keeling curve and observe that it goes up and down while Keeling curve remains smooth and steady. There are periods of warming and periods of standstill within the last century that are totally absent from the Keeling curve. An example of a standstill is the current hiatus that has lasted for 18 years by now. It is not the only hiatus that has existed although you don’t know that. This is because there was another 18 year hiatus in the eighties and nineties that is covered up in temperature curves by false warming, courtesy of GISS, NCDC, and HadCRUT.. Fortunately they still don’t control satellite data that display real global temperatures. The hiatus of eighties and nineties is clearly visible in satellite records as figure 15 in my book “What Warming?” demonstrates. Or take the early twentieth century where we had a steady warming from 1915 to 1940. It had a sudden start and an equally sudden end. According to laws of physics you cannot start or stop greenhouse warming like that. IPCC knows that so now they do not even bother to claim it for their own. They simply start their warming observations with 1950, clayming that earlier warming is too weak to measure. That of course contradicts their own claim that anthropogenic warming started in 1850. . Their problem is now that none of the warming after 1950 parallels the Keeling curve. Global temperature record shows an abrupt warming from the mid-seventies to about 1980 while the Keeling curve does not. This is followed by a hiatus of 18 years that Keeling likewise ignores. Next warming spurt that Keeling also does not know about takes place from 1999 to 2002. In only three years it lifts global temperature by one third of a degree Celsius and then stops. It, too, is followed by a hiaus that Keeling ignores. Clearly, there is no way that any temperature changes since 1950 can be assigned to carbon dioxide as a causative agent.Our conclusion must be that any attempt to claim that carbon dioxide is causing global warming is either fraudulent or pseudo-scientific, or just plain stupid, or all three.
I agree you can’t verify (or falisfy) warming due to CO2 from data up until now because of the natural variations and not enough time. But with the last 20 years of little or no warming, CO2 warming can’t be too big, but that does not mean it is a zero. But basic physics seems to indicate that more CO2 will cause some warming. It may be beneficial.
The average of yesterday’s rising temp minus last night’s falling temps since 1940 is negative.
A more fundamental reason for why we cannot falsify warming is that climatologists have not yet defined “warming” such that it satisfies properties of a measure in measure theory.