Guest essay by Mike Jonas
A look at Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity from a logical perspective.
Introduction
This article is the fourth in a series of four articles.
Part 1 of the series (Part 1) is here
Part 2 of the series (Part 2) is here
Part 3 of the series (Part 3) is here
In Part 1, simple mathematical formulae were developed to emulate the carbon dioxide (CO2.) contribution to global temperature change, as represented in the computer climate models.
In Part 2, the formulae were used to have a look at the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA).
In Part 3, the formulae were used to have a look at the period used in Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth.
Part 4 looks at the major components of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). ECS is key to all of the findings of the IPCC and to the computer climate models.
Note : This article does not say anything new, or claim to find any new results. It has all been said many times before. But it does look at ECS from a logical perspective.
Equilibrium climate sensitivity ( ECS)
Equilibrium climate sensitivity ( ECS), is defined in the fourth IPCC report (AR4) as follows :
In IPCC reports, equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the equilibrium change in the annual mean global surface temperature following a doubling of the atmospheric equivalent carbon dioxide concentration.
ECS is extremely important. It effectively is the one single factor that determines how much the global climate is warmed by increasing levels of carbon dioxide (CO2).
Anyone who doubts the importance of this in the climate models needs only to read the commentary about CO2 being the “control knob” of climate, see eg. [6] [7].
How ECS is estimated
The fourth IPCC report explains how ECS is estimated:
Due to computational constraints, the equilibrium climate sensitivity in a climate model is usually estimated by running an atmospheric general circulation model coupled to a mixed-layer ocean model, because equilibrium climate sensitivity is largely determined by atmospheric processes. Efficient models can be run to equilibrium with a dynamic ocean.
In other words, ECS is estimated by running climate computer models. Now of itself that isn’t as bad as it might sound to those who are already sceptical of climate scientists and the state of climate science. Obviously for complex systems some kind of computer model is needed.
Nevertheless, there is good reason to be concerned about this process. Firstly, computer models of complex systems are notorious for deviating from reality over multiple iterations, and these computer models use a very large number of iterations. Secondly, a lot of the processes cannot be modelled, either because they are not understood (eg. clouds) or are too complex (eg. biochemical processes) or both. For these, the models use parameterisations, which are basically guesses expressed as mathematical formulae. But worst of all, the IPCC reports repeatedly say that these are determined by observation:
The development of parameterisations has become very complex (e.g., (Jakob, 2010)) and is often achieved by developing conceptual models of the process of interest in isolation using observations and comprehensive process-models. [AR5 Box 9.1]
[..] methods for providing probabilistic climate change projections [include methods based on] large model ensembles that provide projections consistent with observations of climate change and their uncertainties. [..] Short-term projections are similarly constrained by observations of recent trends. [AR4 TS.5]
It is therefore common to adjust parameter values [..] in order to optimise model simulation of particular variables or to improve global heat balance. This process is often known as ‘tuning’. [AR4 8.1.3.1]
Results from forward calculations are used for formal detection and attribution analyses. In such studies, a climate model is used to calculate response patterns (‘fi ngerprints’) for individual forcings or sets of forcings, which are then combined linearly to provide the best fit to the observations. [AR4 9.1.3]
The problem here is that observations include temperature measurements and factors that relate to temperature, and many of these can only be used by assuming that they are caused directly or indirectly by CO2. So we have the absurd situation that the climate models supposedly show the 20th century warming to have been caused by CO2, but key elements in the models are themselves based on the implicit assumption that the warming was caused by CO2. In mathematics, that’s the ‘circular logic’ fallacy.
Components of ECS
Well, let’s look further into ECS and how it is arrived at. ECS has three major warming components :
- The warming generated by CO2 itself. This comes from increased downward infra-red radiation (IR) from increased quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere. This was described originally by Arrhenius [5], and is generally accepted as very solid physics by climate scientists and climate “sceptics” alike. The generally accepted value of this component is 1.2, ie. the forcing from doubled CO2 on its own would raise global temperature by 1.2 degrees.
- Water vapour feedback. The theory is primarily that the increased temperatures caused by increased levels of CO2 will increase the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere . Water vapour is itself a greenhouse gas, so this will cause further warming. (AR4 TS.2)
- Cloud feedback. The hypothesis is that as temperatures rise, clouds change in a way that further increases temperature.
The warming from these components is eventually balanced (“equilibrium”) by the increased rate of heat loss that comes from the higher temperatures.
Quantification
The IPCC report AR4 quantifies the feedbacks in para 8.6.2.3 :
Using feedback parameters from Figure 8.14, it can be estimated that in the presence of water vapour, lapse rate and surface albedo feedbacks, but in the absence of cloud feedbacks, current GCMs would predict a climate sensitivity (±1 standard deviation) of roughly 1.9°C ± 0.15°C (ignoring spread from radiative forcing differences). The mean and standard deviation of climate sensitivity estimates derived from current GCMs are larger (3.2°C ± 0.7°C) essentially because the GCMs all predict a positive cloud feedback (Figure 8.14) but strongly disagree on its magnitude.
So – if CO2 raises the temperature by 1.2 degrees, then water vapour and related changes will raise the temperature a further 0.7 degrees (1.9 – 1.2), and clouds will change in a way that raises temperature another 1.3 degrees (3.2 – 1.9).
Water Vapour Feedback
The atmosphere’s ability to hold water vapour increases with temperature increase. AR4 FAQ3.2 :
a well-established physical law (the Clausius-Clapeyron relation) determines that the water-holding capacity of the atmosphere increases by about 7% for every 1°C rise in temperature.
This leads to increased precipitation [3]:
Our 50-year observed global surface salinity changes, combined with changes from global climate models, present robust evidence of an intensified global water cycle at a rate of 8 ± 5% per degree of surface warming. This rate is double the response projected by current-generation climate models
Wentz et al 2007 [2] indicates that the water cycle increase in the climate models is even lower (1% to 3%).
So – the climate models have far too low a value for the water cycle increase. Why does this matter? An increased water cycle transfers more energy from the surface to the troposphere, thus more energy is lost to space, and hence the temperature is reduced. By placing the water cycle increase at an unrealistically low level, the climate models operate on an unrealistically high feedback, and hence on an unrealistically high ECS.
Support for this analysis also comes from Forster and Gregory [8] :
There is preliminary evidence of a neutral or even negative longwave feedback in the observations, suggesting that current climate models may not be representing some processes correctly if they give a net positive longwave feedback.
The Cloud Feedback Challenge
The challenge that the cloud feedback hypothesis has to overcome is that no-one really knows how clouds behave or what effect they have on temperature.
The IPCC has a lot to say about clouds in its AR4 report :
TS.4.5 – Cloud feedbacks (particularly from low clouds) remain the largest source of uncertainty.
Box TS.8 – parametrizations are still used to represent unresolved physical processes such as the formation of clouds and precipitation [..] Uncertainty in parametrizations is the primary reason why climate projections differ between different [climate models].
TS.6.4.2 – Large uncertainties remain about how clouds might respond to global climate change.
7.5.2 – Cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates and the relatively poor simulation of boundary layer clouds in the present climate is a reason for some concern
8 – Executive Summary – important deficiencies remain in the simulation of clouds and tropical precipitation (with their important regional and global impacts).
8.3.1.1 – Outside the polar regions, relatively large [re mean surface temperature] errors are evident in the eastern parts of the tropical ocean basins, a likely symptom of problems in the simulation of low clouds. The extent to which these systematic model errors affect a model’s response to external perturbations is unknown, but may be significant
8.3.1.1.2 – Given that clouds are responsible for about half the outgoing SW radiation, these errors are not surprising, for it is known that cloud processes are among the most difficult to simulate with models
8.6.3.2.1 – The sign of the climate change radiative feedback associated with the combined effects of dynamical and temperature changes on extratropical clouds is still unknown.
That was just a small selection of the IPCC’s statements on the knowledge of clouds – see [4] for the full set. And they don’t even know how much cloud there is:
3.4.3.2 – the effects of known and unknown artefacts on ISCCP cloud and flux data have not yet been quantified. Other satellite data sets show conflicting decadal changes in total cloud cover [..] In summary, while there is some consistency between ISCCP, ERBS, SAGE II and surface observations of a reduction in high cloud cover during the 1990s relative to the 1980s, there are substantial uncertainties in decadal trends in all data sets and at present there is no clear consensus on changes in total cloudiness over decadal time scales.
Cloud effect on radiation
Clouds affect temperature primarily by intercepting incoming and outgoing radiation. The basic mechanisms are conceptually simple :
In simple terms, there is a very neat symmetry. At Earth’s surface, for a given change in cloud cover, the percentage change in outgoing re-emitted radiation that is direct is the same as the percentage change in incoming absorbed radiation that is direct. Similarly for indirect radiation. So there is no net change.
Now that is indeed over-simplified, but the incoming vs outgoing differences are very subtle (no wonder the climate models have problems with them). The chief differences are
1. Incoming and outgoing radiation contain both shortwave (SW) and longwave or infra-red (IR), but the proportion of IR in outgoing radiation is higher. So clouds can theoretically have a net effect if they affect SW and IR differently. NASA Earth Observatory [1] gives a good explanation.
2. The distributions of incoming radiation and outgoing radiation are slightly different. They are both greatest at the tropics and least at the poles, but there is a difference. So clouds can theoretically have a net effect if their distribution changes.
Calculation of cloud feedback
From AR4 8.6.2.3 as quoted above, cloud feedback supposedly contributes 1.3°C ± 0.55°C to ECS (to 3.2°C ± 0.7°C from 1.9°C ± 0.15°C). Note that the low end of the range is strongly positive, even though they admit in AR4 8.6.3.2.1 (quoted above) that they don’t even know what sign it has!
Given how subtle the effect of clouds is, and given that there is so little known about it, how is this 1.3°C ± 0.55°C cloud feedback calculated?
The answer is given in the IPCC quotes above – they simply guess :
parametrizations are still used to represent unresolved physical processes such as the formation of clouds and precipitation [..] Uncertainty in parametrizations is the primary reason why climate projections differ between different [climate models].
Basically, there is an up-front assumption that virtually all of the 20th-century global warming was caused by CO2 (“How ECS is estimated”, above). In order to satisy that assumption (as quoted above, they call it “tuning”), they have to find about three times as much warming as they can get from CO2 itself (ECS 1.2). They speculate that water vapour contributes a further 0.7 of ECS, although, as explained above, this needs some pretty heroic assumptions about the water cycle. They then fiddle with the cloud parameters until they get the results they desire. The process is not supported by actual physics. That is why the models all differ so much in their treatment of clouds.
An additional curiosity is that an increased water cycle would suggest more clouds, not less, making a high positive cloud feedback even less likely. As NASA Earth Observatory [1] says:
The balance between the cooling and warming actions of clouds is very close although, overall, averaging the effects of all the clouds around the globe, cooling predominates.
Logically, a cloud feedback of +1.3 degrees looks like a very long stretch indeed.
Conclusion
Climate models’ estimations of ECS are implicitly based on the assumption that the 20th century warming was caused by CO2. Therefore any assertion that the models show that the 20th century warming was caused by CO2 is invalid (circular logic).
In addition, the climate modellers and the IPCC have
(a) used an unrealistically low water cycle, resulting in an unrealistically high value for CO2-driven global warming, and
(b) built on the almost complete lack of knowledge about clouds, in order to claim that clouds add a large amount to CO2-driven global warming.
The reality is that a doubling of CO2 would of itself raise the global temperature by about 1.2 degrees (this part of CO2 science is pretty solid and generally accepted), plus or minus an unknown but probably modest amount of feedback from water vapour etc, and from clouds. Knowledge in this area is so weak that even the sign of the feedback is not known.
In other words, of the mid-range claimed ECS of 3.2 degrees per doubling of CO2, nearly two-thirds is either unrealistic or sheer speculation.
Footnote
One final point; a delicious irony (mathematically speaking) :
· As shown above, there is an implied assumption in the models that CO2 is the principal driver of global temperature. That assumption is demonstrated very clearly in Part 1, where all of the post-industrial warming is assumed to be caused by CO2.
· But when the results of the models are then compared to past surface temperatures, as was done in Part 2 and Part 3, it is found that CO2 plays little part in temperature change.
So, the assumption that CO2 is the principal driver of global temperature leads to the finding that it isn’t.
Mike Jonas (MA Maths Oxford UK) retired some years ago after nearly 40 years in I.T.
References
[1] NASA Earth Observatory, Clouds and Radiation http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Clouds/
[2] Wentz et al, How Much More Rain Will Global Warming Bring?, https://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5835/233.abstract Science 13 July 2007: Vol. 317 no. 5835 pp. 233-235 DOI: 10.1126/science.1140746
[3] Durack et al, Ocean Salinities Reveal Strong Global Water Cycle Intensification During 1950 to 2000, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6080/455 Science 27 April 2012: Vol. 336 no. 6080 pp. 455-458 DOI: 10.1126/science.1212222
[4] The full set of IPCC AR4 statements about clouds is at IPCCOnClouds (PDF)
[5] Arrhenius, S., 1896: On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature on the ground, Philos. Mag., 41, 237–276.
[6] Lacis ert al, Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.abstract Science 15 October 2010: Vol. 330 no. 6002 pp. 356-359 DOI: 10.1126/science.1190653
[7] R B Alley, The biggest control knob: carbon dioxide in Earth’s climate history, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009AGUFM.A23A..01A American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2009, abstract #A23A-01
[8] Piers Mde F. Forster and Jonathan M. Gregory, 2006: The Climate Sensitivity and Its Components Diagnosed from Earth Radiation Budget Data. J. Climate, 19, 39–52. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3611.1 http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI3611.1
Abbreviations
AR4 – (Fourth IPCC report)
AR5 – (Fifth IPCC report)
CO2 – Carbon Dioxide
ECS – Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity
IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IR – Infra-red (Radiation)
SW – Short Wave (Radiation)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The climate models have been making poor predictions for decades.
The reason for that is they falsely assume CO2 is the “climate controller”, apparently starting in 1976, the magical year when 4.5 billion years of natural climate changes suddenly stopped, and CO2 took over !
An explanation of those climate models is a waste of time, since we know they have no predictive ability.
The models should be ridiculed, not studied and explained.
This series tried to explain the climate models.
So reading the articles was a waste of time.
The comments were much better then the original articles.
The author also makes this unproven, speculative statement in his conclusion:
“The reality is that a doubling of CO2 would of itself raise the global temperature by about 1.2 degrees (this part of CO2 science is pretty solid and generally accepted) …”
I would like the author to explain how he “knows” a doubling of CO2 from 100 to 200 ppmv would increase the temperature by +1.2 degrees? (not specified, but I assume he meant Centigrade degrees)
I would also like the author to explain how he “knows” a doubling of CO2 from 200 to 400 ppmv would cause exactly the same +1.2 degrees increase?
It’s amazing how this author “knows” exactly what effect rising CO2 has on the rising temperature, to the nearest one tenth of a degree, while scientists all over the world don’t know this, and can only speculate on how quickly the “greenhouse effect” fades away as CO2 levels increase.
.
Some scientists believe most of the “greenhouse effect” is from the first 20 ppmv of CO2 in the air.
No one knows for sure whether CO2 rising above 400 ppmv would have enough of a “greenhouse effect” to be measurable.
But I guess the author “knows”.
I would also like the author to explain why he stoops so low that he must use a logical fallacy (appeal to authority) to justify this unproven, speculative statement in his conclusion = “(this part of science is pretty solid and generally accepted)”.
Geologists generally believe CO2 levels in the air during the past few hundred years are among the lowest levels in Earth’s history.
If they are correct, that means CO2 was at times much higher than today, yet there was no indication of any runaway greenhouse warming — in fact some geologists claim there were ice sheets at times when CO2 levels were similar to, or much higher, than today.
Do you arbitrarily dismiss all the work, of all geologists, concerning estimates of past CO2 levels?
A hint for the author, on clear thinking:
Forget all the math for a moment, and think about what the climate modelers are trying to do: They are trying to predict the climate up to 100 years into the future.
Now think about how often “experts” are correct when they try to predict the future — studies have shown their predictions are WORSE than flipping a coin.
We now have four decades of bad predictions from climate models — it’s not like they were invented this year — so we already KNOW they don’t predict the future well — and that means we didn’t need a four-part article to tell us that.
I’m happy to be proved wrong on this, but in all the years that I have been reading about climate science from all sides, there really has been general agreement on the general impact of CO2 on its own. So the statement that you take objection to wasn’t an appeal to authority but meant to be an indication that I was not taking issue with this particular element. I also find your repeated use of “exactly” curious, since my words were “about 1.2 degrees”. I accept that “about 1 degree” might have been better, but (a) the IPCC figure is 1.2 and (b) I didn’t want to be accused of deliberately understating it.
So, while I accept that I could have explained myself better, I submit that (a) this particular value is at the fringe, and (b) you have not understood the thrust of the articles. re (b) : you say “This series tried to explain the climate models. So reading the articles was a waste of time.” but the series wasn’t an explanation of the climate models but a test of them, and it concluded that the models were based on circular logic and that “the assumption that CO2 is the principal driver of global temperature leads to the finding that it isn’t.“.
I agree that many comments have been good, but I’ll let your “better” go through to the keeper.
BTW the only way this nonsense gets the traction that it does is because the fox is guarding the hen house. The corruption in the “climate science” and some of the other social “sciences” is at best narrative promotion rather than real science. They start with a conclusion, and then work backward. The best way to solve this problem is to apply sound scientific methods of analysis to any research that is used to forward a political agenda and will require spending the public’s money. As it stands right now the elitist liberals/left wind activists that masquerade as “scientists” at our universities act as if the public treasury is their private bank accounts to fund their private agendas. What is needed is a Scientific Conclusion Verification and Validation Agency to test the validity of the research used to support a public policy. The role of the agency would to treat the research in the same manner a drug company gets FDA approval. The data and conclusion would be handed over, the data would be maintained in its original state and also scrambled to provide a “placebo” or “control.” The data would be stripped of any titles and they handed over to “blind” researchers to “test.” The results would then be reported and if the reported conclusion of this double blind testing doesn’t match the conclusion reached by the researchers, the funds would need to be returned, and the researchers would face possible prosecution. Facts are the Climategate emails expose outright fraud, and yet nothing is done about it. Nothing is done about it because the Universities face the possibility of loosing funding if this gravy train called Climate Change ever is exposed. That is a corrupt system and sooner or later it will be exposed. Thankfully if looks like we are headed for a few more decades of cooling, and if that happens, people will be forced to ask the questions to get to the bottom of how we wasted trillions of dollars on a lie. Climate change is a modern day Piltdown man, a modern day lyschenko. It is a fraud, and most be exposed. Once again, to accomplish that we need to have a Federal Agency that performs double blind tests on the data and conclusions reached by the researchers that receive public money.
The doubling CO2 is estimated from radiative flux measured by satellites at average 3.7W/m2. This is a generally accepted in climate science and corresponds to 1 c rise per doubling, but it has one problem that’s seriously doubts it.
Radiative flux is dependent on radiation pressure which in turn is hugely affected by atmospheric pressure. With atmospheric pressure remaining very constant this flux is treated as fact for CO2.
The main problem is how can we say the flux for CO2 is right when it is dependent on atmospheric pressure. How do we know how much of this is due to atmospheric pressure or CO2? For example if it was down to 50% of the atmospheric pressure than CO2 would only have a flux of 1.85 W/m2. In this scenario a doubling of CO2 would only give 0.5 c.
How are we sure it is wrong? If we use 3.7 W/m2 flux on any other planets in the solar system this value fails.
Only takes 12 doubling s of CO2 from current levels now (~400 ppm) to reach an atmosphere with 82% CO2. Earth in this scenario would have average temperature of 297 k. Venus has atmosphere 96% CO2 but has a average temperature 720 k. Clearly Earth is not going to reach even another 100 k with further increases in CO2 to match 96%. The 3.7W/m2 flux from CO2 only matches this planet at 1atm with current atmospheric composition, change it and it fails.
Sorry noticed would be 18 doubling to reach 52% CO2 and less than 19 for 96% atmosphere, but the principles behind the post still applies. [Earth 303 k at (52% CO2)]
I would hoist them by their own petard. The IPCC seems to support that number. The oceans have warmed by 1.0°C since 1910. Is there enough energy contained in 3.7W/M^2 to warm the oceans by a full 1°C? Simple answer…no way in hell.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/2005cal_fig1_s.gif
BTW, note how Ocean and Land temperatures march in lock step until 1985, and then begin to diverge. CO2 blankets the globe and can not cause a differential between land and sea. Something other than CO2 must be causing the divergence. My bet is that that something is the person adjusting the temperature data. To put it simply, there are statistical finger prints of fraud all over the data supporting the conclusions reached by the climate “scientists.”
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/global/2014/ann/timeseries/land-ocean-combined.png
The volume of the Oceans are “NOAA’s National Geophysical Data Center estimates that 321,003,271 cubic miles is in the ocean. That’s enough water to fill about 352,670,000,000,000,000,000 gallon-sized milk containers!”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/spht.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/imgheat/shta.gif
We know from Argo etc that the deeper ocean has only warmed by some tiny fraction of 1 deg. So your calcs need to be aimed at some ocean surface layer, not the whole ocean. Not saying you won’t get the same result, just that you’ve put in too much ocean.
Thanks Mike, that is a calculation I’m working on right now. That complicates the calculation, but I doubt it will make much difference. 13µ to 18µ don’t even penetrate to the surface of the ocean, so I don’t think the physics are there to even warm the first 1cm of the ocean. Does anyone know depth is used as the “surface” of the oceans to which the temperature measurement is referring to?
The IPCC only claim humans caused warming since 1980’s and during that time global temperatures have risen on average 0.4c.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1979/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1979/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/trend/plot/uah-land/from:1979/plot/uah-land/from:1979/trend/offset:0.3/plot/rss-land/from:1979/plot/rss/from:1979/trend/offset:0.12
The IPCC are the biggest cherry pickers in the game and ignore the rising CO2 levels caused by humans decades before this time.
http://www.therm-eco.com/energy/images/CO2_Levels.jpg
I agree the warming of oceans even up to 0.4 c is too much for 3.7 W/m2 over ~35 years especially because of latent heat more or less cancels it out. It only increases evaporation at the surface skin meaning slightly more cooling lost through latent heat. The temperature above in the ocean atmosphere away from land with high water vapor concentration is only up to 0.5 c warmer than the surface, so it is hardly ever going to warm it. Above that the air cools with the usual lapse rate above oceans. All this is part of the Earth’s natural negative feedback’s and why runaway warming has never happened in the past before.
“Does anyone know depth is used as the “surface” of the oceans to which the temperature measurement is referring to?“.
I think the surface temperature (SST) really is the temperature right at the surface. But if you are working with heat content in a surface layer, the obvious thing to use is the thermocline. That’s easier said than done because its depth is far from constant, but for your purposes I would think that a reasonable average should suffice.
Correction 11 doubling s of CO2 82%, Earth 296 k.
Brian G Valentine August 2, 2015 at 3:10 pm
1,000,000 ppm = 1% CO2
Correction 1,000,000 ppm =100% CO2, so yes was correct first time. (thanks Brian)
Anyone want to do the math? Here is how far I’ve gotten so far:
From the above equation Q=cmDeltaT.
The specific Heat is 4.186joules/gram, there are 352,670,000,000,000,000,000 gallon in the oceans. Each gallon weighs 3800 grams. That means it would take 1.38 X 10^20 joules to change the temperature of the oceans by 1°C. A joule is = Watt/sec. There are There are 3.15 x 10^8 seconds in 100 years, so it takes 4.4 x 10^ 28 Watts to warm the oceans. The surface of the oceans are 360,000 million square meters. Sorry, have to go to Soccer practice.
Don’t forget to include the extra amount of latent heat used in evaporating any extra water due to the 3.7W/M^2. I recall reading somewhere that about 1 meter / year of ocean is evaporated. How much extra should be added because of the extra 3.7W/M^2
Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
What happened to part 3 the link doesn’t work?
Sorry, the Part 3 link didn’t go in correctly. It’s at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/31/the-mathematics-of-carbon-dioxide-part-3/
The hard part is convincing any layman that, as CO2 increases and clouds increase, the increase in clouds will also increase the earth’s temperature. Tough argument that one.
Joni Mitchell had it right:
“I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now
From up and down, and still somehow
It’s cloud illusions I recall
I really don’t know clouds at all”
Passable CO2, is accused of becoming a genocidal, but has not yet determined the international tribunal, similar to what is located in The Hague to judge individuals on the basis of fake and well-paid “witnesses”. And why CO2 is to blame, because it needs to be eliminated to inject something better than nothing, “the judge genocide and their commanders” have great personal benefit, and this is opening up new sources of energy that they have good technology, such as they possessed in The Hague.
Only one nation is genocidal, and those who had previously decimated and the latest developments expelled from their homes, are exempt, so that in a future conflict could be used for the same purposes. Thus, CO2, should be placed in a new Hague and logistics companies, well rewarded. It is iterese entire čočječanstva who will not survive for long with these theories.
Hifalutn’ maths aren’t necessary, methinks. THE FOUR LAWS WITHOUT WHICH NOTHING WHATSOEVER THROUGHOUT THE UNIVERSE THAT HAPPENS, HAPPENS – at http://tinyurl.com/pvzva68 and a simple rule-of-three calculation at http://tinyurl.com/ot2hlp4 may illustrate.
Thanks Mike, looks like someone has already gone down a similar route.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sSnseCqFIqI/VY8geSRO9OI/AAAAAAAAEaQ/6NWjXNCIB9k/s400/GLOBAL%2BWARMING%2BSPREADSHEET%2B%25232.png
I would like to comment on the strength of CO2 as a GH gas, because I have published some studies on this subject. “co2is life” shows that CO2 really increases the absorption of LW radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface. Firstly I show Fig. 1, which shows the absorption graphs of major GH gases. http://www.climatexam.com/#!Dia1.JPG/zoom/c1vmg/image_1vfk
The curve of each GH gas in Fig. 1 above is calculated when it is the only gas in the average global atmosphere conditions. The total absorption is depicted by the purple line. Therefore for example the total absorption curve does not follow the green line of CO2 absorption curve, because it is essentially caused by the total absorption of H2O and CO2 present at the same time in the atmosphere. This figure shows that any impact of GH gases that could actually increase warming must do it in the wavelength zone from 7.5 µm to 14 µm in the so-called atmospheric window, because water absorbs totally LW radiation outside of this wavelength band.
The interesting feature is what happens to the total absorption curve, when the CO2 is doubled from 280 to 560 ppm. This is depicted in Fig. 2, where the curves are the net effects of CO2 absorptions: http://www.climatexam.com/#!Dia1.JPG/zoom/c1vmg/image_rdh
In Fig. 2 are depicted absorption graphs for various CO2 concentrations from 10 µm to 14 µm. In this wavelength zone 85-90% of absorption caused by increased CO2 concentrations occurs. Even by eye, it is easy to estimate that the absorption area increase from 379 ppm to 560 ppm is almost the same as the area from 280 ppm to 379 ppm. The warming effect is directly proportional to the total area caused by the GH gases between the x-axis and the total emission curve of the GH gases.
So what is the real warming impact of CO2? There have been references to the equation of Myhre et al.: RF = 5.35 * ln(C/280). I have found out only three papers also referred by IPCC on this relationship and one of these papers (Shi) specifies that the calculations were carried out in the constant RH conditions. My own calculations show the same thing. This relationship in the constant absolute humidity conditions is RF= 3.12 * ln(C/280). The transient climate sensitivity of CO2 calculated by IPCC is based on the double positive water feedback giving the average value of 1.85 degrees. My calculations give the value of 0.6 degrees (climate sensitivity parameter * forcing = 0.27 * 2.16 ~ 0.6 degrees). I get the same result using three different methods and two spectral calculator tools. I am not the only researcher showing these results (Monckton and Harde). Why many researchers get the CS value of about 1.2 degrees? Because they rely on Myhre’s equation without questioning that there is water feedback included.
Is this the final truth? It is not but it explains pretty well the errors in IPCC’s model. It is based on the double effects of water impact and therefore it is about three times too big (1.85 C versus 0.6 C). The CS value of 0.6 C is based on the constant absolute humidity of the atmosphere. From the humidity graphs like those of climate4you, we can see that even the constant humidity is not true.
The climate has strong negative feedback, because it can almost totally compensate different kind of disturbances. The Pinatube eruption is a good example. The insolation of the Sun decreased about 5 W/m2 during 1.5 years but the surface temperature effect was so small that it is difficult to notice from the annual fluctuations. The disturbance was bigger than the climate sensitivity value according to IPCC but the warming impacts were almost zero. The conclusion is: do not worry about the CO2, because the climate can compensate its effects.
co2islife August 3, 2015 at 5:05 am
The 3.7 W/m2 is for the TOA (top of atmosphere) and at the surface it is 1.0 W/m2.
The skin temperature is far less than 1 cm and only up to 1 mm and that’s why it would hardly ever warm the ocean to be noticeable.
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Minnett_2.gif
Wow, what a great source that compiles many of the flaws that I’ve highlighted in previous posts. This source pretty much confirms many of the scientific flaws we’ve been highlighting. Climate “science” is simply a fraud. When a non-Climate Scientist can identify the same flaws as an expert, that is pretty powerful evidence you are dealing with a fraud. Good science is simply good science. This “ain’t” good science.
http://www.climatexam.com/#!co2-contribution/c1vmg
Finally someone mentioned “Henry’s Law”
http://www.climatexam.com/#!Dia11.JPG/zoom/c1vmg/image_xhq
Thanks, that makes the case against CO2 even stronger. Facts are the Sun warms the oceans, and the oceans warm the atmosphere. It is that simple, and it has nothing to do with CO2.
BTW, thanks to who ever posted this link. It is a great source for testing these theories.
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
To address the surface vs the TOA issue. Change the settings to looking up and set it to 0.1km to be close to the surface. Double CO2 from 400 to 800 and use tropical and no rain or clouds. The downward flux changes by 2W/M^2. Now change the relative humidity by 10%. The downward flux changes by 7W/M^2. CO2 is immaterial when H2O is present.
Arrhenius and fellow Swede Nils Eckholm thought that the amount of CO2 released could be controlled by burning coal; Eckholm thought, the added warmth could prevent a new ice age beginning. Almost at once Swede Knut Anderson argued in favour of water vapour as the main culprit; Tyndall had argued that 40 years before. As a result the idea that CO2 was the key fell out of favour. We cannot control the amount of water vapour in the air it rises and falls with the temperature of the oceans. That must mean that the temperature of the Earth’s surface and any resulting climate change is something beyond our influence, and which just has to take its course. this argument is current too.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections and commented:
Part 4
Executive Summary:
Conclusion
Climate models’ estimations of ECS are implicitly based on the assumption that the 20th century warming was caused by CO2. Therefore any assertion that the models show that the 20th century warming was caused by CO2 is invalid (circular logic).
In addition, the climate modellers and the IPCC have
(a) used an unrealistically low water cycle, resulting in an unrealistically high value for CO2-driven global warming, and
(b) built on the almost complete lack of knowledge about clouds, in order to claim that clouds add a large amount to CO2-driven global warming.
The reality is that a doubling of CO2 would of itself raise the global temperature by about 1.2 degrees (this part of CO2 science is pretty solid and generally accepted), plus or minus an unknown but probably modest amount of feedback from water vapour etc, and from clouds. Knowledge in this area is so weak that even the sign of the feedback is not known.
In other words, of the mid-range claimed ECS of 3.2 degrees per doubling of CO2, nearly two-thirds is either unrealistic or sheer speculation.
Footnote
One final point; a delicious irony (mathematically speaking) :
· As shown above, there is an implied assumption in the models that CO2 is the principal driver of global temperature. That assumption is demonstrated very clearly in Part 1, where all of the post-industrial warming is assumed to be caused by CO2.
· But when the results of the models are then compared to past surface temperatures, as was done in Part 2 and Part 3, it is found that CO2 plays little part in temperature change.
So, the assumption that CO2 is the principal driver of global temperature leads to the finding that it isn’t.