Guest essay by Andy May
This version corrects an error in the average concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere.
The Earth’s dry atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 0.9% argon. These are not greenhouse gases and they total 99.9%, leaving little space for the greenhouse gases methane, carbon dioxide and water vapor. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere varies a lot with altitude and temperature. At low altitude and high temperatures (greater than 30°C or 86°F), over the ocean, it can reach 4.3% or more of the atmosphere and is less dense than dry air, causing it to rise. It will rise until the temperature is low enough for it to condense to a liquid or solid state and form clouds, rain or snow.
The amount of water vapor in the air drops to very close to zero when temperatures are below -10.0°C. Thus, the average volume of water vapor in the total atmosphere is variable and usually between 1% and 2%. So, excluding nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor and argon, we are left with 0.1% for everything else. Water vapor is a powerful radiative greenhouse gas and where the concentration is high, over the tropical oceans, it has a large radiative greenhouse effect. But, over land and in the cooler high latitudes, there is not enough of it to have a significant effect.
Carbon dioxide makes up 0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere and is more evenly distributed than water vapor. Nearly all of the radiative greenhouse effect in dryer areas is due to carbon dioxide, with a small contribution from methane. Methane makes up about 0.00018% of the atmosphere on average, it is distributed unevenly like water vapor. Over swampy areas with a lot of vegetation or over farms it can be high. Over most of the Earth it is essentially zero. Methane is very reactive and is removed from the atmosphere quickly after it is released.
Carbon dioxide, water vapor and methane are the main radiative greenhouse trace gases in the atmosphere. There are some other trace gases, like neon, krypton and xenon, but they are not greenhouse gases. The IPCC (WG1 AR5) likes to add N2O (nitrous oxide or laughing gas) to the greenhouse list. It is a gas emitted from oceans, soils, fertilizer and burning biomass. It is present in the atmosphere in very low concentrations (0.000032%) and is very reactive. It is a rocket fuel and a race car gasoline additive, after all. This volatility results in a very short atmospheric lifetime, so it is hard to understand how it could have much of a greenhouse effect. The gas is so safe it is approved as a food additive and as a propellant for whipped cream! Further, even the IPCC admits on page 468 of WG1 AR5, the added nitrogen increases natural CO2 sinks (basically increases plant growth) so the net effect of nitrous oxide may be to reduce the greenhouse effect. This post will focus on CO2.
Carbon dioxide is emitted when animals and some microbes breathe, from the oceans (which contain 93% of the carbon dioxide on Earth) and when plants or fossil fuels are burned. In the 1990’s fossil fuel emissions were about 3% of the carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere according to the EPA. About half of the fossil fuel emissions were absorbed by the environment. Mostly the CO2 emissions were absorbed by the oceans, land plants, and marine algae. Additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a powerful fertilizer, for a dramatic illustration of the effect, see this short youtube video. Figure 1 shows the impact of additional carbon dioxide on pine trees under controlled conditions. The four CO2 levels tested are, from left to right, 385 ppm, 535 ppm, 685 ppm, and 835 ppm.
Figure 1 (Pine trees grown at ambient CO2 and three higher CO2 concentrations under controlled conditions, source)
Additional carbon dioxide causes plants to produce fewer stomatal pores per unit of leaf area. Stomatal pores (or stomates) are how plants breathe in carbon dioxide and lose water and oxygen to the air. Fewer stomates mean less water loss due to evaporation, lower sensitivity to pollution, and more resistance to heat and cold. There is compelling evidence that the rising carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is a primary cause of observed recent greening of the Earth. Satellite data shows that the Earth is greener now than in the 1980’s by 6 to 13%. Dr. Ranga Myneni (Boston University) estimates a 14% increase in ecosystem productivity in the past 30 years. The IPCC WG1 AR5 Report discusses the CO2 fertilization effect on page 502. They estimate a greening of the Earth, due to warming and CO2, of 6%. This is at the low end of published estimates. On the same page of the report, they say:
“Thus, with high confidence, the CO2 fertilization effect will lead to enhanced NPP [net primary plant productivity], but significant uncertainties remain on the magnitude of this effect…”
Forests have expanded worldwide (Phillips, et al. 1998), due in part, to increased CO2. Figure 2 shows the rainforest growth rates for dryer and wetter areas in Australia’s Kakadu National Park.
Figure 2 (Craig Idso)
Figure 2 is from Banfai and Bowman (2006). Their aerial study of Australia’s Kakadu National Park found that the rainforest expanded 28.8% between 1960 and 2004. This expansion was mainly due to additional rainfall. But, more importantly they found that the dryer areas of the park increased 42%, whereas the wetter areas increased only 13%. The dryer area’s increase was consistent with the overall increase in CO2.
Figure 3 shows the greening of the African Sahel from 1982 to 2003.
Figure 3 (Craig Idso)
The NDVI values mapped in figure 3 are the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index. It was computed by Herrmann, et al. (2005) and they found that:
“…rainfall emerges as the dominant causative factor in the dynamics of vegetation greenness in the Sahel … [but] the vegetation greenness [was] beyond what would be expected from the recovery of rainfall conditions alone.”
The warming we have seen over the last 130 years or so has also had a positive effect on plant life. The warming of the planet allows plants to move farther north and south, expanding the vegetated area. The fact that plants grow more efficiently, are more resistant to temperature extremes, and with less water; allows them to encroach into areas that were previously unproductive deserts. There are numerous peer-reviewed studies supporting the greening of the Earth due to increasing carbon dioxide and warmer temperatures. You can find a good bibliography and a discussion of the literature in Dr. Craig Idso’s excellent online book The State of Earth’s Terrestrial Biosphere. Figure 4 illustrates the effect of additional CO2 and warmer temperatures on big tooth aspen leaves.
Figure 4 (Craig Idso, from Jurik et al. 1984)
In figure 4 notice that the peak productivity temperature increases from 25°C to 36°C at the higher CO2 concentration. As noted above, the additional CO2 means fewer stomates in the leaf and a greater resistance to drought and temperature extremes. One of the reasons global warming is unlikely to reduce plant productivity is that plant productivity rises with increased CO2 and the optimum productivity temperature increases as well. One critical fact that Dr. Idso discusses is that:
“Earth’s land surfaces were a net source of CO2-carbon to the atmosphere until about 1940. From 1940 onward, however, the terrestrial biosphere has become, in the mean, an increasingly greater sink for CO2-carbon. Over the past 50 years, global carbon uptake has doubled from 2.4±0.8 billion tons in 1960 to 5.0±0.9 billion tons in 2010.”
This is also acknowledged by the IPCC in WG1 AR5 on page 486, table 6.1. But, the IPCC reports much lower figures (2.7 billion tons for 2011) for the land biota CO2 sink. Even the lower number is important because it shows that CO2 absorption, by plants, is increasing as the available CO2 increases. As the book and the references show, the greening of the planet is due, in part, to increasing CO2 and warmer temperatures. In fact, it can be shown that increased CO2 and global warming have benefited the world and mankind. This net benefit may continue until 2080, even using the worst-case IPCC global warming scenario.
According to the IPCC WG1 AR5 Report (page 472), on average, CO2 molecules are exchanged between the atmosphere and surface every few years. Only a tiny fraction (2%) of the total CO2 on Earth is in the atmosphere. Most is stored in the oceans (93%) or in the soil and land plants (5%). So, the fact that both the land and the oceans are now absorbing more CO2 than in the past is important. Perhaps land and ocean uptake of CO2 will slow in the future, as the IPCC suggests, but this has not been demonstrated or observed to date except when vital nutrients are in short supply.
The IPCC WG1 AR5 later declares, alarmingly, on the same page (472), that removal of all human-emitted CO2 will take a few hundred thousand years. This assertion is only supported by geological evidence from the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum event 55 million years ago, when the average surface temperature was 22°C and the average CO2 atmospheric concentration was 800-1000 ppm. Their logic is convoluted and difficult to follow, but they seem to be saying that the CO2 is not gone until it is taken up by rocks. They completely ignore the likely increase in ocean and land biota that will occur due to extra CO2. Further, why do they assume that carbon dioxide removed from the air and stored in plants is still a problem? This is not explained and I find their arguments unconvincing.
In conclusion, additional CO2 has benefits that have not been fully considered by the IPCC. In doing any analysis of the impact of global warming due to man’s fossil fuel emissions, both the estimated benefits of additional CO2 and the estimated problems need to be accounted for. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but its net effect on global temperatures and mankind is unknown. CO2 has increased at a much higher rate in this century than in the latter part of the previous century. So far this century it has increased 2.1 ppm/year versus 1.5 ppm/year previously (see the slopes in figure 5, which are in ppm/year) yet temperatures have risen more slowly in this century (.0165°C/year now versus .0188 °C/year previously, figure 6). Figure 5 plots the yearly average carbon dioxide readings from the Mauna Loa Observatory, data is from NOAA here.
Figure 5 (source of data)
Figure 6 shows the yearly HADCrut 4.5 global ensemble median temperature anomalies, the data is from here. I deliberately included 2016 through October to capture the recent El Nino, since the trend for the previous century includes the 1998 El Nino. One must ask, if CO2 is the dominant driver of global warming, why does the rate of temperature increase go down when the rate of CO2 increase is rising?
Figure 6 (source of data)
Comparing two back-to-back 17-year trends is not, strictly speaking, comparing two climatic trends, the period is too short. But, there is certainly no compelling reason to spend billions of dollars in a futile attempt to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions based on the evidence before us today.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon are 99.9% of the atmosphere, how is there still room for water vapor to be between 1% and 2%?
As Andy explained, water vapor is not evenly distributed in the atmosphere…
Those percentages are measured for dry air, same as for CO2.
H2O isn’t included because it varies so much, from 40,000 ppm over the moist tropics to perhaps as low as 400 ppm over the poles in winter, ie from as low as CO2 concentration to 100 times as much.
IMO the average global level is more like three percent than one of two.
Chimp, I researched this for my last ebook. Global surface average is between 1.5 and 2 % specific humidity depending on season. Range is from near zero (south pole winter) to 4.2 %(equator over Amazon rain forest). Taking humidity altitude lapse rate into consideration, the atmosphere total is ~1%. And, surface SH over ocean (not land) does closely follow Clausius-Clapeyron equation prediction. Not over land (drier).
Ristvan,
For the whole atmosphere, no doubt you’re right. But for the troposphere, IMO it would be higher.
In winter at the poles, the stratosphere essentially comes down near or to the surface of the earth.
It is not specific but absolute humidity what counts for radiative effects. The saturation point changes with temperature, but for radiation every molecule counts.
Ristvan
There are two ways to calculate this: the volume-density-weighted water concentration (better to use ppm(v) in all cases, BTW) and the ‘average’ based on the total water vapour in the total atmosphere. You get my drift?
If you have a total water vapour mass (and if you like, a total water mass of water/ice particles, not vapour) you have one numerator. The total (wet) atmosphere is the denominator. That is a fair way to report it, but it might be very misleading when you want to calculate the effect of something taking place say in the bottom 3 km of the atmosphere.
The other way is the take the concentration in an equal mass regardless of volume and calculate an average water vapour concentration. This is the volume-density-weighted calculation which attempts to report some useful ‘average’. The bottom line is to produce some number that is the ‘average concentration’, say 4000 ppm, or the typical concentration you will encounter, say 10,000 ppm.
It is a pretty big difference. The average of 1,000,000 readings of humidity taken evenly within the total atmosphere, or the average readings in 1,000,000 equal masses of air taken within the total atmosphere. Any equal mass of upper air will have a really low reading compared with the surface.
It is my understanding that this accounts for the two cited figures for the ‘average’: 10,000 and 4,000 ppm.
That is for the …… DRY …… atmosphere.
there’s some Krypton and Xenon in the remainder.
g
The nitrogen, oxygen and argon percentages are of the dry atmosphere with water vapor removed. I had the same problem in the original version. You need to know what the percentage of water vapor is to compute percentages of the actual atmosphere and it varies, thus the problem.
Forrest,
Between Barrow, Alaska, near the North Pole and the measurements at the South Pole is the difference less than 10 ppmv, including a +/- 8 ppmv change at Barrow due to seasonal changes. In La Jolla Pier, near San Diego where Scripps measures since long, similar levels are found, but midst LA you can find 600 ppmv and more during rush hour… That is only in the first few hundred meters over land where cars, factories and vegetation have a huge impact. Higher over land and everywhere over the oceans, the distribution is within +/- 2% of full scale, which is quite nice, as one need to take into account that some 20% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is going in and out over the seasons…
Lots of data of CO2 and other gases for a lot of stations at:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/iadv/
CO2 appears fairly well mixed at high altitudes, but poorly mixed at low altitude.
So that begs a number of questions:
At what altitude does the majority of the DWLWIR come from?
Can we detect more DWLWIR in areas where CO2 is locally measured at say 600ppm compared to an area which has CO2 at say 400ppm?
Can we detect this extra DWLWIR actually warming something, eg in two adjacent areas one which has CO2 locally measured at 400 ppm and the other adjacent area say at 600ppm?
Where is the experimental evidence?
Forrest,
You are welcome… If you measure CO2 locally over land, you can find a lot of increase at night under an inversion layer without much wind: CO2 from soil/plant respiration gives a spectacular (500-600 ppmv and higher) increase that is not mixed with the rest of the atmosphere. Add to that the early morning traffic and you have a second peak. See Fig.12 from Diekirch, Luxemburg:
http://meteo.lcd.lu/papers/co2_patterns/co2_patterns.html
During the day, photosynthesis starts to work and CO2 levels drop, but less than what can be expected as at the same time the warming soil gives more turbulence in the atmosphere and more air from the “bulk” atmosphere is mixing in.
CO2 levels in the NH are indeed higher in the NH:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends_1995_2004.jpg
It takes time to mix any extra CO2 into higher altitudes and travelling from the NH to the SH is an extra hindrance…
Total human production remaining in the atmosphere is about 2 ppmv/year or 0.01 ppmv/day. Even with the best satellites it will be a hell of a job to detect that in only the main industrial areas…
richard verney,
You can use Modtran for a theoretical view. I have done that with 1000 ppmv CO2 up to 1000 meter high. The net – theoretical – result is an increase of less than 0.1°C. Thus simply undetectable for -much- lower concentrations below 1000 meter… You need the full 70 km air column to have any measurable – theoretical – effect: ~1.2°C for an increase from 280 to 560 ppmv…
Also regarding humidity at 0 C…Right now at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire it is -2.4 C and the humidity is 88% …?
and right now at Mount Washington, NH at -10 C the humidity is 100%…
Ref: https://www.wunderground.com/q/zmw:03589.1.99999
JPP, that would have to be Relative Humidity. The GHE is a function of Specific Humidity. Big difference.
Yes I know that is relative humidity – does that mean there is no humidity?
@J, philip
You must distinguish whether you are talking about ABSOLUTE or RELATIVE humidity. They are very different. Your “humidity” is really “relative humidity”.
I hope that this clarifies things a little.
Ian M
@ur momisugly Ian “I hope that this clarifies things a little.”
Not really, if the relative humidity is 100% at -10 C, what is the real humidity % wise in the air??
> Not really, if the relative humidity is 100% at -10 C, what is the real humidity % wise in the air??
Real humidity? I know of no definition for that.
Oh, are you asking for the percentage of water vapor (by mass? pressure?) in a handful of air?
By pressure and fairly cold temperatures, use this:
http://images.slideplayer.com/39/10843629/slides/slide_3.jpg
The vertical scale is in millibars, keep in mind that the air pressure at Bretton Woods and atop Mt Washington are below sea level pressure, that adds a whole extra dimension to relative humidity discussions.
At -10°C and 100% RH, that means water vapor would be some 3 mb. Current air pressure is 23.645″ hg, or 800 mb. So the water vapor::total air ratio would be 3/800 = 0.375% by pressure. Somewhat less by mass, water vapor is lighter than all other constituents of air.
Mount Washington weather conditions are at https://www.mountwashington.org/experience-the-weather/current-summit-conditions.aspx
@ur momisugly Ric, Thanks for that – it does explain that at these lower temperatures that the water vapor in the atmosphere is not zero. More than 400 ppm…
“The amount of water vapor in the air drops to very close to zero when temperatures are below -10.0°C. ”
A little off-topic, but this made me wonder how climate alarmists explain the higher rates of warming in polar regions, when the alleged water-vapor feedbacks are taken out of the picture because of the cold temps there, and thus the near-zero atmospheric humidity. I know that the majority of warming is supposed to be due to water vapor feedbacks, but shouldn’t that mean that the polar regions would warm more slowly, and the tropical regions warm much faster? In reality, the opposite is the case. Doesn’t that by itself undermine the claims of that warming is driven by high water-vapor feedbacks? Or has there been a significant increase in water vapor in the polar regions?
Yogi,
Maybe they argue that a fourth molecule of CO2 per 10,000 dry air molecules, up from three, warms the air at the poles, possibly also increasing water vapor from three to four molecules.
But of course, if the ice is still frozen, the extra water won’t appear in the insignificantly warmer air.
I don’t doubt that increased CO2 will produce warming due to radiative effects. of the order of 1C/doubling. The problem is the claims about huge water vapor feedbacks that account for most of the catastrophist claims of 3C+/doubling. If there is so little water vapor in the arctic, there should be an absence of water vapor feedbacks to amplify the direct radiative effects. Hence, not as much change in warming as in the tropics. But all the temp records including satellites show the opposite. How do the alarmists explain that? Can anyone?
You have the yogi before the broken.
It is NOT that the polar regions are WARMING faster.
What is going on is that they are COOLING slower.
Total BB radiation = sigma T^4 ; where sigma is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.
The polar regions are totally worthless at cooling the planet. They cool at only about 1/12 of the cooling rate for the North African dry hot deserts (and Arabian), well that’s at the extreme coldest spots like the Antarctic highlands.
G
Why they are “COOLING” slower?
By how much?
If we were to assume no change in “COOLING” (or heating) anywhere else, would this slower “COOLING” imbalance in the Arctic have any affect to the global thermometer or is it as you say totally worthless?
brokenyogi,
It is scientists and not climate alarmists who point to the Arctic amplification mechanism, precisely based in part on the low water content of the air there.
The explanation is very simple. Water absorbance overlaps CO2 absorbance, so CO2 increase has lesser effect the more water there is in the air. And conversely CO2 increase will have the highest effect in very dry air.
Further confirmation comes from the 5000 year unprecedented retreat in glaciers and small permanent ice patches. The air above glaciers is very cold and dry, and therefore the CO2 effect is maximal there.
Cryologists have little doubt that CO2 is warming the planet because they are seeing it in what they study.
Javier,
it is not the CO2 that causes the warming of the NH, as proven by my results.
it could be rather the quick movement of the N-pole more north, lately
http://modernsurvivalblog.com/pole-shift-2/alarming-noaa-data-rapid-pole-shift/
that would explain more or less what I am seeing happening
i.e. cooling here (South Africa) and no warming in the SH and no loss of ice in the Antarctic.
[the movement of the magnetic north pole must mean the movement of earth’s inner hot molten iron core]
Once again, this Documentary was way ahead of its time.
https://youtu.be/QowL2BiGK7o?t=15m59s
Thanks, co2islife, I’ve not seen that before. Nice description of the EPA “window insurance” involvement at 46:30
More trees and rain forests mean more atmospheric CO2. Trees through transpiration create huge amounts of atmospheric H2O. If CO2 does cause global warming, it is done through more trees, not trapping IR between 13 and 18µ. The “smoke” in the Smoky Mountains is transpiration from trees, and the release of VOCs.
http://www.visitmysmokies.com/blog/smoky-mountains/what-makes-the-smoky-mountains-smoky/
http://www.visitmysmokies.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Sunrise-photo-showing-what-makes-the-Smoky-Mountain-smoky.jpg
Actually, cloud nucleating VOCs cause the Great Smokey ‘smoke’ ( low cloud/fog). In pine forests, turpenes. In deciduous and tropical forests, isoprenes. In huge amounts. Beautiful picture of Nature’s own isoprene generated Great Smokey result.
We live in the worst of only two CO2 crashes in earth’s history. Life relentlessly removed CO2 from the environment, by making fossil fuels but mostly by making limestone, until it was nearly gone. Man to the rescue by burning fossil fuels. It almost makes one believe in divine guidance.
“At low altitude and high temperatures (greater than 30°C or 86°F), over the ocean, it can reach 4.3% or more of the atmosphere.”
I think this is not correct. Water vapor content over ground never exceeds about 3%.
“The highest dew point temperature on record occurred in July of 2003 at Dhahran, Saudi Arabia which reported a dew point of 35°C (95°F) with a coincident dry bulb of 42°F (108°F) (Burt 2004). These conditions equate to an atmospheric water vapor content of 3.3%.”
http://www.meefog.com/wp-content/uploads/Gas-Turbine-Inlet-Air-Fogging-for-Humid-Climates-FINAL.pdf
To get 4.3% water vapor one would need fully saturated air at 38°C or 50°C air at 55% relative humidity. I don’t think such conditions ever occur in nature on planet earth.
Have you really never been in the tropics?
Fully saturated air at 100 degrees F is normal.
> Fully saturated air at 100 degrees F is normal.
I’m having trouble finding records of dew point extremes.
https://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/record-dew-point-temperatures says:
Note that this wasn’t saturated air, however, the wet bulb temperature should be around 104°, so I’m sure it was plenty unpleasant.
Note it says “extremely rare.” I can’t find a reference for your claim, please provide examples.
I see I’m repeating Thomas, however, the URL I included is by Burt, so closer to the original source.
Chimp, I’ve been to the tropics many times. I also studied the climate of the tropics. 100 °F and saturated never occurs in nature.
Ric W., The paper I linked to (my paper, by the way) also references Burt. But it goes on to say, “Such records should not be taken as fact since numerous human-caused and natural factors can cause the microclimate around a particular weather station to result in readings that are not representative of the climatology of a region (for examples see http://www.surfacestations.org).”
My understanding is that super-saturation occurs only when the atmosphere is very clean with few cloud nucleating particles. That’s normally at high altitudes, which means the temperature is very cold, so moisture content would be low even if there were a high-degree of over saturation.
Thomas, I guess I better read your paper tonight. I trust I’ll get flamed if I use it as an example or burning water. 🙂
The two main instances of supersaturation I’m aware of are 1) high altitude areas, where a passing jet can leaves a contrail that grows instead of evaporating. I always check out contrails to see how humid the higher troposphere is. And 2) Svensmark’s hypothesis of cosmic ray triggered clouds refer to lowish maritime air that has been washed free of cloud condensation nuclei so that supersaturation occurs. Cosmic rays make muons, muons reach the ground (below ground!) but ionize air molecules on the way and cause clumping of dimethyl sulfide molecules that grow large enough to be cloud condensation nuclei. Or something like that. These make a cloud layer that reflects enough sunlight to make measurable cooling, according to the hypothesis.
Thomas
December 6, 2016 at 7:08 am
Pert’ near.
Some call it rain. 🙂 Actually, water vapor in air can be supersaturated, e.g. in clouds, fog, etc. http://radiometrics.com/data/uploads/2012/11/Korolev_JAS_03.pdf
Thomas: I live near Houston, Texas. I can assure you that we get >80% relative humidity at temperatures that exceed 100 deg F (37C) with relative humidity well over 55% (try 80%!) every summer. See here: https://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KHOU/2016/8/15/MonthlyHistory.html?req_city=&req_state=&req_statename=&reqdb.zip=&reqdb.magic=&reqdb.wmo=
Andy May:
Yours is a common misconception. You assume that the highest humidity of the day occurred at the same time as the highest temperature but this is not so. The highest humidity level usually occurs when the temperature is lowest and vice versa.
For example, in Houston on August 10, 2016, the highest temperature reading of 98 °F occurred at 3:53 PM and the relative humidity, at that time, was 40% (moisture content = 1.5%). On the same day the highest RH (90%) occurred at 6:53 AM, when the temperature was 80 °F (moisture content = 2%).
https://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KHOU/2016/8/10/DailyHistory.html?req_city=&req_state=&req_statename=&reqdb.zip=&reqdb.magic=&reqdb.wmo=
“Your’s is”
Thomas, I’ve seen several references to ~4% being the maximum and Rud Istvan also mentions it in this comment: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/05/co2-good-or-bad/#comment-2361288 . Perhaps not in Houston though, the highest I’ve seen in a quick look through the records of past two summers was 2.4% absolute August 20, 2015: rel humidity: 94, air temp 27, pressure 759. absolute humidity 2.4%. Apparently the highest dew point ever recorded was in Saudi Arabia, it was 95 deg F. Minnesota had a dew point of 86 once. In the Saudi Arabia case the absolute humidity is 3.7%
“Your’s is”
You got it right the first time, Thomas.
Dbstealey: Thanks … haha!
Thomas
“To get 4.3% water vapor one would need fully saturated air at 38°C or 50°C air at 55% relative humidity. ”
It is routinely above 40C in Jakarta, Indonesia and raining (>100% RH).
In India the same occurs in multiple places. Vietnam, Thailand, the list goes on.
I have no problem believing that the H2O vapour content is above 40,000 ppm in Jakarta. It is one of the worst places I have been for heat and humidity, and I get around. I hear from someone in the family that in Qatar the combination of 40-something temperatures and rain is not unknown. There is one reference I have which says the water temperature in that area is over 40C and there are corals that live at that temp.
Jakarta’s weather varies from ‘very humid’ to ‘muggy’. That is the annual range.
http://www.jakarta.climatemps.com/humidity.php
Believe it or not, Singapore is even worse. Very humid all year, hot and often pouring with rain. But my personal experience of Jakarta tops SG. It can be absolutely unbearable downtown.
Andy May: The highest dew point in Saudi Arabia was measured on 8 July 2003 at the King Abdulaziz Air Base at 13:00 hrs. and again at 16:00 hrs. I think these are an anomalous readings caused by an unusual micro climate near the sensor, perhaps due to jet exhaust, which can have up to 8% water vapor content because H2O is product of combustion of jet hydrocarbon fuels.
I don’t think the measurements are representative of the climatology of the area. For example, the highest dew point the day before was 81 °F and the day after it was 73 °F.
There can be isolated pockets of air that have very high moisture content but not region has a climate with 4% water vapor content occurring on a regular basis.
Crispin: I have visited to Jakarta, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, etc. probably more than 50 times in the past 25 years. It is a very hot and humid region but total water content is higher in the humid deserts of the Saudi peninsula. This is due to the fact that the surrounding seas are shallow so they heat up quickly and the fact that the temperature is higher than in the tropic, which are cooled by convention.
“It is routinely above 40C in Jakarta, Indonesia and raining (>100% RH).”
Rain showers usually reduce the ambient humidity because air from higher altitudes is brought down with the rain. The higher-altitude air may have been at 100% relative humidity when it was at altitude but it’s cold so it’s total moisture content is low. When it mixes with near-ground air, the result is lower humidity.
>100% RH would be super saturation and that occurs only in very clean, usual high-altitude air, that lacks cloud nucleating particles.
I’ve seen conditions in New Orleans where the sun baked the asphalt streets then a rain shower blew over. When the rain contacted the hot asphalt, a fog of “steam” formed. The vapor content of that air was probably very high, but again, it’s not representative of the regional climate.
Andy May: I just noticed that you are the author of the article! Thanks for the great contribution to WUWT. It’s a great article.
> It is routinely above 40C in Jakarta, Indonesia and raining (>100% RH).
I concur with Thomas. From my weather station, large raindrop storms (especially thunderstorms), the rain starts cold enough and falls fast enough to reach the ground before saturating the low-level air. On radar images the echoes match the surface rain. The radars miss 1-2 thousand feet overhead due to distance and topography.
On the other hand, snow falls so slowly and has such a large surface area that it rarely reaches the ground before the air saturates. The low water vapor pressure at low temperatures means that not much evaporation has to happen. I can generally tell from graphs of air temp and dewpoint when a snow storm started. Meanwhile, the radar images often show snow overhead for half an hour or so before I see it at ground level.
I like to pass on snow starting events to the NWS people at Gray Maine and TV mets at NECN to give them a good idea of the dry edge width on the ground. It’s well appreciated ground truth information.
Climate radicals have indicated a desire to turn the clock back to 1750, when CO2 emissions were of course much lower.
An inconvenient fact is that earth’s population in 1750 was less than a billion. If we (now SEVEN billion strong) were to live as they did in 1750 (burning wood to stay warm, cook), any guess as to what CO2 levels would be today?
Van Baker on December 5, 2016 at 8:08 pm
If we … were to live AS THEY DID in 1750 (burning wood to stay warm, cook), any guess as to what CO2 levels would be today?
Well Van Baker… I think there is some simple answer to your question, by depicting some aspects of the pre-industrial era:
– no electricity plants of 1GWel level;
– no big global industry, no cement plants;
– no goods transport all around the world;
– no motor driven cars, no big trucks, no trains, no motor driven ships, no airplanes.
My guess you certainly won’t accept: about 280 ppm.
That doesn’t mean I would “desire to turn the clock back to 1750”. Not at all !!!
re: “In the 1990’s fossil fuel emissions were about 3% of the carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere according to the EPA. ”
True, but misleading.
The natural emissions are balanced by natural absorption. The anthropogenic emissions were about 50% absorbed, increasing the ocean’s acidity, and the land biosphere’s carbon, and about 50% not absorbed, increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2.
What you say is true. The point of the article is, why is that a problem? Where is the evidence (excepting computer models that have yet to be validated) that increasing CO2 is a problem? It does have many benefits.
References:
Trenberth et al 2011jcli24
This popular balance graphic and assorted variations are based on a power flux, W/m^2. A W is not energy, but energy over time, i.e. 3.4 Btu/eng h or 3.6 kJ/SI h. The 342 W/m^2 ISR is determined by spreading the average 1,368 W/m^2 solar irradiance/constant over the spherical ToA surface area. (1,368/4 =342) There is no consideration of the elliptical orbit or day or night or seasons or tropospheric thickness, etc. This popular balance models the earth as a ball suspended in a hot fluid with heat/energy/power entering evenly over the entire ToA spherical surface. This is not even close to how the real earth energy balance works. Everybody uses it. Everybody should know better.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7373
“Technically, there is no absolute dividing line between the Earth’s atmosphere and space, but for scientists studying the balance of incoming and outgoing energy on the Earth, it is conceptually useful to think of the altitude at about 100 kilometers above the Earth as the “top of the atmosphere.” The top of the atmosphere is the bottom line of Earth’s energy budget, the Grand Central Station of radiation. It is the place where solar energy (mostly visible light) enters the Earth system and where both reflected light and invisible, thermal radiation from the Sun-warmed Earth exit. The balance between incoming and outgoing energy at the top of the atmosphere determines the Earth’s average temperature. The ability of greenhouses gases to change the balance by reducing how much thermal energy exits is what global warming is all about.”
ToA is 100 km or 62 miles. It is 68 miles between Denver and Colorado Springs. That’s not just thin, that’s ludicrous thin.
The GHE/GHG loop as shown on Trenberth et. al. is made up of three main components: upwelling of 396 W/m^2 which has two parts: 63 W/m^2 and 333 W/m^2 and downwelling of 333 W/m^2.
The 396 W/m^2 is determined by inserting 16 C or 279K in the S-B BB equation. This result produces 55 W/m^2 of power flux more than ISR entering ToA, an obvious violation of conservation of energy out of nothing. That should have been a warning.
341 W/m^2 enter ToA, 102 W/m^2 are reflected by the albedo, leaving a net 239 W/m^2 for ToA. 78 W/m^2 are absorbed by the atmosphere leaving 161 W/m^2 for the surface. To maintain the balance 160 W/m^2 rise from the surface (0.9 residual in ground) as 17 W/m^2 convection, 80 W/m^2 latent and 63 W/m^2 LWIR = 160 W/m^2. All power fluxes are now present and accounted for. The remaining 333 W/m^2 are the spontaneous creation of an inappropriate application of the S-B BB equation violating conservation of energy.
The 333 W/m^2 upwelling/downwelling constitutes a 100% perpetual energy loop violating thermodynamics. There is no net energy left at the surface to warm the earth, there is no net energy left in the troposphere to impact radiative balance at ToA.
The 333 W/m^2, 97% of ISR, upwells into the troposphere where it is absorbed/trapped/blocked by 0.04% of the atmosphere. That’s a significant heat load for that tiny share of atmospheric molecules and they should all be hotter than two dollar pistols.
Except they aren’t. The troposphere is cold, -40 C at 30,000 ft, 9km, <-60C at ToA. Depending on how one models the troposphere, average or variable density from surface to ToA, the S-B BB equation for tropospheric temperatures ranges from 150 to 250 W/m^2. A considerable way from 333.
But wait! The GHGs reradiate in all directions not just back to the surface. Say a statistical 33% makes it back to the surface that means 50 to 80 W/m^2. A long way from 333.
But wait! Because the troposphere is not ideal the S-B equation must consider emissivity. Nasif Nahle suggests CO2 emissivity could be around 0.1 or 5 to 8 W/m^2 re-radiated back to the surface. Light years from 333.
But wait! All of the above really doesn’t even matter since there is no net connection or influence between the 333 W/m^2 thermodynamically impossible loop and the radiative balance at ToA. Just erase this loop from the graphic and nothing else about the balance changes.
BTW 7 of the 8 reanalyzed (water board the data till it gives up the right answer) data sets/models show more power flux leaving OLR than entering ASR ToA or atmospheric cooling. Trenberth was not happy. Obviously, those data sets/models have it completely wrong because there can’t be any flaw in the GHE theory.
The GHE greenhouse analogy not only doesn’t apply to the atmosphere, it doesn’t even apply to warming a real greenhouse. It’s the physical barrier that traps convective heat, not some kind of handwavium thermal diode.
The surface of the earth is warm for the same reason a heated house is warm in the winter: Q = U * A * dT, the energy flow/heat resisting blanket of the insulated walls. The composite thermal conductivity of that paper thin atmosphere, conduction, convection, latent, LWIR, resists the flow of energy, i.e. heat, from surface to ToA and that requires a temperature differential, 213 K ToA and 288 K surface = 75 C.
The flow through a fluid heat exchanger requires a pressure drop. A voltage differential is needed to push current through a resistor. Same for the atmospheric blanket. A blanket works by Q = U * A * dT, not S-B BB.
Open for rebuttal. If you can explain how this upwelling/downwelling/”back” radiation actually works be certain to copy Jennifer Marohasy.
Nicholas,
“This result produces 55 W/m^2 of power flux more than ISR entering ToA, an obvious violation of conservation of energy out of nothing. That should have been a warning.”
Yes, there’s a problem, but COE is not violated since the origin of this extra flux is prior surface emissions which were captured and temporarily stored in the atmosphere by GHG’s and clouds only to be returned to the surface at a later time. The problem is lumping in energy transported by matter with energy transported by photons. The 396 W/m^2 of ‘upwelling’ are the photon emissions of the surface consequential to its temperature. The ‘downwelling’ includes the return of latent heat and thermals that also enter the atmosphere and this is energy transported by matter, which can’t otherwise escape the planet. The only effect these have is on the surface temperature, but the effect of this is already accounted for by the 396 W/m^2 of surface emissions, thus these components must have a net zero energy influence at the surface and no impact on the radiative balance. Many are confused by this level of obfuscation. The other thing Trenberth does is significantly underestimate the amount of energy that passes through the atmosphere without being absorbed by either GHG’s or clouds.
The relationship between atmospheric CO2 photosynthesis, in consequence also a bio-sinks, in the paper cited in reports IPCC is linear: rectilinear, exponential or logarithmic. Always, however, bio-sinks “no overtaking” CO2 emissions – increase atmospheric CO2. This is also linear.
It should, however – at first – to examine the most commonly occurring in the biosphere model of predator-prey – The Lotka-Volterra equations (“chasing” each other sinusoid). Here is a predator – organisms with photosynthesis, and the prey is of course: CO2. According to the theory of AGW, IPCC, this model is impossible to implement due to the boundary conditions. Mainly has run out of iron and phosphorus, and disaster associated with warming, have further reduced photosynthesis. Therefore, the main problem (for the adoption of the model L-V) is to prove that in ancient – geological times, the biomass of warm – bio-sinks, however, were many times larger than now (and it need to prove by the skeptics). An example of the difficulties is here: http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/2439/how-much-have-global-gpp-and-biomass-changed-over-earths-history.
Bio-sinks are much faster (see eg. to quickly remove a sharp increase in CO2, at the end of the glacial period) than, for example: Oolites, etc.
Paper by Knorr: Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?, 2009., it may indicate that we have to deal with the first phase of the sinusoidal model (no percentage increase the fraction of anthropogenic – in total emissions CO2).
It is worth knowing that the dispute regarding bio-availability of phosphorus and iron is very “sharp” and far from finished. However, it is also worth known that fossil fuels (of course after combustion) are an excellent source of iron: “Iron solubility driven by speciation in dust sources to the ocean, Schroth et al., 2009.: “We conclude that spatial and temporal variations in aerosol iron speciation, driven by the distribution of deserts, glaciers and fossil-fuel combustion, could have a pronounced effect on aerosol iron solubility and therefore on biological productivity and the carbon cycle in the ocean.”
I could not find any AGW from CO2 as explained here.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/24/the-bray-hallstatt-cycle/#comment-2356986
could even be that the net effect of more CO2 is that of cooling rather than warming…
[to see that CO2 is also cooling the atmosphere, note the Turnbull report quoted earlier by me to Andy May.
Henry on December 6, 2016 at 3:23 am
Henry, I’m all but a specialist in the domain. But as far as I have understood the majority of the publications I read until now (and there was quite a lot of them), the effect of CO2 seems to be twofold:
– its increase in the lower atmosphere contributes to the warming of water vapor, what manifestly results in more water vapor there;
– in those higher atmospheric regions where water vapor is absent (due to both precipitation and a lack of atmospheric pressure, about 1% of that at Earth’s surface), CO2’s presence is the garant of a continuous heat release out to space.
I intituively guess that without a minimum of CO2 we couldn’t manage to survive:
– either we would freeze dut to an exceeding level of water vapor precipitation, or
– we would burn due to an insufficient amount of heat release.
Pure layman’s opinion, that’s evident. Take it as it is, with caution 🙂
And this reduction in plant growth at low CO2 concentrations does not take into account the reducing partial pressure of CO2 with altitude. When CO2 concentrations reached 190 ppm during the ice age maximum, plants at high altitude experienced even less equivalent concentrations, and were starved of a vital nutrient. Thus large areas of uplants were turned into CO2 deserts, creating vast dust storms. It was this dust, and the consequent lowering of ice sheet albedo, that ended the ice ages.
This article tends to support my conclusion that the primary forcing in climate change is best represented by the symbol … $$$.
from willhaas
“The idea has been that added CO2 causes warming which in turn causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which causes more waming because H2O is also a greenhouse gas with LWIR absorption bands. The additional waming then causes even more H2O to enter the atmosphere which causes more warming which causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere and so on. Actually an increase in CO2 is not required to set this off. (1) An increase in H2O itself which happens all the time would set off the chain reaction. If this really happened we would not be here. (2)The reality is that H2O is really a coolant so adding H2O to the atmosphere lowers and not raises temperatures”
1. Agreed there is nothing magic about CO2, anything that increases temperature/H2O vapor will start this feedback.
2. Wrong, it does happen here. The climate system/atmosphere on earth has an UNLIMITED amount of H2O vapor/liquid to work with. (the oceans) The vertical circulation driven by differential heating and cooling moves saturated air to cooler high altitudes where it condenses into clouds. This removes it from the (IR)water vapor feed back system. The water vapor feedback as normally referred to is the clear air IR part of the system only. The addition of CO2 cannot cause what already exists and since the effect is as you say to cool through the negative feedback of clouds and high altitude IR emission to space, no CO2 problem exists.
So, now that we solved that, we can move on the the next great problem of the day, right 🙂
It is not just clouds that cause the negative feedback. According to energy balance models. more heat energy is moved from the Earth’s surface to where clouds form, and yes radiate to space, by H2O via the heat of phase change then by both LWIR absroption band radiation and convection combined. The fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly lower than the dry lapse rate is further evidence of H2O’s cooling effect. The net feedback has to be negative for the climate to have been stable enough for life to have evolved because if not H2O alone would have been sufficient to have triggered runaway global warming causing the oceans to boil away, causing the atmosphe to be more massive then that on Venus and hence the Earth’s surface would have become hotter than the surface of Venus, but such has never happened on Earth.
Great point. Venus has no free water, instead it has sulfuric acid and sulfur trioxide, aka oleum. Much higher boiing point and density.
Anyone using the Venus analogy must consider the oleum difference. As in a boiling point of 280 C . Yes, it is a rather violent acid. No wonder probes don’t last long 😉
EPA’s answer: Higher CO2 concentrations shrink researchers.
This appears to be somewhat old news at one blog, but I just discovered it, and given its probable obscurity to many others, I thought it might bear repeating here’
S. I. Rasool and S. H. Schneider, Institute for Space Studies, Goddard Space Flight Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate
Science 09 Jul 1971: Vol. 173, Issue 3992, pp. 138-141
http://vademecum.brandenberger.eu/pdf/klima/rasool_schneider_1971.pdf
How times change.
That has been noted here, and that Schneider hopped on the CACA band wagon as soon as it left the station, replacing the cooling gravy train. Meanwhile, he rode the nuclear winter scare to notoriety.
Didn’t you see that your copy&paste is dated 1971? How much do you think is known inbetween about that?
Just a detail: there is no “saturation” effect.
Bindidon
December 7, 2016 at 7:45 am
Didn’t you see that your copy&paste is dated 1971? How much do you think is known inbetween about that?
Right, we now know that your “The Science” of CO2-Climate Change is Scientifically Falsified by its [100%] Prediction Failure in real science’s real world of empirical data.
Meanwhile, what are you, Bindidon, personally doing in the real world you live in to decrease your own “CO2 Footprint”? Is it mere Crickets vs Your Own CO2 Apocalypse?
JPeden on December 7, 2016 at 8:35 am
Sorry for the response, but you are yourself the origin of it.
This, JPeden, is the typical pavlovian answer of those I call the boring skeptics (i like sound skepticism, and from that you stay half an AU away).
There was no hint on my meaning about CO2. A meaning which I myself consider be irrelevant due to my lack of knowledge concerning this extremely difficult and intricate context.
What I have underlined in my answer to Robert Kernodle is that (in fact independently of the matter discussed) it is not very meaningful to refer on 45 years old scientific results.
“Bindidon December 7, 2016 at 1:12 pm”
I hereby denounce myself for not realizing that I was trying to herd cats!
JPeden on December 7, 2016 at 3:36 pm
Thanks JP for the pretty good humor.
Meanwhile, what are you, Bindidon, personally doing in the real world you live in to decrease your own “CO2 Footprint”?
Not much! But at least I managed 10 years ago to stop this stoopid driving a car every morning / evening, and to switch to public transport 🙂
Andy: You can go to the website below and simulate OLR (or DLR) from any atmosphere with whatever GHG concentration(s) you and temperature you want. For example, you can zero out all of the other GHGs and just look at normal water vapor vs no water vapor in a sub-arctic winter atmosphere or a tropical atmosphere. It usually makes sense to study one GHG at a time and then move on to mixtures that are relevant to our atmosphere.
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
Does anyone know if the pictures of the four pine trees are from a real experiment? Is there a picture of the four (similar) trees before CO2. Doing this multi-year experiment would take a lot of time and equipment – a lot more than just staging picture with four signs and trees of different height. A real experimenter presumably would be proud to document how the experiment was performed.
frank
I don’t know about the pine trees
I do know that in Holland they add about 1000ppm of CO2 in the greenhouses to get much bigger tomatoes.
this type of technology is not generally known because many try to keep it secret for understandable reasons….
Except for the makers of CO2 generators who advertise their technology to commercial greenhouse growers.
Of course with the potential for increased growth comes the caveat that other nutrients become limiting to growth so nitrates/phosphates etc may need to be added to achieve larger crops.
hallo Phil.
long time no see
haven’t been not sick or anything?
It is good to see you understand the basics of biology and that more CO2 together with other nutrients is better….
Great article. I keep wondering if anyone pays attention to the calculus of missing carbon.
Figure 3 shows the greening of the African Sahel from 1982 to 2003.
?w=627&h=342
Sorry: this is bare manipulation à la Craig Idso. No wonder: this person is known to have best relations to institutions like Heartland Institute, and to big coal mining companies.
I have no problem at all with people pushing hard on CO2 promotion. But I say to them:
« Please keep countries like the Sahel zone off your bloody manipulations. »
I’ve been there, and Sahel looks rather like this:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1029/2002GL016772/asset/image_n/grl16703-fig-0004.png?v=1&t=iwf1wtg3&s=d081a7b6c87a351b385cf02088498193879006b4
Above picture I found in the following article concerning Sahel:
Vegetation index trends for the African Sahel 1982–1999 (Lars Eklundh, Lennart Olsson 2003)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002GL016772/full
It is evident that the character sequence “CO2” does not appear at any line in the paper.
Sahel’s slow (re)greening is solely due to rainfall and – by far more important – to the notable effort spent there in the last 30 years to increase tree planting and water storage.
Surprisingly, even people like Eklundh and Olsson felt some need to extend the Sahel zone pretty good southwards (Sahel rather ends at the latitude of Dakar, Senegal).
To cut a long story short, this has NOTHING to do with CO2 increase.
If the world had a magic wand and could reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere back to the good old days of say 1945 then according to satellite and other measures plant productivity across the world would decline by 20-30% at a minimum. That means mass starvation.
The IPCC’s prediction of lower plant productivity in 2080 is based on extremely bad science.
1) Genetics and other standard research into plant productivity is producing massive gains that have tripled overall productivity of plants since 1945 or so.
2) Industrial countries spend 2% of GDP on food production. Even if there was a decline this is not a big problem as the slightest increase in spending would compensate.
3) We are likely to have a food surplus by 2080 given current trends and increasing productivity from higher temps and increased co2 so that any decrease will hardly be relevant.
4) increased co2 improves not only plant productivity but also drought resistance assuming more droughts. A recent peer reviewed study showed that this completely cancels the effects of lower prodictivity due to projected model temperatures.
5) Projected model temperatures are way way off and based on unrealistic senstivity to Co2. So temperatures will never get to the levels they predict they think will hurt plant productivity which the previous article showed wouldn’t happen anyway.
Due to these extremely powerful reasons the IPCC’s prediction of food productivity decline in 2080 is one of the most laughable and worst predictions they’ve made (which is saying something.)
Moreover, as pointed out in my first paragraph we would probably be welcoming additional CO2 and be completely uninterested in reducing CO2 levels. It is the most natural organic plant fertilizer available and we may find ourselves in 2080 burning fossil fuels to keep the CO2 level in the atmosphere elevated forever just because it’s the cheapest way to keep the planet warm and fed.
https://logiclogiclogic.wordpress.com/
Jesus how old are you logic*3?
You remember me these ridiculous people telling us in the last century’s Sixties that “the fission of 1 kg uranium liberates as much energy as burning 2,800 tons of coal”.
Over 50 years later, we know more about that blind-alley and the true comparison given by elaborating complete cost and energy balances, but we luckily also know more of how to discern and analyse similar blah blah.
@ur momisugly binding
Your swearing is inacceptable. Remember we are in a public lecture room where eveybody can be a teacher or student. Dont talk unwise of peole jou have not studied. Jesus is the only one who can save you fronll
[snip . . . doesn’t scan Owen. Give it another go but check both the links first . . . mod]
Never mind what everyone says:
We have been over this many times before: there is no CO2 induced warming.
Like H2O [especially clouds, but also vapor] CO2 cools the atmosphere when the sun is shining,
by mirroring radiation especially at 1-2um and between 4-5um
looking at the spectrum of CO2<
Anyone claiming that earth's emission at between 14-15um is bigger than the sun's radiation on earth at 1-2 and 4-5 must be out of his mind.
The net effect of more CO2 in the air is cooling rather than warming, but that effect is too small to count against natural warming/cooling.
Anyone claiming that earth’s emission at between 14-15um is bigger than the sun’s radiation on earth at 1-2 and 4-5 must be out of his mind.
Not at all, they’d just have to understand blackbody radiation and radiation heat transfer, unlike you Henry.
To a good approximation mean sun’s radiation incident on the Earth’s surface equals the earth’s emission at the TOA.
Phil. says
To a good approximation mean sun’s radiation incident on the Earth’s surface equals the earth’s emission at the TOA.
Henry says#
if that were true, it would not be warming, now would it? Or do you also doubt now whether it is still warming???
to prove to me that the net effect of more CO2 in the air is that of warming rather than cooling, you must come up with the test results of an experiment that actually measures how much [the more] CO2 is cooling the atmosphere and how much it is warming the atmosphere. i.e. give me balance sheet.
In this respect, of course, the closed box experiments of the inventors of ‘global’ warming do not count, as they simply ignored the deflection of energy back to space by the CO2 in the sun’s emission spectrum 0-5 um.
Henry December 9, 2016 at 10:03 am
Phil. says
“To a good approximation mean sun’s radiation incident on the Earth’s surface equals the earth’s emission at the TOA.”
Henry says#
if that were true, it would not be warming, now would it?
Actually it would if the absorption by the atmosphere of the emission from the earth’s surface was increasing. Think about it.
Phil,
“Actually it would if the absorption by the atmosphere of the emission from the earth’s surface was increasing. Think about it.”
The atmosphere responds nearly immediately to thinks like changing clouds, changing water vapor concentrations as well as any other variability in GHG concentrations. So yes, if the atmosphere absorbs more surface emissions, the surface will warm owing to more of these absorbed emissions being returned to the surface, but this warming is nearly instantaneous (i.e. no more than a few days to adapt). Another way to look at this is that the residence time of energy stored by the atmosphere is very short.
Phil. says
Actually it would if the absorption by the atmosphere of the emission from the earth’s surface was increasing. Think about it.
Henry says
but it is not warming.
especially not here where I live…we only had cooling despite everyone burning fossil fuels here…
must be that the CO2 is cooling the atmosphere?
Ja ja
Not dead yet…
Look at Hardcrut 4.5 I guess torturing the data until it speaks currently worked for them.