Guest essay by Dr. Antero Ollila
The highest ranked scientific journal Nature published on the 28th of July 2016 an article based on the survey for 1,576 researchers. More than 70 % of the researchers were not able to reproduce the results of another scientist’s experiments. Are there any attempts to reproduce IPCC’s climate sensitivity?
I think that the most important key figure of the climate change science is the value of the climate sensitivity (CS), because it describes the warming effects of the major greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2). CS means the temperature increase corresponding to the doubling of CO2 concentration of 280 ppm.
1. IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity
IPCC still uses a very simple equation in calculating the global mean surface temperature response dTs (AR5, p. 664)
dTs = CSP* RF (1)
where CSP (also marked by lambda) is the Climate Sensitivity Parameter (K/(W/m2)) and RF is Radiative Forcing at the Top of the Atmosphere (TOA). IPCC says that the value of CSP is 0.5 K/(W/m2) and that it is practically constant. IPCC and many scientists as well calculate the RF value of CO2 by the equation of Myhre et al. (ref. 1):
RF = 5.35* ln(C/280) (2)
where the C is the CO2 concentration (ppm). The RF value of the CO2 concentration increase from 280 ppm to 560 ppm is 3.71 W/m2 (this value is called “the canonical estimate” by Gavin Schmidt et al. (2010)) and thus the CS = 0.5 K/(W/m2) * 3.71 W/m2 = 1.85 K. The value of TCS is between 1.0 to 2.5 Celsius degrees (later degrees) in the IPCC’s report AR5 and it means the average value 1.75 degrees (compare to 1.85 degrees). This means that the value of TCS by IPCC does not come out of blue but the equations (1) and (2) are still applicable. I limit the analysis of CS value only to this CS value, which is called transient CS (TCS) by IPCC. The calculation of the equilibrium CS (ECS) by IPCC applies positive feedbacks, which are not observed so far and are therefore very theoretical.
2. Some other estimates of climate sensitivity
There are many papers, which show lower CS than that of IPCC. I will summarize here some of them (the best estimate / the minimum estimate):
1. Aldrin, 2012: 2.0 °C / 1.1 degrees
2. Bengtson & Schwartz, 2012: 2.0 °C / 1.15 degrees
3. Otto et al., 2013: 2.0 °C / 1.2 degrees
4. Lewis, 2012: 1.6 °C / 1.2 degrees
5. Lindzen and Choi, 2011: 0.7 degrees
6. Idso, 1998, 0.4 degrees.
The four first studies uses IPCC’s or a GCM’s RF value without questioning it and therefore they are not real attempts to reproduce IPCC’s CS. None of these studies is based on the spectral analysis but they use the empirical temperature data. This methodology would work, if we could know the warming effects of all other warming elements like the irradiation changes of the Sun.
3. Climate sensitivity parameter – CSP
I have tried to reproduce the TCS value of IPCC using the same methods as IPCC but the result is not the same. I explain the calculations in sufficient details that a reader can follow the calculation method.
The simplest method for calculation of CSP is from the energy balance of the Earth by equalizing the absorbed and emitted radiation fluxes:
SC(1-a) * (¶r2) = sT4 * (4¶r2) (3)
where SC is solar constant, a is the total albedo of the Earth, s is Stefan-Bolzmann constant, and T is the temperature (K). The total RF value for the total area of the Earth is SC(1-a)/4 and therefore eq. (3) can be written in the form
4RF = sT4 (4)
When eq. (4) is derived, it will be
d(RF)/dT = 4sT3 = 4RF/T (5)
The ratio d(RF)/dT can be inverted transforming it to CSP
dT/d(RF) = CSP = T/(4RF) = T/(SC(1-a)) (6)
The average albedo value can be calculated from the observed reflected flux and the average solar irradiation values to be 104.2 W/m2 and 342 W/m2 = 0.30468. The temperature calculated by eq. (3) is
-18.7 degrees. According to Planck’s equation, this temperature corresponds to radiation flux of 237.8 W/m2 and it is also the observed flux value emitted by the Earth into space. Theory and practise are the same, when the theory is correct. According to eq. (6), CSP is 0.268 K/(W/m2).
There is a big difference between the CSP value of 0.5 K/(W/m2) and 0.268 K/(W/m2). The reason is well-known. The above calculations do not assume any changes in the absolute water content of the atmosphere. IPCC and the Global Climate Models (GCMs) assume a constant relative humidity (RH) in the atmosphere. It means that, when CO2 increases the global temperature and when the RH stays constant, the small increase of the absolute water content in the atmosphere increases the temperature. How much? IPCC writes in AR4 in section 8.6.3.1 that water vapor roughly doubles the response to forcing of GH gases and it is called positive waster feedback. In AR5 IPCC writes that water vapor’s contribution is approximately two to three times greater than that of CO2. I have checked that the doubling effect of water technically correct because water is about 12 times stronger a GH gas than CO2 in the present climate (ref. 6) but the question is if the RH is really constant in the atmosphere.
The observed RH values measured from 1948 to 2012 are depicted in Figure 1 and they and they show that RH values are not constant.
Figure 1. Relative Humidity graphs from 1948 to 2016.
It is obvious that the assumption of constant RH is not valid. Applying the CSP value of 0.268 K/(W/m2) and the RF value of 3.71 W/m2, the SC is 1.0 degrees, which is usually called Planck’s CS. As listed before, many researchers have applied different methods in calculating the CS value and a typical value is from 1.0 to 1.2 degrees. There is a good chance that these research studies have found this very same feature that there is no positive water feedback, which could double the RF value of 3.7 W/m2.
4. Radiative Forcing of carbon dioxide
IPCC uses the RF formula of Myhre et al. represented in eq. (2). The formulas of Hansen et al. (ref. 2) and Shi (ref. 3) give almost the same results as one can see in Figure 2. Eq. (2) of Myhre et al. is simple and easy to use. It is a kind of standard as a measure of CO2 warming effect and it is called even “and iconic formula”.
Figure 2. The RF values of CO2 according to Myhre et al., Hansen et al., Shi, and Ollila.
The first hint about the problems of this formula comes from the paper of Shi published in 1992 in journal by name “Science in China – Series B”. It is not available through network and I have received a personal electronic copy from the author himself. In Figure 3 is a print screen from a sentence, which states that the author has used a fixed RH value in his calculations. This means that the water has doubled the RF value of CO2.
Figure 3. The RH assumption of Shi.
The only way to find out the real RF relationship is to carry out the CS calculations according to the specification of CS (ref. 4). I have used the application Spectral Calculator available through Internet and this software uses Line-By-Line (LBL) method. A very essential thing is to use the Average Global Atmosphere (AGA) profile of the Earth for the temperature, pressure and humidity. I have combined the AGA profile from the five climate zones of the Earth (available in Spectral Calculator), which has the TPW (Total Precipitated Water) value of 2.6 cm and the surface temperature of 15.0 degrees.
First I have calculated the OLR (outgoing longwave radiation) at the TOA for the CO2 concentration of 280 ppm. The OLR is the sum of emitted radiation by the atmosphere 183.8 W/m2 and the transmittance (the portion of the surface emitted radiation not absorbed by the atmosphere) 81.6 W/m2, together 265.4 W/m2. When the CO2 is increased to 560 ppm, the same radiation values are: emission 183.4 Wm2 and transmittance 79.2 Wm2, together 262.7 W/m2. Now we can see the effects of increased absorption caused by the increased concentration of CO2; the OLR has decreased as it should happen according to the theory of GH effect. Because the Earth obeys the first law of energy conservation, the ORL must increase to the original value of 265.4 W/m2. The only way this can happen, is the higher surface temperature of the Earth. By trial and error, I have found that the temperature 15.66 degrees gives emission rate of 185.0 W/m2 and transmittance of 80.4 W/m2, together 265.4 W/m2.
Because the cloudy sky calculations are not possible in Spectral Calculator, I have calculated the clear and cloudy sky values by the MODTRAN application. These results show 30 % lower OLR change than the clear sky. IPCC reports that the reduction is 25 %. Using the MODTRAN figures, the result is that the TCS value is 0.56 degrees and CSP is 0.259 K/(W/m2). The CSP value is very close to the Planck’s CSP = 0.268 K/(W/m2).
The original study of mine is published in 2014 in Development of Earth Science by title “The potency of carbon dioxide (CO2) as a Greenhouse gas” (ref. 4). My formula for the RF of CO2 is
RF = 3.12 * ln(C/280) (7)
The warming values of CO2 according to eq. (7) is depicted also in Figure 2. It is about 50 % lower than the graph of Myhre et al. In Figure 2 is also depicted a modified curve of Myhre et al. and it is done by multiplying the values of the original formula by 0.5 for eliminating the assumed water effect. This curve is fairly close to the curve depicted by eq. (7).
My CS calculations according to its specification and the text of Shi shows that the RF value of CO2 calculated by eq. (2) of Myhre et al. can be explained, if the warming effects of water are included by assuming the constant atmospheric RH conditions. There is also another possible explanation for the eq. (2). Myhre et al. have used in calculations water vapor and temperature data from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecast. This data is not publicly available and it is impossible to check what is the average global TPW value of this data.
The conclusion is that the IPCC’s warming values are about 200 % too high (1.75 degrees versus 0.6 degrees) because both the CO2 radiative forcing equation, and the CS calculation include water feedback. It is well-known that IPCC uses the water feedback in doubling the GH gas effects; even though there are relative humidity measurements showing that this assumption is not justified. CO2 radiative forcing by Myhre et al. includes also water feedback, and this has not been recognized before the author’s studies. This feature explains too high of a contribution of CO2.
5. Validation of results
Firstly, I want to show that my spectral calculations are correct, if compared to some other published results. Kiehl & Trenbarth (ref. 6) have published in 2009 an article, in which is probably the most generally used Earth’s energy balance presentation. In the LBL spectral calculations they used U.S. Standard Atmosphere 76 atmospheric profiles. They reduced the absolute water amount TWP by 12 %. Using this atmosphere, they calculated that the warming contribution of CO2 in the clear sky is 26 %; Also, this results is probably the most referred figure about the strength of CO2 as a GH gas.
I have reproduced this calculation by using Spectral Calculator and my result is 27 % – close enough. There is only one small problem, because the water content of this atmosphere is really the atmosphere over the USA and not over the globe. The difference in the water content is great: 1.43 prcm versus 2.6 prcm. I have been really astonished about the reactions of the climate scientists about this fact. It looks like that they do not understand the effects of this choice or they do not care. Which alternative is worse? The real contribution of CO2 in using the right TWP value is 13 % (ref. 7 ).
My LBL spectral analysis is based always on the calculation of the total absorption, transmission or emission in the atmosphere. For example, the effects of GH gases are based on the variations of their concentrations. Stephens et al. (ref. 8) has summarized the results 13 of studies based on the observed values of the downward LW radiation by the atmosphere right on the surface of the Earth. The results vary from 309.2 to 326 W/m2 and the average value is 314.2 W/m2. My calculation gives the result of 310.9 W/m2, which differs 1 % from the average observed value and it is well inside the error margin of +/- 10 Wm2, which is estimated accuracy of measured LW fluxes.
References
1. Myhre, G., Highwood, E.J., Shine, K.P., and Stordal, F. 1998. “New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases.” Geophys. Res. Lett. 25, 2715-2718. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/98GL01908/epdf
2. Hansen, J., Fung, I., Lacis, I., Rind, A., Lebedeff, D., Ruedy, S., Russell,G., and Stone, P. 1998. “Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Three Dimensional Model.” J. Geophys. Res., 93, 9341-9364. https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha02700w.html
3. Shi, G-Y. 1992. “Radiative forcing and greenhouse effect due to the atmospheric trace gases.” Science in China (Series B), 35, 217-229. Not available online.
4. Ollila, A. 2014. “The potency of carbon dioxide (CO2) as a greenhouse gas”. Dev. Earth Sc., 2, 20-30.
http://www.seipub.org/des/paperInfo.aspx?ID=17162
5. Kielh, J.T. and Trenbarth, K.E. 1997. “Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget.” Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 90, 311-323. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477%281997%29078%3C0197%3AEAGMEB%3E2.0.CO%3B2
6. Ollila, A. 2017. “Warming effect reanalysis of greenhouse gases and clouds”. Ph. Sc. Int. J., 13, 1-13. http://www.sciencedomain.org/abstract/17484
7. Stephens, G.L., et al. 2012. “The global character of the flux of downward longwave radiation”. J. Clim., 25, 2329-2340. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00262.1
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“the warming effects of the major greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2).”
–>
the INSINUATED warming effects of the INSINUATED major greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2).
Very simply while human emissions of CO2 have gone up exponentially in the last 60+ years, while atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a linear rate, with a slope that might be even decreasing a bit.
Therefore, human emissions are having no detectable effect on atmospheric CO2 concentration.
All that math and all you have to do is look at the facts. Notice, our emissions have an undetectable effect on temperature as they have no detectable effect on atmospheric CO2. Done and not a temperature reading in sight for them to alter.
By the way, the saw-toothed nature of the atmospheric CO2 concentration seasonally bespeaks the huge turnover via photosynthesis. The half-life of atmospheric CO2 is about 5 years, not the 200 or 1000 years claimed dishonestly by the IPCC and NOAA, respectively. This is a very dynamic system.
By the way, the saw-toothed nature of the atmospheric CO2 concentration seasonally bespeaks the huge turnover via photosynthesis. The half-life of atmospheric CO2 is about 5 years, not the 200 or 1000 years claimed dishonestly by the IPCC and NOAA, respectively. This is a very dynamic system.
BINGO! Turn off all the sources of CO2 and green plants would suck it right down in short order.
Higley7
If the half-life of atmospheric CO2 is about 5 years:
1) Why isn’t the monthly CO2 chart relatively smooth (i.e.: not a saw-toothed annual oscillation)?
2) Why is the peak-to-trough annual variation of about 6ppm TWICE the average annual increase in CO2 (3ppm)? WHERE THE HECK DOES ALL THAT CO2 GO FOR HALF THE YEAR? WHY DOES IT ALL SUDDENLY REAPPEAR?
2) Why doesn’t the amplitude of the annual variation increase as the amount of CO2 increases?
Last year the co2 average should have definitely been higher.
Ask the gods of the Mauna Loa volcano.
This blog was about sensitivity, not about attribution of atmospheric CO2.
Regarding half-life of atmospheric CO2: It is about 40 years, assuming the rate at which an injection (“pulse”) of CO2 into the atmosphere gets removed from the atmosphere is exponential rather than a variant of the Bern model (faster than 40 years at first, slower later on). Faster half-lives are those of individual CO2 molecules, and note that when the ocean absorbs a CO2 molecule, that increases its tendency to gas out one.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/19/the-secret-life-of-half-life/
Javert, I sure hope I missed the sarc on the comment.
You’ve probably heard of this thing called spring? It’s when plants renew their growth from the previous season and suck up large amounts of CO2 in the process.
MarkW
Nope, I didn’t forget the /sarc tag – those were genuine questions. All of them.
Yup, I have heard of spring; even further, I know it takes place at opposite times of the year in northern & southern hemispheres. That’s why I asked the questions…
I missed the place in the author’s essay, where he first used the word ….. CLOUD …..
As a result, I wasn’t alerted to the likelihood that he would use it in multiple locations.
So frankly, I never did see the word cloud anywhere in this paper.
Ergo, I conclude that clouds play NO part in earth’s climate; well compared to CO2.
The most common definition of “Climate Sensitivity” I have seen simply says “how much the earth’s mean (surface) Temperature increases for a doubling of the CO2 molecular abundance in the atmosphere” The so-called logarithmic response of temperature to CO2.
I think the late Stephan Schneider gave that definition.
So 280 ppm —> 560 ppm, or 1 ppm —>2 ppm , that sort of think is logarithmic, and they are saying 1.7 deg. F for either case, or any other.
There isn’t any experimental observation of such a relationship. Sometimes CO2 goes up and temperature goes down at the same time; or even goes nowhere.
The Theoretical basis for such a logarithmic relationship is the so-called ” Beer’s Law” or the Beer-Lambert Law. Actually I believe it was first stated by somebody named Brueger or something akin to that. You can find it in “The Science of Color” a text book.
There is a slight hitch to Beer’s Law.
It assumes that the incident photons pass through the medium in one linear direction, in straight lines; until they are absorbed, and once absorbed, never re-emerge in some other form.
That means there is NO SCATTERING.
Beer’s law is NOT VALID for absorption in scattering media, or for fluorescent media. Photons once captured, stay dead and are not re-emitted at some lower wavelength, or even the same wavelength.
Even the final emission of thermal radiation due to heating of the medium by absorbed energy, invalidates Beer’s Law.
Unfortunately, when CO2 absorbs LWIR photons, any subsequent emission of a photon is isotropically scattered, so Beer’s Law is not applicable to LWIR absorption by CO2 in the atmosphere or any other GHG.
So there is neither experimental nor theoretical foundation for the so-called logarithmic nature of climate sensitivity.
By the way, Beer’s law is of much greater interest to medical diagnostic imaging scientists and engineers.
Even instruments like pulsed blood oximeter measuring devices, are affected by absorption and scattered absorption in skin, flesh and blood.
In most instances, Beer’s law proves inadequate in calculating transmission in tissues, and makes sharp medical tissue imaging a difficult task.
But don’t let that stop you from perpetuating the myth that CO2 doubling raises the temperature by some fixed Temperature called climate sensitivity.
G
Beer’s law or Lambert-Beer’s law is applicable only for very small concentrations and it is linear by nature. You can see this feature in a figure below “The warming effects of GH gases”. When the concentration increases from the zero, the first effects up to about 10 ppm are linear in nature.
This story was not about the clouds, because then a proper term would have been for example “Cloud forcing”. Clouds have an important role in three of my papers, which can be found in this list of my web page:
https://www.climatexam.com/publications
The RH flattened out during the pause.
Could this mean that global water ,precipitation rose prior to the pause and stayed higher during the pause.
Higher water vapour led to greater negative feedback as it was exhausted as rain, cooling the atmosphere by convection.
‘ In AR5 IPCC writes that water vapor’s contribution is approximately two to three times greater than that of CO2. I have checked that the doubling effect of water technically correct because water is about 12 times stronger a GH gas than CO2 in the present climate (ref. 6) but the question is if the RH is really constant in the atmosphere.’
No troposphere hot spot in the equator, now no increase in water vapour, how many more things can go wrong with the CO2 hypothesis?
Small typo under 3. : “it is called positive waster feedback.” I assume you meant ‘water’ there
I much prefer ‘positive wåster feedback’ as a description of how the climate gravy train maintains momentum….
Yes, you right, it was a typo.
Or a Freudian slip, ‘waster’ being the reality.
The conclusion is that the IPCC’s warming values are about 200 % too high (1.75 degrees versus 0.6 degrees)
because both the CO2 radiative forcing equation, and the CS calculation include water feedback.
It is well-known that IPCC uses the water feedback in doubling the GH gas effects;
even though there are relative humidity measurements showing that this assumption is not justified.
CO2 radiative forcing by Myhre et al. includes also water feedback, and this has not been recognized before the author’s studies. This feature explains too high of a contribution of CO2.
_____________________________________________
Thanks, Dr. Antero Ollila!
“The conclusion is that the IPCC’s warming values are about 200 % too high (1.75 degrees versus 0.6 degrees)”
This is confirmed and/or supported by the “forecast minus observed” over the last 30 years. Te results are the same.
Most of the global warming science is essentially correct… it is just wildly exaggerated.
I’m posting to follow.
Looking at all water vapour studies it is clear there hasnt been an increase in line with the predicted 7%/K
Therefore CO2s warming effect is small, as low as 0.5 C/doubling from pre industrial due to over lap with existing water vapour.
It is therefore entirely beneficial and we should produce much more of it.
Reblogged this on Wolsten and commented:
I wonder what @RHarrabin of the BBC will make of this?
“The conclusion is that the IPCC’s warming values are about 200 % too high (1.75 degrees versus 0.6 degrees) because both the CO2 radiative forcing equation, and the CS calculation include water feedback.”
” IPCC says that the value of CSP is 0.5 K/(W/m2) and that it is practically constant.”
Where? You have made it the central point of your essay – you should give a proper reference for it. It isn’t on p 664 of the AR5. What I did find on p 667 was
“The climate sensitivity parameter λ derived with respect to RF can vary substantially across different forcing agents (Forster et al., 2007). “
and they go on to discuss details.
The IPCC is not declaring its own results here. They are summarizing other people’s results. But the IPCC famously is not definitive about ECS. It acknowledged a range from 1.5 to 4.5C.
“But the IPCC famously is not definitive about ECS. It acknowledged a range from 1.5 to 4.5C.”
1- The ECS is at the very core of CAGW theory. Given the IPCC’s task, how can it be ‘not definitive about ECS’?
2- A ‘range from 1.5 to 4.5C’. There’s no humour like climate humour, eh?
Isn’t that like saying 50% chance of rain…..
More like saying 50 ± 50% chance of rain…
And they seem to definitively (and incorrectly, IMO), disallow all possibility that ECS is much smaller and can go negative due to added water vapor turning into clouds under certain circumstances, and thus reflect more incoming solar energy back into space.
Yes,it is correct that IPCC uses the results of other researchers.The concept of Radiative Forcing originates from the study of Ramaswamy et al. (2001) and it can be found first time in the 3rd AR called TAR, in section 6.2 and there is also the printed the typical value of CSP = 0.5 K/(W/m2). IPCC has kept this same concept in force since then. In AR4, it can be found in section 2.2 and in AR in section Chapter 8 on the page 664.
I think that IPCC cannot disqualify this concept, because then it should disqualify the calculation basis of climate sensitivity. They try to make the whole calculation unclear by talking about the lower and higher limits of CS.
Sorry about the typo above. It should “….and in AR5 in section Chapter 8 on the page 664”.
Rahmstorf says ECS is “about 3 degrees C with an uncertainty between 2 to 4 degrees”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gsm_IsqpF_s
I think he means an uncertainty of +/- 1 degree.
If your guess is 3 but your uncertainty is 2 to 4, you might as well just throw darts.
I read your paper “Cosmic Theories and Greenhouse Gasses…” By my count you’ve only got three parameters to work with there so you should not be able to fit an elephant, let alone make its trunk wiggle. The correlation is impressive and I hope this idea has gotten (or gets) some serious consideration within the climate science community.
Thanks for taking the time to post this.
Now we are talking about the climate sensitivity.
let alone make its trunk wiggle it.
there…
None of this “science” makes sense. Take a look at the results of their models. They are awful. Why would you want to reproduce failed models? This isn’t like a real science where you independently replicate an experiment. In climate science, you replicate a computer model. It doesn’t matter what computer you run the failed model on using “adjusted” data to get the results you want, it is all nonsense. Curve fitting data isn’t science, it is data mining…ie junk science. If something is understood, it can be modeled. The climate “scientists” can’t model the climate, they can only curve fit existing data, and that isn’t science.
Climate “Science” on Trial; If Something is Understood, it can be Modeled
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/02/06/climate-science-on-trial-if-something-is-understood-it-can-be-modeled/
Reproducing this kind of experiment proves nothing:
Climate “Science” on Trial; Confirmed Mythbusters Busted Practicing Science Sophistry
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/02/04/climate-science-on-trial-confirmed-mythbusters-busted-practicing-science-sophistry/
Any model which has to be “tuned” to reproduce observed data isn’t a scientific model, it’s numerology.
Yep, we call it curve fitting. Children call it connect the dots, it isn’t science, it is a 2nd Grade lesson plan.
…and the failed models don’t even do honest (or dishonest ) curve-fitting – there’s also some serious “change the data” (dots) going on.
The curve of Myhre et al. and my equation as well are fitted to in order to get a simple and useful relationship between the CO2 concentration and the RF value. The fitting in this sense is very minor indeed. This is no numerology. It is a very common practice that the results of experiments are fitted to a curve in order to make the results easy to use. If the results would have been fitted to the real temperature measurements, then you could talk about that anything can be fitted to something by using just a proper fitting or correlation methods without showing any proper physical influence mechanism.
In this case we know that there is a GH phenomenon and we know for sure that CO2 has a role in this phenomenon. The question is, how much the increased concentration of CO2 can further increase the surface temperature, when the “original” GH effect already has increased it from -18 to 34 degrees. That is a question of climate sensitivity.
My point is that, when I can calculate by spectral analysis what are the contributions of GH gases and they match with the real observations, then I can be very confident that if I change any concentrations of GH gases, the warming effects are also correct.
In this case we know that there is a GH phenomenon
======================
nope. real greenhouses warm by limiting convection.
the so called atmospheric “GH phenomenon” is based on radiation, not convection. yet it uses the name “greenhouse effect”, while it has nothing to do with the effect in real greenhouses. Moreover, the radiation theory when applied to real greenhouses has been shown to be false.
so here we have two different phenomenon in science, with two different mechanisms, both using the name “greenhouse” but only 1 of these accurately describes a real greenhouse.
How can it advance scientific understanding to use the term “greenhouse:” when applied to the atmosphere, when it doesn’t in any way resemble the operation of a real greenhouse?
co2islife. You write: “Reproducing this kind of experiment proves nothing”. It proves at least one thing that the very basic element of IPCC warming calculation cannot be reproduced. This method has been the original quality control of the science at least during the latest 300 years.
Lol, yep, I guess it can be used to disprove the point they are trying to make.
Q:
co2islife on March 17, 2017 at 3:35 am
None of this “science” makes sense. Take a look at the results of their models. They are awful. Why would you want to reproduce failed models?
A:
“Guest essay by Dr. Antero Ollila
The highest ranked scientific journal Nature published on the 28th of July 2016 an article based on the survey for 1,576 researchers. More than 70 % of the researchers were not able to reproduce the results of another scientist’s experiments. Are there any attempts to reproduce IPCC’s climate sensitivity?”
That is a sad state of affairs. What qualifies as science in these days? Shouldn’t reproducibility be a requirement for publication?
No, if you really wan to clean it up ‘reproduced’, not ‘reproducibility’, should be a qualification for publication.
Reproducibilty can’t be a condition of publication. Unless ah hypothesis (and associated experiments) are published, they can’t be reproduced. That’s the purpose of publishing, to attract the interest of other investigators, some of whom may reproduce your work, or attempt to and fail. It’s the only way a true scientific consensus is formed on a hypothesis.
How does virga fit into the models? Or even cumulus clouds? Feynman once mentioned the question of why clouds float..you either assume they are static where weight equals buoyant force and be done with it ..or you look at the dynamics and see it is an energy transfer between layers.
If you are in a large glass house made of, say, 1000 ‘single glazed’ windows, The increasing CO2 effect is like making one of those windows ‘double glazed’. Even more CO2 would be like making that one, double glazed, window a ‘triple glazed’ one. It matters not, the outside environment/temp will decide the inside temp.
Nice analogy
Opening the greenhouse vents will overwhelm any double or triple glazing effect.
>Opening the greenhouse vents …
That is what the ozone hole is about, and why GCR and ozone are much more important to this discussion than CO2.
ferdberple and Neillusion: We all know that the term “Greenhouse” is not a very best description about the warming effects of GH gases in the atmosphere. But it is useless to try to use any other term, because then a majority of readers would not understand, which I am talking about.
A simple truth – “If it isn’t reproducible it isn’t science.”
The very fact so that many estimates of CS are in the mix demonstrates the science really isn’t settled at all.
You only need to look at the number of climate models each one of which projects something different to know that.
The claim that the science is settled does not withstand even a cursory reading of the IPCC Reports.
A system adjusts to minimize internal energy.
Assuming no change in surface pressure,
CO2 sensitivity is, possibly, slightly negative?
Reply to several comments above. If the model should include all the variations you mention, the only way to do it, is to compose a GCM model. There are at least more than 100 GCMs in the world. I believe in simple models. AMO and PDO can be excluded, because they do not change the temperature over the long range. They do not bring extra energy to the Earth. The Earth receive 99.97 % of its energy from the Sun. Therefore is the number one factor, if we look at the temperature increase since the Little Ice Age. The only new element is the increased concentrations of GH gases. Therefore we have to find out how much they can explain the present warming. IPCC says that they are almost totally responsible. I do not agree.
But we were warming long before CO2 was any significant factor. You’re getting the cart before the horse. First explain why the earth was warming before CO2 rose. Then explain how that process stopped. Then maybe I’m interested in your ECS story. The whole theory is very, very weak. In fact, you’ll also have to resolve the question of wether temperature rise leads CO2 rise. The work I’ve read indicating that CO2 leads seems like contrived, Mikey Mann style advocacy disguised as science~aka fraud.
To John Harmsworth. The GH effect is a real thing. I can calculate the warming effect of GH phenomenon and even check the LW fluxes calculated with the real measurements.
While I don’t disagree with your statement, I’m not sure that in itself, matters, anymore than you can detect the green spectrum over vegetation, yet clouds also hides the green spectrum.
What is measured at toa is the end result of multiple processes, and the spectrum measured is a result of all of the processes combined.
While you have ignored my other posts, it shows the spectrums of co2 would be present, what averages taken at toa don’t show is that the water lines are the regulating process, that just illuminates co2 in the atm.
If you watch the spectrum at toa in real time, these spectrums bands would change in relation to each other in the process of cooling. By looking at a single average, including those from MODTRAN hide this effect.
@ur momisugly zlop (@ur momisuglyzloppolz)
March 17, 2017 at 4:13 am: Exactly, ziop. That adjustment bypasses the struggling radiative effect, until optical depth is surmounted. Water vapour and phase changes, Mass Flow convection in all its forms. Steam engines can be very instructive…. Prof Wood, a skilled Optical Physicist, quickly enough refuted the madness. Lest we forget.
But, I appreciate seeing the false maths of the modellers also refuted. It has been falsified, but wriggles on under false pretenses. They may soon have to ‘put up or shut up’.
Second paragraph
I thought water vapour was the main greenhouse gas.
I agree, water is the strongest GH gas.
Excellent point, dunno why I missed it.
I am reasonably intelligent (Master’s Degree in Engineering from U. of Waterloo from longer ago that I will admit) and have a considerable amount of real world experience in operation of electricity systems. WUWT is my “go to” source for climate-related information – I visit here pretty well every day.
In my understanding, Dr. Ollila has made an important contribution to the conversation, but with all due respect, the article needs some sort of Executive Summary that a layperson can understand (sort of like JW @ur momisugly 2:18) but in the author’s words. Of course there are risks in “dumbing it down,” but I was disappointed to find nothing that I can send to people in my circles (like I often do); I don’t even want to send the link as I sometimes do, either, because it would try their patience.
I should have added that the “dumbing down” would have helped me, too.
This paragraph is not labeled “Summary”, but essentially is his conclusion summary:
“The conclusion is that the IPCC’s warming values are about 200 % too high (1.75 degrees versus 0.6 degrees) because both the CO2 radiative forcing equation, and the CS calculation include water feedback. It is well-known that IPCC uses the water feedback in doubling the GH gas effects; even though there are relative humidity measurements showing that this assumption is not justified. CO2 radiative forcing by Myhre et al. includes also water feedback, and this has not been recognized before the author’s studies. This feature explains too high of a contribution of CO2.”
You could send the article to friends and highlight this paragraph, and then add that if the IPCC’s core calculations are 200% too high it means their models way overestimate warming by a similar amount, and their models are what all their predictions of gloom and doom are based on.
Thanks, TDB. I did think about that, but IMHO a “summary” along the lines of yours is still necessary – I’d just rather have it in the author’s words.
Thank you TDBroun. It could be called a summary but I failed to name it in a proper way.
I was thinking an abstract would have been in order.
I’m in a similar situation (substitute RPI for Waterloo) and also found the article a bit thick. I recommend the Wikipedia article on Climate Sensitivity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity, noting that the “consensus value” for ECS of 3 degrees C plus/minus 1.5 degrees C has persisted since 1979.
Thus the single most important parameter for climate modeling has a consensus uncertainty of 50% and this uncertainty has not been improved upon by almost 40 years of “settled science”.
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world.”
– Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer says:
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole…We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,”
Interesting that RH has declined over time in the upper atmosphere. What causes that, I wonder?
According to Dr. Bill Gray it is caused by enhanced convection. The radiation effect from added CO2 leads to more evaporation and warming right at the surface. This lowers the density of the air which causes it to rise faster than it would otherwise.
This leads to more clouds and a secondary effect where the air is carried higher in the atmosphere. Since it is colder up there this leads to more condensation which leaves the air colder and dryer. As this falls back to the surface it mixes with other air. The net effect is very little warming and reduced RH.
Another factor is that the higher you get in the atmosphere, the greater the fraction of both water vapor and CO2 is below you. The absence of both makes it easier for any IR radiation to make it to space.
This description makes a lot of sense. Miskolczi believes in the constant GH effect of the Earth. So far I believe in the observed total water amount in the atmosphere, which seems to be fairly constant.
High and dry well she left me with no warning
high and dry well I couldn’t get a word in
high and dry well that’s no way to go
she left me standing here just high and dry
__________________________________
jagger / richards – times ago and worlds apart
@ur momisugly Richard M
March 17, 2017 at 9:50 am: The only possible direct effect of CO2 consistent with atmospheric physics, is an insignificant lowering of water vapour from the minute ‘energy theft’ by increased CO2. No net heat increase. Apart from any net mass/pressure increase, also minute.
Well do Dr. Antero Ollila. Reproduction is always welcomed.
Don’t forget that prior to the CAGW scare taking hold, Schneider, of GISS/NASA, assessed climate sensitivity to CO2 as very low indeed. In his 1971 paper on Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects on large increases on Global Climate it was stated stated:
As I say this was a calculation performed by GISS/NASA on the basis of then known basic physics. What has changed in the way of known basis physics since 1971? Who can explain what if any errors was made in the calculation? Why are estimates now so very much higher than when GISS/NASA first undertook the assessment of the effect of CO2 on surface temperatures of this planet?
…It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 degK….[the late Dr. Stephen Schneider]
Well isn’t that just precious!
“What has changed in the way of known basis physics since 1971”
….3 thousand adjustments to the temp data
So true,
3,000 and counting…
I have produced another figure about the warming impacts of GH gases.
/
Here are the temperature effects of CO2 depicted. The warming effect increase from 280 ppm to 2400 ppm is according to my formula dTs = 0.268 * ln(C/280) only 1.8 degrees.
Something went wrong. Here is another trial:
Richard,
Do you suppose that Exxon made the same calculations?
“Clyde Spencer on March 17, 2017 at 10:18 am
Richard,
Do you suppose that Exxon made the same calculations?”
____________________________________
Clyde we do know in the late 70ties EXXON did a prospective drilling south of Manila and the got CO2 bubble like from a soda bottle.
So EXXON wanted to know what does it to climate summing megatons of CO2 to the atmosphere.
____________________________________
yes and no:
– yes, Exxon made the same calculations”
– no problems with climate or atmosphere
Here’s a paper from 1981 which gives a CS between 1.29 and 1.83 K based in large part on lapse rate.
Lapse rate* describes the vertical temperature gradient. If the gradient is below a certain figure, convection will not take place. Above that, convection takes place and removes heat from the surface much more quickly. So above a certain temperature gradient it takes a lot more energy to raise the surface temperature. It operates as a strong negative feedback. Here’s Roy Spencer’s take.
*Lapse rate is usually accompanied by a modifier. ie. dry adiabatic lapse rate, environmental lapse rate, etc.
None of the references in the IPCC make any mention of the infrared absorption spectra of CO2 and H2O. They act as if all the infrared emitted by the earth are the same and CO2 (and N2O and CH4) have the same ability to absorb all the wavelengths in the infrared band.
The absorption spectra of N2O and CH4 are completely masked by that of H2O. The only part of the CO2 spectra not masked by that of h2O is at about 15 microns. And it is saturated at that wavelength. Increasing the amount of CO2 will not result in additional radiative forcing at 15 microns.
The only way there could be any additional radiative forcing from an increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration would be if the absorption band were to widen below the 15 micron wavelength. I have never seen any of the warmists address this issue at all.
If you read the news, CH4 (methane) is the current boogeyman.
And yet:
1. The massive methane leak in California last year has not had much effect, if any.
2. The notable warming in the Arctic hasn’t released a lot of methane, as alarmists had predicted.
You right. Below is a figure showing the absorption areas of CO2 for different concentrations. The wavelengths over 15 micrometer has not warming effect, because water absorbs all the radiation available from 15 to 120 micrometer.
One cannot make a blanket statement of what specific wavelengths water vapor in the atmosphere absorbs and what wavelengths it does not, because its concentration varies by orders of magnitude.
Thank you, Dr. Ollila. I have been wanting to see a graph like this for some time. I knew there would be some thickening of the CO2 absorption band at 15 microns, but wasn’t sure how much. From this we can see that even with a doubling of the CO2 concentration from 400 ppm to 800 ppm, the increase in absorption is trivial.
Do you have a citation I can use for this graph? Does it come from one of your papers? What is your source?
Temps have gone up..
..RH has gone down
odd that it’s exactly what you would expect….and exactly what the unadjusted temp data shows
odd that it’s “not” exactly what you would expect…..but exactly what the “non” adjusted temp shows
coffee had not kicked in yet
Sorry that I include my comment to James R. McCown here. Al the graphs or any other comments are based on my original research studies, 12 papers so far. You can find a comprehensive presentation of these studies on my web page: www. climatexam.com
I recommend to start with the English slideshows. They not completely updated, but they will be after two weeks.
The graph in question is from the reference number 4 in the original story.
Dr. Ollila, thanks for the reference to your 2014 paper in Development in Earth Science. The information contained in your figure 2 graph is one of the most important in all of climate research. It shows that doubling the CO2 concentration from the current 400 ppm to 800 ppm would only result in a trivial increase in radiative forcing.
Since the graph is so important, it would be helpful to know your sources for the data contaained in the graph. Or if you computed those numbers yourself, it would help if you gave a detailed explanation of how you arrived at the numbers.
I think I am much too typical in being intimidated by math, as are a good many people with “education” in soft subjects like Psych. If I understand Ollilla correctly, the feedback value in the main formula is used to adjust the value of the effect of CO2, as NEITHER value is actually being measured directly. Only the outcome of the whole formula is measured. Of course, that conclusion could be quite wrong, but it is consistent with the failure of the application of the basic formulas to predict actual temperature.
Tom Halla. You can find it in other comments of mine, that the CS cannot be measured in the real atmosphere. What you can do, is to compare the temperature of the IPCC model with the real observed temperature. Then you see as I show in a figure that the model temperature is about 50 % too high today. Conclusion?