By 2080, Climate Change will Force Canadians to Endure Warm Conditions Like Today’s Minnesota

I note the irony that, conventionally, conservatives are cautious about change, while liberals love change. But, curiously, warmists hate climate change. Does it logically follow that the CBC should now be called the Conservative Broadcasting Corporation?

Yes your BS alarm is working fine. In fact the actual trend is more like 1C per century, Don’t forget the UAH trend includes the start period 1979 that was in a cold period in relation to the temp cycle. In another 10 years you should see the UAH trend drop to about 1C increase per century.

http://applet-magic.com/cloudblanket.htm
Clouds overwhelm the Downward Infrared Radiation (DWIR) produced by CO2. At night with and without clouds, the temperature difference can be as much as 11C. The amount of warming provided by DWIR from CO2 is negligible but is a real quantity. We give this as the average amount of DWIR due to CO2 and H2O or some other cause of the DWIR. Now we can convert it to a temperature increase and call this Tcdiox.The pyrgeometers assume emission coeff of 1 for CO2. CO2 is NOT a blackbody. Clouds contribute 85% of the DWIR. GHG’s contribute 15%. See the analysis in link. The IR that hits clouds does not get absorbed. Instead it gets reflected. When IR gets absorbed by GHG’s it gets reemitted either on its own or via collisions with N2 and O2. In both cases, the emitted IR is weaker than the absorbed IR. Don’t forget that the IR from reradiated CO2 is emitted in all directions. Therefore a little less than 50% of the absorbed IR by the CO2 gets reemitted downward to the earth surface. Since CO2 is not transitory like clouds or water vapour, it remains well mixed at all times. Therefore since the earth is always giving off IR (probably a maximum at 5 pm everyday), the so called greenhouse effect (not really but the term is always used) is always present and there will always be some backward downward IR from the atmosphere.
When there isn’t clouds, there is still DWIR which causes a slight warming. We have an indication of what this is because of the measured temperature increase of 0.65 from 1950 to 2018. This slight warming is for reasons other than just clouds, therefore it is happening all the time. Therefore in a particular night that has the maximum effect , you have 11 C + Tcdiox. We can put a number to Tcdiox. It may change over the years as CO2 increases in the atmosphere. At the present time with 411 ppm CO2, the global temperature is now 0.65 C higher than it was in 1950, the year when mankind started to put significant amounts of CO2 into the air. So at a maximum Tcdiox = 0.65C. We don’t know the exact cause of Tcdiox whether it is all H2O caused or both H2O and CO2 or the sun or something else but we do know the rate of warming. This analysis will assume that CO2 and H2O are the only possible causes. That assumption will pacify the alarmists because they say there is no other cause worth mentioning. They like to forget about water vapour but in any average local temperature calculation you can’t forget about water vapour unless it is a desert. A proper calculation of the mean physical temperature of a spherical body requires an explicit integration of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation over the entire planet surface. This means first taking the 4th root of the absorbed solar flux at every point on the planet and then doing the same thing for the outgoing flux at Top of atmosphere from each of these points that you measured from the solar side and subtract each point flux and then turn each point result into a temperature field by integrating over the whole earth and then average the resulting temperature field across the entire globe. This gets around the Holder inequality problem when calculating temperatures from fluxes on a global spherical body. However in this analysis we are simply taking averages applied to one local situation because we are not after the exact effect of CO2 but only its maximum effect. In any case Tcdiox represents the real temperature increase over last 68 years. You have to add Tcdiox to the overall temp difference of 11 to get the maximum temperature difference of clouds, H2O and CO2 . So the maximum effect of any temperature changes caused by clouds, water vapour, or CO2 on a cloudy night is 11.65C. We will ignore methane and any other GHG except water vapour.

So from the above URL link clouds represent 85% of the total temperature effect , so clouds have a maximum temperature effect of .85 * 11.65 C = 9.90 C. That leaves 1.75 C for the water vapour and CO2. This is split up with 60% for water vapour and 26% for CO2 with the remaining % for methane, ozone ….etc. See the study by Ahilleas Maurellis and Jonathan Tennyson May 2003 in Physics World. Amazingly this is the only study that quantifies the Global warming potential of H20 before any feedback effects. CO2 will have relatively more of an effect in deserts than it will in wet areas but still can never go beyond this 1.75 C . Since the above study by Maurellis and Tennyson gave CO2 overall 26% effect, I am in this 1st analysis giving too much effect to CO2 by splitting up the effect into desert and wet areas. However since I am ignoring the other GHD’s like methane… etc, the global warming potential overall is probably a wash. However in the 2nd and 3rd analysis below I give the CO2 a straight 26 % and ignore the desert analysis.
Since the desert areas are 33% of 30% (land vs oceans) = 10% of earth’s surface , then the CO2 has a maximum effect of 10% of 1.75 + 90% of Twet. We define Twet as the CO2 temperature effect of over all the world’s oceans and the non desert areas of land. There is an argument for less IR being radiated from the world’s oceans than from land but we will ignore that for the purpose of maximizing the effect of CO2 to keep the alarmists happy for now. So CO2 has a maximum effect of 0.175 C + (.9 * Twet). So all we have to do is calculate Twet. Reflected IR from clouds is not weaker. Water vapour is in the air and in clouds. Even without clouds, water vapour is in the air. No one knows the ratio of the amount of water vapour that has now condensed to water/ice in the clouds compared to the total amount of water vapour/H2O in the atmosphere but the ratio can’t be very large. Even though clouds cover on average 60 % of the lower layers of the troposhere, since the troposphere is approximately 8.14 x 10^18 m^3 in volume, the total cloud volume in relation must be small. Certainly not more than 5%. H2O is a GHG. So of the original 15% contribution by GHG’s of the DWIR, we have for CO2; .26 * (1.75 -.175) =0.41 C to account for CO2. Now we have to apply an adjustment factor to account for the fact that some water vapour at any one time is condensed into the clouds. So add 5% onto the 0.41 and we get 0.43 C. CO2 therefore contributes 0.43 C worth of the DWIR in non deserts. Add this to the .175 that CO2 contributes for deserts and we have a total for CO2 of 0.605 C . That leaves 1.75 – 0.605 = 1.145 C for the water vapour. We will neglect the fact that the IR emitted downward from the CO2 is a little weaker than the IR that is reflected by the clouds. Since, as in the above, a cloudy night can make the temperature 11C warmer than a clear sky night, Twet contributes a maximum of 0.477777 C . That is calculated by the equation 0.175C + (.9 * Twet) = 0.605C . So the maximum temperature effect of CO2 is a little less than the actual warming we have seen.

As I said before; this will increase as the level of CO2 increases, but we have had 68 years of heavy fossil fuel burning and this is the absolute maximum of the effect of CO2 on global temperature. So how would any average global temperature increase by 7C or even 2C, if the maximum temperature warming effect of CO2 today from DWIR is only 0.605 C? However, since both CO2 and water vapour are greenhouse gases, we cannot say that all the warming we have seen since 1950 is due only to CO2 because the above analysis was for a local area with clouds. Any actual global warming would have an H2O as part of the warming. This means that the effect of clouds = 85%, the effect of water vapour = 9.8 % and the effect of CO2 = 5.2 % locally. Sure, if we quadruple the CO2 in the air which would be 1644 ppm which is represented by the Keeling net CO2 in atmosphere curve that is approximated mathematically by the formula:
ppm = 0.013 t^2 + 0.518 t + 310.44 where t = the time in years since 1950. Setting this equation to 1644 ppm and using the quadratic formula of (-b +/- ( (b^2 -4ac)^ 1/2)) / 2a

Solving this gives 301 which added to 1950 gives the year 2251 which is 232 years from now. Setting the equation to 5000 ppm which is the workplace safety limits of both the UK and USA gives 511 years before we choke on the CO2. Since in the last 68 years we have had a 90ppm increase and a 0.605 C max CO2 temperature effect this gives us 0.0067222 C per ppm. However we must take 26 % of this to realize that water vapour does the rest of the warming. that means we have 0.0067222 * .26 = 0.00174777 C per ppm for the CO2. Extrapolating to the future quadrupling gives for a level of 1644 ppm which is a 1314 ppm increase from the 1950 levels of 320 ppm gives us 1314 * .00174777 = ~ 2.3 C which gives us a maximum 0.009899 C per year or 0.9899 C warming per century; which is a little under the UAH long term trend. However since the UAH trend started at a low point in temperature calculation in 1979, the long term temperature effect of CO2 is probablly very close to the above calulated number of ~ 1C warming per century which is not scary.

NASA says clouds have only a 50% effect on DWIR. So let us do that analysis. So according to NASA clouds have a maximum temperature effect of .5 * 11.65 C = 5.825 C. That leaves 5.825 C for the water vapour and CO2. This is split up with 60% for water vapour and 26% for CO2 with the remaining % for methane, ozone ….etc. As per the above. Again since the desert areas are 33% of 30% (land vs oceans) = 10% of earth’s surface , then the CO2 has a maximum effect of (10% of 5.825 C) + 90% of TwetNASA. We define TwetNASA as the CO2 temperature effect of over all the world’s oceans and the non desert areas of land. So CO2 has a maximum effect of 0.5825 C + (.9 * TwetNASA). Since as before we give the total cloud volume in relation to the whole atmosphere as not more than 5%. H2O is a GHG.
We don’t even have to calculate Twet because even if the total effect og CO2 on the GHG effect is 26% then we have; So of the original 50% contribution by GHG’s of the DWIR, we have .26 * 5.825 = 1.5145 C to account for CO2. Now we have to apply an adjustment factor to account for the fact that some water vapour at any one time is condensed into the clouds. So add 5% onto this and we get 1.59 C . CO2 therefore contributes more warming in this scenario than the measured warming to date. Clearly this does not make sense therefore NASA must be wrong.

Now since the above analysis dealt with maximum effects let us divide the 11C maximum difference in temperature by 2 to get a rough estimate of the average effect of clouds. Therefore we have to do the calculations as per the above by substituting 5.5C wherever we see 11C.
So we have then 5.5C + 0.65C = 6.15C for the average effect of temperature difference with and without clouds. So according to NASA clouds have a maximum temperature effect of .5 * 6.15 C = 3.075 C. That leaves 3.075 C for the water vapour and CO2. Since we again take 26 % of this, we have .26 * 3.0765 = 0.8 C which again is greater than the warming we have seen. Since this temperature number is greater than the complete temperature increase of the last 68 years, NASA is ignoring water vapour’s role which is 60% of the effect of GHGs. So we must conclude that NASA is wrong and that the difference effect of temperature with and without clouds must be due mainly to clouds which makes intuitive sense. Thayer Watkins number must be closer to the truth than the number of NASA.