Assuming the logarithmic diminution premise to be appropriate, this diagram indicates:
- there is no direct, straight-line relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and its influence on temperature
- the “Greenhouse” warming effectiveness of CO2 diminishes logarithmically with increasing concentrations, which implies as a result:
- at 20ppmv, ~42% of CO2 warming effectiveness is already taken up
- at 100ppmv, ~67% of CO2 warming effectiveness is taken up
- at 150ppmv, the CO2 level of plant / planet viability, ~72% of CO2 warming effectiveness is taken up
- at 280ppmv, the approximate pre-industrial CO2 level, ~82% of CO2 warming effectiveness is taken up
- at the current level of atmospheric, CO2 410ppmv ~88% of CO2 warming effectiveness is taken up.
- Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, (ECS), is assessed as the further temperature increase that arises from a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere
- the logarithmic diminution graph shows that a doubling of CO2 from 410ppmv to 820ppmv should result in a temperature increase of about +0.35°C, because the warming capability of CO2 is now so close to saturation: this calculation takes no account of feedbacks, which are undeterminable
- a rise of +0.35°C would be so marginal as to be undetectable within the noise of Global temperature measurements
- such a further doubling of atmospheric CO2 to ~820ppmv would take more than 150 years at the present rate of CO2 emissions
- cooling of the Oceans, again re-absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere is the only way that atmospheric CO2 levels will reduce: that can only be in a coming ~100,000 year glaciation.
- life on Earth is dependent on its atmospheric CO2 used by plants via photosynthesis to release oxygen and generate organic compounds
- as the present Holocene interglacial epoch advanced the planet warmed, so warmer Oceans out-gassed CO2 to reach a pre-industrial level of about 280ppmv
- that slow CO2 out-gassing process from warmer Oceans is continuing and has been supplemented largely by Man-made CO2 emissions since the 1850s from the burning of fossil fuels: the measured CO2 level has now reached about 410ppmv
- Water vapour and clouds in the atmosphere are responsible for the greatest part of the Greenhouse effect
- CO2 is a significant “Greenhouse Gas”, even though it is only present in trace amounts, (now ~410 parts per million by volume)
- CO2 is considered to be responsible for roughly 10% of the total +~33°C “Greenhouse” effect or about +3.3°C
- plant productivity improves radically with increasing atmospheric CO2 and NASA has reported ~+15% more green growth worldwide over the last 50 years, enhancing agricultural productivity and enabling the food supply for a growing Global population
- plant productivity is hampered by colder weather and any cooling will lead to agricultural losses.
- photosynthesis stops and plants and thus life on Earth can no longer survive if atmospheric CO2 concentration falls below 150 ppmv
when plants evolved, atmospheric CO2 levels were very much higher than at present (~10-20 times) and no runaway Global warming occurred.
- those high levels of CO2 atmosphere have progressively been reduced, with CO2 both being absorbed by the Oceans to be sequestered as limestone by Ocean life or converted into fossil fuels
- only some 20,000 years ago, in the depths of the last ice age, Life on Earth came very close to total annihilation when atmospheric CO2 concentration fell to 180 ppmv, only ~15% above its terminal value:
this process is driven by colder Oceans being able to absorb more atmospheric CO2 and that carbonate being progressively sequestered by marine life as limestone.
this is the way that all life on Earth will be extinguished in some future ice age due to atmospheric CO2 starvation.
so, all extra CO2 in the atmosphere extends the viability of Life on Earth.
This arithmetic shows that Man-made additions of CO2 to the atmosphere can only have very marginal further temperature effect into next century and beyond.
Climate modellers assert that there is substantial positive temperature feedback from the warming induced by added CO2 which could increase the level of water vapour in the atmosphere. In order to reach the much feared +2°C temperature increase that feedback from water vapour and clouds would have to be more than 5-fold or even more to achieve their higher predictions. There is no evidence of such positive feedbacks and observations show feedback is likely to be marginally negative.
This simple maths and the fact that the warming effect of CO2 is close to being saturated shows that any level future of atmospheric CO2 increased by Man-kind’s burning of fossil fuels can never cause Catastrophic Global Warming.
If the atmosphere was dominated by positive feedbacks as the alarmists wish to believe, then life itself would have been impossible on this planet.
The fact that the earth’s temperature has stayed within a narrow range despite all of the different forcings constantly being thrown at it is all the proof that is needed that the climate is dominated by strong negative feedbacks.
It’s even more obvious from COE considerations.
If the same massive positive ‘feedback’ they apply to the next W/m^2 was applied to all W/m^2 from the Sun, the surface temperature would be close to the boiling point of water. How does the climate system (or ‘feedback’) tell the next W/m^2 from the average W/m^2 so that the next one can be massively amplified, while all the other W/m^2 are not?
Or as RGB used to say “if its possible why didn’t it already happen before?”
Robert G. Brown at duke. His posts were always of great value. A huge contribution to WUWT
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/06/real-science-debates-are-not-rare/
Exactly. With daily Minimum temps marching steadily upward in so many instrument records, but daily Maximum temps staying about the same, I wonder how CO2 molecules in the atmosphere know to back radiate energy at night but forget how to do it during the day.
The alternate explanation is Urban Heat Island effects, but we all know that’s heresy.
Look at the climate of Phoenix vs. New Orleans. Phoenix has an average daytime high in August of 105 (sometimes hotter than 120) and average lows of 84, a temperature swing of 21 degrees. New Orleans has an average high of 91, and an average low of 75, a swing of just16 degrees. What’s the difference? It’s not elevation, Phoenix is at 1000 feet, New Orleans is at sea level. The atmosphere’s moist adiabatic lapse rate is 3 degrees F per 1000 feet. Phoenix should be cooler than New Orleans. It’s because of humidity and water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas. Arizona averages 38 percent relative humidity in the summer, Louisiana 77 percent. Climate alarmists would have you believe that there is a large non-linear feedback from CO2 concentration to water vapor concentration (doubtful, as it rains) which will supposedly raise high temperatures. That’s clearly not true, the dry bulb high temps would not be expected to up because of this putative effect from water vapor.
USCRN data shows that RH & DB toss gobs (special engineering unit) of energy back and forth during the diurnal cycle moderating the temperature swings like thermal surge tanks.
As the day warms DB goes up and RH goes down.
As the day cools DB goes down and RH goes up.
So, a humid place like Overland Park, KS sees a moderate swing from day tonight.
In a dry place like Phoenix the day/night swing is large because the air DB has to handle most of it.
Water handles it at 1 Btu/lb F sensible & 1,000 Btu/lb latent while air has only sensible at 0.24 Btu/lb – F
A global warming paradox
======================
I have a friend called Mickey Orlando Mann. Mickey lives and works in the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
According to the “weatherbase.com” website, these are Mickey’s current temperature statistics:
– annual average temperature = 13.3 degrees Celsius
– average winter low temperature = -3.6 degrees Celsius (for January)
– average summer high temperature = 30.6 degrees Celsius (for July)
In summary, Mickey normally experiences a temperature range of about 34.2 degrees Celsius over a year, with an average temperature of 13.3 degrees Celsius.
Mickey is very worried about global warming. He knows that global temperatures have risen by about 1 degree Celsius since pre-industrial times. If global warming increases by another 0.5 degrees Celsius (taking us to the 1.5 degrees Celsius temperature limit), them Mickey expects that his quality of life will suffer.
If global warming increases by another 1.0 degrees Celsius from the current temperatures (taking us to the 2.0 degrees Celsius temperature limit), then Mickey expects that his quality of life will be seriously affected.
Mickey is so worried about the prospect of reaching the 2.0 degrees Celsius temperature limit, that he has worked out what his temperature statistics would be, if that catastrophe were to happen.
These are Mickey’s global warming temperature statistics, if we warm by another 1 degrees Celsius (taking us to the 2.0 degrees Celsius temperature limit):
– annual average temperature = 14.3 degrees Celsius
– average winter low temperature = -2.6 degrees Celsius (for January)
– average summer high temperature = 31.6 degrees Celsius (for July)
In summary, Mickey would experiences a temperature range of about 34.2 degrees Celsius over a year, with an average temperature of 14.3 degrees Celsius.
But you don’t need to worry about Mickey, because he has a global warming contingency plan. Mickey’s parents gave him the middle name of “Orlando”, and Mickey has always dreamed of moving to the city that he was named after. If things get too hot for Mickey in Philadelphia, then Mickey plans to retire to Orlando, Florida, like many of his older friends have already done.
To take his mind off global warming, Mickey decided to look up the current temperature statistics for Orlando, Florida, to see what temperatures the people who live in Orlando are currently experiencing.
These are Orlando’s current temperature statistics:
– annual average temperature = 22.9 degrees Celsius
– average winter low temperature = 9.9 degrees Celsius (for January)
– average summer high temperature = 33.2 degrees Celsius (for July)
In summary, Orlando currently experiences a temperature range of about 23.3 degrees Celsius over a year, with an average temperature of 22.9 degrees Celsius.
Looking at these temperature statistics, Mickey suddenly realised that the people who live in Orlando, Florida, are currently experiencing temperatures far, far hotter than Philadelphia will have at the 2.0 degrees Celsius limit. How can they live in such extreme temperatures?
The current average temperature in Orlando is 8.6 degrees Celsius hotter than the average temperature that Philadelphia will have at the 2.0 degrees Celsius temperature limit.
The current average summer high temperature in Orlando is 1.6 degrees Celsius hotter than the average summer high temperature that Philadelphia will have at the 2.0 degrees Celsius temperature limit.
Mickey wondered why any sane person would move to Orlando, Florida, when it is currently far, far hotter than Philadelphia would be at the 2.0 degrees Celsius temperature limit.
Mickey thought about this for a while, and then he saw the answer to his question. All of the people who live in Orlando, Florida, are mad.
Mickey would need to be all knowing to KNOW this. He might think he knows it but it is possibly the most meaningless number subject to political description and fiddling known to mankind – it is a number devoid of scientific meaning. There is no way that ‘global temperature’, whatever it means, has any way to be KNOWN. Maybe God has a thermometer stuck into planet Earth that tells him the ‘global temperature’ for the planet but that is not something available to Mickey.
Nah, he has a magik tree, the wood from which he made a famous hockey stick.
Unless you are arguing that the planet is still in the middle of the Little Ice Age, than you have to admit that the world has warmed up since then.
0.1 to 0.2 C per DECADE is not a significant warming event.
This graph has a slope of 0.6 degrees per CO2 doubling today. So its an ECS of 0.6. Inquiring minds want to know the methodology behind it, since it is half of what would be considered low side of current estimates, and would certainly be cause of interest and discussion. Checked the site of origin….no references.
Homo sapiens evolved and their food crops were domesticated in an atmosphere that never exceeded 300 ppm CO2.
Why does no one read to end of the NASA finding on CO2 fertization? Does it have do something about cherries?
“While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.
The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.””
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
Jack CO2 does not trap heat in the atmosphere, CO2 cannot trap heat!!! Now remove that one statement from your comment and re read it and tell me if you still have a problem?
CO2 absorbs and re-radiates heat energy.
http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html
No it re radiates electromagnetic energy in the Infra Red band
OK
Exactly. What’s more at 15 micro metres wavelength that energy can only be radiated and absorbed by CO2 molecules at around -80C and that is way too low an energy level to be able to heat anything warmer (and 80+km altitude).
So the radiation just bounces around the atmosphere until it exits to space.
Rod August 31, 2020 at 10:41 pm
Exactly. What’s more at 15 micro metres wavelength that energy can only be radiated and absorbed by CO2 molecules at around -80C
Not true, you need to read up on black body radiation.
Jack, if all the energy has already been absorbed then more CO2 has no effect. This is why we see the logarithmic effect. Maybe you should try reading the article before making a total fool of yourself.
The article itself uses some different numbers for the CO2 absorption percentages and you may quibble with those. Somehow I think that is beyond your pay grade.
Jack has already made a fool of himself. I expect he’s used to it.
Re-radiation is omni-directional
If more radiates downwards, more must also radiate upwards.
Collisional loss of energy is several magnitudes faster than re-emittance.
Mean free path in lower atmosphere is some 10-30m..
Analysis of bolloon data shows that temperature is linear with atmospheric molecular density..
no room for any CO2 “warming” which is why it has never been observed or measured anywhere on the planet.. A model/theoretical construct, lacking some parts of reality.
If the energy is reradiated is it at 15microns?
If a collision occurs prior to emission then the reradiated energy must be lower (even ‘colder’) and this energy will not be absorbed by CO2 as it is not at ~15microns. The collision will increase the total energy of the local system (a small number of molecules out of 2500) by an infinitesimal amount (significant if enough collisions occur) which is then redistributed throughout the whole system and emitted by other non- greenhouse gasses and water vapor. This is not a statement but a question to see if I am on the right track!
fred250 has it right, almost.
“Mean free path in lower atmosphere is some 10-30m..”
This is key. This means that CO2 has already absorbed and thermalized all the 15-micron radiation it can at an altitude of 10 meters above the surface, and additional CO2 will just lower that altitude a few millimeters.
Now, about this chart, “Assumed CO2 is 10% of Greenhouse Effect of 33 Degrees C,” I object! Assumes facts not in evidence. Could be 10%, could be 0.1%, and there is no way to calculate it from First Principles.
Angryscotonfragglerock,
On average, the energy of the photons emitted by an energized CO2 molecule is the same as the energy of the photons that excited it in the first place. The emission/absorption spectrum of vibrational state energy has fine structure on both sides, spaced by the microwave scale energy of rotational states. If energy is transferred to a rotational state, an emitted photon will be at a lower wavelength, if energy is removed from a rotational state, an emitted photon will be at a higher wavelength. Conversely, a lower energy photon can be absorbed when combined with the energy of a rotational state or a higher energy photon can excite both a rotational state and a vibrational state.
Ordinary collisions by atmospheric GHG molecules don’t have enough energy to excite or quench a vibrational state, but they can excite or quench rotational states. However; since there’s roughly equal fine structure on both sides, there’s no NET transfer of vibrational state energy to rotational state energy, or visa versa. Since excitation and quenching occur with roughly equal probabilities, there little to no NET transfer of rotational state energy to the kinetic energy of molecules in motion either.
Upon a collision, the electron shell of a molecule may deform enough to cause a photon to be emitted and for GHG molecules at higher energy states, the probability of spontaneous or collision induced emissions increases significantly. Given so few molecules and so many photons, most GHG’s molecules in the atmosphere are almost never in the ground state and the probability of re-emission upon absorption of another photon is approaching 100%.
The GHG effect is a strictly a radiant effect involving photons from surface emissions, absorbed by GHG molecules and eventually returned to the surface that leads to a higher surface temperature in order to emit enough photons to offset those photons being returned.
Clouds do the same thing, but as a broad band absorber/radiator and about 2/3 of the excess surface warming is offset by surface energy absorbed and returned by clouds. More than 1/2 of the remaining warming is from water and almost 1/3 of what remains is from CO2. Ozone makes up most of the rest, while CH4 and other GHGs have an insignificant combined effect.
So, if 333 upwelling gets absorbed and 166.5 continue to upwell to ToA, where it hoses the ToA OLR balance, and 166.5 heads back the surface where it hoses the ASR surface balance.
Anyone who can balance their checkbook can trash this nonsense.
Nick,
About 300 W/m^2 of the 390 W/m^2 emitted by the surface is absorbed by the atmosphere, leaving 90 W/m^2 to pass through. 150 of the 300 is returned to the surface which when added to the 240 from the Sun is 390 and exactly enough to offset the NET steady state emissions by the surface. The other half is added to the 90 passing through which becomes 240 W/m^2 and is exactly enough to offset the NET incident solar forcing.
The error most people make (on both sides) is to include non radiant energy in the radiant balance. Latent heat and thermals in and out of the atmosphere are manifested as energy transported by matter and only energy transported by photons contributes to the steady state radiant (photon) balance. Another error many make is to ignore the geometric constraint of energy leaving the atmosphere over twice the area ( top and bottom) across which it was absorbed (bottom alone).
To the extent that a Joule of the planets emissions originated as latent heat, it just means a Joule of photons leaving the surface ends up being returnd to the surface offsetting the latent heat that left the planet instead of leaving the planet to offset the incident solar energy.
“About 300 W/m^2 of the 390 W/m^2 emitted by the surface is absorbed by the atmosphere,”
The 390 is a theoretical “what if” calculation assuming surface BB upwelling that creates “extra” energy out of thin air. It – is – not – real. And it is NOT measured!!! BTW I have demonstrated why by formal experiment. (Upwelling emissivity is 0.16 not 1.0 or .95 SURFRAD does it wrong.)
“…150 of the 300 is returned to the surface…” Defies thermodynamics. Energy CAN NOT flow opposite directions and/or from cold to hot without the addition of work to push that energy up hill.
“…to include non-radiant energy in the radiant balance.” I have demonstrated by experiment that this is, indeed, the physical fact. The non-radiative and radiative heat transfer process are co-dependent. As the non-radiative processes move more energy the surface cools which reduces radiation’s contribution. It looks like this:
all of it = (conduction+convection+advection+latent+radiation)
Emissivity by definition becomes: radiation/(all of it).
Theoretical emissivity = 63/396 = 0.16
Actual emissivity = 63/160 = 0.39
“…only energy transported by photons…” It’s not the transportation but the origin that matters.
160 in = 160 out = 17 sensible + 80 latent +63 LWIR and the balanced is closed!!!
The 333 net calculated by the S-B equation appears out of nowhere assuming the earth radiates as a BB IN ADDITION to the 160 balance which effectively DOUBLES the energy in the system.
Violates energy conservation BIG TIME!!!!
Because of the non-radiative heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules BB LWIR from the surface is not possible.
The ONLY way a surface radiates BB is into a vacuum, e.g. the moon, the sun, the ISS.
BTW I have demonstrated this by formal experiment.
“…ignore the geometric constraint of energy leaving the atmosphere over twice the area (top and bottom) across which it was absorbed (bottom alone).” The atmosphere is so thin this is negligible.
BTW did I mention: I demonstrated this by formal experimental observations and measured data.
As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
Why the instruments are wrong.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nicholas-schroeder-55934820_irinstuments-greenhouseeffect-climatechange-activity-6691709852550606848-rW8w
Why the surface cannot radiate as an ideal black body.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nicholas-schroeder-55934820_climatechange-globalwarming-carbondioxide-activity-6655639704802852864-_5jW
Nick,
The 390 W/m^2 is not a theoretical value, nor is it ‘extra energy’ created out of thin air, but is the radiant (photon) emissions from the surface consequential to its temperature and is a result of a first principles LAW of physics called the Stefan-Boltzmann LAW. You do understand what a LAW of physics is, right? You also have a wildly incorrect understanding of the Second Law, but you’ve been wrong about this forever and is largely why you’re so wrong about other things.
If you can discover another law of physics that quantifies a different relationship between the temperature of matter and its radiant emissions, then you should get a Noble Prize, as it would represent an entirely new law of physics. Similarly if you discover that an emitted photon can only be absorbed by matter that’s cooler than the matter that emitted it, or that when a photon from cooler matter is absorbed by warmer mattter, it’s energy doesn’t contribute to the temperature of that matter, then another prize is due. Of course, it’s impossible to tell the temperature of the origin of a single photon since theoretically, any photon energy can be emitted by matter at any realizable temperature.
The thickness or thinness of the atmosphere has nothing to do with its geometry. Your assertion that is does is just plain silly. Consider an almost infinitely thin atmosphere containing 1 GHG molecule and nothing else. That molecule absorbs a photon emitted by the surface and ultimately emits it in a RANDOM direction. Half the time is will have an upward trajectory towards space and the other half of the time it will have a downward trajectory back to the surface.
Relative to the RADIANT balance only the energy transported by photons matters. The origin of those photons, regardless of where it was emitted, is the same and all originated as absorbed solar energy.
Whatever effect non radiant energy entering the atmosphere plus its return to the surface has on the radiant balance is already accounted for by the temperature and its radiant emissions. If you can discover an effect of this has that’s not already been accounted for by the average temperature, you’ll be up for another prize. Plain and simple, the non radiant energy plus its offset to the surface has a zero sum influence on the RADIANT balance.
Your failure to understand basic first principles only helps the cause of climate alarmism by reinforcing the denier narrative. The only thing you’re right about is that the IPCC is wrong. I strongly suggest that you learn the difference between radiation and conduction, i.e. the transport of energy by photons vs. the transport of energy by matter, otherwise, you’ll continue to be hopelessly lost.
Chip’n’Dale: Heat and infra-red radiation are two totally distinct phenomena. Heat (enthalpy) is the sum of all the kinetic energies of the particles in a body. IR is electromagnetic radiation.
If you can’t get something so fundamental right you should really not be commenting on this site.
Optimum CO2 level for C3 plants is 1300 ppm.
Citation please.
C3 plants are not well adapted to higher temperatures which the reult of CO2.
https://serc.carleton.edu/integrate/teaching_materials/food_supply/student_materials/1167
Global warming is not about higher temperature, it about a more uniform global average temperature.
Or largely it’s increasing average of region at and near polar regions.
Or Canada’s average yearly surface air temperature is about – 4 C if were to rise to say 5 C you aren’t going to get hotter weather, you going to get less freezing weather.
Or Europe’s average temperature is about 9 C, it’s about 9 C instead of -1 C because it’s warmed by the Gulf Stream, and Gulf Stream doesn’t cause hotter weather, it causes less freezing weather.
Or our globe is 70% ocean, to have global warming, one needs to increase the ocean surface temperature.
The tropical ocean average surface temperature is about 26 C.
Or tropical ocean has far higher average temperature than Canada. And 60% of ocean outside tropics has average temperature of about 11 C, it’s this part of ocean which will warm when you have global warming, or this part of the ocean which is cooled which will cause global cooling.
” tropical ocean has far higher average temperature than Canada.”
It damned well better had! I wouldn’t go anywhere near it if it were otherwise.
Jack, dropping links from a politically subverted and lucratively incentivized ‘science’ does not make your statement a fact. It’s possible to give us thousands of worthless links and indeed they are rained down on skeptical scientists daily. Here is a link to show what I mean
https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/disastrous-effects-lysenkoism-soviet-agriculture
Lysenkoism is a perfect analogy of what is going on in ‘consensus’ climate science (which as a non scientist you probably are unaware is an oxymoron). Bad, politicized science and the resulting extermination of critics led to millions dying of starvation.
You probably consider Einstein a pretty solid spokesperson for science, so here is another link outside your go-to list.
https://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090224224804AA2GQL1
“higher temperatures which the result of CO2.”
Higher temperatures are NOT the result of CO2…
.. . you have no evidence for that mantra based dribble.
Higher CO2 is the result of higher temperatures. As usual, WUWT’s resident troll Jack Dale has causation the wrong way round.
Oh you mean like in an actual greenhouse where 1300ppm is a typical condition?
Now, tell me, which place has more robust and diverse plant life, the Amazon rain forest, or Saskatchewan? How about comparing the Amazon with the Sahara desert? Sahara vs Antarctica?
Plants love hot and wet. Cold and wet, not so much. Hot and dry even less. Cold and dry least of all.
If there’s a marginal 2-3 degree rise in temperature how will that fail to drive
marginally more evaporation and thus a somewhat wetter rather than drier climate?
Is there anything that you’re sure you know that is actually true, Jack?
I read the link you gave and nowhere did it mention what “high” temps were. It made it sound like increased drought will occur everywhere. That kind of contradicts the increased H2O in the atmosphere from CO2 positive feedback involving H2O.
You obviously know little about farming and how it is done. You realize most crops are grown on the plains of the US from Texas to the Dakota’s. That is quite a difference in both average temperature and annual moisture . Seed companies have a large number of seed varieties that cover most conditions you and this article attribute to climate change.
You do realize that mostly it is Tmin’s that are increasing and not Tmax’s which raise the daily average temps, right?
Higher CO2 levels are always better for plant growth.
Any scientist who has studied plant physiology knows this fact.
It’s called photosynthesis.
http://sealevel.info/ScientificAmerican_1920-11-27_CO2_fertilization.html
C3 photodynthesis plants evolved at 2000 to 3000ppm and our planets geologic average, accoding to geologists, if that means anything, is about 2500ppm CO2.
1300 ppm is better than 415 ppm but not necessarily optimum. Greenhouse owners might target 1000ppm inside their greenhouses because natural gas to create CO2 is not free, not because 1000ppm is optimum for all plants.
C4 photosynthesis plants have also benefitted from CO2 enrichment in scientific expetiments, even thought it was believed they would not benefit.
C3 plants are most drops and virtually all trees.
“Gum drops”
He meant “crops”. The top ten most produced food crops in the world are, wait for it, tropical: corn, wheat, rice, potatoes, cassava, soybeans, sweet potatoes, sorghum, yams, and plantains.
Human beings evolved in the tropics and so did all our top food crops. Our domesticated edible plants all like it hot. They all grow best near the Equator. They are all C3 plants that evolved when CO2 levels were 2-6 times greater than today.
The fertilization effects of CO2 may, like climate sensitivity, also diminish with increasing atmospheric levels — if and when CO2 concentrations reach 2,400 ppm. Increased heat may also affect our favorite food crops — if and when global temps exceed Paleocene levels (in other words, never).
Alarmists don’t know beans about paleobotany or agriculture. Thankfully (for them) other people (farmers) feed them anyway.
Alarmist don’t know schist about geology either.
You might say “They know Jack!”
”Why does no one read to end of the NASA finding on CO2 fertization? Does it have do something about cherries?”
Because this….
”The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years.”
Is utter garbage.
Do elucidate on your assertions. Some citations would help.
Hey you made a stupid assertion about CO2 levels below …. Pot calling the kettle black.
I supported that assertion with Dome C data.
So now give me the error range of the dome C data as asked below 🙂
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/004896979290428U
http://people.geo.su.se/barbara/pdf/Steinthorsdottir%20et%20al%202013%20QSR.pdf
Anything more current than than this 1992 polemic.
Hey none of your links are any better and your ice core data link is a website it isn’t even a science paper. You are acting a bit stereotypical all you links and data are good but you just dismiss anyone elses.
CO2 has been at dangerously low levels form many thousands of years.
Its GREAT NEWS that a bit more in now available for plant growth
And its GREAT NEWS that China et al continue to release plenty of it into the atmosphere, building MANY new coal fired power stations, which will operate for 50+ years. 🙂
Ah but the Chicom is pretty clever – I used to fly over these sites when they were under construction. They differ from western ones as they all had a ‘room’ for another turbine driver. I postulate nuclear and most probably Thorium – a few years ago they funded Norwegian and French Thorium MSR research. I would give it 10 years… Sorry Jack Dale, no references, only the Mk1 eyeball of a reconnaissance pilot.
CO2 has been dangerously low for tens of millions of years. See evolution of C4 photosynthesis.
“CO2 has been dangerously low for tens of millions of years.”
How does anybody actually know that.
And, please, no proxies.
If CO2 were NOT dangerously low, there would be no C4.
https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.00974.x
http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/155/1/56
Just ask ANYONE who knows ANYTHING about C4 plants and the evolution of ecosystems.
.. and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years.” ..
is equivalent to:
and is continuing to reach concentrations last seen 500,000 years and 1 day ago
It’s the same thing with mammoth corpses thawing out of the permafrost. Hey it wasn’t frozen when the mammoth fell in! So what’s the problem?
“Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.””
Just exactly how were these studies done? How many generations of plants does it take to provide an evolutionary change to CO2 concentrations?
Did they just grow one plant and then see what it did to increasing CO2 concentrations? How did they control for the fact that plant growth diminishes over time – i.e. it puts on more fruit or seed than it does on green growth at some point.
I just have a hard time taking some of the claims to heart. I know a greenhouse owner that raises CO2 levels to get more growth and harvest – and he does this every year. No decrease in harvest so there is little to none acclimatization.
The crops grown in greenhouses are suited that environment. There are also no pests. Increased CO2 levels in open environments result in increased predation and compromised nutritional value.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18375762/
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-ento-120811-153544
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13179
Do you really think human aren’t going to launch chemical assaults and gene selection against the pests .. you really are a greentard 🙂
The report findings might be correct but they assume that nothing will be done to combat it. It’s like antibiotic resistance is increasing …. Jack Dale says we are doomed. The truth is it’s a continual arms race between the bacteria and us. Two scientists may reach different conclusions the first says bacteria wins and the second says human drugs win. You can back both arguments with science but it’s impossible to say which is right unless you live to see the outcome.
I would add after reading all three of your links in full now I would rate them all stupidly alarmist garbage. They take no consideration to what will be the obvious response via natural selection and human research and development.
No pests in greenhouses? You are an ignorant one.
Its amazing just how much ignorance that bog-standard leftist alarmist is prepared to show of themselves 😉
Fred,
It’s not that they’re willing to reveal their ignorance. The ignorant don’t realize that they are ignorant and therefore can’t help but reveal it the more they run their mouth (or wear down their keyboard). The only way they can avoid it is by remaining silent, which is the last thing to expect from a troll.
Only if the cretins doing the tests don’t know how to control pests. !
Greenhouse grown food with raised CO2 is some of the most nutritious there is..
Guess there is no accounting for the incompetence of alarmist type pseudo scientists. !
Do you really have nothing better than a few advocacy activist scientism articles produced as propaganda to counter the positivity of the undeniable benefit of the CO2 greening effect of the earth?
Citations required, as you are so fond of barking madly, not old climate change propaganda, thanks.
Still, at least you solved the dinosaur question. Diplodocus, Brachiosaurus obviously died of malnutrition and all the T.Tex etc. ate each other. You should publish……
So…everyone is going to die because “C3 grains and legumes” contain less Zinc and Iron? How about if they are eating more of them because there is more food to go around in these poor countries? Why assume everyone will eat the same volume of food? Can these people not get their zinc and iron through supplements? This would fall under the category “human adaptation”, and I am betting it would cost a lot less then ending all industry as we know it.
Talk about your ridiculously bad science. Your papers are a bunch of speculation and bias at its worst. Even if I bought that CO2 is dangerous, I saw nothing to convince me that we could not quite easily adapt to it.
I am always amazed that these “scientists” seem to imagine that people are incapable of adaptation…If the sea level rises they will just stand on the beaches firmly in place until they drown (some 300 years later).
Why don’t you try opening a history book and reading about the predictions of wide scale starvation back in the 1960’s and 70’s. Those people could not imagine a world where food production increased either.
+1
You didn’t answer my first question. How many generations are required for the plant to incur an evolution due to higher CO2 concentrations?
It was just about a month ago that I had the pleasure of watching a crop duster treating the soybean field behind my house. Now that guy could fly! Watching him zoom up at the end of field and twist around to hit the next section of the field was seeing art in action!
Do you think that global warming will prevent this guy from flying?
The claim that predation has increased is another model special. No real world data.
The claim that more CO2 compromises nutrition is a case of plants doubling their output with a 0.1% decrease in nutritional value.
The “decrease” is relative.
For example.
If the total edible mass of the control grain is 100 grams and the CO2 enhanced grain mass is 200 grams. That’s 100 percent increase. Mostly carbohydrate.
The nutritional value of the CO2 enhanced grain “may” be only 99 percent better, but it’s still better. Healthier crops may also have more than 100 percent increase in nutrient value.
The alarmist claims are cherry picking from selected agronomy papers. Some plants can be put into “shock” if suddenly exposed to any extreme change in environmental growing conditions. This sort of thing has been studied since agronomy started.
http://sealevel.info/ScientificAmerican_1920-11-27_CO2_fertilization.html
If it were economically possible to increase open field grain CO2, the farmers would do it.
The resulting yield boom would be historic.
So – reading to the end – plants will eventually adapt to the new levels and return to the situation extant before the rise. This does not seem like any kind of catastrophe.
So – reading to the end – plants may eventually adapt to the new CO2 levels and return to the situation extant before the rise. This does not seem like any kind of catastrophe.
Anyone familiar with growing plants in actual greenhouses knows that optimum levels of CO2 are higher than 1000 ppmv.
Do you proposing doming all arable land?
Nah, we’ll just bump the atmosphere and let the Earth’s gravity be the dome.
Just keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere..
No provable detrimental effects.. Purely BENEFICIAL.
“The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited”
Anytime a scaremonger uses the word “may”, you should read it as “probably isn’t”. Please learn to read between the lines and check what the author’s biases are.
How very anthropocentric of you
Tell me, what were temperatures when hominids evolved?
First 3/4 of the Holocene, were much warmer than now. (without SUVs and coal-fired electricity)
Human civilisations developed during that time.. without air-conditioning !
I know Fred
I was hoping Jack would answer
That’s a bit before Jack’s time, so it didn’t happen
That is also in the ice core data.
You didn’t answer the question, Jack, which suggests you don’t know or don’t like the answer.
I’ll give you a hint: Homo evolved around 2.5 m years ago when temperatures were much warmer than today. Hominids evolved around 6 m years ago when temperatures were even warmer than any temperature our line has ever seen.
Not only that, we evolved in a part of the world where temperatures would have been at their highest in the existence of hominids.
Redge, also the temperature WHERE hominids evolved.
I was leading to that, see comment above
Let me rephrase:
Wealth and human well-being has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach levels never seen before.
I really find it fascinating how trolls find one study, no matter how bad, that matches what they are paid to believe, and ignore all the others.
Since the majority of the warming occurred long before the vast majority of the CO2 was released into the atmosphere, your belief that most of the warming of the last 200 years was caused by CO2 is refuted by the facts.
Your other beliefs regarding worsening climate is also refuted by the real world.
NASA is quite aware of the logarithmic effect but choose not to discuss it.
As soon as an article says, even from NASA, the old “causing more severe weather events” line, I don’t bother with the rest of it. If they try to make a stand on something so easily proven false, the rest of the quality of their work is in question.
“this is the way that all life on Earth will be extinguished in some future ice age due to atmospheric CO2 starvation.”
Alarmist at its best – you should be proud. CO2 levels have never gone below 180 ppm in the past 800,000 years.
Nice assertion we take it you were there to measure it?
Over that timespan all you can do is proxy some paleo data with about a 100% error margin, you might be get some general findings but not much more.
That is Dome c ice core data.
https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html
Yeah. If you believe that co2 has not varied much more than 50ppm over a million years, I might have a car you will want to buy.
Arithmetic is hard for you.
300 -180 = 120
Average 240 deviation +/- 60
Thanks for showing Mike was correct , jackass !!
“about a 100% error margin”
Citation please.
Your own link … read it 🙂
So lets see if you are a greentard googler or a scientist .. give me the error range from your own link.
This is Standard Operating Procedure for alarmist idiots like Jack Dale. Always read the citations they offer carefully – more often than not the citations actually contradict their assertions.
“CO2 levels have never gone below 180 ppm in the past 800,000 years.”
Many plants stop growing at 200-250ppm.
So 180ppm is dangerously low.
Thanks for agreeing , Jack !
The problem is that you and other alarmists invoke the Precautionary Principle as the reason we need to act NOW to stop CO2 increase and possible extinction. Yet you turn around and deride applying the same principle to the reduction of CO2 possibly causing extinction. You also invoke past data as your evidence that won’t happen but then reject folks quoting similar evidence that the human race developed and prospered in much warmer conditions.
Hypocrisy behold thyself!
Once again, Jack demonstrates that he only knows what he is paid to know.
First off, 180 ppm is too damn close to the 150ppm at which plants die. Beyond that, as you go up in altitude, you need to increase the CO2 concentration to make up for the lower atmospheric pressure.
Secondly, the CO2 levels at the height of the glaciation cycle has been decreasing over each glaciation cycle for the last few million years. So the bottom for the next glaciation cycle will likely be well below 180ppm.
Further to that the CO2 concentration rise stimulates absorption rapidly as per all the process discussed from plant and plankton to calcification so I’m not fully convinced that the extra CO2 we expel and there is some will or could get us past 600ppm.
We will stop needing to grow the burning of fossil fuels once we realize that solar and wind produce more CO2 than they save due primarily to the fact that they mostly replicate a generation system and then demand the right to switch it of so making it less efficient both when in use and demanding lower efficiency fast start units.
I am and have been part of the fossil fuel industry and just as stone shortages did not spell the end of the stone age so will also end the fossil fuel era, my pick molten salt reactors or something similar.
Then better batteries and flying cars please and soon.
Nice vacuous assertion. Now some science:
“Building solar, wind or nuclear plants creates an insignificant carbon footprint compared with savings from avoiding fossil fuels, a new study suggests.
The research, published in Nature Energy, measures the full lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of a range of sources of electricity out to 2050. It shows that the carbon footprint of solar, wind and nuclear power are many times lower than coal or gas with carbon capture and storage (CCS). This remains true after accounting for emissions during manufacture, construction and fuel supply.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9
That doesn’t remotely deal with the issue he is talking about it looks at the sources in isolation without considering the backup requirements. It’s unrelated and non relevant science data to the problem posed.
You obviously need it in greenspeak … so the problem he is posing is that the fossil fuel generation has to be there for the renewable source to work.
“Building solar, wind or nuclear plants creates an insignificant carbon footprint compared with savings from avoiding fossil fuels, a new study suggests.”
If the comparison is insignificant, as stated, then another way of wording the same finding would be:
“Savings from avoiding fossil fuels are insignificant compared with the carbon footprint of building solar, wind or nuclear plants, a new study suggests.”
It really is saying the same thing.
It is always interesting to follow a to and fro and see the cocksure one, who thinks that simply by providing links to supposedly learned papers that don’t necessarily support his argument, he can bolster his argument, suddenly find himself out of his depth.
Do you any idea about the amount of hydrocarbon based energy would be required to construct all the wind and solar installations required to replace said hydrocarbon sources?
Are you aware that in order to simply replace those hydrocarbon energy currently providing electricity ( forget about transportation and the like) one would have to build one medium size nuclear plant each of the 11,000 days until 2050.
Are you aware that in doing away with hydrocarbons you are dismantling the entire petrochemical backbone that support modern industrial economies?
Are you aware that in all the responses you’ve giving so far, you have not refuted the core proposition of the article?
Shadow boxing comes to mind – against straw men of your making.
Interesting – they combine nuclear, wind and solar to come up with an average lifecycle emission of CO2 – but shouldn’t they be considering wind and solar separately? Since nuclear needs no backup generation (typically provided by fossil-fueled generation), then adding that to the average for wind and solar significantly distorts the results. This is particularly true since most wind/solar advocates resist developing nuclear power. In other words, they love nuclear when it helps them support lifecycle costs, but hate it when it comes to real life.
Jack (if that’s your real name), you need to put down the KoolAid and step back from further commenting until you can face analytical truths.
The claim that wind and solar actually avoid fossil fuel emissions is once again refuted by the real world.
In the real world fossil fuel plants have to be kept at hot standby so that they can take over whenever wind speeds drop or a cloud passes over the solar farm.
The actual effect of CO2 in the air is just a guess based on lab experiments that suggest a mild, harmless warming is likely. There”s no way to know exactly what caused warming since 1975 but that doesn’t stop people from guessing or stating the “truth” with great confidence.
There”s no way to know exactly what caused warming since 1975
The ‘warming’ of ground based temperature measurements in Australia is based on a process known as ‘homogenisation’. It is a mathematical treatment of raw temperature data that can adjust the data in a step-wise fashion to create and desirable trend – it is a process of recreating history. Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology follows wold’s best practice homogenisation not dissimilar to NASA GISS and UK HadCRUT.
There is some evidence of actual temperature rise of lower troposphere in Satellite data but it is such a convoluted. disconnected measurement and determination process to arrive at a meaningless number that it is likely no better than a wet finger in the air. And does any measured temperature rise of the air with area averaging actually mean warming. A 1 degree rise in water surface temperature would require more heat input than a 1 degree rise in temperature over a desert region. That begs the question, how accurate is the correction for water vapour in the satellite calculations.
I have grave doubts that any location on Earth has statistically significant warming since 1975 unless it is a population centre that has high energy density consumption and significant changes from the natural environment that the buildings and roads replaced.
About 1 kiloJoule/K increase for one kilogram of air. About 1.25 kilograms per cubic meter.
Seawater about 4 kJ/K.
Seawater is about 800 times more dense than air.
4 times 800 equals 3200 kJ of energy needed to raise one cubic meter of seawater by 1K
Averaged over the entire planet, it is estimated that the global oceans have a heat capacity 1000 times the entire atmosphere.
Global Average Temperature (GAT) has grown to be dependent upon “homogenization” of temperatures among other problems that the trends are worthless. The uncertainties of measurements in the past are so large (and ignored) that the trend is not statistically significant.
As a proof, several of us on Twitter have been analyzing regional temperatures. As a basis, the assumption is that the sun of the parts must add up to the whole. Looking at land temps by region one is unable to find offsetting regions to those who have little or no warming. Remember if there is a region with 0 deg increase there must be one with a 3 deg increase in order to average 1.5 deg. Finding ultra-hot regions to offset those with little or no warming is not happening.
“As a proof, several of us on Twitter have been analyzing regional temperatures. As a basis, the assumption is that the sum of the parts must add up to the whole.”
That’s what I say about regional Tmax charts.
Alarmists claim Tmax charts don’t represent the global average temperature profile, but if regional Tmax charts all have the same temperature profile, then that is the global average temperature profile, not some homogenized version of them combined in a computer.
All regional Tmax charts (original temperature data) show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today. According to the Tmax charts, the Earth’s temperature is not climbing like the Alarmists claim it is. According to Tmax charts, CO2 is a minor player with regard to the Earth’s temperatures.
It was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century when CO2 was at about 280ppm, as it is today with CO2 at 410ppm. So CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased, but the temperatures have not. There is no CO2-derived, Human-caused Climate Change. It is a figment of alarmists’ imaginations. And we’ve spent $5 Trillion on windmills so far as a consequence of this scam. Wow! Where do we go to get our money back?
Pitching a hissy-fit in the streets seems to be popular.
Torch some cars, loot some store fronts.
Throw yourself on the floor and kick your heels up and down.
“I have grave doubts that any location on Earth has statistically significant warming since 1975”
The United States has been in a cooling trend since the 1930’s.
If one looks at Tmax charts from around the world, the charts would show that all those places were just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as they are today.
The only place a temperature increase occurs is in computer models. They take the original temperatures that don’t show any warming since the Early Twentieth Century, and change them in their computers to make it appear there has been steady warming since the 1930’s. Just the opposite of reality. They need to do that in order to sell their Human-caused Climate Change scam. It’s the only “evidence” they can generate. And it’s all a fraud.
UAH data show 0.1 to 0.2 C rise in the global anomaly (Know how that works?) PER DECADE!!!
That’s not a warming event, it’s UHI, natural variations, noise in the data.
Not that it matters.
There is no greenhouse effect so all of the collateral issues and rancorous discussions are moot.
That’s a nice graphic, but somewhat lacking in pedigree. How about references or methodology or equation derivation ?
“a rise of +0.35°C would be so marginal as to be undetectable within the noise of Global temperature measurements”
The “noise” of global temperature is actually uncertainty of measurement. We can’t measure temperature to the hundredth place in most temperature measurements, calibration intervals will preclude that if nothing else.
It doesn’t matter how many decimal places the models output. Anything past the tenth digit is just plain meaningless. NASA or NOAA trying to say that one year is .01 degree hotter than another is just plain ludicrous.
It’s obvious that most of the people pushing this have never worked in a machine shop where you have to calibrate everything on a routine basis against a standard. Where you have to make sure that your measurement device can resolve to at least one decimal place past the tolerance specification.
For instance, the tolerance on a 2.4488 precision crankshaft journal is +/- .0005. If you try using the typical toolbox micrometer to measure the journal you’ll have no idea if your journals are within tolerance or not since their resolution is, at best, .001! But the climate scientists want us to believe that they can use thermometers that can only measure to +/- .5degF to calculate temperatures to .01degF. They are only fooling themselves.
The power of averaging produces great precision under the right circumstances. The main requirement is that the noise is evenly distributed as in a gaussian distribution for instance. The problem is that most of the noise found in nature is red noise. It is characterized by a slow drift and all the averaging in the world won’t fix that.
Most scientists just assume that averaging fixes everything. I can tell you from bitter experience that that is just not the case.
commieBob
Besides the necessity of the error being normally distributed, it is necessary that repeated measurements be of the same unvarying dimension, with the same instrument.
Even if all thermometers are calibrated at the same temperature, the error with temperature will be different for all the thousands of thermometers. What is worse is that none of them are actually measuring the same temperature!
Uncertainty is *not* error. Error may be randomly distributed and can be averaged out. But even error may not be gaussian just as you state.
Uncertainty is *not* a random variable. It cannot be reduced using the law of large numbers. Uncertainty adds like variances add – root mean square. The more uncertain measurements you make the more the uncertainty grows. u_t = sq rt{u_1**2 + u_2**2 + u_3**2 + ……}
The power of averaging also requires the same instrument measuring the same thing.
Having thousands of different instruments measuring different things all over the globe, doesn’t satisfy the requirements either.
This is a great comment, and should be more widely known. Anyone who has engineering or physical science training understands the concept of significant figures and error analysis. Why do climate “scientists” not grasp this? Could it be because it would invalidate their dogma, or are they simply incapable of understanding it?
Graeme,
I hate to say it but I don’t think universities teach the fundamentals of physical analysis the way they used to. You can’t measure the length of each 2×4 on a pallet, average the measurements out to 8 decimal places, and expect the average to be the actual length of each 2×4. If you pull twenty 2×4’s off the pallet there will be an irreducible difference in the length of some of them. That’s called uncertainty.
And that doesn’t even begin to address significant digits in measurements.
The main result of an experiment is one variable. As it were, simply one measurement of the same thing. Even if you perform it multiple times, it is assumed there is no uncertainty in the components that make up the experiment. This simplifies the conducting of and grading of lab experiments. Uncertainty is never addresses because it is difficult and detracts from the “important” things to be learned.
Most labs in the physical sciences do teach significant digits. However this gets tossed in the waste can because as students progress to statistics they discover the Central Limit Theory and the Law of Large Numbers. Somehow these let you calculate an “uncertainty of the mean” which somewhere along the line, too many professors have allowed this to be translated into the precision and accuracy of a measurement. This predominate in climate science. The uncertainty of the mean is really only a statistical parameter that indicates the interval in which the true mean lies. It doesn’t mean that the precision of the measurements have been miraculously increased by multiple decimal digits. This is all covered in course studies of metrology which no one seems to aware of.
Today, as Tim points out, the only people who truly use and understand uncertainty in measurements are those folks involved in physical production. Certified labs, machinists, quality engineering. You only have to see the responses like what is the GUM or to Pat Frank’s paper on GCM’s to understand that too many folks don’t have a clue about errors versus uncertainty.
There’s a lot more to the noise than just measurement errors.
Various ocean cycles, El Nino/La Nina, AMO, PDO etc.
Cold and warm fronts cause readings at various places to change from day to day.
Changes in the sun.
And so on.
Be careful what you call noise. Most of what you mention is not noise, it is the signal. Climate and temperature is a complex signal with many components. What you are describing are components, like multiple notes in a chord of music. Moment to moment fluctuations are the variability in a signal. I’ve argued with many on twitter who call day to day, month to month, or even annual temp changes noise. They insist that “smoothing” the signal trends allows more accurate averaging and trending. It does not, it merely hides the variability. Averaging temperature trends from different stations when they have the variability smoothed away also hides the uncertainty that is introduced.
”this calculation takes no account of feedbacks, which are undeterminable”
What possible feedbacks – negative or positive – could arise from a 0.35C rise in temperatures?
The biggest one is an increase in cloud cover reflecting back more sunlight into space. As anyone that has stood underneath a cumulonimbus cloud can testify, this will reduce the temperature at the surface by far more than 0.35 degrees. This effect happens from the tropics to the top of the US, at least. I can’t certify that the effect works at the poles, perhaps someone that lives there (either pole) can tell us.
Higher temperature has higher cooling. The Planck effect is 4th power.
There is also the pressure/altitude effect. CO2 in the stratosphere is certainly a coolant.
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere has had zero correlation with temperatures over geologic time scales.
If a feedback exists, it exists regardless of the size of the input perturbation.
1- The usual version of climate sensitivity is given by degrees per doubling of CO2. That is indeed logarithmic (log base 2).
2 – This article says there is a different version and presents some numbers but does not actually present any math.
3 – The article refers to the saturation of CO2.
4 – In most of the atmosphere, an excited CO2 molecule will transfer its energy by collision with N2, O2, or H2O before it has a chance to re-radiate it. link Saturation is a red herring.
This article doesn’t have the kind of rigor that inspires any kind of confidence.
Being pedantic by nature, I don’t even like the graph. If saturation were a thing, you’d think the curve would asymptotically approach some upper limit. I suspect that the graph was generated artistically rather than being actually plotted from data.
I agree that the math needs to be added to show why the graph looks like it does. According to the science we are basically already at the point of saturation and it is something called pressure broadening that leads to increased absorption. Hence, dismissing the saturation point is questionable.
Also, while the CO2 molecule can transfer the energy away via collisions, it can also be excited by collisions. It isn’t a one way street. It is an immensely complicated situation which is why I’m not convinced by any assertions of CO2 sensitivity including mainstream climate pseudo science.
Actual real measurements show a leveling off at 280ppm anyway.
Here’s a link to the paper that the graph comes from.
The paper is Eggert’s interpretation of the work of Hottel and Leckner. There’s some discussion of the work of Hottel and Leckner (and others) here.
Is Leckert being deliberately ignored by the climate science community or is it actually just irrelevant? At this point I have no clue.
Is
LeckertLeckner being …I posted this several time over the years, but lots of people don’t seem to know who Hottel is.
“In 1954, Hoyt C. Hottel conducted an experiment to determine the total emissivity/absorptivity of carbon dioxide and water vapor11. From his experiments, he found that the carbon dioxide has a total emissivity of almost zero below a temperature of 33 °C (306 K) in combination with a partial pressure of the carbon dioxide of 0.6096 atm cm. 17 year later, B. Leckner repeated Hottel’s experiment and corrected the graphs12 plotted by Hottel. However, the results of Hottel were verified and Leckner found the same extremely insignificant emissivity of the carbon dioxide below 33 °C (306 K) of temperature and 0.6096 atm cm of partial pressure. Hottel’s and Leckner’s graphs show a total emissivity of the carbon dioxide of zero under those conditions.”
http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf
Further, if CO2 can do what Jack claims then why is that not noted in specific heat tables, the Shomate equation, or NIST data sheet?
The assumption is wildly incorrect. We are on the edge of major climate disruption. Stop peddling lies and ridiculous denialusm
1 – Which assumption?
2 – Learn to spell, or proofread, or something like that.
3 – You get zero respect for shouting political slogans. Learn something about the subject and come back with a reasoned argument, otherwise you’re just wasting bandwidth.
4 – Energy consumed is proportional to bandwidth so you’re also wasting energy. That isn’t very ‘woke’ of you.
One thing I’ve noticed about these brave climate warriors.
They never come back to actually read how people respond to their missives. It’s as if they have satisfied their need to feel superior and now they can go back to their friends and brag about how they have enlightened the heathens.
”We are on the edge of major climate disruption”
What a load of unfounded drivel.
“We are on the edge of major climate disruption” Needs fixing …
We have been on the edge of major climate disruption since about 1988 – but wait – what about the major climate disruption in the form of global cooling, the next ice age is overdue ? I recall hearing that one sometime around 1957. So that’s 63 years …
“We are on the edge of major climate disruption.”
ROFLMAO !!
which fantasy movie have you been watching ! ????
Do you have any evidence to support your belief?
CO2 levels have been above 5000ppm without any major climate disruptions.
For most of the last 10,000 years temperatures have been 3 to 5F above current temperatures without any major climate disruptions.
Will you actually return and read any of the responses to your post or will you conclude that your duty has been done, since you read the riot act to us heathens.
Can we get some evidence or a proof that the logarithmic diminution principle is appropriate? The whole argument rests on that assumption.
Measured radiative absorption is not quite logarithmic.. It actually levels of at around 280ppm.
See my comment at September 1, 2020 at 12:45 am. It has a link to a paper by Eggert.
The papers, on which Eggert is based, are well accepted and not controversial. They’ve progressed past science into engineering. They are supported both by theory and experiment.
My only reservation is as to whether Eggert has interpreted the works of Leckner and others correctly. I would love to see a comment on the subject by Judith Curry or Nic Lewis or someone like that.
There is ZERO sensitivity for surface temperatures due to CO2 increase.
It’s all a delusion caused by geothermal denial.
http://phzoe.com/2020/02/13/measuring-geothermal-a-revolutionary-hypothesis/
She is back … So how many people have you convinced Zoe and can I have there names because I have a couple of Effiel towers to sell 🙂
You’re not convinced by geotherm profile from geophysicists? OK … stay in your climate “science” echo chamber. Echo echo echo
What would convince us is something you haven’t provided. Actual math being used correctly.
You have been corrected by others, who have a lot more knowledge and experience than you do.
To date all you have ever done is accuse them of being either stupid or closed minded.
Not once have you attempted to actually deal with their refutations of your work.
That’s why you are treated as a crank.
BTW, when do you expect your first Nobel? After all, completely over turning the established science of the last few hundred years should be worth at least a couple of those.
I rely on experiments, not ideological mathematics.
There’s a reason people like Willis never refer to physical experiments or use free or commercial heat flow simulation software – it doesn’t give them the answer they want.
You act as if they thought me something, when in reality I anticipated their arguments ahead of time. I did my homework before I developed my theory.
And speaking of experimental evidence……..
Radiative Green House Effect theory says downwelling “extra” energy “trapped” and “back” radiated from the GHGs makes the earth warmer. (The atmosphere and its 30% albedo make the earth cooler like that reflective panel propped on the dash.)
Where from, exactly, do the GHGs “trap” this “extra” energy? They must deduct it from the atmosphere’s energy debit card. If a credit isn’t applied to that card there will be an embarrassing deficit in the ToA balance.
So how does this atmospheric energy debit card get refilled?
Per RGHE the surface radiates as an ideal black body upwelling “extra” energy to recharge that debit card.
Because of the non-radiative heat transfer processes of the contiguous participating atmospheric molecules ideal black body LWIR upwelling and recharging that “extra” energy from the surface is not possible.
No “extra” upwelling energy, no “trapped” or “back” radiated “extra” downwelling energy, no GHG warming, no man caused climate change or global warming.
The concept of “extra” and “trapped” energy violates physics and thermodynamics.
The alleged upwelling and downwelling “extra” energy measurements are the illusion of improperly configured instruments and confirmation bias. Remember cold fusion where the “extra” energy turned out to be stray electrical currents in the apparatus.
As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
Why the instruments are wrong.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nicholas-schroeder-55934820_irinstuments-greenhouseeffect-climatechange-activity-6691709852550606848-rW8w
Why the surface cannot radiate as an ideal black body.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nicholas-schroeder-55934820_climatechange-globalwarming-carbondioxide-activity-6655639704802852864-_5jW
Since Arrhenius, no one disputes that CO2 follows a logarithmic behavior as a function of temperature. However, the most widely accepted function indicates that by doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere, temperature would rise by ≈ 1.2 ° C without feedbacks.
The logarithmic graph shown in this article greatly underestimates that increase (0.35 ° C per doubling). Is it possible that the equation used here can also be published and the parameters used explained?
Thanks and best regards.
I dispute it.
There is a fundamental disagreement between specific heat tables and climate science.
When you tell me what the updated Cp of air is with a CO2 of 415 ppm then I will start to pay attention to what you say.
Arrhenius and Angstrom here.
http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/angstrom1900/index.html
Log effect here.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
Clive Best has an excellent summary page covering the log effect
The story told the public is that there is a distinct and knowable function linking atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and mean global surface temperature. A given atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide corresponds to a discrete global mean temperature, which in turn corresponds to discrete levels of various phenomena like frequency of hurricanes, or crop yields in Iowa. It’s simple, but you have to pay climate scientists big money to predict it anyway, because only they have the authority to apply the function.
Sure. And maybe Jorge Bergoglio knows the mind of God in a way that no one else on Earth does. Although he did once say, “Who am I to judge?” Well, you’re the Pope, your Holiness.
This article is nonsense pure and simple. The very start is wrong where it asserts that CO2 is responsible
for only 3.3 degrees of warming (which is in the subtext in the figure’s title). And once you believe that
you can easily believe the rest of the nonsense.
In contrast to what author assert if you remove all the CO2 from the atmosphere the global temperature
would very quickly drop by 30 to 50 degrees. Once the CO2 is gone the water vapour very quickly gets
removed as well causing the temperature to drop further which reduces evaporation and so very soon
there are no green house gases left in the atmosphere worth mentioned and everything freezes.
CO2 is a “radiative” gas
CO2 does not do anything similar to the actions of an actual greenhouse.
The terminology “greenhouse gas” for CO2, is anti-science, aimed purely at basic propaganda…
.. aimed at conjuring up images of warming.
CO2 has been recognised as a “greenhouse gas” since the late 19th Century by scientists such as
Poynting who first named it. I would suggest you go back and read his original paper where he
states why the name is appropiate. The link is at
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14786440709463737
Its an erroneous term.
CO2 does not behave anything like a greenhouse, which is what he assumed.
It does not have a “blanketing effect”
Only atmospheric molecule that affects convection, thus contributes to this so-called “blanketing effect” is H2O. It is in the atmosphere because it has ALREADY done its cooling job.
So much for being a blanket ! A blanket that cools you when its too hot. ! LOL !!
Poynting was wrong in his understanding and hence in his terminology.
Is the earth a greenhouse?
Is the earth’s atmosphere like a greenhouse that makes the earth warmer?
I maintain that because the albedo reflects away 30% of the incoming solar radiation the atmosphere is like that reflective panel placed on a car’s dash – to make the car cooler.
Remove the atmosphere (or ALL GHGs) and the 30% albedo goes with it. Gone are: water vapor, clouds, snow, ice, vegetation, oceans, etc.
The earth becomes much like the moon, a barren, dusty, pock marked rock with a 10% albedo, gaining 20% more kJ/h, hot^3 lit side, cold^3 dark.
So, no, there is no greenhouse effect.
I see Izaak completely buys into the claim that there is a strong positive feedback between CO2 and H2O. Of course he doesn’t provide any actual evidence to support his belief, but then, he never does.
Really, drop the temperature by 3 degrees, and all the water vapor drops out of the atmosphere.
3 degrees?
I don’t think the psychrometric properties of moist air would show that.
It depends on RH & WB & dew point.
Could observe by pouring lots of beers into cold mugs.
It was always about positive feedback loops of which none is soundly scientifically proven but only assumed and hypothesised.
And that’s the problem: It’s a bet about chances. Nobody knows for sure and we don’t have a test run. But ruining modern civilised life in the process is not a valid option. So it’s about risk management and nothing else.
Dont bother with Jack Dale, he thinks IR energy from the surface is (heat energy) trapped by CO2 but yet somehow ignores the enormous amount of IR energy (Heat energy) the earth receives from the sun, this heat energy is ignored and plays no role in the climate apparently.
Social media dumbs these people down so much they lose the ability of cognitive thought
This article starts out with the premise that CO2’s effects are logarithmic (true ) and then goes WAY off course.
Logarithmic does NOT mean that at 410 ppm 88% of its effectiveness is taken up. That’s a total and complete misunderstanding of what logarithmic means. At 410 ppm, the effect of doubling is exactly the same as the effect of doubling from 200 ppm. Or 100 ppm. Or 500 ppm. Or 1,000 parts per million.
by definition, no matter what your starting point , doubling from any given point has the exact same effect, you cannot use some of it up!!!!
The article is not just garbage, it is garbage of the worst sort since it starts out with a valid premise from which valid points could have been made and goes way off course. I’m late to the thread and SHOCKED that the WUWT regulars have not torn this to shreds.
“davidmhoffer August 31, 2020 at 10:33 pm
This article starts out with the premise that CO2’s effects are logarithmic (true ) and then goes WAY off course”
Yes sir. Way off course. A case of credibility lost.
Dave,
I think you are misunderstanding what the author is saying. I think we all agree a doubling is a doubling as per the Log function however there is an upper limit to what CO2 can do at which point you can continue to double CO2 and have no affect on temps due to the nature of the electromagnetic spectrum and its interaction with CO2.
88% of CO2s ability to interact with the electromagnetic spectrum is met at 410 ppm ie 12% from saturation.
yes, is a large percentage of the heat effects found in the first 180ppm or so of CO2?
In which case surely adding more CO2 up to any sensible amounts that will ever be added is going to have quite a limited impact on temperature . In other words at our current concentration we are very nearly there with the heating effects of CO2.
tonyb
I didn’t misunderstand anything. The author did. This should never have been published. See Willis Eschenbach comment downthread.
CLAIM: “the logarithmic diminution graph shows that a doubling of CO2 from 410ppmv to 820ppmv should result in a temperature increase of about +0.35°C, because the warming capability of CO2 is now so close to saturation” RESPONSE: “The logarithmic diminution” has already been included in the analysis when “doubling” instead of linear increase in CO2 was used. In theory, ECS is a constant such that each doubling causes exactly the same rise in temperature.
CLAIM: photosynthesis stops and plants and thus life on Earth can no longer survive if atmospheric CO2 concentration falls below 150 ppmv. RESPONSE: Net CO2 assimilation (net of respiration) does drop steeply below 200ppm and it may reach a net of zero at 150ppm but glaciation CO2 concentrations are in the range of 190-200 ppm such that life on earth is a continuous phenomenon that runs through glaciation and interglacial cycles.
Pls see
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/09/01/how-plants-respond-to-changes-in-atmospheric-co2/
I should add that a net CO2 assimilation of zero does not mean the plant is dead. It means that it is breathing out as much as it is taking in by photosynthesis. At negative net CO2 assimilation it is breathing out more than it is taking in and so it will tend to wither and lose weight and that may lead to eventual death of course when it runs out of mass. We are all carbon life forms after all. A weird kind of carbon life form that fears carbon.
Also, because the stomata have to be tightly packed and also open most of the time, transpiration level are high, and water usage is very inefficient.
Photosynthetic plants have been evolving for many millions of years to decreasing atmospheric CO2.
CO2 diffusing through the stomata was limiting the ability of plants to grow. They needed bigger and more stomata but that created much greater loss of H2O, which became limiting.
C4 and other expensive cellular structures began to evolve to improve the availability of the critically low CO2. This took tems of millions of years. Now many plants living in tropical conditions have highly efficient physical mechanisms to extract CO2 from the atmosphere.
C4 plants can survive down to near zero CO2, and are very slowly out-competing C3 plants.
It’s a fight for survival. Only in cold environments are C3 plants holding on relative to C4.
Projecting millions of years into the future, global CO2 levels will continue to drop and only the more advanced plants (C4) will be able to survive. The global biogeochemical cycle will continue.
The fact that C4 plants exist is absolute proof that current global atmospheric CO2 levels are dangerously low. Crucially low to the point where C3 plants are losing the survival battle to C4.
Thanks for chiming in chaamjamal, I was beginning to wonder if anyone else had any math skills left.
That said, I noticed that the usual trolls intent on discrediting a skeptical article by knocking the discussion off topic completely missed the golden opportunity to discredit it and this web site by simply challenging the math. Apparently they are so intent on knocking threads off course that they didn’t even notice a far easier way to score a win.
The latest experiments that I know about, done by a german scientist, Dr Michael Schnell is showing more or less the same results on CO2 values above 200 ppm, the warming is more or less flattening out as more the CO2 concentration increases. That means the warming effect by increasing CO2 from 400ppm to 600ppm is almost nothing.
https://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/EN-Experimental-verification-of-the-greenhouse-effect.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qfThLR5psw
There are no physical or mathematical analyses or models as a basis for these numerical values. For example: “CO2 is considered to be responsible for roughly 10% of the total +~33°C “Greenhouse” effect or about +3.3°C”. The numerical values are close to the numbers based on my published scientific studies.
The contribution of CO2 is 7 % or 2.5 °C of the total Greenhouse effect: https://www.climatexam.com/post/the-greenhouse-definition-of-the-ipcc-violates-physical-laws
The simple physical model of mine is
dT = 0.27 * 3.12 * ln (CO2/280), where CO2 is concentration in ppm.
This equation gives the TCS sensitivity of 0.6 °C. The warming increase of this equation can be fitted into the total warming value of 2.5 °C per 400 ppm, but the IPCC model cannot be done so. The estimated TCS according to the Figure of this story is the same but the temperature increase from 400 ppm to 800 ppm according to my model is 0.6 °C and not 0.35 °C.
A comment about the publishing policy of WUWT. My blog story about the GH effect was not published but it was forwarded to Dr. Spencer who falsified my text claiming that I have written that the Earth’s energy balance violates the physical laws by creating energy from void. Actually, I wrote that the IPCC’s GH effect definition violates the physical laws claiming that the GH gas absorption flux of 155 W/m2 can create the downward flux of 345 W/m2. Now WUWT publishes a story, which is close to my numerical values but the whole story is based on consideration.
I’m starting to feel sorry for those little carbon dioxide molecules, struggling out there in the atmosphere against almost impossible odds to intercept fugitive heat energy attempting to escape into space to create a frozen planet.
They are outnumbered by a factor of 2500-to-one by the other gases out there which are apparently doing nothing to help, but now they are copping the blame for doing their job too well, and causing global warming.
Actually, that is one reason I am skeptical of saturation. CO2 must warm O2, N2, and H2O through conduction, i.e., collisions. After a collision, it can absorb more IR and and then pass energy on again through another collision. This would be a continuous process and prevent saturation until the density becomes low enough make radiation a significant factor.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think CO2 is that big a factor. I believe the typical radiation budgets are all hosed. Conduction/convection/lapse rate is totally underestimated. Molecules act as point sources when they radiate. That means the IR electromagnetic wave is spherical. IOW, as much goes up as goes down. A way too many people treat IR like a cartridge with a photon as a bullet. If GHG’s radiate 300+ down, then they must also radiate 300+ up.
While I agree in principle with your article, I find myself wondering how you fit the curve to temperatures. How do you know the saturation levels of CO2 in the atmosphere (or did you use laboratory measurements?)
I have NEVER understood how the people modeling climate managed to pick the quantity of additional positive feedback from water vapor – water vapor in the air is incredibly dependent on where you are at and what conditions are present.
Additional molecules that absorb infrared energy from the surface of the Earth would in principle increase kinetic energy of the air near the surface. If the mean free path is 20 meters (picked that from a hat) and you double CO2, then whatever contribution CO2 already has to heating the air will increase but not double near the surface. Almost all of this (now kinetic) energy will be passed on to air molecules like N2 or O2, and CO2 no longer plays much of a role. If you heat the air, it will start rising faster, so convection is increased. You may therefore evaporate more water, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that water vapor increases in percentage, only that you are transporting it away faster. It then will fall as additional rain, thus the heat engine that transports heat upward works more efficiently (more work performed versus time).
If a mechanism like this did not exist, the Earth would likely have become uninhabitable at some point in the past.
There is so little CO2 in the atmosphere that its current contribution is relatively tiny. It is water vapor that matters. Since water vapor is continuously removed, and its removal is sped up if you add addition heat, the Earth remains in a fairly narrow range of temperatures. Models over estimate the contribution of CO2, and underestimate the convection process to remove heat.
About 95 percent of Earth’s “greenhouse effect” is the water cycle.
About 3 percent is CO2. The last 2 percent from the other minor GH gasses.
This fact has been known since the earliest scientific investigations. Callendar knew this.
There is no “greenhouse effect” or spoon for that matter.
See comments elsewhere.
spoon?
The Matrix.
It all comes down to three basic points:
Because of its 30% albedo the atmosphere makes the earth cooler not warmer, yes/no.
“Extra” downwelling LWIR energy violates thermodynamics, yes/no.
Because of the contiguous participating atmospheric molecules “extra” upwelling BB LWIR energy is not possible, yes/no.
Any “yes” and RGHE theory fails.
Any “no” needs a good explanation.
Ad hominems, handwavium, consensus and “We’ve already told you.” don’t count.
Try some more.
Radiative Green House Effect theory says downwelling “extra” energy “trapped” and “back” radiated from the GHGs makes the earth warmer. (The atmosphere and its 30% albedo make the earth cooler like that reflective panel propped on the dash.)
Where from, exactly, do the GHGs “trap” this “extra” energy? They must deduct it from the atmosphere’s energy debit card. If a credit isn’t applied to that card there will be an embarrassing deficit in the ToA balance.
So how does this atmospheric energy debit card get refilled?
Per RGHE the surface radiates as an ideal black body upwelling “extra” energy to recharge that debit card.
Because of the non-radiative heat transfer processes of the contiguous participating atmospheric molecules ideal black body LWIR upwelling and recharging that “extra” energy from the surface is not possible.
No “extra” upwelling energy, no “trapped” or “back” radiated “extra” downwelling energy, no GHG warming, no man caused climate change or global warming.
The concept of “extra” and “trapped” energy violates physics and thermodynamics.
The alleged upwelling and downwelling “extra” energy measurements are the illusion of improperly configured instruments and confirmation bias. Remember cold fusion where the “extra” energy turned out to be stray electrical currents in the apparatus.
As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
Why the instruments are wrong.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nicholas-schroeder-55934820_irinstuments-greenhouseeffect-climatechange-activity-6691709852550606848-rW8w
Why the surface cannot radiate as an ideal black body.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nicholas-schroeder-55934820_climatechange-globalwarming-carbondioxide-activity-6655639704802852864-_5jW
No time to read over a hundred comments, so forgive me if this has been discussed. The head post said:
First off, I have no idea what “CO2 warming effectiveness” is when it’s at home. What are the units of effectiveness? Effects per hour?
Next, as the head post says, the change in downwelling radiation varies with the logarithm of the CO2 concentration. At 400 ppmv, the CO2 is providing downwelling radiation on order of 31 W/m2.
Now, the logarithmic relationship is as follows: for each doubling (halving) of CO2, the downwelling radiation increases (decreases) by about 3.5 W/m2.
When CO2 was at 200 ppmv, it absorbed about 27.5 W/m2. At 400 ppmv it’s 31 W/m2, and at 800 it will be about 34.5 W/m2.
I have no clue what that has to do with “CO2 warming effectiveness”. I do know that his chart has to be wrong, although I haven’t bothered finding out why. How do I know?
He says:
Not true at all. This stuff is not in dispute. The formula for the change in downwelling radiation is
∆D = 3.5 * log2(C2/C1)
where ∆ is “change in”, D is downwelling longwave radiation, log2 is log to the base 2, C1 is original CO2 concentration in ppmv, and C2 is final CO2 concentration.
If the concentration doubles, then C2/C1 equals 2. The log2 of 2 is 1, so the change in downwelling radiation for any doubling is 3.5 W/m2.
Sorry, but I’d reject this post as being deeply flawed.
w.
Can any lukewarmer show me evidence for a greenhouse gas effect? For example, you claim that without GHG in the atmosphere, earth’s average surface temperature will be 33C colder. That’s a clear statement, citing a number to 2 S.F. Show me your scientific validation of that claim. Where’s the evidence: observations and experiments please.
The 33 C claim comes from this equation: 288 K w – 255 K w/o = 33 C colder.
The 288 K w global average is a wag from IPCC/WMO. K-T uses 289 K. UCLA Diviner mission uses 294 K.
The 255 K assumes that the naked earth maintains its 30% albedo. This assumption is absolute nonsense. Nikolov, Kram (U of AK and UCLA Diviner mission concur that the naked earth would be much like the moon with a albedo of 10% and receive 20% more kJ/h.
IPCC AR5 Glossary
“With the average surface temperature of the Earth of about 15°C (288 K), the main outgoing energy flux is in the infrared part of the spectrum.” (LWIR 63 W/m^2 out of 160 or 39.4%. Latent 80 W/m^2 or 50%, Convective 17 W/m^2 or 10.6%.)
1,453 7/20
“Global mean surface temperature An estimate of the global mean surface air temperature. However, for changes over time, only anomalies, as departures from a climatology, are used, most commonly based on the area-weighted global average of the sea surface temperature anomaly and land surface air temperature anomaly.”
1,455 9/20
Penn State
(https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo300)
“The (calculated/modelled/not measured) temperature at the top of the atmosphere is 255 K, which equals –18 oC or 0 oF. It is substantially less than Earth’s average surface temperature of 288 K, which equals 15o C or 59o F. This top-of-the-atmosphere temperature is the same as what the Earth’s surface temperature would be
if Earth had no atmosphere but had the same albedo.” (This is sssoooo wrong!!!)
“In the no-atmosphere model, the only radiating bodies are the Sun and the Earth. (By the way, if Earth had a pure nitrogen atmosphere, the results would be very similar to the no atmosphere scenario.) The solar radiation passes through the altitude levels where a stratosphere and troposphere would be and the fraction 1 – a of it is absorbed by the Earth’s surface. We assume that Earth’s albedo is still 0.294 (THIS IS SOOOOOO WRONG!!!) so that 0.706, or 70.6%, of the solar radiation is absorbed at the surface with the rest reflected back to space.”
“So, what would the temperature at Earth’s surface be if there was no atmosphere? Equation [7-2] applies
to the no-atmosphere case
and hence the Earth with no atmosphere has a (an AVERAGE) surface temperature of 255 K. This temperature is the same as the radiating temperature at the top of our Earth with an atmosphere whose absorptivity, hence emissivity, is 1 at all emitted infrared radiation wavelengths. The (AVERAGE) surface would be so cold that any water (NONE!!) on it would freeze and stay frozen.”
(355 K lit side + 155 K dark side)/2 = average 255 K
355 K lit side = zero water anywhere frozen or not.
https://sos.noaa.gov/Education/script_docs/SCRIPTWhat-makes-Earth-habitable.pdf
I’m unconvinced by this NASA argument because evaporative cooling is responsible for about 50% of surface cooling. If the temperature of the surface was 33 C colder, very little evaporative cooling would happen. So the surface would not cool so much. So it would be a lot warmer than cold.
As we all know, with evaporative cooling, water scavenges heat from its surroundings (latent heat of vapourization) to break the inter-molecular bonds (AKA hydrogen bonds) keeping water in liquid form (as chains of H2O, about 6 moles long). Water vapour then takes about 8 days to get to the upper troposphere where it is a lot colder, so it condenses back from vapour. The latent heat is then released as clouds form. So evaporative cooling moves heat from the surface to the upper troposphere. So if we measure a lot of radiation originating from the upper troposphere, much of it must be due to latent heat released there.
Message NASA/GHGE fans. We cannot explain earth’s surface cooling by talking of radiative emission alone, and evaporative cooling will vary depending on surface temperature.
It is even worse! It is not just the albedo which would drop in the absence of an atmosphere (or clouds in it), it is also about emissivity. The surface mainly consists of water and the refractive index of water is about 1.27 in the SW range and about 1.33 in LW range. With the help of Fresnel equations it is possible to derive specific absorptivity and emissivity with these numbers. It turns out that this difference between LW and SW is almost negligible and water is just as good in absorbing SW radiation, as in emitting LW radiation. Basically the same goes for the solid surface. An Earth without atmosphere (ceteris paribus) would thus have a temperature of 278K(!).
But that is not the end of the story, rather it yet gets far worse. A throurough analysis of clouds reveals they are indeed warming the planet, rather than cooling it. So if we only account for surface plus clouds, Earth had to be well warmer than 278K, likely in the 283K range. That is without GHGs.
“…and water is just as good in absorbing SW radiation, as in emitting LW radiation.”
Kirchoff noted that absorptivity = emissivity. This is just energy conservation. A surface cannot emit more than it absorbed. However, it can emit less than it absorbed – when non-radiative processes pick up part of that heat transfer load. That’s why the non-radiative conductive, convective, advective (wind) and latent (evap & cond) heat transfer processes active at the terrestrial surface render BB upwelling “extra” energy impossible. The terrestrial surface’s emissivity is closer to .15 than .95.
No “extra” upwelling and no “extra” downwelling, no GHG warming, no mankind’s CO2 global warming or climate change.
Kirchhoff’s law only applies to identical wave lenghts. Since SW != LW it does not apply here. However, the difference as stated above is yet negligible.
Surface emissivity is NOT .15, but in the .9x range indeed. This is easy to see when you look at Earth past clouds, and realise it is a very dark planet reflecting less than 10% of solar radiation. So surface absorptivity is a bit higher than 0.9 and since both absorptivity and emissivity largely cancel out, we also know about emissivity.
“Surface emissivity is NOT .15, but in the .9x range indeed.”
No, it is not. 63/396=0.16 or 63/160=0.39
What follows explains why. I provide more detailed explanation elsewhere in the thread.
As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
Why the instruments are wrong.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nicholas-schroeder-55934820_irinstuments-greenhouseeffect-climatechange-activity-6691709852550606848-rW8w
Why the surface cannot radiate as an ideal black body.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nicholas-schroeder-55934820_climatechange-globalwarming-carbondioxide-activity-6655639704802852864-_5jW
Nick Schroeder September 2, 2020 at 8:40 am
Nick, we actually measure this stuff so that it doesn’t need to be guessed at as you are doing. In general, the emissivity of the earth is quite near to 1.0, in fact close enough that in most analyses it is taken to be 1.0 with little error. For most natural substances the emissivity in the longwave IR range is very near 1.
My bible for many things climatish, including the emissivity (which is equal to the absorptivity at any given wavelength) of common substances, is Geiger’s “The Climate Near The Ground”, first published sometime around the fifties when people still measured things instead of modeling them. He gives the following figures for IR emissivity at 9 to 12 microns:
and so on down to things like:
You can see why the error from considering the earth as a blackbody in the IR is quite small.
I must admit, though, that I do greatly enjoy the idea of some boffin at midnight in his laboratory measuring the emissivity of common substances when he hears the snap of the mousetrap he set earlier, and he thinks, hmmm …
w.
Treating the earth’s surface as a BB effectively doubles the energy in the system creating “extra” energy out of thin air.
17+80+63=160
and then
Calculating the theoretical “what if” energy a second time using S-B creates “extra” energy.
Because of the non-radiative heat transfer functions of the contiguous atmospheric molecules BB LWIR “extra” energy is not possible.
It’s like entering both your gross and net numbers from your paycheck in you check register.
Bad bookkeeping.
Surface emissivity: 63/396=.16 & 63/160=.39 .95s do not exist except in a vacuum.
BTW in case you haven’t heard I backed it up with experiments.
As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
Why the instruments are wrong.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nicholas-schroeder-55934820_irinstuments-greenhouseeffect-climatechange-activity-6691709852550606848-rW8w
Why the surface cannot radiate as an ideal black body.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nicholas-schroeder-55934820_climatechange-globalwarming-carbondioxide-activity-6655639704802852864-_5jW
There is no upwelling of “extra” energy,
there is no downwelling of “extra” energy,
the GHGs have nothing “extra” looping around with which to do any warming,
and therefor no mankind/CO2 global warming and climate change.
That table of emissivity values you cited are for the materials ABSORBING INCOMING radiant energy.
Kirchoff observed that absorptivity = emissivity. All that means is that a surface cannot emit more than it absorbed. But it does not say whether a surface can emit LESS than it absorbed. And when there are non-radiative processes involved that is exactly what does.
The emissivity for a surface EMITTING OUTBOUND radiant energy depends on the non-radiative involvement of a contiguous participating media aka atmospheric molecules.
Only in a vacuum without the non-radiative heat transfer KE of molecules cooling the surface will a surface emit as BB. (See my experiment report.)
The emissivity for a surface EMITTING radiant energy is:
Q, kJ/h = All that was absorbed, kJ/h = (Conduction, kJ/h + Convection, kJ/h + Advection(wind), kJ/h
+Latent(evap&cond), kJ/h + Radiant, kJ/h)
Emissivity = Radiant kJ/h / All aka the sum or (Conduction, kJ/h + Convection, kJ/h + Advection(wind), kJ/h
+Latent(evap&cond), kJ/h + Radiant, kJ/h)
I believe my experiments clearly demonstrated this.
Easy and cheap to replicate.
I don’t have but $800 in the apparatus. Having the vacuum box fabricated was the most expensive.
@Willis it is not quite that simple
The 9 to 12 micron range only represents 19% of the emission spectrum at 288K. Moreover there are hardly measurements beyond 15 micron, which leaves almost half of the emission spectrum unaccounted for.
Also “close to 1” is not a valid argument, since every percentage point of deviation from 1 drops about 1K off the GHE. In fact that is what most of the GHE hoax is made of. It are small cheats there and there which accumulate to one big lie.
150W/m2 of “GHE” are made of..
~30W/m2 erroneous surface emissivity = 1 claim
~30W/m2 LW CRE according to the IPCC. Ironically that is always “forgotten”
~20W/m2 come from dropping SW CRE from 70 to 50W/m2
~40W/m2 originate from the net CRE which is not negative (like -20W/m2), but rather positive in the 20W/m2 range. Accordingly the LW CRE is not 30W/m2 but rather ~90W/m2
What is left are some 30W/m2 which can be attributed to GHGs.
PS. you won’t learn that stuff by looking up “models”, but doing genuine research
Clive Best’s excellent summary answers your questions.
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=5911
288 K w – 255 K w/o = 33 C cooler is rubbish as explained elsewhere.
No. He does not even try to derive the 33C warming which GHGE supposedly delivers. Nor does he include a proper discussion of evaporative cooling.
One would have to calculate this using at least 6 effects happening simultaneously.
1. S-B radiative heat loss from the surface
2. Evaporative cooling at the surface (itself dependent on surface composition and breezes)
3. Condensation at the upper troposphere
4. S-B radiative heat loss from upper troposphere
5. Precipitation from the upper troposphere
6. Greenhouse gas effects
288 K w – 255 K w/o = 33 C cooler is total rubbish.
See details elsewhere.
I’m sure most of you know of the Skeptical Science web site dedicated to deconstructing climate change skeptics. When I first starting serious reading of climate issues- I came across the site. I periodically check it out to see what they think of various topics. Trying to be fair I always look at both sides of any argument.
So, I just looked at their opinion of climate sensitivity: https://skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm
I’m not at all impressed with what they say. “There are two ways of working out what climate sensitivity is.”
The first is to look at all the models! And that’s supposed to prove something?
The second is to look through geologic time and compare temperatures with CO2 levels. As if listing 2 variables is a proof of correlation.
When I first went to the site about a year ago, I noticed “This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism.” So, I asked if it’s reasonable to be skeptical of people who are skeptical about global warming skepticism. The moderator warned me about that kind of talk- any more and I’d be locked out.
There’s a clear correlation between temperature and CO2 in climate data. CO2 lags temperature. The mystery is in how the lag varies in time. For ice core records, the lag is many hundreds of years. For annual CO2 today the lag is barely 1 year.
Is the Skeptical Science webSite skeptical? Science?
😜
It’s only skeptical of climate skeptics. As I noted above, when I asked them if it was also OK to be skeptical of them- they threatened to lock me out. They have a long list of all the climate skeptic points and they’re all deconstructed. If I wasn’t familiar with the actual arguments of climate skeptics I might be fooled by those deconstructions. I hope most of the people active hear look at that site. That entire site needs to be massively deconstructed. Maybe somebody has already done it.
Another site needing to be shredded is Real Climate- staring some of the major alarmist climate “scientists” including Michael Mann.
In my own field of forestry- I’ve been deconstructing lies and propaganda since Nixon was in the White House- coming from both forestry haters and even forestry “leaders” who often cover up for bad forestry work. So I have an eye for bullshit.
The Earth receives net energy of 240 W/m2 measured as incoming energy and the same as outgoing energy. The surface receives shortwave radiation 165 W/m2 (observed) and 345 longwave radiation (=LWR)(observed); totally 510 W/m2. It is an univocal observation that the surface receives more energy than provided directly by the Sun.
The LWR is the sum of four energy fluxes absorbed by the atmosphere: shortwave radiation 75 W/m2 (=240-165), LW absorption by GH gases and clouds 155 W/m2, latent heat 91 W/m2 and sensible heat 24 W/m2; totally 345 W/m2.
The magnitude of GH effect as energy flux is 510-240 = 270 W/m2 or otherwise 345-75 = 270 W/m2. The IPCC’s definition is that the absorption by GH gases and clouds = 155 W/m2 is the magnitude of the GH effect by reradiating 345 W/m2 to the surface. It is against the physical laws.
What do you think?
1) If the energy flux of 270 W/m2 would not be there, should the surface temperature be the same about 15-16 C degrees by merely the 240 W/m2 absorbed by the surface?
2) Do you think that 345 W/m2 cannot warm up the surface?
3) Do you think that only 165 W/m2 radiating directly from the Sun to the surface can warm up the surface? 4) Do you think that the shortwave radiation 75 W/m2 disappears?
5) How could then the Earth radiate 240 W/m2 back into space?
6) If 75 W/m2 can warm up the surface, why the rest of 345 W/m2 = 270 W/m2 could not warm up the surface?
7) On which basis the surface could receive only the photons of the flux 75 W/m2 and ignore the rest of the LWR flux?
If you give answers to these questions, then we can continue the discussion.
“…345 longwave radiation (=LWR)(observed); totally 510 W/m2.”
This is the result of a theoretical “what if” S-B 1.0 emissivity calculation, absolutely prohibited by thermodynamics and only “observed” by people who don’t understand IR instruments.
The sun heats the terrestrial surface, the terrestrial surface heats the contiguous atmospheric molecules through both non-radiative and radiative processes: (conduction+convection+advection (winds)+latent (evap&cond)+radiation).
Actual emissivity is radiation/(conduction+convection+advection (winds)+latent (evap&cond)+radiation).
Ideal: 63/396=0.16
By balance: 63/160=0.39
No upwelling, no downwelling, no GHG warming, no mankind/CO2 Gorebal warming or climate change.
Q = 1/R * A * (Tsurf – Ttoa) same as the insulated walls of a house.
I see, you are those peiple with their very own physical laws.
Uh, no, you are.
Creating energy out of thin air with a “what if” calculation.
Cold to hot w/o work.
Perpetual energy loop.
My “own” physical laws were derived from the curriculum required to earn my BSME.
I backed up my position with experimentation.
What have you got?
As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
Why the instruments are wrong.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nicholas-schroeder-55934820_irinstuments-greenhouseeffect-climatechange-activity-6691709852550606848-rW8w
Why the surface cannot radiate as an ideal black body.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nicholas-schroeder-55934820_climatechange-globalwarming-carbondioxide-activity-6655639704802852864-_5jW
My layman observations:
1. The earth warms during the day.
2. The earth cools at night.
3. CO2 probably adds very little to the heating of the earth during the day. It would be swamped by the energy from the sun.
4. At night the same cooling process happens happens every night. If CO2 has any impact it would be that it slows the cooling so that the starting temperature at sunrise goes up, i..e minimum temperatures go up but not maximum temperatures.
5. The average global temp goes up because of higher minimums.
6. Minimum temps going up would seem to be a good thing. More plant growth, more food, longer growing seasons.
Using cooling/heating degree-days around the globe as a proxy this seems to be the case. CDD is changing very little (i.e. maximums aren’t going up much at all) while HDD is going up enough to be noticeable (i.e. minimums are going up)
This is exactly opposite from what we hear from the climate alarmists that the earth is going to turn into a cinder as maximum temps go up.
I’ll say it again. The global average temperature is useless. It tells you absolutely nothing about the temperature envelope anywhere, especially on a global basis. It is the temperature envelope that determines climate, not the average global temperature.
The elliptical orbit, tilted axis and albedo modulate the net amount of solar energy into the terrestrial surface.
The warmed up terrestrial surface warms the contiguous atmospheric molecules.
Stand under an infra-red heater at a Home Depot checkout counter.
Variations in those three control the climate.
Q = 1/R * A * (Tsurf – Ttoa) controls the difference in temperature between the surface and TOA much like the insulated envelope of a house. “R” you can see in the insulation aisle at Home Depot.
Chaos and physics control the weather.
Nick,
You didn’t address the assertions I made in any way, shape, or form.
My observations are not in any way dependent on the detailed processes.
What happens to the surfaces that IR heater warms when the building is shut down at night? Don’t they cool off? How far do they cool down? Does the morning temperature go up day after day? At some point wouldn’t the IR heater be useless if the surfaces don’t cool off?
It’s the same with the Earth. Just as that IR heater doesn’t melt the counter surface by increasing its its temperature day after day the Sun doesn’t melt the Earth by increasing its temperature day after day either. Just as that counter surface will cool down at night the Earth cools down at night.
Now, if the daytime temperature of that counter surface doesn’t go up day after day then what could cause the average temperature of the counter top to go up?
Goezintaz = goezoutaz.
The heat entering the objects is transferred to the air.
At equilibrium the rate of energy warming the objects equals the rate of energy transferred to the air.
Turn off the heaters and the objects cool, the air warms until the two are at the same temperature.
We could do lots of analogies with refrigerators, too.
Don’t be obtuse. Answer the question. If the daytime temp of that counter surface doesn’t go up day by day till it melts then what would case the average temp of the counter to go up?
The specific heat area of thermodynamics says that the energy needed to raise a mass of a substance 1 C can be in any form. Q = Cp * m * dT.
Climate science says if CO2 involved coupled with IR the above equation needs to have an addendum.
In calculating the Cp of air the Shomate equation does not include any mention of IR.
This is a simple but far better estimate of so-called climate-sensitivity to CO2. I would guess there’s some additional positive-feedback from more water vapor — we see that in the greatest temp increase occurring in the otherwise extremely dry Arctic (but apparently not Antarctic so far). And that’s a benefit for life in the Arctic.
“…we see that in the greatest temp increase occurring in the otherwise extremely dry Arctic…”
What increase?
UAH shows 0.16 C per DECADE!!!
Break out the tees, shorts and sun screen!!!
It’s relative, of course.
The log graph has been around for a long time.
I think my 1950s Meteorology text has something similar.
For the curious, the best derivation of the log effect of CO2 on Earth is Clive Best.
Very concise and easy to understand.
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=5911
“CO2 is considered to be responsible for roughly 10% of the total +~33°C “Greenhouse” effect or about +3.3°C”
Says who? There is a video of Roger Revelle where he says CO2 was responsible for 33K (or a 100%) of GHE. The IPCC would claim its share is about 25%, or about 8K. Me on the other side, I can assure it is no more than 3% or 1K. Of course I know why that is.
This is an issue that needs to be sorted out, just dropping numbers won’t help..
288 K w – 255 K w/o = 33 C cooler is total rubbish.
See details elsewhere.
LOL … I have written the most relevant science hereto.
Leitwolf: “The IPCC would claim its share is about 25%, or about 8K”
WR: Can you tell me where the IPCC makes that claim?
Well, here is Roger Revelle claiming 33K of CO2 GHE (5:30 mark)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzE4oDwoYyY
And the other one is not quite the IPCC, but Kiehl/Trenberth should do (both are lead authors with the IPCC)
https://journals.ametsoc.org/bams/article/78/2/197/55482/Earth-s-Annual-Global-Mean-Energy-Budget
Of course what the article says is total garbage, but that is another story..
I have a detailed explanation elsewhere in the thread.
288 K w – 255 K w/o = 33 C cooler w/o is a junk equation.
288 K is an IPCC/WMO WAG.
255 K assumes the naked earth keeps the 30% albedo.
That assumption is scientific if not legal MAL-FEASANCE!!!!!
aka fraud.
“…..the warming capability of CO2 is now so close to saturation……”
There is no science to support that assertion.
A better estimate based on known hard data and business as usual is a climate sensitivity of 2.06C
Using data from the year 1979 to the present (2020), an estimate of future global average temperatures can be made based on the assumption that CO2 in the atmosphere will continue to increase at the current compound rate of .49% per year, The year 1979 is selected because we have reasonably reliable data for both temperature and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since that year.
Five separate measuring systems for global temperatures are available for reference.
Three ground based systems: National Climate Data Center (NCDC), Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), and Hadely Centre for Climate Research and University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (HadCRUT).
Two satellite based systems:University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH), and Remote Sensing System (RSS), both of which use the NOAA TIROS-N satellite. Although they use different methods to correct for errors in diurnal drift of the satellite, they tend to agree over the 41 year period.
Each of these five systems vary slightly from each other month by month, however they have remarkable agreement in their trends over the 41 years. The short term variations (monthly and yearly) from natural cycles cause temperature swings 50-100 times the underlying trend. However, it is easy to observe the slow steady underlying increase during the period. From 1979 to 2020 the trend reveals an increase of .6C (1.08F), or an increase of .015C (.027F) per year. Let’s assume that anthropocentric (man-made) warming is the total cause of all this trend, ignoring other possible factors.
During this same period we have reliable data on the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere from the Mauna Loa Observatory. In 1979 the concentration was 338 ppm. In 2020 it is 413 ppm, an increase of 75 ppm or 22.2% above the 1979 level. It is increasing annually at a compound rate of .49%. At this rate we will double CO2 concentration from the 1979 level by the year 2121.
From the above data we can calculate the value of “Climate Sensitivity” based on the scientific principles of global warming.
So, doing the math:
413 ppm in 2020 is 22.2% above 1979 (1.222×338=413). The natural logarithm of 1.222 is .200.
616 ppm after doubling in 2121 is twice the level of 1979. The natural logarithm of 2.00 is .694.
.200/.694=.288. so we are currently at 28.8% of the temperature we will reach after doubling CO2
.6C/.288=2.08C which is the increase in temperature which will be reached in 2121 compared to 1979.
So, since we are already .6C above 1979, by 2121 temperature will increase by 1.48C (2.66F) above current global temperature.
Caveats:
Are the last 41 years of temperature measurements reliable?
Will CO2 concentration continue to accelerate at the current rate?
Will temperature/CO2/ relationship change due to changes in albedo, ocean heat absorption, water vapor, etc?
Temperature increase has an immediate plus a lagging response. However the combination of these two
elements are already in the current measurements, so the relationships should hold true.
CO2 doesn’t “warm” anythang.
I never said it did. Just repeated a quote by Rotter.
I guess I miss your point.
All of this debate about CO2, where it come from and goes, does or doesn’t do is bunch of point-less hot air.
This post shows ignorance of HOW CO2 actually causes warming.
Saturation of IR absorption is commonly defined as the amount of CO2 required to decrease the IR flux by a factor of 1/e and occurs because those IR photons already absorbed are no longer available. But this definition applies to the IR source being in one location, e.g. the Earth’s surface. Every CO2 molecule residing above Earth’s surface is not only an absorber of ~15 micron (u) IR, but also an emitter. This is how IR energy moves upward, by repeated absorption and emission at all altitudes. It is not absorption of various wavelengths that directly contributes to warming, but at what rate each IR photon is emitted at its emission height. Earth warms when the rate of IR escape to space is slowed. And, the emission height to space for 15u IR emission from CO2 is in the cold, upper atmosphere, where IR emission rates are much lower.
CO2 emission to space does show a quasi-logarithmic effect, but for a totally different reason. That reason is given by the fact that the 15u absorption is complex and occurs across a wide band, with decreasing probability moving toward the edges. (That can be observed in satellite spectra of IR escaping from Earth.) Thus, while the central part of the band shows saturation, the edges do not. Further, the beginning of that central band saturation does not begin until atmospheric CO2 reaches a few hundred ppm.
Those who make assertive scientific comments should first understand the basic science.
“…CO2 actually causes warming.”
CO2 does nothing of the sort.
As for “150ppmv, the CO2 level of plant / planet viability”: This is the lower limit for viability of especially CO2-needy examples of C3 plants, not plants in general or even C3 plants in general. The lower limit of viability of C3 plants ranges from 60 to 150 PPMV (among the plants studied) and many C4 plants are viable down to 10 PPMV according to:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0e23/5047cba00479f9b2177e423e8d31db43229d.pdf
Regarding: “the logarithmic diminution graph shows that a doubling of CO2 from 410ppmv to 820ppmv should result in a temperature increase of about +0.35°C, because the warming capability of CO2 is now so close to saturation”:
I would like to see a cite for this, because even Christopher Monckton says the pre-feedback climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is more than this. edmhdotme does not show support for his figures. Also, a logarithmic curve does not have a saturation point. He derives 1.02 degree C/K per 2x CO2 before feedbacks, using instead of the IPCC’s 3.7 W/m^2 per 2xCO2 a lower figure supported by a study he cites, in
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/08/cmip6-models-overshoot-charney-sensitivity-is-not-4-1-k-but-1-4-k/
I like it warmer….waiting for the warmth.
There were some objections voiced to my similar treatment of radiative and non-radiative heat transfer processes leaving a heated surface.
The same laws apply whether its wavular packets of photons or the kinetic gangs of molecules.
1) The energy that leaves a system cannot exceed the energy that enters the system.
160 W/m^2 arrive at the surface, ALL that can leave is 160 W/m^2. This law disallows the “extra” 333 W/m^2 appearing out of the theoretical BB S-B calculation for 16 C.
2) Energy cannot flow from a cold system to a warm system without the addition of work – to compensate for the losses, to move energy uphill against the PE.
3) Entropy prohibits 100 % efficiency, there are ALWAYS losses. This disallows the 100% efficient net up/down welling 333 W/m^2 perpetual “warming” loop.
Kinetic energy can be concentrated with a compressor.
Photon energy can be concentrated with a hand lens.
Physics is physics.
Looks like this thread has run its course, the field is empty.
BTW did I mention the experiment I conducted in the classical style to demonstrate my points?
An electric plate heater rated at 125 W with a surface area of 0.00895 m^2 radiates at 13,960 W/m^2.
According to S-B for the heater to radiate BB requires a surface temperature of about 808 F.
We’ll call that input energy “Hot Ray.”
The measured surface temperature in open air was about 670 F.
A large chunk of the energy is gone missing.
We’ll call the radiating energy “Net Ray.”
Hot Ray – ??? = Net Ray
There is a contingent that asserts Hot Rays from one direction and Cold Rays from an opposing direction meet somewhere in the middle going “boink” and produce Net Ray.
Hot Ray – Cold Ray = Net Ray
However, his experiment shows that the ??? in question is obviously the non-radiative heat transfer processes of the contiguous gang of heat transfer participating kinetic molecules, aka Non-Ray. These processes lower the heater’s surface temperature and the net amount of exiting radiation.
Hot Ray – Non-Ray = Net Ray
In observable fact, when fans and water sprays are applied, Non-Ray increases and Net Ray decreases, as does emissivity which equals Net Ray / Hot Ray.
When the heater is operated under vacuum where Non-Ray = 0 and does not exist the heater surface exceeds the predicted BB temperature.
If Hot Ray – Cold Ray = Net Ray were correct the vacuum Hot Ray would have been diminished by the Cold Ray from the inner walls of the vacuum box and display less than the BB.
Zero evidence of that.
Hot Ray = Net Ray means Cold Ray = 0
Recall Feynman’s observation on experiments.
LWIR from the cold troposphere cannot radiate back towards the warm surface.
and
BB radiation upwelling “extra” energy from the surface is not possible.
QED