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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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