By David Wojick |October 26th, 2020|Climate
Precision research by physicists William Happer and William van Wijngaarden has determined that the present levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and water vapor are almost completely saturated. In radiation physics the technical term “saturated” implies that adding more molecules will not cause more warming.
In plain language this means that from now on our emissions from burning fossil fuels could have little or no further impact on global warming. There would be no climate emergency. No threat at all. We could emit as much CO2 as we like; with no effect.
This astounding finding resolves a huge uncertainty that has plagued climate science for over a century. How should saturation be measured and what is its extent with regard to the primary greenhouse gases?
In radiation physics the term “saturation” is nothing like the simple thing we call saturation in ordinary language, just as the greenhouse effect is nothing like how greenhouses work. Your paper towel is saturated when it won’t pick up any more spilled milk. In contrast greenhouse gases are saturated when there is no more milk left to pick up, as it were, but it is far more complex than this simple analogy suggests.
Happer is probably best known to our readers as a leading skeptical scientist. He co-founded the prestigious CO2 Coalition and recently served on the staff of the National Security Council, advising President Trump. But his career has been as a world class radiation physicist at Princeton. His numerous peer reviewed journal articles have collectively garnered over 12,000 citations by other researchers.
In this study Professors Happer and van Wijngaarden (H&W) have worked through the saturation physics in painstaking detail. Their preprint is titled “Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases“. They have gone far beyond the work done to date on this complex problem.
To begin with, while the standard studies treat the absorption of radiation by greenhouse molecules using crude absorption bands of radiation energy, H&W analyze the millions of distinct energies, called spectral lines, which make up these bands. This line by line approach has been an emerging field of analysis, often giving dramatically new results.
Nor do they just look at absorption. Here is how Professor Happer put it to me:
“You would do our community a big favor by getting across two important points that few understand. Firstly: Thermal emission of greenhouse gases is just as important as absorption. Secondly: How the temperature of the atmosphere varies with altitude is as important as the concentration of greenhouse gases.”
So they looked hard, not just at absorption but also including emissions and atmospheric temperature variation. The work is exceedingly complex but the conclusions are dramatically clear.
Happer and van Wijngaarden’s central conclusion is this:
“For the most abundant greenhouse gases, H2O and CO2, the saturation effects are extreme, with per-molecule forcing powers suppressed by four orders of magnitude at standard concentrations...”
Their graphical conclusions are especially telling:
“Fig. 9 as well as Tables 2 and 4 show that at current concentrations, the forcings from all greenhouse gases are saturated. The saturations of the abundant greenhouse gases H2O and CO2 are so extreme that the per-molecule forcing is attenuated by four orders of magnitude…”
The other three greenhouse gases they analyzed are ozone, nitrous oxide and methane. These are also saturated but not extremely so like water vapor and carbon dioxide. They are also relatively minor in abundance compared to CO2, which in turn is small compared to H2O.
Clearly this is work that the climate science community needs to carefully consider. This may not be easy given that three major physics journals have refused to publish it. The reviews have been defensive and antagonistic, neither thoughtful nor helpful. Alarmism is in control of the journals, censoring contrary findings, hence the preprint version.
Undaunted, H&W are now extending their analysis to include clouds. Alarmist climate science gets dangerous global warming, not from the CO2 increase alone, but also using positive water vapor and cloud feedbacks. Given that carbon dioxide and water vapor are both extremely saturated, it is highly unlikely that cloud feedbacks alone can do much damage, but it requires careful analysis to know this for sure. Stay tuned.
In the meantime the present work needs to be front and center as we strive for rational climate science. Professors William Happer and William van Wijngaarden are to be congratulated for an elegant and timely breakthrough.
Author
David Wojick, Ph.D. is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy. For origins see
http://www.stemed.info/engineer_tackles_confusion.html
For over 100 prior articles for CFACT see
http://www.cfact.org/author/david-wojick-ph-d/
Available for confidential research and consulting.
The concept of radiation saturation is readily understood in terms of the original Arrhenius experiment, where shining a beam of IR light through a tube containing CO2 causes an increasing amount of relevant IR wavelength to be absorbed as the CO2 concentration is increased. The system becomes saturated when so much of the relevant IR has been absorbed that adding more CO2 will absorb little more.
But that is not an analogy as to how CO2 and other greenhouse gases cause most warming. Anything that decreases the flux of IR into space produces a disequilibrium between incoming solar energy and outgoing IR energy. If the IR out is decreased, Earth must warm to compensate.
The main factor here is the fact that over most of the Earth, atmospheric temperature decreases with altitude to the troposphere (sometimes miles high). and basic radiation physics dictates that the rate a molecule will emit IR photons decreases as the fourth power of temperature. CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere. As more CO2 is added, the CO2 concentration at the high altitude where most IR escaping to space originates thus increases. But the temperature is generally cooler there. Consequently, even less IR escapes Earth, and the Earth must warm a bit more.
The concept of saturation is not involved here.
“Anything that decreases the flux of IR into space” :
– show the measured data supporting that more CO2 induces less global IR emission from the atmosphere.
Remember : correlation is not causation.
“Consequently, even less IR escapes.” : again, show the data supporting this conclusion.
Actually, with respect to CO2, the only data observed support the exact opposite of your claim :
– there is indeed a negative (even if weak) temporal cross-correlation from CO2 concentration variations to global surface temperature variations.
See left part of the diagram below :
https://youtu.be/2ROw_cDKwc0?list=PLcApr99OxQEQPI11K0iaZBaL8Bwu5mduT&t=553
So your assumption is facing a negative correlation while even a positive one would not permit to conclude anything.
As shown by Angstrom, note the bottom plot.
http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/angstrom1900/index.html
“Saturation” varies quantitatively with altitude. So “involvement” is non-zero.
In the boundry layer, CO2 is certainly saturated, and overwhelmed by H2O by orders of magnitude.
Adding CO2 to the lower troposphere has no effect on optical depth, so causes no addition of warming.
As altitude increases, CO2 reaches parity with H2O, eventually.
In the stratosphere, the lapse rate is reversed, more CO2 is a coolant, with H20 never going away.
Stratospheric O3 needs to be accounted for in the temperature profile.
That bottom plot shows that there is no saturation…
“Here is the explanation why Knut Angstrom could not detect a CO2 effect in the solar spectrum: There hardly is any CO2 absorption in the solar spectrum. Angstrom wrongly concluded that the CO2 spectrum is saturated and this theory is still hunting the climate Internet fora. “
donb,
Where is that increased heat seen? Rising MINIUMUM temperatures? If it is seen in rising minimum temperatures and not in rising maximum temperatures then where exactly is the alarm coming from? Rising minimums are a good thing overall, not a bad thing. Fewer people die of cold, longer growing seasons, more food, etc are all good things.
“We could emit as much CO2 as we like; with no effect.”
The paper says nothing like that. It goes through the old argument between Arrhenius and Angstrom; the Arrhenius argument prevailed, and this paper does not contradict it. The key outcome is probably Table 5, where they compare their CO2 sensitivities with those calculated 50 or so years ago by Manabe, and by Hunt and by Kluft (recent). The fixed relative humidity numbers are 2.9(2.2), 2.2, 2.7, 2.3. The last number is theirs, and is completely in line with the earlier results, and certainly does not say that CO2 could be added with no effect. It says the CS would be 2.3C per doubling.
The forcing increments due to GHG increase are shown in Table 3. They explicitly say, correctly,
“The forcing increments in Table 3 are comparable to those calculated by others.”
I agree with Nick. The paper is confusing. It does show the CS as Nick indicates. However, it also states that the GHE is saturated. These appear to be conflicting claims.
More text is needed if the paper is really claiming there’s minimal or no warming from increasing CO2 levels.
Richard: I agree with you and Nick. Nothing revolutionary here? Although the paper discusses “saturation” a bit, if it defines the term, I missed it. I probably need to think about the paper some more and reread it a few times over the next weeks.
My initial thoughts:
1. The science seems OK up to the limits of my understanding. But I’m no physicist and the limits of my understanding are quite low.
2. It’s probably more or less “Modtran looking down” on steroids. Nothing wrong with that I think.
3. One thing missing is that for wavenumbers greater than about 2000cm-1, GHGs have more affect on incoming radiation from the sun than on outgoing radiation from the Earth? That is to say that GHG bumps in the lines in the rightmost 20% of figures 2 and 4 most likely have a net cooling effect rather than a net warming effect.
4. My impression is that the affects of particulates including ice and water droplets (clouds) are largely ignored. Can you do that and get generally meaningful results? Hopefully I’m wrong.
5. In the case of H2O, “saturation” can have two meanings. One is “pretty much as much radiation absorption as will make any difference.” The other is “as much as the atmosphere can hold without condensation.” I’m pretty sure the authors mean the former.
5. The subject matter is challenging. Way above my pay grade. A I think that of most other people. I suspect that if there is much discussion of this paper, it’s mostly going to be between people who have only the vaguest idea what they are talking about. (At best).
“The most striking fact about radiation transfer in Earth’s atmosphere is summarized by
Figs. 4 and 5. Doubling the current concentrations of the greenhouse gases CO2, N2O and
CH4 increases the forcings by a few percent for cloud-free parts of the atmosphere.”
“Fig. 9 as well as Tables 2 and 4 show that at current concentrations, the forcings from all
greenhouse gases are saturated. The saturations of the abundant greenhouse gases H2O and
CO2 are so extreme that the per-molecule forcing is attenuated by four orders of magnitude
with respect to the optically thin values.”
From their conclusions. Did you read a different paper?
The “saturation” is what it is. The GHE still works. And, I repeat, their calculated CS is 2.3C/doubling. Right in the IPCC range. They have basically repeated the old calculation of Manabe with updated radiative properties, and got a very similar result.
I agree with previous comments that this is a very hard to read paper. That said, the CS that you quote is from 1/2 way through the paper. Tables 3 and 5 are hardly the last word .
In fact , as one reads through to the conclusions section:
For the case of fixed absolute humidity, the surface warms by 1.4 K which agrees
very well with other work as shown in Table 5. The surface warming increases significantly
for the case of water feedback assuming fixed relative humidity. Our result of 2.3 K is within
0.1 K of values obtained by two other groups as well as a separate calculation where we used
the Manabe water vapor profile given by (87). For the case of fixed relative humidity and a
pseudoadiabatic lapse rate in the troposphere, we obtain a climate sensitivity of 2.2 K
In brief, my reading of it is that they’re saying depending on how water vapour feedback actually works the CS is between 1.4K at the low end and 2.3K at the high end. 1.4K is diddly squat, and 2.3 K is hardly worth getting excited about . Most importantly though , if you accept their numbers (you did say they agreed with others Nick, you never said they were wrong ) then be default you’re agreeing that all those models showing numbers of 4 or 5 degrees or more are physically improbable to the point that we should worry more about the sun exploding or getting hit by a planet sized asteroid.
Its good news Nick. Celebrate!
“Its good news Nick. Celebrate!”
It isn’t news. They basically redid Manabe’s calc from 1967 and got a very similar answer. It has been known for that time that if you do a 1-D calc with just radiative, including simple hypotheses about the response of water vapor, you get CS in that range. But there is a lot more going on.
But there is a lot more going on.
There is ? The provided a range of CS from 1.4 to 2.3 which you agreed matched the work of others. They showed that their work was commensurate with observation. Now I know that observation is out of vogue with the climate modeling community , but you have to admit having both theory and observation agreeing with their range is pretty strong stuff. The range is not worrisome, and the range includes the likely effects of water vapour from small to large. What’s not to be happy about Nick?
Don’t answer, I ‘ve long since come to understand that the alarmist moto is “we’re not happy until you’re not happy”.
“we’re not happy until you’re not happy”.
David,
Misery can never be assuaged, so we must pass ours on to you.
Captures it in one.
Awesome!
But the part left unsaid is the humans do not in any way control atmospheric CO2 levels.
There is that huge puddle of water covering over 70% of the Earth’s surface, and if you can be bothered to look there then some aspects like pCO2 and ocean surface temperature loom.
I don’t expect any climate worriers to bother analyzing honestly, as they are enjoying basking in their current level of complacent ignorance.
Here are the the 3 things that the climate idiot savants can not understand —
1) Humans do not control the Earth’s atmospheric CO2 level.
2) Human’s do not control the Earth’s atmospheric temperature.
3) The Earth’s atmospheric temperature is not controlled by atmospheric CO2 levels.
To Nick Stokes. 1967 was 53 years ago. There’s a lot Manabe didn’t know.
At 1.4 C per 2x, it’s outside the IPCC/Charney range of 1.5-4.5 C. Even end of 2.3 C is in lower third of IPCC/Charney range, so no worries. It’s all good.
In 1979, Charney used Manabe’s derived CS of 2.0 and Hansen’s of 4.0 to estimate a range, with arbitrary MoE of 0.5 C. After over 40 years, IPCC hasn’t been able to improve on this.
Happer now shows that Hansen’s 1979 model was just as bogus as has always been known. So new range should be narrowed and lowered to 1.4 to 2.3 C.
However even that fails to account for negative feedbacks. The other things going on lower CS, net.
Meant “high end of 2.3”.
Call it the Manabe range, ie 2.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2, with error bars of +O.3 to -0.6 C.
But model-assumed positive water vapor feedbacks aren’t in evidence, so observed physical rather than modeled range should be the no-feedback 1.1-1.2 C, with net negative to slightly positive MoE, hence 0.5 to 1.5 C ECS range.
This allows for some environments with a cooling effect from added CO2, as observed.
Nick Stokes: “Saturation does not actually block; energy is still transferred. This has been known for a very long time.”
WR: The main question from the point of view of surface (!) cooling is whether absorbed radiation will be net transferred upward again, just by radiation and if so, to what extent. It has to be transferred through a saturated/opaque environment which is possible because air is thinning upward.
If researched and known I am interested in the delay this causes in surface heat loss: does this way of upward transport by re-radiation take one day extra to deliver surface radiated energy to space, will it take two days extra, more days or less? Or is this way of transport negligible if compared to the quantity of energy transported upward by convective transport of latent and sensible heat?
What is the share for respectively radiation and convection in upward transport of energy from the average altitude surface radiation became first absorbed? And what exactly is the altitude of first absorption? Preferably a number for every latitude and divided in Ocean and Land.
One should expect those fluxes to be researched and known. But so far I did not encounter them somewhere. Perhaps you know, Nick.
@Wim:
In the case of water the transport of absorbed energy upwards for dissipation to space is well known. The absorbed energy at evaporation is converted to Latent Heat rather than an increase in temperature. This latent heat is then carried upwards in the vapor/gas produced as it is lighter than dry air.
It is well known but gets ignored as the current consensus mindset prefers to only consider radiation in matters of the climate budget.
Thanks Alasdair, I knew about latent heat. But what I specifically want to know is how once absorbed radiation continues its trip to ‘launching height’ in the upper air: by radiation or by other means and in what quantity/time. With ‘launching’ I mean radiation straight into space.
@Wim:
Yes this Latent Heat movement takes time unlike radiation; but I can’t help here. Also the Latent Heat gets depleted as it moves upwards, morphing into potential energy and other losses. Although still receiving radiation from above – Just to confuse us all!
I suppose my beef generally is that these matters never seem to get discussed in the literature or elsewhere. Perhaps it is all too inconvenient!
Nick,
I take saturation to mean that the addition of more GHG will not result in the same interactions with radiation as before. Or, that more added GHG will not affect the various temperature affects greatly, if at all.
Yes, the ECS comparisons are noted, but what is your conclusion derived from the rather strong proof of saturation?
The way I read it, if you want to explore the tradition mechanisms, you get much the same sensitivity as earlier researchers. However, if you look beyond past methodology, to the rather conclusive effect of saturation, you have a mechanism that can be taken to mean that there is next to no more GHG warming left in the pipeline. Are you OK with this?
Now, take that with the lack of observed change of the measured CO2 in the atmosphere in the first 6 months of 2020 with the covid lockdowns. Several months of an estimated 8-9% reduction in global emissions, no change in actual measured CO2, something does not balance. Do you have an opinion on its meaning, either theoretical or practical? Geoff S
Geoff,
“Yes, the ECS comparisons are noted, but what is your conclusion derived from the rather strong proof of saturation?”
My conclusion is the same as their conclusion. After the saturation is noted, the calculation still gives the same ECS (2.3C/doubling) as Manabe and those who followed got. The point is that, as W&H note, radiative transfer is much more complicated that people realise. IR energy that is absorbed leads to local warming, which in turn leads to thermal emission, but not by the same molecules, and not necessarily at the same frequency. That further emission my be absorbed, leading to more emission. Saturation does not actually block; energy is still transferred. This has been known for a very long time.
“Do you have an opinion on its meaning, either theoretical or practical?”
Yes. As I said in response to Roy’s posts on the matter, you need to calculate what effect that emission reduction would actually have on CO2 ppm, and then look at the results to decide whether you should actually be able to observe it, given other noise. The answer is, not for a considerable time.
This looked interesting Nick
The most striking fact about radiation transfer in Earth’s atmosphere is summarized by
Figs. 4 and 5. Doubling the current concentrations of the greenhouse gases CO2, N2O and
CH4 increases the forcings by a few percent for cloud-free parts of the atmosphere. Table 3
shows the forcings at both the top of the atmosphere and at the tropopause are comparable
to those found by other groups.
They need to run their preprint past a spell checker!
Shown by measurement that any absorption tappers off at around 280ppm
The paper is WRONG – how can there be NO MORE warming when there NEVER WAS. The “greenhouse effect” is a complete con. It is laughably silly on any reality check.
The simple 10 second test – if water vapour caused the planet to heat, why is there any water left. It would form a positive feedback and just all boil off.
Fact is, the ocean surface temperature is constrained to 273.1K near the poles and 305K at the equator; finely tuned upper and lower limits that are controlled by the physical properties of water.
Inspection of data from the tropical moored buoys easily verifies this reality:
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/drupal/disdel/
Any measurement that indicates “global warming” as a long term trend is indication of a flawed measurement system not any global warming. Sure the ocean circulations can change the distribution of heat from time-to-time and orbital geometry can play a huge role in the heat distribution but fundamentally the ocean surface temperature is tightly constrained between two limits. CO2 plays ZERO role.
The only exception to the upper limit is the Persian Gulf because the topography, small body of water jammed between deserts, precludes monsoon or tropical cyclones forming.
“The “greenhouse effect” is a complete con. It is laughably silly on any reality check.”
Can you believe people still write stuff like this in 2020? I mean, you don’t have to believe we are all going to die tomorrow, but denying the greenhouse effect is real is like denying apple pie.
The year doesn’t matter; humans are not smarter than 50,000 years ago, prejudices don’t stand for knowledge. Is there empirical proof of greenhouse effect outside laboratory conditions, and what is the extent of it?
“Simon October 27, 2020 at 12:05 am
I mean, you don’t have to believe we are all going to die tomorrow, but denying the greenhouse effect…”
Simply stating that as fact demonstrates you don’t understand how greenhouses work.
“denying the greenhouse effect ‘
Its miss-named. It is nothing to do with blocking convection as a greenhouse does..
…… because it doesn’t.
The proper terminology is the atmospheric mass effect.
You know you have absolutely zero evidence that CO2 has anything to do with the atmospheric pressure gradient or the highly beneficial warming since the Little Ice Age.
Your comments are just empty mindlessly regurgitated rhetoric, simon..
…. . because it all you are capable of.
“It is laughably silly on any reality check.”
So true that is !!!
Simon doesn’t understand REALITY
He lives in his own little fantasy world where actual science is meaningless and cannot be allowed to intrude.
Still waiting for evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2, slimy one. !
Before you prove yourself a dill, take a good look at the data. The more water vapour in the atmosphere, the more heat rejected:
https://1drv.ms/u/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNg2_DukRksyuhIkZ8
Reflecting sunlight by clouds is way more powerful than the small reduction in radiating power due to the clouds.
If there was such a thing as “greenhouse effect” with atmospheric water causing heating it would become positive feedback causing all the water would boil off.
The simple 10 second test – if water vapour caused the planet to heat, why is there any water left. It would form a positive feedback and just all boil off.
It would cause the planet to be warmer than it would otherwise be. There’s a big difference between that and runaway warming. I don ‘t burst into flame when I put a sweater on, I just get warmer than I otherwise would be.
In which case, what stops the run away effect and what is the upper limit davidH?
Physics stops the runaway effect. Stefan-Boltzmann Law to be specific, but if you want to simplify it , call it the law of diminishing returns. You put the sweater on, you warm up a certain amount in the first 5 minutes, and say half of that in the next five and so on until you get to a number to small it can’t be measured. At that point the sweater has re-established equilibrium and neither it nor you warm further unless some other factor changes.
There is no effect to stop. It is rubbish. More water in the atmosphere results in more heat rejection. Reflection trumps reducing radiating temperature by a factor of 2.
The atmosphere changes gear once TPW exceeds 38mm. It is observed as monsoon and cyclones. These form highly reflective clouds that cool the surface below by reflecting up to 300W/sq.m, on average, of insulation while reducing OLR by 100W/sq.m on average. These clouds result in strong net cooling of water surface below.
@Steve:
It is water that stops it through the Hydro Cycle which provides a strong net Negative feedback to the GHE.
Fortunately for us the IPCC et al got it wrong ; so we won’t be cooking. Unfortunately It won’t admit it ; so we are now lumbered with the CAGW Virus which ha reached pandemic levels.
In trite terms one can say that the Earth sweats to keep cool, just like you, I and overheated scientists.
david,
CAGW assumes you keep piling on sweaters till you suffocate.
It does no such thing . It correctly assumes that a sweater warms you up. The debate is by how much more a sweater double the thickness of the one we already have will warm us up.
Except the atmosphere COOLS the surface if its too warm (ie more than the atmospheric pressure gradient can allow.)
The jumper/blanket analogy is a load of donkey farts.
Davidmhoffer: “The debate is by how much more a sweater double the thickness of the one we already have will warm us up.”
WR: The debate should be about the holes convection makes in the double thick sweater to bring the heat of your body outwards. In the atmosphere the upward transport of surface energy by convection rises a lot for every degree rise in temperature. Not quantified is how much. But temperature goes up by one degree and evaporation of water vapor by 6-7% per degree Celsius and both are fueling convection that enhances wind that enhances evaporation that enhances convection etc. etc.. How much energy is transported by convection away from the surface when temperatures rise by one degree? By how much heat the colder layers in the upper air are warmed? How much surface area with warmer dry descending air is created by that high convection, dry air that enables a lot of space ward radiation over those large surface areas? And how big are the areas of shading clouds that are created over the tropics and how early on the day? A lot of fundamental questions, not answered (publicly) by mainstream climate science. Only 10% of all surface radiation directly reaches space, 40 W/m2 from about 390 W/m2. When greenhouse gases are added that % will go down further and not up, leaving a higher % of surface heat for the other already dominating way of upward heat transport, convection. For every degree extra the air is able to contain 6-7% extra water vapor (latent heat of evaporation) and extra sensible heat from conduction and from (extra) absorption of surface radiation. A huge cooling machine for the surface gains momentum as temperatures rise by only one degree. How much remains of that one degree INITIAL temperature rise?
Please explain why the “sweater” does not achieve the same balance over the Persian Gulf. The only sea surface where the temperature exceeds 32C.
As much as I admire and respect Will Happer, I’m going to hold off doing any celebrating over this until two things are cleared up about his paper (which I haven’t read yet).
Did he say what year CO2 started to warm the atmosphere, and did he say what year it saturated?
I can demonstrate the ocean produces CO2 when it warms via outgassing such as Law Dome CO2 shows happened as the southern ocean warmed since the 1850s (plot 7 first link). Then there’s the five month lag between SST and ML CO2. The ocean is the main heat reservoir, not the air, so any CO2 aborption warming in the air is fleeting and insubstantial, not affecting the ocean (no feedback), nor climate change, so Arrhenius was wrong.
Quotation: “Given that carbon dioxide and water vapor are both extremely saturated, it is highly unlikely that cloud feedbacks alone can do much damage, but it requires careful analysis to know this for sure”.
I have carried out tens of spectral calculations of different GH gas compositions applying the average global atmosphere and the spectral calculation application by name Spectral Calculator. In this application, a user can compose temperature, pressure ja GH gas profiles in the atmosphere.
The GH effect is not totally saturated with respect to any GH gas. If this would be the case, the absorption caused by the water vapor should be the same in different climate zones. In fact, this absorption varies significantly in different climate zones according to their water contents.
Ha!
The warming is just begun.
Ho! The cooling has just begun
Excellent review of a very important study. For non physicists (like me) the review helps to understand further the full weight of this (very technical) paper. The study has far reaching consequences.
“Clearly this is work that the climate science community needs to carefully consider. This may not be easy given that three major physics journals have refused to publish it. The reviews have been defensive and antagonistic, neither thoughtful nor helpful.”
In science opposing visions SHOULD be published. Discussion needs to take place in public and not ‘out of sight’ by selected peer reviewers. Not publishing a scientific study like this is equal to denying important weighty scientific findings. Which should not happen in science.
“In science opposing visions SHOULD be published.”
It isn’t an opposing vision. It is a rehash of an old calculation yielding a very similar result. It is always going to be hard to publish that in a research journal.
“It is a rehash of an old calculation yielding a very similar result. It is always going to be hard to publish that in a research journal.”
Unless it reinforces an alarmist result.
Nick Stokes: “It is a rehash of an old calculation yielding a very similar result. It is always going to be hard to publish that in a research journal.”
WR: The way to come to that very similar result is rather different. From the scientific point of view a new (more real Earth) calculation must be interesting enough to publish. Progress in science is not depending purely on results – if ever.
From the text of the post: “The reviews have been defensive and antagonistic, neither thoughtful nor helpful.” Nothing here about results.
Stokes
Are you saying that HITRANS has been used previously to calculate the line-by-line impact of absorption features?
Old Calculation? Does the value of an equation like E = Mc^2 diminish every time it is used?
“Are you saying that HITRANS has been used”
The Kluft paper that he cited used HITRAN. Lots of people do.
“Does the value of an equation like E = Mc^2 diminish every time it is used?”
No. But it’s publishability does. You will have trouble getting a discovery of it published nowadays in a research journal.
Manabe’s paper is a classic. The W&H equivalent results tell us nothing new.
Nick Stokes: “Manabe’s paper is a classic. The W&H equivalent results tell us nothing new.”
WR: You have a point with the results. But the new publishing of the same results half a century later than Wanabe could have an awakening effect: how could it be that with such low results for radiative effect a climate hysteria has developed while all of surface cooling (!) factors still have to be taken into account? How is it possible that we still get super hot running models like CMIP6 without any discussion about the small factor the INITIAL radiative input played?
To avoid such a discussion you should not publish the same results again. People would wake up saying: “Hey, how can? What is happening here? Where in fact is that climate hysteria based on? Can anyone explain?”
Avoiding such a discussion is at the detriment of the well functioning of science. That discussion should be in the center of Science. When ‘crystal balls’ dominate public debate, isn’t it time for Science to correct?
Stokes
You claimed, “You will have trouble getting a discovery of it published nowadays in a research journal.” Nevertheless, it seems that every year there is something published about yet another test of one of Einstein’s theories, again confirming it. By your logic, none of these recent tests of a 100+ year-old theory should be publishable. However, I keep reading about them!
Stokes
You claim, “Manabe’s paaper is a classic. The W&H equivalent results tell us nothing new.” However, W&H remark, “Our result of 2.2K is substantially lower than the value obtained by the pioneering work of Manabe and Wetherald [35] who obviously did not have access to the current line by line information. In a later publication [39] the authors explained that their 1967 result for the surface warming decreased by about 20% when they replaced their radiation transfer scheme by that used by Rodgers and Walshaw [27] which they felt was superior.”
Clyde Spencer October 27, 2020 at 6:46 pm
Stokes
Are you saying that HITRANS has been used previously to calculate the line-by-line impact of absorption features?
Certainly has, Clough and Iacono 25 years ago comes to mind.
Concurs with a graph I saw from a study by Pielke and Soon showing that CO2 saturation occurs about 200- 240ppm. So any CO2 driven warming effect drops off rapidly after that point.
The weather / climate doesn’t seem to be getting warmer or ‘wilder’, nor is the ocean rising, there’s still ice in the Arctic and Antarctic and the only place climate / weather disasters are happening is in breathless press releases.
I have been reading other articles on saturation. Overall, Dr. Happer is in agreement with them, but I think he might mean that the CO2 molecule is saturated so that it cannot absorb any further IR that would aid in heating the atmosphere.
In this article he is saying that when the molecule is saturated no matter how much more CO2 you add it will not increase the temperature. But for that to happen, all the IR would need to be absorb, if it isn’t, then any new CO2 added would then absorb the remaining IR and cause a warming.
But even with this warming, it warms with a algorithmic scale. 400pm CO2 would increase temperature 1 degree, to get another 1 degree, it would be double that amount, or 800 ppm. Then for the next 1 degree, it would take 1600 ppm.
So, even if mankind is doing the increase, we would need a lot of time to get to 800 ppm just to have a additional 1 degree of warming. I believe that is what Dr. Happer and others are trying to emphasize.
The saturation issue is a red herring. The issue is, and always have been, the effective height of emission. More CO2 –> higher effective height of emission –> emission from a colder layer –> more surface warming required to increase emissions. More greenhouse gases always increase surface temperature. The question nobody has been able to answer is by how much, as it is a very complex question and depends on a lot of things. The orthodox approach (IPCC) is to consider all warming due to GHGs, but that is incongruent with paleoclimatic evidence from the Holocene and the last deglaciation. If a significant part of the warming has other causes (solar, natural variability), then the answer is that an increase in GHGs causes little warming.
That is the essence of the scientific climate debate.
“The use of the term ‘The Science’ in public debates expresses its advocates’ insecurity with the absence of certainty. This leads to a defensive posture where scientists are reluctant to entertain the possibility that they might be wrong and that their critics might have a point. Sadly, a science that cannot work with the assumption that it might be wrong has more in common with a religious dogma than with open-ended experimentation. Such moralization of the imperative of fear has important implications for the conduct of public life. By representing scepticism and criticism as a threat that deserves to be feared, disciples of The Science set in motion a cultural dynamic that is inherently hostile to the free and open exchange of views. As we explain later, a palpable sense of intolerance towards freedom, particularly towards free speech, is intimately connected to the working of the culture of fear.”
Frank Furedi. “How Fear Works. Culture of Fear in the 21st Century.” 2018
Hear, hear!
==========
Fear has a big advantage for everyone who wants to manipulate: people simply stop thinking, not because they don’t want to think but because they simply cannot think anymore. Fear blocks rational thinking.
Make a ‘construct’ (for example within the UN) that makes people fearful. When you are telling about ‘some results from some scientists’ you have to look very fearful yourself: look at the eyes of alarmists. They always express fear. In the end nearly everyone feels fearful but nobody understands why because no one is able to think. Then the receipt is: “Follow the self-proclaimed leader”.
Of course you need to avoid any serious discussion. Then people would start to think again. A real climate debate has never been there: the first debate about climate still has to start.
@Wim:
Agree. The UN and its acolytes have a great deal to answer for. my observations over 12 years has convinced me of that.
I also find it very frustrating, that the publication of such an important scientific contribution to the GW debate gets hindered due to politics and censure. Hopefully it won’t take as long as it did for Henrik Svensmark or Pat Frank.
No reference made to the work of Ferenc Miskolczi :
Miskolczi, F.M., 2007. Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres. Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service, 111(1), pp.1-40.
Miskolczi, F.M., 2010. The stable stationary value of the earth’s global average atmospheric Planck-weighted greenhouse-gas optical thickness. Energy & Environment, 21(4), pp.243-262.
and still their work gets rejected by peer review.
What a surprise. /sarc
Miskolczi has calculated greenhouse gas absorption even more accurately with 9 greenhouse species, at each of 3490 wavelengths, in a 3D atmospheric analysis with 150 levels with 5th order gaussian model. He found similar results.
Miskolczi, F.M., 2014. The greenhouse effect and the infrared radiative structure of the Earth’s Atmosphere. Development in Earth Science, 2, pp.31-52.
https://www.klimarealistene.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Miskolczi_DES111.pdf
.
The most important part of Miskolczi’s work was not the modelling (although that was more enlightened than most since it found nonlinear adaptation and attractor-seeking).
The most important thing that Miskolczi did was look at data – lots of radiosonde balloon measurements over many decades, to show that in the real world, emission height does not change.
Anyone heard of radiosonde balloons recently?
I’ll rephrase that – has anyone heard of radiosonde balloons?
“I’ll rephrase that – has anyone heard of radiosonde balloons?”
Phil
Have a look at the work the Connolly’s are doing with radiosonde data.
Connolly, R. and Connolly, M., 2019. Balloons in the Air: Understanding Weather and Climate
https://www.nvtech.com.au/Climate/July-18-2019-Tucson-DDP-Connolly-Connolly-16×9-format.pdf
Philip
Thanks – the Conolleys’ work is interesting.
I was just being rhetorical about the tendency for climate science to ignore empirical data and focus on pure modelling.
David Wojick made a similar point in this recent post:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/10/20/crisis-looms-in-alarmist-climate-science/
Current levels where? My understanding is that water vapor concentrations in polar and desert regions are all but radiation saturated and that is where additional carbondioxide still has additional forcing effects?
It has been well known for a very long time that the warming due to increasing CO2 is logarithmic. This alone should have dampened alarmist claims. It was argued that peak broadening could occur. This is pressure broadening and doppler broadening. The alarmists then claimed that this meant that increasing CO2 would still cause warming and this became a scientific fact in alarmist science.
Happer has looked at broadening line by line and has concluded that saturation is reached. This is a major result and should spell the end of global warming, but we all know that this cannot be allowed. Happer’s success will never be given publicity except for ridicule.
“We could emit as much CO2 as we like; with no effect.
This astounding finding resolves a huge uncertainty that has plagued climate science for over a century.”
Call me cynical, but I can’t imagine how this finding resolves any uncertainty. It’s more likely to plague consensus climate scientist with exponentially greater uncertainty over future justifications for their funding. Half of them will dismiss this finding while the other half pretends it never happened.
How consensus works #94
Loydo October 27, 2020 at 2:26 am
“perhaps they are right and you are wrong?”
Nah, that couldn’t possibly explain it, could it? Thousands of climate scientists and hundreds of national science institutes all have it wrong and a couple of bloggers have it all figured out because, well because it gotta be anything but CO2, and, and Marxists…
Jeez, its CO2, its ours and its rapidly warming. Don’t be surprised if there are another 400 months of warm anomaly will you.
No proof, just political bolleaux really
science is a curious thing sometimes. it’s amazing how a junior patent clerk wrote and published 3 papers one year 115 years ago and our understanding of everything changed radically. And a few years after that – after they were validated – a hundred nazis scientists claimed they were all wrong in a petition. Unfortunately for them, nature continued to agree with the patent clerk and paid no attention to the nazis scientific community.
I’m positive that there is an element of truth in the saturation concern. A refusal to address it is willful scientific blindness.
I do not think the research can conclude the end of warming for the time being. Happer himself believes that the majority of warming occurring is from more natural causes than anthropogenic causes. But saturation would be a factor paving the way for the next cooling a century from now. I mean, we’re talking climate, not weather. Right?
Bearing in mind ‘climate change’ (or ‘global heating’ if you’re the hysterical Guardian) is supposed to be ‘The Greatest Threat To Humanity, Ever’, this discovery ought to be greeted with joy unconfined.
A thorough peer review process should be undertaken to see if humanity really does stand on the cusp of the greatest escape from catastrophe in history.
In short, if true this is THE best news in all of human history!
In reality it’s already being traduced and rejected out of hand. That’s not because it may be wrong but because it may be right. At a stroke this paper would destroy a million reputations, careers and fortunes, and most importantly, political traction at the highest levels, and we can’t have that.
Hence ‘The Problem’ will be protected and maintained at all costs.
CO2 is tuckered out as a greenhouse gas.
Each added aliquot has less effect than the previous one, but I like ‘tuckered out’ too, David.
And humanity has been ‘suckered out‘. Enough already, no mas!
==================
Are we not missing half of the story?
The UN IPCC in their deceitful way only mentioned ‘short wave in and long wave out’. They completely failed to say that 51% on the incoming Sun’s radiation is in the infrared range. In that case we need to know the effect of the radiative gases on the incoming Sun’s radiation and does it balance with the outgoing Earth’s radiation.
For example, in the CO2 15 micron absorption band, the outgoing Earth radiation is 300 times the intensity of incoming Sun’s radiation. However for the main CO2 absorption band at 4.23 microns the incoming Sun’s radiation exceeds outgoing Earth’s radiation by a factor of 3, for the 2.7 micron band it is a factor of 1170 and for the 2 micron band it is a factor of 500,000 for an Earth temperature of 15 deg.C.
It seems to me that increasing CO2 concentration could be cooling the Earth ??
I agree with you. I don’t know why this is never mentioned or allowed for. If the total solar isolation is about 1350 w/m^2 and half of that is IR then what does that 675 w/m2 of IR do to the atmosphere? Certainly a percentage of it will never reach the earth’s surface!
Tim Gorman: “If the total solar isolation is about 1350 w/m^2 and half of that is IR then what does that 675 w/m2 of IR do to the atmosphere?”
WR: A lot of solar IR is absorbed by….. water vapor. And what happens when the Earth warms by one degree Celsius? 6-7% more water vapor evaporates (Claudius-Clapeyron). A lot of solar will not reach the surface anymore…… cooling the surface. There must be a lot of flaws in the models, this could be one of them. A wrong algorithm for rising convection could be another one. A wrong one for rising clouds for the right latitude a third one. Etc.
Ever counted the number of pages in the IPCC reports about water vapor in the troposphere? Have a try!
Hot potato peer reviewers have already been warned about their careers from Mann and others. Who wants to be the object of professional lynch mobs.
Cancel culture is in full flow, everywhere we look. It’s insidious and frankly, a disaster.
Yeah, it’s nice that climatologists are finally starting to talk about these two very important points. I think there is a point – probably somewhere around 1,200 ppm – where CO2 actually has a net negative forcing on the climate as increased emissivity overcomes absorption.
More evidence that man-made climate change people are insane. So insane, the censor the actual science to prevent the truth.
Although I was a physics major in college and graduated overall in the top quarter of my class, I never had any intention of working in the field. However, I have always maintained some interest in it.
Back in 2006 I became aware of this debate and decided to make up my own mind on the matter, looking at both science and history. I quickly came to the conclusion that the claim of humans causing climate change was rather ridiculous, and have seen no reason to change my mind based on further input.
Dr. S. Frederick Singer received his degree in the field and was a professor of climatology; a book with the title “Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years” (modified in the book with plus or minus 500) was part of my study. Don’t pay any attention to the unrelated garbage and lies about him on the internet; I would challenge anyone to prove to me that what he says was wrong. I have checked his references to a fair degree, found additional references supporting him, and firmly believe he has the matter basically right.
The present “problem,” such as it is, is with the sun.