The Greenhouse Effect In A Water World

by Bob Irvine

A knowledge of Greenhouse gases is fundamental to any understanding of global surface temperatures. The presence of GHGs in our atmosphere has increased the global surface temperature by about 33C.

There are multiple lines of evidence, however, that challenge the strong water vapour feedback to a small initial CO2 forcing.  These strong positive feedbacks are central to the IPCC narrative.

These lines of evidence include.

  • The failure of all models and catastrophic warming projections.
  • The stubborn refusal of atmospheric Precipitable Water Vapour (PWV) concentration to rise in recent years.
  • The strength of convection cells in the tropics that have kept tropical temperatures approximately the same for many millions of years.
  • Irrigation and extra humidity generally coincide with cooler temperatures.
  • The hot spot as a signature of the positive Water Vapour (WV) feedback and its opposite, the negative lapse rate feedback, has not occurred.

INTRODUCTION

The IPCC and most sceptics believe that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will produce about 1.04 ± 0.1C (Andrews 2012, CMIP5) warming at equilibrium if we assume that there are no feedbacks in the system. This is not controversial.

The IPCC then multiplies this by three to get an after feedback warming of 3.0 ± 1.5C largely due to the amplifying effect of extra water vapour and cloud changes. This has been their position for 40 odd years now. It is political death to change your mind, apparently. Positive feedbacks of this size would be destabilizing, utterly improbable, and are likely the result of political interference in the scientific process.

These exaggerated feedbacks have caused all the IPCCs projections to fail within 10 years of their announcement. The first of these was James Hansen in 1988.

To understand why these models have failed we need to understand the workings of the atmosphere and the way increasing CO2 increases temperature. We also need to understand the important role water vapour and convection play in this process.

THE CO2 GREEN HOUSE EFFECT

Increasing CO2 warms the atmosphere in two ways.

These are the “surface” and “atmosphere” effect. These two mechanisms combine to give a total effect as depicted in Figure 1.

  1. The Surface or Radiative Effect.

There is a transparent window to space at wavelengths approximately between 9 to 16 microns. Long wave radiation in this wavelength range generally passes unrestricted to space through this window. The introduction of CO2 to the atmosphere restricts radiative flow centred around 15 microns. It closes this window slightly. This warms the planet, as shown in Figure 1 but loses all potency by the time CO2 concentrations reach about 600 ppm.

2. The Atmosphere Effect

The atmosphere effect involves the balancing of two factors. Higher CO2 concentrations mean a higher average CO2 emission height.

  • A Higher average emission height means lower gas concentrations at this emission height. This implies a longer free path for energy photons with a consequent cooling of the planet as more of these photons make it out to space.
  •  A higher emission height also means lower individual emissions due to lower temperatures at the average emission height. This implies an opposite tendency to warm the planet.

Figure 1. The two ways (Radiative and Atmosphere) CO2 increase causes warming and their total effect. The “Y” access is “outgoing radiation”, so a decreasing line indicates warming of the planet. Acknowledgement to Clive Best for this graphic.

The Atmosphere Effect

At lower CO2 concentrations changes in individual emissions due to temperature do not play as big a part as changes in free path length. At these lower concentrations, temperatures actually fall due to the atmosphere effect as CO2 concentrations increase.

By calculating the radiation to space from each level, these two conflicting forces can be combined to give an effective emission height for varying CO2 concentrations. See Figure 2.

The net result is shown as the “Atmosphere” curve in Figure 1. Emission to space via the “Atmosphere” effect alone increases as CO2 concentrations increase from zero to 300 ppm cooling the atmosphere. At concentrations higher than 300 ppm emission to space falls warming the planet.

Clive Best observes (Ref. 1) that this 300 ppm just happens to be the historical pre-industrial CO2 concentration. Can this possibly be a coincidence?

Figure 2. Varying emission heights for different CO2 concentrations. Notice greater emissions to space due to the “Atmosphere” effect at 280 ppm than at 200 ppm. The “Atmosphere” effect cooled the planet as CO2 concentrations rose from 200 to 280 ppm. Acknowledgement to Clive Best for this graphic.

HOW DO GHGs OPERATE IN A WATER WORLD?

GHGs are produced by two dominant mechanisms. Solar heating of the oceans (WV) and the Carbon cycle (CO2).

The sun delivers 340 W/M2 to the earths system. This is reduced to 240 W/M2 after the earth’s albedo or reflectivity is considered. This 240 W/M2 must eventually be reradiated back to space either at the surface or at some level of the atmosphere. The earth system needs to be in balance.

If the atmosphere had no GHGs or there was no atmosphere, then the earth would reradiate this 240 W/M2 at or near the surface. By calculation, the surface would be, in this case about minus 18C.

As GHG concentrations increase, the passage of this radiation to space is restricted. This warms the surface which increases emissions at the surface. A hotter surface emits more radiation. No system can emit more than it receives so the average emission height must rise in the atmosphere to the point where the 240 W/M2 is again radiated to space. The earth system must remain in balance.

This process has developed on the earth to the current settings. The surface is now at plus 15C and radiating at about 390 W/M2 . The atmosphere cools as we rise to the point where it averages minus 18C and radiates 240 W/M2 to space. The earth system is in balance again. This height is known as the emission height and averages about 5 km at the present time (higher in the tropics and lower at the poles).

The Greenhouse gases are therefore responsible for the 33C (15C minus -18C) warming seen at the earth’s surface. This greenhouse effect is currently made up of approximately 20% CO2 and other minor GHGs and 80% Water Vapour (WV) and cloud. The 80% GHG contribution of WV and cloud is almost totally caused by the sun’s 240W/M2. The 3.7W/M2 added by a doubling of CO2 makes very little difference to the atmosphere’s WV and cloud content, for obvious reasons.

CO2 also has an efficacy problem when it comes to ocean warming. Water is opaque to the wavelengths reemitted by CO2 while solar energy is absorbed efficiently. It is quite possible that this further reduces the CO2 effect on WV, although this is difficult to quantify as energy from CO2 is returned immediately to the atmosphere as both radiation and latent heat.

See Ref. 2 for a summary of the various estimates of WV feedback.

It is no surprise then that no rise in atmospheric WV content has been detected in recent years despite CO2 concentrations moving from 280 ppm to 410 ppm due largely to human activity.

http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/project/nvap/table_nvap.html see also http://www.leif.org/EOS/2012GL052094-pip.pdf

Figure 3. Global Precipitable Water Vapour. NASA.

New paper on Global Water Vapor puts climate modelers in a bind – Watts Up With That?

 “Weather And Climate Analyses Using Improved Global Water Vapor Observations” By Vonder Haar Et Al 2012

Figure 4. Global Precipitable Water Vapour. Vonder Haar et al, 2012.

Figure 5. ECMWF(red) and NCEP(blue) Precipitable Water Vapour (PWV) time series averaged over (a) global, (b) tropical, (c) temperate, and (d) polar regions during the period 1979–2014. These are modelled PWV series. (Chen, Lui 2016)

https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD024917

From the paper’s abstract;

“The variability and trend in global precipitable water vapor (PWV) from 1979 to 2014 are analysed using the PWV data sets from the ERAInterim reanalysis of the European Centre for MediumRange Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), reanalysis of the National Centres for Environmental Prediction (NCEP), radiosonde, Global Positioning System (GPS), and microwave satellite observations. PWV data from the ECMWF and NCEP have been evaluated by radiosonde, GPS, and microwave satellite observations, showing that ECMWF has higher accuracy than NCEP. Over the oceans, ECMWF has a much better agreement with the microwave satellite than NCEP. An upward trend in the global PWV is evident in all the five PWV data sets over three study periods: 1979–2014, 1992–2014, and 2000–2014.     ……..

It is found that ECMWF overestimates the PWV over the ocean prior to 1992. Thus, two more periods, 1992–2014 and 2000–2014, are studied. Increasing PWV trends are observed from all the five data sets in the two periods: 1992–2014 and 2000–2014.”

In other words, the red model in Figure 5 is more accurate and shows close to zero increase in PWV from 1979 to 2014.

I cannot let this pass. Climate science truly is amazing. The hat-tipping to the dominant warming narrative not only knows no bounds it also knows no subtlety. The last two periods mentioned start at the low point of the Mt Pinatubo eruption (1992) and the low point of the strong La Nina in 2000. The only reason they show an increasing upward trend is because they start at the lowest possible points and are run over shorter and shorter periods. Extraordinary!

Also, if ECMWF overestimates the period 1979 to 1992 then so does NCEP as they both have similar rates of declining PWV (0.5mm) as measured using the authors methods.

It should be remembered that both these series, ECMWF and NCEP, are models and subject to the usual biases. The cherry picking of the two later period start dates is, therefore, not a good look. The figures the authors use to justify their conclusion are in the paper linked. They are taken from single year to single year and not smoothed in any way.

These, however, are annoying side issues. PWV has not increased in any significant way since 1979 according to the ECMWF. Without the Mt Chichon eruption in 1982 it is likely that, according to the more accurate ECMWF model, PWV would have fallen over the period 1979 to 2014.

THE NEGATIVE FEEDBACKS

We have already seen how the main positive feedback (WV and clouds) claimed by the IPCC does not appear to be happening as expected. Now let’s look at the three main negative feedbacks.

  1. Plank Feedback.

A body radiates according to the 4th power of the temperature of that body implying that a large proportion of any warming due to CO2 is quickly returned to space. The initial 1.04C warming from a doubling of CO2 is reduced significantly in this way.

  • Convection.

Higher temperature drives increased convection. The Earth hosts 1000 or more powerful tropical storms at any one time. These storms are driven by water vapour content and temperature. They transfer an enormous amount of energy from the surface to space. Without this transfer of energy, the surface would be significantly hotter.  

Convection in the atmosphere is extremely complex. If the allowances made by the IPCC for convection are only slightly out, their sensitivity estimates will be miles out. This alone could explain the failure of the climate models that are based on these estimates.

The strength of convection in the moist tropics has an enormous stabilising effect as seen in Figure 6 below.

Credits: Christopher R. Scotese. Palemap Project 2015

Figure 6. Convection has kept the tropics approximately the same temperature for many millions of years. There is no significant change in tropical temperatures from a severe icehouse earth to an extreme hothouse earth.

  • The Lapse rate feedback.

A direct result of surface warming from increased CO2 is increased atmospheric moisture content at the surface. This reduces the lapse rate toward the moist adiabat. A reduced lapse rate must mean that condensation and average emission to space occur at a higher altitude.

Condensation at a higher altitude must mean warming of the upper atmosphere, particularly above the tropics. This is known colloquially as the “hot spot”. It is a direct consequence of increased water vapour and is a significant negative feedback for the following reasons.

As CO2 increases it emits from a higher cooler altitude and consequently emits less energy to space, warming the planet (See the “Atmosphere” effect in Figure 1.). The hot spot discussed above increases the temperature at this higher CO2 emission height, thereby reducing the warming effect of CO2. It is for this reason a negative feedback.

This predicted hot spot high above the tropics does not appear to be happening. The most likely explanation for this is that surface warming increases convection to the point where it overwhelms most of the warming from CO2.

The IPCC attempted to hide this lack of a hot spot in the AR5. It is after all critical to their exaggerated positive feedbacks. Professor Christy explains in the quote below.

          “Unfortunately, it was buried in the Supplementary Material of Chapter 10 without comment.  In Fig. 4, I present the figure that appeared in this IPCC section.  I was a reviewer (a relatively minor position in that report) in the AR5 and had insisted that such a figure be shown in the main text because of its profound importance, but the government appointed lead authors decided against it.  They opted to place it in the Supplementary Material where little attention would be paid, and to fashion the chart in such a way as to make it difficult to understand and interpret.”

For the period 1979 to 2016. Compare NASA GISS Model (Top Left) to satellite bulk atmosphere observations from UAH (Bottom Left), RSS (Bottom Right) and the Universal RAwinsonde Observation Program (RAOB) (Balloon Data) (Top Right). The observations clearly indicate the lack of the predicted hot spot.

Figure 7. The lack of a hot spot as actually measured compared to modelled.

CLIMATE MODEL FAILURE

These exaggerated positive feedbacks have caused all the IPCCs forecasts to fail within 10 years of their announcement. These forecasts have consistently failed since the first one was attempted by James Hansen in 1988. See Figure 8 below. The most recent of these is the predicted temperature increase in the Fourth Assessment Report 2007. See Figure 9 below.

Figure 8. Hansen’s failed predictions from 1988. CO2 concentrations have actually grown faster than scenario “A”. The black and red lines are the heavily adjusted surface record (Always adding extra warming on average).

Current CO2 concentrations are increasing at a rate similar to the A1T and B2 scenarios in the 4AR IPCC report copied here. I have used them for this reason.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

These scenarios result in between 750ppm and 800 ppm CO2 concentration in the year 2100. Read the above link to get a sense of the IPCCs processes and their position on future warming.

Figure 9, The IPCC forecast from 2007 compared to actual temperatures. The red line is the Hadcrut4 temperature series.  It is similar to the NASA GISS series and has been adjusted many times. The blue line is the more accurate Mid Troposphere Satellite Temperature data. The yellow line is the NAS data from 1975. NAS was the precursor of NASA and was considered state of the art in 1975.  The 2007 model predictions (Grey Line) are already 0.7C warmer than the measured data in 2021.

  Five-year averaged values of annual mean (1979-2015) global bulk (termed “midtropospheric” or “MT”) temperature as depicted by the average of 102 IPCC CMIP5 climate models (red), the average of 3 satellite datasets (green – UAH, RSS, NOAA) and 4 balloon datasets (blue, NOAA, UKMet, RICH, RAOBCORE).

Figure 10. The graph presented to the US House Committee on Science, Space and Technology by John Christy in 2016.  According to the GHG theory, Mid-Tropospheric temperature rise is the fingerprint of GHG warming. It is obvious that the models with their high feedbacks produce more warming in this area than do our most accurate temperature measure, the satellites.  The balloon data also agrees well with the satellites and is well below the models.

Reference 1;  Effective Emission Height | Clive Best

Reference 2;  SeaLevel.info climate feedbacks

4.9 23 votes
Article Rating
141 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
dk_
May 16, 2021 6:28 pm

Nit: is “1. Plank Feedback” more properly Planck?

Mike McMillan
Reply to  dk_
May 16, 2021 7:09 pm

The “Y” access is “outgoing radiation”

Y not axis?

Gordo
May 16, 2021 6:37 pm

Bob,

One of the key take home facts from your discussion, and one that is obvious to the less mathematically inclined is your observation that the core ECS values used in the many over heated climate models are out of wack. Moreover, not only have the GCM’s failed spectacularly to predict surface or tropospheric temperatures, effectively their reliability is further compromised by the accelerated rise of CO2 over the same time frames.
Thank you for the lucid presentation.

DMacKenzie
May 16, 2021 6:41 pm
  • It is quite clear that the monthly anomaly troposphere temperatures from RSS and UAH show a high variability on the monthly time scale. The only viable explanation is interaction of cloud cover and SST. An increase from 15 C to 16 C of SST increases the equilibrium water content of the air immediately above the water by 7%, some of which has to produce clouds a couple of days later and a couple of hundred miles away. The real question is “Why isn’t the cloud cover feedback more obvious ?” It certainly is obvious to your senses when a cloud obscures the sun for a few minutes. And the “Solar radiation” graph from home weather stations commonly show drops from 800 W/sqM to 200 W/ sqM when a cloud goes over. One possibility is that the cells in the models are too large and parameterize these small scale effects incorrectly.
  • And part of that parameterization is failure to recognize and differentiate between first order and second order feedbacks. 
  • I like the “car cruise control” analogy for this. Say a car is going down the highway, and the only “instruments” the statisticians have are a ruler to measure how far the gas pedal is pressed, and the reading on the speedometer.
  • In the basic “flat highway” case, the statisticians will find that the higher the reading on their ruler, the higher the reading on the speedometer. They will agree it is a strong feedback. We can see it makes sense….press the gas and you go faster.
  • Then, unknown to the statisticians, turn on the “cruise control”, set it at a highway speed, and put the car on a slightly hilly highway. The cruise control is a strong feedback. Now the situation will be that the car will slow down a little going uphill and the cruise control will force down the gas pedal to maintain speed. The statisticians numbers will show that speed decreases in conjunction with increased gas pedal depression. If they can take readings quickly enough, they will find the results of their readings are not in phase. If they can’t read the results fast enough, or simply don’t understand the source of the phenomenon they are measuring, they can easily come to the conclusion that “more gas pedal depression equals slower car speed”….Oops…which shows that in the presence of a strong feedback you have not considered, you can easily reach the wrong conclusion.
  • I suggest Clouds are the strong feedback in the climate system.
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  DMacKenzie
May 16, 2021 8:38 pm

Nice analogy.

dk_
May 16, 2021 6:48 pm

Second pass:
see location previously reported nit: bullet list formatting malfunction.

I am perhaps off topic, and will take my lumps accordingly, but I must ask in re:”refusal of atmospheric Precipitable Water Vapour (PWV) concentration to rise”
Obviously CO2 is a product of combustion of hydrocarbons. Isn’t it true that H2O is emitted in close to equal proportions? Possibly due to my diminished attention span, I’ve not had this element explained in a way that I understand: How can hot CO2 emissions affect atmospheric temperature via GHE in a way that hot H2O emissions do not?

Otherwise, still absorbing the argument. It seems reasonable, but it’ll takeme some time.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  dk_
May 16, 2021 8:46 pm

WV is already orders of magnitude higher than CO2 for one thing.
And water vapor can and does condense and precipitate out of the air continuously.
In short, compared to how much water is cycling through the atmosphere already, the amount from combustion of fossil fuels is insignificant.

Besides for that, the temperature of the gasses when the combustion occurs is not considered to be significant either. These combustion gasses are quickly cooled to ambient by dilution by the surrounding air.
On a local scale over a short span of time, large amounts of combustion may have a significant influence on the air temp at the surface, but generally this is not the case at planetary scale.

And on top of everything else, the significance of the GHE by CO2 is not exactly clear except to zealots.
A look at Earth history shows it has little if any controlling influence on air temp.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
May 16, 2021 8:47 pm

Examples at every time scale exist, but here is one example, culled from the very data that helped propel this entire notion of CAGW into the public consciousness:

ELiQdwQUEAAq03P.jpg
dk_
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
May 17, 2021 12:22 am

Thanks, good summary. I think I have part of that. Sorry about OT, and I will save my further education for another time.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
May 17, 2021 3:46 am

“Besides for that, the temperature of the gasses when the combustion occurs is not considered to be significant either. These combustion gasses are quickly cooled to ambient by dilution by the surrounding air.”

hmmm… I’ve been wanting to ask about this- so, all the burning of fossil fuels- the heat from that contributes little or nothing to heating the planet? Has anyone measured this?

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 17, 2021 6:33 am

One estimate I found in a quick search stated that all the energy used by humans in a year is 410 quintillion joules.
And by comparison, the Earth receives about 430 quintillion joules per hour from the Sun.

I think I once calculated that, theoretically, we could get all the electric power the US uses by covering one tenth of Arizona with solar panels…but it was years ago, and I cannot recall if I took into account the efficiency of panels.
I could be remembering that wrong.

https://www.businessinsider.com/this-is-the-potential-of-solar-power-2015-9#:~:text=To%20put%20that%20in%20numbers%2C%20from%20the%20US,use%20in%20a%20year%20is%20410%20quintillion%20Joules.

So, some cross referencing for accuracy, I find that Wikipedia lists total energy supply in 2013 was 1.575 x 10^17 watt hours.
A watt is a joule per second, and there are 3600 seconds in an hour, so 1.575 x 3600 = 5,670.
430 quintillion is 4.3 x 10^20
so 5,670 x 10^17 is 5.6 x 10^20

So the number is ballpark.

Total energy from the Sun from another source is…depends on if one uses total energy at the top of the atmosphere, or if one subtracts out the 30% or so of it estimated to reflect back out to space.
I find a stat of 174 petawatts of solar at the top of the atmosphere.
a petawatt is 10^15 joules per second.
174 x 3600 is 626,400.
So at the TOA, Earth gets 6.26 x 10^20 joules per hour
70% of that is 4.39 x 10^20, or 439 x 10^18, which is 439 quintillion joules.

So those numbers appear close to being correct.
I did not double check my math.

I recall several years ago in a discussion here, someone gave a rundown of all sources of energy the Earth gets from all sources not solar radiation, and they were all miniscule compared to solar radiation.
I think it was either Rudd Istvan or Leif Svalgaard.
In any case, it can be seen that all of our usage is a spit in the ocean compared to the daily energy flux of the planet.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
May 17, 2021 6:44 am

Just going one step further, if the world uses about in a year what the Earth gets from the Sun in an hour, very roughly (and this may be a few years out of date, IDK), that amounts to…

24 hour/day x 365 days/year = 8760.
That looks like 0.011415% or ~1.14 hundredths of one percent as much.
Probably only one sig fig is valid for that rough of a number, I am guessing.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
May 17, 2021 8:40 am

the next question would be what might that figure translate into rising temperature? Maybe it’s trivial but it’d be useful to know

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 17, 2021 7:28 pm

You can calculate the temperature rise for a given surface power density using Trenberth’s data. See Fig. 13.1 here:
https://climatescienceinvestigations.blogspot.com/2020/06/13-earths-energy-budget.html

Basically, 161 W/m^2 of incoming radiation leads to 396 W/m^2 of outgoing LW radiation after amplification by the Greenhouse Effect. This equates to a mean surface temperature of 289 K by the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

So a 1°C (or 1 K) temperature increase at the surface requires the outgoing LW radiation to increase by 1.4% to 401.5 W/m^2. Assuming that the numbers scale, then that would necessitate a 1.4% increase in the incident power density, taking it from 161 W/m^2 to 163.24 W/m^2.

So an additional surface heating of 2.24 W/m^2 will heat the local area by 1 °C.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
May 17, 2021 7:00 am

A spit in the ocean is wrong, I have to say. It may be closer to a drop in a bucket.
Looking that up…I see that it is again an overestimate.
Maybe more like a drop in a large bowl.
There is said to be about 3650 drops in a cup.
So a drop in a 3/4 full quart of milk.

Last edited 2 months ago by Nicholas McGinley
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
May 17, 2021 7:04 am

Aint math great?

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
May 17, 2021 7:06 pm

It may be a spit in the ocean overall (actually it heats the planet by about 0.016°C), but locally it can heat up cities by up to 4°C. That is because the heat is not spread evenly.

See my other comment above.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Climate Detective
May 20, 2021 4:56 am

But it should be borne in mind that the urban heat island effect is not just from the heat released by human burning of fossil fuels and other types of energy production and usage.
It may be the case that most of that 4° of UHI is from paving over grassy surfaces, and large buildings made of stone and masonry, and other heat retaining materials.
Even out on my farm in the middle of nowhere, the temperature over a small slab of concrete is several degrees higher than over a grassy place a few tens of feet away.
On cold nights the difference is even larger, such on nights that are cold enough to damage or kill plants growing on fabric ground cover, those same plants will be undamaged if they are sitting on concrete a few feet away.
Greenhouse operators save a huge amount of money on heating by installing thick concrete slabs to put their greenhouses and Quonset huts on.

I think heat of combustion is a small part of UHI, personally, but I do not have data to prove that, just circumstantial evidence based on informal observation.

Last edited 2 months ago by Nicholas McGinley
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 17, 2021 6:53 am

Compared to what humans use, the Earth, and the entire universe, is awash in stupendous amounts of energy.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
May 17, 2021 8:43 am
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 17, 2021 7:10 am

One time I calculated the volume of all of the oil ever extracted by people in history.
It came out to a volume about as large as a decent sized mountain.
Then I wanted to find out how that compares to the size of the planet in terms that can be mulled over in perspective.
It turns out if the Earth was the size of a cue ball, then Mount Everest would be as large as a bacteria.
A large bacteria, to be sure, but within the range of the known sizes of bacteria.
Which is small.
Very small.
Really very extremely small.
Line up a whole bunch of them, and at some point it would be as wide as a human hair.
Not one of those thick dark hairs, but a fine blond one.

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
May 17, 2021 10:15 am

So, can we say ‘irrelevant’?

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
May 17, 2021 10:47 am

OK I was going to go there but decided not to.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  bob boder
May 20, 2021 5:11 am

LOL.
I was categorically NOT referring to the informal unit of measurement used by engineers that has the abbreviation CH!
Because this is a family site!

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 17, 2021 7:01 pm

Yes, I have done the calculations.
See post 14 of my blog:
https://climatescienceinvestigations.blogspot.com/2020/06/14-surface-heating.html
And post 29:
https://climatescienceinvestigations.blogspot.com/2020/07/28-lateral-thought-1-suburban-heating.html

Basically human energy usage adds about 0.04W/m^2 to the Earth’s surface power density ON AVERAGE (before GHG feedback effects occur). This raises the average surface temperature by less than 0.02°C.
But the heat is NOT evenly distributed. And as I show, it can heat up entire countries like Belgium and The Netherlands by as much as 1°C because of the high population density and energy use. A large city like London could heat up by over 4°C. That is the essence of the urban heat island effect. It is not that urban areas trap heat, or absorb heat (although they do), it is that they produce additional heat, lots of it.

For example, a suburban residential area will radiate over 2 W/m^2 (depending on housing density). Greater London radiates about 10 W/m^2.

Ian W
Reply to  Climate Detective
May 18, 2021 7:44 am

Generally, humans – and especially the ‘Climate Scientists’ have a very poor grasp of how big the world is and how much energy Nature generates and uses.
A ‘normal hurricane’ in a day extracts the equivalent of 200 times the daily electricity generation capacity of the entire planet.

If we crunch the numbers for an average hurricane (1.5 cm/day of rain, circle radius of 665 km), we get a gigantic amount of energy: 6.0 x 10^14 Watts or 5.2 x 10^19 Joules/day! This is equivalent to about 200 times the total electrical generating capacity on the planet!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
May 17, 2021 2:31 pm

Nicholas
You said, “… does condense and precipitate out of the air continuously.” A minor quibble: the precipitation is discontinuous, controlled by erratic rain events, which nevertheless leads to an average resident time for a water vapor molecule of typically a few days. However, water vapor is being continuously replenished by evaporation from bodies of water and transpiration from vegetation, albeit it at different rates because of temperature differences and changes in wind speed.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 20, 2021 2:20 am

Hi Clyde.
Yes, I see what you mean.
I was speaking about the fact that at any given time, water is in places precipitating, and condensing onto surfaces, all over the planet, all the time.
Not at every place at every time of course.
Some places have very little of either, and some places a lot of both.
But in plenty of places, right at this moment, it is raining, and in a lot of places, dew is forming, and frost, and fog…
The larger point is that the water released by combustion of fossil fuels is tiny compared to the water cycling through the various parts of the planet…ocean, lakes, rivers, the ground, ice, snow, the air, the clouds, the falling rain and snow…all the time.
So it is not accumulating like CO2 can.
Good thing CO2 is fairly well mixed.
As low as CO2 is already, if it was so unevenly distributed as WV, that would lead to big problems.
At some point everyone will come to understand what only some of us in the skeptical community seem aware of: The biosphere would be far better off with CO2 far higher, and if we are lucky, it will keep going up until this is very clear.
Consider a scenario like so:
It is the year 2040. CO2 has continued to go up, and the rate of change rises as well, as China and India and the undeveloped nations move forward with modernization and increased prosperity. CO2 is thus at about 465ppm.
And after 20 years of falling temps, the UHA TLT stands at values below where the graph started around 1980 or so, the trend remains down.
Deserts have shrunk, crop yields have continued to rise, and formerly marginal lands are now productive habitat and farmland.

And we then have several large volcanic eruptions within a few years. Like really big ones.
And global cooling of several degrees below what we have experienced since the Little Ice Age looks like not just a possibility, but very likely.

And so it is perfectly obvious that every cent of the trillions of dollars of wealth, as well as incalculable amounts of time, which for many years has been devoted to green energy schemes, and alarmist global warming based climate science, has been completely wasted.
Instead of solving actual problems and building resilient and overlapping infrastructures for energy and agriculture, decades have been spent impoverishing the world of what we already had with regard to such assets.

And so people are dying because charlatans conned the world.
Will there be a cave deep enough for those at fault to hide in?

I consider such a scenario every bit as likely as any other, and more likely by far than alarmist scenarios.

Last edited 2 months ago by Nicholas McGinley
davidmhoffer
Reply to  dk_
May 16, 2021 8:57 pm

“hot” CO2 gets expelled from combustion into 400 ppm atmosphere, while “hot” H2O gets expelled from that same combustion into 20,000 ppm atmosphere. So the percentage increases are orders of magnitude different. Beyond that, CO2 floats around until is gets sucked up by a plant, but being well mixed, most of it is at altitudes well above where plants live. Water vapour in the other hand precipitates out at higher altitudes since temperature drops as you go higher in the atmosphere. So the “hot” H2O isn’t significant in proportion and would precipitate out if it was.

There are of course many other processes going on, but those are the big ones IIRC.

dk_
Reply to  davidmhoffer
May 17, 2021 12:24 am

Thanks, too. Also a good summary. Perhaps someday I will get there completely.

eo
Reply to  davidmhoffer
May 17, 2021 3:39 am

Rain water is acidic and corrosive to limestone forming caves.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  eo
May 17, 2021 2:35 pm

Along with some organic acids that help.

Steve Z
Reply to  dk_
May 17, 2021 2:42 pm

Burning a mole of methane (the main component of natural gas) yields 2 moles H2O and 1 mole CO2. For gasoline, the ratio is about 1 mole H2O per mole CO2, and for diesel fuel, the ratio is less than 1 mole H2O per mole CO2 (due to aromatic compounds whose H/C mole ratio is less than 2).

However, the current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 410 ppm (0.041%), while most areas of the tropical ocean have water vapor concentrations greater than 1%, or about 25 times higher, so that an emission of water vapor by burning fossil fuel has much less of an effect on water vapor concentrations than an equal emission of CO2 on CO2 concentrations.

Also, since about 70% of the earth’s surface is covered by water, there is a huge source of emission of water vapor to the atmosphere (by evaporation), which is nearly balanced by the sink of precipitation as rain or snow (some of which seeps into the ground, and does not return to the ocean). The emission rate of water vapor from fossil fuel combustion is trivial compared to the evaporation rate from the oceans.

Mike McMillan
May 16, 2021 7:05 pm

“If the atmosphere had no GHGs or there was no atmosphere, then the earth would reradiate this 240 W/M2 at or near the surface. By calculation, the surface would be, in this case about minus 18C.”

Nothing like starting off a complicated bunch of calculations with a bad premise.

commieBob
Reply to  Mike McMillan
May 16, 2021 7:43 pm

The formula for Earth’s radar cross section is pi x r^2. Multiply that by about 1300 watts per square meter and you get the total energy received from the sun.

The formula for Earth’s surface area, approximately a sphere, is 4 x pi x r^2. So that means the Earth has to radiate 1300 / 4 watts per square meter. (assuming it’s a black body)

That’s about 325 watts per square meter. That would result in a temperature around 6C.

Last edited 2 months ago by commieBob
davidmhoffer
Reply to  commieBob
May 16, 2021 9:01 pm

You’ve neglected albedo… which will get you to -18.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  davidmhoffer
May 16, 2021 10:42 pm

“no GHGs or there was no atmosphere”

An airless planet and an atmosphered one without GHGs would have the same temperature? That is the bad premise, not the arithmetic.

Reply to  Mike McMillan
May 17, 2021 12:13 am

An atmosphere wiithout Ghgs, cannot affect the surface temperature..

The reason is that such an atmosphere has no ability to neigther absorb nor transmit heat through radiation. The only way such a atmosphere can receive or deliver heat is from the contact surface with the ground.

Obviouslly, the net heat transport over time between the atmosphere and the surface then has to be zero since the atmosphere has no way of make up the difference.

This means that the surface must radiate the same amount of heat as if there was no atmosphere. When it radiate the same amounts, the temperature must also be the same.
QED.

/Jan

Ferdberple
Reply to  Jan kjetil Andersen
May 19, 2021 9:40 pm

This means that the surface must radiate the same amount of heat as if there was no atmosphere
≠=====
You have failed to consider the atmosphere cools the warm places and warms the cool places, changing the radiative balance.

This is because heat flow is linear but radiation is 4th power. A change in radiative balance is also the theoretical causes of ghg warming.

dk_
Reply to  Mike McMillan
May 17, 2021 12:17 am

I was once told that the moon has a millimeters thick atmosphere mostly of helium. Wikipedia lists the moon’s atmospheric pressure daytime as 10^-7pa (1 picobar), and the first three most common components as He, Ar, Ne, none I think are GHG.
As an atmosphere, it seems pretty useless. But I think I see an opportunity to become a lunar climate change activist. Facts don’t matter.

commieBob
Reply to  davidmhoffer
May 17, 2021 4:29 am

That’s the conventional facile answer.

Albedo is indicates the energy that isn’t absorbed by the surface. So, it’s a function of emissivity/absorptivity. Those are the terms that should be used to discuss the radiative transfer of energy.

Sebastian Magee
Reply to  commieBob
May 18, 2021 6:25 am

I suppose you know that this is not true on a spinning world. Temperature is not uniform and <T^4> is not <T>^4 where <.> is average. So at most it is a first approximation where the error is pretty big.

Sebastian Magee
Reply to  Sebastian Magee
May 18, 2021 6:43 am

It is actually not true on a tidally locked planet either only in the limit of high speed rotating planet or in the limit of thick atmosphere with dominant convection it becomes accurate. Earth has a decent atmosphere and convection is important, but day and night temperature differences are still important.

To bed B
Reply to  Mike McMillan
May 18, 2021 3:39 pm

If it were a proper black (or grey body) it would be 2.7 times warmer mean than a sphere of individual black bodies. Just the much greater spread of temperatures at the moons equator would give you a mean 35 K cooler than Earth’s SST, all else being equal. That -18 is dodgy.

May 16, 2021 7:06 pm

A puzzling aspect of this post is that everything seems years out of date. For example Hansen’s prediction is checked up to 2011. And the NVAP datasets are “heritage”.  The data links given don’t work any more.

Here is one of Willis’ posts from 2016. 
comment image

The bottom panel is after removal of seasonal. Of it, Willis says:

“Next, there is a clear trend in the TPW data. The total change over the period is ~ 1.5 kg/m^2, centered around the long-term mean of 28.7 kg/m^2.

And utilizing the relationship between water content and atmospheric absorption derived above, this indicates an increase in downwelling radiation of 3.3 W/m2 over the period.”
|

Last edited 2 months ago by Nick Stokes
Rud Istvan
May 16, 2021 7:08 pm

I will skip all the previously commented theory. To the observational chase:
Observational ECS is about half of modeled. That is because modeled WVF is too high, by about 2x compared to observed (with pre ARGO uncertainties).
And none of that has to do with wandering polar bears.

Mike
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 16, 2021 10:21 pm

Observational ECS”

?

commieBob
May 16, 2021 7:18 pm

The presence of GHGs in our atmosphere has increased the global surface temperature by about 33C.

Suppose that the atmosphere contained no greenhouse gases and suppose further that water vapor was not a greenhouse gas. Suppose further that the atmospheric and oceanic convection was so efficient that the temperature of the planet was perfectly even.

If the above conditions were true, the planet’s surface temperature would be about 279K or 6C or 43F. That would be the temperature required to radiate all the energy Earth receives from the sun.

Obviously the Earth’s temperature is not uniform, but it is equally obvious that convection moves a lot of heat from the equator toward the poles and the Earth’s rotation moves a lot of heat from the lit side to the dark side.

So, the planet has to be somewhat warmer just due to convection distributing heat over the surface. How much? I don’t know. My guess is that it is a significant portion of what is usually attributed to the greenhouse effect.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  commieBob
May 16, 2021 7:51 pm

Depends what you use for Albedo though. Airless moon about 0.12…Earth with no cloud cover, about 0.15…..Earth with usual 65% cloud cover about .3 , Venus with 100% cloud cover, about 0.75…Convection on Earth is about 20 times larger than doubling CO2 would be….

Last edited 2 months ago by DMacKenzie
commieBob
Reply to  DMacKenzie
May 17, 2021 5:14 am

Albedo is a crummy term. It causes people to ignore Kirchhoff’s Law of thermal radiation.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  commieBob
May 17, 2021 8:50 am

Albedo, especially Bond Albedo has a scientific definition. In common language, it is crummily used. Like “Work” which means force x distance in physics, but has a broader definition to, say, teenagers….

TEWS_Pilot
May 16, 2021 7:36 pm

As a result of following this JUNK SCIENCE, we are destroying our world MORE by trying to save it.

This is a boneyard near Paris, France with hundreds of electric powered cars. Mind you these are only cars used by the City of Paris and not personal vehicles. All of these have the same issue,…. the battery storage cells have given out and need to be replaced. Why not just replace them you ask? Well two reasons. First the battery storage cells cost almost double what the vehicle cost new, and second no landfill or disposals will allow the batteries to be disposed of there. So these green fairy tale electric cars are all sitting in vacant lots while their batteries drain toxins into the ground. Vive la Green SCAM….Still think we need to go green???
comment image?w=800&h
comment image?w=800&h=280

rd50
Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
May 16, 2021 7:59 pm

Your picture ever published in Europe? Newspapers, et?

TEWS_Pilot
Reply to  rd50
May 16, 2021 9:48 pm

It was sent to me in an email by a friend stationed in Germany….not sure where he got it. He no longer takes his family to Paris because he says it is too dangerous.

Steve Richards
Reply to  rd50
May 17, 2021 1:18 am
Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
May 16, 2021 8:24 pm

China is the no. one market for EVs but many are just enclosed golf cart type vehicles and include many 3 wheel configurations. These EVs are cheap and have a cheaper battery available instead of lithium…obviously have no safety crash standards…they are being used in urban areas because they are cheap and better than a bicycle or motorbike. The French could probably sell those vehicles to China at a cheap price and the Chinese would replace the batteries.

rd50
Reply to  Anti_griff
May 16, 2021 8:43 pm

Thank you. No good news about EVs of this type.

Scarface
Reply to  Anti_griff
May 20, 2021 12:34 pm

That is not how China operates. They only sell abroad. That is their business model.

RickWill
Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
May 16, 2021 8:32 pm

Do they all have dead batteries or is because the company operating them went broke?

In Melbourne, Australia a vast number of the shared cycles simply ended up in the river. Large quantities have been dredged out of the Yarra River over time:
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/crushing-time-for-obikes-council-seizes-dumped-bikes-for-recycling-20171005-gyv4sb.html

People are less respectful of other people’s property than their own – sort of where socialism fails.

Rusty
Reply to  RickWill
May 17, 2021 1:52 am

Company went broke, nothing to do with dead batteries. The batteries have been removed as well.

Just another case of confirmation bias.

Richard Page
Reply to  Rusty
May 17, 2021 5:16 am

And if the green revolution is so popular, so profitable and such an amazing way of doing business, then why oh why did this company go bust? It had the backing of the French people and the French government, didn’t it? It should have been a flagship success story and a model for businesses across Europe, instead it’s just a rotting junkyard in a green field.
Why? Because these green boondoggle’s are the opposite of sustainable and profitable – each one consumes money and resources in a futile orgy of virtue signalling that ends in a disastrous toxic dump of monstrous proportions.
It’s a colossal waste and an example of sheer stupidity.

DonM
Reply to  Rusty
May 17, 2021 6:12 pm

So, you have looked at it, and their business model was not off with respect to cost of maintenance, nor reliability of the fleet?

Or was it lack of demand?

Or you just assuming something?

DonM
Reply to  Rusty
May 18, 2021 9:40 am

If I had a fleet of 4,000 cars & my company was not viable, I would sell the cars to people that wanted the cars ….

IF the cars were viable, I could sell them and pay off debt, of even make a little cash to get out hole that was my business.

If the cars were not viable (FOR SOME REASON OR ANOTHER) I guess I would just walk away and leave them.

There might be some other reason to just park good cars (and remove the batteries), but I can’t think of them.

What do you think Rusty?

dk_
Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
May 17, 2021 12:28 am

“All of these have the same issue” — yes, but also from the picture, they have the same highly skilled French parking attendant.

Rusty
Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
May 17, 2021 1:51 am

None of those cars have batteries in them, they were removed before being stored. Do more research before posting “fake news”.

Simonfromashby
Reply to  Rusty
May 17, 2021 8:11 am

But the batteries still exist and are toxic industrial waste waiting to be disposed of. Simply removing them from the vehicles doesn’t solve the problem of disposal.

RickWill
May 16, 2021 8:04 pm

The presence of GHGs in our atmosphere has increased the global surface temperature by about 33C.

This is a fairy tale.

Ocean warm pools regulate to 30C (303K) and sea ice forms at -2C (271k). The resulting average surface temperature is 287K comes as no surprise given the good distribution of water across the globe with average SST a little higher than 287K due to more tropical water than polar water and land a little cooler because more at higher latitudes and average of 800m above sea level.

Indian and Pacific oceans have regulated warm pools to 30C for millions of years and tropical Atlantic sometimes goes cold.

Charts_PacWP.png
Nick Schroeder
May 16, 2021 8:25 pm

“The presence of GHGs in our atmosphere has increased the global surface temperature by about 33C.”

Ah, yes, the magical mystery 33 C cooler w/o GHGs.
Let’s autopsy this little gem.

288 K w – 255 K w/o = 33 C cooler. (15 & -18)

288 K is the GMST straight out of WMO’s butt or the glossary of IPCC AR5.
The ubiquitous K-T atmospheric non-balance uses 16 C or 289 K plus S-B & BB to produce 396 W/m^2 of upwelling “extra” energy.
UCLA Diviner mission says it’s 294 K.
Some consensus.

255 K assumes the earth w/o atmosphere or GHGs keeps the 30 % albedo.
1368 * .7 = 957.6/4 to convert from discular to average ToA spherical = 239.4 into S-B = 255 K.
This assumption is absurd!!!
No GHGs or no atmosphere and the earth becomes much like the moon.

IMO this 255 K assumption is scientific malfeasance if not criminal fraud!

davidmhoffer
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
May 16, 2021 9:11 pm

Nothing absurd about it. The earth with an albedo of 0.3 would have an SB temp of 255K. As seen from space, it has a temp of… get this! 255K!!!

The surface on the other hand as measured by thermometers and satellites is about 288K.

The 33K temp due to GHG’s is born out by both measurement and theory which agree with one another.

The problem is in sensitivity calcs which conclude that a small increase in CO2 will have a large increase in surface temp (Note that SB temp remains exactly the same) which can NOT be born out of observation. It is supported by theory only, and that theory fails out of disagreement with observations.

RickWill
Reply to  davidmhoffer
May 16, 2021 11:55 pm

Get this – Water freezes at 273K and exists in the atmosphere as ice down to 220K and maybe a little cooler on the surface at the poles. Is it any surprise that the radiating temperature of the Earth is just 5 degrees higher than these two extremes considering most of the OLR emissions from earth comes from ice located on the surface and all the way up to 12,000m.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  RickWill
May 17, 2021 6:53 am

Most of the albedo comes from the ice and snow.
Most of the OLR comes from the hot equatorial regions.

BIGw01-average-albedo.gif
RickWill
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
May 17, 2021 7:50 am

Most of the OLR comes from the hot equatorial regions.

Yes via ice in the atmosphere over the warmest water.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/currents/overlay=total_cloud_water/orthographic=-242.07,-1.25,756/loc=131.611,3.376

OLR down by 100W/sq.m to around 200W/sq.m radiating at 260K but surface insolation down by about 130W/sq/m to about 200W/sq.m so no more increase in temperature above the current 30C:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/primary/waves/overlay=sea_surface_temp/orthographic=-242.07,-1.25,756/loc=131.611,3.376

Monsoon shaping up in the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal. They will be a mass of ice above 273K within weeks just like the Pacific warm pool is now..

Last edited 2 months ago by RickWill
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
May 17, 2021 2:46 pm

That graph has a striking similarity to the specular reflectance of water from terminator to terminator.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  davidmhoffer
May 17, 2021 6:50 am

But the surface w/o atmosphere or GHGs would have a lunarific albedo of .1 and 20% more net kJ/h and hotter.

Instructor
William Brune, Distinguished Professor of Meteorology and Atmospheric Science
“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 so that 0.706, or 70.6%, of the solar radiation is absorbed at the surface with the rest reflected back to space. The Earth’s surface radiates infrared radiation energy back out to space with no absorption at the levels where the stratosphere and troposphere would be. The surface temperature in this model is such that the infrared radiation energy leaving the surface balances the incoming solar radiation energy absorbed by the surface. In terms of the arrows in the figure, there is one down arrow and one up arrow at every level.”
 
Published on METEO 300: Fundamentals of Atmospheric Science (https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo300)
 
Penn State, Penn State, hmmmm.
What else crawls out from under a rock at Penn State?

Reply to  davidmhoffer
May 17, 2021 9:54 am

Sorry, you are logically mistaken. “Seen from space” means measured emissions from space. Emissions are a function of temperature AND emissivity. If you measure 240W/m2 that could be from a surface at 288K being a perfect emitter, or a surface at 255K with an emissivity of 0.615 or so (or any other combination). You do not know.

What is more you can not really measure surface emissivity with satellites, because satellites can hardly look sideways and most of the IR range is opaque. So putting emissivity = 1 is the foundation of the 33K GHE and that is an assumption not supported by any evidence. In fact it is totally wrong.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
May 16, 2021 11:06 pm

288 K at the bottom of the atmosphere, 255 K at the top. Assuming the thickness of the atmosphere is negligible in relation to the size of earth’s sphere, what happened to reduce the 33 K from one side to the other?

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 17, 2021 6:39 am

Thermal resistance, R = 1/U Q = U A dT. R as in all those bundles in the HD insulation aisle.
To move current through an electrical resistance takes a voltage difference.
To move fluid through a hydraulic resistance takes a pressure difference.
To move energy (heat) through a thermal resistance takes a temperature difference.
Physics be physics.

BTW molecules stop at about 30 km where MEASURED temps are -40 C or 233 K.
The 255 K is another theoretical calculation with zero physical reality.
NASA says ToA is 100 km, 62 miles. That’s ludicrous thin.
Molecular ToA is 32 km or about 20 miles. Even thinner.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
May 18, 2021 5:50 am

Space is essentially 0K. So the earth and the atmosphere is always losing heat to space because of the temperature difference. Physics be physics is correct.

The atmosphere is not a heat source. All it can do is slow the loss of heat to space. That doesn’t raise the temperature of the earth, it only slows its decline when the sun isn’t adding heat to the system. As the sun warms the earth the rate of heat loss to space by the earth and the atmosphere also goes up. That is why we don’t see maximum temps going up but do see minimum temps going up.

The use of mid-range temps hides what is actually happening. Mid-range temps can go up from minimums going up but that is difficult to discern from the mid-range temps alone. Far too many people just assume that mid-range temps are going up because maximum temps are going up and the earth is going to turn into a cinder. You simply cannot prove that from the use of mid-range temps.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 18, 2021 8:49 am

Actually the temperature of deep space is 3 K. That is a result of the cosmic microwave background.

AC Osborn
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
May 17, 2021 1:10 am

Perhaps you guys can educate me.
Scientists compare the Earth to the Moon to prove GHGs raise the temperature by 33K.
The Surface temperature is supposed to represent the average temperature of the Moon and Earth.
There is a major difference between the two.
The moon is NOT internally heated by Hot Molten Core.
So the starting points for all calualtions are not the same.
Where in the calculations is the real Average Temperature of the Earth taken in to consideration.
It is like comparing a house with Central heating running to a house with no central heating at all and saying they are the same.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  AC Osborn
May 17, 2021 6:31 am

“Scientists compare the Earth to the Moon to prove GHGs raise the temperature by 33K.”
No, they don’t.
Nikolov, Kramm and UCLA say not the case at all.
Lunar albedo is .1 not .3.
Wrong house analogy.
It’s a house w & w/o insulated walls or draperies.
In Phoenix where it’s 394 K where the walls make the house cooler not warmer.
The atmospheric albedo makes the lit side cooler like drawn draperies
The atmospheric thermal resistance makes the dark side warmer like 6″ walls and R-12 fiberglass.

AC Osborn
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
May 18, 2021 2:49 am

So, you are ignoring the energy coming from the molten core then. Which is the equivelent of Central Heating running.

Last edited 2 months ago by AC Osborn
Paul Jenkinson
May 16, 2021 9:03 pm

I post as a layman to be sure but,considering this article, what becomes of the argument that skeptics have used that in the history of climate going back eons,CO2 rises have “followed”temperature rise? With my limited understanding warmer oceans gave up more gaseous CO2,so that made sense to me.
Also,I have learnt from WUWT that there have been long periods that CO2 has been much higher than today and the world has been much cooler.
If someone on the blog could resolve the conflict that I see between the paper presented above and my former “understanding”,that would be appreciated.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  Paul Jenkinson
May 16, 2021 10:59 pm

You’re right. Resolved.

Last edited 2 months ago by Mike McMillan
Paul Jenkinson
Reply to  Mike McMillan
May 16, 2021 11:27 pm

About what?

Herbert
May 16, 2021 9:28 pm

Bob,
Firstly,where does Ferenc Miskolczi, (2010),“The Stable stationary value of the Earth’s Global Average Atmospheric Planck- weighted Greenhouse gas optical thickness”,Energy and Environment, Volume 21 number 4,2010 feature in all of this.
The paper claims that the radiosonde data negate increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as a hypothetical cause for global warming and that “a hypothesis of significant positive feedback by water vapour effect on atmospheric infrared absorption is also negated by the observed measurements.”
I appreciate that the paper is controversial,to say the least.
Secondly,on OLR,-
Harries et al (2001) Nature 410,355-357 “Increases in Greenhouse Forcing inferred from the Longwave Radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997” is claimed to be direct evidence of human induced warming in the lower troposphere.
It was cited by Dr.Myles Allen in the Cal.v.BP litigation before Judge Alsup as such evidence.
At data.noaa.nasa.gov there is the NOAA Climate Data Record (CDR) of daily Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR),version 1.2.
There is also a monthly record as well.
Is the CDR recording an increase or decrease in OLR since 1979,the commencement of the satellite record, or is this the wrong question?
It has been suggested to me that no useful conclusion can be drawn from any change in OLR in the satellite record (which would negate Harries’conclusion) bécause during that period,the CO2 has been steadily rising and any response to that could just as easily be a constant differential.
If the differential has been constant at say 1.4 W/sq.m then there would be no evidence of the 1.4 W/sq.m in the satellite record.
On the other hand, water vapour changes significantly over each year and the correlation between global atmospheric water vapour and OLR is said to be very clear.
If they are strongly positively correlated with each mm.of water vapour corresponding with OLR increasing by say 1.6W/sq.m, then we are back to the discussion in this post.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Herbert
May 16, 2021 11:20 pm

IIRC, we can’t measure any of the energy flows in, within or out of the atmosphere with enough accuracy to validate such small calculated values.

Herbert
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 16, 2021 11:52 pm

Dave,
You are quite right.
I believe what I was told is speculative and was posted for discussion purposes.
Dr.Roy Spencer makes the point that all of the accumulated warming of the climate system since the 1950s,including the deep oceans,was caused by a global energy imbalance of 1 part in 600; yet modern science does not know, with a precision approaching 1 part in 100, ANY of the natural energy flows in and out of the climate system.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Herbert
May 17, 2021 12:16 am

Thanks, Herbert. I was going to mention Dr. Spencer’s observations, but couldn’t remember the numbers.

Peta of Newark
May 16, 2021 9:57 pm

Quote:”There are multiple lines of evidence, however, that challenge the strong water vapour feedback to a small initial CO2 forcing. These strong positive feedbacks are central to the IPCC narrative”

Nobody needs any “lines of evidence
Simple common sense says that a system, any system, operating Positive Feedback upon its elf, as the GHGE does, is simply not stable.
It will run away and destroy itself
OK, in a system comprising many smaller systems, there may be what appear to be ‘positive feedbacks’
BUT, there has to be an overall an controlling Negative Feedback somewhere in order to keep those in check.

Also, and from those who like fiddling around inside rats-nest Op-Amp circuits, those people will reaalise the difference between a positive feedback and an amplifier with ‘above-unity non-inverting gain’
In that example you get out more than you got in but it still involves masses of negative feedback

That folks running epic computer moels cannot apear to be arsed to calculate a few cosines and get a realistic starting temperature for Earth, Speaks Volumes about this shit-heap

By example, go figure out how YOU would do it..
Consider two 5 deg latitude strips, one around the Equator and one around the poles.

First, lets get Albedo sorted.
The zero atmosphere Earth, made entirely of rock, would have the same Albedo as Moon – do we say 0.12
Fine OK, but NOT 0.3 as Climate Models assume.
That is the final figure after ‘climate’ has modified it. Climate being, clouds, snow and plants growing on the ground.

It gets worse.
70% of Earth is water and it has an Albedo, as seen by El Sol, of pretty-well 0.00
So your first serious question:
What is Earth’s effective, with no atmosphere, Albedo?

Next:
Assume El Sol is radiating 1372 Watts per square metre and that the incident power varies as the cosine of latitude.
Also a rotating earth.

a) Equator,
A 5 deg strip around Equator will see a daily average of 466 Watts/sqm
Assuming high emissivity (dark coloured rock also water in all its forms) of 0.93
That gives, using Stefan a temperature of 307 Kelvin

b) Poles
The 5 deg strip around the poles gets a daily average power of 40 Watts/sqm, thus a temp of 166 Kelvin.

Second serious question, what is The Average Temperature?

But it gets worser and worser
The 5 deg strip around the equator covers an area of 44 Million square kilometres
The 5 deg strip around the poles cover 4 Million square kilometres

So what then is your ‘average temperature’

The thing is a complete train-wreck from the very outset.
One that nobody has any will or inclination to investigate or fix
Even before the three not-so-trivial facts that:

  1. CO2 has zero emissivity at the temps and pressures involved. It does not radiate.
  2. Heat energy, of its own volition, never moves up a thermal gradient
  3. As per Stefan “Objects radiate only according to whatever temperature they have and what their emissivity is. It matters not what temperature any other objects have or where they are”


The GHGE completely ignores and violates #3
It says that Earth’s surface radiates according to what the atmosphere radiates. (Back or downwelling radiation)
The Green House Gas Theory directly contradicts itself and its own authority from the very outset
Who exactly are ‘The Deniers’
(They know who they are and its why they use the term, Human Animal cannot ‘do’ mendacity. It is simply too stressful)

How could it get worse…..
Nobody needs any ‘Lines of Evidence‘ ## the whole thing destroys itself by its own words

## Apart from, maybe, the emissivity figure for CO2

That is soooo beautiful and warmists all know it.
Its why they say ‘so-and-so’ gas is x times more powerful as a GHG than CO2.

A pimple on my nose would have more effect on earth temperature than any amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Where that CO2 came from is a whole different matter.
A lot if not all came, still coming, from the Albedo Altering businesses of city-building, (de) forestry and not least, Tillage

Last edited 2 months ago by Peta of Newark
mkelly
Reply to  Peta of Newark
May 17, 2021 6:50 am

Peta, I know you have posted a link to an emissivity table of CO2 but allow me to again put in Professor Hoyt Hottel’s chart of CO2 emissivity done through experiments and verified by others. And again CO2 has no emissivity below 33 C.

939C5318-59C2-4C83-8E3F-6BDC9F1C4ECA.jpeg
DMacKenzie
Reply to  mkelly
May 17, 2021 9:06 am

Hottel’s charts were developed ti provide broadband emissivities for flue gases in combustion applications for boilers and the like. Early in my career, I used them for designing direct fired heaters. Hottel would have been very glad to have computer programs like Hitran and Radis that are available to us today to perform spectral analysis.

mkelly
Reply to  DMacKenzie
May 17, 2021 1:33 pm

I am not sure what you are getting at. Hottel did his in 1957 and again in 1967. It was done again by others as late as 1978. Hitran was developed in 1960’s and released in 1973. It was available to them all as far as I can tell.

Trick
Reply to  mkelly
May 17, 2021 2:07 pm

Hottel’s & Leckner’s et. al. furnace work was for gas total optical depth order of 1bar and 10 meters at temperatures far above Earth’s 288K median; you know, the size of a boiler flue. So of course, the gas emissivity was far below gas emissivity found for total optical depths of Earth’s STP atm. which averages global ~0.8 emissivity looking up from surface.    

Bob Wentworth
Reply to  mkelly
May 22, 2021 5:38 pm

CO2 has no emissivity below 33 C

Why would you think that?

Just because particular experimenters weren’t interested in measuring emissivity at lower temperatures doesn’t mean there is no emissivity. Emissivity is trending upwards at the temperatures where the graphs are cut off.

At any given wavelength, absorptivity = emissivity. So, given that CO₂ can absorb radiation at certain wavelengths it inevitably follows that CO₂ also spontaneously emits radiation at those wavelengths.

CO₂ definitely has a finite emissivity at temperatures below 33℃.

Antero Ollila
May 16, 2021 10:12 pm

Quote: “The Greenhouse gases are therefore responsible for the 33C (15C minus -18C) warming seen at the earth’s surface. This greenhouse effect is currently made up of approximately 20% CO2 and other minor GHGs and 80% Water Vapour (WV) and cloud. 
 
This statement is in conflict with itself. Firstly, The GH gases are responsible for the GH effect of 33 C and in the second clause also clouds are involved. The writer approves the GH effect definition of the IPCC that GH gases and clouds are fully responsible for the GH effect.
 
IPCC’s definition: “The longwave radiation (LWR, also referred to as infrared radiation) emitted from the Earth’s surface is largely absorbed by certain atmospheric constituents (= 155 W/m2) – (greenhouse gases and clouds) – which themselves emit LWR into all directions. The downward directed component of this LWR (=345 W/m2) adds heat to the lower layers of the atmosphere and to the Earth’s surface (greenhouse effect).” (underlined words are my additions)
 
According to energy balance presentations, the surface emits about 395 W/m2, and finally, LW radiation to space is 240 W/m2. It means that the GH gases and clouds absorb 155 W/m2. This is the magnitude of the GH effect according to the IPCC and according to the writer.
 
I ask a simple question. What is the writer’s explanation that the GH effect of 155 W/m2 is suddenly 345 W/m2? Where is the extra energy coming from? Does this 345 W/m2 add heat to the surface or is it so that only 155 W/m2 adds heat to the surface as you write? Both flux values 155 W/m2 and 345 W/m2 are based on observations.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Antero Ollila
May 16, 2021 11:36 pm

Imagine the atmosphere (including clouds) is bounded at the top by space and at the bottom by the surface of the earth. Energy in must equal energy out. The atmosphere gains energy through radiation from the sun and from the earth’s surface. It loses energy through radiation to space and to the earth’s surface. If one looks at energy balance diagrams, the sum is zero.

Antero Ollila
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 17, 2021 1:49 am

Dear Dave, I have published four scientific papers on Earth’s energy balance. You did not answer my question. Try again. If you did not understand it, please ask for clarification.

Reply to  Antero Ollila
May 17, 2021 9:47 am

Prof Ollila I have read some of your blogs/articles, whatever. I think I can help you with this issue. One problem is the “back radiation” narrative, propagated by the IPCC and others. It is simply wrong, back radiation has nothing to do with the GHE. It is all about the elevation of the emission layer, which a lot of scientists get right btw. My site is not quite ready yet, but I have already dealt with this specific question..

https://www.greenhousedefect.com/2/the-back-radiation-idiocy

So what GHGs (and clouds and aersols) do is to replace so to say the surface as emission layer, and move it up to higher altitudes where it is per se colder, which means less emissions. This difference would be described by the 155W/m2 of “GHE”. How much surface emissions are absorbed by GHGs is just as irrelevant as “back radiation”.

Of course there is a significant difference between the ~240W/m2 in average TOA emissions and 270W/m2 average clear sky emissions. So if the surface was to emit 395W/m2, GHGs would at best reduce this number by only 125W/m2 (and clouds another 30W/m2).

The next problem is, the surface is not a perfect emitter, not even close. Now there is a lot of confusion because no one ever seems to sort out these issues and people “believe” in satellite data, without understanding their restrictions. So I think these two articles might be helpful..

https://www.greenhousedefect.com/what-is-the-surface-emissivity-of-earth

https://www.greenhousedefect.com/basic-greenhouse-defects/deception-with-emission-spectra-part-1

Surface emissions are in the 355W/m2 range, and not 395W/m2. At best we can attribute 85W/m2 of GHE to GHGs. Although, not even that is true as I am yet going to explain.

Antero Ollila
Reply to  E. Schaffer
May 17, 2021 12:04 pm

What rubbish. Nothing to do with facts and physics.

Reply to  Antero Ollila
May 17, 2021 12:19 pm

LOL Your politeness is only trumped by your competence 😉

Dave Fair
Reply to  Antero Ollila
May 17, 2021 11:39 am

Lets try again: Specifically, both the atmosphere (including clouds) and the Earth’s surface receive energy from the Sun. The atmosphere also receives energy from radiation, convection and latent heat from the Earth’s surface. The atmosphere loses energy by radiation to both outer space and the Earth’s surface. Summing inputs vs outputs results in zero (within the accuracy of the instruments). The atmosphere (including clouds) is a system that moves and uses energy to create our weather patterns. Work is done with available energy. You can add bells and whistles all you want to that simple explanation.

Antero Ollila
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 17, 2021 12:05 pm

You did not reply to my question. Let it be.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Antero Ollila
May 17, 2021 12:56 pm

What is the writer’s explanation that the GH effect of 155 W/m2 is suddenly 345 W/m2?”

To my knowledge, nobody has asserted that 155 W/m2 is transformed into 345 W/m2. Please respond to my above comment.

Dave Fair
May 16, 2021 11:15 pm

Mindless B.S.

leitmotif
May 17, 2021 12:56 am

Oh, Joseph Postma! The guy Willis Eschenbach says he has never heard of.

leitmotif
Reply to  leitmotif
May 21, 2021 4:00 pm

My comment was in reply to eben but eben’s comment has been removed. eben’s comment was a reference to a Joseph Postma video. Dave Fair’s comment was a reference to that video but it looks like it is a reference to the article.

Very poor attempt to suppress free speech.

Lit
May 17, 2021 1:04 am

There´s not a single experiment that shows that water vapor can warm a heat source. And BTW, clouds block the sun, the net effect of clouds is cooling. Clouds is a heat transfer process in action, heat being transferred from the surface and dumped at altitude. Clouds transfer heat AWAY from the surface, and thereby cool it. The falling rain then cools the surface even more.

Gary Ashe
Reply to  Lit
May 17, 2021 4:13 am

Warmists and rghe gurus will tell you that your half right .. that the latent heat from clouds is ”warming” the atmosphere, then claim a warmer atmosphere means a warmer surface under it, then tell you to get some basic physic’s in ya.

Heat moved from one place to another place makes both places warmer. thats the physic’s you have to get to be a rghe guru and committed luke-warmer.

Last edited 2 months ago by Gary Ashe
Macha
May 17, 2021 2:15 am

No Hotspot should have been enough to kill CAGW alarmism and GHG theory.

Schrodinger's Cat
May 17, 2021 2:43 am

I agree with much of the article. What seems to have been overlooked is that the greenhouse effect is logarithmic with the greatest impact taking place at the low concentration end of the scale. This means that very small increments in atmospheric CO2 created the greatest warming long before man played any role. This is what produced the 33 degrees or whatever figure is currently popular.

Doubling of CO2 today will only create a fraction of a degree of warming. The absorption bands which to a large extent are shared with water vapour, are already saturated. The ECS values suggested by the climate models are just ludicrous.

mkelly
Reply to  Schrodinger's Cat
May 17, 2021 1:41 pm

If CO2 does not emit below 33 C how could what you say possibly happen?

Chaswarnertoo
May 17, 2021 3:12 am

Increase in CO2 ‘largely’ due to human activities??? Prove it!
Largely due to a natural recovery from the LIA and ocean out gassing.

Ryddegutt
May 17, 2021 3:29 am

The positive feedback nonsense can be debunked with only a few sentences:

Any warming, not only CO2, would cause additional warming. So if there is positive feedback, the warming from purely water vapour would also start a runaway thermal warming. This has not happened in the last 4.5 billion years here on Earth, therefore there is not an overall positive feedback.

And this is exactly why positive feedback is regarded as an unstable state in any regulation system and why any stable system, such as climate on earth, must be a negative feedback system.

However, there is threshold for positive feedback regarding albedo and ice. Snowball-Earth proves that, but that has nothing to do with CO2

Reply to  Ryddegutt
May 17, 2021 11:12 am

RGB “if run away warming is possible then why hasn’t it already happened?”

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  bob boder
May 17, 2021 12:28 pm

In my opinion, it’s more like, …would have already happened… and according to the Warmunists, that “runaway warming” would be catastrophic, i.e., most life would cease to exist. Since we are here to debate it, such catastrophe has obviously NOT happened and therefore it CANNOT happen!

May 17, 2021 3:57 am

Inverse greenhouse effect over Antarctica is due to water vapour, not CO2.

In 2018 Sergio Sejas and colleagues from NASA in the USA published a combined theoretical and experimental (measurement based) confirmation that the radiative greenhouse effect did indeed go into reverse around the South Pole.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0031-y

The reverse Antarctic greenhouse effect was due to water vapour, not CO2. The analysis and reasoning are complex and multi factorial; however the essence is that the radiative effects of water vapour are simply much stronger than those of CO2. But in the unusual frigid and elevated environment of Antarctica, the outcome is the same – a negative radiative warming, meaning cooling, for all of the year except a short summer interval.

https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2021/05/16/negative-greenhouse-effect-over-the-high-and-cold-antarctic-plateau/

May 17, 2021 6:23 am

“The Lapse rate feedback” is an important issue on its own and I will soon feature it. It is one of those factors which eventually, once it is all understood and included, show why GHGs cause no GHE after all. Till then we simply have to sort out all the seemingly little (actually huge) flaws being assumed as “facts” for no reason.

“The presence of GHGs in our atmosphere has increased the global surface temperature by about 33C”

Well?! At least we know with clear skies emissions are ~270W/m2, while clouds provide another -30W/m2. How are clouds a “GHG”? Surface emissions were only 390W/m2 if surface was a perfect emitter, which it is not. Rather emissivity is only 0.91, so that emissions are ~355W/m2. At this point we could attribute 355-270 = 85W/m2 to GHGs, not more, equivalent to some 19K of “GHE”.

“The IPCC and most sceptics believe that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will produce about 1.04 ± 0.1C (Andrews 2012, CMIP5) warming at equilibrium if we assume that there are no feedbacks in the system. This is not controversial.”

If that is so, then why has the modtran installment below it at only 0.75K? You only have to note the emissions (“Upward IR Heat Flux”), then double CO2, and add a temperature offset so that you get the same emissions as before. 0.76K is enough for the tropical scenario, 0.75K for “US standard atmosphere”. If you hold relative humidity constant, thus allowing for vapor feedback, 1.21K and 1.06K respectively will do.

http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/modtran.html

ferdberple
May 17, 2021 8:16 am

The Greenhouse gases are therefore responsible for the 33C 

This height is known as the emission height and averages about 5 km at the present time 
=====================

Another coincidence? The average lapse rate is 6.5C/km. Multiply 5km * 6.5C/km (the emission height times the lapse rate) and you end up with 32.5C. Round it off and you have the 33C attributed to GHG.

Yet when you look at the formula for lapse rate, nowhere does CO2 appear. Or radiation for that matter. Rather, the lapse rate is a function of earth’s gravity (9.8m/sec^2) times a function of air and water.

lapse rate = gravity * function(air, water)

Nowhere in the calculation of the lapse rate is radiation, or CO2. Yet the lapse rate * emission height is the same value as the warming attributed to GHG.

This is much too close to be a coincidence.

Last edited 2 months ago by ferdberple
mkelly
Reply to  ferdberple
May 17, 2021 12:55 pm
DMacKenzie
Reply to  ferdberple
May 17, 2021 1:32 pm

The term “lapse rate” is bandied about much too haphazardly. The “adiabatic lapse rate” invilves the kinetic energy of gases in a gravitational field. In effect, gravity sorts a tall column of gas into hot fast ones at the bottom and colder slower ones at the top of the column. This is because the hot fast ones at the bottom haven’t had to climb uphill. This sorting takes place without the use of external energy because the sum of kinetic (thermal) and potential energy stays the same.
Interestingly the rate of temperature change with altitude is almost the same as the “radiative lapse rate”.
See Manabe and Moller, Fig. 12, if you doubt….

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/mwre/89/12/1520-0493_1961_089_0503_otreah_2_0_co_2.xml?tab_body=pdf

Last edited 2 months ago by DMacKenzie
DMacKenzie
Reply to  DMacKenzie
May 17, 2021 3:00 pm

duh oh…“radiative equilibrium” instead of “ radiative lapse rate”. My recall isn’t as good as I remember it was. 🙂

Last edited 2 months ago by DMacKenzie
Ferdberple
Reply to  DMacKenzie
May 19, 2021 10:27 pm

Actually no such sorting takes place. The kinetic energy of molecules in a gravity well is the same at all altitudes. This surprising result occurs because density decreases with altitude, prefferentially sorting the most energetic molecules upward. As they move upward they bleed off KE for PE at precisely the correct rate that all molecules in the column have the same KE but not PE.

Bob Wentworth
Reply to  ferdberple
May 22, 2021 5:55 pm

Nowhere in the calculation of the lapse rate is radiation, or CO2. Yet the lapse rate * emission height is the same value as the warming attributed to GHG.

But, the emission height is a function of GHG concentration. If there were no GHG, the emission height would be at sea level.

So, no, it’s not a coincidence that “lapse rate * emission height is the same value as the warming”, but you can’t properly explain emission height without referencing GHG concentrations.

Rud Istvan
May 17, 2021 8:35 am

There is an easy way to qualitatively show the model WVF is too high in CMIP5. One of the three main purposes of ARGO was to estimate ocean precipitation via near surface salinity dilution. (The founding documents called this ‘ocean fresh water store’. See my post ARGO fit for purpose? for details.) And in fact, ARGO is showing about twice the ocean precipitation modeled by CMIP5.

There is a largely independent cross check. AR5 had model ECS about 3. Using Lindzens 2012 Bode curve, that is f/(1-f) 0.65. AR5 specifically said WVF doubles the no feedback ECS. The no feedback value calculated using Monckton is 1.16. Say 1.2. That is 1.2*2~2.4 or Bode f/(1-f) 0.5. The 0.15 residual is mostly cloud feedback per AR5 (remember Bode feedbacks are a simple sum). Dessler actually showed in his 2010 paper that cloud feedback is about 0. If precipitation is twice modeled, then the actual WVF is. 0.5/2 about 0.25. Plug 0.25 into lindzen’s Bode curve and out comes an ECS about 1.7, just what the observational energy budget models provide.

May 17, 2021 8:42 am

[[The IPCC and most sceptics believe that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will produce about 1.04 ± 0.1C (Andrews 2012, CMIP5) warming at equilibrium if we assume that there are no feedbacks in the system. This is not controversial.
The IPCC then multiplies this by three to get an after feedback warming of 3.0 ± 1.5C largely due to the amplifying effect of extra water vapour and cloud changes]]
[[There is a transparent window to space at wavelengths approximately between 9 to 16 microns. Long wave radiation in this wavelength range generally passes unrestricted to space through this window. The introduction of CO2 to the atmosphere restricts radiative flow centred around 15 microns. It closes this window slightly. This warms the planet, as shown in Figure 1 but loses all potency by the time CO2 concentrations reach about 600 ppm.]]

Here again we have the IPCC’s fake physics hoax that refuses to die, no matter how many times it’s slain. Of course 15 microns is the main radiation from dry ice at -78.5C, and can’t melt an ice cube. It’s actually -80C. Guess what? -80C isn’t heat, and can’t warm anything in Earth’s atmosphere or surface. Instead, the Earth surface temperature range is -50C to +50C, thus all of its radiation goes right through atmospheric CO2 untouched, meaning that it can’t have any effect on the climate. This makes the “average CO2 emission height” into meaningless moose hockey. This whole line of thinking is intellectually bankrupt.

https://www.quora.com/How-do-greenhouse-gases-in-the-atmosphere-translate-into-warming-oceans-I-understand-heat-reflected-back-in-the-form-of-infared-light-reacts-more-with-these-gases-to-heat-the-atmosphere-but-how-would-this-trap-heat/answer/TL-Winslow

https://www.quora.com/What-does-science-mean-in-the-following-question-Why-do-people-deny-the-science-of-climate-change/answer/TL-Winslow

What does the IPCC do instead of real climate science? It either pushes video games called computer climate models that bear no relationship to reality and are just hopped-up to output predetermined global warming, or they resort to Communist-style fake statistical measures called Global Avg. Temperatures (GATs) to feed the public to justify their future Five-Year Plans for the Climate when they finally break through to the big bucks, as is about to happen in Biden’s U.S.

https://www.quora.com/Are-The-Global-warming-climate-change-theory-models-oversimplified-and-or-corrupted-by-data-that-is-not-accurately-representative-of-reality-the-main-reason-for-their-dismal-track-record-on-their-predictions-could/answer/TL-Winslow

http://www.historyscoper.com/whatistheuseofglobaltemperature.html

What is needed is not more junk science articles pushing CO2 equilibrium sensitivity, but a population replacement, a new generation of real climate scientists grounded in real not fake physics who don’t owe anything to the corrupt Marxist-run U.N. IPCC. Right now I seem to be the only one, but I’m trying to multiply myself by offering a free online Climate Science 101 course that contains the essence of 50+ years studying physics and thinking about Earth atmospheric science while the IPCC has been busy creating a fake climate science solely to push the CO2 global warming hoax, requiring it to literally turn physics upside-down. Right now if you’re interested in not becoming a dodo bird it’s time to devote study time to master the course so you can keep up with me and my growing student body. Mea culpa: I was busy doing other things for the last 30 years while the IPCC menace grew unchallenged, and hope I’m not to late to stop massive irreversible damage.

http://www.historyscoper.com/climatescience101.html

mkelly
May 17, 2021 9:11 am

From the post:”The IPCC and most sceptics believe that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will produce about 1.04 ± 0.1C…”

This is BS.

You get half the temperature rise in two kilos of CO2 than one given the same energy input. You do not get an extra 1 C of temperature rise. Thermodynamics says the energy can be in “any form”. It does not matter if there is IR involved else there would be two values in specific heat tables.

dk_
Reply to  mkelly
May 17, 2021 10:01 am

mkelly — Not at all contradicting you, but it was stated as a belief, of two groups, not attributed to any individual or the author. Not stated as a fact. This was once taught to me as how a writer establishes “common ground” with a potentially unfriendly audience (here? at wuwt? never!). I think the approach is legitimate in a scientific discussion or popular article, but probably not in a propaganda war, and may be a relatively dangerous start position to take in an actual, formal debate. I’m convinced that your technical assessment is, if not absolutely true, much closer than that belief, and frankly I agree that the IPCC’s stated belief is probably deliberately BS, too. But I was able to read through (not necessarily understand or agree with) the rest of the piece.

mkelly
Reply to  dk_
May 17, 2021 1:09 pm

I did not attribute it to the author I quoted what was in the post. It was stated that IPCC believes it plus most skeptics.

Is it your claim that we should not quote the post when making a comment?

Laws of Nature
Reply to  mkelly
May 18, 2021 8:44 am

Aww,
“doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will produce about 1.04 ± 0.1C”
like 280ppm CO2 in the atmosphere to 560ppm.

“You get half the temperature rise in two kilos of CO2 than one given the same energy input.”
That sentence seems incorrect, because it is measured fact that more CO2 (in trace amounts) leads to more warming!
But maybe you are trying to talk about diminishing returns?
That would be already covered in the original statement, because for the next degree of warming from the direct CO2-effect you would need to double the partial pressure.
It seems to me that this is very well measured and can nowadays be precisely calculated using HITRAN.
Are you saying there is something wrong with that database? (If not, what are you saying?)

Bill Hamm
May 17, 2021 11:27 am

Looking through this, the first thing that bothers me is the switching from concentration in Figure 1 to parts per million in Figure 2, with no way to reconcile the two being given.

Bill Hamm
Reply to  Bill Hamm
May 17, 2021 11:44 am

I just noticed that, under convection, without storms transferring energy to space the earth would be hotter. Windmills take energy from the wind, does that mean with enough windmills, the earth could actually get hotter? So, could windmills actually be contributing to “global warming” at some point?

Dave Fair
May 17, 2021 12:02 pm

After reading all the comments at 11:55 AM (PDT), 5/17/2021, my response is: I’ll just stick with the measurements. TOA radiates at about 225 K. Earth’s surface radiates at about 288 K. Between the two there is alot of work being done to lower that temperature difference. Say what you want, but GHGs do adsorb radiation and release it in all directions through radiation and collision with other molecules. That energy is available to create weather in the atmosphere.

Trick
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 17, 2021 2:17 pm

“TOA radiates at about 225 K” at 12:02pm blog time unedited. Did you mean TOA radiates at 255K global multiannual median?

Last edited 2 months ago by Trick
Dave Fair
Reply to  Trick
May 17, 2021 3:01 pm

Whatever you like.

Steve Z
May 17, 2021 2:19 pm

[QUOTE FROM ARTICLE] “The IPCC and most sceptics believe that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will produce about 1.04 ± 0.1C (Andrews 2012, CMIP5) warming at equilibrium if we assume that there are no feedbacks in the system. This is not controversial.

The IPCC then multiplies this by three to get an after feedback warming of 3.0 ± 1.5C largely due to the amplifying effect of extra water vapour and cloud changes. This has been their position for 40 odd years now.” [END QUOTE]

The fact that precipitable water vapor has not changed much over 35 years (especially according to the ECMWF measurements) shows that this amplification or positive feedback by water vapor does not occur in reality, and any models based on it are faulty.

Some of the climate models assume that relative humidity remains constant additional CO2 warms the atmosphere. But since warm air can hold more moisture than cold, maintaining a constant relative humidity at a higher temperature requires a higher absolute humidity, or mole fraction water vapor in the air.

This additional water vapor needs to come from somewhere, presumably from additional evaporation from the surface of an ocean or lake. But water has such a high heat of vaporization that the evaporation required to maintain constant relative humidity absorbs about 50 to 70% of the heat need to raise the temperature of a volume of air by 1 degree C. This represents a huge negative feedback on any atmospheric warming due to additional CO2 in the atmosphere. Neglecting this negative feedback in the models causes them to over-estimate the actual temperature rise.

Bob Wentworth
Reply to  Steve Z
May 22, 2021 6:03 pm

This additional water vapor needs to come from somewhere, presumably from additional evaporation from the surface of an ocean or lake. But water has such a high heat of vaporization that the evaporation required to maintain constant relative humidity absorbs about 50 to 70% of the heat need to raise the temperature of a volume of air by 1 degree C. This represents a huge negative feedback on any atmospheric warming due to additional CO2 in the atmosphere. Neglecting this negative feedback in the models causes them to over-estimate the actual temperature rise.

You’re talking about a purely transient effect.

When the water vapor content of the atmosphere is increasing, yes, that consumes some of the heat incident on the surface.

But, in steady state, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is not changing. So, it’s not automatically the case that there is any more evaporation (and associated cooling) than there was before the atmosphere was warmed and more water vapor was put into the air.

Ulric Lyons
May 17, 2021 3:15 pm

There should be an increase in water vapour and a decline in low cloud cover since 1995, because of the warm AMO phase, which is a negative feedback to weaker solar wind states since then.

Laws of Nature
May 17, 2021 8:41 pm

Dear Bob,

this is a very nice and well researched article, thank you for posting it here!
(The only critique might be that Earth is not a Blackbody and I seem to recall a discussion of that together with how the rotation frequency affects the surface temperature.. AFAIK the conclusion was that the average Earth´s temperature without atmosphere would be higher than -18°C, but I cant find the post.)

Either way, well done!!

Matthew Sykes
May 18, 2021 3:10 am

“Higher CO2 concentrations mean a higher average CO2 emission height. A Higher average emission height means lower gas concentrations”

You need to rethink this, it is self contradictory.

Irrigation and extra humidity generally coincide with cooler temperatures” Wasnt it Christy who noticed this in California? But more typically, air near a water source has less temperature variation, hot and cold. WV raises minimum temperature, and reduces maximum temperature. VW might amplify average temperature, but its main effect is to reduce extremes of temperature, so even in WV had increased it wouldnt be a bad thing. In fact it would be beneficial, less extremes of temperature.

Ulric Lyons
May 18, 2021 6:04 am

The way I calculate the Lunar global mean surface temperature, is to divide the disk area by two and not four, just for the illuminated hemisphere only, which is roughly in equilibrium with solar irradiance. And then average that with the mean dark side temperature.

Working backwards:
394K x 0.5^0.25 = 331.3
minus 12% albedo is:
331.3 x 0.88^0.25 = 320.9
and averaged with a dark side mean of 95K equals roughly 208K

Now if there was more heat capacity in the regolith to raise the dark side to a mean 190K, it would make a small difference to the maximum temperature of the sunlit side, but a huge difference to the global mean.
Earth’s sunlit side is cooler than on the Moon, but Earth’s night side remains far warmer. Are we to believe that the greenhouse effect keeps the ocean surfaces warm at night?

%d bloggers like this: