By Kenneth Richard on 13. January 2022
We have updated our “Extremely Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity” scientific paper list with new papers added from 2021 and some newly discovered papers from the past.
As of 2016 this list had only 50 papers on it (as indicated by the web address). In less than 6 years the list has grown to 137 (as of today).
Click on the link for the full list.
135+ Papers Find Extremely Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity
A few of the sample papers are shown here.
Coe et al., 2021 (2XCO2 [400 to 800 ppm] = 0.5°C)
The HITRAN database of gaseous absorption spectra enables the absorption of earth radiation at its current temperature of 288K to be accurately determined for each individual atmospheric constituent and also for the combined absorption of the atmosphere as a whole. From this data it is concluded that H2O is responsible for 29.4K of the 33K warming, with CO2 contributing 3.3K and CH4 and N2O combined just 0.3K. Climate sensitivity to future increases in CO2 concentration is calculated to be 0.50K, including the positive feedback effects of H2O, while climate sensitivities to CH4 and N2O are almost undetectable at 0.06K and 0.08K respectively. This result strongly suggests that increasing levels of CO2 will not lead to significant changes in earth temperature and that increases in CH4 and N2O will have very little discernable impact.
Schildknecht, 2020 (2XCO2 = 0.5°C)
Based on new radiative transfer numerical evaluations, we reconsider an argument presented by Schack in 1972 that says that saturation of the absorption of infrared radiation by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere sets in as soon as the relative concentration of carbon dioxide exceeds a lower limit of approximately 300 ppm. We provide a concise brief and explicit representation of the greenhouse effect of the earth’s atmosphere. We find an equilibrium climate sensitivity (temperature increase ∆T due to doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration) of ∆T ≃ 0.5°C. We elaborate on the consistency of these results on ∆T with results observationally obtained by satellite-based measurements of short-time radiation-flux versus surface-temperature changes. … The absorption reaches values close to 100% for a realistic CO2 content of 0.03%, it is concluded that any further increase of (anthropogenic) CO2 cannot lead to an appreciably stronger absorption of radiation, and consequently cannot affect the earth’s climate. … [T]he effect of an anthropogenic CO2 increase on the climate on earth is fairly negligible.
Easterbrook, 2016
CO2 makes up only a tiny portion of the atmosphere (0.040%) and constitutes only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect. The atmospheric content of CO2 has increased only 0.008% since emissions began to soar after 1945. Such a tiny increment of increase in CO2 cannot cause the 10°F increase in temperature predicted by CO2 advocates. Computer climate modelers build into their models a high water vapor component, which they claim is due to increased atmospheric water vapor caused by very small warming from CO2, and since water vapor makes up 90–95% of the greenhouse effect, they claim the result will be warming. The problem is that atmospheric water vapor has actually declined since 1948, not increased as demanded by climate models. If CO2 causes global warming, then CO2 should always precede warming when the Earth’s climate warms up after an ice age. However, in all cases, CO2 lags warming by ∼800 years. Shorter time spans show the same thing—warming always precedes an increase in CO2 and therefore it cannot be the cause of the warming.
Davis, 2017
The correlation between ΔRFCO2 and linearly-detrended T across the Phanerozoic Eon is positive and discernible, but only 2.6% of variance in T is attributable to variance in ΔRFCO2. Of 68 correlation coefficients (half non-parametric) between ΔRFCO2 and T proxies encompassing all known major Phanerozoic climate transitions, 75.0% are non-discernible and 41.2% of discernible correlations are negative. Spectral analysis, auto- and cross-correlation show that proxies for T, atmospheric CO2 concentration and ΔRFCO2 oscillate across the Phanerozoic, and cycles of CO2 and ΔRFCO2 are antiphasic. A prominent 15 million-year CO2 cycle coincides closely with identified mass extinctions of the past, suggesting a pressing need for research on the relationship between CO2, biodiversity extinction, and related carbon policies. This study demonstrates that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not cause temperature change in the ancient climate.
I’ve been saying 0.2 to 0.3C for years.
I’ve been saying that anyone who thinks they know or will know is whistling Dixie….for years
No kidding, the IPCC should be disbanded.
I prefer full-Earth-scale analyses of climate sensitivity to eliminate scale-up errors.
If we ASSUME (conservatively, and for simplicity) that ALL the temperature change on Earth is driven by increasing atmospheric CO2, then we can bound the values of Climate Sensitivity ranging from minus 1C/2xCO2 during cooling periods like ~1940 to 1977, and plus 1C/2xCO2 for the warming decades post-1977.
Bounding Climate Sensitivity at between +/-1C/2xCO2 means there is NO man-made global warming crisis – both numbers are too low to matter. This conclusion is 20 years old, as stated in my publications.starting in 2002.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/26/obamas-science-czar-rails-against-using-red-teams-to-debate-global-warming/#comment-2113388
The global warming debate is primarily about one parameter – the sensitivity of climate to increasing atmospheric CO2 (aka ECS, TCS, etc.). Let’s call this climate sensitivity CS for brevity.
Global warming alarmists allege that CS is high and Earth will experience catastrophic warming due to increasing atm. CO2.
Skeptics say CS is low and any warming due to increasing atm. CO2 will be harmless or beneficial.
The alarmist position is founded on allegations of high CS, which are based on assumptions of strong positive feedbacks for which there is NO supporting evidence.
Furthermore, there is ample evidence that CS is low. The most credible information is the full-scale temperature data of our planet. Earth temperature since 1850 has warmed, cooled, warmed, and remained ~flat, all for multi-decadal periods, even as CO2 increased from ~280ppm to ~400 ppm. This full-Earth-scale test shows that increasing atm. CO2 is NOT a significant driver of global warming.
Climate sensitivity (CS) is no more than ~1C/(2xCO2) and probably less, so there is no real global warming crisis.
Many trillions of dollars and many thousands (even millions) of lives have been squandered on what is clearly false, and probably fraudulent claims of high CS.
Lewis and Curry had it at 1.3 or so, but they were using GISS, which is heavily stepped on. I would regard that as the absolute high end of plausible.
That was TCR, not ECS. Their ECS estimates are between 1.6-1.7 depending on which paper.
No sale on beach front homes! That is confirmed!
You can run it in UChicago Modtran, fixed RelativeHumidity, US Std atmosphere, whatever cloud and zone gives outgoing a near normal 240 watts, change 400 to 800 ppm….and answer will be around 0.8 C per 2xCO2
One can argue that Modtran is parameterized, not a GCM….I don’t think one can argue that it treats IR absorption and emissions by radiative gases incorrectly.
Doesn’t that also assume that 100% of the warming we have seen is due to CO2?
What warming? 40 year of phony, laughable, idiotic predictions and the world has not warmed 1/100th of a degree, as if they can even measure that accurately….
And all of that warming is attributed to mankind… When mankind is responsible for a ridiculously small amount of the atmospheric CO₂.
That is the elephant in the woodpile. Off the top of my head i could think of eight or nine causes of warming in the 20th century, several anthropogenic, only one due to the CO2 greenhouse effect. Until the ‘science’ thinks of counter examples to the perceived narrative — that is, tries to falsify the theory rather than brush anomalies under the carpet — the data and the certainty will remain at odds.
For starters they could explain the warming from 1910 to 1940. And then “the blip.”*
JF
*Tom Wigley.
Does not matter, because 97% of “scientists” HAVE AGREED, CO2 is at fault!!
All the rest is tra-la-la
And right from the early days of climate hoax modelling the auditing of those figures by brilliant UK mathematician, Christopher Monckton”, and his published report on his audit, has been condemned and rejected by the hoaxers.
They even banned Monckton from addressing climate conferences, the science is settled the claimed.
Ignore audited figures and comparing historic data records with the computer modelling created by the participants who exchanged emails as they worked “creatively” that were hacked and published and became known as climate gate one and two.
The above articles reflect a CO2 “Climate Sensitivity Parameter” (CSP) anywhere from 0.1 to 0.5 K/(W/m2). Is there a best value?
Since the “science is settled”, there should be a single value which is not “best” but correct.
and it should be accurate to several decimal places
+100
This zombie refuses to go away.
If the slight warming from CO2 caused an increase in water vapour, which in turn caused more warming, then any warming at all, for any reason at all would in turn cause increased warming due to increased water vapour. Even increasing water vapour would increase temperatures which would, by this hypothesis, increase water vapour and cause even more warming.
The fact that we have never had such runaway warming tells us that this hypothesis is complete and utter garbage. Any halfway intelligent and halfway educated person can see this immediately. Climate Scientologists seem to embrace this idiocy fully, which tells you more about Climate Scientologists than anything else.
The increased warming would increase the temperature which would increase the water vapor which would increase the warming which would increase the water vapor which would increase …. endless do-loop
That’s how they arrived at the climate “tipping point”– an endless do-loop programmed in.
Tipping points do exist, it’s called stochatic resonance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbJ_I3xbIMg
However, tipping points are not caused by a single noise factor, e.g. CO2. Ultimately it comes down to the larger variables, i.e. orbital cycle, and resonance of many noise variables.
endless doo doo loop.
I believe there is runaway effect with Venus.
Or I believe if Venus was at 1 AU distance, it would be colder than Earth
But I don’t think Earth at Venus distance {0.723 AU} would have a runaway effect.
Venus would colder because of its slow rotation and at it’s current distance of 0.723 AU, it
doesn’t absorb much sunlight. And at 1 AU absorb, it would absorb even less.
Earth at 0.723 AU might absorb more than 240 watt square meter average.
And it seems Earth would be warmer {it gets about twice as much sunlight}.
But Venus would obviously absorb less than 160 watt per square meter at 1 AU distance and has to be a lot colder.
The very high surface temperature of Venus has much more to do with the enormous atmospheric pressure than any runaway Greenhouse Effect.
I am talking about runaway effect. Or glacial ice is supposed to a runway cooling effect {it’s not, really, but the glacial ice is not really a greenhouse effect, and any land on Earth doesn’t have much effect on planet mostly covered by ocean- glacial ice is a local rather than global effect}.
Venus is hot similar to why Ozone warms, the ozone is at high elevation- btw it’s thought Venus has tiny ozone layer. But roughly cloud are 50 km in elevation and can convect heat to the atmosphere.
Venus rocky surface poorly lit by sunlight and the light reaching that rocky surface is not heating Venus, though rocky surface is insulated by any radiant
heat loss. Or the 160 watt of radiant loss is happening 50 km or more higher
in the atmosphere. Or Venus surface is where absorbs and radiates most of the 160 watt per square meter global average.
Of course the actual heating is occuring where the surface is being heated by
the intense sunlight and this heat is distributed globally by convection of the atmosphere. Or greenhouse effect of Venus is the heating at sunlit surface is distributed to nightside, and globally heat is uniformly lost to space, from the surface +50 km elevation.
And this high elevation surface rotates in 4-5 days, unlike the slow rotating rocky surface.
Earth distance, the global wind slows down and the surface still radiates faily uniformly, but the less intense surface to absorb.
Or the high elevation atmosphere, collapses, and rotation of this high elevation surface slows down- it has runaway cooling effect.
But large thermal mass of atmosphere, means it will take while to cool.
Or roughly at earth distance, Venus will not absorb 160 watts on average, more like 50 watts, and will emit about 100 watts, until whole atmosphere cools. until it absorbs as much as it emits.
And that is very cold planet.
Though a simple way to say it is Venus lacks water.
And the major greenhouse effect on Earth is H20.
But even without Venus clouds, a clear sky Venus would still reflect a lot
of sunlight.
Or clear sky venus, at Earth distance, would have very dim rocky surface. It would be far worse than Earth, to harvest solar energy- at its rocky surface.
But good planet to have sky cities in, and one could get enough solar energy at the higher elevations in the atmosphere.
Correct. The atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus is 92 times that of Earth. A simple PV=nRT calculation shows that Venus would have tremendous surface temperatures even in the complete absence of a Sun.
Which raises the question, what happens if hydrogen becomes a dominant source of energy. All that excess water vapor which is 40 times more dangerous than CO2 will cause even greater global warming and Earth’s atmosphere will rival Venus’s in temperature.
What does not instantly condense, will rise and form clouds, dimming sunlight, raining down etc.
Imagine how much water evaporates from a square mile of pond every day, then compare that with everyone running a, say, 2kW motor all the time.
Man is but an organism on a very large cosmic body, our individual farts are but puffs in the galactic wind…
Now, developers, developers actually destroy millions acres of habitat every year, to build palaces to Mammon, when perfectly good existing buildings are left vacant because they make more money that way from the Leveraged-Loan scam.
Clismastrology serves to distract from the damage and pollution caused by ‘development’ and corrupt planning officials.
If adding CO2 to the atmosphere caused warming than the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused at least a measurable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. There is evidence in the paleoclimate record that CO2 has any effect on climate. More CO2 in the atmosphere is a result of global warming and not a cause. The IPCC has been unable to measure the climate sensitivity of CO2 as if it were zero. What would enable any CO2 based warming would be a radiant greenhouse effect but such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed on Earth or on any planet in the solar system with a thick atmosphere. Then there is the issue of H2O feedback. What the AGW conjecture ignores is that besides being the primary greenhouse gas, H2O is also a major coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere moving heat energy from the Earth’s surface most of which involves some form of H2O to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. The overall cooling aspects is evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate Hence H2O must act as a negative feedback, reducing any warming the CO2 might cause Negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for at least the past 500 million years. It has been stable enough for life to evolve as evidenced by the fact that we are here.. My best estimate for the climate sensitivity of CO2 is that it is zero. Good absorbers are also good radiators so for each photon that CO2 absorbs it radiates away a photon of equal energy for a net energy gain of zero. If any gasses in the Earth’s atmosphere are heat energy trapping it would be the non-greenhouse gasses because they are such poor LWIR radiators to space. THe AGW hypothesis is based on only partial science and is all wrong..
Between 1850 and 1950, temperatures increased by about 0.4C while CO2 levels increased from 280 to 300ppm.
From 1950 to 2021, temperatures increase by about 0.4C, while CO2 levels increased from 300 to 410ppm.
If CO2 was the control knob that the alarmists claim it to be, an over 5 times increase in CO2 should result in a temperature increase of at least 2 to 4 times as great. Instead, the temperature increased at exactly the same rate.
Temperatures increased where? You can only get that garbage by averaging disparate temp readings, which is physically meaningless. Some places have warmed, some have cooled, some have remained relatively static. Saying “temperatures have increased” is meaningless.
Temperatures increased on the planet colloquially known as Earth.
I fully agree that the specific heat of dry air should have changed and like others here have asked what the new value is. It is the specific heat (Cp) that controls the dry lapse rate.
Lapse rate = – g / Cp
But the mass of the air has gone up as CO2 is added and O2 is taken out in a simplified cumbustion equation. In trying figure out whether the same energy input from the sun will cause a temperature increase we need info Q = Cp * m * dT. If Cp * m has gone up then there can be no temperature increase.
We know that IR has no effect as there would need to be multiple columns in specific heat tables for air and CO2. Energy input with and without IR.
I also agree with your best estimate of climate sensitivity being zero.
I have personally read many such ‘low ECS papers going back to Lindzen and Choi 2011 (0.85). They are ALL methodologically suspect in different ways. That Richards inventories them does not make them right. Nor do they agree amongst themselves.
As commented to WE concerning his last post, there are strong reasons to believe ECS MUST be something appreciably more than 1.2. My own estimates independent of Lewis and Curry about 1.65 suggest about 1.7 using either Bode feedback corrected from IPCC, or Monckton’s equation (both posted previously at Judith’s).
And the old 1938 Guy Callander curve says 1.68.
There are several rigorous ways to derive the ‘no feedbacks’ ECS case. Judith posted one in 2010 that derived 1.1C. Lindzen derived 1.2C in 2011. Monckton’ much later equation yields 1.16C.
Now we know the Cloud feedback is about 0. Dessler’s paper derived it in 2010, although he claimed it was positive. McIntyre posted on Dessler at the time. And IPCC AR4 and 5 WG1 both say the sum of all other feedbacks except water vapor is about 0. That leaves only water vapor feedback (WVF).
The WVF MUST be significantly positive, since the global average absolute humidity is about 2%, with a range from near zero to about 4%. And since Tyndall proved experimentally in 1859 that water vapor was a ‘greenhouse gas’. So the ‘real’ ECS MUST be appreciably above 1.2C. Anything at or below that value is simply wrong, although in different papers for different reasons.
What about atmospheric ice the “refrigerating solid”
In fact solid atmospheric water overpowers the gas and liquid phases by a huge margin. Atmospheric water is a net cooling agent because of the reflective ice formation in the atmosphere. The atmosphere above tropical oceans reject 50% of the ToA insolation once they reach the 30C limit.
Earth surface temperature is temperature controlled between two firm limits -1.8C and 30C. Current warming is due to the gradual reduction in ocean insolation as a result of perihelion occurring ever later than the austral summer solstice for the past 400 years and the next 10,000 years. More ocean surface area is reaching the 30C limit as upwelling is reduced causing more ocean heat retention.
CO2 plays no role in the energy balance. The idea of surface radiation heating deep oceans is simply ridiculous. More surface radiation speeds up the water cycle and cool water upwelling until the the water vapour is sufficient to create convective instability, resulting in persistence reflective cloud, and the surface temperature reaches the 30C limit.
Rick says:”CO2 plays no role in the energy balance.”
Agreed. Since Hoyt Hottel proved experimentally, first in 1954, that CO2 has an almost zero emissivity it is hard to see how it has a role.
Those chart lines are in “bar-cm” and the atmosphere has a lot of cm. Hottel was making the chart mostly for design of furnace fireboxes a meter or two long in about 10% CO2 flue gas at about 1000 C. Extrapolating it to, say, 20C down to -60 C then .004 bars to .001 bars CO2 partial pressure, and 10^6 to 10^7 cm isn’t really valid. Hottel would have been very happy to have Hitran as he had no choice but to use very broad band emissivities. But for the atmosphere, you need to use something like Modtran and narrow bands….emissivity is just a factor times black body formulas, but gases aren’t black bodies….
True gases aren’t black bodies, but emissivity isn’t additive.
The other gents did have access to Hitran as it was done in ‘72 i think and they did experiments in mid to late ‘70’s.
Other than my heat transfer book this this the best I have found as to emissivity of CO2. Do you have a better emissivity?
The absorption of IR by CO2 is dependent on beam length and IR wavelength…therefore dependent on the cm of atmosphere traversed. Beer-Lambert Law. “Infrared Thermal Imaging” by Vollmer and Mollman is an excellent reference and very well written…they use radiance, not emissivity in their calcs.
Hi Rud.
I’ve always enjoyed your comments. A few questions.
in your calculation of 1.7 or any of your numbers
1 Do you assume an LIA and that we are coming out of it?
2 What part of warming since ~1850 do you consider non AGW
3 To what extent do you build in internal variability (AMO in warm phase recently)
4 What problems do you have with the Lindzen paper. I’ve only recently read his paper and have no opinion
Thanks
CK, very good questions.
Thanks, Rud. I remember you saying a few years ago that you had met with Lindzen while working on your book. As a non scientist budget type, I find this entire debate and issue fascinating. The deeper I dig the more complex and intriguing it becomes. You and Judith have always had my implicit trust. You are both straight shooters.
Good comments Rud. On one point, cloud covers 65% of the planet with high Albedo shutters during the daytime. Clouds abruptly turn patches of the sky from optically clear IR absorber/emitter water vapor into sunlight reflecting mirrors as dewpoint is reached. Then clouds turn into black body IR emitters at night time. A few minutes difference in these roles per day is what controls the average surface temperature. Summary…clouds control the planet’s temperature. The fact that cloud feedback is measured at around zero while their reflective and back radiation is 50 watts shows you the actual strength of the effect. A brick wall has no feedback after you’ve hit it….
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016MS000670
“Summary…clouds control the planet’s temperature.”
Is there anthropogenic interference with cloud formation?
JF
And is it taxable?
The problem I have with this is that ECS is an entirely theoretical construct that depends on the notion of “all other factors being equal or constant”. But all other factors are not equal or constant. Heck, we don’t even know what all the others factors are. We do know that many factors that influence atmospheric temperatures fluctuate substantially on all time scales – diurnal, seasonal, solar, orbital etc. Weather itself is incredibly variable and unpredictable even on time scales of a hours to a few days. I would submit that no one can determine what ECS actually is because the very notion of ECS is unphysical.
This is what the lukewarmers are discounting. Many of them believe longer time scale feedbacks will reduce the radiative forcing, but they ignore the immediate feedback from basic thermodynamics.
I believe the atmosphere has a corollary to Newton’s 3rd law. For every action (downwelling IR), there is an (almost) equal and opposite reaction. None of that shows up in the radiation models.
This has actually been measured by CERES. It measures the outgoing LWIR and has found it matches the global temperature. This is exactly what one would expect with a zero sensitivity.
Rud, ECS is a pointless artificial model construct with no physical meaning. The atmosphere would never stay in equilibrium for the hundreds of years required to measure ECS. TCR is the only value that matters. TCR is probably between 0.7 and 1.2, it depends upon whether the net feedback is positive (Lewis and Curry) or negative (Lindzen). Saying TCR is about one is the best we can do. And one is not scary. I reject the whole concept of ECS, it is a meaningless, unverifiable number that cannot be falsified, thus it is unscientific.
Thank you Andy! At last, the one true statement.
I humbly disagree. ECS has a specific conceptual meaning, defined above. Can it be ‘really’ estimated? Perhaps not. But that does not mean it is not ‘real’. Please consider i, the ‘impossible’ square root of -1. It isn’t ‘real’ but you cannot calculate AC electricity results without using it using complex numbers.
I would note that i is an imaginary number not a real number. ECS is also imaginary. I think this is equally true for TCS. These are only factors that have meaning and utility in the artificial domain of computer models. They do not have meaning in the real world.
And I would add: how real are real numbers…
I.e., what is the meaning of “real”? the number “two” is real? No, it isn’t! “real” are “two oranges” of “five pencils”, etc. In the “real world” there are no numbers, there are things, real things, which can be enumerated. In the real world is there “1.5 potatoes”? No: you must chop one to have one half popato. Is there 5.6 tons or coal? No, there is a certain amount of coal: if it is 5.6 or 7.1 whaterver-units depends on your convention about the size of the unit. But here you can define units: you are referring to one “real” thing: a certain amount of coal.
Is 1K “real”? No, it isn’t: what is real is a certain diference in heath content; that we can measure using an arbitrary unit (1/100 of the interval between freezing and boiling water under (! this is important!) certain other circumstances). The “Kelvin” unit is not real, it does not exist in the real world, is a convention. But heath exists, this is the real thing!
Is the climate on Earth (whatever it may mean: the whole, a region,…) anytime in “equilibrium”? No, it isn’t. So, how can we (i.e., what is the usefulness, what is the meaning) of defining characteristics of a no-existing “thing”? It is an open door to theology, not science…
(Yes, imaginary numbers in electricity measure a real thing, though being imaginary themselves; like all the other kinds of numbers).
However, the imaginary number”i”, or “j” as used in electrical formula, is merely a signal that the calculation requires trig in addition to algebra, not an assumption that the square root of-1 has a solution.
When I do a shallow dredge of “Network Analysis and Feedback Amplifier Design”, I don’t see evidence that Bode’s feedback analysis considers conservation of energy. As far as I can tell, it assumes an infinite power supply.
I also don’t see evidence that the mechanisms for the so called feedback are linear.
Feedback analysis is attractive when applied to climate sensitivity because it’s simple. As far as I can tell, it’s also bogus.
Do a deeper Bode dredge. It does.
Any idea where?
“Bode’s feedback analysis considers conservation of energy. As far as I can tell, it assumes an infinite power supply. ”
And , changes in the circuit CHANGE THE OUTPUT of the amp …(sun ? )
I do not think the earth controls the suns output …
I have read stuff too. I draw different conclusions.
But because the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate in the troposphere adding H2O to the atmosphere must cause cooking hence H2O provides a negative feedback decreasing any warming that adding CO2 to the atmosphere might provide.
Dear Rud
It has been said that the warming effect of CO2 is logarithmic and diminishes at higher concentrations. You say ECS is 1.67. Is that for the change from 250 to 450? What about 800?
1600? Will Happer thinks we are already at saturation?
Thanks
Jim
If you really want to believe in the CO2 control knob, the last 10,000 years of ice-core CO2 and deuterium data indicate a negative ECS. There is no plausible explanation for that, however, so belief in it is unreasonable.
Furthermore, given that the earth is coated with an organic residue that decomposes to CO2 with great sensitivity to temperature, any belief in a positive ECS is also unreasonable.
I can’t even believe that CO² even contributes 3.6 % at. .04% of the atmosphere. The magic molecule doesn’t reflect that much. They are being too kind to the climastrologists. I don’t think the CO² effect can even be measured.
Beg to differ, for three reasons.
Rud,
First, I want to say you are one of the commentators I look for in the comments section because you always have good logical statements. But your three reasons here do not refute Slowroll.
First, he doesn’t say CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas, so I don’t understand your first point.
Your second point sure seems to describe what reflection accomplishes, Slow’s point is that such a small % can’t reflect, or re-radiate downward what they are claiming.
The third point, bringing in feedback and clouds, seems like to confirm his point, Water vapor and clouds are the main players, not Co2. Also the way water vapor takes heat from the surface and brings it into the atmosphere, to form clouds, while also blocking incoming energy from the Sun while the only positive feedback to ground temperatures is at night, makes it seem impossible that clouds can only be a negative feedback in total.
Good comment.
The climate science is not settled.
The only problem I have with Tyndall’s research is it was based on crazy high concentrations of CO2. All the measured effects of 100% don’t scale down to 1%, much less scale down to 0.04%.
How dare you.
Even worse, the heat source would lead to absorption by both CO2 frequencies (4.7 and 15 microns). The Earth only radiates at the 15 micron frequency. In fact, this is typical of all experiments showing CO2 warming.
Tyndal this, Arrhenius that. Yes got it, some gasses absorb IR. The conclusion by many is that absorption equals an increase in temperature. Show me the increase rather than deducing something. Oh, they don’t show that?
A quick experiment for you. Go to a welding/gas supplier and measure the outside temperatures of the gas cylinders in the warehouse. Get back to us with your results.
Conservation of energy dictates that the outside temperature of the cylinders will be the same as the ambient, unless they are outside absorbing solar energy.
You can measure downwelling LWIR so you can’t easily dismiss greenhouse warming with simplistic arguments. link
If you take a simplistic model of greenhouse warming, the surface of the Earth over land, near the equator should exceed the hottest surface temperature of the Moon at its hottest point. Now that’s something that we do know doesn’t happen. Something’s cooling off the Sahara. LOL
Rud,
You misunderstand Tyndall. You should read his work again. Anything reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer reduces the temperature of the thermometer. Gases such as CO2 and H2O are good examples of gases relatively opaque to IR, but transparent to visible light.
Tyndall pointed out the obvious – that without an atmosphere, conditions on Earth would be relatively Moon-like – literally boiling during the day, deep frozen in the absence of sunlight.
No GHE, no ECS, no TCS, no feedbacks – just the observable fact that the Earth has cooled from a much hotter state.
Just for fun, try and find a useful definition of the GHE, along with information as to where it may be observed, measured, and quantified – just like other scientific effect.
You have hit the nail on the head. It is why a cooler body cannot cause a warmer body to become warmer. All the cooler body radiation can do is slow the loss of heat from the warmer body by radiation. That is, the net heat gradient from the warmer to the cooler body will become smaller. You might say that the warmer body will stay warmer for a longer time and you would be correct.
The key is that the warmer body will become cooler over time and the cooler body will become warmer over time until equilibrium is established.
Using the accepted assumption that the sun’s energy is only absorbed by the ground/oceans then the ground/ocean will always be the warmer body while the atmosphere will always be the cooler body.
What is the result of adding CO2. GHG theory would say that CO2 absorbs more since the concentration goes up and therefore sends more back to the ground/oceans causing the temperature to rise. Why can’t this happen? Because the sun heating the ground/oceans is finite and constant. The radiation by the hot body is also finite and constant since it is based on temperature. In order to raise the temperature of the atmosphere, there needs to be additional energy radiated by the ground/oceans and consequently absorbed by the additional CO2.
If the source is fixed, there is only so much energy for CO2 to absorb regardless of its concentration. That is, saturation is reached. Raising the concentration only “spreads” the radiated energy around more molecules thereby cooling the temperature.
Jim, this is so ridiculously flawed I seriously doubt even your bachelors. Even you said that “the cooler body radiation can do is slow the loss of heat from the warmer body by radiation”. This is what happening. More CO2, slower heat loss for the same temperature. Ie. heating to a higher temperature in the long term ‘cos the input from the sun is the same. This effect of CO2 is currently calculated to be above 0.5W/m2. This is the imbalance. The total variance in solar heat input for various reasons is at least an order of magnitude smaller than this.
The source does not have a “slower heat loss”! Original heat is supplied by the sun to the ground/oceans raising them to a temperature that is warmer than the atmosphere. The ground/earth radiate based on that temperature. Even if CO2 “back radiation” is absorbed it is less than what is being emitted by the ground/earth and net heat flow is from the ground/oceans to the atmosphere.
Your mistake is “ heating to a higher temperature in the long term ‘cos the input from the sun is the same.”
The atmosphere can not cause the ground/oceans to increase in temperature until the atmosphere reaches a temperature higher than the ground/oceans. Do the SB law for two bodies. Here is a reference: What is Stefan–Boltzmann Law – Stefan-Boltzmann Constant – Definition (thermal-engineering.org)
Until T2 is greater than T1, i.e., power turns negative, heat flow is from hot to cold.
Jim, your line of argument is so ridiculously flawed I’m tempted to think you’re just joking.
Yep. But increased back radiation from the atmosphere means this net flow is smaller than it would be if CO2 concentration were lower. In other words, heat accumulates slowly in the source. I can’t understand how you can’t understand this fcukin simple thing. It’s like anomalies all over again. That trivial, little, neat transformation constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to you, geniuses.
The idea that CO2 causes surface heating is a fairy tale for those unable to think through how Earth achieves a stable surface temperature through powerful temperature limiting processes, both based on ice formation.
The idea that oceans can be heated by increased surface radiation is the EXACT OPPOSITE of reality. More surface radiation increases evaporation and cool water upwelling so the oceans retain less heat – they cool as radiation increases. Temperature is the inverse of the radiation heat uptake.
Insolation over oceans has been declining since 1585. That is slowing down the net water cycle and causing greater heat retention.
Who is upvoting this non-science?
People who have enough knowledge to understand data when it is presented clearly:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/11/14/global-water-cycle/
Your assumption that all the ocean-evaporated water is transferred to the land is disproven by river-to-ocean runoff numbers. Your arm-waiving cannot disguise the huge differences in the numbers.
The river runoff measurements have significant margin of error. The net radiation balance also has error. The calculation for the water transfer I used is based on water condensing rather than ice solidifying. Water falling as snow will result in less water transfer for the same heat release. The water transport mass is within the error margin.
There is a downward trend in freshwater run-off. No climate model has predicted that because they embody the unphysical feature of deep ocean water having the ability to be heated through surface radiation. That is nonsense.
https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/24/3899/2020/
Wait until they find the contribution of CO3. No such gas, not to worry, they’ll invent one /sarc
It can be a gas if you try hard enough. It won’t be a problem because there is one carbon. You have to be more concerned if it is C3O.
Add a bit of phosphorus, and you might get C3PO
I was waiting for someone to say that.
I have read a couple of those papers (reading all 135 is going to take a while), but so far they have all been disappointing and methodically wrong. There is so much non sense in there, that really no one needs to take them serious. Like not knowing what the GHE is, like confusing TCS with ECS, dealing with “back radiation”, or aribitrarilly attributing overlapped GHEs to one or another component (for instance vapor instead of CO2 AND vapor).
That is while ECS is indeed somewhere in the 0.5K magnitude. But it is not enough to claim it, you also need to be consistent in explaining why that is. As always, if you want to get it done right, you have to do it yourself.. 😉
https://greenhousedefect.com/the-holy-grail-of-ecs/a-total-synthesis-the-ecs-estimate
What is ECS? Is it a CSP (climate sensitivity parameter)?
Equilibrium climate sensitivity. In theory, it is the new balanced temperature Earth achieves after a CO2 doubling. Takes hundreds of years, because has to account for change in ice albedo, change in greening, change in rainfall and clouds… Arguments range from a couple hundred years (pragmatists) to a thousand years (Hanson).
ECS. In several hundred years……. Pull the other one. I’ve heard/read similar crap for years.
See my comment above. From basic facts and logic, the ECS must be something appreciably above delta 1.2C. Please rethink. There is an error somewhere.
There are errors everywhere, which is why I did reconsider the whole of “climate science”.
The radiative forcing you get from doubling CO2 is 3.7 to 4W/m2 in spectral line calculators (modtran & hitran). It is 4W/m2 if you assume a strict surface emissivity of 1, and drops to 3.7W/m2 with a “more realistic” s.e. of 0.97. With a Lambda of 0.27 the 3.7W/m2 are just enough drive temperatures by 1K.
The problem is in the necessary distinction between gross and net, or “single factor addition” and “single factor removal”. The SFA factor grows by 3.7W/m2, but a lot of that growth is overlapped by other GHGs and clouds. The net growth, or the growth of SFR respectively, is only about 2W/m2, or 0.53K. Most people do not know, or are not aware of this issue.
WV on the other hand is not a positive feedback. There are two components, radiative feedback if you will, and lapse rate feedback. The radiative feedback has the same overlapping issues CO2 forcing has, but they are more severe. WV feedback is 1.8W/m2 gross, but only 0.65W/m2 net.
Lapse rate feedback is per definition negative. However it is not really feedback in the technical sense. It only means the surface temperature will increase less than the temperature at emission altitude. Strangely the IPCC hugely overestimates LRF. Despite it being significantly smaller, it is still enough to more than compensate for radiative WV feedback, so WV feedback all over is negative.
More non-science. The upvoter revealed!
Earth is temperature controlled. Sea ice sets the lower temperature to -1.8C by regulating the heat loss once the ocean surface reaches that temperature and a layer f insulating ice forms.
Atmospheric ice regulates ocean heat uptake once open ocean surfaces reach 30C. Open ocean surface cannot exceed 30C because reflective cloud forms to limit further rise.
Globally, land is ALWAYS cooler than oceans. Since 1585, the oceans have been getting less sunlight so are warming up as the net water cycle slows down due to the difference between ocean and land insolation reducing.
Ocean’s retaining more heat is consistent with the oceans having less sunlight resulting in less evaporation and reduced upwelling of cold water. Oceans on average are cold places relative to the surface. Reduced upwelling means more heat is being retained.
Climate models predict that tropical ocean surface will exceed 30C on a sustained basis – that is unphysical fantasy and contradicted by all the evidence:
Climate models predict that precipitation will increase – that is unphysical fantasy and contradicted by the evidence:
Prediction: http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icmip6_pr_mon_ensmean_ssp585_0-360E_-90-90N_n_su.png
Reality: https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/24/3899/2020/
Earth has been in a warming trend since perihelion last occurred before the austral summer solstice in 1585 – ocean insolation is declining.. That trend will continue for a long time yet but it also marks the start of the current glacial cycle. Northern land masses will have warmer summers but cooler winters. So more atmospheric water before the winter chill resulting in increasing snowfall and eventual accumulation.
Your 30 C limit has more to do with combined cloud, humidity, and rainfall….as a result of the increase in vapor pressure of water with temperature (Clausius Clapeyron equation).
The formation of persistent high level cloud is the result of localised convective instability. It is a much sharper cut off than that achieved with vapour pressure.
Convective instability becomes cyclic once the atmospheric water reaches 45mm. The cloud persistent reduces ground level insolation to match evaporation rate at 30C so the ocean surface cannot get any warmer.
The precess is explained in full detail in the linked paper, which includes date measured at the tropical moored buoys:
http://www.bomwatch.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Bomwatch-Willoughby-Main-article-FINAL.pdf
If you plot the water column at a constant humidity against surface temperature you will find it is a monotonic function.
The plot for water column versus surface temperature is not monotonic. The maximum temperature is reached when the water column is 45mm. Beyond that, the temperature no longer increases with rising water column.
The atmosphere changes mode once cyclic instability sets in. Convective potential cycles on regular basis, typically daily. Convective potential builds, convective instability ensues, cloudburst occurs to dissipate the convective potential and the column is rested to start building potential again. It is highly surface temperature dependent as the cloud persistency is strongly related to the surface temperature.
This spot in the tropical Pacific has CAPE of 712J/kg at 1100 on 9Jan:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2022/01/09/0000Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=cape/orthographic=-214.79,-11.63,346/loc=175.851,-14.548
By the same time the next day CAPE has reached 2305J/kg.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2022/01/10/0000Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=cape/orthographic=-214.79,-11.63,346/loc=175.851,-14.548
The atmospheric column for that location has been recharged for another cloudburst.
This fact must be why the climate hoaxers keep referring to CO2 as “carbon pollution”?
sarc.
Using the term “carbon pollution” is just plan ignorance. I wouldn’t trust any scientist or authority figure who used it.
Global temperature is not controlled by atmospheric CO2, ergo, ECS is a fictitious number.
Global cooling will occur one of these days, it’s just a matter of time before the system returns to a glacial period.
“Global temperature is not controlled by atmospheric CO2”
That says it all.
In Australia now television news weather reporters are telling viewers that the hottest day ever was just recorded here, the hottest day anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere the latest scare weather tale claims.
I’m betting this new record did not exceed the old record by much. And when was the old record set?
And why should we trust what the temperature data manipulators say, anyway? They’ve been bastardizing the temperature record for years so why shouldn’t we assume this new record is just more of the same? That’s what I assume. I wouldn’t trust an official temperature record. Those in charge of temperature recording have a political agenda nowadays. They try to trick us into believing we are living in the hottest time in human history.
It’s all a Big Lie demonstrated by the unmodified, regional temperature charts from all around the world that show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today.
There is no unprecedented warming as the alarmists claim, and since there is no unprecedented warming, even though humans have been increasing CO2 in the atmosphere for decades, this means that CO2 is at best a minor player in determining the Earth’s temperatures.
The only thing that shows unprecedented warming are the computer-generated temperature records. Unprecedented warming only exists in computer models. It doesn’t exist in the real world.
These CO2 lies and the Liars spreading them are doing great harm to the World and its people.
Didn’t Willis just calculate 0.6 also?
You can’t calculate a ridiculous idea. But I guess you can try…..
Be still my beating heart. Calculations from a ‘product’. He has his hobby and I have my doubts.
But NYC will be under water in 5 years again! Run idiots, run!
So it’s settled then. The unsettling claim that we should settle on 0 to 6C ECS according to settled science turns out to be unsettled.
Settle down now.
There is a much larger heat transfer coefficient in the low atmosphere by non-radiation processes than by radiation. Net radiation transport only occurs through the “window” where the greenhouse gas concentration has very little effect.
Where net radiation flux is dominant aloft the atmosphere is much more transparent to broadband IR.
Gavin Schmidt said, just prior to the new IPCC rpt and the Glasgow cry-in, that models are running away too hot “and we don’t know why”. What is there to know? The hypothesis is simply wrong. Read this new literature and try not to get left holding the bag. Take credit for disowning the models and come out with studies showing the consensus had it wrong.
These unhappy folk in the consensus actually believed their hype until the first decade of the millennium was half over. Then their temperature anomaly forecasts proved to be 200-300% too high compared to observations.
With another year or so of data, they discovered to their horror that warming had actually stalled, eventhough CO2 was galloping ever faster. Another year or two and the UEA email dump revealed cooking of the books, statistical tricks, cherry picking of climate proxies, “hiding the decline” even plotting proxies upside down(!!) too obtain desired results of getting rid of the MWP and LIA, plans to destroy data … by the leading climate scientists.
With the terrible stress of all this among non-leading cli scientists (the more honest ones?) the so-called Climate Blues struck, ending an unknown number of careers. And the ‘Pause’ was unrelenting continuing until manipulated out of existence by Karl on the eve of his retirement (the 2015 el Niño would have interrupted it).
With a new ‘Pause’ immediately following, now 7yrs long, a possible Maunder-type minimum like that of the LIA developing, a long lasting la Niña, a switch over to a cold negative North Atlantic Oscillation, and all coinciding with a 60-70yr quasi cycle in temperatures swinging into a 30yr cooling phase, yeah, life must be a bitch even for the stalwarts of the Clime Syndicate these days.
And you can add to this:
Modulation of Ice Ages by Dust and Albedo.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305
This paper indicates that albedo modulates ice ages, not CO2.
R.
Theory can be fun, I guess. But in the real world, there simply is no evidence that CO2, and specifically man’s contribution of it has had any impact on temperatures, much less climate. That fact alone tells us 1) There is clearly no problem regarding CO2, and in fact, it is completely beneficial, and 2) Whatever slight amount of warming it does contribute is so small as to not matter one iota, and would simply add to the benefits of our added CO2.
Ya hire Gavin Schmidt and Kevin Trenberth and ya fund Michael Mann and Ben Santer, and ya vote for Joe Biden, AOC and Bernie Sanders, and presto-chango, climate sensitivity multiplies by 50 and the 1930s turns into an idyllic period of perfect climate.
Carbon dioxide is to climate as masks are to COVID.