Doubling the 2005 CO2 concentration (380 ppm) to 760 ppm only produces a globally-averaged 2.26 W/m² perturbation at the top of the atmosphere (TOA). This doubled-CO2 forcing is close to 0 W/m² for large portions of the globe – including below 0 W/m² for Antarctica.
The IPCC claims doubling CO2 produces a 3.7 W/m² TOA forcing, which is a 1.2°C direct (no feedback) temperature differential using the IPCC’s 0.32°C per 1 W/m² formula (Seinfeld, 2008).
Image Source: Seinfeld, 2008
A new study (Chen et al., 2023) published in Journal of Climate assesses doubling CO2 from 380 to 760 ppm only yields 2.26 W/m², 1.71 W/m², and 0.55 W/m² forcing at the TOA, surface, and troposphere, respectively. These forcing values represent 0.72°C, 0.55°C, and 0.18°C temperature differentials, respectively (0.32°C/W/m²).
The global mean surface temperature forcing for doubled CO2, 0.55°C, would by itself appear to already cast doubt on claims that all or nearly all of the post-1850 >1°C warming could have been driven by anthropogenic CO2 forcing.
Image Source: Chen et al., 2023
The 2.26 W/m² globally averaged TOA forcing identified in this paper is 39% lower than the IPCC’s globally-averaged estimate (3.7 W/m²).
CO2 forcing is identified as highly variable and latitudinally dependent. At some locations, such as over Antarctica, doubled CO2 TOA forcing is negative, or below 0 W/m².
“The [doubled CO2] forcing in polar regions is strongly hemispheric asymmetric and is negative in the Antarctic.”
This means that, as CO2 increases, its impact actually cools Antarctica. This contradicts the IPCC claim that CO2 climate sensitivity is amplified at the poles. It also undermines the alarmist claim that Antarctic ice melt (and consequent catastrophic sea level rise) is driven by CO2.
Chen and colleagues also report that CO2 has no effect on atmospheric transmissivity due to (a) absorption saturation (CO2 can have no effect beyond a pre-industrial concentration), and because (b) water vapor and cloud forcing overlap and thus dominate absorption in CO2’s band.
“[Transmissivity] in the CO2 band center is unchanged by increased CO2 as the absorption is already saturated…”
“[T]he water vapor and CO2 overlapping at an absorbing band prevents absorption by additional CO2.”
Finally, water vapor serves to “dampen” the warming effect of increased CO2, which calls into question the IPCC’s water vapor “positive feedback” claims.
“The water vapor usually damps the [doubled CO2] forcing by reducing the energy additional CO2 can absorb.”
Because this is a mainstream study published in a prestigious climate-focused journal, perhaps it may not be as readily dismissed by gatekeepers of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) paradigm.
H/T krishna-gans-2
No, that is not true! People really do not know what the 3.7W/m2 figure is based on. TOA a doubling of CO2 reduces emissions by only about 2W/m2, as I have pointed out long ago:
The 3.7W/m2 are based on a “radiative flux” (sic!) theory, where you get less upwelling radiation and an increase in downwelling radiation at the tropopause level. These two “fluxes” would then add up (in absolute terms!) and yield about 3.7W/m2. Details here:
https://greenhousedefect.com/unboxing-the-black-box
Thank you for explaining that here.
There are a lot of folks, including on WUWT, who do not understand, how feeble CO2 molecules can be so potent regarding global warming, as falsely claimed by the IPCC and associated entities, especially when compared with the much more abundant, and much more potent H2O molecules.
See dark areas regarding infrared radiation absorption in Image 11A of my above comment
Thank you for making the Edit button visible again
It is clear enough to me that observations have been driving sensitivity to doubling studies from more honest actors in the community.
More honest actors know the ocean (dog) didn’t heat all of the extra sensitivity.
Unfortunately this is the tale wagging the dog, as long as temperatures fail to deliver the missing CO2 instigated warming as CO2 rises, more honest actors who believe CO2 has this effect will continue to reduce their sensitivity calculations.
Simply put, natural variability is the tail wagging the dog re sensitivity to a doubling of CO2.
If we have had been doing these studies for the past 120 years off the back of observations, sensitivity estimates would likely have been going up and down as natural variability does it’s thing.
I doubt CO2’s effect can even be detected amongst all of the other greater factors.
To climate science, natural variation is NOISE. To most people it is the SIGNAL. When you try to cancel out the noise you lose the SIGNAL.
It is like taking a symphony and reducing it to one note at C from a clarinet. You just lost all the information in the signal.
If the temperature of the troposphere goes up from the increased downwelling radiation then why doesn’t the upwelling radiation go up also? Planck says the radiation rate is based on temperature. Higher temp, higher radiation.
Because..
a) we are talking about the instantaneous forcing, that is before temperatures adjust
b) as CO2 increases within the troposphere it raises the emission altitude and thus reduces the emission temperature.
The average emission altitude for CO2 is in the Stratosphere. Raising it would increase the emissions temperature which is a cooling effect. As far as I can tell, the emission height for CO2 doesn’t change. Increasing CO2 does absorb a little more energy from the ~15 micron wings. That is the only warming effect.
Water vapor feedback is negative which is a cooling effect.
Why “instantaneous” make any difference? The temperature is based on the energy level. If the energy level changes instantaneously then so does the temperature, at least at the micro level You may not be able to measure such an instantaneous change using a physical device but it *does*occur.
As Richard M implies, the emission height of CO2 probably doesn’t change much. The concentration of CO2 high in the atmosphere is mostly constrained by gravity and condensation. An increase in the CO2 at the surface, i.e. the beginning of the concentration gradient, isn’t going to change the end value of the gradient very much. Most of the additional CO2 is going to remain close to the ground. If much of the additional CO2 winds up in the stratosphere it is going to actually increase the amount of radiation sent toward space because the temperature of CO2 goes up with height in the stratosphere.
I think they are referring to the total flux (CO2 better insulates, so the flux changes) not the radiation from a given molecule temperature
of course in truth CERES found shortwave dominates the change since 2000
this is how we know high ECS scenarios are garbage
there’s a study of maritime shipping somewhere… turns out all our CO2 emissions probably heated the Earth less than a regulation requiring maritime shipping to stop making clouds during the day in the tropics 🙂
This report, which appears credible, says the whole Burning Hell On Earth scenario, preferred by the Bank Robbers in Suits all over the globe, may be a big nothing burger. The ice doesn’t melt, the temperature increase is neutralized by moving only 83 kilometers poleward (10,000 km equator to pole, plus 30 deg C at equator and minus 30 deg C at pole), or just stay where you are and plant your crops a day earlier, etc. I want my misspent tax money back.
I understand and support what you’re saying, Ron. But I do wonder how this country (USA) does so well with all the expensive lies being promulgated all the time. Perhaps we develop enough sales resistance to eventually dismiss them, and the resulting skepticism serves us well in the long run.
We need enough “sales resistance” to vote Trump in by a landslide, so he can end a lot of BS, etc.
DEEP OCEAN VOLCANOS CAUSE INCREASED GLOBAL WARMING BY PERIODIC EL NINOs
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
EXCERPT:
Molecules Absorbing Photons Excites Molecules and Creates Heat
https://nov79.com/gbwm/ntyg.html
Photons are very small packets of energy with various frequencies; E = h x f, where h is Planck’s constant.
c/f = y, the wavelength, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum.
CO2 molecules absorb photons at three narrow bands of wavelengths, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers.
CO2 absorbs energy at these finger print frequencies, which is about 8% of the available IR energy reflected by the earth and lower-atmosphere
As that 8% of all IR energy is absorbed, it is instantly converted into heat (in less than a pico second).
That heat is distributed to all molecules in the atmosphere, which means 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen.
After some time, that heat is emitted from everything in the atmosphere.
H2O molecules, as water vapor, are at least 9.5 times more prevalent in the air than CO2 molecules.
Water vapor has a more effective fingerprint spectrum, which is about three times wider than of CO2.
It is also much more variable.
This means water vapor absorbing photons will totally swamp whatever CO2 does.
It is obviously not being honest to say water vapor does 39 to 62% of the Greenhouse Effect, when H2O molecules do at least 9.5 x 3 = 28.5 times more than CO2 molecules
See dark areas regarding infrared radiation absorption in Image 11A
NOTE: In the Sahara Desert, water vapor is less than 5 ppm, which allows the heat of the sand to radiate into space at night, even though CO2 is about 400 ppm. That proves, there is near-zero greenhouse effect, without water vapor.
Water vapor plays a huge role in world climates; CO2 is a pigmy: Without the existence of water vapor, the Earth would be at a very uncomfortable -18 C, or worse.
Water can be ice, snow, hail, rain, water vapor, clouds, etc.
CO2 ppm is gradually increasing in the lower-atmosphere. See left side of Image 8
Any warming by CO2 will gradually:
1) increase lower-atmosphere temperatures,
2) increase evaporation,
3) increase the water vapor warming effect,
4) increase cloud formation,
5) speed up the weather events.
One way to counter the increased water vapor and CO2 would require planting billions of trees each year to promote flora growth; cutting trees for burning in heating plants and power plants would be a negative for the environment.
The variations of the sun’s output of solar energy have cyclic warming and cooling effects.
The volcanic venting and eruptions, on land and ocean floors, add, on average, a steady supply of heat and water vapor.
The venting and eruptions are amplified by the moon’s orbit around the earth, which pulls tectonic plates back and forth
Re: Sahara
There is no heat to radiate away at night..
Why: Consider desert sand, Emissivity of 0.90
At 15° of latitude and at the spring/autumn equinoxes, the desert (across 24hours) will be receiving 425Watts/m²
Using basic Stefan gives a temperature of 303.8 Kelvin = about 31°C
i.e. There is No Way that El Sol can make the desert any hotter than that
How the desert does get hotter (40°C plus) is via katabatic heating = descending air in the high pressure regimes that dominate.
They dominate because there is no water in the desert, thus no water vapour and thus no ascending air to deflect the descending air, also to make clouds and rain.
There is also no water in the soil to absorb daytime solar energy and carry it through the night – so nights get very cold in the desert.
The radiating all happened during the day.
Made even worse that the sand is quite a good insulator = none of that 31°C heat gets deep into the ground so effectively, it has zero heat capacity and the Albedo of the desert becomes unity.
i.e. It instantly re-radiates everything the sun throws at it and stores none.
Katabatic heating all around the global landmasses is what’s causing the observed temperature rises – the continents are all becoming deserts.
Anyone can witness that simply by owning/using a barometer
During daytime, the sand temperature is extremely high: it can easily reach 80 °C (176 °F) or more. A sand temperature of 83.5 °C (182.3 °F) has been recorded in Port Sudan.
The sand emits IR during day-time and continues to do that after the sun sets until the sand, sometimes, gets down to 0 C.
There is no water vapor to capture the heat and radiate it back to prevent the sand from cooling.
CO2 is totally a pigmy regarding preventing the sand from cooling.
See explanation in my above comment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara#:~:text=However%2C%20most%20of%20the%20desert,C%20(77%20%C2%B0F).&text=Sand%20and%20ground%20temperatures%20are,been%20recorded%20in%20Port%20Sudan.
During the day, the sand receives solar radiation, the sand warms up, and radiates the energy as IR photons to the atmosphere, where they are not captured by the very few H2O molecules (5 ppm), and not captured by the few, relatively feeble CO2 molecules (400 ppm), and not captured by N2 and O2, so almost all of IR photons continue to outer space at near the speed of light. That continues until the sand has cooled a lot, sometimes as low as 0 C
Anything else is not Physics
First, the air above deserts contains SIGNIFICANTLY more water vapor than 5 ppm.
Water vapor in air with any dew point above -28 °C (-18 °F) at sea-level pressure will have a relative humidity of 1.8% or higher at 21 °C (70 °F), equivalent to a water vapor concentration greater than 460 ppmv.
—- source: https://www.asge-online.com/pdf/ASGEpg185.pdf (among others)
Related to this,
“In a desert, RH {relative humidity} is commonly around 15-25%.”
— source: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth111/node/557
So, air at 15% humidity level above desert sand will have about 8 * 460 = 3,700 ppm water vapor.
Second, some of the energy of IR radiation off desert sands (both day and night) is indeed “captured” by H2O and CO2 molecules, but then within the order of 1-100 nanoseconds it is thermally-equilibrated via molecular collisions in the lower (high density) part of the troposphere to surrounding N2 and O2 molecules. H2O (even at 3,700 ppm) and CO2 (even at 400 ppm) never get saturated and therefore “inactivated” by absorbing LWIR photons from the surface . . . they shed that excess energy extremely fast to the predominate mass of N2 and O2 molecules and thus continue to be “continuously” active LWIR absorbers.
If the atmospheric N2 and O2 constituents did not receive such thermal energy via normal atmospheric collision frequency, they would themselves rapidly thermally radiate energy to the surface and to deep space such that they would drop to perhaps of 50-100 degrees below zero Centigrade in the dark of night. The mass of air above any desert on Earth never gets that cold.
Antarctica does get that cold, albeit at high elevation. Also, it’s an ice desert, not sand. But, boy, is its air ever dry.
Just so.
“In this study, the first fully continuous monitoring of water vapour isotopic composition at Neumayer Station III, Antarctica . . . At Neumayer Station, water concentration easily reaches values below 1000 ppm in austral winter.”
— excepted from Continuous monitoring of surface water vapour isotopic compositions at Neumayer Station III, East Antarctica, available at https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/15/4745/2021/
Neumayer Station III is a meteorological station located on Antarctica’s coast with the South Atlantic ocean.
As Figure 2 (b) of the referenced report shows, the measured daily-average seasonal variability for the surface air specific humidity (g H20/kg air) at this station over the 38-year period from 1981 to 2018 varied between about 0.5 and 2.5, equivalent to a annual range of 500 to 2500 ppm water vapor concentration.
As you state, that is really dry . . . even compared to deserts at latitudes less than the polar zones.
This NOAA site states, In the Earth’s desert regions (30°N/S), when dry winds are blowing, the water vapor contribution to the composition of the atmosphere will be near zero.
I used 5 ppm
https://www.noaa.gov/jetstream/atmosphere#:~:text=The%20atmosphere%20is%20rarely%2C%20if,4%25%20of%20the%20total%20volume.&text=In%20the%20Earth%27s%20desert%20regions,atmosphere%20will%20be%20near%20zero.
https://www.asge-online.com/pdf/ASGEpg185.pdf
Your URL does not open
Well, there you go. Why not use 16 ppb instead?
My referenced URL (https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/15/4745/2021/ ) opens just fine . . . I just clicked on it to confirm. Perhaps you should try a cut-and-paste into a Web browser to access the reference?
I stated the “asge-online” URL did not open, and still does not open
The one you offered pertains to the Antarctic, which does open, but is not relevant for the Sahara
wilpost,
My apologies . . . I thought you were initially referring to the https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/15/4745/2021/ link not opening.
You are right that the https://www.asge-online.com/pdf/ASGEpg185.pdf URL no longer opens . . . it must have gone inactive since I last used it. However, as I indicated there are other on-line calculators for determining atmospheric moisture content in ppm for a given pressure, temperature, dew point/humidity state.
Here is a different URL for such an on-line calculator that given basically the same values (H2O ppm) for the Antarctic-like conditions that I stated in my previous post:
https://www.orslabs.fr/en/tools/moisture-calculator/
This calculator can be used for desert regions as well as for polar regions since it is based on fundamental physics, not geography.
At 45°C the desert would be radiating 523Watts = over 100Watts more than it receives. ##
That can only tell anyone and everyone that this Planet is cooling.
iow: A warming atmosphere means a cooling Earth
##Leaving the pathetically contrived greenhouse effect and its paltry 3.7Watts completely lost.
Properly consider, if The Heat was actually ‘trapped’ – would you be able to measure it and even more, if it is ‘trapped’, how can it make anything hot?
e.g. If me or you were ‘trapped’ in a jail cell or similar, we’re not very likely to be lighting any fires or going robbing any banks, now are we?
“Trapped heat” would raise the temperature. As the temperature goes up so does the radiation, see Planck. If you see 3.7Watts down then you should also see an increase of some quantity in up radiation. Yet that is never talked about.
The up and down IR radiation both increase almost equally (A little more upward due to the Earth being a sphere). However, the other difference is how far a photon travels before reabsorption. As you add more CO2 the pathlength shortens. Photons are emitted and reabsorbed very quickly.
The average for all photons goes slightly upwards due to the higher density of CO2 the closer you get to the surface. When CO2 increases you get more photons that travel a slightly shorter distance. These two factors average out. That is how the energy flow from CO2 stays constant.
I think we are saying the same thing. Climate science claims there is no increase in radiation to space thus the downward IR is “trapped” causing an increase in enthalpy.
I’ve always looked at it like one of those fancy falling-domino layouts. Add more dominoes per area and the speed going down the line slows down but it all eventually reaches the end. If it didn’t the earth would have long ago become a cinder.
Funny how people claim this urban myth irrespective of reality. Here is a typical desert place, Abeche in Chad:
“Very cold” obviously refers to temperatures barely reaching below 20°C. But that is not “very cold”, but rather very mild. There simply are no “unusual” cold nights in the desert, and there never were.
There is a grain of truth to this urban myth, for it you will have to look no further than to your next local sandy beach. If the sun is high up and it is reasonably warm, you will burn your feet on the hot sand. If you go there at night, for what purpose so ever, the sand will feel unusually chilly. Given it will be dark you might guess it is because it is wet. But no, it isn’t. Rather it is just a natural property of sand. It has very low thermal conductivity and low heat capacity. So heats up and cools down very fast. That is all.
So a) we have no unusual DTR (daily temperature range) in the desert, except for what you would expect with mostly clear skies anywhere else. And b) WV, or the perceived lack of it, has nothing to do with it.
The monthly averages are useless, because they hide the daily variations
Don’t you know? According to climate science the statistical descriptor known as variance doesn’t apply to temperature. Only the statistical descriptor known as the “average” applies.
What is so hard to understand about average daily minimum and average daily maximum? How stupid are you? The erroneous claim is over “very cold” average minima, which do not exist. Even the ever record low there is just 7.1°C, barely “very cold”..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ab%C3%A9ch%C3%A9#Climate
Compared to Einstein, I am stupid, and so are a lot of other people.
Monthly maxima and minima in the graph are useless
Hour-to-hour temps are required for a day and measured ppm values.
WV does have something to do with the enthalpy at a location. The enthalpy of the air in Miami has a higher heat content than in Las Vegas.
should read “the water vapor at a location”
Obviously, Miami is more humid than Las Vegas
Any IR emitted by warmed surfaces will be absorbed by the abundant water vapor molecules and by the much fewer, feeble CO2 molecules
One factor of enthalpy is water vapor, known as saturation level. Look at the steam tables.
That 15 degree daily temperature range looked a bit lower than I expected for an arid area, but it seems to be in line with the current forecasts for the Northern Territory – http://www.bom.gov.au/nt/forecasts/map7day.shtml
Alice Springs and further south are usually quite dry.
Actually, there does appear to be some UHI effect there. The forecast minima for Alice Springs and Uluru are 1 or 2 degrees warmer than Curtin Springs (2 houses and some demountables for tourists) or Finke.
Uluru and Curtin Springs are quite close, only 100 km apart.
alternatively it is called divergence of atmospheric heat transport. Where over desert we have the unique condition where outgoing longwaves exceed the incoming shorter waves. This implies a net import of heat. This divergence strengthens as the continents are eroded.
Crackpot junk science
Deserts cool quickly at night for three reasons
Sand releases heat better than dirt or foliage
Low greenhouse effect from low water vapor and low night cloudiness
Deserts would get even warmer if sand were a darker color.
Desert sands can vary so much in color; from white, yellow, red to black. The color of the desert sand comes in many colours and it will depend on the color of the rock it weathered from.
Where is the black sand desert located?
The Karakum Desert, also known as the Kara-Kum Desert, Turkmen Garagum or Gara Gum (“Black Sand”), and Russian Karakumy, is a large sandy desert in Central Asia. It covers over 70% of Turkmenistan’s land area. The Aral Karakum is a minor desert in Kazakhstan close to the Aral Sea.
Karakum Desert,
Daytime temperatures normally range 30–35 °C (86–95 °F), but temperatures up to 43 °C (109 °F) have been recorded. At night, the temperature drops to 15–18 °C (59–64 °F).
The ‘color’ of sand depends on both the mineral composition and grain size. The absorption of visible light depends on the both the complex refractive index and grain size. However, the net upward IR radiation depends on the reflectivity (which is a function of the complex refractive index and the BRDF) and emissivity at IR wavelengths.
Except that reflectivity is really not a significant thermal exchange parameter at night.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Stupefyingly wrong.
Wrong.
Again, stupefyingly wrong.
So wrong that the IPCC and Michael Mann would probably invite you to submit a paper on your hypothesis. But make sure in your paper that you avoid mentioning that katabatic heating, not increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, is the root cause of “global warming”.
ROTFL.
Priceless
The E, Nino Volcano Nutter gives another junk science speech.
The CO2 released by volcanoes is so small that atmospheric CO2 had been declining for 4.5 billion year
El Nino Nutters always ignor La Ninas
They claim El Ninos caused the entire global warming trend after 1975… but forget to mention how el ninis caused the entire globl cooling trend from 1940 to 1975.
While water vapor andnight clouds cause more of the greenhouse effect than CO2, hummans can not add water vapor to the troposphere directly. If we can influence night cloudiness, no one knows how that happens. But we can make the greenhouse effect stronge by recycling CO2 sequestered underground back ibto the atmosphere where it once “lived”. And we are doing that.
The extra CO2 will impede cooling and a warmer troposphere will hold more water vapor, amplifying the effect of more CO2 by an unknown amount.
Most of Antarctica can not melt from an increased greenhouse effect because of a permanent temperature inversion. That’s why claims of accelerating sea level rise are fiction.
There is nearly a 100% consensus of scientists that there is a greenhouse effect, and it is increased by manmade CO2 emissions. Based on data, not feelings.
There is also a near consensus that CO2 alone could not possibly cause a climate emergency, basedmoj lab spectroscopy, not feelings.
The disagreements start with the water vapor positive feedback effect, the future CO2 growth rate and the half life of CO2 in the atmosphere.
And then you have arguments over natural causes of climate change, which are often ignored or sometimes assumed to be the entire cause of post-1975 warming.
The important subjects tend to be avoided:
(1) The proven inability of humans to predict the climate in 50 to 100 years,which is exactly what “climate change” means to leftists,
(2) The bizarre belief that CO2 is a satanic gas rather than the staff of life on pur planet, and
(3) The equally strange belief that global warming is bad (which implies that global cooling is good news).
But the solution to all the arguments is yet ANOTHER ECS of CO2 guess, but one based on science, to at least 4 decimal places. … Or a new Climate Nutter theory, such as global warming is entirely caused by less extraterrestrial dust in the atmosphere reducing cloudiness.
It’s time for a new theory and a new ECS to debate.
The CO2n Does Nothing bias of Kenneth Richard is the reason I deleted No Tricks Zone from my bookmark list.
He is a sucker for any (rare) study that says CO2 does little or nothing.
In fact, it is surprising he would even mention any study that claimed the ECS of CO2 is 0.7, which is nearly in the range of most skeptic scientists (+0.75 to +1.5 … versus the IPCCs +2.5 to +4.0 degrees C.)
The ECS of CO2 can only be estimated in a lab using spectroscopy with a guess at the water vapor positive feedback
ECS can not be measured in the atmosphere because the exact effect of every climate change variable is unknown
Few people are satisfied with “we don’t know” so we get lots of wild guesses. Maybe one for each scientist?
Many are worst case estimates that assume all warming in a past period of time was caused by CO2.
The warming after 1975 can be easily explained by rising CO2 and falling, SO2 as in the consensus guess.
The warming is less easily explained by natural causes only because the effect of GLOBAL AVERAGE cloudiness changes over time can not be measured.
Meaning the right answer is CO2 ought to impede cooling but how much it actually does in the atmosphere is a guess.
Far more important is thinking about whether more CO2 and global warming are bad news or good news. Based on science and observations, both are good news.
But no one seems happy about our improving climate
They prefer a verbal battle between the CO2 Does Everything Cult and the CO2 Does Nothing Cult, with several cult members commenting here.
A verbal battle between mental midgets Dumb and Dumber completely unable to live with the fact that we don’t know the ECS of CO2 and we may never know.
“The ECS of CO2 can only be estimated…
.. with a guess…. “
Sounds like yer average climate sceantist”
Out of interest, what’s your guess at it?
Guesses are powerful tools. We are systematically dismantling our modern society based on guesses. I suspect Mr. Greene is ok with that.
In all fairness, I don’t think Mr. Greene is ok with dismantling modern society based on guesses. Note, I don’t agree with his supposition that more CO2 means more warming in the real world, but he’s not an alarmist.
More CO2 in a lab means cooling is impeded. Assuming that effect applies to the atmosphere has not been refuted in over a century.
I am alarmed by the demonization of CO2 when doubling CO2 would support more life with slight warming whose locations and timing (based on post 1975 warming) are likely to be good news.
I support 750 1000oom CO2 based on reading about 200 CO2 enrichment plant growth studies siunce 1997.
I’m pro more global warming
I’m pro more CO2\
I’m anti-CAGW scaremongering but pro-AGW (it exists and is harmless)
I’m anti-Nut Zero
I’m anti-EVs
I think Joe Bribe’em is the worst US President ij a century and a crook. Kamala Harris is a dingbat, and so is John “why the long face?” Kerry
And leftists are vermin, but you can’t set traps for them. If I were a US king, the first deportations would be all the leftists … to Cuba
North Korea could make better use of them.
You’ve earned an “A” for the course. I’d have given you an “A+”, but for the first statement wherein you propose that an assumption that hasn’t been refuted is evidence that the assumption is true.
While CO2 does absorb LWR, there’s no evidence, given natural temperature variation, that our emissions have caused any warming. More to the point, there is substantial paleo evidence (ice and ocean cores), as well as ‘lab evidence’ that CO2 is NOT the temperature ‘control knob’ that the alarmists say it is.
In addition to its essential role in supporting life on Earth, I think CO2 is important as a ‘non-condensing’ GHG, but that critical role was accomplished many eons / ppm ago. Since then, the Earth’s coupled atmosphere and oceans have acted to maintain ‘stasis’, not unlike that of any heat engine that maintains a stable operating temperature regardless of external conditions.
Obviously, the Earth’s climate(s) can and does change over time, but this is due to changes in orbital mechanics and plate tectonics, as well as other influences, possibly solar(?), that act on shorter scales, but certainly not CO2. But even when these changes occur, it is important to note that the Earth has always been able to maintain stasis around a new ‘set-point’, rather than careening off into snow-ball or boiling off the oceans.
From my viewpoint, this means that the net climate feedbacks have to be negative, which is something the ‘lab evidence’ doesn’t pick up.
CO2 molecules are global warming weaklings compared water vapor molecules, plus water vapor molecules are at least 9.5 times more abundant than CO2 molecules.
Without water vapor the world is a ball of ice
Without CO2 there is no life of any kind
The big guy, up in the sky, knew what he was doing.
We need more CO2 ppm
Normally, in order to determine a system’s reaction to a change in CO2, one would add a certain amount of CO2 to the atmosphere and see how it affects the energy imbalance. This would have to be done in a periodic function, so the effects could be easily seen. Fortunately, the sun does this for us. It varies its luminosity, over an 11 year period, by 0.3 W/M2; this is the same effect as 15 years of CO2 emissions, 30 ppm. This luminosity variation has no effect on the energy imbalance. What does this tell you about the ECS?
“More CO2 in a lab means cooling is impeded. Assuming that effect applies to the atmosphere has not been refuted in over a century.”
Of course it has been refuted. The experiments did not reproduce the physical reality of either the surface or the atmosphere. All they did was confirm that CO2 absorbs long wave radiation. Without accurately reproducing the Earth in a box they couldn’t account for thermalization, water vapor shading of CO2, etc.
Like so much in climate science it’s hokey science.
That is what dickie still can’t get into his skull, (I won’t say “mind”)
The lab results in closed gas jars, show ONLY that CO2 is a radiatively active gas.
They show absolutely NOTHING about what that means in the open atmosphere.
Everything else is just a conjecture or a proposal, or maybe even less.
“More CO2 in a lab means cooling is impeded”
Actually, when tested as the gas in double glazing studies, they found that the CO2 filled unit allowed MORE heat through than a standard air-filled cavity.
That is because a radiatively active gas conducts more energy.
As a libertarian since 1973 I am shocked by the US morphing toward fascism.
I broke a 40 year streak of voting libertarian to vote for Trump in 2020. He still lost the after midnight vote here in Michigan
I publish a recommended reading list of at least 12 climate and energy articles every morning on a blog that reached 700,000 lifetime page views today. Just titles and links to the best conservative author articles I can find every morning. Some from here.
Climate scaremongering is some of the worst propaganda in history, Covid scaremongering was worse but only lasted a few years.
The Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog
Guesses?
Deliberate falsehoods, not based on measurements, is a more accurate description
+1.0001 degree C.
For decimal places
Real science
I wish it was higher so warming would come faster.
Te ECS of CO2 is nothing to worry about or even think about.
We love global warming here is SE Michigan and our plants love more CO2. We are celebrating the climate change since 1975 and hope the warming continues for many decades to come.
As we don’t know, research is done, seems you dislike the different results.
IPCC claims to know, but models on that base give wrong outputs, implies they don’t know either.
Possible that ECS is different at different regions or locations because of different local circumstances.
That could be the reason for different results at different times
The different ECSs of CO2 are because everyone is guessing and no one wants to say “we don’t know”
They do their reseach and get results by working scientific. For you that may be guesswork, for others their scientific job.
“Meaning the right answer is CO2 ought to impede cooling but how much it actually does in the atmosphere is a guess.”
Impeding cooling implies an increase in temperature. An increase in temperature implies and increase in radiative cooling. Yet an increase in radiative cooling is never mentioned in climate science. In fact, it is usually estimated as going down.
As CO2 goes up and intercepts more radiation, part of that also increases thermalization of H2O in the atmosphere thus causing more upwelling radiation from H2O.
“ECS can not be measured in the atmosphere because the exact effect of every climate change variable is unknown”
ECS can’t even be guessed at if *all* of the radiative impacts from “trapped heat” is not considered.
The downwelling radiation of the greenhouse effect is most easily measured at night. The only DIRECT causes of an increased greenhouse effect at night would be more CO2 and /or more night cloudiness.
Data are not available for the global average cloudiness at night or during the day.
CO2 is responsible for at least some, and perhaps all of the increased greenhouse effect at night.
If nights do not cool as much as they did when CO2 levels were lower, then the TMIN will be warmer as a result. And that causes a warmer average temperature … during a whole day …which so far has been small and harmless.
“CO2 is responsible for at least some, and perhaps all of the increased greenhouse effect at night.”
A plainly ludicrous comment !
Your description of the warmer nights seems to be originated by UIH, where heat is accumulated in streets an buildigs.
Cloudcover vs. Temperature:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/CloudCover_and_MSU%20UAH%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage%20With201505Reference.gif
No data available for cloudcover ? Wrong as usually 😀
How we measure cloud
The large scale distribution of cloud is best measured from space in either the visible or infra red part of the spectrum. This satellite imagery is revealing in many ways, but it has its limitations for the measurement of cloud, in particular:
Extensive high cloud can mask important features in the distribution of low cloudIt is often not possible to distinguish between shallow low cloud and fogThere is no way of measuring cloud base from space, an element of critical importance for aviation and other purposesTo meet these shortcomings cloud base measurements are made from all surface synoptic stations.
How we measure cloud amounts
In meteorology, cloud cover is measured in oktas, or eighths of the sky.
If you look up at the sky, and mentally divide it into eight boxes, then imagine all the cloud you can see squashed into these boxes. How many boxes does the cloud fill? This is how many oktas of cloud there are.
0 oktas represents the complete absence of cloud
Late Twentieth-Century Warming and Variations in Cloud Cover
The increase in the global average temperature anomaly and the divergence of land and sea surface temperatures also coincided with two significant changes in global average cloud cover. Total cloud cover decreased during the period from 1987 to 1997 and, for most of the remainder of the period from 1984 to 2009, decreases in low-level cloud were accompanied by increases in middle and upper level cloud. These changes can be found in both global average cloud cover and in each of the six 30°C-latitude bands. The impact of these changes in cloud cover can account for the variations in HadCRUT4 global average temperature anomalies and the divergence between land and sea temperatures.
Seems the one or the other datapoint of global cloudcover exists contradicting your assumption. 😀
My favorite line from that paper in the conclusion.
“According to the energy balance described by Trenberth et al. (2009) [34], the reduction in total cloud cover accounts for the increase in temperature since 1987, leaving little, if any, of the temperature change to be attributed to other forcings.”
At least 16 papers document a reduction in clouds during the modern warm period. They all show that the increase in solar radiation reaching the surface far exceeded the human forcing.
A new look at possible connections between solar activity, clouds and climate
We present a re-evaluation of the hypothesis of a coupling between galactic cosmic rays, clouds and climate. We have used two independent estimates of low cloud cover from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project, covering 16.5 years of data. The cloud cover data are used in conjunction with estimates of galactic cosmic ray flux and measurements of solar irradiance. It is found that solar irradiance correlates better and more consistently with low cloud cover than cosmic ray flux does. The correlations are considerably lower when multichannel retrievals during daytime are used than retrievals using IR-channels only. Due to large autocorrelations, the statistical significance of the results is marginal. A mechanism is suggested whereby solar irradiance variations are amplified by interacting with sea surface temperature (SST), and subsequently low cloud cover. The feasibility of such a mechanism is supported by negative correlations between SSTs and low cloud cover in subtropical regions.
Seems, Richard Greene, you are a non-cloud-data nutter ? 😀
Just a last one for annoying you bit:
Assessment of Nighttime Cloud Cover Products from MODIS and Himawari-8 Data with Ground-Based Camera Observations
Comparing cloud cover (CC) products from different satellites with the same ground-based CC dataset provides information on the similarities or differences of values among satellite products. For this reason, 42-month CC products from Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer’s (MODIS) Collection 6.1 daily cloud cover products (MOD06_L2, MYD06_L2, MOD08_D3, and MYD08_D3) and Himawari-8 are compared with the ground-based camera datasets. The comparison shows that CC from MODIS differs from ground measurement CC by as much as 57% over Chiba, Japan, when low CC is observed by the camera. This indicates MODIS’s ability to capture high-level clouds that are not effectively seen from the ground. When the camera detects high CC, an indication of the presence of low-level clouds, CC from MODIS is relatively higher than the CC from the camera. In the case of Himawari-8 data, when the camera observes low CC, this difference is around 0.7%. This result indicates that high-level clouds are not effectively observed, but the Himawari-8 data correlates well with camera observations. When the camera observes high CC, Himawari-8-derived CC is lower by around 10% than CC from the camera. These results show the potential of continuous observations of nighttime clouds using the camera to provide a dataset that can be used for intercomparison among nighttime satellite CC products.
Nothing what you wrote about cloudcover is correct.
QUED
Hi, Richard, you write: “ is the reason I deleted No Tricks Zone from my bookmark list.” 2 weeks ago you also deleted ( with other reason) this website also, see: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/11/germanys-soaking-wet-droughthelmholtz-drought-monitor-insists-drought-persists/
You delete again and again? Or do I miss something?
best Frank
Some people leave without saying goodbye, others say goodbye without leaving Mr. Greene is in the latter group. Unfortunately for us.
I can always count on zero science insult comments by the Nutters here. Who never quote even one sentence from any of my comments, and tries to refute it. The Climate Nutters are boozers and losers living in an echo chamber,
“losers living in an echo chamber,”
Says dickie , wondering what that loud ringing sound in his head is. !
Read your comment and see where the insults are coming from. !!
Mirror, mirror, on the wall.. who is the most arrogant of all.
If only you came with science….
I never deleted this website since I discovered it in 2016. I especially like original articles ny Willie E, and Hansen.I stopped commenting here for a while buy decided to come back to annoy the CO2 Does Nothing Nutters.
Pierre writes decent articles at No Tricks Zone. Some NTZ articles get published elsewhere, and I read them except if they are by K. Richard.
You STILL haven’t produced any evidence of CO2 warming.
Bluster and blether … are not evidence.
Mr. Greene says:”Meaning the right answer is CO2 ought to impede cooling…”
I disagree. CO2 increases the mass of the atmosphere and that mass increase requires more energy to increase the temperature. So it impedes warming.
We have a CO2 Causes Cooling Nutter
More CO2 does indeed seem to cool Antarctica. Possibly the moist tropics as well.
We have an arrogant zero-science nutter. !
Is this graph wrong? If so why? It shows why CO2 can’t do what it is blamed for.
Just how much do you believe CO2 increases the mass of the atmosphere by?
Remember
1) CO2 has increased from 280ppm to 420ppm. An increase of just 140ppm.
2) The O2 part of CO2, was already in the atmosphere prior to the C being burned.
Giga tons. But that isn’t the point. More mass requires more energy to increase the temperature.
Q = Cp * m * dT. The m is mass. If the mass increases you need more energy.
“Meaning the right answer is CO2 ought to impede cooling but how much it actually does in the atmosphere is a guess.”
There you go! We’re making progess! Welcome to the skeptical club.
I was CAGW skeptical since 1997 when you were still in diapers.
Yeah, but you seem to be convinced that CO2 is responsible for the warming that has taken place since the 1980’s. So you believe in AGW, but not CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming). Is that it?
The temperatures have warmed since the 1980’s, but there is no evidence CO2 is a signficant driver of this warmth, and by that, I mean CO2’s influence cannot be separated out from natural variation.
It has warmed in the past at similar magnitudes when CO2 was not an issue, so it is logical to think that the current warming is caused by the same thing that caused the previous, similar warming, i.e., Mother Nature.
I’m a little older than you think. I’ve been cursing climate alarmists since they came up with the Human-caused Global Cooling narrative.
The only problem for me then was I had to keep my criticisms to myself. I ground my teeth together a lot reading the speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions being made by the Global Cooling Climate Alarmists.
But not now! The internet allows me to vent my unhappiness with what climate alarmists have done to debase science, to my heart’s content.
““Meaning the right answer is CO2 ought to impede cooling but how much it actually does in the atmosphere is a guess.””
Yet you produce no evidence that it does.. just uninformed baseless opinion.
Yeah, guesses are like that…
“The CO2n Does Nothing bias of Kenneth Richard”
That is a blatant straw man lie!
NO Tricks Zone cites the peer reviewed literature mainstream climate science is ignoring. He’s exposing the cherry picking that is standard practice in the field. It is about presenting evidence that contradicts alarmist narratives.
I’ve never seen him claim CO2 does nothing. Many scientists think it has a negligible effect on climate because natural variation dwarfs the tiny forcing. The geologic record strongly supports that view because CO2 doesn’t correlate to temperature other than as a lagging indicator.
Richard Green states over and over that ‘CO2 does nothing nutters’ infest this site (and are everywhere) yet can’t produce any significant number of names.
He lies about Kenneth Richard, and won’t produce any significant number of names because he now has be called out on his first lie.
Blowhard liar … to get attention & what he perceives as human contact.
He claims to be pro CO2 but then resorts to the binary arguments I get constantly from alarmists who pretend that any evidence contrary to the official narrative means I’m saying it has no effect.
Yes, dickie still holds many of the non-science AGW cult beliefs.
Constant calls to authority and consensus, but a total lack of scientific evidence.
Total lack of scientific evidence and demonstrated somewhat limited scientific knowledge.
“somewhat limited scientific knowledge.”
Gees, you are being very kind, aren’t you !!
Richard,
Please list 5 regular people on this site that have stated that CO2 does nothing. If 5 is too many, then just list the ‘several’ that you referenced.
(Or, quit insulting people)
And remember, dickie…
… saying that there is no evidence that CO2 causes warming (a fact you keep emphasising by not producing any).. is not the same as saying it “does nothing”
.. we all know CO2 is highly beneficial for plant life, and there is currently quite a deficit.
Atmospheric CO2 also acts as one of many conduits for energy balancing and transfer in the atmosphere. It is just part of the atmosphere, nothing special like.
Any other effect is so small, that it has never been observed or measured anywhere on the planet.
Warming causes the oceans, which hold 70 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere, to release more CO2 into the atmosphere. Like a warm soda pop.
The CO2 decreases during glacial periods when the cooler oceans can hold more CO2 and increases during interglacial periods when it is warmer and the oceans can hold less CO2.
Typical arrogant comment from Greene.
CO2 itself has a warming effect from IR absorption at the wings of the 15 micron bands. This warming is countered by the cooling effect from water vapor which drives an increase in the water cycle. This is shown in Gray/Schwartz 2010 and Miskolczi 2023. In addition, a tropical hot spot would exist if water vapor feedback was positive. The fact Christy et al 2016 found no evidence of the hot spot is the 3rd study confirming water vapor feedback is negative.
It is the combined CO2/H2O effect that nets out to no warming. Even this study is missing out on the negative feedback from water vapor.
“this is a mainstream study published in a prestigious climate-focused journal, perhaps it may not be as readily dismissed “
If they can’t ‘get at it’ it will be blanked by academia and media alike and you will have to go to what I would describe as the more esoteric sites – like this one – to even hear about it. They’ve had lot of practice* and they tweak the strategy according to the perceived problem.
Out of curiosity, I duck-ducked this study with the BBC, Guardian and Independent in mind. The results were less than useless. Here’s the Graun’s offerings on the matter
“Scientific journal retracts article that claimed no evidence of climate crisis” (That’s Alimonti etc al)
Off-the-charts records’: has humanity finally broken the climate?
Dramatic climate action needed to curtail ‘crazy’ extreme weather
I could go on, but the aim has always been clear: the narrative is paramount and must be maintained no matter what…
* ” … I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” —Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, July 8, 2004
Which officially translated as:
” … the evidence we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process.” —House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Mar. 24, 2010
Given Parliament’s position you could say that was always going to be a foreskin conclusion.
It would be nice to think this study and others could break through the green screen, but then I get real…..
Google, etc., does not just help fix elections by financing drop boxes to promote ballot-counting fraud, as documented by 10,000 Mules, it also has algorithms in its “search” engine, that steer all to harmless sites, that adhere to the IPCC dogma. The deviant, heretic sites rarely appear.
I don’t use Google, never have.
I use, if the search result is a bad one, I search with duckduckgo.
Why bother with something you know is highly biased? You’re doubling your effort.
It depends on what I’m searching for.
I often search for non critical subjects like sports or music.
I think even they have their problems.
Not so much
Every search, regardless of topic, means more money for google.
Found this the other day :
https://freespoke.com
Looked interesting, America-centric.
Some rather unfortunate autocorrection there…
The HoC Committee, in common with the other (psuedo-)inquiry teams, all-too-readily accepted the defence of “being taken out of context” for the more damning emails. The authors, they would have us believe, only ever wrote in riddles; nothing should be taken literally. All very convenient. I recall the great Dr Jones rather sheepishly saying to the Committee something along the lines of ‘perhaps I’m not very good at writing emails’. Stomach-turning stuff.
Parliament itself is stomach-churning stuff. And the Parliamentary school houses will be courting our vote fairly soon…
The entire CAGW scaremongering is based on peer reviewed studies by Ph.D.’s published in scientific journals. They are Piled High and Deep with predictions of climate doom that have been wrong since the 1970s.
We knew that thirty years ago.
Somehow, the west has moved backwards in real knowledge, not just relative to the rising powers.
AGW has always been about the effects of the water vapour in the atmosphere and that has always overwhelmed the effect of CO2, not the other way round.
heads in the clouds
https://judithcurry.com/2021/10/10/radiative-energy-flux-variations-from-2000-2020/
Sounds like you have been wrong for 30 years.
Another CO2 Does Nothing Nutter.
Sounds like dickie is STILL wrong..
Another “CO2 is the god-molecule” NUTTER.
Richard,
I’m not sure people here are saying “CO2 does nothing”. I think, and hope, that’s just reading.
My understanding is that CO2 has an important role to play in warming the planet but only to a certain degree (pun intended).
Would you concur?
It has a very important role in increasing plant life and keeping us all alive. Every living thing on this planet needs a certain amount of carbon or carbon dioxide in order to live and grow. Reduce levels of CO2 to below 100 ppm and everything starts to die off. Everything.
Mr. Greene: Or, he has been right for 30 years, confirmed over the last 30 years, and you are wrong. But you never consider the latter, do you?
Didn’t you explain the last day the different CO2 ?
The natural doing nothing, the human warms the planet ?
Citation of your comment
Natural CO2 is a climate change feedback thatfollows temperature changes
Manmade CO2 is a climate change forcing that causes temperature changes
As if the atmosphere has the slightest clue which CO2 molecules are natural and which are man-made.
The yearly amounts of each are in the ratio of around 96:4, so it doesn’t take much warming for natural CO2 to increase and swamp any effect (mythical or otherwise) of human CO2.
Not a CO2 Does Nothing Nutter.
Rather a CO2 does something that is probably quite significant in polar regions or an Ice Age where water vapour concentration is low.
But, as has been known for (more than) thirty years, CO2 absorbs light at the same wavelengths as water. It’s due to the energy involved in the electron bonds and the atomic masses and the angles and lengths of the bonds.
Sorry about referring to hard science like spectroscopy, but it happens to be empirical which appeals to me.
Empirical is good as it means I’ve been right for thirty years as the thermometers and this paper shows.
I’m a ‘CO2 is well understood to be of negligible importance with respect to global warming – water vapour dominates’ nutter,
Because SCIENCE!
It works whether you believe in it or not.
So, according to Chen et al., even ignoring the negative feedback they posit, less than half of the post-industrial warming was caused by human-caused CO2 emissions. I haven’t read the paper, but I think the journal that published it should be commended for publishing a study that so directly contradicts the view of the IPCC and most major scientific institutions in the Western world. By doing so, it allows others, including some very smart people who post here, to assess the claims themselves, which is how science is supposed to work.
My problem with ECS, is trying to make it a constant, that is, 2xCO2. The Earth’s climate has so many confounding variables that trying to define one as being the driver of temperature is just illogical.
I still have doubts about the unit, K/W/2; it implies a direct relationship between irradiance and air temperature, yet on one has ever written it down. All they do is look at “global averages” and try to back out the number (ignoring the uncertainties of the averaged quantities of course). Calling it “forcing” still makes no sense to me.
Not only a direct relationship, but a direct and linear relationship!
Yep!
when people realize “forcing” just means “we couldn’t figure out any other possible reason this happened” they become about 10x more skeptical
the entire AGW scare is based on the IPCC’s inability to model clouds
https://twitter.com/RogTallbloke/status/1674814663538937856
“If we only had bigger computers!”
Ignorance on global clouds is the only justifcation for the AGW nonsence with fake made up global temperature sets that don’t match the station data.
The planet has been warming because more sunlight has been reaching the surface causing higher temperatures in the oceans and over land.
More sunshine hours in especially Summer and to a less extent in Winter leads to higher temperatures and these have been observed around the world.
Global cloud levels are about 5% less than during the 1980’s. This also leads to stronger El Nino’s because there is more solar energy contributed towards them with less cloud albedo.
If there was a direct relationship between irradiance and air temp then the climate models wouldn’t have to parameterize cloud cover around the globe to an “average” value. Neither would those trying to convert irradiance to temperature without knowing how the local water vapor is affecting the irradiance.
… a problem with the doubling concept is assuming that other variables play along with the logarithmic relationship.
Independent, dependent, or some form of interdependent … they don’t.
Of course, this is easily overcome by completely ignoring other variables.
According to actual laboratory CO2 absorption measurements, it isn’t actually logarithmic.
It actually bulges above logarithmic below about 280ppm, then flattens out.
Can this be viewed as confirmation of van Wijngaarden and Happer’s 2020 paper Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases? Both report increased radiation over Antarctica. See http://www.co2science.org/articles/V24/sep/a2.php for discussion and a link to the paper.
Open Access by the same authors.
Yan-Ting Chen, Timothy M. Merlis, Yi Huang, “The Cause of Negative CO2 Forcing at the Top-Of-Atmosphere: The Role of Stratospheric Versus Tropospheric Temperature Inversions,” Geophysical Research Letters, Volume. 51, Issue 1, January 16, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL106433
(a) absorption saturation (CO2 can have no effect beyond a pre-industrial concentration)
Is this right? Don’t Wijngaarden and Happer (2020 and 2023) demonstrate absorption band broadening using the HITRAN database and calculate an increased greenhouse effect even at these high levels of CO2 concentration?
Pat
Yes, W&H’s work generally supports 3W forcing per doubling of CO2 for clear sky conditions.
Thanks! This leads Happer to the conclusion that an increase of approx 1% in the heating of the earth = approx 0.25% increase in warming of the earth (fourth power) = approx 0.72 degC.
Again, claiming these irradiance numbers are known to 0.01 W/m2 is absurd. The measurement uncertainty of thermopile radiometers is > 5 W/m2.
That the range of ECS determinations being about an order of magnitude tells me it is not a physical constant, but rather an empirical parameter.
From:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168192309000525
Bizarre paper, the abstract and introduction are most of the text.
Note the use of RMS — this is not uncertainty. There is no UA of the truck radiator calibration procedure (did I read this correctly??), only claims about tiny RMS errors.
Just found this in the CRN requirements. I know this is for incoming insolation but it indicates uncertainty intervals.
This is a hemispherical pyranometer with silica/glass/quartz domes (infrared cutoff 2-4um). For an 800W/m2 signal level, this is a ±9% measurement. With lots of extra care and the best calibrations, pyranometer uncertainties can be reduced to about ±4-5%; this is still greater than ±10W/m2.
Pyrgeometers with silicon domes that respond to IR wavelengths > 1.2um have much lower signal levels and correspondingly higher relative uncertainties.
That’s terrific. Now we can redirect trillions of dollars of earned wealth, and a huge component of human energy and ingenuity to real problems and opportunities that enrich society and strengthen environmental protection. Cancel COP, fire the IPCC and any other global entities who supported the lie, defund the UN, EU, World Bank, WHO, nearly all public
broadcastingpropagandizing outlets and every educational institution that thinks gender fluidity, critical race theory, DEI/ESG standards and socialism are preferable to intellect, merit and achievement.Overnight we can eradicate poverty and put every underdeveloped nation on the road to a sunny and productive future. It’s too bad they messed up their math back there in 2008. Probably just an innocent mistake.
<0.7 sounds about right for ECS
before this year I was willing to entertain values as high as 2.0
but after seeing the strong correlations between daylight hours and temperature, and the direct observational evidence from CERES showing cloud effects dominating the 2000-2020 period, the ceiling has moved much lower
at this point a true value <0.1 would not shock me
https://judithcurry.com/2021/10/10/radiative-energy-flux-variations-from-2000-2020/
I’ve argued that net feedbacks are liable to be negative, hence ECS less than 1.1-1.2 C.
Not just negative, but strongly negative.
From the above article:
Remember the meme that was fronted prominently by the AGW/CAGW alarmists some 10 or so years ago: the science (re: climate) IS SETTLED!
Of course, reality is different and we have yet one more in a string of falsifications for such an absurd alarmist claim.
It also invites the question of how much longer the IPCC will continue to use their equally absurd confidence terminology (e.g., “very high confidence”) in their Assessment Reports. They try to spin this as being tied to science-based uncertainties and probabilities, but there ain’t no such thing.
— ref: https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-6.html
Bingo, this is just hand-waving.
Mr. monte: you’re not suggesting these “scientists” just make it up??
Oh, and stay 6 feet away to avoid covid. A doctor said so!
Hey, good point! Even though I now hear that Covid cases are “surging” due to the latest variants, all I hear on TV and radio is to get the newest vaccine . . . nothing at all about “social distancing”. I guess that alarmist meme has run its course!
Yeah, even Fauci admits social distancing is not an effective practice.
I think that “confidence” terminology comes from the clowns at the “attribution” centre..
… who put fake models against fake models to come up with fake numbers.
CONfidence Levels = Guessing.
Guessing, and presenting this guessing as established fact, is just about all the Climate Alarmists have to try to sell the Human-caused Climate Change narrative.
One does guessing in science, but one should not claim that guessing establishes something as a fact. A guess is a guess, and no more.
When using the Schwarzschild and Stefan-Boltzmann equations, CO2 doubling produces about 0.71 C warming.
Again, that is a theoretical calculation assuming only the radiative properties of the energy transfer in the atmosphere.
“This contradicts the IPCC claim that CO2 climate sensitivity is amplified at the poles.”
The UAH Lower Troposphere data shows very little warming at the southern polar region.
Also basically no warming this century at the Arctic, apart from a strong 2015 El Nino peak.
Climate alarmists need to build cities in Antarctica so the urban heat island effect can give them the rising thermometer reading they so desperately want.
And I’m all for that – provided their buildings are heated only by heat pumps powered only by wind and solar, like how they want us to live.
The impact of CO2 changes with elevation. Basically, the thinner the atmosphere gets, the less impact CO2 has and at a certain point, CO2 actually changes over to cooling rather than warming.
This is yet another scientific fact that is completely ignored by the models.
The reason for it is simple. When a molecule of CO2 absorbs a photon of IR energy, there is a finite length of time before it radiates that photon back out again. If the molecule of CO2 bumps into another molecule before it has a chance to radiate the energy away, it will transfer some of that excess energy to the other molecule. An atom or molecule can only radiate energy in certain energy bands. If the amount of excess energy it posses does not fall into one of these bands, there is no radiation. The atom or molecule will retain that energy as heat until a future collision results in it having the right amount of energy in order to emit a photon.
The lower the atmospheric pressure, the greater the distance between molecules and the lower the chance that the molecule of CO2 will have a collision before it can radiate away the excess energy.
As the pressure continues to decrease, the amount of time between collisions continues to increase. As a result of this, when an atom or molecule picks up energy from a collision, if the amount of energy is in one of the atom/molecule’s emission bands, then the chance are that an emission will occur before a collision does.
When collisions are frequent, energy being captured from photons tends to be retained as “heat”.
When collisions are rare, it is easier for “heat” energy to be radiated away.
BTW, I’ve been saying that ECS for CO2 is more like 0.2 to 0.3C for years, based on the pre-adjustment historical records.
Hottel showed that at the temperature and pressure we live at the emissivity of CO2 is near zero. It can’t do what people are holding it accountable for.
Getting closer. Knock another 0.714C off that value and they will be on the money – the influence of CO2 is unmeasurable. Earth’s energy balance is not the result of a delicate radiation balance. The power of convective instability does the job. North Queensland will get a second dose from a convective storm today:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=mean_sea_level_pressure/orthographic=-205.17,-19.33,1135/loc=149.599,-17.996
This single event will lift vast quantities of water from the ocean surface and deposit it feet deep across a the coastal and hinterland of north and central Queensland.
Climate models are proof that CO2 does nothing because there are cooling trends and the climate models cannot cool.
The current orbit shift whereby the sun peak intensity is moving northward is the driver of current climate change. Milankovitch was right.
Think about it – Interglacials last around 15,000 years. Why do they end? The same natural processes that ended the last ones are obvious now. NH oceans warming leads to more snowfall. The snowfall is within 200 years of exceeding snow melt again.
I like your theory. I’m just trying to figure out how a cyclical climate fits into it.
Your theory implies to me a steady increase in temperatures as the Sun’s light shines on the Northern Hemisphere for longer periods of time, as time goes along, so how does decades of cooling, as has happened in the recent past, figure into this, since the Northern Hemisphere was absorbing more energy from the Sun during this past period, too?
Maybe the two, increasing warming in the Northern Hemisphere, and cyclical weather patterns, are not incompatible?
I guess they must be compatible since they are both happening simultaneously. At least, up to now.
Do you think warming will continue beyond what we are experiencing today, caused not by CO2, but by the Northern Hemisphere absorbing the Sun’s energy for a longer period of time, with no room for a few decades of cooling? Is it straight up from here, or cyclical?
It is not my theory. It is thermodynamics.
In simplest possible terms, the stronger the solar intensity, the higher the surface temperature. The summer solstice solar intensity is increasing in the NH and reducing in the SH. The intensity changes are not quite symmetric to the hemispheres but near enough.
The summer solstice solar intensity in the SH peaks at 1402W/m^2 at zenith compared with 1322W/m^2 in the NH. But that difference will reverse over the next 9,000 years. The peak intensity will increase by 80W/m^2. The difference peaked 500 years ago about the time of the little ice age. So the peak intensity has been increasing since then and it took a couple of hundred years before the oceans started to respond to sustain the current warming trend in the NH.
The northern oceans are getting warmer in summer with the area of 30C warm pools trending up by 2.5% per decade. When satellite records started, the NH September warm pools were limited to a small region along the shoreline of Mexico. The warm pools now cover 10% of the NH oceans in September
The main reason for the NH oceans warming so fast is due to the amount of land reaching 30C or more and shutting down summer advection. That leaves heat in the oceans. So northern land will get drier and hotter in summer but water and cooler when snow is retained.
Climate models are proof that CO2 does nothing because there are sustained cooling trends in large regions of the SH.
The NH ocean temperature has to trend upward for a long time. Eventually the surface level will drop while the ice mountains form on land north of 40N. The lapse result will result in the land cooling relative to the oceans and that will accelerate both summer and winter advection. Once ice starts accumulating again, it will be quite rapid with oceans falling at 4mm/yr.
So far the only region actually increasing in elevation and ice extent is Greenland.
This image shows how the October land temperature has changed over 40 years to October 2023:
It is not difficult to see what caused record snowfall across Alaska and Siberia this year. The anomalous temperature, but still below 0C, indicates the ocean advection is being supercharged by the warm Arctic Ocean as well as the warmth in the north of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Northern China also had record snowfall.
RW: “In simplest possible terms, the stronger the solar intensity, the higher the surface temperature.”
Yes, that is the logical conclusion. It all makes sense. And the inputs can be measured.
I think I have a better sense of how things will happen in this scenario. This warming will be gradual, so I would think the basic cyclical nature of the climate will not be affected. Next thing I need to figure out is what causes this cyclical effect. One thing I know: It’s not CO2.
RW: ” Once ice starts accumulating again, it will be quite rapid with oceans falling at 4mm/yr.”
That’s faster than it is rising now.
Thanks, Rick
“The IPCC claims doubling CO2 produces a 3.7 W/m² TOA forcing”
The difference between an major Ice age and interglacier is 100 W/m² solar forcing with 6c change in global temperature.
To expect that this 3.7 W/m² TOA forcing could lead to more than 1c change is laughable even if this value was correct. More like 1 W/m² at the surface which is about 100 times less than the change over the last 20,000 years.
The global temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 would only be between about 0.06c and 0.22c. That is why nobody can detect such a small change over such a long period.
Very nice.