by Jim Steele
Satellite data proves the greenhouse effect is real. The heat absorbed from the sun must be balanced by infrared heat escaping back to space. However, some wavelengths of infrared heat are absorbed by greenhouse gases and redirected back towards the earth. That has slowed the earth’s rate of cooling and enables the habitable temperatures of today.
But most scientists also believe the lower atmosphere is now saturated with CO2. Adding more CO2 will have little to no further warming effect. Furthermore, greenhouse gases have a cooling effect in the upper atmosphere. The climate crisis narrative pushed by some scientists argues that increasing levels of CO2 from burning of fossil fuels will continue to warm the earth by trapping more (Outgoing Longwave Radiation – OLR) infrared heat. Based on the greenhouse effect, that theory is plausible. But the scientific evidence refutes it.
Satellites can now measure how much OLR is escaping to space. If the climate crisis narrative is true, more CO2 would trap more OLR, so less OLR escaping to space should be detected.
But since 1985, satellites have detected that OLR had increased by about 2 W/m2 by 2018. (Watts per meter squared, W/m2, a Watt is a measure of energy per second ). That observed increasing OLR either means heat is more easily escaping, or the earth is heating via another dynamic.
Since 1980, CO2 concentrations have increased from 338 parts per million to 410 ppm. That means rising CO2 should have theoretically trapped and REDUCED OLR adding 1.02 W/m2 of heat. Instead we observe increasing OLR and that refutes the crisis narratives.
Satellites have also measured a decrease in global cloud cover by over 7%. That allows greater solar heating (graphic B). Fewer clouds better correlates with a warming of the earth and an increase in OLR.
Trust the science! The rampant climate crisis narratives deny the science. Climate crisis narratives are misinformation designed to manipulate the public with fear.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Is there a reason the latest information is almost 5.5 years old?
CO2 is a strong absorber only across narrow wavelengths. The whole-spectrum OLR is increasing because the planet is getting warmer, and warm things radiate more intensely than cooler things.
That’s what the article states “That observed increasing OLR either means heat is more easily escaping, or the earth is heating via another dynamic.
The point is that the increase in OLR does not contradict any element of greenhouse effect theory.
What theory is that? The so-called greenhouse theory is nonsense. Greenhouses do not keep warm by utilizing the effects of greenhouse gases. They keep warm by interfering with convection–the planet’s primary air conditioner.
No, it is not nonsense but the name ‘greenhouse effect’ is a misnomer. The original usage was as a metaphor, but the illiterates took itto mean that the atmosphere is literally and works like a greenhouse. The correct name is ‘blanketing’ effect because the atmosphere acts as a barrier for heat loss.
Yes, Greenhouses are hermetic seals, retain heat by inhibiting convection.
No. Blankets are insulators, inhibiting heat transfer by conduction.
The correct name is absorption of electromagnetic radiation.
The illiterates confuse the three modes of heat transfer because that’s what they’ve been taught.
I thought a doctorate in astrophysics and a thorough training in the physics of radiative transfer of heat would help, but I bow to your evidently superior knowledge. In my neck of the wood, however, we use ‘atmospheric blanketing’ to denote the inhibition of heat transfer by radiation absorbers in planetary and stellar atmospheres.
The term blanketing is correct. A blanket affects the rate of energy transfer.
The earth is not warm because CO2 “traps” heat. The earth is warm because oceans, land, and atmosphere interact with the incoming EM radiation (energy) and, through various physics, convert the EM energy to kinetic energy.
All matter has a specific heat. Specific heat is a physical property that defines how the matter temperature increases with an input of 1 joule. Specific heat varies based on pressure and temperature as well as the composition of the matter affected.
In addition, adiabatic pressure (due to gravity and EM wave momentum) contributes to the energy input of the matter, most notable in the atmosphere.
The real issue in the debate comes from the oversimplification of a highly complex and chaotic system. Blaming it all on CO2 is bogusly bad science.
Very few have your knowledge. I’m much less educated and certainly don’t. But you would be appalled at the number of my peers that believe its a literal ‘blanket’, or ‘a thin layer of gas at the edge of the atmosphere’, like John Kerry.
The climate hoax is sustained by dogma and ignorance.
In his book Climate Science Gavin Schmidt offers the blanket analogy, and in the same paragraph takes it back…
I only have a degree in Mechanical Engineering, but I can’t think of any form of insulation that insulates for only one mode of heat transfer. If you sleep under a blanket, it is probably most effective at limiting convective heat transfer (that layer of air around your body that your own body heat warms up would rise away from your body in an open atmosphere, the blanket prevents, or at least lessens that), but a close second would be reducing radiative heat transfer (the radiative heat transfer from your body to a cooler wall or ceiling, or if you’re out under the stars on a clear night, the radiative transfer to the black body of the universe), but there is also some protection against conductive heat transfer as well (when you roll over against your bedrail, or the headboard, or what-have-you, it doesn’t feel as cold against you as it would if there was nothing between your bare skin and that object). Calling the atmosphere “a blanket” is not incorrect, it reduces all three modes of heat transfer.
The increase in OLR has been proven by objective measurements, year after year, but it does not get reflected in Earth energy balance.
I wonder why?
Would it conflict with decades of pseudo “science?”
Global warming is partially supported by scare-mongered, subjective, computer-program temp predictions, grossly in excess of objective observations.
Peddle your nonsense to liberal arts/journalist “college” graduates, not to STEM professionals..
Harvard is re-instating SATs, a tiny step away from absurd wokeness, which promotes plagiarizing people to President
Will Harvard ever exterminate plagiarism?
BTW, your current US President plagiarized throughout his college/law school “career”, and his uncle was eaten by cannibals
OLR (TS + clouds + window) = 239.9 W/m^2 is the latest, per NASA
If it is from the CERES instrumentation, one must include the error/tolerance bands. CERES has a bandwidth that covers only 99.85% of the EM spectrum. CERES has a stated error of 0.5% to 1%. The NASA information does not discuss linearization or equalization of the input sensor(s) not how many or how large the sensors are.
As incredible as it seems, NASA claims CERES covers 25 km from an altitude > 100 km. The reality is it covers narrow stripes and the areas between stripes are backfilled by interpolation, which likely adds error.
Great info on the uncertainties involved.
It appears that a 1% error, the uncertainty could be as much as ~4W/m² to 2W/m², am I correct?
Also interpolation must introduce some uncertainty on top of that.
On the contrary, it’s exactly what climate models predict:
The reason might seem counterintuitive, but the warming planet, warming from this perturbation from rising CO2, induces additional feedbacks that affect the amount of absorbed shortwave radiation. This paper explains the phenomena quite well:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4250165/
You missed the whole point! CO2 is described by the CAGW crowd as *THE* cause of the Earth warming via the greenhouse effect. The article shows that to be garbage since the OLR at CO2 frequency is INCREASING rather than more being trapped by CO2 based on CO2 growth in the atmosphere.
True science, not mainstream climate science, is recognizing that the CO2 impact is logarithmic and its biggest impact has already bee seen. Thus trying to force everyone to return to the neolithic lifestyle is a waste of time.
Climate science should start looking for the *real* elements in the biosphere that are causing current warming, it certainly isn’t CO2. It also means the ;climate models are garbage and explains why they continue to diverge from observation at an increasing rate with every iteration of CO2 scenarios.
Studies have shown that solar irradiance is slowly increasing. More than one study was performed. The comparison of the derived signal shows the error of the signal to the measurements is a pure gaussian distribution, which if true, demonstrates a high confidence in the fidelity of the analysis.
The “if true” is added because I, personally, did not collect the data and I, personally, have not confirmed the calculations.
“You missed the whole point! CO2 is described by the CAGW crowd as *THE* cause of the Earth warming via the greenhouse effect….”
I’d only add that CAGW crowd say’s it’s Man’s CO2 as *THE* cause of the Earth warming via the greenhouse effect...
(Otherwise, no excuse to control people.)
The Earth is still in a 2.56 million-year ice age named the quaternary glaciation, in a cold interglacial period that alternates with very cold glacial periods.
Each year about 4.6 million people die from cold-related causes compared to about 500,000 that die from heat-related causes. Cold or cool air causes our blood vessels to constrict to retain heat. This raises our blood pressure causing more heat attacks and strokes in the cooler months.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext
Except it directly does. Doubling CO2 is supposed to add 4W/sq meter. We’ve seen an increase in OLR, not a decrease. So either we’re already coming to equilibrium through cooling (which is absurd given the time requiring a planet like Earth with oceans to come to “equilibrium,” or CO2 doesn’t do what you think it does.
That’s why he jumped to SR to ‘prove’ his point. This is what happens if you want something to be true. It is an desired modeled/ calculated endpoint, not a neutral/ unbiased observation. A guilty verdict has already been established. We ( the prosecution) just have to find the evidence, one way or another.
Excerpt from
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
CO2 and WV Vertical Profiles
Air contains variable amounts of WV, on average around 1% (10000 ppm) at sea level, and 0.4% (4000 ppm) over the entire atmosphere. The image shows data of two tests:
WV is 11 g WV/kg dry air = 17722 ppm at sea level; 9 g WV/kg dry air = 14500 ppm at 1.6 km.
The WV ppm rapidly decreases, due to condensing/freezing on aerosol particles, water droplets, ice crystals, and cloud formation.
WV/CO2 molecule ratio is about 17722/423 = 41.9 near the surface; 14500/423 = 34.3 at 1.6 km.
https://d-nb.info/1142268306/34
.
NOTE: CO2 was 423 ppm at end 2023, but in densely populated, industrial areas, such as eastern China and eastern US, it was about 10% greater, whereas in rural and ocean areas, it was about 10% less.
Inside buildings, CO2 is about 1000 ppm, greenhouses about 1200 ppm, submarines about 5000 ppm
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4990
.
IR Radiation Near the Surface: IR photons, at all wavelengths, thermalize (transfer their energy) by collisions with molecules, aerosol particles, ice crystals and water droplets near the surface.
IR photons, at appropriate wavelengths, thermalize by absorption by WV and CO2 molecules within 150 m from the surface. The upward radiation flux from the surface, at long wavelengths, is 398.19 W/m^2, per NASA
.
Downward IR Radiation by “Warmed” TS: The “warmed” TS emits IR radiation in all directions.
Downward radiation at longer wavelengths, is outside of CO2 absorption bands, but within WV absorption bands. The other photons thermalize by collision with air molecules, aerosol particles, ice crystals and water droplets. The downward radiation flux to the surface, at longer wavelengths, is 340.3 W/m^2, per NASA.
.
Upward IR Radiation at High Elevation: The atmosphere above the TS is transparent to IR radiation (aka atmospheric window).
WV is about 3.3 ppm at 20 km; irrelevant regarding absorbing photons
CO2 is about 390 ppm at 20 km; at low temperatures of about -50 C (223 K), photon wavelengths are beyond CO2 absorption bands
Collision rates are less, due to 1) low temperature, 2) molecules moving slower and further apart.
Collision rates are 4 billion/s at sea level; 1 billion/s at 10 km; 7 million/s at 50 km
With sufficient window transparency, the upward radiation flux becomes the dominant heat transfer/cooling mode, at 40.1 W/m^2
Total upward radiation flux (TS + clouds + window) is 239.9 W/m^2
See URLs and Image 11A and NASA image
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-pressure-d_462.html
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-greenhouse-model-and-co2-contribution
Addition
Retention of Energy in Atmosphere by Dry Air and Water Vapor
ha = Cpa x T = 1006 kJ/kg.C x T, where Cpa is specific heat of dry air
hg = (2501 kJ/kg, specific enthalpy of WV at 0 C) + (Cpwv x T = 1.84 kJ/kg x T), where Cpwv is specific heat of WV at constant pressure
1) Worldwide, determine enthalpy of Moist Air: T = 16 C and H = 0.0025 kg WV/kg dry air (4028 ppm)
h = ha + H.hg = (1.006T) + H(2501 + 1.84T) = 1.006(16) + 0.0025 {2501 + 1.84(16)} = 22.4 kJ/kg dry air
About 16 kJ/kg of dry air is retained by air and 6.4 kJ/kg by WV
2) Tropics, determine enthalpy of Moist Air: T = 27 and H = 0.017 kg WV/kg dry air (27389 ppm)
h = 1.006 (27) + 0.017 {(2501 + 1.84 (16)} = 70.5 kJ/kg dry air
About 27.2 kJ/kg of dry air is retained by air and 43.3 kJ/kg by WV
https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-the-Enthalpy-of-Moist-Air#:~:text=The%20equation%20for%20enthalpy%20is,specific%20enthalpy%20of%20water%20vapor.
Retention of Energy in Atmosphere by CO2
h CO2 = Cp CO2 x K = 0.834 x (16 + 273) = 241 kJ/kg CO2, where Cp CO2 is specific heat of CO2
Worldwide, determine enthalpy of CO2 = {(423 x 44)/(1000000 x 29 = 0.000642 kg CO2/kg dry air} x
241 kJ/kg CO2) = 0.155 kJ/kg dry air
Energy retention calculations capture all heat RETAINED in the atmosphere by all processes, including any GW effects of CO2
It shows the GW effect of CO2 is a dwarf, even if it were to double, and the GW effect of WV is the 800-lb Gorilla
I contest the thermalization concept that CO2 only thermalizes IR. That is false. EM wave momentum will transfer kinetic energy to CO2 molecules. But, when you hit valence frequencies (14.9 um), the effect is not thermalization. The quantum, defined as a photon) of energy causes the valence electron to elevate to a higher state. Quantum mechanics probabilities apply to the electron transitioning to the lower energy state and when it does it emits a quantum of energy at that frequency. This is EM radiation. Given an electrons position can not be determined, the electron is defined as a cloud. This means the photon can be emitted in any of the 3 dimensions of spherical geometry.
The reason certain molecules cause an opaqueness at various spectra is due primarily to scattering. The outgoing vector is not equivalent to the incoming vector.
You have studied this obviously. It is why Planck when defining a small body dτ, he said it must be large enough to not require looking at individual atoms. By making this assumption he could also proceed to assume heat radiation by a body is spherical, i.e., in all directions.
CO2 molecules have collisions with other molecules and with photons, but only absorbs photons with the right wavelengths which is about 15 micron for CO2.
Only 7% of all photons have 15 micron wavelengths
If it gets colder, longer wavelengths, as at higher elevations, the CO2 bands get narrower.
There are almost a billion molecules/photon, near the surface
Calcs are in my articles.
“This means the photon can be emitted in any of the 3 dimensions of spherical geometry.”
CO2 molecule is linear, not spherical.
And that linear molecule is spinning all the time and you have no idea what orientation it’s in so it emits spherically.
I could say that as well, and more, but I was replying to a specific comment by Sparta Nova 4 :
“The quantum, defined as a photon) of energy causes the valence electron to elevate to a higher state. Quantum mechanics probabilities apply to the electron transitioning to the lower energy state and when it does it emits a quantum of energy at that frequency. This is EM radiation. Given an electrons position can not be determined, the electron is defined as a cloud. This means the photon can be emitted in any of the 3 dimensions of spherical geometry.”
This is certainly wrong, even if the emission could be isotropic in the end for different reasons.
Molecules, and CO2 in particular, are not spherical. They have different absorption cross sections depending on their orientation relative to the direction and polarization of the incoming photon. Direction of the emission is generally not isotropic, but depends on the lifetime of the excited state, intermolecular energy redistribution and probability of collisional deactivation and gas pressure.
“The downward radiation flux to the surface, at longer wavelengths, is 340.3 W/m^2, per NASA”
No it isn’t. They made that up.
That number, lacking its true tolerance, is used extensively in the energy imbalance graphics, including in the NASA CERES brochure.
A closer look shows it is based on a flat earth model that does not account for the actual geometry of the planet (uses earth mean diameter), does not account for earth’s orbit (uses mean orbit radius), and does not account for the extension of the atmosphere beyond the land at the day/night/pole terminators.
It is not even good as an approximation. 60 C has a different radiation output that -20 C and the average does not match 20 C calculations.
Doesn’t our ‘globe’ expand and contract?
It’s even worse than that, Sparta. Not only is it based on a flat earth model, it’s also based on assuming that the temperature of Earth’s surface is 0 K, just like every other W/m^2 quantity throughout all of climate science literature.
When you take the actual temperature of Earth’s surface into account, the “downwelling” radiant power is negative. It’s actually upwelling power, because the surface is warmer than the atmosphere. Usually the value is between 0 and 100 W/m^2 or so, depending on the humidity.
Exactly. They always calculate an assumed (and unobserved) effect. In this case one that goes against the law of thermodynamics ie from hot to cold, never the other way around.
You have data showing a different value?
Post says:”The downward radiation flux to the surface, at longer wavelengths, is 340.3 W/m^2, per NASA.”
What temperature is associated with 340 W/m^2? Using an emissivity of 0.2 for CO2 it would need to be over 400 K.
I enjoy your posts just takes time to get through them.
In my articles, as an example, I calculated the NASA value of 398.19 W/m^2 (See Image), for infrared radiation leaving the surface.
I had to use a 16-plus C temp to equal the NASA value
Excellent article, Jim. Thanks.
Which parts exactly?
Mostly NH upper latitudes.
I’m happy with that.
“CO2 is a strong absorber only across narrow wavelengths.”
You should also add that those wavelengths are very weak, absorption is very close to saturated, and coincides with very cold temperatures (Wien’s law).
As such, any re-emittance will be at altitudes over 11km.
There is no way this acts like a blanket and slows surface cooling in a gas-laws driven atmosphere.
There is no measurable warming from enhanced atmospheric CO2.
Recent warming has been because of more absorbed solar radiation.
As Jim says, this is mainly because of decreased cloud cover over the tropics.
Your incredulity is not a rebuttal of the facts. Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases like CO2 inhibits the transmission of radiant energy to space in the wavelengths in which the gas is an absorber, and that this occurs high in the atmosphere is precisely why talk of “saturation” is nonsense.
This isn’t an explanation, it’s just a kicking of the can down the road. Clouds don’t change on their own, they change in response to forcing.
A forcing independent of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, as shown by Jim Steele.
Alan J.
You say ;”talk of “saturation” is nonsense.” Try to get the science right.
Absorbance is logarithmic, conversely transmittance decays exponentially.
This means there is diminishing effect with increasing concentration, eventually the radiation is effectively extinguished (ie. Saturated). You can’t argue this, it’s a law of nature, even has an equation.
Absorbance is calculated as a logarithmic function of T: A = log10 (1/T) = log10 (Io/I).
Saturation of the lower atmosphere is something that eventually will occur (we are not close to it yet), but that will not change the fundamental fact that adding more greenhouse gases will cause additional warming, precisely because, as we all seem to agree, the upper atmosphere can never be saturated with respect to CO2. The effect is logarithmic.
“Saturation of the lower atmosphere is something that eventually will occur (we are not close to it yet)”
Do you have the math to support this statement?
Voice in the head science won’t go over well on this site.
Of course, this article, written by atmospheric scientists, explains the concept quite well:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/
But to turn the question around: can you actually show any documentary evidence that the CO2 greenhouse effect is saturated? It’s an oft repeated meme here on WUWT, but nobody ever substantiates it.
And of course AlanJ dishonestly and deceptively ignores the critical results of those scientists he links to at
MICHAEL MANN’S RealClimate site. About CO2 saturation they wrote,
“it is only the wavelength range between about 13.5 and 17 microns (millionths of a meter) that can be considered to be saturated. Within this range, it is indeed true that adding more CO2 would not significantly increase the amount of absorption.”
And it is precisely 13.5 and 17 micron wavelengths that attributes warming to CO2!
Not at all, I’m not sure what you hope to gain by telling flagrant and stupid lies. Do you think this is a productive discussion strategy? All it does is destroy whatever shred of credibility you might have hoped to bring to the table. The next bit of the paragraph that you’ve omitted:
LOL Clearly only AlanJ is struggling to “save a shred of credibility”! And only ALanJ is spreading “flagrant and stupid lies”
AlanJ blathered “Saturation of the lower atmosphere is something that eventually will occur (we are not close to it yet) ” AlanJ likes to make shit up.
All scientists know it is the absorption between 13.5 and 17 microns that is critical for CO2 warming effects. Second the lower atmosphere is saturated and virtually opaque to escaping IR that CO2 absorbs. Between 80 and 90% of the downwelling IR originates in the upper 500 meters.
The minute amount of extra absorbed IR from the “wings” is not significant!
But increasing CO2 has a cooling effect in the upper atmosphere. One reason is the cooling stratosphere effect, where the stratosphere’s warming increases radiation.
In addition, for the 99% of air molecules that can’t radiate away absorbed surface energy, they can transfer that energy via collisions to CO2 which will then radiate the heat away. Finally, just as the lower atmosphere is opaque to 13.5 and 17 microns IR trying to escape back to space, most of the redirected downward IR from above 500 meters likewise cant penetrate through the lower opaque atmosphere to the surface. Thus no added heating.
Increasing OLR refutes the climate crisis narrative, as a saturated lower atmosphere and increased cooling effects of the upper atmopshere keeps the earth in balance. And that drives alarmist trolls like AlanJ bonkers!
A bald-faced declaration made without an ounce of evidence to substantiate it. The RC article you are quoting says otherwise, and proves it.
But what’s important is that, even if CO2 absorption were saturated near the ground, that doesn’t make a lick of difference high in the troposphere, where emission to space occurs. There CO2 absorption is not and will never bee close to being saturated. Thus, the forcing is logarithmic and will remain so, with each doubling providing the same forcing as the previous doubling, no matter how much you whine in protest or spin lies and deceit.
Yes it does, and in fact this is one major piece of proof showing that the surface warming is being caused by an enhanced CO2 greenhouse effect. Congratulations on further undermining your own argument.
It doesn’t, see my comments higher in the thread.
LOL AlanJ the dishonest troll says stating “the minute amount of extra absorbed IR from the “wings” is not significant” is a bald-faced declaration made without an ounce of evidence to substantiate it. The RC article you are quoting says otherwise, and proves it.
So AlanJ, strut your stuff. Show how much more energy in W/m2 is absorbed from the wings by increasing CO2 4x, and how does that compare to the estimates of W/m2 in the admitted saturated region of 13.5 to 17 microns.
Show is all how significant it is! LOL
The RC article (that you are quoting as well) actually says:
“the atmosphere still wouldn’t be saturated even if we increased the CO2 to ten thousand times the present level. “
And they even answer your exact question:
“What happens to the absorption if we quadruple the amount of CO2? That story is told in the next graph:
The horizontal blue lines give the threshold CO2 needed to make the atmosphere optically thick at 1x the preindustrial CO2 level and 4x that level. Quadrupling the CO2 makes the portions of the spectrum in the yellow bands optically thick, essentially adding new absorption there and reducing the transmission of infrared through the layer.
Even at 4x CO2, we are barely approaching saturation of the lower atmosphere. And, as noted above, we will never reach a point of saturation in the upper atmosphere, where the air is thin and adding more CO2 will always increase absorption.
But of course you know all this, because you read the RC article you keep quoting, right? So that means you’re intentionally saying things you know to be false. Hmm, is there a word for that?
AlanJ you are such an alarmist sleazebag.
I asked “Show how much more energy in W/m2 is absorbed from the wings by increasing CO2 4x, and how does that compare to the estimates of W/m2 in the admitted saturated region of 13.5 to 17 microns.”
You have not provided that at all. All you offer is more bullshit to obscure the issue.
“fundamental fact that adding more greenhouse gases will cause additional warming”
You seem unable to understand the”fundamental fact” that the “greenhouse effect” is nonlinear.
This is not my opinion, it’s the Bouguer-Beer-Lambert law or the extinction law. Adding more greenhouse gases will cause diminishing warming, until effective extinction, and we’re already effectively there.
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:d025e9d4-be0c-4de1-8fcb-fb335bf62358
From your link, the climate sensitivity is over 2 K/doubling, just what earlier modellers found.
pseudoadiabatic…. fixed humidity.. model with many assumptions.
So .. NOT THIS PLANET !!
Some theoretical planet, far distant in the galaxy.
You can’t use a model that assumes warming by CO2 to prove warming by CO2.
Ok… so you’re saying the article is wrong about climate sensitivity to CO2. How can you then point to it and claim it shows that the CO2 greenhouse effect is saturated? Quite the mental gymnastics routine you all are doing.
Have you noticed that all the talk about ‘forcing’ and ‘back radiation’ is always simply assumed? Like saying it and then putting the equations forward as some sort of proof. It’s like an article of faith. An unproven hypothesis. In fact, a lot of climate science stays in the realm of hypotheses. You can use various gas laws, the law of thermodynamics etc but you can’t in fact prove any theory outside of equations that may or may not be an indicator of an observation that has to be seen in relation to another. Outside of basic physics at the elemental level climate science remains pure speculation. And to take one factor, in this case Co2, as the main driver of a change in temperature (and a whole series of assumed bad effects like..weather) is a frankly unscientific and absurd notion given the complexities involved. I usually see this as simply the prosecution trying to get to a guilty verdict, highlighting and amplifying certain aspects while ignoring or diminishing counter factuals..
“Outside of basic physics at the elemental level climate science remains pure speculation.”
There it is! The long and short of it.
Are you refuting my point Nick?
You might help Alan J understand the science instead of going off topic, a standard alarmist tactic.
Jim Steeles thesis in this post : “Climate crisis narratives are misinformation designed to manipulate the public with fear.”
Alan J is typical of that public, ignorant of the basic physics, brainwashed to believe that
“2 K/doubling” will destroy the planet, confident that government intervention (taxes and regulations) will save us.
You mean the outward radiation from CO2 in the upper atmosphere continue to increase..
But not in the lower atmosphere where it is basically saturated.
No blanket exists.. show us a picture of it.
And no blanket I know of acts to COOL the planet when it gets warmer, which is what the atmosphere does.
Your little anti-science AGW-cult mantra bubble is full of empty mess.
“Saturation of the lower atmosphere is something that eventually will occur (we are not close to it yet), but that will not change the fundamental fact that adding more greenhouse gases will cause additional warming, precisely because, as we all seem to agree, the upper atmosphere can never be saturated with respect to CO2. The effect is logarithmic.”
You can’t seem to get it into your head. If more CO2 were absorbing more OLR then OLR would be going DOWN. It isn’t. It’s going UP.
What is it exactly that is so hard to understand about this?
In the upper atmosphere CO2 has less of a chance of thermalizing absorbed IR at CO2 frequency because the matter density is smaller. That means it RADIATES more to space.
As CO2 density goes up it also goes up in the upper atmosphere as well – more OLR to space.
CO2 warms the lower atmosphere more from thermalizing to other molecules than it does through “back radiation”. Back radiation warming the earth is actually fantasy. If the back radiation actually warmed anything that “anything” would radiate at a higher rate thus getting rid of the effect of that “back radiation”. For every degree of delta-T warming you see delta-T^4 radiation. That’s actually a negative feedback. Things cool off faster than they warm. That’s why the nighttime temperature curve is a decaying exponential, the earth loses more heat at a higher rate at the sunset than it does just before sunrise.
Oops, nope, those two statements are contradictory. See if you can puzzle out why.
I said in sentence 1: “RADIATES more to space”.
I said in sentence 2: “more OLR to space”.
If CO2 density goes up at altitude it doesn’t matter if more collisions between CO2 molecules happen. There will also be more molecules to radiate to space after they have been thermalized by a collision.
I take it physics isn’t your strong suit?
In one sentence you say less CO2 leads to more emission, in the next sentence you say more CO2 leads to more emission. In reality, by increasing the concentration of CO2 at high altitude, we increase the distance a photon needs to travel before reaching a layer of the atmosphere thin enough that it is likely to escape to space without being reabsorbed. Since this new layer is higher, it is colder (because temperature drops with altitude in the troposphere). Since this new “effective radiating layer” is colder, it is radiating less intensely than the previous effective radiation layer, which was lower. This leads to a reduced flux of OLR to space. So your point 2 is inaccurate, and conflicts with your characterization of the relationship between CO2 concentration and OLR.
At the speed of light the delay you are proposing is pretty minimal.
It’s about the temperature of the effective altitude of emission. Cooler things radiate less intensely than warmer things. Push up the effective altitude of emission to a cooler layer, and you reduce the outgoing flux. More energy is now coming in than is being lost to space.
If more energy is coming in than is lost to space, then why is OLR increasing?
Feedbacks. Increasing CO2 isn’t the only thing driving the climate to a warmer state, there are numerous feedback mechanisms being driven by the enhanced CO2 greenhouse effect that affect shortwave absorption (e.g. lowered albedo).
Alan just regurgitates narratives he has no proof of
to repeat :MICHAEL MANN’S RealClimate site posted several years ago about CO2 saturation writing,
“it is only the wavelength range between about 13.5 and 17 microns (millionths of a meter) that can be considered to be saturated. Within this range, it is indeed true that adding more CO2 would not significantly increase the amount of absorption.”
Indeed it is “the wavelength range between about 13.5 and 17 microns” where CO2 absorbs and emits infrared for which scientists attribute CO2 for its contribution to the greenhouse effect!
also
From: Climatic consequences of the process of saturation of radiation absorption in gases Kubicki et al 2024 “The phenomenon of saturation was already noted by Ångström (1900), who, based on experiments and analysis, challenged Svante Arrhenius’ hypothesis that continued use of fossil fuels would warm the planet (Arrhenius 1896). In 1972, Schack (1972), based on his considerations, demonstrated that for a concentration of 0.03% of carbon dioxide in the air, the absorption process in the troposphere is saturated.
Taking into account the saturation process, Dieter Schildknecht also proved in his work (Schildknecht 2020) that, contrary to the IPCC reports, the impact of anthropogenic CO2 increase on the Earth’s climate is very small.”
Oops, I see you read part of the RC article you’re quoting. Go have a read of the whole thing, see if it helps clear up your confusion.
CO2 absorption frequencies never saturate. That’s what logarithmic means.
And Michael Mann never said there would be saturation, but you cherry picked his quote out of context to ridicule him
The IPCC does not claim CO2 ALONE is a strong greenhouse gas.
They make a worst case claim that a very strong water vapor positive feedback amplifies the warming effect of CO2 ALONE (per lab spectroscopy) by 4x to 6x.
That magically converts a harmless AGW prediction into a potentially harmful CAGW prediction, over several hundred years.
Skeptic scientists generally guess the water vapor positive feedback amplifies the effect of CO2 ALONE by zero to 2x, well below the IPCC consensus guess of 4x to 6x.
Richard, You always have a hard-on for me, it makes you imagine what I say. I never said Michael Mann said there would be saturation, but you cherry picked his quote out of context to ridicule him
MICHAEL MANN’S RealClimate site posted several years ago about CO2 saturation writing,“it is only the wavelength range between about 13.5 and 17 microns (millionths of a meter) that can be considered to be saturated. Within this range, it is indeed true that adding more CO2 would not significantly increase the amount of absorption.”
So Richard, explain your rant that I cherry-picked “only the wavelength range between about 13.5 and 17 microns (millionths of a meter) that can be considered to be saturated” ???
And you always divert the issue at hand with irrelevant statements like “The IPCC does not claim CO2 ALONE is a strong greenhouse gas.”
But no has been arguing that.
And to say “CO2 absorption frequencies never saturate. That’s what logarithmic means.”Is just plain silly! Your statement is just as insignificant. You have saturated the post with irrelevancies!
“CO2 absorption frequencies never saturate. That’s what logarithmic means.”
I take it you don’t really understand a logarithmic curve?
Convert y = log_b(x) to x = b^y, where b is the base being used.
b^y should be easily recognized as being a curve with an asymptote.
Being asymptotic means you must increase the input significantly to get a small response.
Yes, you will never be totally saturated but at some point the ability of mankind to increase CO2 levels enough to be able to see a change will disappear into the noise.
What is the point?
About 4.6 million people die every year from cold-related causes compared with about 500,000 that die every year from heat-related causes.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext
Why should we want to keep millions of people dying each year from the cold?
The Earth is still in a 2.56 million-year ice age in a warmer but still cold interglacial period.
Your rancid belief of AGW cult mantra…. akin to the moronic John Kerry tiny invisible blanket way up there…
… as opposed to actual science, is not evidence.
Any tiny amount of extra radiation is passed directly to other molecules and through the atmospheric window.
There is no evidence of any energy being blocked.
You can make-up any stupid any science idiocy you want… It doesn’t change any facts.
No energy is being blocked, all the energy that comes in, eventually leaves. Enhancing the greenhouse effect is akin to building a dam across a river – the water still flows downstream, but the dam creates a local deepening.
‘Enhancing the greenhouse effect is akin to building a dam across a river – the water still flows downstream, but the dam creates a local deepening.’
Yes, but while the reservoir behind the dam is filling, the amount of water flowing downstream is reduced, unless, of course, there is an off-setting increase in flow rate upstream of the dam.
Getting back to the premises of the article, if cloud cover has declined at the same time as OLR has increased, I would think the latter analogy to be much more apt than your stock comment that we can never observe the initial CO2 ‘forcing’ because it is instantaneously swamped by the OLR ‘response’.
Cloud cover changes as a response to some forced perturbation – thus any warming from changes in cloud cover is a response to whatever is driving the warming to begin with. That’s why I describe the insistence to blame the warming on clouds as nothing more than kicking the can down the road. You haven’t explained the root cause.
‘You haven’t explained the root cause [of changes in cloud cover].’
I don’t have to, and by the way, neither have you. Could be a lot of reasons, none of which have anything to with human emissions of CO2 since there have been myriad temperature cycles earlier in the Holocene that obviously were not anthropogenic in origin.
I think the dam filling analogy is apt. If CO2 (the dam) caused a measurable decline in OLR (pre-fill stream flow) such that there were measurable events, e.g., ice cap melting, ocean warming, etc. (reservoir filling) that eventually caused an increase in OLR (post-fill stream flow) to where it again equaled pre-dam construction levels, I’d agree that you’re on to something.
But what we actually are seeing is a concurrent increase in ASR and OLR, which means it’s not an issue of radiative imbalance, and certainly not a human CO2 issue.
Nobody has to explain anything, they just… can’t not explain things and then claimed they’ve explained things. But scientists have indeed explained the warming, and there is little question that it is driven by CO2. To your dam analogy, there is exactly more “post-fill stream flow.” In this case, it is shortwave feedbacks, from changes in albedo. It’s something akin to the construction of the dam permanently altering the height of the water table upstream. This is described in the paper I posted above:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4250165/
The increased ASR is a result of the CO2 radiative forcing, it is a feedback.
Just wow, Alan! I took the liberty of doing a quick search on ‘global warming olr or asr’ and sure enough that paper came up – repeatedly – and uniquely. I was also intrigued that there were no subsequent studies extending, verifying or even extolling the authors’ findings, which seems odd given that they have ‘solved’ an apparent ‘paradox’ between the long-held theoretical and newly-revealed GCM mechanisms for how CO2 actually causes AGW. Do you not find this odd? Why have the authors not been awarded Nobels for this work? I mean, really, is this not the Holy Grail of climate science? Can we not finally tell all the ‘deniers’ to shut up and get in line for their new fossil fuel-free world? And to think this incredible breakthrough in science comes from the same genre of models that not only don’t agree with each other, but also consistently ‘run hot’ even when compared with ‘actual’ temperatures!
PS – It’s a nice touch that the paper is archived at nih.gov!
I don’t think your search was thorough, this is not a revolutionary concept and is something climate scientists understand quite well. Again, it is exactly what is predicted by climate models. Here is another paper describing this effect:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009GL037527
What is doubly interesting is that this is a problem that climate models, universally maligned on this website, were instrumental in solving.
Yes, I saw the reference to T&F in the paper you cited previously, Here’s a snippet from the section that caught my eye:
‘Trenberth and Fasullo considered global energy accumulation within the ensemble of coupled GCMs participating in …CMIP. They report that…wherein increasing radiative forcing is driven principally by increasing GHG concentrations, OLR changes little over the 21st century and global energy accumulation is caused nearly entirely by enhanced ASR—seemingly at odds with the canonical view of global warming by reduced LW emission to space…’
I would note here that T&F does not point out that OLR increases from the advent of forcing, which is what we’re seeing today. But like I said above, the fact that the mechanism for surface warming in the models is considered to be ‘at odds with the canonical view of global warming by reduced LW emission to space’ even by the likes of someone like Trenberth is, well, very odd.
Also odd, was that this argument seemed only to come up after you and others argued with the usual suspects about ‘saturation’ To me, then, the CO2 enhances ASR gambit seems too much like special pleading in an attempt to ‘square’ the CAGW narrative we’ve all been beaten around the head with for decades with the output / predictions of models that have been running too hot and all over the map, to boot, over the same time frame.
Unfortunately, I don’t have the bona fides to look too deeply into this, but I’ve been following the issue long enough to know that if the modelers are correct, there is a serious flaw in what many skeptics believe they know about AGW. Likewise, of course, if the modelers are not correct, then that would be a huge setback for them. Perhaps, then, this would be a good topic to bring up at the next ‘open thread’ opportunity?
Neither has anyone else. Why do you then leap to the conclusion that it is CO2?
Climate scientists have indisputably explained the root cause, whether you agree with their explanation is another story, but they have absolutely explained it. Climate models forced with CO2 show exactly this outcome. Nobody in this thread has even attempted to proffer a legitimate alternative (there’s some mumbling about the sun, without a scrap of evidence to back that up, but that’s it).
Nonlinear systems do things that stupid climate activists don’t understand. Trying to force a linear response onto a nonlinear system is a fool’s errand. You are a good example of such an attempt.
They have posted possible hypothesis’ that MIGHT explain it. The hypothesis has never been proven.
“Indisputable” doesn’t exist in science.
Moron, if you program a model with the radiative CO2 physics you expect to see, you can’t then use that mode as proof of your assumption.
The models are not programmed with physics we “expect to see,” they are programmed with… physics. The same physics you will find in any textbook. If you take one of those models that is programmed with the same physics you find in any textbook and inject a bunch of CO2 into the model’s atmosphere, you get increasing OLR, just as we see in the real world. Thus increasing OLR is a consequence of increasing CO2 levels, the only trick is to try to understand why.
If injecting CO2 into the model’s atmosphere instead produced a negative trend in OLR, we would think there is some deficiency in our understanding of physics.
“The models are not programmed with physics we “expect to see,” they are programmed with… physics. The same physics you will find in any textbook.”
Malarky! The fact that the models have “parameterized” factors applied in order to make the model output look as expected – i.e. almost 100% correlation to scenario CO2 growth – says the models are *NOT* programmed with physics. If they were programmed with the proper physics the fudge factors would not be required. Boundary conditions to keep the models from blowing up would not be needed since the actual physics don’t have artificial boundary conditions.
How does increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere cause a reduction in cloud cover?
This is what’s called a half truth. Let’s look at the big picture.
“In Figure 10 the constancy of the IR flux optical thickness (light green numbers) is maintained in each randomly selected subset of different length from a 61-year long NOAA-R1 time series. Here the CO2 (red line) and H2O (blue line) normalized column amounts are plotted for the 1948- 2008-time interval. The sign of the H2O correlation coefficient (blue number) is a clear indication of the climate stabilizing role of the water vapor. The increase of the atmospheric carbon dioxide is apparently coupled with the decrease of the atmospheric water vapor column amount. The time averaged CO2 column amounts − unlike concentrations − increase linearly. ”
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Miskolczi-2023-Greenhouse-Gas-Theory.pdf
As we can see from this paper, AlanJ is partially correct, CO2 does “inhibit” energy to space as the concentration increases. This is directly supported by radiation physics (HITRAN). However, as the effect of CO2 increases, the energy inhibiting effect of water vapor decreases as clearly documented in the NOAA-R1 time series.
So tell us AlanJ, why do you DENY the full science?
“the effect of CO2 increases, the energy inhibiting effect of water vapor decreases”
Baloney
As CO2 increases the temperatre of the troposphere, it has the capability of holding MORE water vapor. Few scientists disagree with that statement.
If there is more water vapor in the troposphere, there is MORE greenhouse warming.
It’s not runaway warming, because that has never happened even with CO2 10x higher than today
But it is unlikely that a warmer troposphere would hold LESS water vapor.
Perhaps you’ve heard of clouds and rain?
Forcing is another of those abused systems engi9neering terms, like the way positive feedback is used.
Yes! Heat from radiation is either absorbed or emitted.
MICHAEL MANN’S RealClimate site posted several years ago about CO2 saturation writing,
“it is only the wavelength range between about 13.5 and 17 microns (millionths of a meter) that can be considered to be saturated. Within this range, it is indeed true that adding more CO2 would not significantly increase the amount of absorption.”
Indeed it is “the wavelength range between about 13.5 and 17 microns” where CO2 absorbs and emits infrared for which scientists attribute CO2 for its contribution to the greenhouse effect!
Jim Steele is REPEATEDLY lying by deleting the rest of the Mann statement, which changes the meaning, and contradicts Steels’s low down attempt to smear Mann by misinterpreting Manns full message.
Steele will probably come after me now, with his usual vicious insults, for pointing out that he has repeatedly lied abot Mann in several comments here.
It is easy to criticize Mann for his science.
Lying about his science is not necessary to criticize Mann.
That would never be done by a person with good character.
“All the red M&M’s are already eaten. But waiting in the wings, outside this wavelength region, there’s more goodies to be had. In fact, noting that the graph is on a logarithmic axis, the atmosphere still wouldn’t be saturated even if we increased the CO2 to ten thousand times the present level.”
This is the portion of the Michael Mann quote truncated by smarmy Jim Steele for the sole purpose of smearing Mann.
Richard, You always have a hard-on for me, it makes you imagine what I say. I never said Michael Mann said there would be saturation. So stop your lying and perversions.
I said “MICHAEL MANN’S RealClimate site posted several years ago about CO2 saturation writing,“it is only the wavelength range between about 13.5 and 17 microns (millionths of a meter) that can be considered to be saturated. Within this range, it is indeed true that adding more CO2 would not significantly increase the amount of absorption.” I am not sure why Greene is so hot to defend Mann from things never attributed to him directly, just his website.
Indeed I left off the part of their argument because they were discussing a very insignificant effect, but made it appear as if was significant and causing significant warming. To illustrate that effect they had to use 4X CO2 and a logaritmic scale of their estimated absorption factor. It is not me “REPEATEDLY lying”. Perhaps Greene can quantify how many more W/m2 were produced outside the 13.5 and 17 microns absorption band by their 4X CO2 modeling?
I also referenced : Climatic consequences of the process of saturation of radiation absorption in gases Kubicki et al 2024 “The phenomenon of saturation was already noted by Ångström (1900), who, based on experiments and analysis, challenged Svante Arrhenius’ hypothesis that continued use of fossil fuels would warm the planet (Arrhenius 1896). In 1972, Schack (1972), based on his considerations, demonstrated that for a concentration of 0.03% of carbon dioxide in the air, the absorption process in the troposphere is saturated.
Taking into account the saturation process, Dieter Schildknecht also proved in his work (Schildknecht 2020) that, contrary to the IPCC reports, the impact of anthropogenic CO2 increase on the Earth’s climate is very small.”
Should I say Richard Greene is repeatedly lying because he doesn’t quote me for those references on saturation?
I would think twice about inserting words like ”good character” in relation to those attacking MM, as if MM is some sort of innocent scientist wrongfully accused. We all know what happened..MM is one of the worst and dishonest people ever to be called a ‘scientist’. Those who defend him must be, like him, on the war path.
Mann is one of the worst alarmist climate change propagandists around. Making him out to be a victim of Jim Steele is laughable.
“Steele will probably come after me now, with his usual vicious insults,”
I would think if you call someone a liar, they won’t like it and will come after you.
Isn’t calling someone a liar a vicious insult?
The solar irradiance that the Earth receives from the Sun has been at its highest level over the last 100 years compared to any time in the last 400 years. That would warm the oceans reducing their absorption of CO2 and increasing their emission of CO2.
https://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/data/historical_tsi
The grand solar maximum from 1945-2005 was the highest output in thousands of years according to several studies. Fewer clouds during the modern warm period caused most of the increase in ocean heat content. SW energy heats to depth.
“The grand solar maximum from 1945-2005 was the highest output in thousands of years:
Total BS
Never happened
Even at solar maximum, the energy that the Earth receives from the Sun is only around 0.1 per cent higher than average. This has only a tiny impact on our global temperatures,
“The solar irradiance that the Earth receives from the Sun has been at its highest level over the last 100 years”
Total BS
TSI at the top of the atmosphere has only been measured since the 1970s and has declined slightly
If your claim is based on sunspot counts, they are incompetent proxies for TOA TSI and any conclusions drawn from sunspot counts are baloney.
No more incompetent than the 34 tree ring temperature proxies from 3 NH locations
Not that bad
Mann had a Tree Ring Circus
He used incompetent proxies for global temperatures and cherry picked among them.
Sunspot counts claim a large reduction of TOA TSI since the 1960s but satellites detected a tiny decline since the 1970s. At least the sunspot count got the direction t right.
Increased solar energy does not explain:
Why TOA TSI is declining,
why 2/3 of post 1975 temperature records are TMIN,
why Arctic warming is entirely in the colder months with little sun,
why stratosphere temperature is NOT rising
why most of the warming is TMIN, in colder nations in the colder months of the year
and why there is NO warming in Antarctica
You struck out again, BeNasty with your CO2 Does Nothing Nuttery contradicted by almost 100% of climate scientists.
Mainstream science tells us that the effects of CO2 should be most amplified in places with the most water vapor. The poles are very dry in the winter, so the effect there is limited. The tropics, in contrast, have much more water vapor but are warming slower than much of the planet.
CO2 is most effective in the upper troposphere where water vapor is low. The CO2 absorption frequencies then have less competition with water vapor absorption frequencies.
You get an increase in greenhouse warming even if the lower atmosphere was saturated.
Because it’s the absorption in the thin unsaturated upper atmosphere that counts.
Water vapor doesn’t overwhelm the effects of CO2 because there’s little water vapor in the high, cold regions from which infrared escapes to the infinite heat sink of outer space.
Deserts cool a lot faster than tropics at night because of the weak greenhouse effect. The lack of humidity and fewer clouds are typical. CO2 can’t compete with water vapor and clouds for keeping deserts warm at night. Sand also releases heat faster than dirt or foliage.
From: Climatic consequences of the process of saturation of radiation absorption in gases Kubicki et al 2024 “The phenomenon of saturation was already noted by Ångström (1900), who, based on experiments and analysis, challenged Svante Arrhenius’ hypothesis that continued use of fossil fuels would warm the planet (Arrhenius 1896). In 1972, Schack (1972), based on his considerations, demonstrated that for a concentration of 0.03% of carbon dioxide in the air, the absorption process in the troposphere is saturated.
Taking into account the saturation process, Dieter Schildknecht also proved in his work (Schildknecht 2020) that, contrary to the IPCC reports, the impact of anthropogenic CO2 increase on the Earth’s climate is very small.”
Technically yes and technically no. CO2 has a minor effect on specific heat and scattering of IR. Minimal, but not zero.
Over the last 100 years, the energy that the Earth receives from the Sun has been at its highest level of any 100 years in the last 400 years.
https://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/data/historical_tsi
You’re being silly. The planet is warming because the nonlinear climate system is causing the warming. Trying to blame it on CO2 is more nonsense. You’re right–CO2’s effect is very narrow. It’s important wave number is 667 1/cm or 14.99 microns as a wavelength. It’s actually at the very edge of the IR window–hardly a major player.
CO2 absorbs photon energy at 15 micron wavelengths
The rests of the bands have much less energy
See references in my below comment
CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs energy across a broad band of wavelengths, not at discrete intervals as in a thin gas. It’s important to have a grasp of the concepts you’re discussing.
After your various posts i get the feeling you actually do not grasp many of the concepts yourself OR misunderstand their implications. You seem to be eager to invent a narrative and inject words that purports a causal effect. Just by stating something does not mean it is a fact beyond its fundamental level of physics, no matter how many times or how forcefully you say it.
Yet you offer nothing in rebuttal. Seemingly contenting yourself with hurling rotten tomatoes from the sidelines. That’s not a productive way to engage in discussion. If you think something I’ve said is wrong, show us why.
Nor is AlanJ’s persistent lying and obfuscations a productive way to engage in discussion! AlanJ is an Enemy of Truth!
AlanJ You are playing with words just to troll. Te argument is NOT that increasing OLR contradicts the greenhouse effect. It contradicts the unscientific abuse of the greenhouse effect to create a climate crisis narrative. The theory is quite clear that GHG trap heat and thus less OLR. But that is simply not happening.
‘Sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed.’
“It’s Easier to Fool People Than It Is to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled.” – Mark Twain
You pegged it. Appeal to Authority with no references at all. He “knows” because he’s been told the TRUTH and learned at the feet of experts!
And because it is a strong absorber across such narrow wavelengths, only one of which appears to be thermally relevant (15 microns), it really isn’t going to cause any noticeable effect.
I still have a problem using the “greenhouse effect” terminology. Yes, certain gases absorb IR energy which slows down its movement to space. However, it works nothing like a greenhouse. In fact, both of the overview methods preached by climate science are false.
Essentially, all of the energy from the surface gets absorbed within a few meters and transferred directly into the atmosphere. All of that energy then becomes part of the atmospheric bulk kinetic energy. Doesn’t matter how it got there. It then gets moved around and mixed with energy that may have been absorbed days earlier. One can no longer identify the surface energy radiated seconds before.
The bulk energy works its way through the atmosphere and out to space thanks to several independent mechanisms. More energy is constantly added and energy is constantly being moved around or lost to space. Energy is never trapped.
Jim is exactly right in showing the cloud changes. This is what has been warming the oceans which then share their heat with the atmosphere. No one will understand “climate change” until they can explain these cloud changes.
Richard M.
Here is my take on the problem.
ALL warming events can be associated with decreased levels of SO2 aerosols (fine droplets of Sulfuric Acid) in the atmosphere. Decreased SO2 aerosol levels result in fewer moisture nucleation sites, resulting in reduced cloud formation, and increasing temperatures, which increases evaporation, resulting in increased moisture in the atmosphere, which eventually falls out randomly in torrents, as an Atmospheric River. As just happened in Dubai.
Dubai was from cloud seeding not a random event.
Wikipedia
gyan1:
No, it was NOT from cloud seeding. FAR too much water than available from cloud seeding, They have been cloud seeding in Dubai for years, and never anything like this.
Actually true on both counts. The seeding was a trigger. There were weather formations at play as well.
We do not know enough about the physics of seeding to know whether or not there is a cascading (aka chain reaction) effect at play.
That aside, the flooding was not climate change. Flooding there has happened in the past. That we have records dating back x-number of decades only means we can compare one event to the recorded data, not the whole of history.
Rather than simple “Down Votes”, an attempt to challenge my comments would be preferable (although doomed to failure).
Most of it is supported by my article “Stalled High Pressure Weather Systems”, which shows that as atmospheric SO2 aerosol levels decrease, temperatures increase, because of clear, cloudless skies.
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2022.13.3.0264
Certainly not all warming events, but with the introduction of the clean air act of 1970 and the resulting reduction of particulate carbon, SO2 and other legitimate pollutants, more sunshine hits the ground. A good thing, too. SMOG was killing people.
How great is unknown, but it is undeniable that SMOG reduction played a part in the 1970s mini ice age scare.
“How great is unknown, but it is undeniable that SMOG reduction played a part in the 1970s mini ice age scare.”
A drop in temperature of about 2.0C from the 1930’s to the 1970’s is what spurred the 1970’s Ice Age scare.
For some reason, climate scientists seem to think that a trend goes on forever. In this case, the climate scientists were fearing more cooling after the significant cooling of the period.
Today, climate scientists think the warming trend will continue forever. They were wrong about the cooling trend.
Here is an example of the drop of about 2.0C from the 1930’s to the 1970’s (Hansen 1999). This is the temperature trend climate scientists were looking at when the article “The Ice Age Cometh?” appeared in print in the middle 1970’s.
“…increasing temperatures, which increases evaporation…”
Just read an article on ‘pan evaporators’ around the world at “Climate Change Dispatch”. Even though the temperature is rising, the evaporation rate is dropping. A “paradox” indeed.
https://climatechangedispatch.com/a-long-running-paradox-evaporation-is-declining-even-as-temperatures-rise/
“Decreased SO2 aerosol levels result in fewer moisture nucleation sites, resulting in reduced cloud formation, and increasing temperatures, which increases evaporation, resulting in increased moisture in the atmosphere,”
Which results in increased cloud formation..
No one will understand “climate change” until they can explain these cloud changes.
Good luck to those who think they can model real cloud cover and its dissipation.
On a 25 km grid, fully concur.
Jim – I think you need a bit more analysis to claim that ‘less OLR escaping to space should be detected’. Suppose that extra atmospheric CO2 captures 1 unit of OLR, but that this OLR returned to the surface then heats the surface so that it generates more than 1 extra unit of OLR. Satellites would then detect more OLR, even though the CO2 is capturing more. I’m not saying this happens, just that your analysis needs to address it.
Sounds like you are describing a perpetual heating machine – ka..boom!
That extra 2W out to space over the 36 years is in spite of the extra CO2, which is also supposed to be causing, what, 2.7W/m2 iirc. Both around only 1% of the flux.
And don’t forget, the CO2 is supposed to causing near the Earth’s surface while assuming the Sun, that fusion explosion in the sky, is magically constant. If the flux coming in is constant, than the emission measured from space would still be the same, the temperature near the surface higher, and the temperature of higher elevations would be cooler, but everything in equilibrium.
If instead the emission to space, as measured by satellites above all the weather, has increased in spite of the extra CO2, that’s a good sign that everything else is not equal – the Sun has gotten hotter, or the cloud cover or other reflectives like SO2 has gone down – or apparently, all of the above.
Part of the issue is that people assume that reradiated IR from CO2 always gets all the way to earth. If CO2 is saturated that might be true. If CO2 is not saturated, then unexcited CO2 exists to absorb it before it gets back to the surface. That means it can’t heat the surface.
The other issue is that the use of averages just don’t work in a phenomena that is constantly changing. Why. The earth is a heat sink! It doesn’t immediately release all of the energy absorbed. The is why heat conducts into the soil during the time the sun is shining. It is then released at night. Except not all is released. That is where seasons come in. It is why there is a freeze line water pipes must be below . The ground releases more heat than is absorbed in a daily cycle during winter.
If this isn’t taken into account, it will look like CO2 can “trap” heat when doing averages. It makes the radiation diagrams a joke.
You bring up a good point – CO2 can be the demon molecule at high noon, but at night and in the winter the Earth will be cooling, shedding any built up heat.
And I leave in Canada, in a relatively warm part where the temps range from -20 to +36 — so I laugh when supposed experts and politicians say a few degrees of warming over a century, or the less than 2°C in my lifetime is some kind of existential threat to mankind! 3-5° would be great!
You bet it would be nice. I live in Kansas and the temps from Oklahoma (200 mi) would be nice.
delta-T in temp generates T^4 radiation. That’s a cooling impact, a negative feedback. It’s why the nighttime temp curve is a decaying exponential (or more likely a higher-order polynomial due to the T^4). More radiation at sunset than at sunrise.
Back radiation doesn’t “trap” heat via the radiation. What happens is that “back radiation” is re-absorbed by water vapor and other GHG’s (including CO2) which is then thermalized via collisions to the rest of the atmosphere. As Richard M pointed, after thermalization other processes take over to spread that heat around and flush it out to space.
“As Richard M pointed, after thermalization other processes take over to spread that heat around and flush it out to space.”
Processes we are a long way from understanding.
Mike, Please explain the physics to support your idea “Suppose that extra atmospheric CO2 captures 1 unit of OLR, but that this OLR returned to the surface then heats the surface so that it generates more than 1 extra unit of OLR. ” How does 1 W/m2 produce 1+ W/m2. Where does the extra energy come from?
it’s very simple
scientists notice the extra 1W
they immediately hold a climate conference
the climate conference then generates another 1W
finally, the extra 1W is transmitted to satellites
“How does 1 W/m2 produce 1+ W/m2. Where does the extra energy come from?”
I was wondering about that myself.
Mike,
Thermodynamics – can not create energy out of nothing.
First, the 1 unit returned to the surface does not generate 1 unit OLR. The increase in OLR from 1 unit returned to the surface is too small for our current technology to detect.
How does that “extra” OLR return to the surface? Energy absorbed by CO2 is converted into atmospheric kinetic energy. Atmospheric energy flux is upward through all forms of energy transfer (conduction, convection, radiation).
Now, if you limit the discussion to the first few meters of the atmosphere, then there is some energy returned to the surface through both radiation and conduction. As a result you will see some increased evaporation since H2O covers about 80% of the surface. That evaporation removes the energy from both the atmosphere and the surface. It is now latent heat.
Your extra OLR removed energy from the surface, it did not warm it.
‘Satellites have also measured a decrease in global cloud cover by over 7%. That allows greater solar heating.’
Is there any way to convert this to a change in the Earth’s albedo? Asking because a change in albedo implies a change in absorbed solar radiation (ASR), which if equal (and opposite) to the change in OLR, would imply that CO2 isn’t a factor here.
“would imply that CO2 isn’t a factor here.”
Late Twentieth-Century Warming and Variations in Cloud Cover
John McLean
“The reduction in total cloud cover of 6.8% means that 5.4 Wm−2 (6.8% of 79) is no longer being reflected but acts instead as an extra forcing into the atmosphere”
“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.”
https://file.scirp.org/Html/22-4700327_50837.htm
Bam… Mic drop!
Mainly BS due to insufficient data
The change in the percentage of cloud cover is not enough information to determine the heating effect of less cloud cover.
You need to know the following
You would need a global average of heat blocked during the day and a global average of cooling impeded day and night
A smaller percentage of cloudiness PROBABLY causes some amount of global warming, but there is no way to know how much
Fewer clouds do not cause warming at night, which is the primary symptom of greenhouse warming since 1975.
or you could just check the outgoing radiation budget
and it turns out that yes, the clouds dominate
https://judithcurry.com/2021/10/10/radiative-energy-flux-variations-from-2000-2020/
Fewer clouds during the day is responsible for most of the increase in OHC.
Depends on which albedo one cares to address.
Bond albedos – total radiation reflected from an object compared to the total incident radiation from the Sun.
Geometric albedos – the amount of radiation relative to that from a flat Lambertian surface which is an ideal reflector at all wavelengths.
Generally discussions address bond albedos, which is complicated due to the earth being a sphere.
“If the climate crisis narrative is true, more CO2 would trap more OLR, so less OLR escaping to space should be detected.”
That isn’t AGW theory. In the long term, OLR should balance absorbed SW, and so be more or less constant. The AGW proposition is that the increased resistance to LW means surface temperature has to rise to keep OLR constant.
And that is what the science really says is happening. From this paper written by top people in the field, comes this graph, showing that OLR has been virtually constant, apart from a 2016 ENSO blip:
The bars mark years, black is CERES, purple is AIRS.
Nick – your chart is in W/m2/yr, ie. rate of change of OLR. Do you have a chart of OLR?
Yes. But it includes seasonal variation, so the resolution is poorer Here it is (same paper)
Thanks, Nick, but as you say, the resolution is poorer. That scale isn’t going to show anything. So it’s not going to distinguish between CO2 doing what you say and doing next to nothing. Pity.
But Mike, CO2 shouldn’t affect OLR. Nothing should. IT is constrained by incoming SW. The only small deviation is when the ocean is absorbing (or releasing) heat.
meanwhile
ROFLMAO..
That’s because there was no atmospheric warming from 2001 – 2016 (up to the El Nino)
Even though your junk graph has no horizontal axis, that little spike at the end is the start of the El Nino
Good try… but a complete FAIL. !!
Yoyr graphs are nothing like Jim’s.
I like how Mr. Stokes believes things that aren’t true. I want to expand on the idea presented by the character, Professor Thermos, on page 103 of “Taken By Storm” written by Essex and McKitrick. Say you have a list of phone numbers of all the physicists in the US. Then you average those phone numbers. The first problem is that the act of averaging disassociates the relationship of a physicist to a particular number. The second problem is that the average phone number may not be a valid number in the phone system. But let’s say the number is valid. Then if you call it, will a physicist or an average physicist answer it? The idea of an average physicist is simply stupid. The same is true of an average temperature.
And you have to average temperatures to do the silly anomaly nonsense. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Second half of the graph is CERES vs UAH.
There is no divergence from rising CO2 blocking OLR.
Another FAIL to Nick !!
Post says:”The AGW proposition is that the increased resistance to LW means surface temperature has to rise to keep OLR constant.”
How much does it have to rise to overcome the increased mass of atmosphere of about 35 giga tonnes per year?
congrats Nick, you’ve just proven clouds dominate
if the total radiation budget was unchanged we would expect no change in temperature (1L)
AGW argues the temperature must rise (irrespective of the SW budget) due to increased LW trapping (the CO2 control knob must dominate)
for that claim to hold, we would need to see steadily increasing temperatures despite flat or declining SW
what actually happened was we got steadily increasing SW due to clouds
meaning if absorbed SW had fallen, the planet would have to cool instead (since as you point out, OLR must remain constant)
i.e. clouds dominate global temperature, not GHGs
GHGs had at most a small effect on outgoing LW, certainly ECS < 1
https://judithcurry.com/2021/10/10/radiative-energy-flux-variations-from-2000-2020/
That graph is a rate of change, moron.
According to Popular Mechanics, the clouds must be brighter.
Too bad the scientists aren’t brighter…
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a60475104/marine-cloud-brightening-cloud-engineering/
Jim, nice post but not persuasive.
Well Rud, please explain your thinking.
At least 15 peer reviewed papers have documented the reduction in clouds during the modern warm period. All show that the increase in solar energy reaching the surface was more than the human forcing during the period invalidating the IPCC’s position that AGW dominated.
An additional line of evidence is that all sky downwelling long wave IR has declined for most of the modern warm period. Some negative feedback is preventing the clear sky increase of DWLWIR in CO2’s signature 15 micron band from producing an enhanced greenhouse effect.
Just two of the multiple lines of evidence proving climate alarm to be absurd nonsense.
“An additional line of evidence is that all sky downwelling long wave IR has declined for most of the modern warm period.”
Abstract………………….. Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. The time series of this forcing at the two locations—the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska—are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra3 together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations4. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m−2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m−2 per decade and ±0.07 W m−2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W m−2. This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation5,6,7. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240
“Plain Language Summary:
Using ERA-Interim analyzed fields, we show how downward longwave radiation has changed at the Earth’s surface from 1984 to 2017. The longwave radiation changes primarily occurred as a consequence of air temperature and water vapor changes. Air temperatures and water vapor amounts increased over most locations. The CO2 increase alone contributed to about 10% of the change in downward longwave radiation that occurred over the last 34 years. This ∼10% change in CO2 was associated with rises in water vapor and atmospheric temperatures that in turn dominated the remaining ∼90% of the change in downward longwave radiation at the surface. Compared to CO2 , we find that the other greenhouse gases (methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons) did not contribute significantly to surface warming from 1984 to 2017. Finally, we show that the greenhouse gases contributed to greater amounts of downward longwave radiation over high latitudes due to lower water vapor amounts
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2021GL093961
Feldman started at the very base of an La Nina, and finished at the very top of an EL Nino transient.
Not only that, but he used super-cooled sensors thus creating a negative temperature gradient which did not exist in reality… forcing the net radiation flux to change direction…
Scientifically… NOT science. !
This isn’t Feldman:
Drivers of Global Clear Sky Surface Downwelling Longwave Irradiance Trends From 1984 to 2017 J. P. Clark1 , E. E. Clothiaux1 , S. B. Feldstein1 , and S. Lee1
Abstract Radiation changes at the Earth’s surface alter climate, however, the causes of observed surface radiation changes are not precisely quantified globally. With complete global coverage by ERA Interim, the drivers of the clear sky surface downwelling longwave irradiance (SDLI) trends from 1984 to 2017 are quantifiable everywhere. Trends in atmospheric temperature and water vapor contributed significantly (∼90%) to clear sky SDLI trends, including trends consistent with Arctic warming and Southern Ocean cooling. CO2 contributed ∼10% and other greenhouse gases (CH4 , N2 O, CFC-11, and CFC-12) ∼1% to the SDLI trends. These observation-based results are consistent with early CO2 -doubling climate model calculations wherein temperature and water vapor changes drove ∼90% of the SDLI change. The well-mixed greenhouse gases drive location-dependent SDLI trends that are strongest over regions with climatologically high temperatures and low water vapor amounts.
From your graph, RSS shows a dip in atmospheric temps in the period of 2007 -2009.
By your logic this should have shown a dip in forcing.
From Feldman:
Nope
Not only that, but most of the mythical “forcing” was derived from models.
This is the abstract from the Nature paper by Feldman et al that you above show just a (misleading) part of ….
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
The climatic impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is usually quantified in terms of radiative forcing1, calculated as the difference between estimates of the Earth’s radiation field from pre-industrial and present-day concentrations of these gases. Radiative transfer models calculate that the increase in CO2 since 1750 corresponds to a global annual-mean radiative forcing at the tropopause of 1.82 ± 0.19 W m−2 (ref. 2). However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2. Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. The time series of this forcing at the two locations—the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska—are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra3 together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations4. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m−2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m−2 per decade and ±0.07 W m−2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W m−2. This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation5,6,7. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.
Assuming that Feldman’s models are spot on what is responsible for the other 90% of DWLR and how does the DWLR energy from a colder atmosphere translate to warming the surface without violating the 2nd law.
From my above quote from
Drivers of Global Clear Sky Surface Downwelling Longwave Irradiance Trends From 1984 to 2017 J. P. Clark1 , E. E. Clothiaux1 , S. B. Feldstein1 , and S. Lee1
“Trends in atmospheric temperature and water vapor contributed significantly (∼90%) to clear sky SDLI trends, including trends consistent with Arctic warming and Southern Ocean cooling. CO2 contributed ∼10% and other greenhouse gases (CH4 , N2 O, CFC-11, and CFC-12) ∼1% to the SDLI trends.”
The GHE Doesn’t work like that. It works via LWIR finally escaping to space from a higher altitude (at the level of the 255K isotherm – which corresponds to the ASR absorbed by the Earth from the Sun). That level rises as CO2 increases in the atmosphere to emit at progressively lower temps …. And hence more weakly.
Banton only tells half the story saying “The GHE Doesn’t work like that. It works via LWIR finally escaping to space from a higher altitude”.
First, between 15 and 20% of LWIR escapes to space via the atmospheric window at rates driven by the earth’s surface temperature.
Second LWIR emitted from water vapor condensation radiates at rates driven by whatever altitude the water vapor condenses.
Finally, assuming the theory is correct that LWIR is emitted at higher altitudes as the earth warms, that is counteracted because the air also becomes less dense with altitude allowing more LWIR to escape unimpeded. Remember Mars with 95% CO2 has no greenhouse warming effects because its atmosphere is very thin, about the same density of most of our stratosphere.
Ok, i get it. It’s the poles, right? But if the theory is right both the Arctic and Antarctic should be significantly warming due to Co2 which isnt true and if it was the Arctic should def already be ice free as proposed from the 1980s onwards.And it completely ignores the energy transference from the equator to the poles which is the general way the Earth’s system regulates temperature. Plus, the sun doesnt get to the poles in winter so we’re talking summer ice. Plus, the temperature of the ice and at the surface is very low, well below zero. It takes a very high level of energy/ heat to actually melt the ice if that is the concern (as witnessed in winter at lower latitudes where it takes a long time to thaw thick sheets of ice). Plus, the amount of Co2 molecules is small, very small and the absense of water vapour as amplifier is non existent. And of course, the models as usual ignore all that stuff or take it out of proportion/ context because they focus on the role of increasing levels of Co2 which a priori is considered paramount. Aha, evidence!
Bullshit, these tiny numbers cannot be resolved from real data.
Yep, that too… all comes from the models he was forced to use to find anything.
Right, two places on Earth represent Earth’s entire atmosphere. Never mind your phony study ignored all sky DWLWIR which my comment was about.
apparently now they solve that dilemma by claiming GHGs also control the clouds
since there’s no plausible physical mechanism for any such effect they just call it a “SW feedback” and censor anyone who complains too much
Abstract
[1] Global climate models used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) are examined for the top-of-atmosphere radiation changes as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases build up from 1950 to 2100. There is an increase in net radiation absorbed, but not in ways commonly assumed. While there is a large increase in the greenhouse effect from increasing greenhouse gases and water vapor (as a feedback), this is offset to a large degree by a decreasing greenhouse effect from reducing cloud cover and increasing radiative emissions from higher temperatures. Instead the main warming from an energy budget standpoint comes from increases in absorbed solar radiation that stem directly from the decreasing cloud amounts. These findings underscore the need to ascertain the credibility of the model changes, especially insofar as changes in clouds are concerned.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009GL037527
Abstract:
In response to increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2, high- end general circulation models (GCMs) simulate an accumulation of energy at the top of the atmosphere not through a reduction in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR)—as one might expect from greenhouse gas forcing—but through an enhancement of net absorbed solar radiation (ASR). A simple linear radiative feedback framework is used to explain this counterintuitive behavior. It is found that the timescale over which OLR returns to its initial value after a CO2 perturbation depends sensitively on the magnitude of shortwave (SW) feedbacks. If SW feedbacks are sufficiently posi- tive, OLR recovers within merely several decades, and any subse- quent global energy accumulation is because of enhanced ASR only. In the GCM mean, this OLR recovery timescale is only 20 y because of robust SW water vapor and surface albedo feedbacks. However, a large spread in the net SW feedback across models (because of clouds) produces a range of OLR responses; in those few models with a weak SW feedback, OLR takes centuries to recover, and energy accumulation is dominated by reduced OLR. Observational constraints of radiative feedbacks—from satellite radiation and surface temperature data—suggest an OLR recovery timescale of decades or less, consistent with the majority of GCMs. Altogether, these results suggest that, although greenhouse gas forcing predominantly acts to reduce OLR, the resulting global warming is likely caused by enhanced ASR.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1412190111
5 Chimps are as meaningless as 3 chimps or 6 chimps. !
None of them can model clouds except as a large area parameter.
They have multiple built-in anti-scientific assumptions.
They are nothing more than glorified computer games… probably a lot less. !
Only a very stupid, gullible person, or one that is paid to “believe”, would give the slightest credence to anything produced by climate models.
I’ve corrected that for you …
A denialist Chimp’s handwaving is meaningless.
None of of you can refute with peer-reviewed evidential science.
You have multiple built-in (ideologically bigoted) anti-scientific assumptions.
They are nothing more than confirmation bias that come from belonging an echo-chamber of fellow denialists… and probably including a good smattering of Dunning Kruger – (though in your case Mr Oxymoron), your behavior indicates that you are not yet old enough to have garnered much knowledge either way.
Only a very stupid, gullible person – one that believes rather than goes with the science, would give the slightest credence to anything you utter.
There – over to you for some Caps/Bolded Ad Hom
It’s what you do best Oxymoron.
This to go with the above graph …
Shortwave and longwave radiative contributions to global warming under increasing CO2 Aaron Donohoea,1, Kyle C. Armoura , Angeline G. Pendergrassb , and David S. Battistic
https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1412190111
In response to increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2, high end general circulation models (GCMs) simulate an accumulation of energy at the top of the atmosphere not through a reduction in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR)—as one might expect from greenhouse gas forcing—but through an enhancement of net absorbed solar radiation (ASR). A simple linear radiative feedback framework is used to explain this counterintuitive behavior. It is found that the timescale over which OLR returns to its initial value after a CO2 perturbation depends sensitively on the magnitude of shortwave (SW) feedbacks. If SW feedbacks are sufficiently positive, OLR recovers within merely several decades, and any subsequent global energy accumulation is because of enhanced ASR only. In the GCM mean, this OLR recovery timescale is only 20 y because of robust SW water vapor and surface albedo feedbacks. However, a large spread in the net SW feedback across models (because of clouds) produces a range of OLR responses; in those few models with a weak SW feedback, OLR takes centuries to recover, and energy accumulation is dominated by reduced OLR. Observational constraints of radiative feedbacks—from satellite radiation and surface temperature data—suggest an OLR recovery timescale of decades or less, consistent with the majority of GCMs. Altogether, these results suggest that, although greenhouse gas forcing predominantly acts to reduce OLR, the resulting global warming is likely caused by enhanced ASR.
In other words Mr Steele – Increased OLR is expected and is in fact a feature of increasing CO2.
Sorry Anthony but you misinterpret everything in both the PNAS article and my post! In fact the PNAS paper is agreeing exactly with what I have argued here stating “That observed increasing OLR either means heat is more easily escaping, or the earth is heating via another dynamic.”
PNAS agrees with me that if warming is due to increasing greenhouse gases OLR is reduced. They concluded “these results suggest that, although greenhouse gas forcing predominantly acts to reduce OLR, the resulting global warming is likely caused by enhanced ASR.”
Indeed pointed out one cause of ASR. My “another dynamic” was reduced cloud cover that enhances net absorbed solar radiation (ASR).
I have long argued that it is ASR of the oceans that is warming the world. such as in my video
Science of Solar Ponds Challenges the Climate Crisis
yes, their problem is the nonfactual “CO2 perturbation” framing in which the climate is otherwise a perfectly balanced unchanging system
this framing assumes anything that happened with clouds must be a feedback from the CO2 change
you have to give them credit, it takes real imagination to suppose your alarm clock is responsible for the rising of the sun
“Sorry Anthony but you misinterpret everything in both the PNAS article and my post!”
Seems an easy mistake to have made, and most posters here have – just that they are the usual echo crowd and you have no need to correct them.
This is written on the home page as an intro into your post ….
“If the climate crisis narrative is true, more CO2 would trap more OLR, so less OLR escaping to space should be detected.”
lol you’re arguing against measurements of clouds using models of GHGs
GHG effects are only dominant in cloudless areas
so CMIPs are a great simulation of a world without clouds, now we just need to find such a world
“GHG effects are only dominant in cloudless areas”
Mostly, yes.
However the greater ASR absorption is due to feedbacks which among others reduces clouds.
“lol you’re arguing against measurements of clouds using models of GHGs”
No, actually observations of DWLWIR.
Confirming that clouds must be decreasing to allow greater ASR.
The model is obviously required to verify that the observation is correct.
You know, just like anything else in science that’s to complicated to work out intuitively.
Lol.
Every plant absorbs some of the Sun’s energy through photosynthesis. I wonder how much energy per sq.m. is absorbed and is it taken into the account of OLR? The Earth has been greening for the last 40 years, so the energy absorbed must have become more and more.
Nice post. Would appreciate if you could specify two or three key references.
Peer reviewed science referred to in this tweet:
Decadal Changes of Earth’s Outgoing Longwave Radiation Dewitte & Clerbaux (2018)
Clouds independently appear to have as much or greater effect than man-made CO2 on radiative forcing Jonas (2022)
From: Climatic consequences of the process of saturation of radiation absorption in gases Kubicki et al 2024 “The phenomenon of saturation was already noted by Ångström (1900), who, based on experiments and analysis, challenged Svante Arrhenius’ hypothesis that continued use of fossil fuels would warm the planet (Arrhenius 1896). In 1972, Schack (1972), based on his considerations, demonstrated that for a concentration of 0.03% of carbon dioxide in the air, the absorption process in the troposphere is saturated.
Taking into account the saturation process, Dieter Schildknecht also proved in his work (Schildknecht 2020) that, contrary to the IPCC reports, the impact of anthropogenic CO2 increase on the Earth’s climate is very small.”
I don’t think Arrhenius was aware of what constituted the exact layers of the atmosphere and how a molecule of Co2 absorbs and emits energy at various altitude levels and the relation between Co2 and other molecules. Ergo, highly speculative assumptions..but useful f those in need of propping up the Co2 ‘forcing’ idea.
How does increased solar heating explain the fact that most of the post-1975 warming affected TMIN, in the colder months of the year, and in the colder N.H. nations, rather than TMAX, in the warmest months of the year, in the tropics?
How does solar heating explain all Arctic warming in the colder months when the is little sunlight?
How does solar heating explain long term stratosphere cooling?
There are no data to specify exactly how much less solar energy decreased clouds are blocking.
That is an assumption with insufficient data. Needed data include:
– Types of clouds- Height of clouds- Timing of clouds- Global annual average daytime solar energy blocked by clouds and global annual average upwelling radiation blocked by cloudsWhat we have is only the correlation of global warming and percentage cloud coverage.
But several manmade CO2 variables also correlate with global warming:
Increased CO2 emissions
Decreased SO2 emissions (same effect as decreased cloudiness)
Economic growth:
— Land use changes
— Increased UHI
Inaccurate GAT statistics
Knowing the effect of decreased cloudiness on the GAT requires knowing the effect of EVERY other climate change variable on the GAT. And that means we do NOT know the climate effect of decreased cloudiness. We can only guess it causes some amount of global warming
GAT = Global Average Temperature
The Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog
Richard Greene
President
Jim Steele Fan Club
Bingham Farms, Michigan
By the same logic, it also means we do NOT know the climate effect of increasing CO2.
We only know the lab spectroscopy effect of CO2
The so called water vapor positive feedback, which the IPCC claims causes much more warming than CO2 alone, is a mystery.
Because we do not have accurate GLOBAL annual average water vapor statistics to see exactly how much atmospheric water vapor is increasing as the GAT increases
CAGW predictions are data free climate astrology
Deleted by me
(Watts per meter squared, W/m2, a Watt is a measure of energy per second )
That is in error. W/m^2 is field strength. Watts are power. Energy is joules. 1 J = 1 W-sec.
Sparta come on! No error. 1 Watt = 1 Joule per second (1W = 1 J/s) . All you did is algebraically rearrange the equation to 1 J=1W-sec
Which is 1J = 1 J•sec/sec = 1 J
Dimensional analysis is fun!
Jim may know about landscapes and cycles, but he doesn’t know his physics very well.
“greenhouse gases and redirected back towards the earth”
No they aren’t.
“a Watt is a measure of energy per second”
No it isn’t. It is a measure of work per second. Work and energy are different beasts. Related, though, to be sure. And it is admittedly confusing that both are measured in Joules. (Don’t look at me like that! I didn’t come up with these units.)
“Climate crisis narratives are misinformation designed to manipulate the public with fear.”
This part is certainly true! Good job, Jim!
Sorry but a Watt = Joule / second. A Joule is a unit of work but the amount of work over time is a Watt.
A Joule is both a unit of work and a unit of energy. But these two concepts are not equivalent, as Jim Steele seems to think. Remember, energy is defined as “the potential to do work”. But work doesn’t just happen whenever you have energy. Therefore neither does power. So a Watt is not just “a unit of energy over time”.
Why are you playing word games??
The joule is the unit of energy in the International System of Units (SI). It is equal to the amount of work done when a force of one newton displaces a mass through a distance of one metre in the direction of that force.
The ignorant nonsense of many is atrocious. Energy has many units–all equivalent: calories, newton-meters, kilowatt-hours, BTUs, foot-pounds, ergs, dyne-centimeters, kilograms-meters squared/seconds squared, etc. All can be converted to joules. In fact, the definition of a joule is a newton-meter–as you stated.
They are not word games. Energy and work are not equivalent. Both are measured in Joules, but just because you have a joule of energy, doesn’t mean you automatically get a joule of work. Energy is “the potential to do work”, which is not the same as “actual work”.
Get off your high horse stevekj. No one has ever argued that “the potential to do work is the same as “actual work.” You are being very obnoxious! This article was first intended for the X crowd, and some who are not very scientific have asked before what is a Watt? The simple and correct answer is a watt is a measure of energy per second. No need for further elaboration. Only arrogant egotistical people who want to show off they know physics better than others, would ever make that statement an issue, never mind persisting to twist it like you are doing!
No, Jim, a Watt is not “a measure of energy per second”. Not even for the X crowd. Energy is defined as “the potential to do work”, and power is defined as the rate of work being done Trying to calculate the rate of “the potential to do work per second” is nonsense, both in physics and in plain English. No one is going to take you seriously if you can’t get your basic physics definitions correct.
Where did you see the definition that a Watt is a “measure of energy per second”? I’ve never seen that in any textbook. That answer is neither simple nor correct.
Worse than that, when you get the basic definitions wrong, you are unlikely to make any correct statements about thermodynamics at all – for example, you are likely to think that a colder atmosphere developing power via Joule heating onto a warmer surface is completely reasonable. (“redirected back towards the Earth”)
I applaud your attempt to write for a less-technical crowd; nothing wrong with that. But there is a lot wrong with writing misinformation for a less-technical crowd. Fortunately, those of us who know more about physics than you do are here to help. No, we are not arrogant and egotistical; just making sure you stick to the straight and narrow when it comes to false physics statements. That’s all.
Damn Stevejk you are a obnoxious egomaniac! I cant see anyone taking you seriously no matter how much you self promote with “those of us who know more about physics”!
Where ever you look everyone describes a Watt as joules/ second
Units of power
1 watt (W) = 1 J/sec
Start with APS The Amiercan Physical Society for advancing pHysics
https://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-reports/energy/units.cfm
But It is becoming clear you are likely one of those obsessed SkyDragons trying to negate the physics of observed back radiation , ” when you blather, “you are likely to think that a colder atmosphere developing power via Joule heating onto a warmer surface is completely reasonable. (“redirected back towards the Earth”)!
You are truly worse than the alarmists trying to twisst the physics to fit their failing theories. Thanks for revealing ypurself!
Oops my reply below was accidentally tagged to Jim Gorman, but it is mainly directed at you, Jim Steele.
Also there is no “physics of observed back radiation [power]“, that is complete fiction.
Also there is no “physics of observed back radiation [power]“, that is complete fiction.
Your assertion means two objects in space could never achieve thermodynamic equilibrium. You’ll have to show a reference for that.
Spoken like a true whacko SkyDragon!
You know, Jim, the only one acting egotistical and obnoxious around here is you… I am merely trying to politely teach you the physics you obviously failed to learn in high school. There is no shame in that, but there is a lot in calling people names when they try to rectify your ignorance. Perhaps a little humility on your part would go a long way?
https://metricsystem.net/derived-units/special-names/joule/
E = F \ s
A joule only occurs when energy exerts a force over a distance.
Jim Steele, I am not trying to be obnoxious, nor am I an egomaniac. I am merely pointing out your sloppy physics, which is at the root of much of the climate “science” baloney.
Jim Gorman (who is also neither obnoxious nor an egomaniac) has also helpfully tried to point out to you that a Joule of energy is not the same as a Joule of work. (“A joule [of work] only occurs when [a Joule of] energy exerts a force over a distance”) The Joule in the definition of a Watt is a Joule of work, not a Joule of energy.
Energy and work are not the same… please get this into your head…
First of all changes in the cloud cover are real and J. Vinos has an excellent article today at climate etc on the role of the sun in Holocene and the possible role of the sun on the cloud cover (in the comments there).
However, while this is true:
“””the lower atmosphere is now saturated with CO2.”””
“””Furthermore, greenhouse gases have a cooling effect in the upper atmosphere.”””
that
“”” Adding more CO2 will have little to no further warming effect. “””
does NOT follow from it!
In between the above mentioned atmospheric gas masses (low and high)
lies the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere at about 12km height.
When increasing the CO2 partial pressure in this area the the gas mixture “gains an additional emission pathway” leading to cooling of this part of the atmosphere and additional heating of ALL lower gases.
This is a measured effect!
Here is an older, but still valid introduction into stratospheric cooling and problems of it when used to pinpoint climate alarmism.
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/18/stratospheric-cooling/
They conclude:
“””However, stratospheric cooling while the surface and troposphere are warming does indicate that CO2 and other “greenhouse” gases are likely influencers “””
not a bad post, but you forgot to mention the more important shortwave budget, which is almost certainly the source of the heating (though you get partial credit for mentioning the clouds which mediate the effect)
“Satellite data proves the greenhouse effect is real.”
The “greenhouse effect” is caused by an enclosed space with a roof on it preventing heat loss by convection.
Planet Earth has no roof.
Many commercial greenhouses maintain internal CO2 air concentrations of around 1000ppm to promote plant growth.
There are no reports of them boiling or catching fire.
“But most scientists also believe the lower atmosphere is now saturated with CO2″:
Miscibility of CO2 with air is up to 100% CO2. We would be suffocating …
It’s the absorption of infrared light by CO2 that’s saturated.
Well, heat radiated back to the earth’s surface goes against the law of thermodynamics, ie from hot to cold, never the other way around. Maybe we should just keep the whole proposed earth’s ‘greenhouse effect’ as an unproven hypothesis. Or certainly not put any certainty on stated equations..
The GHE Doesn’t work like that. It works via LWIR finally escaping to space from a higher altitude (at the level of the 255K isotherm – which corresponds to the ASR absorbed by the Earth from the Sun). That level rises as CO2 increases in the atmosphere to emit at progressively lower temps …. And hence more weakly.
Again, Banton only tells half the story saying “The GHE Doesn’t work like that. It works via LWIR finally escaping to space from a higher altitude”.
First, between 15 and 20% of LWIR escapes to space via the atmospheric window at rates driven by the earth’s surface temperature.
Second LWIR emitted from water vapor condensation radiates at rates driven by whatever altitude the water vapor condenses.
Finally, assuming the theory is correct that LWIR is emitted at higher altitudes as the earth warms, that is counteracted because the air also becomes less dense with altitude allowing more LWIR to escape unimpeded. Remember Mars with 95% CO2 has no greenhouse warming effects because its atmosphere is very thin, about the same density of most of our stratosphere.
bally, you misinterpret the law. Indeed the NET transfer of heat alway goes from a warm to cold body. A cooler body will radiate some heat in all directions, and that radiation can add energy to a nearby warmer body. However the warmer body is also radiating more heat away some of which goes to the colder body. On balance the NET heat transport is from the warmer to the colder body. and the law of thermodynamics is confirmed because the NET flow of heat was from a warm to cold body! That’s why it is best to say radiation of IR from a cooler atmosphere is only slowing down the rate of cooling for the warmer body! It is not heating it.
Ok. Let’s assume i am stupid. Which other molecule is present at the altitude we are talking about ie not the Earth’s surface? If Co2 is saturated it cant absorb. If it is not ( at high altitude) it will. But a Co2 molecule has only one vibrational mode( slightly irrelevant but important to note and unlike H2o which has 3). There is also very little Co2 present at that altitude ( low density) and i think almost no H2o to transfer energy to. If it ‘traps’ energy ie absorbs it cant radiate much. And if it does there is nothing there to transfer to. But ok, let’s assume Co2 at that high altitude slows down the energy escape to space. So what? What does that have to do with the temperature near the Earth’s surface? All this assumes a very big role of Co2 not warranted by the quantity plus the absence of other molecules. Plus the general way the atmosphere regulates energy. And energy simply never gets ‘trapped’. It gets transfered. If it cant transfer to other molecules it gets lost. Maybe it gets lost (to space) slower ( as i understand it) but it simply cannot given the multiple other and far bigger factors have any significant effect let alone have a back radiation effect.And yes, the law of thermodynamics still applies if you talk about energy transference of molecules.Please tell me how that back (to Earth) radiation is supposed to work without transference? Maybe im missing something. A magic ingredient i am not aware of..?!
Bally your statement “let’s assume Co2 at that high altitude slows down the energy escape to space. So what? What does that have to do with the temperature near the Earth’s surface? ” is excellemt.
I never assumed you were stupid so there is no need for you to say “Let’s assume i am stupid”. However I do think AlanJ and Richard Greene are stupid.
I simply stated that you confused NET transfer of heat with transfer of heat.
I understand your correction now. And i really didnt want to wake AlanJ and hoped somebody else would chip in. I am trying to make sense of climate science from a basic physics point of view. I feel that many of the assumptions made by those who state a big influence of Co2 on temperature are based on a type of circular reasoning that hang together but falls apart w examination. Caveat: there will be things i am not aware of but i rarely get to see anything that might convince me there is something to it. Instead and because the general push towards this narrative and the almost complete adoption by most politicians and media is so strong i come to sites like these to witness the pushback by more knowledgeable people than myself. I have been educated in the last few years. And i am quite baffled by the lack of curiousity
by those around me.
“I feel that many of the assumptions made by those who state a big influence of Co2 on temperature are based on a type of circular reasoning that hang together but falls apart w examination.”
I think you have figured it out.
Alarmist climate science is made up of speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions.
Climate science is very complicated and does not lend itself to easy explanations, which is why it is not a big subject that is discussed at parties your average person attends.
Very nice Jim.
The narrative I remember was that warming causes more evaporation and that leads to an increase in clouds. Or has that shifted to an overall increase in global humidity? (a relative of global warming)
Ive read Jim’s article again. I still take issue with “it proves the GH effect is real”. I do not think it does that. And the Earth’s energy balance does no have to rely on it per se. As feedbacks are usually negative it might delay OLR (or it might speed it up) but it cannot cause positive feedback either in LR or SR. So i still need to know how this whole ‘back radiation’ is supposed to work. Ive never seen a clear statement indicating the mechanism. And no, trapped, kinetic energy does not cut it and neither does the energy balance argument. I think that is why people usually, and rightly imo focus on the Earth’s surface. That’s where most of the interaction of molecules happen. Anything high up in the atmosphere is clearly still in the hypothetical ‘sphere’. Certainly not anything ‘proven’..
bally, Here is what I mean by satellites prove the GH effect is real. When you compare a Planck curve showing the energy carried by a spectrum of wavelengths for a given temperature, it is seen by satellites that only some of the theoretical energy for specific wavelengths that should be detected is actually reaching space. That means the energy must escape via other wavelengths, and that “detour” slows the rate of cooling. It doesnt mean the energy is trapped. We can also measure downward LW radiation (back radiation) at wavelengths that can only have originated on earth, not the sun.