An article in the Daily Mail today piqued my interest. It trumpets empirical results which they say empirically confirm the theoretical CO2 greenhouse effect for the first time:
“Scientists have witnessed carbon dioxide trapping heat in the atmosphere above the United States, showing human-made climate change ‘in the wild’ for the first time.
A new study in the journal Nature demonstrates in real-time field measurements what scientists already knew from basic physics, lab tests, numerous simulations, temperature records and dozens of other climatic indicators.
They say it confirms the science of climate change and the amount of heat-trapping previously blamed on carbon dioxide.”
“These instruments, located at ARM research sites in Oklahoma and Alaska, measure thermal infrared energy that travels down through the atmosphere to the surface.
They can detect the unique spectral signature of infrared energy from CO2.
Other instruments at the two locations detect the unique signatures of phenomena that can also emit infrared energy, such as clouds and water vapor.
The result is two time-series from two very different locations. Each series spans from 2000 to the end of 2010, and includes 3300 measurements from Alaska and 8300 measurements from Oklahoma obtained on a near-daily basis.”
“Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade. This increase is about ten percent of the trend from all sources of infrared energy such as clouds and water vapor.”
Wow!. So so the amplification theory which says increasing CO2 will cause an increase in water vapour and raise temperatures must be true then, since that’s the only way greenhouse theorists can get increasing CO2 to do anything exciting. Lets take a look at state-wide temperature in Alaska, including the 2000-2011 period to empirically confirm this.
Oh. The temperature fell by around 4 degrees Centigrade during the 2000-2011 period! So maybe the trend from clouds and water vapour was a downward trend not an upward one? But if there was less longwave downward cloud radiative forcing, that would be because there was less cloud, which would mean there were more sunshine hours. That would have raised temperatures. On the other hand, if the reduced cloud were during winter, when the Sun is weak or absent, that would allow more outgoing longwave radiation to escape, causing surface cooling.
Either way, what the study shows, is that increasing CO2 has had very little effect on water vapour levels or near surface air temperature in Alaska, and is easily overcome by natural variability.
But then, CO2 is a ‘well mixed gas’ which spreads worldwide, and has been rising at a fairly steady rate for decades. So decadal periods when temperature went up or down can be cherry picked to support either argument. But what that reveals is that the whole ‘CO2 driven global warming’ period from 1975-2005 just happened to coincide with the positive phase of the ~60 year oceanic cycle. Until that oscillation is subtracted out from the longterm temperature trend, we shouldn’t trust any estimate of climate sensitivity.
Since there is an even longer term ~1000 yr oscillation evident in the proxy temperature record, running through the Minoan warm period, Halstatt disaster, Roman warm period, dark ages, Medieval warm period, little ice age and right up to the modern warm period, we should probably be wary of ascribing any upward temperature trend underlying the ~60 year oscillations to increases in trace gases in the atmosphere too.
Our simple solar system harmonic resonance model (yellow curve), which provides a potential explanation for these longer term oscillations, well reproduces changes in solar activity as reconstructed from the deposition of the 10Be solar proxy (blue curve), which itself seems to match this history of millennial up and downs in climatic conditions.
The CO2 driven climate theorists are completely unable to hindcast climatic change back thousands of years like this, so the challenge for them is to justify their certainty. MET Office scientist Richard Betts told me on twitter yesterday that they are only claiming that CO2 took over as the dominant climate forcing in recent decades. That sounds like special pleading for a failed theory to me.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
My current prediction is around 0.2-0.4 C for a doubling of CO2.
And we know that there must be net negative feedbacks during an inter-glacial because all the interglacials in the last two millions years have had very much the same temperatures. You don’t get this unless there is some mechanism that effectively puts a cap on further warming.
So, it’s complete tripe to suggest we are likely to have feedbacks giving us further warming in this interglacial. Yes, there must be feedbacks taking us from the glaical to inter-glacial, but these MUST disappear or other effects come in to give an overall negative feedback.
And just for fun – whilst we cannot (realistically) get much further warming WE CAN SEE CATASTROPHIC COOLING.
The constant upper level is shown nicely on this page:
http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2015/02/12/toward-a-new-theory-of-ice-ages-x-5million-years-of-cycles/
This is a summary of my complete analysis of the ice-age cycle
http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2015/02/15/toward-a-new-theory-of-ice-ages-xiv-putting-it-all-together/
Back in 2009 as far as I remember I was the only person who strongly asserted that the temperature signal could not be distinguished from noise and tried to explain this point with numerous diagrams.
It now appears that 5 years later I’m going to be vindicated. Because this paper seems to be very strong proof that feedbacks do not exist and that the 20th century warming was the run of the mill normal natural variation we see through the Central England Temperature Record.
YEAH!!!
Oh, this is fun reading.
‘We see, for the first time in the field, the amplification of the greenhouse effect because there’s more CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb what the Earth emits in response to incoming solar radiation,’ said Daniel Feldman, a scientist in Berkeley Lab’s Earth Sciences Division and lead author of the Nature paper.
So, the ‘amplification of the greenhouse effect’, according to Feldman, consists of ‘more CO2’. There was me thinking that it was positive feedbacks from the much more powerful greenhouse gas, water vapour. Wrong,it would seem. In fact Feldman is at pains to point out that it is sceptics who are wrongly convinced that water vapour, clouds and variable solar radiation bare responsible for temperature changes – it’s all CO2:
“Scientists say carbon dioxide from the burning of coal, oil and gas is the chief cause of global warming.
In doing so, the data show clouds, water vapor or changes in sun’s radiation are not responsible for warming the air, as some who doubt mainstream climate science claim, Feldman said.”
It’s them pesky sceptics who have claimed water vapour is predominantly forcing surface temperature rises, not ‘climate scientists’. Oh yes,of course, I stand corrected, the CMIP5 model ensembles are based only upon CO2 direct radiative forcing and the potency and reality of this effect is confirmed by this study [?!]
‘The data say what the data say,’ Feldman said.
‘They are very clear that the rising carbon dioxide is actually contributing to an increased greenhouse effect at those sites.’
Indeed. Now can we have some real scientific evidence of the true amplified greenhouse effect please. As far as I can see, this waste of space study is just a glorified re-enactment of age old lab experiments which demonstrate the (weak) IR radiative capacity of CO2.
There has been quite a bit of comment about this at the lukewarmer site WUWT. Many alarmists and lukewarmers alike are clutching at this wet and drooping straw, desperately hoping it confirms AGW or CAGW.
Of course it does not.
All the study shows is a new way to isolate the spectrum of radiative gases in our atmosphere, which is being primarily being heated by surface conduction and release of latent heat of evaporation and cooled by radiative gases emitting LWIR to space.
AGW remains a critically flawed hypothesis.
The net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere is still cooling of our solar heated oceans. Average surface temp of our oceans would be around 335K were it not for cooling by our radiatively cooled atmosphere.
Jaime: Excellent incisive analysis of this deceitful nonsense Feldman is spouting. The change in the use of the ‘amplification’ claim is particularly egregious, since as you say, the whole ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’ has hitherto rested on the idea that more co2 would lead to more water vapour and more warming in a positive feedback loop.
NOT. HAPPENING.
Scottish Sceptic: I still haven’t found time to read your articles on the ice age cycle, sorry about that. Too busy with my other hat on until May, and maybe long after too. But I agree about the ‘cap’ and suspect it’s to do with radiation to space from open waters in the Arctic. But I disagree about some of the other aspects of your ideas I took a quick glance at. I think the energy to lift us from glacial to interglacial ina big whoosh comes from warmer water stored under the Arctic floating icecap during the glacial period until summer insolation reaches a breakthrough and lets it out.
Reblogged this on Catholic Glasses.
Interesting in the context that the lowest figure yet by NASA is 0.5 Wm-2. So CO2 accounts for only 40% of what Ceres and Argos can measure as the net radiative balance.
Well no surprise there because the uncertainty in the net warming is something like 17 Wm-2
References here:
https://geoscienceenvironment.wordpress.com/2014/09/04/the-emperors-of-climate-alarmism-wear-no-clothes/
I am still waiting for some other physicist to explain to me how CO2 traps heat.
tallbloke says: “I think the energy to lift us from glacial to interglacial ina big whoosh comes from warmer water stored under the Arctic floating icecap during the glacial period until summer insolation reaches a breakthrough and lets it out.”
The five things we know about coming out of the glacial period is that
1.the change is absolutely massive,
2. it’s triggered by Milankovitch cycles,
3. there’s at best a week relationship with CO2 (uncorrelated at the “Haseler Gap“)
4. The climate turns from dry to wet
5. and the warming stops dead so there’s some massive negative feedback comes into play in the inter-glacial.
The warming is so massive, that there’s plenty of room there for several different mechanisms. One thing that is certain is that we must see crustal expansion. Not only is this what the physics of warming require, but we see the correlation in the mid-ocean crust formation.
This is a very good candidate BECAUSE IT HAS THE RIGHT TIME CHARACTERISTICS to create the cycle. Nothing else I can see can give us this 40k and 100k cycle length. So, somehow this caterpillar movement of the plates has to be tied up somehow. Otherwise you cannot explain the irregular cycle length, the huge length of time and the way it is triggered.
Rog. Thanks. It looks like we are in for a new round of climate disinformation with this latest study:
“The results agree with theoretical predictions of the greenhouse effect due to human activity. The research also provides further confirmation that the calculations used in today’s climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2.”
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=308997757
Seriously?
Just to add to last. The constant temperature “halt” of the interglacial strongly suggests some kind of absolute temperature threshold is present that brings in the massive negative feedbacks. That is consistent with an effect involving ice.
However, the lowest temperature in the glacial cycle has been steadily declining for around 3-5million years. That is hard to fit in with any ice-triggered effect which is very likely to only be effective within a small range of temperatures. So, ice seems an unlikely candidate for being involved in the initial triggering of the glacial->inter-glacial change. However, it might come into effect after warming is already triggered and further add to the speed of melt.
Phil: Isn’t it supposed to absorb LW photons get excited, then bump into N2 and O2 molecules, transferring kinetic energy to them?
So what tiny amount of CO2 there is just jiggles along with the other molecules in the lower atmosphere, while radiating a minuscule amount of IR (mostly back to space) in the upper atmosphere. Ho hummm…
…So can anyone from the political classes, or better yet, the jet-setting elitist apparatchiks (aka World Bankers, DAVOSees, IMF, or the UN top management astrologers and seers) explain why there is all this demonizing of fossil fuels?
If it ain’t CO2 then get on with oil, gas, fracking, and coal, NOW!
And ditch the windmills and solar waste of money.
Berkeley Lab press release here.
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
Can’t wait to see how the Guardian runs this.
ScotSceptic: Somebody modelled the temperature of arctic water under the glacial icecap during the glacial period. Because it can’t cool to space via open water, this water circulating up from the equator stores a lot of energy. Once high latitude Sun break through, that can be released, more vapour in the atmosphere, causing more melting, and, positive feedback … Whoosh, up goes the temperature. May not be the only mechanism, but could help explain non-linearity of response to Milankovitch cycles.
Tallbloke – that sounds a credible additional feedback, but the lowest temperature of glacial cycle has steadily been getting lower. So whatever triggers isn’t sensitive to an absolute temperature. Instead it is triggered by a small amount of relative warming – after a massive delay. I’m not excluding other mechanisms or hiding that crustal expansion has problems, but there are a specific set of factors relating to the “triggering” event that so far I can only account for them all using crustal expansion.
What you are suggesting is something that would start at a particular absolute temperature. So, we would need to see warming triggered by something that is sensitive to a relative change and then as warming gets to the absolute temperature that seems necessary for your proposed effect, this would add to the warming.
‘Steadily getting lower’ worries me. Sounds more likely to be an artifact of ice pressure on proxy interpretation than a real steady trend. I could be wrong, but when it conmes to interpreting proxy data, so could a lot of other people.
Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
I agree CO2 is not driving climate except mother nature!
Very interesting! Seems this proves Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi’s theory is correct! C02 is not increasing energy to the system to change anything.
” According to my research, increases in CO2 levels have not increased the global-average absorbing power of the atmosphere. ”
” Our atmosphere, with its infinite degree of freedom, is able to maintain its global average infrared absorption at an optimal level. In technical terms, this “greenhouse constant” is the total infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere, and its theoretical value is 1.87. Despite the 30 per cent increase of CO2 in the last 61 years, this value has not changed. The atmosphere is not increasing its absorption power as was predicted by the IPCC. ”
“I collected a large number of radiosonde observations from around the globe and computed the global average infrared absorption. I performed these computations using observations from two large, publicly available datasets known as the TIGR2 and NOAA. The computations involved the processing of 300 radiosonde observations, using a state-of-the-art, line-by-line radiative transfer code. In both datasets, the global average infrared optical thickness turned out to be 1.87, agreeing with theoretical expectations.”
Remember, Dr Miskolczi did not use models, he used empirical data! That’s an important difference.
I thought using his own words as an astrophysicist was better than mine as a first year astronomy student.
Also, if C02 was able to increase the surface radiative thermal equilibrium, would that not be a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics? How could a temperature increase its own temp?
Comment left at ATTP’s site:
tallbloke says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 26, 2015 at 3:08 pm
Seems to me that one of the main problems is that while some Co2 driven climate protagonists now admit that the descending phase of the AMO/PDO is responsible for the underperformance of the projected 0.2C/decade over the last decade, no-one on the warm side is willing to admit the ascending phase of the AMO/PDO from 1975-2005 was responsible for most of the 0.2C/decade which did occur. If they did, they’d be forced to revise the holy grail of the 3C/doubling sensitivity estimate, and they’d rather crawl across broken glass to stick red hot needles in their eyes than do that.
@roger
That will rip some hair out today over at ATTP
My prediction is CO2 has no effect on the climate, and it is in response to the climate(oceans) and the environment( forestation/ biological activity ).
CO2 is governed by climate/environment, not the other way around.
In addition of the total GHG effect ,humans have contributed 0.28% to it ,meaningless.
Linnea: Ferenc Miskolczi’s empirical data is balloon datasets. Some say the early high reading aren’t credible because they flatten the trend. I think they are credible because solar activity was very high in the late 1950’s during cycle 19.
Re thermodynamics. You have to be careful. We are not talking about a closed system with a finite quantity of energy in it. We are talking about an open system with energy flowing through it. If you impede the throughput of energy, parts of the system will get hotter.
“Scientists say carbon dioxide from the burning of coal, oil and gas is the chief cause of global warming.”
Is it faintly possible that heat from the burning of coal, oil and gas is the chief cause of global warming? After all, subjecting a thermometer to sufficient heat causes a rise in temperature. Subjecting a thermometer to sufficient CO2 causes precisely nothing at all.
Are these people all barking mad? Or is this just paranormal physics at work?
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
If you look at the data Rog sent, one can see the abrupt temperature drop some 2750 years ago corresponds to the Homeric Prolonged Solar Minimum, and the Dark Ages cold period around 700 AD ,corresponds to the Roman 4 Prolonged Solar Minimum which reached it’s height around 680 AD.
The above graph is an excellent representation of CO2 concentrations showing no relationship to the climate.
Rog, in the data that the study presents the Annual Average Radiative forcing actually goes down in 2 of the ten years while the CO2 continues to rise.
The average radiative forcings go down in 2002 from 0.033586957 in 2001 to 0.026244275 a drop of 0.007342682.
It also dropped in 2009 from 0.220432314 in 2008 to 0.213569405 a drop of 0.006862909.
2003 jumps up by 0.051278248 to compensate for 2002, but it brings in to question their accuracy and theory when 20% of the results do not fit.
Almost everybody at WUWT is questioning the length of the study and it’s start and finish dates.
They must have another 4 years of data, so why haven’t they presented it?
Perhaps it blows their theory out of the water?
Salvatore, re. your graph of CO2, particularly the far right side. Atmospheric CO2 is not very well represented by ice cores – the resolution is not sufficient to capture the more rapid fluctuations which have occurred in the past in line with rapid fluctuations in temperature – particularly during the interstadials which preceded the Holocene. It is quite likely that CO2 does correlate fairly closely with rises in global temperature – whether CO2 drives temperature or follows it or there is some subtle combination of the two is obviously still open to debate. Birch tree stomatal proxies over the Younger Dryas and Allerod periods reveal a much more defined series of sharp ups and downs in atmospheric CO2 which are not captured by the ice core record. During the Last Glacial Termination, the study below shows CO2 levels varied quite dramatically, demonstrating a link between rapid climate change and atmospheric CO2 (and not a factory or highway full of gas-guzzling 4x4s in sight – though admittedly quite a few caveman campfires on the go!).
http://www.academia.edu/2949675/Stomatal_proxy_record_of_CO2_concentrations_from_the_last_termination_suggests_an_important_role_for_CO2_at_climate_change_transitions
Jamie is it clear enough now?
CO2 current warming –no connection. Read below.
Climate alarmists contend that the degree of global warmth over the latter part of the 20th century, and continuing to the present day, was greater than it was at any other time over the past one to two millennia, because this contention helps support their claim that what they call the “unprecedented” temperatures of the past few decades were CO2-induced. Hence, they cannot stomach the thought that the Medieval Warm Period of a thousand years ago could have been just as warm as, or even warmer than, it has been recently, especially since there was so much less CO2 in the air a thousand years ago than there is now. Likewise, they are equally loath to admit that temperatures of the Roman Warm Period of two thousand years ago may also have rivaled, or exceeded, those of the recent past, since atmospheric CO2 concentrations at that time were also much lower than they are today. As a result, climate alarmists rarely even mention the Roman Warm Period, as they are happy to let sleeping dogs lie.
More data and Jamie why do you deny it?
To summarise, changes in ice-sheet albedo, meltwater flux and greenhouse gases will all have acted to make the late Holocene warm relative to the early Holocene.
From the Holocene conundrum.
My reply- yet the data shows the opposite . I say Milankovitch Cycles/ Solar Variability superimposed upon Milankovitch Cycles fits in nicely with what the data. The data shows CO2 has nothing to do with anything. CO2 being a mere response to climate, environmental and biological conditions.
Then again it is only data which AGW enthusiast are in denial of.
ACO: Good point. Temperature went up on average from 2000 to 2010 globally if not in Alaska. If they stopped gathering data in 2011, why the 3yr delay in publication?
I disagree with the main points the article Jamie Jessop sent. Looks like an article embracing AGW.
Change the data if it does not conform etc.
Margret Steinthorsdotter , one of the authors of the paper Jamie sent is on a crusade to show CO2 causes the temperature to change.
In a word – WRONG!
records. These results not only strengthen the evidence of high-CO
induced global warming .
An excerpt (the above ) from yet another paper this person (Margret Steinthorsdotter) has done.
The moral is watch what you read and who it is by if you want to obtain the truth and not get taken in by the scam of AGW.
I had to let it all hang out, because I am so sick and tired of these people trying to keep this nonsense alive (AGW ) and resorting to any tactics possible to achieve this.
What next? The Witch Hunt, I had forgot about that.
I haven’t seen anyone mention it on here, but a few have over at WUWT.
The previous study from the same Equipment at the same location showed that there was a general REDUCTION in DWIR.
see this post as an example
Richard M
February 25, 2015 at 5:21 pm
Probably because all the data doesn’t show the intended correlation. Here’s a previous paper by one of the same authors. Note the period is 1997-2011. It appears they cherry picked a subset to get the result they wanted.
Long-Term Trends in Downwelling Spectral Infrared Radiance over the U.S. Southern Great Plains
P. Jonathan Gero
“The AERI data record demonstrates that the downwelling infrared radiance is decreasing over this 14-yr period in the winter, summer, and autumn seasons but it is increasing in the spring”
and this one
Richard M
February 25, 2015 at 5:41 pm
Although I linked to this paper elsewhere I think it is critical. The full data appears to be from 1997-2011. Why did they cherry pick 2000-2010?
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2011JCLI4210.1?journalCode=clim
ACO: The overall DWIR is down in Alaska because the temperature has dropped 4C over the period! Less OLR to clouds, less DWIR back again. But this is overall DWIR, not CO2 specific DWIR as this study claims to be showing.
@roger
“thermodynamics. You have to be careful. We are not talking about a closed system with a finite quantity of energy in it. We are talking about an open system with energy flowing through it. If you impede the throughput of energy, parts of the system will get hotter.”
To me, this is where it becomes so complex. Once you have an open system with so many aspects of energy effecting temperature, it’s so hard to attempt to tie down just where C02 effects temps, if at all. Seems, regardless of the amount of energy in the system, the earth will regulate that excess energy which keeps a relative stable climate or equilibrium.
@Salvatore
You might have seen this study which seems to prove your point in regards to the warming of the Middle Ages
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11434-014-0317-3
Thanks, I will look at it.
Salvatore, I wasn’t questioning the proxy temperature data; just the CO2 proxy data from the ice cores, merely pointing out that the relatively novel method involving stomatal proxies gives a much better temporal resolution of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
As far as I’m concerned, the paper as a whole is rather more useful from the sceptic point of view because it demonstrates that atmospheric CO2 today is not ‘unprecedented’ in recent geological history, as claimed by the warmists. The three Hail Marys to the CAGW religion near the end of the paper is not very significant IMO and may be, as is so often the case, an obligatory nod to mainstream climate science to ensure an easy route through peer review.
Whatever the case, I do think that atmospheric CO2 concentration is fairly closely related to global temperature, though it is definitely not a main driver of global temperature.
While they continue to play games with back radiation, they continue to IGNORE the fact that heat is leaving the system as fast as it is coming in, if not faster. THAT is the true measure of the efficacy of GHGs.
tallbloke says: February 26, 2015 at 3:22 pm
“Re thermodynamics. You have to be careful. We are not talking about a closed system with a finite quantity of energy in it. We are talking about an open system with energy flowing through it. If you impede the throughput of energy, parts of the system will get hotter.”
Where is any evidence that the atmosphere is impeding the power radiated to space? As Miskolczi shows, the entire atmosphere radiates to space and does so more effectively than the surface can
possibly do!
Jamie ,I was not reacting to you because we generally agree , but that paper made me upset because of the way it tried to spin things.
Jamie take a look.
Will: I was talking in general terms. So far as i understand it, the ocean impedes the throughput of energy far more than the atmosphere does, although the atmosphere plays a part in that by exerting pressure on the ocean surface. So the Sun warms the ocean by sending its rays into it as far as 100m, heating it in 3D. But the ocean can only cool from its 2D surface area, into an atmosphere which insulates it to an extent, and limits its rate of evaporation. So the ocean impedes he throughput of energy and warms. The Atmospheric so-called GHG’s primary job is to get rid of that built up heat to space, which as you say, they do very efficiently.
Salvatore
This came as a bit of a surprise to me
VUK- could you elaborate? thanks
Salvatore. Yes, I’ve seen that graph. When I say that I “think that atmospheric CO2 concentration is fairly closely related to global temperature” what I mean is, over certain timescales, it does appear to be. For instance, over hundreds of thousands of years.
The relationship appears not to told over aeons/geological eras as demonstrated by your graph. It also appears not to be too good over shorter (millennial/centennial/decadal) scales, but this could be due to the fact that the resolution of CO2 proxies does not match the high resolution ice core temperature records. It seems reasonable to assume that CO2 ‘spikes’ during rapid temperature rises (due to ocean outgassing/biological activity, maybe increased volcanic activity due to ice-sheet unloading) but then settles down fairly quickly thereafter as natural sources and sinks adjust to the new equilibrium. The ice core proxy data would be unable to capture this short term variability. This may not be the case but until we get much better historic atmospheric CO2 data, I believe we should keep an open mind.
Jamie data clearly shows CO2 follows the temperature it does not lead it.
This says it all and does put to rest the co2/temp issue.
Consider the earth 14,000 years ago. CO2 levels were around 200 ppm and temperatures, at 6C below present values, were rising fast. Now consider 30,000 years ago. CO2 levels were also around 200 ppm and temperatures were also about 6C below current levels, yet at that time the earth was cooling. Exactly the same CO2 and temperature levels as 14,000 years ago, but the opposite direction of temperature change. CO2 was not the driver.
Now consider 120,000 years ago. Temperatures were higher than today and CO2 levels were relatively high at 290 ppm. Atmospheric H20 was high, and albedo was low. According to the theorists, earth should have been warming quickly. But it wasn’t – quite the opposite with temperatures cooling very quickly at that time. CO2 was not the driver.
If CO2 levels and the claimed lockstep feedbacks controlled the climate, the climate would be unstable. We would either move to a permanent ice age or turn into Venus. Warmer temperatures generate more CO2. Increased CO2 raises temperatures. Warmer temperatures generate more CO2 …… etc. It would be impossible to reverse a warming or cooling trend without a major external event. Obviously this has not happened.
Rog is it possible to run this again as a topic? I am intrigued by the fact that maximum eccentricity is associated with the period of time deglaciation begins. Along with a lower TSI when earth’s orbit is circular.
correction to last post— by not buy, I am tired a long day. Thanks.
Roger, is there discussion somewhere on the possible origins of the quasi-millennial oscillation?
[try putting ‘Scafetta’ or ‘oscillation’ in the ‘search this site’ box on the left — co-mod]
tallbloke says: February 26, 2015 at 9:33 pm
“Will: I was talking in general terms. So far as i understand it, the ocean impedes the throughput of energy far more than the atmosphere does, although the atmosphere plays a part in that by exerting pressure on the ocean surface. So the Sun warms the ocean by sending its rays into it as far as 100m, heating it in 3D. But the ocean can only cool from its 2D surface area, into an atmosphere which insulates it to an extent, and limits its rate of evaporation. So the ocean impedes he throughput of energy and warms. The Atmospheric so-called GHG’s primary job is to get rid of that built up heat to space, which as you say, they do very efficiently.”
Most I agree with Rog. I think you are putting the “ephasis” on the wrong “sylable” The surface temperature and pressure do not limit ocean evaporation as saturation partial pressure is independent of normal surface pressure variation, increases with surface temperature, and is truly only dependent on local lateral wind speed to move the saturated WV away from the surface. It is the tremendous latent heat of evaporation (2400 J/gm H2O) that accounts for 35% of all exit flux from the atmosphere.
At any latitude and time of day surface temperatures are always lower in areas of high RH. There can be no scientific understanding of this atmosphere until the mechanism that controls RH amount and location, is well understood and carefully measured. The models can not come close, nor is there any incentive to even try to understand the water cycle by the Clowns.
tallbloke says: February 26, 2015 at 9:33 pm
“So far as i understand it, the ocean impedes the throughput of energy far more than the atmosphere does, although the atmosphere plays a part in that by exerting pressure on the ocean surface.”
No Rog! The ‘state’ of the ‘atmosphere’ determines the ‘evaporation rate’! It’s far more ‘fluid/complex’ than this. The atmospheric hydrological cycle determines the rate of oceanic evaporation.
“So the Sun warms the ocean by sending its rays into it as far as 100m, heating it in 3D. But the ocean can only cool from its 2D surface area, into an atmosphere which insulates it to an extent, and limits its rate of evaporation.”
That ~correct Rog. However, the ‘ocean’ doesn’t ‘force’ the atmosphere. The ‘atmosphere’ ‘admits’ ocean heat. Think on this.
“So the ocean impedes he throughput of energy and warms.”
Disagree. This would be the action of/from atmospheric action.
“The Atmospheric so-called GHG’s primary job is to get rid of that built up heat to space, which as you say, they do very efficiently.”
Agree. WV does this without the complication of ‘sensible heat’.
Best regards, Ray.
geometrically proven:
multidecadal throughput rate = solar cycle deceleration
Community Alert:
The new MMMO (Model-Mannipulated Multidecadal Oscillation) paper is based on fundamentally false spatiotemporal assumptions about insolation forcing that demand violation of one or both of the laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum. The residuals catastrophically fail even the most elementary diagnostics. That this is tolerated (for example by politically-opportunistic lukes) is informative.
They’re not being serious. It’s partisan science to stall the clock. If anyone appears to be taking them seriously, this is (deeply) informative.
It’s important to realize that they cannot and will not be stopped.
They will push this narrative through no matter what it takes (since they perceive it as a security imperative). There’s no human agency powerful enough to stop them. We need to be sober about this so we can plan properly and be prepared to carefully pick up the pieces after they push too far with their hubris. Plan A (getting them to be sensible) has failed. The option remaining is Plan B (sober clean-up after an unreasonable, domineering neighbor’s drunken accident).
tallbloke (February 26, 2015 at 9:33 pm) wrote:
“But the ocean can only cool from its 2D surface area, into an atmosphere which insulates it to an extent, and limits its rate of evaporation. So the ocean impedes he throughput of energy and warms.”
Stepping back further:
Evaporation is a function of wind.
Wind governs the throughput.
Wind is governed by spatiotemporal insolation gradients.
Salvatore, I was in no way arguing that CO2 drives global temperature, only that its fluctuations seem to be fairly closely correlated with fluctuations in global temperature – over certain timescales. Furthermore, that short term fluctuations in CO2 may have been missed by conventional low resolution ice core proxies. This is not to rule out that there may be some weak positive feedback on temperatures from increasing CO2, but I think this would be relatively short lived and insignificant compared to natural variability over decadal and longer timescales.
Reblogged this on climatecontrarian.
Jaime says: ‘It seems reasonable to assume that CO2 ‘spikes’ during rapid temperature rises (due to ocean outgassing/biological activity… [etc].’
Some part of the modern increase in CO2 is probably due to this outgassing.
kuhnkat says, February 26, 2015 at 8:10 pm:
“While they continue to play games with back radiation, they continue to IGNORE the fact that heat is leaving the system as fast as it is coming in, if not faster. THAT is the true measure of the efficacy of GHGs.”
Earth’s globally averaged ToA LW flux to space (anomaly) vs. RSS global lower troposphere temperature (anomaly), March 2000 – June 2014:
Net radiative flux (net solar in minus LW out) at the global ToA according to CERES (anomalies, 03/00 – 06/14):
IPCC models use phoney physics from Carl Sagan, taught for 50 years in the USA, 20+ here; evidence: http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node134.html
They claim the S-B equation predicts real energy when it is Radiant Emittance, potential flux to Absolute Zero. At the surface, the vector sum of opposing surface and atmospheric Emittance (‘back radiation’) causes annihilation of the main GHG bands, leaving 63 W/m^2 mean net flux, 40 to Space, 23 absorbed over kms by water vapour. The next MIT module transposes Emittance for Emissivity, appalling errors.
The models are fraudulent; to stop temperature gradient exceeding ‘Lapse Rate’, Hansen et al of GISS imposed downwards’ net convective flux**, assuming ‘OLR’ from a discrete emitter, not true, The energy balance is 238.5 W/m^2 real SW heating + 333 W/m^2 imaginary ‘back radiation’ – 238.5 W/m^2 Down |OLR| = 333 W/m^2.
The 40% increase, 94.5, plus the 63 gives the 157.5 W/m^2 ‘Clear Sky Atmospheric Greenhouse Factor’ purportedly heating ~30 m atmosphere. You easily prove this doesn’t exist by calculating its necessary mean temperature; 4th root of (238.5/0.75/5.6704.10^-8), about 0 deg C. The ~15.5 K temperature drop is more than at any time in the past 444 million years.
Houghton, IPCC co-founder, Figure 2.5 of ‘Physics of Atmospheres’, showed it is near zero from convection controlling ‘Lapse Rate’; no ‘Enhanced GHE’. Hansen admitted NASA had set out to measure it, but stopped, modelling it instead***. Was that when they decided to bluff, fiddling past temperature data?
Because the water cycle intervenes, real CO2 Climate Sensitivity is near zero. The AGW we did have was aerosols from Asian Industrialisation reducing cloud albedo; the sign of the real ‘AIE’ is reversed compared with the Sagan physics in the models, another of his 1960s’ mistakes (he made four).
**1981_Hansen_etal.pdf
***http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html
PS Presumably because I have publicised the term Emittance, aka Exitance, aka Radiosity, someone has removed it from the Wikipedia Irradiance article; a search on ‘Emittance’ gives this, it was changed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irradiance
People should read this study and get som sense of what a radiative molecule is and is not capable of accomplishing when it comes to the impedance of heat transfer through a medium.
Even with convective transfer eliminated (horizontal double-pane window heated from above), leaving only conduction and radiation, they could not find a noticeable effect on total heat transfer rate through the window from a 100% CO2 gas-fill used as opposed to simple dry air (with a mere 0.035% CO2).
They did however observe a small effect from a much stronger IR absober than CO2, namely SF6 (sulphur hexafluoride), so the principle of heat transfer impedance by way of IR absorption at least was confirmed.
But as they turned the window into a vertical position, opening up for convective transfer, this net positive effect quickly vanished:
“(…) it can be seen that the convective transfer becomes significant at around 9 mm for SF6, while there is practically no convective transfer through an air-filled window at gapwidths up to 20 mm under these conditions. In fact, air outperforms SF6 at gapwidths greater than 9 mm in a vertical window and the benefits from infrared absorption by SF6 have been negated by the magnitude of the convection.”
Underlined in the conclusion:
“For larger vertical gap widths, where energy savings from the use of infrared absorbing gasses may begin to accrue, convection effects will begin to take effect and negate the positive impact of going to larger gap widths.”
So the wider the gapwidth, the more these IR-absorbing gases will be able to retard the radiative heat transfer through the medium. The problem is, there is something about them still that makes them ultimately unsuitable as insulators – they simply cannot retard the total (conductive-radiative-convective) heat transfer. Common dry air (almost entirely made up of N2, O2 and Ar) is considerably more effective beyond even a pretty small gapwidth.
Why? Because apparently the radiative gases, through some physical property of theirs, somehow strengthens convective transfer. And since convective transfer easily overwhelms any effects from both conductive and radiative transfers within a fluid, this property seems highly significant.
It is called ‘kinematic viscosity’:
“Gasses for gas-filling should be chosen for their low conductivity and high kinematic viscosity in order to effectively reduce conductive/convective heat transfer.”
and
“Not only do the absorbing gasses generally have low kinematic viscosities, but the infrared emission from the gas adversely affects the window performance.”
– – –
Looking solely at radiative heat transfer and then try to conclude about overall effects on temps is quite simply … less than smart.
[…] of climate change and the amount of heat-trapping previously blamed on carbon dioxide.” – Click here to read the full article […]
Only a complete nincompoop would believe that one molecule of CO2 out of every 2500 molecules of air would have any measurable effect on climate. It is further implausible that man’s total contribution of 3-4% of this one molecule would in any way change anything.
Paul Vaughan says: February 27, 2015 at 5:32 am
tallbloke (February 26, 2015 at 9:33 pm) wrote:
(“But the ocean can only cool from its 2D surface area, into an atmosphere which insulates it to an extent, and limits its rate of evaporation. So the ocean impedes he throughput of energy and warms.”)
“Stepping back further: Evaporation is a function of wind. Wind governs the throughput. Wind is governed by spatiotemporal insolation gradients.”
Yes, but what is that planetary process that so carefully controls surface conditions, that “comfortable” for both plants and critters fails “seldom” and only over periods of thousands of years? What are the important conditions, independent of EMR insolation, that introduce such rare failure? What besides the rapid deployment of nuclear power generation and distribution can critters accomplish that may minimize the need for complete “restart of everything” for plants and critters after the next failure?
suricat says: February 27, 2015 at 1:17 am
“No Rog! The ‘state’ of the ‘atmosphere’ determines the ‘evaporation rate’! It’s far more ‘fluid/complex’ than this. The atmospheric hydrological cycle determines the rate of oceanic evaporation.”
Yes indeed, far more complex than any or all Climate Scientists, can possibly hope to understand.
It is this accepted complexity that undermines all creditability of the establishment!
tallbloke says: February 26, 2015 at 9:33 pm
(“The Atmospheric so-called GHG’s primary job is to get rid of that built up heat to space, which as you say, they do very efficiently.”)
“Agree. WV does this without the complication of ‘sensible heat’.”
Well kind of. The condensation of WV can certainly power the continued EMR exitance to space from the atmosphere. The reduction of lapse rate for saturated WV indicates there is some conversion to sensible heat and higher temperature at all parts of the troposphere.
AlecM says: February 27, 2015 at 10:08 am
“IPCC models use phoney physics from Carl Sagan, taught for 50 years in the USA, 20+ here; evidence: http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node134.html”
Indeed,
((“The energy radiated per unit area is:
Eb = sigma T^4. Where sigma is Stefan’s constant, 5.67 x 10^{-8} W/m^2”))
Note that is not even “energy per unit area”, but power per unit area. A mere potential for maximum radiative flux under the condition no opposing field strength at any frequency. Temperature of any surface is never an indication any flux in any direction. As there is no location with no opposing field strength, a claim of such flux has never been detected, observed, nor measured!
“They claim the S-B equation predicts real energy when it is Radiant Emittance, potential flux to Absolute Zero. At the surface, the vector sum of opposing surface and atmospheric Emittance (‘back radiation’) causes annihilation of the main GHG bands, leaving 63 W/m^2 mean net flux, 40 to Space, 23 absorbed over kms by water vapour. The next MIT module transposes Emittance for Emissivity, appalling errors.”
And the rest of us are forced to put up with such utter incompetence!
Kristian says: February 27, 2015 at 10:48 am
“Looking solely at radiative heat transfer and then try to conclude about overall effects on temps is quite simply … less than smart.”
Also less than smart is the meteorological concept that both the tropopause and space are isotherms at lower temperature ready to accept all waste “heat” without temperature increase.
Space has no mass to transfer “heat” thereto. Space accepts and discards all thermal EMR, except that wee bit intercepted by this Earth that makes life possible.
When will some Earthlings finally accept, “We don know shit”!!! 🙂 -will-
[…] “Either way, what the study shows, is that increasing CO2 has had very little effect on water vapour levels or near surface air temperature in Alaska, and is easily overcome by natural variability.” click here […]
Kristian says:
February 27, 2015 at 10:48 am
And since convective transfer easily overwhelms any effects from both conductive and radiative transfers within a fluid, this property seems highly significant.”
Taking “within a fluid” to be within the Earth’s atmosphere. You suggest transfer of energy by movement of molecules at 100s of m/s, diffusion, overwhelms movement by photons at 10^8 m/s. That seems unlikely. Convection is even slower at about 10m/s in the atmosphere.
Please post a reference to experimental evidence of your claim.
Rog if you are there , I am having trouble once again posting. My post (two of them)have not gone out under the article about the Global Warming Slow Down, Due To Natural Causes. Thanks.
Roger Clague says, February 28, 2015 at 9:47 am:
“Taking “within a fluid” to be within the Earth’s atmosphere. You suggest transfer of energy by movement of molecules at 100s of m/s, diffusion, overwhelms movement by photons at 10^8 m/s. That seems unlikely. Convection is even slower at about 10m/s in the atmosphere.
Please post a reference to experimental evidence of your claim.”
Er, didn’t you read the comment you quoted from? Read it again and find the study it’s referring to, Roger.
I am just a beginner in this CO2/WV climate change argument,but I cannot see how any molecule radiating from a colder troposphere can transfer heat to a warmer earth.Am I right or wrong?.Thanks for any comments or refs to go to.
Salvatore Del Prete, February 26, 2015 at 6:15 pm
You quote the work of Richard Alley. While he is a fun guy he drew entirely the wrong conclusions from his own data. Against common sense he announced that CO2 is the “Control Knob for Climate Temperature”.
Don’t expect a retraction from Penn State as that might interfere with the gravy train of gumment funding.
Kristian says:
February 28, 2015 at 5:02 pm
Er, didn’t you read the comment you quoted from?
Yes. Your comment is about the reference until we reach this sentence
And since convective transfer easily overwhelms any effects from both conductive and radiative transfers within a fluid, this property seems highly significant.
Upto this you have talked about gases. You then, without explanation change to within a fluid
Fluid means gas or liquid.
The reference says increase in convection overwhelms the reduction in radiation transfer caused by IR gas in the gap inside the double glazed window
So I imagine this is an assertion , about fluids, has some other justification
.
Also according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convective_heat_transfer
Convection in a gas includes conduction by diffusion. That is bulk and molecular motion. Bulk motion alone is called advection
.
Heat transfer in a gas and a liquid are very different. The top post is about gas, CO2, your reference is about gas, and your comment starts off talking about gas. Then you make a statement about a fluid. So I asked you to give me a reference to support your claim about convective transfer within a fluid
Convective transfer in a gas includes conduction
Convective transfer in a liquid does not include conduction
By changing from gas to fluid you have introduced an unnecessary complication.
What I am wondering is
1. Did they only have 2 measuring sites? It seems unlikely that they only limited their testing to 2 points on the planet.
and 2. If they measured more sites, where are the data?
Pondering this Lawrence Lab paper and various comments here and at WUWT, I think about it this way.
This paper claims to prove rising CO2 in the atmosphere increases downwelling infra-red radiation (DWIR), thereby warming the earth’s surface. The claim is based on observations from 2 sites, in Alaska and Oklahoma. Let’s examine the case made.
Observation: In Alaska and Oklahoma CO2 and DWIR are both increasing.
Claim: Additional CO2 is due to fossil fuel emissions.
Claim: Higher DWIR is due to higher CO2 levels.
Claim: Global DWIR is rising.
Claim: Global surface temperatures are rising.
LL Conclusion: Fossil fuel emissions are causing Global surface temperatures to rise
Issue: What is the source of rising CO2?
Response: Natural sources of CO2 overwhelm human sources.
The sawtooth pattern of seasonal CO2 concentrations is consistent with release of CO2 from the oceans. Peaks are in March when SH oceans are warmest (60% of world oceans), and valleys are in September when NH oceans are warmest. In contrast biosphere activities peak in January in SH and July in NH.
CO2 content of the oceans is 10 times that of the atmosphere, resulting in the sawtooth extremes. Human emissions are ~5 to 7 Gigatons compared to ~150 Gigatons from natural sources.
Issue: What is the effect of H2O and CO2 on DWIR?
Response: H2O provides 90% of IR activity in the atmosphere.
The long term increase in DWIR can be explained by increasing cloudiness, deriving from evaporation when the sunlight heats the oceans. A slight change in H2O vapor overwhelms the effect of CO2 activity, and H2O varies greatly from place to place, while the global average is fairly constant.
Issue: What is the global trend of DWIR?
Response: According to CERES satellites, DWIR has decreased globally since 2000, resulting in an increasing net IR loss upward from the surface.
Globally, Earth’s surface has strongly strengthened its ability to cool radiatively from 2000 to 2014 (by about 1.5 W/m2 or ~1 W/m2 per decade) according to CERES. The increased upward heat loss from the surface is matched by decreasing trend of DWIR globally. And this is in spite of significantly increasing atmospheric content of both CO2 and H2O (WV & clouds) + allegedly rising temps since 2000. (From Kristian, above)
Conclusion:
The rise in CO2 is almost all from natural sources, not fossil fuel emissions.
IR activity is almost all from H2O, not from CO2.
DWIR is lower this century, and the surface heat loss is less impeded than before.
Global surface temperatures are not rising with rising fossil fuel emissions.
Roger Clague says: March 1, 2015 at 9:49 am
Kristian says:
February 28, 2015 at 5:02 pm
” So I asked you to give me a reference to support your claim about convective transfer within a fluid
Convective transfer in a gas includes conduction
Convective transfer in a liquid does not include conduction
By changing from gas to fluid you have introduced an unnecessary complication.”
Who claims this nonsense? You refer to “Convective_heat_transfer”, then deliberately omit “heat’, in your claim. This is the unnecessary complication.
@ winter37
There are many versions of the ‘correct’ theory depending on which counter-argument is put forward 😉
Bear in mind that CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere, which is why it’s called a ‘trace gas’ i.e. there’s only a trace of it to be found (relative to the total volume of the atmosphere).
winter37 says: February 28, 2015 at 7:14 pm
“I am just a beginner in this CO2/WV climate change argument,but I cannot see how any molecule radiating from a colder troposphere can transfer heat to a warmer earth.Am I right or wrong?.Thanks for any comments or refs to go to.”
You are correct. That correctness is difficult to conclusively demonstrate, as long as thermal electromagnetic radiative flux, radiance, and heat are considered all equivalent, rather than identifiable individual concepts. Each one is necessary to comprehend how EMR works together with other concepts in thermodynamics. Any good reference on electromagnetic field theory can demonstrate the hows and whys. Climate alarmists are not about to help you understand.
Will Janoschka says:
March 1, 2015 at 3:47 pm
You refer to “Convective_heat_transfer”, then deliberately omit “heat’, in your claim.
I was reply to Kristian. I said “convective transfer” because Kristian said “convective transfer”.
Wikipedia includes the word, heat. There is no difference between convective transfer and convective heat transfer in this context.
Instead of unjustified criticism, reply to the point I made
.
There is a difference between heat transfer in gas and liquid, so if the word gas is replaced by fluid there will be confusion.
Fluid heat transfer
Gas molecules = diffusion, gas bulk = advection, gas molecules and bulk = convection
Liquid molecules = conduction, liquid bulk = convection
There are 4 kinds of heat transfer in a fluid. The terminology is not used consistently, it is a mess.
Why change from gas to fluid when the top post is about CO2 a gas?
Thanks Will for the confirmation of my direction of thought.I appreciate your help.
winter 37.
Sorry oldbrew,I missed your post.Thankyou also for your comment.And yes I agree with you on CO2 as a trace gas.To this end I also believe that convection rules in the troposphere,and then radiation takes over to shift the heat off the planet.
What a vast subject is that of climate change,and so fascinating.
winter37
For those discussing practical experiments to demonstrate the heat-trapping effects of CO2, there’s a huge opportunity to analyze real-world data for just that issue.
Instead of non-realistic window panes infused with gas, or other simulations, how about an experimental design that would fill an entire valley with CO2?
Dangerous, you say? No problem. Gaia doesn’t have any restrictions on using human subjects for her explorations. Subjects die? Oh, well.
The data is all there–just waiting on an enterprising grad student to seize fame and fortune with their analysis:
http://intelctweekly.blogspot.com/2015/01/mother-natures-experiment-with-co2.html
Roger Clague says: March 2, 2015 at 3:51 pm
“Why change from gas to fluid when the top post is about CO2 a gas?”
Just where in the top post is CO2 deemed a gas rather than a fluid? ‘Kinematic viscosity’ correctly applies to fluids.
No worries Winter37. Here’s a bit of amusement:
http://omnologos.com/why-agw-is-logically-impossible/
Kristian,
I won’t even bother suggesting that the nice graphs you provided are accurate or not, I will suggest you have missed the boat.
Your first graph attempts to show the classic surface temp emission that is supposed to show that there is more heat at the surface than is represented by the far infrared emissions at TOA. as this has never been very useful and shows only part of the energy flux it is pointless. I also need to point out to most people that the w/m2 at TOA is not the same was w/m2 at the surface as the surface area is larger. This especially does not include any chemistry that is happening in the atmosphere or the full spectrum of losses to space from the system.
Your second graph claims to be NET in. Maybe you can pull the explanation as to what NET in is and the frequencies? They also say all sky. Again, does this mean all frequencies?? How about solar wind that a relatively new paper has shown has an effect on the climate??
The second chart seems to be relatively flat also. Since the earth is cooling I would expect there to be a drop off in OLR if the flux was balanced.
Now, another confounder, though relatively small is that the earth itself produces energy that would add to the OLR. If the flux is flat, and energy conservation is a real feature of our universe, we should be warming and we aren’t.
Please go back and do your homework and try again.
kuhnkat says: March 3, 2015 at 8:00 am
“Now, another confounder, though relatively small is that the earth itself produces energy that would add to the OLR. If the flux is flat, and energy conservation is a real feature of our universe, we should be warming and we aren’t. Please go back and do your homework and try again.”
Please give your power numbers of earth’s nuclear power generation, or all earthling power from oxidation of mass, compared to the spontaneous, and continuous power flux in and out by the Sun, Earth, space geometry?
Reblogged this on yidongwonyi.
Will Janoschka,
your question is pointless. If the solar flux equals the earths radiation ANY extra energy in the system should cause an increase in temps.
Of course, it ain’t that simple as the graphs our friend posted do not represent all of the external effects on the earth or the losses by the earth and that is part of what I am attempting to get across.
@Roger
” “thermodynamics. You have to be careful. We are not talking about a closed system with a finite quantity of energy in it. We are talking about an open system with energy flowing through it. If you impede the throughput of energy, parts of the system will get hotter.”
I understand your well stated point. But it seems when looking at the ability of our atmosphere to regulate any extra energy which might be released by numerous sources ( man or natural ) the Sun and Earth have already regulated that input through the laws of thermodynamics over billions of years. Meaning, all energy within the system has already settled a radiative thermal equilibrium at the surface regardless. Be it albedo, C02, H20 and so on.
Linnea: I agree, however, we must remember that this is a dynamic equilibrium which is maintained by the feedbacks you list (among others) i.e. systems theory, not a static equilibrium maintained by conservation of energy, i.e. first law of thermodynamics.
@Roger,
Ok, but even in a dynamic equilibrium there’s really no net change. In other words it remains a steady state which seems to still point to a stable or average temperature at the surface. Now, every 500 million years or so the Sun will increase by 5% and in one billion 10%. At that point the equilibrium at the surface would change due to the Suns output alone.
@Roger,
Also, when dealing with a temperature change at the surface of just a little over 1F could this not also fall under the adiabatic temperature distribution? Meaning, the average is still maintained even as temperatures will fluctuate.
Linnea,
Yes, the Sun is an external factor which can alter the climate. It changes around 0.1% of total output over ~11 years, perhaps 0.3% over 200 years. But Extreme UV spectrum solar output can change as much as 50% or more over a couple of decades, and we are a long way from understanding the effects that might have.
It is worth remembering that in absolute terms, the Average surface temperature of the planet has changed only a little more than 0.3% over the last 100 years too. So we would only need an amplifying factor of x3 for the Sun to account for all climate change in the C20th, purely in TSI terms.
Hi Roger,
“It is worth remembering that in absolute terms, the Average surface temperature of the planet has changed only a little more than 0.3% over the last 100 years too. So we would only need an amplifying factor of x3 for the Sun to account for all climate change in the C20th, purely in TSI terms.”
Ok, now I think we are getting somewhere. A vacillation of surface temps by 0.3% is not onerous to say the least over a century. TSI is underplayed by NASA as we know, since they placed their satellite SORCE about 90,000 kilometers below the top of the Earth’s atmosphere. That’s missing lots of energy coming into the system. So, it’s logical the increase in surface temps by 0.03% ( combined with oceanic influence ) is due to the Suns output rather than 0.04% of C02 concentrations which is highly speculative. We know as C02 increases its overall effect on temps becomes much less. Also, the atmosphere above 645 km absorbs high energy ultraviolet. Which means SORCE is not getting this data and most importantly not reporting that the atmosphere is transforming energy. This also occurs at ground levels too.
Linnea: Great comment. There is so much we don’t understand about the upper reaches of Earth’s atmosphere. Where is SDO in relation to the true ‘TOA’?
TB & linnea. You may be interested in this “Wiki” page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exosphere
I can’t vouch for its accuracy, but it offers insight.
Here’s an unrelated, but pertinent, point of logic! Earth’s Moon would retain ‘it’s own atmosphere’ (the mass is certainly large enough) if only Earth wasn’t so near. However, the Moon continues to increase its orbital altitude by way of the ‘teleconnection’ between Earth’s Luna tides and the Moon’s mass, so long as Earth is in ‘over-spin’. I don’t want to enter/suggest any scenario where the spin expires before the satellite achieves a sustainable orbital altitude. Not in my lifetime.
linnea.
The ‘penetration’ of UVc into Earth’s ‘atmosphere’ (per se) is extinct at the surface altitude. UVb ‘can’ penetrate to ‘surface altitudes’ (especially to elevated terrain) when/where conditions are ‘favourable’ for this (this is dependant on the level of ‘ozone’ during any ‘Solar emission’). UVa is normally apparent at Earth’s surface and is considered to be ‘harmless to humanity’ (based on ‘skin cancer’ research), however, UVa has the greatest ‘penetration’ of all the UV components into Earth’s oceans/seas, and atmosphere for that matter. The nearest ‘”vis” spectra’ to this is ‘blue’ (because it’s worth it). 😉
TB.
“Where is SDO in relation to the true ‘TOA’?”
I know what “TOA” (Top Of Atmosphere) represents, but what does “SDO” mean? Duh! My ‘acronyms’ are in warp drive here!
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: March 16, 2015 at 2:28 am
“I know what “TOA” (Top Of Atmosphere) represents, but what does “SDO” mean? Duh! My ‘acronyms’ are in warp drive here!”
Never mind TB. I ‘Googled’ it!:
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/aiahmi/
‘SDO’ is ‘here’:
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/mission/moc.php
The ‘home/index’ page for the site is here:
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Though, you can get to this from any of the links that I’ve posted. 🙂
Best regards, Ray.
@Ray
Sorry for the late reply but you pointed out some real important facts in regards to UVa and its ability to effect earths surface.
@Scottish Sceptic;
Sorry, another late response: Bill Gray also derives ECS of 0.3 +/- 0.1 – by disproving a core AGW assumption about upper level H2O feedback. http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf
Fatal blow.
[…] New result shows CO2 has almost no effect on temperature […]