C4’s debate on global warming boils over

Times Online ^ | March 15, 2007 | Sam Coates, Mark Henderson

[cogitator]

Two eminent British scientists who questioned the accuracy of a Channel 4 programme that claimed global warming was an unfounded conspiracy theory have received an expletive-filled tirade from the programme maker.

In an e-mail exchange leaked to The Times, Martin Durkin, the executive producer of The Great Global Warming Swindle, responded to the concerns of Dr Armand Leroi, from Imperial College, and Simon Singh, the respected scientific author, by telling them to “go and f*** yourself”.

The tirade has caused Dr Leroi to withdraw his cooperation from another Channel 4 project with Mr Durkin on race, The Times has learnt.

The programme, broadcast by Channel 4 last Thursday, featured a number of scientists who disputed the consensus on the causes of global warming.

Dr Leroi was particularly concerned about a segment that featured a correlation between solar activity and global temperatures, which was based on a 1991 paper in the journal Science by Eigil Friis-Chris-tensen. He was surprised that the programme failed to mention that while these findings look convincing superficially, they have been revealed as flawed by subsequent research by Peter Laut.

Dr Leroi e-mailed Mr Durkin about his use of data, concluding: “To put this bluntly: the data that you showed in your programme were . . . wrong in several different ways.” He copied Mr Singh into the exchange.

Mr Durkin replied to both later that morning, saying: “You’re a big daft cock.” Less than an hour later, Mr Singh, who has worked for the BBC, intervened to urge Mr Durkin to engage in serious debate. He wrote: “I suspect that you will have upset many people (if Armand is right), so it would be great if you could engage in the debate rather than just resorting to one-line replies. That way we could figure out what went wrong/ right and how do things better/ even better in the future.” Mr Durkin replied nine minutes later: “The BBC is now a force for bigotry and intolerance . . . Since 1940 we have had four decades of cooling, three of warming, and the last decade when temperature has been doing nothing.

“Why have we not heard this in the hours and hours of sh*t [edited by poster] programming on global warming shoved down our throats by the BBC?

“Never mind an irresponsible bit of film-making. Go and f*** yourself.”

Last night Dr Leroi said that he was amazed at the rudeness of Mr Durkin’s reply.

“It was rather a shocking response,” Dr Leroi said. “It was my intention to make a film with Martin Durkin and [the production company] Wag, but that is something I am seriously reconsidering now. I am no climate scientist, but I was very concerned at the way that flaws in these data were brushed over.”

He said that the global warming film had glossed over flaws in data that it used to make its case, and that it was critical that a documentary about a subject as controversial as race and biology did not make similar mistakes.

“As the subject of our proposed film was race, it is such a sensitive topic that it requires great care and great balance. That he has shown so little respect for scientific consensus and such little nuance is a cause for great concern. I cannot imagine it will go ahead now.”

The film would have addressed Dr Leroi’s thesis that race is a biologically meaning-ful and medically valuable concept, a view that is highly controversial among scientists.

Last night Mr Durkin apologised for his langauge. “As far as I was concerned these were private e-mails. They arrived when I was quite tired having just finished the programme in time for transmission,” he said.

“Needless, to say, I regret the use of intemperate language. It is so unlike me. I am very eager to have all the science properly debated with scientists qualified in the right areas and have asked Channel 4 if they will stage a live debate on this subject.”

Where Channel 4 got it wrong over climate change

Claim: Ice core data shows that carbon dioxide levels rise after temperatures go up, not before

Fact: This is correct, but climate scientists have a good explanation. There is a substantial feedback effect – initial small rises in temperature lead to substantial release of carbon dioxide from natural reservoirs in the oceans, which then produce much steeper warming later on

Claim: Temperatures in the troposphere, the lower part of the atmosphere, have not risen as predicted by the models

Fact: This was once the case, but it has been resolved now that initial measurement errors have been corrected

Claim: Temperatures rose for the first part of the century, then cooled for three decades before warming again. There is no link to carbon dioxide

Fact: Temperatures did follow this pattern, but again there is a good explanation. The mid-century effect fall came about chiefly because of sulphate aerosols – particles that have a cooling effect on the atmosphere. These are no longer produced so heavily by industry because of environmental regulations to combat other problems, such as acid rain

[Old Professer]

"initial measurement errors have been corrected"

Anytime I hear weasel words like this I'm reminded of the old saying about torturing the evidence until it confesses.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

Actually, the systems that contribute to the glacial-interglacial change (temperature and CO2) are known; quantification of their total effect is still being worked on. But since in the glacial-interglacial period atmospheric CO2 has been between a minima of ~180 ppm and a maxima of ~280 ppm, there are negative feedbacks that restrain the entire range (and also therefore keep temperature in defined range -- speaking only about the natural system here).

There is an analytical method in system engineering called "sensitivity analysis". It's essentially an analysis of the "strength" of the coupling between any two parameters. It utilizes a scale of 0 (no coupling) to 1 (100%) coupling.

Until science can quantify the sensitivities of temperatures to both natural causes and "unnatural" causes we are just spinning our wheels..

[Old Professer]

Stockholm Syndrome?

[Old Professer]

I only hope that they don't blow up the world trying to save the planet.

[brotherWesUpNorth]

"Fact: This was once the case, but it has been resolved now that initial measurement errors have been corrected "

Yea, we sent AlGore back in a time machine and he's re-checking the temperatures....

[Old Professer]

Tree rings; ice cores; all pristine and willing reservoirs of all past events if you but know how to read them.

Chicken entrails are way too messy but show promise.

[Old Professer]

cogitator is our Eric Hoffer; what he lacks in sophistication he makes up in single-minded dedication.

[Old Professer]

Has any study taken ice cores from years since we have been measuring CO2 and then compared those directly to the recent records of CO2 data?

[roaddog727]

"From a scientific standpoint, isn't that pretty much impossible? :)"

Just as impossible as the premise that global warming and/or climate change are a result of human activities this century. (or for that matter, at all)

[ARA]

Have you seen the Doco yet?

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

I have witnessed scientific misconduct, normally committed by those that are paid by political programs, too numerous to list here.

Engineers have their "boondoggles". They don't create anything of value but they guarantee a paycheck.

[xcamel]

Exactly.

One of the oldest [Liberal] tricks in the book is to take the opposite side, then slowly manipulate the "facts" until the opposition "sees it your way" This is exactly what I see going on right here. Obvious natural processes and historical facts are slowly and inexorably being "adjusted" and manipulated to bring the "naysayers" back on to the reservation, as it were.

The opposer (former global warming skeptic) explains a series of 'Epiphanies" in the process if becoming "right minded" and drags as many gullible spineless skeptics back on to the farm with them.

[Osage Orange]

All past events?

Wow, they are smarter than the smartest woman in the world.

[Zon]

Excellent post. You've shown how the trivial CO2 influence on temperature has been blown way out of proportion by the AGW zealots -- asserting that it's a huge and important problem when it is just the opposite--a non problem. I call it the global warming hoax.

[qam1]

Claim: Temperatures rose for the first part of the century, then cooled for three decades before warming again. There is no link to carbon dioxide

Fact: Temperatures did follow this pattern, but again there is a good explanation. The mid-century effect fall came about chiefly because of sulphate aerosols – particles that have a cooling effect on the atmosphere. These are no longer produced so heavily by industry because of environmental regulations to combat other problems, such as acid rain

That's BS, Yeah we now have more environmental regulations since then, but China, India, Brazil, etc. do not, and back then those said countries were not significantly industrialized as they are today. And because of those countries there's more of a net pollution today then back then.

[ancient_geezer]

Is this true about the last decade? All I ever hear is that each year broke another record for warmest. Can someone point me to the data for this?

Here's a chart with sufficient resolution to show what's going on, the high spikes in temp are due to El Nino.

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C_lrg.gif

 

However, seems we are peaking out in the the Solar cycle:

New Scientist - Hyperactive sun comes out in spots

 

 

The interesting test will be on whether or not ocean and tropospheric temperatures drop as this 1000 year high in solar activity reverses as it is predicted for coming decades.

 

NASA - Long Range Solar Forecast

 

And may already be showing up in falling ocean temperatures since ~2003

Sea Change in Global Warming
Patrick J. Michaels
The American Spectator, 8/25/2006
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10273

See also:

Global cooling effect
Terence Corcoran, National Post
September 16, 2006
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=9e919563-e44b-4ca2-9706-8af9cf743c95

 

Earth in for another "ice age" in mid-century - scientist
ST. PETERSBURG, February 6 (RIA Novosti) - Low solar activity could trigger a global freeze in the middle of the 21st century, a Russian astronomer said Monday.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060206/43371626.html

[spunkets]

"1. 100 ppm is not insignificant.

The range was from 190 to 270 ppm, or about 80ppm. The insignificance I was referring to is the ability of the gas at either of those concentrations to result in a significant temp change. The temp changes given, are on the order of 1.5 orders of magnitude off.

"2. Change in CO2 ocean solubility is only a minor factor."

No.

"3. CO2 is a forcing factor that combined with other positive feedback effects can result in the observed temperature change.

No. The equilibrium temp reached is almost the same temp for either 190, or 270ppm [CO₂]. It is ~0.3^o higher. It can not be 8-10^oC higher. I used a 288K base temp with a 390W/M² solar E input, and IPCC's 5.35ln(C/C_o formula for the increased energy absorption for CO₂

"All of this will be explained "

OK. I wanted to post what you'll have to explain away though.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

In an e-mail exchange leaked to The Times, Martin Durkin, the executive producer of The Great Global Warming Swindle, responded to the concerns of Dr Armand Leroi, from Imperial College, and Simon Singh, the respected scientific author, by telling them to “go and f*** yourself”.

That doesn't f*cking help the debate any. Obscene emails p!ss me off, g*ddammit!

[avacado]

WOW! Thank you very much! That's great information.

[cogitator]

Are you saying all the C02 was deposited in ice bubbles?

Ice core bubbles are samples of the atmosphere at the time of snow deposition. So they have a representative concentration of atmospheric CO2 at that time.

[cogitator]

See my profile, point #4, for clarification.

[cogitator]

How then can there be a runaway feedback?

There is no runaway feedback. CO2 concentrations top out at around 280 ppm during interglacials. The positive feedbacks are important for the transition out of a glacial period (and they are negative feedbacks for the transition INTO a glacial period!!!!).

Remember the requirement of AGW is that the warming should happen at height first, then transmit to the ground.

Global warming takes place because atmospheric CO2 absorbs longwave radiation emitted FROM the surface (the surface converts incoming shortwave (solar) radiation into longwave IR). Your statement doesn't make sense.

The programme showed an excellent correlation between solar sunspot activity and temperature change.

See the initial link in point #2 of my profile. Why did the temperature rise above current levels in the Mediaeval warm period?

According to the National Academy of Sciences assessment of the Mann "Hockey Stick", sufficient quantification of proxy climate data is unavailable for a definitive comparison of MWP temperatures to now. Qualitative indicators demonstrate that the MWP was approximately as warm as now. (The Little Ice Age was definitely colder than either.)

[cogitator]

So then it would be fair to say that we compounded the problem by being so proactive and successful in ridding the atmosphere of man-made aerosols that we have now come a cropper, eh?

To an extent, yes.

[cogitator]

cogitator is our Eric Hoffer; what he lacks in sophistication he makes up in single-minded dedication.

How sophisticated do you need me to be?

[cogitator]

Has any study taken ice cores from years since we have been measuring CO2 and then compared those directly to the recent records of CO2 data?

There are better plots available, but basically, the ice core data merges right into the Mauna Loa curve. What does that tell you? (And do I need to be more sophisticated?)

[cogitator]

Regarding your response to number 1, CO2 is a climate forcing factor, causing other climate system changes resulting in the full effect.

Regarding your response to number 2, I have encountered the author of the Web site here on FR before (by invitation). Because of his attitude and bearing, reasonable exchange of ideas is impossible. My profile will provide references indicating that the warming of the oceans in glacial-interglacial transitions only accounts for about 10% of the change in atmospheric CO2. If you need to believe otherwise, then such information won't be relevant to you. I, in fact, also thought that the warming of the oceans was the main factor in the glacial-interglacial CO2 change. This assumption is erroneous.

The equilibrium temp reached is almost the same temp for either 190, or 270ppm [CO2]. It is ~0.3o higher. It can not be 8-10oC higher. I used a 288K base temp with a 390W/M2 solar E input, and IPCC's 5.35ln(C/Co formula for the increased energy absorption for CO2

CO2 is not the only factor. A doubling of CO2 will account for about 0.8-0.9 C rise directly. (I suspect that you didn't use the equilibrium blackbody temperature, a very common error, because when that error is made, the result is ...... 0.3 C!!!). Other positive feedbacks, mainly increased water vapor, account for the rest.

OK. I wanted to post what you'll have to explain away though.

Already on my agenda, except the last part. If I have to, I can find the discussion on RealClimate where that error is explained. (Note that ancient_geezer disputes that the important effect is atmospheric warming; he has a counter-position that the surface warming for doubling CO2 won't be the same as the whole atmosphere warming. I've heard his argument and I only state what the IPCC and climate scientists say.)

[Ieatfrijoles]

This thread is heavier than any of the other threads out there.

[qam1]

See my profile, point #4, for clarification.

HUH? I never said it's been cooling since 1998

What I said was

1998 was the hottest year on record - It was
since then the temps have been slightly lower -They have been

and relatively stable. - They also have been, which even if we dismiss 1998 as an outlier, the stability of the 21st century so far shows the planet has stopped it's warming trend.

This fits with the solar hypothesis more than the AGW, the sun after it reached it's maximum activity in 1000 years in 1998 has stabilized just like the temps here on earth, meanwhile while even though we have continued to pump out CO2 in that time the temperature hasn't continued to increase.

[BillM]

I suggest you read the followingf and get back to us!

href="http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

[Ragnar54]

I agree with your post for the most part. However, the point of my question was a dig at the offered "explanation" for the lag between temperature increases and increases in atmospheric CO2. As the "Global Warming Swindle" program demonstrated, the real explanation is that CO2 concentrations are driven by temperature changes.

I'm personally rooting for an ironic conclusion to the GW debate:
1. Gore has it backwards: atmospheric CO2 increases are caused by temperature increases (not the other way around).
2. Gore has it backwards: GW is actually beneficial (not harmful).
3. Gore has it backwards: Humans have not been causing GW, but have in fact been slowing it down (compared to the warming taking place on other planets). This last has not been proven, but seems reasonable if you consider that volcanoes only manage to eject a small percentage of their eruptions to a significant altitude; jet planes are much more efficient at dumping sulfur compounds at 30,000+ feet.

It may turn out that Gore does not have it backwards, but is merely 100% wrong on point 3.

[cogitator]

Been there, done that. Now read this:

Glacial/interglacial variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide (PDF)

This is one of the papers that will be discussed for point #5 in my profile. FYI, you only have to read the section entitled "Ocean Temperature". If you want to skip all that, I'll provide the bottom line for this section:

"There are uncertainties in each of these effects, but it seems that most of the 80--100 p.p.m.v. CO2 change across the last glacial/ interglacial transition must be explained by other processes."

The main problem with this topic is that is is NOT simple!

[Osage Orange]

Is C02 equally distributed over all land and water?

[BillM]

Sorry, I'm a physical chemist by training.

If you wish to correlate anything you need an anchor. The solubility dynamics and the historic records have substantial correlation!

Keep in mind the long lag time.

[cogitator]

Given the temporal distance between 1983 and 1998, we probably have to wait approximately five more years before another big El Nino event. (Could be longer, could be less). When that happens, and when that year becomes the clear "warmest year on record", much warmer than 1998, and when subsequent years in aggregate show even greater warm anomalies than 2000-2006, what do you say then?

I am so confident in this scenario that I've already stated on FreeRepublic that if it doesn't happen, I will publically debase myself for my lack of knowlege. I will make a statement that will be breathtaking in its level of self-flagellation from an intellectual standpoint -- but that won't ever happen because I'm totally right on this subject, so I have nothing to fear. I'm actually so confident that I'd bet 1000 people a dollar that I'm right. (Betting one person $1000 wouldn't have the same impact as winning the bet with 1000 people.)

My only caveat is that I withdraw the bet if the Sun shows a clearly measurable decline in activity. That would change things and I would be very happy to see it happen.

[cogitator]

The solubility dynamics and the historic records have substantial correlation!

If you're a physical chemist by training, then it should be significant to you that rocketscientistjournal didn't even mention the effect of altered salinity on CO2 solubility in the oceans for a glacial-interglacial transition.

If there is a correlation, it's a meaningless correlation.

[cogitator]

CO2 concentration changes in glacial-interglacial cycles are not driven by temperature changes; they are initiated by solar insolation changes which may initially result in a slight temperature increase (or decrease, when speaking of an interglacial-glacial transition). Subsequent temperature effects are driven by CO2. This will be explained in point #5 of my profile.

Regarding the "warming" of other bodies in the Solar System, see point #2 in my current profile.

[spunkets]

"Other positive feedbacks, mainly increased water vapor, account for the rest."

This positive feedback thing is generally where I see the exaggeration in temps comes from. The amount of increased water vapor can be obtained from humidity tables, and is not significant for these tiny increases in temp. It doesn't amount to much. As far as any increases in temp go, that I've ever calculated, they appear to be the same as the lower numbers that appear in the IPCC reports. I made no mistake about using equilibrium numbers. It is only equilibrium numbers, that are any good. That eq. I gave is what IPCC uses for the CO₂ component and did result from curve fitting.

You can not have any positive feedback that results in averages that exceed the equilibrium values calculated for a simple configuration of the components representing the 2 states. In order to find the change in energy content, between any 2 states of a system, the energy along the path is minimized. It is not allowed to wander, as these computer simulations do. The bounds found for simple configurations of components representing the states are the references, which no simulation, which is said to be real, can go beyond.

As far as that ocean solubility link goes. It is correct. The oceans are roughly saturated, and the 8-10^oC temp changes do in fact represent the given changes in solubility, and the resulting change in atmospheric conc. Note, that to get that kind of temp change from CO₂, it must be raised by almost an order of magnitude, not a jump from 190ppm to 270ppm.

"Note that ancient_geezer disputes that the important effect is atmospheric warming; he has a counter-position that the surface warming for doubling CO2 won't be the same as the whole atmosphere warming."

I don't know what this means. He did just look at one layer and the resulting temp increase given was too small. All layers warm, and the real numbers are generally on the low side of the range given by the IPCC.

[cogitator]

Is C02 equally distributed over all land and water?

Within a few ppm, yes. There will be variation over phytoplankton blooms (which draw down CO2 locally), the boreal forests in springtime, and also over very warm ocean waters, which will degas some CO2. But the measurements would have to be very accurate to detect the variation from the mean atmospheric CO2 concentration.

[ancient_geezer]

A doubling of CO2 will account for about 0.8-0.9 C rise directly. (I suspect that you didn't use the equilibrium blackbody temperature, a very common error, because when that error is made, the result is ...... 0.3 C!!!). Other positive feedbacks, mainly increased water vapor, account for the rest.

 

Equilibrium relative to top of atmosphere measures (at tropopause) may see 0.8-0.9^oC arising from upward directed Longwave radiation of ~4w/m2 absorption at the wavelengths as which CO2 is active in the atmosphere.

OTOH, downward directed radiative forcing from emission by CO2 are much less due to intervening water vapor aborbing across much broader spectrum and overlapping CO2 at its IR active spectral bands.

As a consequence heating at the surface due to CO2 is severely restricted and limited in what it can contribute to surface temperatures.

 

Kiehl, J. T. and V. Ramanathan, 1982: Radiative Heating Due to Increased CO2: The Role of H2O Continuum Absorption in the 12-18 mm Region . J. Atmos. Sci., 39: 2923-2926.

Introduction:

Within the 12-18mm region, both H2O and CO2 absorb and emit radiation giving rise to the so-called "overlap." This study examines the role of this H2O-CO2 overlap in the CO2-climate proble. The H2O absorpotion, within the 12-18mm region, that has been traditionally included in climate models (Manabe and Wetherald, 1980; Ramanathan, 1981) is the line absorption due to the pure rotational band of H2O. In addition to the pure rotaional band, there is very strong "continuum" absorption by H2O in the 12-18 um region (Roberts et al., 1976). The few climate model studies which include the effect of this continuum (e.g., Wang et al., 1976) have not examined its rl in the increased CO2 radiative effects. In order to isolate the overlap effects of various H2O radiation processes in the 12-18mm region, we comput the radiative heating of the surface/troposphere system due to double CO2 with and without the H2O overlap effects.

*** SNIP ***

[p. 3] We consider three cases in which CO2 is doubled and the changes in longwave fluxes are computed for no overlap between water vapor and CO2. This is achieved by setting the transmissivity of H2O in the 12-18mm region to be equal to 1. In the second case, the H2O overlap due to the rotaional band is included. Finally we include the H2O continuum and calculate the flux changes using both continuum and line transmissivity (for the pure rotation band) described in the previous section. These cases illustrate the most important aspects of the water vapor overlap.

*** SNIP ***

 

Table 1. The effect of CO2 increase on the hemispherically
averaged net radiative heating (wm^-2). DF_T^N is the change
in the net outgoing longwave flux (at the tropopause) due to
doubling of CO2; negative values of this quantity denote
heating of the joint surface/troposphere system. DF¯_s is the
is the change in the downward longwave flux at the surface.

Case	Comments	-DFTN	DF¯s
1	Without H2O absorption in 12-18 mm region	4.69	3.65
2	H2O line absorption	4.18	1.56
3	Line plus continuum absorption	3.99	0.55

 

The overlap graphically represented in the following:

 

IR absorption overlap between Water Vapor and Carbon dioxide
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/ArbitersOfEnergy/

 

Using the more commonly accepted and conservative value of downward directed LW radiation based on line absorption only, CO2 flux is constrained to roughly 1/3 of its TOA upwared directed value.

 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/appd_d.html

"Carbon dioxide adds 12 percent to radiation trapping, which is less than the contribution from either water vapor or clouds. By itself, however, carbon dioxide is capable of trapping three times as much radiation as it actually does in the Earth's atmosphere. Freidenreich and colleagues[106] have reported the overlap of carbon dioxide and water absorption bands in the infrared region. Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor."

Using the NOAA measure for direct radiative flux at TOA due to CO2,

DF = 5.35 ln(C/C₀) wm^-2 [Myhre et al. 1998, Geophys.Res.Lett., 25:2715-2718].

We can calculate the downward directed longwave flux adding to surface heating as a consequence of CO2 doubling in the atmosphere.

Given a doubling of CO2 flux at tropopause is DF = 5.35 ln(2) = 3.70wm^-2 . Due to water vapor spectral overlap CO2 the direct radiative force of CO2 is reduced to approximately 3.70/3 = 1.2wm^-2. Which compares well with the range of values estimated by other researchers:

 

Re-cycling of Infra-Red Energy

According to Dr Hugh Ellsaesser's IPCC submission, "The direct increase in radiative heating of the lower atmosphere (tropopause level) due to doubling CO2 is 4 wm^-2. At the surface it is 0.5 - 1.5 wm^-2". Schlesinger & Mitchell (1985), estimated this surface flux at 2 wm^-2. Thus, depending on the model, or modeler, the estimates for increased surface flux following a CO2 doubling, varies between +0.5 and +2 wm^-2.

 

To determine the effects on temperature measurement at the surface from the back radiation of 2XCO₂ (1.2w/m²), the calculation proceeds as follows:

Starting with 288K initial surface temperature @ current atmospheric conditions.

One applies the Stefan-Boltzman relation:

F=esT⁴

where:

F = total amount of radiation emitted by an object per square meter (Watts m^-2)
e is emissivity, the ratio of the radiation emitted by a surface to that emitted by a black body at the same temperature.
http://www.electro-optical.com/bb_rad/emissivity/emisivty.htm

s is a constant called the Stefan-Boltzman constant = 5.67 x 10^-8 Watts m^-2 K^-4
T is the temperature of the object in K

to determine the total radiative forcing necessary to maintain the atmosphere/surface greenhouse temperature at the current 288^oK surface temperature of the earth.

Flux (F₂₈₈) at the Earth's surface with atmosphere               = 5.67*10^-8(288^oK)⁴ = 390.08 w/m²

To which we add the increment of 2XCO2 direct radiative forcing at the surface DF = 1.2w/m² (i.e bottom of atmosphere as opposed at tropopause at the top.)

F = 390.08 + 1.2 = 391.28 w/m²

And solve for the resultant equilibrium blackbody temperature at the surface for the doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

T = (E/s)^0.25 = (391.28/5.67*10^-8)^0.25 = 288.22K

Final step we determine our result in terms of change in temperature (DT) by subtracting our initial state temperature 288K for the resulting increment of temperature do (2 CO²) direct radiative forcing alone.

DT = 288.22-288 = 0.22K

 

A value that agrees well with the value cited by Ramanathan for direct effects of CO2 on surface temperature:

"the direct radiative effects of doubled CO2 can cause a maximum surface warming [at the equator] of about 0.2 K, and hence roughly 90% of the 2.0-2.5 K surface warming obtained by the GCM is caused by atmospheric feedback processes described above.
--- "Increased Atmospheric CO2: Zonal and Seasonal Estimates of the Effect on the Radiation Energy Balance and Surface Temperature"
(V. Ramanathan and M. S. Lian), J. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 84, p. 4949, 1979.

[BillM]

Oh, correlation is not causation?

The crap in that article you referred to is based on models. Everything is hypothetical.

If the state of modeling is sufficient to do the atmosphere over millenia, why can't you tell me what Microsoft shares will trade for tomorrow?

According to your article, the total worst case effect on CO2 solubility for the widest salinity range would be 6.5% of the observed (correlated) CO2 concentration. In fact on average it would be considerably less.

[PierreLegrand]

If temps go up its global warming if they go down its global warming if they stay the same its global warming if I fart its global warming...blah blah blah

Originally scientists used the Ice Cores to say that they proved that CO2 caused warming because the ICE Cores showed CO2 rising before the temps went up. Now when it has been proven that they had the cause and effect backassbackwards all of a sudden they have explanation. Baloney!

[Osage Orange]

Interesting.............

Appreciate it.

I'm just a dumb okie....so I couldn't say whether or not....global warming was man-made or not.

That being said....I doubt "we" can do much about it.

FRegards,

[cogitator]

I, of course, believe Dr. Ramanathan.

[cogitator]

I sense you're peeved -- that's not my intention. The correct statement is that correlation does not imply causation.

Yes, the article is based on models -- models in which the fundamental parameters are constrained by observational data, and the results must be compared to observational data. One of the issues I'll touch on for point #5 is that the best models don't yet account for the full range of CO2 variation in glacial-interglacial cycles; so far, the best that's been done is about 2/3 of the total. That tells the researchers they don't get it yet -- but they clearly do get that the effect of warming or cooling the ocean is not the major factor.

So, to answer your question in a straightforward way, these are not predictive models.

I pointed out the salinity aspect because it's a basic part of the system, yet one not even mentioned by the author of the piece you linked to. The authors of the paper I linked to are addressing everything, EVEN factors that are only responsible for less than 10% of the total, because that's the only way to do it correctly.

[ancient_geezer]

All layers warm, and the real numbers are generally on the low side of the range given by the IPCC.

All layers warm certainy and cool as well through re-radiation and reflection, very notably so in the case of water vapor and clouds which dominate in the lower atmosphere.

The net is to reduce the effect of CO2 downward directed flux through intervening interaction with water vapor and clouds such that at the surface CO2 is reduced to an effective flux heating the surface of only 1/3 of the flux value at top of atmophere.

Increase water vapor indeed inhibits and limits the efficacy of CO2 even more in acting as a GHG. The dominant drivers are those affecting cloud cover and evaporation from the ocean surface which control the hydrological cycle, that definitely is not CO2.

"The surface of the earth does not cool primarily by infrared radiation. It cools mainly through evaporation.⁷ Most of the evaporated moisture ends up in convective clouds (clouds with strong vertical currents carrying the air and its contents upward, as opposed to layered clouds, which form and stay at a particular level) where the moisture condenses into rain. Just as evaporation cools, the condensation of watervapor heats, and the atmosphere realizes most of this heat at altitudes >5km. It is at these heights that the atmosphere must balance the heat deposited by convection from the surface through cooling by thermal radiation. It is worth noting that, in the absence of convection, pure geenhouse warming would lead to a globally averaged surface temperature of 72^oC given current conditions (Moller and Manabe 1961). Our current average temperature, 15^oC, is actually much closer to the black body temperature temperature (-18^oC), than to the pure greenhouse result.⁸ The relative ineffectiveness of the greenhouse effect is due to convection which carries heat past the bulk of watervapor (which has a characteristic scale height of about 2km), and to large-scale meridional heat transport which carries heat from the moist tropics to the less moist higher latitudes. Because of this transport, it is primarily the distribution of infared absorbers above 5km (rather than below 5km) that is important for containing the heat carried away from the earth's surface (Lindzen et al. 1982)."

*** SNIP ***

"In the meantime greenhouse effect is not nearly as straight forward as is commonly stated."
--- Richard Lindzen (1990) Some coolness concerning global warming. Bulletin, American Metorolological Society, 71, 288-299.

 

"Even if all other greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide and methane) were to disappear, we would still be left with over 98 percent of the current greenhouse effect." Cato Review, Spring issue, 87-98, 1992;

[cogitator]

That being said....I doubt "we" can do much about it.

I think we can.

Lighting the key to energy saving

[BillM]

The premise being dealt with is that CO2 CAUSES warming.

If that is the case, someone would have to explain why there is no positive feedback. More CO2 should always lead to greater warming!

The converse that CO2 increases with warming is expected from the thermodymamics of solution. It is known and measurable.

All this paper purports is to show a remarkable correlation between solubility and temperature.

Many of the factors in your citation are purely theoretical. There doesn't appear to be a parallel chart or table for salinity over the same time frame. That is probably why it is omitted.

[ancient_geezer]

I, of course, believe Dr. Ramanathan.

So we all do, especially in his statements concerning what is the primary hypothesis on which climate models are based.

Water vapor and clouds are the kingpin to how the atomosphere operates, and simultaneously the Achille's heal of climate models, overstating the role of CO2 as opposed to solar effects controlling both cloud cover and thereby solar heating of the ocean surface.

Obviously, the modelers do not hide the dependance of there models on water vapor and clouds:

 

http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/model/direct/direct_lecture_new.html

Water-vapor/greenhouse feedback.

Relative humidity is reasonably constant despite variations in absolute humidity. That is, an increase in temperature leads to more evaporation and increase in the absolute amount of water vapor in the air (increase absolute humidity). But since the warmer air has a higher saturation vapor pressure (can hold more water vapor), the relative humidity stays approximately constant. The increased absolute humidity, however, increases absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere and hence increases the greenhouse effect. Note that this increased greenhouse effect raises the surface temperature, which further increases evaporation. This feedback mechanism is not self-regulating, so we call it a positive feedback.

Cloudiness / surface-temperature feedback.

As temperature increases, evaporation and absolute humidity both increase leading to more cloudiness. But the increase in clouds leads to increased reflection of solar energy and also leads to more trapping of infrared energy from the surface of the earth. The net effect (which depends on the altitude of the clouds) is thought to lead to a cooling, which makes this a negative feedback process.

as quantified by Ramanathan:

"the direct radiative effects of doubled CO2 can cause a maximum surface warming [at the equator] of about 0.2 K, and hence roughly 90% of the 2.0-2.5 K surface warming obtained by the GCM is caused by atmospheric feedback processes described above.
--- "Increased Atmospheric CO2: Zonal and Seasonal Estimates of the Effect on the Radiation Energy Balance and Surface Temperature"
(V. Ramanathan and M. S. Lian), J. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 84, p. 4949, 1979.

 

But we do seem to have a bit of disconnect going on at the empirical side of science, seems that water vapor and cloud cover are going the wrong direction for CO2 to explain the current changes going on in the atmosphere across the last couple of decades:

http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/JPEG/zD2ATMOSCLIM/B128B129glbp.anomdevs.jpg

 

 

---

 

http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zD2BASICS/B8glbp.anomdevs.jpg

 

http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zD2CLOUDTYPES/B32glbp.anomdevs.jpg

 

Seems something other than CO2 may be driving the show as far as flux reaching the surface of the earth to heat things up.

[Old Professer]

At least a Ph.D. or a PAC named after you.

[Old Professer]

No, no; existing ice formed since 1957 when the CO2 station was set up at the base of an active volcano.

Does the trapped CO2 in the small cores correlate with the station readings, year to year?

If you dig up the first 10 feet of a landfill, you can read the election results for the past two cycles, why not ice cores?