NASA and NOAA today proclaimed that 2015 was the ‘hottest year’ on record. See: Warmist Joe Romm: ‘We Just Lived In The Hottest Year On Record’ & Claim: ‘With 2015, Earth Has Back-to-Back Hottest Years Ever Recorded’
Meanwhile, satellite data shows an 18 plus year standstill in global temperatures.
MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen balked at claims of the ‘hottest year’ based on ground based temperature data.
“Frankly, I feel it is proof of dishonesty to argue about things like small fluctuations in temperature or the sign of a trend. Why lend credibility to this dishonesty?” Lindzen, an emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, told Climate Depot shortly after the announcements.
“All that matters is that for almost 40 years, model projections have almost all exceeded observations. Even if all the observed warming were due to greenhouse emissions, it would still point to low sensitivity,” Lindzen continued.
“But, given the ‘pause.’ we know that natural internal variability has to be of the same order as any other process,” Lindzen wrote.
Lindzen has previously mocked ‘warmest’ or ‘hottest’ year proclamations.
“When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period,” Lindzen said in November 2015.
Lindzen cautioned: “The most important thing to keep in mind is – when you ask ‘is it warming, is it cooling’, etc. — is that we are talking about something tiny (temperature changes) and that is the crucial point.”
“And the proof that the uncertainty is tenths of a degree are the adjustments that are being made. If you can adjust temperatures to 2/10ths of a degree, it means it wasn’t certain to 2/10ths of a degree,” he added.
MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Mocks ‘Hottest Year’ Claim: ‘Anyone who starts crowing about those numbers shows that they’re putting spin on nothing’ – “70% of the earth is oceans, we can’t measure those temperatures very well. They can be off a half a degree, a quarter of a degree. Even two-10ths of a degree of change would be tiny but two-100ths is ludicrous. Anyone who starts crowing about those numbers shows that they’re putting spin on nothing.”
Climatologist Dr. John Christy said it best: “If you want the truth about an issue, would you go to an agency with political appointees? The government is not the final word on the truth.”
Update: Heartland Institute’s Joe Bast commented on media coveage of ‘warmest year’:
Bast: “The “news’ story makes no mention of the Congressional investigation of NOAA underway, finding evidence that NOAA falsified its temperature data. No mention that the surface station data aren’t actually global and are known to exaggerate warming trends. And are contradicted by the truly global satellite data, which are in turn validated by weather balloon data. Or that saying “reliable global record-keeping began in 1880” conveniently puts the beginning of the data series at the end of the Little Ice Age. Heartland’s James Taylor tried to inoculate the press from NOAA’s virus with a piece last week at Forbes.com: http://www.forbes.com/sites/
Related Links:
Satellites: No global warming at all for 18 years 8 months
There has been no warming even though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings since 1750 have occurred since 1997.
Analysis: NASA ‘has doubled global warming by altering data over past 15 years’ – ‘No Pause In NASA Climate Science Corruption’ – NASA ‘also ignores satellite data which shows that its temperature data is complete garbage, and that temperatures have not risen this century.’
Flashback: 1990 NASA Report: ‘Satellite analysis of upper atmosphere is more accurate, & should be adopted as the standard way to monitor temp change.’ – April 1990 – The Canberra Times: ‘A report Issued by the U.S. space agency NASA…’ ‘The [NASA] report’s authors said that their satellite analysis of the upper atmosphere is more accurate, and should be adopted as the standard way to monitor temperature change.’
Real Science website analysis: ‘Twenty-four years later, NASA and NOAA ignore the more accurate satellite data – and report only useless, tampered surface temperatures.’
NASA also said the satellite’s were ‘more accurate.’ Flashback: 1990 NASA Report: ‘Satellite analysis of upper atmosphere is more accurate, & should be adopted as the standard way to monitor temp change.’ – April 1990 – The Canberra Times: ‘A report Issued by the U.S. space agency NASA…’
But in 2016, NASA ignores satellites showing a ‘pause’ of over 18 years. See: James Hansen omits satellite data from 2015 temperature analysis
Flashback 1974: ’60 theories have been advanced to explain the global cooling’ – In the 1970’s scientists were predicting a new ice age, and had 60 theories to explain it.: – Ukiah Daily Journal 0 November 20, 1974 – “The cooling trend heralds the start of another ice age, of a duration that could last form 200 years to several milenia…Sixty theories have been advanced, he said, to explain the global cooling period.”
James Hansen omits satellite data from 2015 temperature analysis
29 Responses
“But, given the ‘pause.’ we know that natural internal variability has to be of the same order as any other process,” Lindzen wrote.
That’s the whole show. Simple as that. There’s no way something as accurate and with as good global coverage as satellites shows no statistically significant warming over a period when humans have burned about 30% of all fossil fuels since the dawn of civilization unless Lindzen’s words are true.
Mother Nature was always going to destroy the null CAGW hypothesis. It’s just doing so sooner than I would have predicted.
Copernicus and Galileo are laughing in their graves hysterically.
That’s a point I make to anyone who will listen!
Then to people who say that 18 years isn’t long enough to demonstrate a trend, I point out that pretty soon we won’t be able to call the temperature rise in the 1980s and 1990s a trend either.
There is reason to believe that the climate change we have been experiencing is very similar to what has been going on during the Holocene for the past 10,000 years. We are currently still warming up from the Little Ice Age much as we warmed up from the Dark Ages Cooling Period roughly 13 hundred years ago. Apparently it takes quite a bit of data adjustment to argue otherwise. Despite all the claims, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is evidence that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere but there is no evidence that this additional CO2 causes any more warming. If additional greenhouse gases caused additional warming then the primary culprit would have to be H2O which depends upon the warming of just the surfaces of bodies of water and not their volume but such is not part of the AGW conjecture. In other words CO2 increases in the atmosphere as huge volumes of water increase in temperature but more H2O enters the atmosphere as just the surface of bodies of water warm. We live in a water world where the majority of the Earth’s surface is some form of water.
The AGW theory is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes an increase in its radiant thermal insulation properties causing restrictions in heat flow which in turn cause warming at the Earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere. In itself the effect is small because we are talking about small changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere and CO2 comprises only about .04% of dry atmosphere if it were only dry but that is not the case. Actually H2O, which averages around 2%, is the primary greenhouse gas. The AGW conjecture is that the warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which further increases the radiant thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere and by so doing so amplifies the effect of CO2 on climate. At first this sounds very plausible. This is where the AGW conjecture ends but that is not all what must happen if CO2 actually causes any warming at all.
Besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is also a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere transferring heat energy from the Earth;s surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. More heat energy is moved by H2O via phase change then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. More H2O means that more heat energy gets moved which provides a negative feedback to any CO2 based warming that might occur. Then there is the issue of clouds. More H2O means more clouds. Clouds not only reflect incoming solar radiation but they radiate to space much more efficiently then the clear atmosphere they replace. Clouds provide another negative feedback. Then there is the issue of the upper atmosphere which cools rather than warms. The cooling reduces the amount of H2O up there which decreases any greenhouse gas effects that CO2 might have up there. In total, H2O provides negative feedback’s which must be the case because negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve. We are here. The wet lapse rate being smaller then the dry lapse rate is further evidence of H2O’s cooling effects.
The entire so called, “greenhouse” effect that the AGW conjecture is based upon is at best very questionable. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping effects of greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. This is a convective greenhouse effect. So too on Earth..The surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection. This convective greenhouse effect is observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres and it has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. the convective greenhouse effect is calculated from first principals and it accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. Our sister planet Venus with an atmosphere that is more than 90 times more massive then Earth’s and which is more than 96% CO2 shows no evidence of an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The high temperatures on the surface of Venus can all be explained by the planet’s proximity to the sun and its very dense atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect of the AGW conjecture has never been observed. If CO2 did affect climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Considering how the natural lapse rate has changed as a function of an increase in CO2, the climate sensitivity of CO2 must equal 0.0.
The AGW conjecture talks about CO2 absorbing IR photons and then re radiating them out in all directions. According to this, then CO2 does not retain any of the IR heat energy it absorbs so it cannot be heat trapping. What the AGW conjecture fails to mention is that typically between the time of absorption and radiation that the same CO2 molecule, in the lower troposphere, undergoes roughly a billion physical interactions with other molecules, sharing heat related energy with each interaction. Heat transfer by conduction and convection dominates over heat transfer by LWIR absorption band radiation in the troposphere which further renders CO2’s radiant greenhouse effect as a piece of fiction. Above the troposphere more CO2 enhances the efficiency of LWIR absorption band radiation to space so more CO2 must have a cooling effect.
This is all a matter of science
ed note:than in a couple places
– good summation thanks
I am involved in numerous local political issues as an activist. To stand up to the global warming assertions requires quite a bit of grit, as the wear and tear on my teeth can attest to. The grant money available to “study” the effects of climate change on this that and the other is amazing. Here, in the San Francisco Bay Area the focus of fear is on seal level rise, with claims that the San Francisco Bay will rise several feet during the coming century. However, the developers are keen to build as close to the Bay as possible and land values reflect that desire. Billions of dollars of high rise construction are slated for Treasure Island, an abandoned Navy base right in the middle of the Bay and entirely built on landfill. What do the insurers of this development know that the fear mongers don’t? After all, they are pledging their private capital to underwrite these very expensive projects. When I present this to the local city councils, I get the most dumbfounded looks. What we have is Science devolved into religion and gross grantsmanship. The warmists have the money at their backs. CO2 is presented as a poison. When I mention the use of CO2 in greenhouses, sans the wearing of hazmat suits, again I have to face down the silence. We are no longer talking about reasonable dialogue. It is ignorance, conformity, fear, greed and corruption, all rolled up into one. The history of mankind is littered with missed opportunities and the current waste in the study of earth sciences is one of them. But, I will keep at it. I really hate to see these liars and grant grifting dandies get away with it.
Well said, Clayton. You have courage, my friend.
A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
4emc…….
➤➤
➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsQuality/GetPaid/98$hourly…❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦..
Since Treasure Island entirely built on landfill would these tall high rise buildings survive an earthquake the size of the collapse of the Oakland road to the bridge. I mean if the huge buildings went down into the bay there would be a huge loss of life.
All these very high structures are anchored into the bedrock, which can be over 100 feet beneath the mud. How the very highest will survive the swaying, like we had in 1989, will be interesting. Lots of glass on the street, I suppose. However, an 8.6 plus is another question.
Forgive my ignorance but isn’t the bedrock the plate that actually moves. So 1 plate basically goes down and the other plate goes over the top of the one that goes down where they meet obviously. Do you happen to have a url or 2 for sites that explains TRUTHFULLY how that works. There are so many baloney sites out there I don’t know who to believe. Thanks
What you say is true if you are on bedrock that is directly at the epicenter of the earthquake. If not, your major concern in the reclaimed marsh and mudflats of the Bay is liquefaction, which can be largely avoided by anchoring your foundation to the immediate bedrock. Tiburon is the safest place in the Bay Area to be in the event of an earthquake, due to it being almost solid granite underneath. Much depends on the point of dislocation. In the Bay Area, it is a very complex subject with many possibilities and outcomes.
Hmmm, which are more heavily adjusted, the ground based data or the satellites?
According to Greenland and other Ice Core data our Holocene
Interglacial is now in decline.
When considering the
scale of temperature changes that alarmists anticipate because of Man-made
Global Warming and their view of the disastrous effects of additional Man-made
Carbon Dioxide emissions, it is useful to look at climate change from a longer
term, century by century and also from a millennial perspective.
The current, warm Holocene interglacial has been the enabler
of mankind’s civilisation for the last 10,000+ years. It’s congenial climate
spans from mankind’s earliest farming to the scientific and technological
advances of the last 100 years.
But:
• the last millennium 1000AD – 2000AD encompassing the
Medieval warm Period has been the coldest millennium of the Holocene
interglacial.
• each of the notable high points in the Holocene
temperature record, (the early Holocene Climate Optimum – Minoan – Roman –
Medieval – Modern), have been progressively colder than the previous high
point.
• for its first 7-8000 years the early Holocene, including
its high point “Climate Optimum”, had virtually flat temperatures, an average
drop of only ~0.007 °C per millennium.
• but the more recent Holocene, since a “tipping point” at
~1000BC, has seen a temperature diminution at more than 20 times that earlier
rate at about 0.14 °C per millennium.
• the Holocene interglacial is already 10 – 11,000 years old
and judging from the length of previous interglacials the Holocene epoch should
be drawing to its close: in this century, the next century or this millennium.
• the beneficial warming at the end of the 20th century to
the Modern high point has been falsely transmuted into being “the Great
Man-made Global Warming Scare”.
• eventually this late 20th century modern temperature blip
will come to be seen as just noise in the system in the longer term progress of
comparatively rapid cooling over the last 3000+ years.
The much vaunted and much feared “fatal” tipping point of
+2°C would only bring Global temperatures close to the level of the very
congenial climate of “the Roman warm period”.
Were possible to reach the “horrendous” level of +4°C
postulated by Warmists, that extreme level of warming would still only bring
temperatures to about the level of the previous Eemian maximum, a warm and
abundant epoch, when hippopotami thrived in the Rhine delta.
Global warming protagonists should accept that our
interglacial has been in long-term decline for the last 3000 years or so and
that any action taken by man-kind will make no difference whatsoever. And it’s implausible that any action by
Man-kind could reverse the inexorable in the short period of the coming
century.
Were the actions by Man-kind able to avert warming they
would eventually reinforce the catastrophic cooling that is bound to return
relatively soon.
see
https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/the-holocene-context-for-anthropogenic-global-warming-2/
Planet Earth has spent as much as 25% of its 4.5 Billion year existence with atmospheric concentrations of CO2 at levels of 4000 parts per million (ppm) or greater – an order of magnitude (10x) greater than current levels of CO2 in our atmosphere – and guess what?… the Planet survived just fine… all by itself!
On an existential scale – Planet Earth is today experiencing near-historic low levels of CO2 in our atmosphere (400 ppm). The argument can be made that there is a greater chance of Planet Earth becoming a frozen and lifeless planet (much like Mars); simply because we are closer to a CO2 deficiency on the planet than we are to an over-abundance of CO2 – a compound that is essential for the survival of all plant-life on Earth.
The unfortunate reality is that plant-life begins to shut-down (die) when CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere drop below 150ppm – whereas today’s commercial growing operations pump upwards of 1600ppm into their Greenhouses to facilitate optimum growing conditions. Take a walk in your favourite forest or woodland and you will at times be exposed to CO2 concentrations at levels close to 600ppm… but no worries!… you’ll be just fine. In fact, Princeton Phd Physicist, Freeman Dyson in an April 2015 interview with The Vancouver Sun explains that Planet Earth has greened-up by close to 20% in the last 70 years “… increasing our tillable land, increasing crop yields and feeding more people…” as a direct result of increased levels of CO2 in our atmosphere. In the interview Dyson states emphatically that: “… in the aggregate, increasing levels of CO2 in our atmosphere are a “net benefit” for our biosphere.”
I find it comically ironic that an entire movement that calls itself “green” has positioned itself as the greatest demonizer of the very compound (CO2) that is responsible for “greening” our Planet in the last 3 generations.
Carbon Dioxide also forms the very basis of the food chain in our Oceans!… CO2 is consumed by vast quantities of algae and plankton in our Oceans – these micro-organisms feed the small shrimp and krill that sustain the baitfish, who in turn are prey for the larger ocean predators. Without CO2, our Oceans would be lifeless – our Atmosphere would be toxic and the Planet would be dead!
All life on Planet Earth originated in our Oceans – it is our Oceans that act as vast storage sinks for CO2; as they absorb CO2 during our prolonged Glacial Eras and release it back into the atmosphere following the centuries-long warming process of our interglacials.
The UN’s Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has CO2’s relationship to climate exactly backwards!… CO2 does not cause warming… it follows warming!… It is a trailing indicator of “warming events” that occurred in the near past (600-1000 years past). The reason; is that our Oceans are so vast… they literally take centuries to warm-up and it is this warming process in our Oceans that releases and emits CO2 back into our atmosphere to complete the cycle during the warmer interglacial periods like our current Holocene Epoch – which reached it’s maximum warming 8,000 years ago of 2-3 degrees centigrade higher than today.
Mankind with all of his Industry, Agriculture, Manufacturing, Transportation and Land-use needs is responsible for emitting approximately 38 giga-tons of CO2 into our atmosphere per year worldwide. Yes!… that is 30 billion tons… but it is a mere 5% of the 780 giga-ton footprint of CO2 that is emitted naturally into our atmosphere every year by our oceans, lakes, deltas, volcanoes, forest fires, dying vegetation, animals of all kinds and microbes with whom we share the planet.
Why then is CO2 the source of such angst and hysteria from Academia, our bureaucracies and Progressives?… Answer: In today’s world of misinformation, CO2 has been tagged as the prime candidate onto which our Progressive elites can attach a brand new tax, to pay for the entitlements that 1st World Nations have promised to their constituencies. While at the same time, the UN’s IPCC has become a hypocritical advocate for limiting the growth potential of most 3rd World Nations who are desperate to utilize their own carbon-based energy sources in order to develop their new and emerging economies.
I suppose under the auspices of the United Nations IPCC and alarmists everywhere, we can expect the hype and ramped-up rhetoric to increase during the COP-21 Climate Talks in Paris — soon to be augmented by the Progressive Carbon Tax, the Fresh Water Tax, the Sunshine Tax and last but not least, the Oxygen Tax!
Just some of the “inconvenient truths” to buttress the above narrative!…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc&spfreload=10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ
Agreed, CO2 is high in Sicily due to an always active Mnt Etna. The fertility of the Island is fabled.
Brin
Excellent analysis. I have always said that CO2 was selected as the climate villain because it can be used as an instrument of control.
Protected Catholic perverts
Has anyone considered the following?
No mention of the greenhouse effect was made in a 1979 joint publication, by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council, on behalf of the US government, titled “Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment”.
That was the best of the best scientists, given the task of reporting on atmospheric carbon dioxide, who never once mentioned “greenhouse effect”.
The NAS study was commissioned by the US government to address the best science of the day, on the role of carbon dioxide in atmospheric physics. Irrespective of the contents of the report, it shows that as at July 1979, the concept of a greenhouse effect as a factor on Earth’s climate was clearly non-existent.
It was Dr james Hansen’s erroneous testimony before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee of the United States Senate on 23 June 1988 that gave life to the ‘greenhouse effect” when he said the following:
“Mr Chairman and committee members, thank you for the opportunity to present the results of my research on the greenhouse effect, which has been carried out with my colleagues at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
I would like to draw three main conclusions. Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect. And number three, our computer simulations indicate that the greenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to effect the probability of extreme events such as summer heat waves.”
And when the UN’s IPCC was set up in late 1988, it took up the “greenhouse effect” as its ‘poster science’ and ran with it as a means of achieving an international agreement to control fossil fuel energy use, which finally happened in Paris a few weeks ago. Mind boggling!!!!!!!!
“Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment” certainly does discuss the greenhouse effect. The term they for it is “direct radiative effects”. See section 3.1.1. http://web.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf
Can you explain the mechanism in detail please?
He just did.
It’s in the link.
READ HARDER.
FYI, NOAA says that data from one temperature monitoring site, even one very close by, cannot be compared to other sites. Yet the site at the Cornell Cooperative Extension Farm in Canton, NY, was moved 1.6km some time in the last two decades. There is *nothing* in the data that acknowledges this change.
An honest researcher would split the data into two sites, with different names and different histories, one of which starts when the other one ends. What kind of researchers are these?
If they’re careless with one site, how many others have had equally careless consideration? We’re expected to spend billions, probably trillions of dollars on this. IT’S IMPORTANT TO GET IT RIGHT. And yet … you have crap like this. Pisses me right off.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/…/stations/GHCND:USW00014743/detail shows its current location. If you ask for older data when it was at the old site, …. you get the new location. It used to be here: 44.5643, -75.1014 which you can see is substantially different in character, 17 meters different in elevation, and 1.6km apart.
To suffocate the military in idealogical green tape is treason.
The psychopaths who tunnel vision the total destruction of democracy and the west have just been given a nuclear opportunity to achieve their dream.
No scientific evidence as a motive.
Just a multi-trillion dollar gravy train.
Global Warming is a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
All you need to say about global warming is that it is impossible. 2nd Law of
Thermodynamics states heat transfer is always from a warmer body to a cooler
body – never vice versa.
A cooler atmosphere cannot
heat a warmer earth.
Did you get all dressed up to say that Bob?
Sometimes even a cooler blanket is warmer than none at all.
Political appointee John Christy of UAH says what?
And why is Lindzen still using RSS 3.3, so long after it was replaced by RSS 4.0?
I hope to recruit a critical mass of high profile experts to submit a joint paper to change the narrative and settle once and for all the question of AGW magnitude.
Rather than endless quarreling about the amount of warming to be expected by doubling CO2, I propose an energy approach to understanding the physics of earth’s response:
Critical comments are welcome and encouraged.
A proposed approach to physics:
Exploring
the IPCC AR-5 CO2 Greenhouse (Yes Virginia, there may be
a greenhouse effect)
Introduction
Theme:
Doubling
CO2 which may have an IR blanketing effect on the upper atmosphere
adds no energy to the earth system and therefore will cause
essentially no change in the shape and function of the natural random
chaotic atmosphere in balancing a constant solar energy input with
the IR radiation output to space.
Assuming
the latest ‘greenhouse’ conjecture put forth by the IPCC
specifically; that the increase altitude at which the CO2 portion of
the IR spectrum is colder than before the CO2 doubling is valid:
An
AGW thought experiment is proposed to investigate the climate effect
of doubling atmospheric CO2 in a century:
It
must be a thought experiment which isolates the change in CO2 and
holds all energy inputs constant since we cannot control for all of
the unknown variables which confound our attempts at verification
measurements and attributing measured temperature changes such as:
“The
problem with AGW is that climate models have to deal with many
more variables than weather models. They have to model all of the
variables that weather models should contain including for instance
Solar activity including cosmic ray cloud effects and minor
changes in radiation intensity, plus: (for instance)
• Land
biology
• Sea
biology
• Ocean
currents
• Ground
freezing and thawing
• Changes
in sea ice extent and area
• Aerosol
changes
• Changes
in solar intensity
• Average
volcanic effects
• Snow
accumulation, area, melt, and sublimation
• Effect
of melt water pooling on ice
• Freezing
and thawing of lakes
• Changes
in oceanic salinity
• Changes
in ice cap and glacier thickness and extent
• Changes
in atmospheric trace gases
• Variations
in soil moisture
• Alterations
in land use/land cover
• Interactions
between all of the above
• Mechanisms
which tend to maximise
the sum of work and entropy according to the Constructal
Law.”
However
we can devise a simple thought experiment which holds all other
ill-defined as well as unknown energy modulation variables
constant to evaluate the effect of the CO2 input variable on an
otherwise constant earth energy climate model.
CO2
Greenhouse:
In
this reference the IPCC Figure SPM5.1 as well as others published by
the IPCC AR-5 WG-1 attributes a reduction of~1.85 watts/m2 IR
radiation to space due to a doubling of the CO2 blanket thickness at
the top of the troposphere. Although there may be reasonable
arguments about where exactly in altitude and temperature lapse rate
curve some or all of the CO2 spectrum is effectively radiating,
assume for purposes of this discussion that 100% of this
conjecture is true . It therefore represents the maximum CO2
“greenhouse” quoted from the latest effect calculated
by NASA .
A
Constant input Power Model:
How
does the climate respond to the conjecture of this blanket effect of
CO2 doubling at the top of the troposphere where it will radiate 1.85
watts/m2 less IR to space from the edges of the 15 u band?
Obviously the earth must heat up to provide a temperature increase in
the water vapor to increase its radiation by this amount to drive the
earth energy toward a steady state average balance. While the driving
force is the increase in CO2 of 1%/year, the earth will always
respond to catch up with a required atmospheric temperature increase,
otherwise the earth’s mass temperature would continue to rise
without any compensating energy balance in radiation to space.
A warming scenario based on the steady state solution is described
here.
Paradigm
shift: To isolate the CO2 GH effect from all other variables,
remembering the Law of Conservation of Energy, in this scenario
nature has no additional (or reduced) energy to work with and thus
will continue with the hydrologic solution which has evolved over the
millennia to balance the constant solar power by shifting the
missing CO2 GH radiation over to a compensating increase in water
vapor radiation.
Model
approach:
Since
CO2 increase adds no additional energy to the system:
Our
challenge is to understand how the climate will adjust to the
absolute energy balance requirement. Calculating changes the
spatial and temporal changes in conduction, convection and radiation
in the random chaotic atmosphere have proven to be more challenging
than we can ever hope to address with our limited computing power not
to mention limited understanding of the detailed spatial and temporal
physics of cloud formation in the hydrologic cycle. Perhaps the
correct approach is to let the natural system recalculate and re
balance as it has done for millennia and observe the result.
As
the CO2 accumulates blocking the calculated reduction in IR
spectrum by an increment of ~20 milliwatts/m2 each year over the
coming century, the earth will accumulate this energy raising its
surface temperature and the surface strata atmosphere
temperature by dT/year . Thus the atmospheric water vapor will
increase its radiation an average 20 milliwatts/m2 each year to the
some 235 watts/m2 which it is already radiating to space.
Since
in this experiment the solar input to the earth including cloud
effects, volcano and all other energy inputs (some of which are
listed in the introduction) to the earth are held constant to allow
us to concentrate on the effect of CO2 ‘forcing’ alone,
the energy flux into the earth and from the surface to the atmosphere
is thus constant. This requires that the average surface/atmosphere
temperature gradient is constant and unchanged as required by a
constant energy flux albeit at an increasing temperature of both
surface and atmosphere of dT/year. Most of this energy transfer
remains the constant evaporation rate of water containing its latent
heat of vaporization. The surface radiation which remains
constant through the constant surface/atmospheric strata temperature
gradient continues to be captured at the same constant rate and
is immediately thermalized by the GH gasses. The
atmosphere temperature lapse rate curve moves ‘to the right ‘ by dT
each year along with the surface temperature increase so that by the
end of the century it will be displaced by 100dT higher temperature
causing the constant water vapor pressure will radiate an additional
~1.85 watts/m2 to space.
Climate
physics:
Since
the lapse rate is constant, the cloud behavior/conformation, water
content, vertical temperature profile, energy release ed not change
and indeed will have no additional energy(water vapor) input to do
so. Since its condensation level is a function of temperature,
clouds will start at an average altitude increasing by dz=dT/6.5C/km
each year so that by the end of the century the clouds need not
change in form, size. extent, temperature or temperature gradient but
be 100dz=100dT/6.5C/km higher occupying exactly the same temperature
gradient as before the 100 dT shift in atmospheric temperature
started. Since the clouds have no change in energy or in
temperature gradient they will radiate IR in exactly the same fashion
but into an atmosphere which has a reduced water vapor
pressure(increased altitude) and so radiate upward more efficiently.
The clear atmosphere water vapor will have exactly the same water
vapor pressure gradient as before but each year will radiate at a
temperature dT higher throughout all altitudes. In other words
nothing need be changed except the altitude of the clouds which have
exactly the same temperature profile and conformation as before
except at an increased altitude dz. We see that the natural
atmosphere solution (that we have described as random chaotic) which
nature has developed over the millennial to maintain energy balance
will require no change except that cloud height will rise by dz
each year to maintain their vertical temperature profile and that
clear air fixed water vapor pressure gradient will be radiating at an
increased temperature, dT each year.
For
illustration; some calculation of the average energy flow and
temperature changes of a one dimensional average temperature and
radiation model is shown.
A
very minor energy balance adjustment;
Since
the surface temperature will increase by 100dT by the end of the
century, the radiation through the IR window will increase thus
requiring slightly less (~10%) water vapor energy radiation reducing
the overall atmospheric temperature increase requirement to slightly
less than that described below.
Temperature
increase;
Raising
a 255K black body atmospherewhich seems to be favored by NASA) by
100dT= .5K will increase the radiation to space calculated from the
Stephen-Boltzmann radiation equation by 1.886 watt/m2 which will
suffice to balance the loss due to the CO2 blanket at the end of the
century .
Thus
the 20 milliwatts/m2 yearly increase in water vapor radiation will
require an increase of dT=5 millideg C/year * for a century to
balance the CO2 blanket accumulation over the century. (* Yes, we
know that dT is a 4th root function of power but at these small
incremental of the base temperature of 255K it is within ~5% of
linear and matters little in understanding the big picture)
Change
in nominal cloud base (and top) altitude is; dz=.005/6.5 = .77 m/year
or 100dz= 77 m/century.
To
state the obvious, the earth need not employ any new different
or complex physics (indeed there is no increase or change in energy
flux (vaporization rate) to power any change). The earth and
atmosphere temperature will increase by the required 0.5K over the
century to shift the required 1.85 watts/m2 missing from the CO2
blanket to the water vapor radiation budget.
Stating
the law of conservation of energy in this context:
Again
stating the obvious; (although the back radiation/positive water
vapor feedback is disproven physics) for those who choose to
retain this paradigm in their thinking, there is no additional
energy flow (constant gradient) therefore no additional water
vaporization and thus whatever the present day situation re.
water vaporization/radiation is, there can be no change,
whatever one might believe re. water vapor/radiation feedback there
is no additional power to drive an increase in such a ‘loop’.
As
always, any tendency to raise the surface strata temperature
above(below) normal would reduce (increase) the temperature gradient
thus limit any change in energy flow(most importantly WV).
With a constant energy flow available this is a self-limiting and
unchanged constant average surface strata gradient at the new nominal
steady state average earth surface and atmospheric temperature
of 288 +.5 K. (15.5C) and average atmospheric radiation temperature
of 255+.5K.
Global Warming is the religion of the left.