Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest MeWe

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Is the CO2 effect saturated?

What the science says...

Select a level... Basic Intermediate Advanced

The notion that the CO2 effect is 'saturated' is based on a misunderstanding of how the greenhouse effect works.

Climate Myth...

CO2 effect is saturated

"Each unit of CO2 you put into the atmosphere has less and less of a warming impact. Once the atmosphere reaches a saturation point, additional input of CO2 will not really have any major impact. It's like putting insulation in your attic. They give a recommended amount and after that you can stack the insulation up to the roof and it's going to have no impact." (Marc Morano, as quoted by Steve Eliot)

The mistaken idea that the Greenhouse Effect is 'saturated', that adding more CO2 will have virtually no effect, is based on a simple misunderstanding of how the Greenhouse Effect works.

The myth goes something like this:

  • CO2 absorbs nearly all the Infrared (heat) radiation leaving the Earth's surface that it can absorb. True!
  • Therefore adding more CO2 won't absorb much more IR radiation at the surface. True!
  • Therefore adding more CO2 can't cause more warming. FALSE!!!

Here's why; it ignores the very simplest arithmetic.

If the air is only absorbing heat from the surface then the air should just keep getting hotter and hotter. By now the Earth should be a cinder from all that absorbed heat. But not too surprisingly, it isn't! What are we missing?

The air doesn't just absorb heat, it also loses it as well! The atmosphere isn't just absorbing IR Radiation (heat) from the surface. It is also radiating IR Radiation (heat) to Space. If these two heat flows are in balance, the atmosphere doesn't warm or cool - it stays the same.

Lets think about a simple analogy:

We have a water tank. A pump is adding water to the tank at, perhaps, 100 litres per minute. And an outlet pipe is letting water drain out of the tank at 100 litres per minute. What is happening to the water level in the tank? It is remaining steady because the flows into and out of the tank are the same. In our analogy the pump adding water is the absorption of heat by the atmosphere; the water flowing from the outlet pipe is the heat being radiated out to space. And the volume of water inside the tank is the amount of heat in the atmosphere.

What might we do to increase the water level in the tank?

We might increase the speed of the pump that is adding water to the tank. That would raise the water level. But if the pump is already running at nearly its top speed, I can't add water any faster. That would fit the 'It's Saturated' claim: the pump can't run much faster just as the atmosphere can't absorb the Sun's heat any faster

But what if we restricted the outlet, so that it was harder for water to get out of the tank? The same amount of water is flowing in but less is flowing out. So the water level in the tank will rise. We can change the water level in our tank without changing how much water is flowing in, by changing how much water is flowing out.

water tank

Similarly we can change how much heat there is in the atmosphere by restricting how much heat leaves the atmosphere rather than by increasing how much is being absorbed by the atmosphere.

This is how the Greenhouse Effect works. The Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and water vapour absorb most of the heat radiation leaving the Earth's surface. Then their concentration determines how much heat escapes from the top of the atmosphere to space. It is the change in what happens at the top of the atmosphere that matters, not what happens down here near the surface.

So how does changing the concentration of a Greenhouse gas change how much heat escapes from the upper atmosphere? As we climb higher in the atmosphere the air gets thinner. There is less of all gases, including the greenhouse gases. Eventually the air becomes thin enough that any heat radiated by the air can escape all the way to Space. How much heat escapes to space from this altitude then depends on how cold the air is at that height. The colder the air, the less heat it radiates.

atmosphere
(OK, I'm Australian so this image appeals to me)

So if we add more greenhouse gases the air needs to be thinner before heat radiation is able to escape to space. So this can only happen higher in the atmosphere. Where it is colder. So the amount of heat escaping is reduced.

By adding greenhouse gases, we force the radiation to space to come from higher, colder air, reducing the flow of radiation to space. And there is still a lot of scope for more greenhouse gases to push 'the action' higher and higher, into colder and colder air, restricting the rate of radiation to space even further.

The Greenhouse Effect isn't even remotely Saturated. Myth Busted!

Basic rebuttal written by dana1981


Update July 2015:

Here is a related lecture-video from Denial101x - Making Sense of Climate Science Denial

 

Last updated on 7 July 2015 by pattimer. View Archives

Printable Version  |  Offline PDF Version  |  Link to this page

Argument Feedback

Please use this form to let us know about suggested updates to this rebuttal.

Related Arguments

Further reading

V. Ramanthan has written a comprehensive article Trace-Gas Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming.

Comments

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Comments 76 to 100 out of 653:

  1. Thank you Daniel Bailey, it certainly helps my understanding. If no more warming was available with increased CO2, it is hard to see how Snowball Earth could have ended where my reading is that a trigger was reached sending earth into a transient super-greenhouse.
  2. I know I am coming to this discussion late, but I wanted to discuss the statement from the advanced tab that states: "We can see that although the absorption dip cannot fall below the 220 K curve, it becomes wider and the absorbed energy increases accordingly." I have an alternate/additional hypothesis that I am trying to explore: * Raising the CO2 concentration should raise the effective altitude of the "last layer", since you need to go higher to get to a place where CO2 is thin enough to "let the IR escape". * Raising the altitude of the new "last layer" take us to a layer with a lower average temperature. * That cooler layer will radiate less energy. * To return to equilibrium, that new "last layer" must warm up, which will in turn warm all the layers below it. This mechanism is in addition to the effects of line broadening that have already been discussed. This fall apart a bit if that "last layer" is already at or above the tropopause. The temperatures in the model suggest that the "last layer" is still a little below the tropopause. Does any one here 1) have any links to the level of the effective "last layer"? 2) comments or corrections to what I am hypothesizing?
  3. tjfolkerts, you are correct. In that same Advanced tabbed page, look for the paragraph "There's one more subtle effect related to increased absorption. Upon increasing CO2 concentration, the layer at which the absorption coefficient at each wavelength is low enough to let the IR light escape will be found higher in the atmosphere. The emitting layer will then have a lower temperature, at least until the tropopause is reached, and hence a lower emitting power." A good source of more info are the RealClimate posts A Saturated Gassy Argument and the followup Part II: What Angstrom Didn't Know.
  4. Tom, Thanks for the info and the link to the other discussions - they were quite informative. I should have guessed that if a relative novice like me can think of it, then others would have already explored the idea in more depth. :-)
  5. tjfolkerts, regarding lapse rate, you'll be interested to read Eli Rabbett's post about a skeptic named Hermann Harde, who used a climate model so simple that it had only two layers of atmosphere--too few layers to adequately represent the strength of the effect of higher layers being cooler.
  6. My take on the science is this: 1. The undisputed absorption figures for CO2 mean that an increase in concentration cannot directly greatly (I mean by more than 0.5W/m^2) increase the absorption of surface energy by the atmosphere. 2. The increased absorption of sunlight by the upper atmosphere means a drop in insolation at the Surface of about 1W/m^2. The increased back radiation due to the decreased average altitude of the CO2 surface-bound emissions is about 0.5W/m^2, so the NET direct effect of doubled CO2 on the Surface is a cooling forcing of 0.5W/m^2. 3. At the other boundary, it is clear from the outgoing spectra that CO2 is responsible for between 15 and 18W/m^2 of the emissions to space. It is also very clear that the emissions at the stronger wavenumber 670 are stronger than the rest of the CO2 band. Because emissions to space have to get through the overlying gas, it is also clear that the more strongly absorbed wavenumber 670 emissions are coming from higher in the atmosphere than say the wavenumber 650 emissions. So in this case, Higher = hotter, ie the wavenumber 670 emissions are definitely coming from the stratosphere. 4. All very well, but what about the rest of the CO2 band? At STP 50% of wavenumber 650 emissions are absorbed in the first 25m of atmosphere. At say 17km the same number of CO2 molecules occupy about 250m. The pressure decrease over these 250m means only a small narrowing of the emission/absorption lines, so absorption rate will not be greatly affected: at 17km just under half the wavenumber 650 photons are absorbed within 250m. 5. I calculate that the published absorption data for CO2 means that the great majority of emissions from CO2 must be coming from above the Tropopause. 6. If so, then we would expect a doubling of CO2 to have a COOLING effect on the planet.
  7. novandilcosid takes on basic physics on the CO2 lag thread. He writes:
    "1. The undisputed absorption figures for CO2 mean that an increase in concentration cannot directly greatly (I mean by more than 0.5W/m^2) increase the absorption of surface energy by the atmosphere."
    novan calculates this by calculating the change in brightness temperature of the back radiation assuming the atmospheric temperature profile remains constant, and that the increased CO2 concentration reduces the average altitude from which the back radiation is emitted. The problem with this is not that it is in error, but what it ignores. Specifically, what heats the surface is not the back radiation but the sun. The way the back radiation effects the surface temperature is only by modulating the rate at which heat escapes, but it is a minor player in that role. Far more important is convection, which carries heat rapidly to the upper atmosphere. In the event that the upper troposphere warms, as for example, because of reduced IR radiation because of increased CO2 concentrations, that will slow the rate of convective heat transfer, and because heat is being carried away from the surface slower, the surface will warm until equilibrium is reestablished. This will result in an increase in back radiation, but because the lower atmosphere has warmed, not because of the lower effective altitude of emission of back radiation.
    "4. All very well, but what about the rest of the CO2 band? At STP 50% of wavenumber 650 emissions are absorbed in the first 25m of atmosphere. At say 17km the same number of CO2 molecules occupy about 250m. The pressure decrease over these 250m means only a small narrowing of the emission/absorption lines, so absorption rate will not be greatly affected: at 17km just under half the wavenumber 650 photons are absorbed within 250m. 5. I calculate that the published absorption data for CO2 means that the great majority of emissions from CO2 must be coming from above the Tropopause."
    It is odd that novan concentrates his discussion on the 650 wave number. It is well known that at that wave number, CO2 absorption is at its peak, and that as a result the majority of CO2 emissions to space at that wavenumber come from the stratosphere. However, the CO2 absorption band in the atmosphere is approximately 350 cm^-1 wide, with most of that band being much weaker absorption than at 650^-1. Science of Doom has calculated the change in transmission at the troposphere for a doubling of CO2: This is total change in transmittance, and does not take into account the emissions by the CO2, but the effect of the stratosphere and above on transmittance or emissions in the wings (<625cm^-1, >715cm^-1) is negligible. The consequence of including all the line numbers in your calculations (rather than just one, and done by novan) is to show that increasing CO2 concentrations reduces total emissions to space from the upper troposphere, requiring a compensating warming of the surface to restore the energy balance.
    Response: [DB] Closed blockquote tag.
  8. Tom Curtis wrote: "novandilcosid takes on basic physics on the CO2 lag thread. He writes: "1. The undisputed absorption figures for CO2 mean that an increase in concentration cannot directly greatly (I mean by more than 0.5W/m^2) increase the absorption of surface energy by the atmosphere." novan calculates this by calculating the change in brightness temperature of the back radiation assuming the atmospheric temperature profile remains constant, and that the increased CO2 concentration reduces the average altitude from which the back radiation is emitted. The problem with this is not that it is in error, but what it ignores. Specifically, what heats the surface is not the back radiation but the sun. The way the back radiation effects the surface temperature is only by modulating the rate at which heat escapes, but it is a minor player in that role. Far more important is convection, which carries heat rapidly to the upper atmosphere. In the event that the upper troposphere warms, as for example, because of reduced IR radiation because of increased CO2 concentrations, that will slow the rate of convective heat transfer, and because heat is being carried away from the surface slower, the surface will warm until equilibrium is reestablished. This will result in an increase in back radiation, but because the lower atmosphere has warmed, not because of the lower effective altitude of emission of back radiation." For a system in equilibrium (ie for the planet integrated over the surface and over a year) the Surface Energy Flow Balance is: Absorbed Sunlight + Back-Radiation = Surface Radiation + Evaporated water + Conduction For doubled CO2, the Absorbed Sunlight is less by 1W/M^2 because of increased absorption in the upper atmosphere. The Back Radiation is about 0.5W/m^2 more, due to a drop in the average height of CO2 radiation (lower is hotter). So the LHS (the forcing side) is less, and unless there are any other influences the Surface will cool slightly, resulting in slightly less Surface Radiation, and slightly less evaporated water. Note there is no mechanism to change the energy balance at the surface other than by varying the absorbed sunlight or the back radiation. The Surface couldn't give two hoots about what is happening in the thin cold and radiatively isolated upper atmosphere. It can only change temperature if the LHS of the equation changes. The absorbed sunlight will change if the albedo (clouds, ice) changes, the sun changes or as in this case, the absorption into the atmosphere changes. The back radiation will change if the atmospheric window closes, or if the Greenhouse gases heat up. So I disagree with Tom in one important detail. He suggests the surface heats up because of slowed atmospheric convection, then back radiation increases because of a heated atmosphere. That's not the case. The surface temperature can only increase if the atmosphere heats up first. And I'm not sure that it does. [There are some other interesting aspects: The atmospheric window is almost constant, the conduction is almost constant, so the heat transport from the surface into the atmosphere is almost a constant whatever the surface temperature. What happens as the temperature rises is that the Net radiation (surface radiation less radiation through the window less back radiation) DECREASES and this balances the increase in water vapour condensation. It is also of interest, as Tom points out, that the surface heat transport into the atmosphere is one fifth Net radiation, one fifth conduction, and three fifths condensation of water vapour.]
    Response: [DB] Please do not quote more than a sentence at a time from someone else's comment. A link to their comment plus the specific point you wish to quote will be sufficient. Thanks!
  9. Tom went on to claim that the 15um CO2 band is very wide. But examination of outgoing spectra suggests that the major CO2 effect is confined to the wavenumber 625-700 region, as does a plot of the absorption lines. In this region, the outgoing spectrum is about 15-18W/m^2. Of that around 12-15W/m^2 is being emitted above the tropopause. And that number goes up as the concentration of CO2 goes up, as the emissions come from higher in the Stratosphere (higher = warmer = stronger emission). I don't know how much emission is coming from CO2 molecules emitting the very weak lines outside this region, but not very much. I think it may be time to reveal how much energy is believed to be radiated from these weak lines, and what the exact effect of a doubling of CO2 is thought to be. [I distrust "Transmittance". How is it defined? There needs to be a distance and a concentration specified to make sense of the number. It is far more instructive and useful to use absorption tables, where the percentage remaining after passage through a specified amount of gas is defined. "Change in Transmittance" is even worse!]
  10. novandilcosid @83 (A) claims the surface energy balance is given by: Absorbed Sunlight + Back-Radiation = Surface Radiation + Evaporated water + Conduction Clearly in doing so he is talking about the actual surface - ie the top 1 mm of dirt of water that covers the planets surface. Oddly enough, there are very few thermometers stuck into that top 2 mm, with most thermometers being stuck in the atmosphere 2 meters above that surface. The "Global Mean Surface Temperature" is actually the temperature of the lowest surface layer of the atmosphere, so the proper energy balance equation is: Absorbed Sunlight + Back-Radiation = Surface Radiation + Evaporated water (including water from transpiration in plants) + Convection Although nonstandard, we can still work with novan's actual surface. (B) Novan also claims the only way the temperature can change is if the Left Hand Side of the surface balance equation changes. This is patently false, and refuted by everyday experience. It is standard procedure in cooking to alter the heat flow or temperature of water on the stove by adjusting evaporative heat loss rather than the heating element or flame. I come from Mount Isa where it is standard practice to cool homes by using evaporative air conditioners. Further, in Australia drinking water in the outback is typically stored in canvas bags rather than Jerry Cans so that evaporation will cool the water. If, at the surface, conductive heat flow was restricted, say, by raising the temperature of the layer immediately above the surface, and the inputs were left unchanged, the surface temperature would increase. The surface air layer could be warmed by a reduction in convection (and hence also latent heat transfer) by the warming of the air layer above that, and so on till you reach the upper troposphere where the air will be warmed by a reduction in the net outgoing IR radiation from that level by an increase in CO2 levels. C) Novan purports to have proved from first principles or empirical research or to just know a priori (I'm not sure which) that conduction between the surface and atmosphere is near constant, which is false. He also claims that the change of evaporative heat loss from a surface will automatically match in magnitude, but with opposite sign the change in radiative loss of heat to the atmosphere. This principle apparently holds true whether the surface in question is rocky desert or ocean, and also to hold independently of wind speed over the surface. That is an astonishing result, and I cannot wait to see the proof. I expect to be disappointed, however, for it sounds more like magical thinking than science.
  11. novandilcosid @84 as the situation stands, a large number of scientists using different programs on different computers have calculated the absorption, emission and transmittance for each wave number across the entire IR spectrum for the surface, plus each of 33 or more layers of atmosphere using observationally based information on temperature levels, and trace gas concentrations. In doing so they have produced spectra that almost exactly match those actually observed from space. Using these diverse models, if they increase the amount of CO2 by a factor of two, they reduce the outgoing IR radiation by approximately 3.7 Watts/meter squared. Those scientists and others, using still other computers have used equivalent techniques, but in which they allow the temperature and humidity at each layer to be set by the program based on energy balance equations and produced almost identical results. Deniers almost always ridicule these results as being "only based on models". But you want me to believe your claims about the effects of increasing CO2 based on the fact that you have calculated for just two wave numbers and just two poorly defined levels of the atmosphere. How about you program your line by line model and see if your results actually hold when you consider the whole atmosphere and all of the radiation. In the mean time, if you click on the picture below, you might get a clue: (Atmospheric absorption for 280 and 560 ppm CO2 as calculated by DeWitt Payne using Spectralcalc; difference between values shown in 82 above.)
  12. Tom Curtis @ #85 has fallen into a trap. His claims are all correct. So are mine. It will be noted that I prefaced my analysis with the following words: "For a system in equilibrium (ie for the planet integrated over the surface and over a year)" Essentially this is what is claimed when the IPCC states there is 3.7W/m^2 of Radiative Forcing if CO2 is doubled. Or when a 3 DegC temperature rise is claimed. It is not for a specific location but is an average for the whole planet integrated over a year. Consider a planet 3 degrees hotter (in the above sense). The likelihood is that the relationship between the Surface and Air is the same (this is implicit in the claim of a constant lapse rate) ie the average temperature difference between the air and surface is THE SAME. So the Conductive term, which is solely driven by temperature difference will be the same. We know that a doubling of CO2 has little DIRECT effect on the absorption of surface heat - maybe about 0.5W/m^2 of increase. ie the Window to space only closes fractionally. So both these terms are nearly zero change. The equation for surface heat absorbed into the atmosphere is: Surface Heat Absorbed into the Atmosphere = Surface radiation - the portion escaping through the Window - Back Radiation + Conduction + Evaporated water We also know from the surface energy balance that, providing Conduction and absorbed solar don't change, Change in Back Radiation = Change in Surface radiation + Change in Evaporation, or Change in surface radiation - change in backe radiation = -change in Evaporation or, if radiation through the window is cobstant, Change in NET radiation from the surface into the atmosphere = - Change in Evaporation Putting this in words, any increase in evaporation is balanced by an equal and opposite reduction in Net radiation from the surface. Hope this helps.
  13. Actually, it isn't just anthropogenic global warming... based on his statements, novandilcosid appears to deny the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect entirely. Though how he then explains why the Earth isn't a giant ball of ice, glaciation cycles, the data measuring this 'non-existent' effect in the article above, the disagreement of thousands of scientists (including all the major AGW 'skeptics'), et cetera remains unexplained.
  14. CBDunkerson @88, in fact he goes further. From his 81:
    "6. If so, then we would expect a doubling of CO2 to have a COOLING effect on the planet.
    My emphasis. So not only does he need to explain why the Earth isn't a cozy 255K, he needs to explain why it isn't 250K or less. It is however already apparent that he will not mere observation kill his beautiful theories.
  15. novan >Surface Heat Absorbed into the Atmosphere = Surface radiation - the portion escaping through the Window - Back Radiation + Conduction + Evaporated water "Portion escaping through the window" should not be part of the equation. It is an output from the surface and so must be included in any energy balance equation for the surface. It's quite simple: take all the inputs on one side and all the outputs on the other. So the real total energy balance equation from the surface would be: Absorbed Solar + Back Radiation = Surface radiation + Convection + Evaporated water (latent heat). If we take your assumption that convection and absorbed solar didn't change, then that gives us: Back Radiation = Surface Radiation + Evaporation. or Evaporation = Back Radiation - Surface Radiation So an increase in evaporation may be balanced out by either decrease in surface radiation or an increase in back radiation. It does not hold (even with your assumptions) that increased evaporation must be balanced by decreased surface radiation. Also note that evaporation and surface radiation are tightly related to temperature. It would not make physical sense to have increased evaporation with less surface radiation, as that would imply increased evaporation with lower temperatures.
  16. e's claims at #90 above are erroneous. His second equation should read: Change in Back Radiation = Change in Surface Radiation + Change in Evaporation. The Surface Balance equation can be rewritten: Absorbed Solar = Net Surface radiation into the atmosphere + Net Surface Radiation through the window to space + Convection + Evaporated water (latent heat). Writing this in terms of change, and making the (only slightly wrong) assumptions that changes to Absorbed Solar, Conduction and Net Surface Radiation through the window to space are zero, then yes indeed Net Surface radiation into the atmosphere = -Evaporated water (latent heat). This is another way of saying two things: 1. The energy transported from the surface always equals the insolation. Unless the solar constant or the albedo change, the energy from the surface is a constant. 2. As the Greenhouse tightens we expect the back-radiation to increase at a greater rate than the surface radiation: the radiative balance between the atmosphere and the surface narrows. At a perfect greenhouse, the retransmission of energy from the GHGs would be from the first layer of molecules - no temperature difference, perfect black body so total balance. The relative increase in back radiation allows the surface temperature to rise. This rise increases the evaporation rate in such a way that the relative increase in back radiation balances the increased evaporation. Note that the heat transport into the atmosphere from the surface is approximately Conduction one fifth Net Radiation one fifth Evaporation three fifths If the temperature increases, evaporation goes up and net radiation goes down. The rate at which evaporation increases with temperature is in dispute - essentially it is unkown. Measurement suggests 5% per DegC. The modellers use 2.5% or less. Additionally relative humidity is often taken to be constant. Measurement suggests that this may be abrave assumption.
  17. Tom Curtis wrote at #82: "It is odd that novan concentrates his discussion on the 650 wave number. It is well known that at that wave number, CO2 absorption is at its peak, and that as a result the majority of CO2 emissions to space at that wavenumber come from the stratosphere." Actually my calculations were not for the Wavenumber 670 region (indisputably stratospheric) but used the table values for wavenumber 650. [There are two ways to interpret this table, as it lists absorption rates through different gas depths at 50 wavenumber intervals. So either the table value is a spot measurement, or it is an average across the 50 wavenumber band centred on the tabled value. Either way it does not invalidate the conclusions.] I took a standard line and decremented it iteratively using the amplitude at each frequency as an attenuation factor, checking at each iteration for the total remaining power. In this way I was able to replicate the table absorptions at STP. I then had the number of iterations per atmcm of CO2. I then repeated the exercise at altitude, altering the shape of the absorption line (it gets peakier but narrower with altitude) to see what happens. I found that at wavenumber 650 (not 670) the emissions to space are mostly from the stratosphere. Emissions from the troposphere are not totally extinct but are only a small fraction of the spacebound photons in that band. We should not lose sight of the fact that over 10% of the atmosphere lies ABOVE the Tropopause (8% in the region 35N to 35S, 20% at higher latitudes). In the strong emission/absorption CO2 band from wavenumbers 625 to 725 most emissions are coming from above the Tropopause.
  18. novan, I believe I misread your original energy balance comment so you can disregard my subsequent post. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with post 87 though. I would rather suggest you stick to the topic at hand (CO2 effect saturation and GHG physics) in order to keep your argument clear.
  19. novandilcosid @92, I will not dispute the claim that the majority of emissions to space in the range 630 to 710 cm^-1 come from the stratosphere. (I am not agreeing, I am just not disputing.) Certainly it comes from high enough that, as shown in 82 and 86 above, that increasing CO2 concentrations make no difference to the amount of radiation escaping from the troposphere at those wave numbers, which is all that is relevant to this discussion. But those same figures above clearly show that there is a substantial reduction in radiation to leaving the troposphere outside those that range, but between 500 and 850 cm^-1. While you ignore that substantial reduction, your theories are irrelevant. Therefore you need to either accept the values indicated above, in which case we can proceed, or you need to calculate the change in tropospheric radiation at those wave numbers for yourself and show the basis of your dispute with the scientists.
    Response: [DB] Fixed missing bold closing tag.
  20. My apologies to the moderators - I really am giving you a lot of trouble of late.
    Response: [DB] I've been given worse.
  21. DB, if you have been given worse in that sense, I am truly mortified.
    Response:

    [DB] Some days you're the windshield, some days you're the bug. But you can always do this afterwards:

  22. novandilcosid @87, the claim I was responding to is quite specific:
    "There are some other interesting aspects: The atmospheric window is almost constant, the conduction is almost constant, so the heat transport from the surface into the atmosphere is almost a constant whatever the surface temperature. What happens as the temperature rises is that the Net radiation (surface radiation less radiation through the window less back radiation) DECREASES and this balances the increase in water vapour condensation."
    So according to you for any two temperatures T1 and T2, e1sT14-W-Rback1+E1+C1=e2sT24-W-Rback2+E2+C2, where T stands for temperature, W for energy escaping through the atmospheric window, R for back radiation, E for evaporative energy transport (latent heat), C for conduction, e for the emissivity, and s for the Stefan-Boltzman constant. I can allow (as indicated in the notation) that energy escaping the atmospheric window is near constant for small changes in temperature with no changes in GHG concentrations. However, all other factors are variable with temperature. Specifically, you insist that an increase in temperature will result in an increase evaporation. But increased evaporation reduces soil moisture content, thus reducing the emissivity of the soil (factor 1). It also increases the emissivity of the lowest portion of the atmosphere, thus reducing the altitude of emission (factor 2), and at the same time reduces the lapse rate which increases the temperature at any given altitude (factor 3). Factor's (2) and (3) combine to increase back radiation. (The increased humidity will also decreases the size of the atmospheric window, but we will neglect that.) Increasing temperatures also increases wind speed globally, thus increasing conductive heat transfer by increasing the rate of turn over of the layer of atmosphere in immediate contact with the surface (factor 4). Increased humidity will also increase conductive transfer because of the high heat capacity of water vapour. So, you have at least four hetergenious factors you need to juggle to gain your equality, and only one term (W) which can be eliminated from the equation. The proof that change in net surface radiation equals the negative change in net evaporative transfer, therefore does not follow, and is highly implausible.
  23. Tom Curtis @#94 wrote: "the range 630 to 710 cm^-1 come from the stratosphere. (I am not agreeing, I am just not disputing.) Certainly it comes from high enough that, as shown in 82 and 86 above, that increasing CO2 concentrations make no difference to the amount of radiation escaping from the troposphere at those wave numbers, which is all that is relevant to this discussion. But those same figures above clearly show that there is a substantial reduction in radiation to leaving the troposphere outside those that range, but between 500 and 850 cm^-1. 1. I dispute that there is no change in energy radiated from the troposphere. I think the figures in #82,86 are NOT sufficient to estimate what happens: they are disclosing the opacity of the atmosphere as seen from the ground. This is not helpful when trying to determine what the effects are in the region which is already 100% opaque. It seems obvious that for the level in the atmosphere at which 20% of the photons make it through the CO2 fog to outer space, a doubling of the thickness of the fog will move the 20% emission layer higher. 2. The $64 question is where are the photons coming from in the very active 625-700 region with CO2 at 380ppm? My calculations suggest only 10% are coming from below the Tropopause, the remainder from above. If that is the case, then for this band a doubling of CO2 will mean emissions from higher in the stratosphere. The net effect in this band will therefore be an INCREASE in power radiated to space.
  24. Tom Curtis @ #94 wrote: " But those same figures above clearly show that there is a substantial reduction in radiation to leaving the troposphere outside those that range, but between 500 and 850 cm^-1. " The most active region is the band between 625 and 725. (See http://spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php) The lines here are around two orders of magnitude greater intensity than the lines in the rest of the band. 1. The question relevant to saturation is how much additional surface energy is absorbed outside the saturated 625-725 band, ie by how much does the window close, in W/m^2? I have always assumed that this is small - not more than 0.5W/m^2 for a doubling of CO2. 2. At the top of the atmosphere, what is the emission strength from CO2 in these weak parts of the band? The 625-725 region is emitting about 15-18W/m^2 (see plots of outgoing radiation measured in space eg http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookhwk7-1.gif http://www.mathstat.dal.ca/~folkins/Cloud-LWspectrum.jpg . http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/08/sir-john-houghton-on-the-enhanced-greenhouse-effect/ ). The much weaker lines outside this region won't be emitting much. So I guess I'd like to see some calculation of both these effects in the weak band to see if it is relevant. If the powers are small then this part of the band can be ignored, even though the majority of the emissions from them are plainly from below the Tropopause.
  25. Tom Curtis responded in #97 to my statement that surface energy into the atmosphere is essentially constant. "Specifically, you insist that an increase in temperature will result in an increase evaporation" Too right! We recall that the statement is only true when the energy flows are integrated over the entire surface over an entire year, then averaged. A second stipulation is that the system is in equilibrium - there are no net inflows or outflows. This is essentially what Kiehl & Trenberth say in their 1997 diagram, and is also implied by any statement that "the average temperature of the planet will increase by X degrees." While the statement will not be true at specific locations, it is true for the planet as a whole (remembering that 70% is water). [Off topic: The amount of increase in evaporation per DegC is disputed (see for example Schneider, Gorman and Levine, 2009, http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.4410 ). It is also unknown if relative humidity changes. The modellers assume constant RH (no better estimate), Clausius-Clapeyron water vapour increase (6.5%/DegC) and around 2.5%/DegC for evaporation. Actual measurements suggest that RH has decreased with increasing temperature, and that the rate of evaporation increase is 5%/DegC. Essentially the water properties of the atmosphere are unsettled science. Many climate scientists disagree with the assumptions in the models.]

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

Link to this page



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2022 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us