U of Canberra Expert: Doubling Atmospheric CO2 Would Increase “Heating By Less Than 0.01°C”

Recently Kenneth Richard posted a flurry of papers showing that the CO2 climate sensitivity estimate has been trending sharply downward over the years, which means CO2’s claimed effect on warming has been highly exaggerated.

Now another opinion has come to light, further supporting the notion that the recent rise in CO2 in fact is having very little impact on our climate. Software engineer Dr. Dai Davies has experimental and theoretical (quantum mechanics) experience in gas phase, and he believes a doubling of CO2 will have “no significant role” in atmospheric thermodynamics.

Photo right: U of Canberra Dr. Dai Davies

Davies posted online a review paper on CO2 and climate sensitivity: Atmospheric Radiative Heat Transfer in Context.

The abstract:

It is said that radiative gasses (RGs, or greenhouse gasses) trap heat radiated from the Earth’s surface causing it’s temperature to rise by 33 K above the theoretical temperature with no atmosphere. The word ‘trap’ is misleading. RGs delay the radiative transmission of heat from surface to space. I estimate this delay and conclude that its average impact on atmospheric temperatures, the Radiative Delay Effect (RDE), is in the order of 0.14 [0.1 to 1] K. This result is then placed in the broader context of atmospheric thermodynamics where it complements recent work on the air-surface interaction. The combination leaves no significant role for carbon dioxide.

Davies also believes that “increased atmospheric CO2 has been highly beneficial to the biosphere as would a doubling.”

His summary:

The IPCC climate consensus view of radiative dynamics is that the sun heats the Earth’s surface. The surface sheds heat through radiation and other processes. Around 88% of that radiation is trapped by RGs in the atmosphere, heating it by 33 K. They radiate much of that heat back to the surface. Surface cooling is impeded and its temperature rises. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reduces the gap in the water vapour absorption spectrum that allows the 12% of surface radiation to escape directly to space, so further decreasing surface heat loss. This view assumes strong positive feedbacks.

It has been claimed that these could cause runaway heating. A distinct alternate view, a total paradigm shift, is that the sun heats the surface during the day. The surface sheds heat through radiation and other processes. Around 88% of this radiation is delayed by RGs in the atmosphere, heating it by less than 1 K. Doubling CO2 in the atmosphere would increase this heating by less than 0.01 K. Meanwhile, at the surface, the intrinsic atmospheric radiation generated by molecular collisions, along with direct thermal conduction, allow the atmosphere to act as a thermal buffer reducing the daily surface temperature range and in doing so cause the surface temperature to rise by 60 K or more. This surface heating mechanism is near saturation and is in no way prone to runaway heating. The results reported here support and quantify the latter view – one in which carbon dioxide plays an insignificant role.

Scientific “debacle” needs to end rapidly

Back in the 1970s Dr. Davies spent years in experimental and theoretical work (QM calculations) in gas phase molecular spectroscopy for an MSc degree, and spent more than five years in environmental research. His work on leaded fuel showed that both sides of the debate were significantly wrong, and helped lead to breaking a deadlock.

Dr. Davies wrote in an e-mail that it is his hope that both sides of the debate will “follow the science so we can move more rapidly to an end of this debacle”.

 

182 responses to “U of Canberra Expert: Doubling Atmospheric CO2 Would Increase “Heating By Less Than 0.01°C””

  1. tom0mason

    Pierre,

    A small typo –“Photo right: U of Canberra Dr. Kai Davies” surely it’s “Photo right: U of Canberra Dr. Dai Davies”

    Otherwise, great piece, about time CO2 figures got closer to reality.

  2. Bjorn Ramstad

    Question is: When will this flurry of papers hav an impact on any politician? Any at all?

    1. SebastianH

      As soon as any of those papers contains relevant, confirmed results and not just imaginary results from bad data, math errors, assumption errors, misunderstanding of physics, etc

      Same goes for the weird assumption that GHGs are causing a delay and that the whole effect would be just 1K. How can something like that pass any review when it obviously doesn’t match the observations?

      1. Kenneth Richard

        Same goes for the weird assumption that GHGs are causing a delay and that the whole effect would be just 1K. How can something like that pass any review when it obviously doesn’t match the observations?

        We have cause-effect observations from a controlled experiment establishing how much the oceans heat up or cool down as a consequence of the composition of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? Where are these observations, these cause-effect physical measurements, SebastianH?

        1. SebastianH

          Kenneth, we have measurements of the radiation and their spectrums. Why are you bringing up ocean temperature change observations? But ok, I’ll bite …

          1) we know that an increase of downwelling LW radiation causes warming in bodies of water
          2) we know that an increase of the CO2 concentration is measurable by measuring how much LW radiation is absorbed (and emitted). So CO2 does that

          And you somehow come to the conclusion that an increase in CO2 concentration doesn’t behave as expected regarding ocean heat content? You often claim that this is the case because of evaporation compensating for the effect, correct? Then why does evaporation transfer so little energy from the surface to the atmosphere? And if the heat content increase doesn’t happen in the oceans, but in the atmosphere, shouldn’t we be able to measure that? Or do you think the energy is magically (yeah, I used that word again) transferred towards space as if no increase in downwelling LW radiation ever happened?

          Your arguments are full of logical errors, Kenneth. You pick out one aspect and try to present “counterpoints” for it. Then you pick another aspect, but the “counterpoints” for this one contradict the ones from the first aspect and so on.

          1. Kenneth Richard

            Kenneth, we have measurements of the radiation and their spectrums. Why are you bringing up ocean temperature change observations?

            Uh, no. That’s not what I brought up. I’m bringing up the fact that we have no observational evidence that establishes a physically-measured cause-effect relationship between parts per million (0.000001) variations in CO2 concentrations and ocean heat content fluctuations. You know this, of course. But yet you have here decided to claim that I am talking about “ocean temperature change observations” anyway. Your disingenuousness is showing once again.

            you somehow come to the conclusion that an increase in CO2 concentration doesn’t behave as expected regarding ocean heat content?

            So we have…expectations, based on models, of what we think should happen to OHC due to changes in atmospheric CO2. Most people understand that this is not observational evidence of a cause-effect relationship; we don’t even have physical measurements from a controlled experiment.

            I expect that decadal-scale changes in cloud cover will be the dominant cause of heat variations in the oceans. Since we have heat variations in the oceans corresponding to decadal-scale changes in cloud cover, therefore, using your logic, we can say that 100% of climate changes are caused by clouds. How is this any different than your claims regarding CO2 following expectations? Answer: it isn’t.

            1) we know that an increase of downwelling LW radiation causes warming in bodies of water

            What about an increase in cloud cover on a decadal scale? That increases downwelling LW radiation, right? But an increase in cloud cover causes a decrease in SW forcing. And since (a) the heat from SW forcing can penetrate 30 meters into the ocean (vs. next-to-no penetration for LWIR), and (b) the shortwave effects of clouds dominates over the longwave effects of clouds, the net effect of increasing clouds (LW) is that of cooling, not warming. And since cloud cover changes easily overwhelm the radiative forcing effect allegedly attributed to CO2 variations (1.8 W m-2 total since 1750), your claim that “we know an increase in LW causes warming” can be demonstrated to be wrong when considered in context.

          2. Lumpi

            The claim that we know that GHGs heat the ocean is false. First most of the people don’t understand the GHE. They think they know and talk about things they heard from others who also got it wrong.

            The GHE is just about thermalzation of trapped photons by CO2. There is nearly zero reemission of photons by CO2 molecules, simply because the time is too short. Before reemission can start the CO2 molecule collides with an oxygen or nitrogen molecule and passes its energy to it. This is the moment where radiative energy is being thermalized and the atmosphere is being heated. Now the heated atmosphere transports the energy upwards through convection and radiation until it is lost to space by radiation. This process takes longer as by direct radiation from earth to space. That clearly is a delay and that is also the accepte view of AGW scientists.

            The relatively small heat content of this heat soup which is radiating at low energy levels does nothing on the ocean. Thermodynamically spoken the mosquito cannot lift the elephant and water is opaque to LWR.

            Even if the oceans took up some small part of heat energy it would get lost by evaporation. ‘GHG heat the oceans’ is pure propaganda.

          3. Kenneth Richard

            The claim that we know that GHGs heat the ocean is false. First most of the people don’t understand the GHE.

            SebastianH is a true believer. He apparently thinks that if he writes “We know…”, he’ll fool people into thinking what he says next is observational science.

            By the way, the tactic he’ll use in response to your comment is to claim that it is you who doesn’t understand how the GHE works. That’s what he actually thinks — he’s right, so anyone who contradicts what he writes is both wrong and intellectually dim/ill-informed. He’ll tell you that you need to read up on the “basic physics” of how greenhouse gases (like water vapor) heat up water bodies.

      2. David Johnson

        Sebastian, that’s a bit rich considering the large number of CAGW promoting papers that have suffered from bad data, math errors, assumption errors, misunderstanding of physics. It didn’t do them any harm did it?

      3. tom0mason

        “Where are these observations, these cause-effect physical measurements, SebastianH?”

        Like the science of teleconnections?

      4. Ben Palmer

        SebastianH: This paper certainly contains more verifiable data than your rebuttal.

      5. Jack Dale

        They pass “review” in predatory journals.

        1. ClimateOtter

          You mean journals your side has demonized and attempted to discredit.

          1. Jack Dale

            Nope journals deemed illegitimate by the academic community

            https://librarianenumerations.wordpress.com/2013/12/18/beware-of-predatory-journals/

          2. ClimateOtter

            Yep, that’s exactly what I meant. Demonized and discredited for publishing skeptic material.

    2. yonason

      Wh€n politician$ can $€€ $om€ p€r$onal advantag€ in it, that’$ wh€n.

  3. Andy May

    Does anyone know where this has been submitted for publication and when it might come out with the radiative code? I like the paper, it has several very valid points.

  4. Paul Stevens

    I can’t speak to the correctness or wrongness of this or any other paper on warming mechanisms. Surely there are knowledgeable scientists who can. I don’t know why papers can’t be rated by those competent to do so, with errors identified or correct formulas validated in some kind of public forum. Then we could all move forward. Progress seems to be excruciatingly slow.

  5. dai davies

    SebastianH,

    The Atmospheric Thermal Effect is a real accepted, published, reviewed result. It accounts for the surface temperature cycle of the moon, and has been applied to the Earth with the atmosphere providing a thermal buffer. This is accepted physics.

    Where is your “bad data, math errors, assumption errors, misunderstanding of physics, etc”? If you can’t be specific then where is your credibility?

    What is weird about the assumption that GHGs/radiative gasses are causing a delay? They don’t just absorb energy, they pass it along to space. Collisional activation means that the atmosphere is awash with IR radiation. That’s accepted physics. The important question is how long does it take to transfer heat to space and how much does it heat the atmosphere in passing.

    It doesn’t match the conventional consensus view because that has now been challenged by an alternative mechanism – the ATE. It’s up to the consensus science to now come up with an actual calculation for the greenhouse (aka radiative delay) effect rather than assume it is the only possibility.

    There is no mismatch with observations. The ATE, or diurnal thermal smoothing affect, is readily able to account for our current mean surface temperatures. The ball is in the climate consensus court to show that the delay is much longer than my estimate.

    dai

    1. Jack Dale

      Nikolov and Zeller, on whom you seem to rely heavily, have been debunked – by an AGW skeptic, Roy Spencer.

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/why-atmospheric-pressure-cannot-explain-the-elevated-surface-temperature-of-the-earth/

      1. Brett Keane

        One spencer does not a debunking make. That principle applies to every claim. Roy’s claim is also debunkable. That is science, as opposed to your fr@ud.

        1. Jack Dale

          If Spencer claim is debunkable – do so.

          BTW – the only fraud is being committed by the same folks using that same tactics claiming no connection between tobacco and cancer.

    2. ScottM

      “The Atmospheric Thermal Effect… accounts for the surface temperature cycle of the moon.”

      Repeat that to yourself until it sinks in.

    3. SebastianH

      The Atmospheric Thermal Effect is a real accepted, published, reviewed result.

      Really? Accepted by whom? And are you really referring to that Nikolov and Zeller theory?

      Where is your “bad data, math errors, assumption errors, misunderstanding of physics, etc”? If you can’t be specific then where is your credibility?

      I have no interest in repeating myself over and over. There should really be an FAQ for all the papers Kenneth published and he thought they might support the skeptic’s view of the world 😉

      For starters read this paper, about the mistake scientists who are celebrated by the skeptic’s community, make: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

      What is weird about the assumption that GHGs/radiative gasses are causing a delay?

      Because that is not what is happening. You can view it that way analogous to a dam delaying water, but how on Earth does this view reduce the resulting temperature increase (or the amount of the water in the reservoir in case of a dam) from the effect?

      It doesn’t match the conventional consensus view because that has now been challenged by an alternative mechanism – the ATE.

      If you are referring to the Nikolov and Zeller mechanism, then … no. No challenge there. You can’t invent mechanisms that so clearly violate the laws of physics and claim they are an alternative. Yeah, it could also be unicorn farts that warm the surface temperature. Would you consider that as a challenge by an alternative mechanism too?

      There is no mismatch with observations. The ATE, or diurnal thermal smoothing affect, is readily able to account for our current mean surface temperatures.

      No it isn’t.

  6. Michael Jones

    “Same goes for the weird assumption that GHGs are causing a delay…”.

    Perhaps I misunderstand your point but if photons are not delayed it must follow that they continue at the speed of light into space having not interacted with anything. There is then no mechanism by which they can warm the atmosphere.

  7. Ric Werme

    Pedantry alert! Celcius and Fahrenheit are degrees. Kelvins are not.
    0.01°K should be simply 0.01K.

    1. yonason

      Correct in principle, Ric, but…

      “…note that degrees are still used with Kelvin in some sources, even textbooks, although it is generally agreed that they should not.”
      http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae129.cfm

    2. Kenneth Richard

      I agree it should be 0.01 K. However, even those who are consensus-blessed at RealClimate.org use the degree symbol when referring to how much heat greenhouse gases are capable of producing in the oceans (0.02 K):

      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/
      “There is an associated reduction in the difference between the 5 cm and the skin temperatures. The slope of the relationship is 0.002ºK (W/m2)-1. Of course the range of net infrared forcing caused by changing cloud conditions (~100W/m2) is much greater than that caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases (e.g. doubling pre-industrial CO2 levels will increase the net forcing by ~4W/m2)”

  8. Eugen

    Kelvin is a temperature scale staring at 0 absolute. (-273.15 C)
    0.01 degrees K = 0.01 degrees C

    1. Steven Fraser

      Sorry, no. 0.01 degrees K = -273.14 degrees C.

  9. Sangfroid

    One question I have long wanted to post. Here are two scenarios:

    I’ll place the scenarios in the desert, as that is where I have experienced it most dramatically, but it could be anywhere.

    Scenario one: The sun shines brightly, heating the desert flora and soils and rocks. It reaches temperatures somewhere over 100 degrees. Just as the sun sets below the horizon a cloud cover moves in blanketing the skies completely. The temperature begins to slowly cool down as the radiative heat escapes the surface. However, the cloud cover captures the heat and reradiates it downward as well as reflecting the heat back (capturing the heat and reradiating it back is different from just reflecting it back, right?). The temperature drops but stays somewhere in a relatively warm range of degrees. This will vary depending on where you are and too many other factors.

    Scenario two: The same as above except the skies remain clear all night long after the sun sets. The temperature drops rapidly and can drop below freezing (yes, even in the summertime!) with temperatures considerably lower than in scenario one.

    Question: If CO2 is a greenhouse gas why, in scenario two, doesn’t it capture and reradiate the heat back down (acting as the greenhouse gas so many claim it to be) and therefore keep the temperature higher as in scenario one? CO2 doesn’t reflect the heat (or so it is claimed) but it does capture and hold the heat from the daytime. Doesn’t it reradiate it downward and then recapture the heat radiated upward from the surface in a constant loop? Yes, there will be some heat loss but, if as claimed, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is reaching ever higher concentrations why isn’t it keeping the nighttime temperatures warmer?

    I’ll answer my question as the climate alarmist scientists will. CO2 is only 0.04% (currently) of the ‘greenhouse’ gases in the atmosphere! Theoretically, it can capture and reradiate only 0.04% of the radiative nighttime heat! The rest escapes into space. So, how is it the major force for temperature increases over the entire planet earth?

    The descriptions of how CO2 works vary somewhat. My understanding of it is that the Oxygen and Carbon atoms are loosely tied together and can absorb heat which causes the atoms to vibrate faster until they meet a limit set by the laws of thermodynamics (LOT). When the temperature around the CO2 molecules start dropping below a level set by LOT then the atoms start slowing down, emitting heat, I’m guessing in a uniform direction all around them. I don’t know if they continue to lose all their absorbed heat until it reaches a certain lower temperature, again set by LOT. If any chemistry or atmospheric scientists can answer that question it would be appreciated.

    1. yonason

      @Sangfroid 20. October 2017 at 7:02 PM

      Here’s a good broad, but not too technical, overview that might help (it’s one of the links I posted below).
      http://brindabella.id.au/climarc/dai/Energy&Atmosphere/Energy&Atmosphere.pdf

      It doesn’t answer your specific questions directly, but gives scenarios and context that are usually lacking in discussions of the topic.

    2. John F. Hultquist

      Sangfroid,
      I neither have the time or knowledge to answer your questions.

      I suggest going to a local university and visit the physics and chemistry departments.
      Ask for copies of the prior-to-current copies of the introductory textbooks. You might offer a donation.
      In those books, you can find explanations of heat and temperature, and the nature of the molecules in the atmosphere. For example, why are H2O and CO2 radiative gasses (GHGs) while N2 and O2 are not?
      You might also get an “earth science” text (geology) and find interesting material on rock formation, especially the Carbonate minerals. Some such books also contain information on oceans, waves, currents, and water chemistry.
      All of these things are necessary to follow the articles on blogs, such as this.

    3. BobW in NC

      Note, too that anthropogenic CO2 is only an estimated 4% of total CO2 going into the atmosphere. It therefore contributes only 0.16% CO2 to the total. Amazing!

      1. Jack Dale

        Using carbon isotope analysis the 40% in atmospheric CO2 over the past 2.5 centuries can be attributed directly to the burning of fossil fuels.

        James Powell has good explanation of his blog:

        http://www.jamespowell.org/Stuff/Ourfault/Ourfault.html

        1. Kenneth Richard

          Jack, BobW is referring to the IPCC’s own cited percentage (actually 4.3%) of the total yearly CO2 emissions that comes from anthropogenic sources vs. natural sources (95.7%). It’s in the carbon cycle graph from AR5 (2013). Natural emissions are about 200 GtC/year vs. 9 GtC/year from fossil fuel burning. This is common knowledge.

          You’re talking about something else – the percentage change in the atmospheric CO2 concentration itself since 1750.

          While this has changed by ~40% by itself (and CO2 doesn’t operate by itself, but in its atmospheric context), it has changed by one-one hundredth of a percentage point (0.01%) relative to the rest of the atmospheric gases since ~1900. So while it’s understandable that you would prefer to use the higher by-itself percentage change value (~40%), considering atmospheric CO2 operates within its atmospheric context, and not by itself, the more contextually accurate way to characterize what has happened since 1750 is that CO2 concentrations have increased by a little more than one one-hundredth of a percentage point.

          1. Jack Dale

            100*(405-285)/285 = 42.1%

            Levels not found in the historical record for at least 3-5 million years.

            All attributable to the burning of fossil fuels.

          2. Jack Dale

            BTW – you need to get an understanding of trace substances. That trace amount of CO2 is what prevents the earth from being a ball of ice.

            The human diet requires selenium. At 400 ppm it starts to because toxic.

            Yes CO2 is required for photosynthesis, but during the times humans evolved and our plants were domesticated CO2 levels never exceeded 300 ppm.

            In greenhouses some plants do well with increased CO2, but they also required additional fertilizer.

            In the open air CO2 experiments plants subject to increased predation by pests and they start to lose nutrition. CO2 fertilization will be short lived as it is subject to Leibig’s Law of Minimum. Current increased crops yields are more closed connected to increased use of pesticides, fertilizers and irrigation. None of which is sustainable.

            Everything has an optimal limit, I suspect that those CO2 levels of the past 800,000 years (according to the ice cores) are an optimal range.

          3. Kenneth Richard

            That trace amount of CO2 is what prevents the earth from being a ball of ice.

            Yes, I’ve read about the assumptive “snowball Earth” hypothesis that claims the Earth is 7.2 K warmer due to a CO2 concentration of 200 to 280 ppm (Pleistocene to 1800 C.E. values) many times. It’s rather interesting that it’s hypothesized/modeled that 280 ppm keeps the Earth 7.2 K warmer, but doubling CO2 concentrations from 280 ppm to 560 ppm will only increase Earth’s temperature by 1.2 K. That’s quite a profound diminishing effect.

            The human diet requires selenium. At 400 ppm it starts to because toxic.

            I find the dissemination of these same talking points – the atmosphere = the human body – quite tiresome.

          4. Jack Dale

            Not only do you not understand trace substances, you fail to understand analogy.

          5. Kenneth Richard

            So why do you think it is, Jack, that the “snowball Earth” conceptualization has CO2 heating the Earth by 7.2 degrees C when concentrations are 280 ppm, but doubling CO2 concentrations to 560 ppm will only yield a warming of 1.2 degrees C more? Why does the doubling of CO2 values diminish the additional warming effect so profoundly?

            What does the human body analogy you used have to do with the “snowball Earth”?

          6. Jack Dale

            I do understand that climate sensitivity to CO2 is logarithmic.

            The human body analogy has to do with trace substances

          7. Kenneth Richard

            I do understand that climate sensitivity to CO2 is logarithmic.

            Uh, no. This isn’t that. The logarithmic effect of CO2 climate sensitivity hypothetically proposes that for each further doubling of CO2, whether from 280 to 560 ppm, 1,120 to 2,240 ppm, 2,240 to 4,480 ppm…the forcing value (3.7 W m-2) is the same, as is the temperature change (1.16 degrees C) for each doubling. Your claim was that, without the Pleistocene to 1800 C.E. concentration levels of CO2 (roughly 200 to 280 ppm) the Earth would be covered in ice…because it would be 7.2 K colder. This level of diminishing effect for changes in CO2 are incompatible with the hypothesized logarithmic effects, as the alleged heating value plummets from 7.2 K to 1.2 K with the first 280 ppm vs. the next 280 ppm. That’s not even close to the same log function. Of course, this is all hypothetical thought experiment material anyway, meaning the “snowball Earth” conceptualization is no more “settled science” than guesses on the origins of the universe.

            The human body analogy has to do with trace substances

            The human body has absolutely nothing to do with the gaseous composition of the atmosphere. But that doesn’t stop people like you from repeating this same line over and over and over again. I could have predicted that would be your next line after I mentioned the real contextual change in CO2 concentrations (1/100th of a percentage point) since 1900.

          8. ScottM

            Snowball Earth would have had extremely low absolute humidity, so positive feedback would have kept it a snowball until something changed enough to overcome hysteresis and trigger a melt. Then with the ensuing warming, humidity increases and you get a positive feedback that holds temperatures above that threshold – on the other side of the hysteresis curve – even if CO2 levels were to drop again.

            Nobody who has a little understanding of math thinks the response to CO2 is logarithmic over the entire possible range of concentrations.

          9. Kenneth Richard

            Snowball Earth would have had extremely low absolute humidity

            Correct. The H2O concentrations range around 1,000 ppm at the poles vs. 40,000 ppm in the tropics. The water vapor concentration for the Earth is thus determined by the Sun — the warmer the Sun is, the more water vapor there is (and vice versa). We’re not talking about water vapor within the GHE, though. We’re talking about CO2.

            Jack Dale: “That trace amount of CO2 is what prevents the earth from being a ball of ice.”

            Jack’s claim is that it is the 0.02% to 0.028% atmospheric CO2 that prevented the Earth from a “ball of ice” state during the last 3 to 5 million years (though to 1800). Why? Because that 0.02% to 0.028% CO2 is what keeps the Earth ~7.2 K warmer than it would otherwise be (if there was no CO2)…according to the theoretical models for the 33 K thought experiment.

          10. SebastianH

            Sorry for interrupting …

            It’s rather interesting that it’s hypothesized/modeled that 280 ppm keeps the Earth 7.2 K warmer, but doubling CO2 concentrations from 280 ppm to 560 ppm will only increase Earth’s temperature by 1.2 K. That’s quite a profound diminishing effect.
            […]
            This level of diminishing effect for changes in CO2 are incompatible with the hypothesized logarithmic effects, as the alleged heating value plummets from 7.2 K to 1.2 K with the first 280 ppm vs. the next 280 ppm. That’s not even close to the same log function.
            […]
            Because that 0.02% to 0.028% CO2 is what keeps the Earth ~7.2 K warmer than it would otherwise be (if there was no CO2)…according to the theoretical models for the 33 K thought experiment.

            You coulnd’t have shown more eloquently that you have no understanding of either the math or the physics involved.

            You are correct that it is not the same log function going toward 0 ppm CO2 because CO2 at very small concentrations would not absorb as much radiation at it’s wavelength (so more would escape to space). But you can of course continue the log scale downwards. So you get 140 ppm 6K, 70 ppm 4.8K, 35 ppm 3.6K, 17.5 ppm 2.4K, 8.75 ppm 1.2K and 4.x ppm 0K or something like that …

            I find it interesting that you are suprised by the diminishing effect of more CO2 and see 1.2K by itself as too small to actually matter.

            What stage of denial was that gain? Stage 4 – “Climate change is not bad”? 😉

          11. Kenneth Richard

            I find it interesting that you are suprised by the diminishing effect of more CO2 and see 1.2K by itself as too small to actually matter.

            I’m not surprised in the least by the diminishing effect of CO2. The 1.2 K with 560 ppm is obviously something that the IPCC (and NASA and all the alarmist blog writers) finds troublingly small…hence their need to boost it up to 3.0 C and beyond with feedbacks (water vapor/cloud) while simultaneously declaring the feedbacks didn’t raise the resulting temperature…the CO2 did. Oh the lengths your side goes to to try to make CO2 as scary as possible. Your side even calls CO2 pollution. I’m just enjoying the view.

          12. yonason

            “The human diet requires selenium. At 400 ppm it starts to because toxic.” – Jack Dale

            Selenium’s distribution in the human body is not random. It is not uniform throughout the body. It’s function is as a part of the active site of several proteina, whose construction is directed by the cell’s genetic material. I.e., it is a raw material that becomes built into the body function WHERE IT IS NEEDED, similar only to the way Carbon from CO2 is useful in building plants.

            UNLIKE Carbon, however, the concentration of which can get quite high before becoming toxic to animals (15 to 20 times what it is now), Se gets toxic in the body a lot sooner. There is NO comparison between the two as to the harm excesses can cause, and the mechanisms are totally different.

            You are as bad as SebH in coming up with analogies, probably because you concrete thinkers, and the brain dead zombies you appeal to, take everything far too simplistically.

            You characters have your nerve accusing anyone of not “getting” your analogies, especially when you can’t ever come up with one that makes any sense.

            =============================

            SUMMING UP

            CO2 at 400 ppm STEADY CONCENTRATION, and Se INGESTED at 400ug PER DAY are good for their respective “environments.” At 5,000 ppm, CO2 is not harmful to it’s “environment” (see the paleo record for proof). That’s what it was during the Cambrian explosion, when all current life forms first appeared in the fossile record – clearly NOT HARMFUL. On the other hand, you do NOT want to consume 5,000 ug per day of Se, unless you want to get sick.

            THEY NOT AT ALL THE SAME.

            IT IS A CRAPPY ANALOGY!

        2. yonason

          Jack Dale needs to explain why, if the CO2 is from human activity, satellites detect it mostly in a band around the equator – much of it in S. America, and Central Africa, rather than in industrialized N. America and Western Europe.
          http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5j73T6zL0y4/UbV9wR8sOiI/AAAAAAAAFPo/tB38e0gmOhc/s1600/ScreenShot3526.jpg

    4. ScottM

      Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. There happens to be less of it in a desert, so cooling at night will happen much more quickly there than, say, on a beach in Hawaii, even if the latter also has cloudless conditions.

    5. SebastianH

      Question: If CO2 is a greenhouse gas why, in scenario two, doesn’t it capture and reradiate the heat back down (acting as the greenhouse gas so many claim it to be) and therefore keep the temperature higher as in scenario one?

      CO2 does reradiate back down (and also upwards) in both scenarios. That is why the temperature is decreasing as slow as it does in both scenarios. If it weren’t for CO2 and other GHGs you would observe a very different temperature profile in both cases.

      I’ll answer my question as the climate alarmist scientists will. CO2 is only 0.04% (currently) of the ‘greenhouse’ gases in the atmosphere! Theoretically, it can capture and reradiate only 0.04% of the radiative nighttime heat! The rest escapes into space.

      That’s not how it works. Energy is radiated towards space in varying wavelengths. The distribution depends on the temperature of the surface that is radiating (at least for near black body emitters). While it the amount GHGs “capture and reradiate” indeed varies with concentration, a concentration of x% isn’t just reradiating x% towards the surface, otherwise no radiation would get out if an atmosphere would be 100% GHGs. I’d suggest reading some physics books about this or if you trust Wikipedia, go there and get a basic understanding. If you don’t trust them … read books.

  10. yonason

    It seems Dai Davies has some other interesting material, like this one that lists a few of the major errors made by the IPCC.

    “The IPCC and the Carbon Cycle – Fact or Fantasy?”

    A couple of others…

    “The inevitable negative consequences of the path some countries are taking in trying to eliminate fossil fuels from energy production, and deny the benefits to billions of people who don’t yet enjoy them, is too important an issue for us to allow ourselves to be frogmarched along this path by totalitarian elements in the UN and the NGOs, industrialists, scientists, and politicians who support
    it.”
    http://brindabella.id.au/climarc/dai/Politics/ClimatePolitics.pdf

    And this one on the energy budget of earth, which makes a lot more sense than the warmist version.
    “Energy and Atmosphere”

    Starting to see glimmers of dawn approaching? I do hope so.

    Thanks, Pierre!

    1. Bartemis

      These are well done. The system is a great deal more complicated than AGW advocates’ facile narrative.

  11. Earth Climate Layers | Science Matters

    […] to No Tricks Zone for posting work (here) by Dr. Dai Davies of Canberra. In his writing I found a fine summary paradigm leading to the image […]

  12. Ron Clutz

    Thanks for posting writings by Dr. Davies. I found his description of the layers of our climate system particularly helpful and reblogged in a post.

    https://rclutz.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/climate-onion2.png

    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/10/20/earth-climate-layers/

    1. yonason

      Nice editing job!

    2. DMA

      Thanks for the good work Ron. I note that in the atmospheric content chart he shows 3.4% of CO2 is anthropogenic not the 30% espoused by IPCC. This figure matches work of Salby, Berry, and Harde as well as others and seems to make more sense and require far fewer assumptions to derive.

      1. Bartemis

        Atmospheric CO2 is a balancing act between inflows and outflows, in which outflows dynamically respond to changes in inflows. In such a system, it is impossible to change the balance by a greater proportionate share than one’s proportionate input to the inflow upon which the balance depends. The notion that human inputs are significantly driving the level of atmospheric concentration is a product of wishful thinking and scientific incompetence.

        1. Jack Dale

          Human inputs of CO2 into the atmosphere increased from 11 millions tonnes per annum in 1751 per annum to 35.8 billion tonnes per annum in 2013. In that time period we dumped 1.5 trillion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. The inflow greatly exceeded the outflow. Hence a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 which directly attributable to the burning of fossil fuels.

          1. Bartemis

            Dynamic systems don’t work this way. Do you weigh the sum total of all the food you have eaten since childhood? Of course not. Your weight is a balance between what you eat, and what you excrete.

            That is how balances work in nature. If you run the water in your tub with the drain partially closed, the water level will rise to an equilibrium point where the height of the water column above the drain creates enough pressure to force the water out at the same rate as it is coming in. If you increase the inflow by 3%, the water level will rise… wait for it… 3%. Not the sum total of the extra 3% over time.

          2. Jack Dale

            If you eat 1500 more calories than you burn each day you put on weight; it accumulates as does CO2.

            If I add 3% more water to a bathtub that has been in balance (filling as much it has been draining) it will eventually overflow.

            If you cannot accept that, please explain why the atmospheric CO2 level has risen 40% in 2.5 centuries?

          3. Kenneth Richard

            If you cannot accept that, please explain why the atmospheric CO2 level has risen 40% in 2.5 centuries?

            It is highly likely that our estimates of past CO2 concentration values are inaccurate, thus indicating that the current levels of CO2 concentration are neither unprecedented nor unusual relative to natural variability. Tens of thousands of directly accumulated observational data indicate that CO2 levels reached 600 ppm, 700 ppm during the last few thousand years…even reaching into the 420s ppm during the 1800s. Those high CO2 values were excluded from the “accepted” record during the 1980s canonization process. Details of this can be found throughout the literature. For example…

            Foscolos, 2010
            https://ejournals.epublishing.ekt.gr/index.php/geosociety/article/view/11157/11208
            By the end of the 18th century eminent scientists explained the climatic changes on the basis of temperature and the ensuing glacial retreat. This disturbing observation led many prominent scientists to send air balloons equipped with special devices to trap air from the lower atmosphere in order to measure CO2 concentrations. Ninety thousand (90,000) measurements were carried out at 138 locations in 4 continents between 1810 and 1961. The data indicated that atmospheric CO2 concentrations, during the 19th century varied between 290 and 430 ppm (with an average of 322 ppm for the pre-industrial period). For the 20th century, the average concentration is 338 ppm when combined with comparable CO2 measurements carried out by Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, USA (1958- 2000). Measurement precision is ±3%.

            Jaworowski, 1997
            http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg
            The ice core data from various polar sites are not consistent with each another, and there is a discrepancy between these data and geological climatic evidence. One such example is the discrepancy between the classic Antarctic Byrd and Vostok ice cores, where an important decrease in the CO2 content in the air bubbles occurred at the same depth of about 500 meters, but at which the ice age differed by about 16,000 years. In an approximately 14,000-year-old part of the Byrd core, a drop in the CO2 concentration of 50 ppmv was observed, but in similarly old ice from the Vostok core, an increase of 60 ppmv was found. In about ~6,000-year-old ice from Camp Century, Greenland, the CO2 concentration in air bubbles was 420 ppmv, but it was 270 ppmv in similarly old ice from Byrd, Antarctica. … In the air from firn and ice at Summit, Greenland, deposited during the past ~200 years, the CO2 concentration ranged from 243.3 ppmv to 641.4 ppmv. Such a wide range reflects artifacts caused by sampling, or natural processes in the ice sheet, rather than the variations of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Similar or greater range was observed in other studies of greenhouse gases in polar ice.

            The failure to resolve the notorious problem of why about 30 percent of man-made CO2 is missing in the global carbon cycle, based on CO2 ice core measurements, suggests a systematic bias in ice core data. It is not possible to explain the ice core CO2 record in terms of a system with time-invariant processes perturbed by a combination of fossil fuel carbon release, CO2-enhanced biotic growth, and deforestation.

            Until 1985, the published CO2 readings from air bubbles in pre-industrial ice ranged from 160 to about 700 ppmv, and occasionally even up to 2,450 ppmv. After 1985, high readings disappeared from the publications. To fit such a wide range of results to the anthropogenic climatic warming theory, which was based on low pre-industrial CO2 levels, three methods were used: (1) rejection of high readings from sets of preindustrial samples, based on the credo: “The lowest CO2 values best represent the CO2 concentrations in the originally trapped ice”; (2) rejection of low readings from sets of 20th century samples; and (3) interpretation of the high readings from pre-industrial samples as representing the contemporary atmosphere rather than the pre-industrial one.

            Neftel, et al. reported in 1982 rather high median CO2 concentrations in the preindustrial ice core from Byrd, Antarctica, of about 330 and 415 ppmv, with maximum value reaching 500 ppmv. However, in 1988, in the second publication on the same core, Neftel et al. did not show these high readings; the highest concentration reported was 290 ppmv, in agreement with the global warming theory.

            Pearman, et al. [1986] “on examination of the data,” rejected 43 percent of the CO2 readings from Law Dome, Antarctica core … because they were higher or lower than the assumed “correct” values. Thus, they concluded a value of 281 ppmv CO2 for the pre-industrial atmosphere.

            Wagner et al., 1999
            http://science.sciencemag.org/content/284/5422/1971.full
            Century-Scale Shifts in Early Holocene Atmospheric CO, Concentration
            The initial decrease of the SI in the Friesland phase [~11,400 years ago] suggests that atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose by ∼65 ppmv in less than a century.

          4. Bartemis

            Jack Dale 22. October 2017 at 5:00 AM |

            “If I add 3% more water to a bathtub that has been in balance (filling as much it has been draining) it will eventually overflow.”

            It will rise 3% in height, producing 3% more pressure at the drain, forcing 3% more outflow, and there it will settle. That’s how it works, pumpkin.

  13. Jack Dale

    Davies relies heavily on Nikolov and Zeller (2011) who have been effectively debunked by none other than Roy Spencer:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/why-atmospheric-pressure-cannot-explain-the-elevated-surface-temperature-of-the-earth/

    1. Kenneth Richard

      debunked by none other than Roy Spencer:

      Dr. Spencer fully agrees with AGW…he just doesn’t agree that CO2 climate sensitivity is high. So do you agree with Dr. Spencer that the equilibrium climate sensitivity for doubled CO2 is between 0.6 and 0.7 C? Or is he wrong about that?

      1. Jack Dale

        From Spencer’s Blog

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/

        No I do not agree with Spencer’s climate sensitivity numbers. That does not mean I reject everything he says. I especially like his dislike for the Sky Dragon Slayers at PSI, which he shares with Antony Watts and Judith Curry. I also like his: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/

  14. BobW in NC

    Thank you, Pierre, once again for solid science.

  15. dai davies

    Jack Dale,

    Davies relies heavily on Nikolov and Zeller (2011) who have been effectively debunked by none other than Roy Spencer:

    Not so, Jack. I make no reference to their pressure work. They did make a contribution to the calculation of the Atmospheric Thermal Effect in an earlier paper.

    As I remember, some years back Roy Spencer replicated the ATE calculations in a spreadsheet. It’s quite simple undergraduate level physics, as is my Radiative Delay calculation.

    dai

    1. Jack Dale
    2. Jack Dale

      Dr Davies

      Can you please provide me with a link to your CV? I am interested in your other publications. I cannot find one at the University of Canberra.

      Thanks

      1. Kenneth Richard

        Davies, D., A study of the hyperfine structure of the iodine molecule using a laser technique, MSc thesis, ANU, 1972. (Department of Physics, ANU)

        Davies, D., Lead in Petrol: Toward a cost benefit assessment, CRES Monograph 1, Canberra, 1980. (Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, ANU)

        Davies, D., The impact of petrol additives on vehicle maintenance costs, CRES Paper 3, 1980.

        Davies, D., Combustion chamber deposits, Correspondence, Nature, 17 April and 26 June 1980,

        Davies, D., A Text Compression System for Natural Language Processing, Proceedings of the National Conference on Microcomputer Software, Canberra, 1982. (private research)

        Anderssen R, Davies D, Jakeman A, Newsam G, Interactive Software for Aquifer Analysis, Proceedings of Watercomp-89 Conference, Melbourne, 1989. (Centre for Mathematics and its Applications, ANU)

        J. Bruce Millar, Dave Davies, The ANDOR Interface to the Australian National Database of Spoken Language, Proceedings SST94, Perth, 1994. (The Computer Sciences Laboratory, RSPhysS, ANU)

        Davies, D., Millar.J.B., The evaluation of a computationally efficient method for generating a voiced-source synchronised timing signal, In Proc. 6th Australian International Conference on Speech Science and Technology Adelaide 1996. (Research School of Information Sciences and Engineering, ANU)

        Davies, D., Millar, J.B., Quantification of the phonetic relevance of spectrotemporal acoustic features In Proceedings of 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhs’99 Volume 2), San Francisco 1999.

        Millar, J.B., Davies D., A Reassessment of Temporal Information in Speech Processing, Workshop on Innovation in Speech Processing, England, 2001.

        Davies, D., Representing Time in Automated Speech Recognition, PhD thesis, ANU, 2002.

        1. Jack Dale

          Thanks

          1. Kenneth Richard

            Why are academic qualifications so important to you, Jack? Why are they more important than the content of the papers themselves? Do you not understand how weak it makes your positions appear that all you have to respond with is the sophomoric “It’s a predatory journal!” and “He doesn’t have a Ph.D!” and “This paper wasn’t sufficiently peer-reviewed…”?

          2. Jack Dale

            I prefer to get my medical advise from a doctor, and I prefer to get my car checked by a mechanic. My dentist looks after my teeth.

            My CRAAP detector goes off very quickly with posts I find here.

            What is ironic is that some brainless folks think notrickszone is some sort of authority. Too funny.

            And I read the papers and I critique the content and the method. You just get all out of shape when I question the authority of the author of the paper.

          3. Kenneth Richard

            Here’s a Nature paper (Song et al., 2016 “The Hiatus of the Greenhouse Effect”) that says the greenhouse effect went on hiatus during 1992-2014. Since it’s Nature, and the Ph.D scientist reviewers are better at Nature than the Ph.D scientists at the Journal of Earth Science and Engineering – because they…aren’t predatory…or something – therefore, the Nature scientists are right. The Earth’s greenhouse effect did go on hiatus during 1992-2014. Right, Jack? Or is this Nature paper wrong? And how could that happen with, you know, the peer-reviewers being so superior at Nature vs. the ones at the Journal of Earth Science and Engineering?

            New Paper Documents Imperceptible CO2 Influence On The Greenhouse Effect Since 1992

          4. SebastianH

            Kenneth, I am sure you have read that paper about the Hiatus. Does it say anywhere that the effect GHGs have just stopped or does it rather say that other effects like reduced cloud cover compensated for the effect? Please re-read the first paragraph of the introduction of that paper.

            Some basic understanding of what papers actually say would go a long way to make skeptics of your work less skeptic … nothing you write about papers you quote from can be trusted as you most likely cherry-picked or interpreted it wrong or the paper is probably junk. It’s hard to pick out the moments when you actually have something valid and plausible.

          5. Kenneth Richard

            Kenneth, I am sure you have read that paper about the Hiatus. Does it say anywhere that the effect GHGs have just stopped…?

            No. It says the greenhouse effect from increased CO2 concentrations were entirely overwhelmed and were effectively rendered inconsequential by the changes in cloud cover, as the changes in cloud cover are the dominant factor in the atmospheric greenhouse effect. This view is not compatible with the claim by Gavin Schmidt and the IPCC that 100% of temperature changes are caused by CO2. Several other scientists concur that the effects of CO2 on temperature are quite inconsequential relative to that of changes in cloud cover (or other atmospheric parameters). For example:

            Willett, 1974[R]ecent increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide have contributed much less than 5% of the recent changes of atmospheric temperature, and will contribute no more than that in the foreseeable future.”

            Dunbar, 1976[T]he measured increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, according to the most recent computations, would not be enough to have any measurable climatic effect. Rasool and Schneider (1971) conclude that an increase in the carbon dioxide content of eight times the present level would produce an increase in surface temperature of less than 2°C, and that if the concentration were to increase from the present level of 320 parts per million to about 400 by the year 2000, the predicted increase in surface global temperature would be about 0.1°C.”

            Ramanathan et al., 1989 “Water vapour and cloud are the dominant regulators of the radiative heating of the planet. … The greenhouse effect of clouds may be larger than that resulting from a hundredfold increase in the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere. … The size of the observed net cloud forcing is about four times as large as the expected value of radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2. The shortwave and longwave components of cloud forcing are about ten times as large as those for a CO2 doubling.”

            Wielicki et al., 2002 “It is widely assumed that variations in Earth’s radiative energy budget at large time and space scales are small. We present new evidence from a compilation of over two decades of accurate satellite data that the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) tropical radiative energy budget is much more dynamic and variable than previously thought. Results indicate that the radiation budget changes are caused by changes in tropical mean cloudiness. The results of several current climate model simulations fail to predict this large observed variation in tropical energy budget. The missing variability in the models highlights the critical need to improve cloud modeling in the tropics so that prediction of tropical climate on interannual and decadal time scales can be improved.”

            Kauppinen et al., 2014 “We will show that changes of relative humidity or low cloud cover explain the major changes in the global mean temperature. We will present the evidence of this argument using the observed relative humidity between years 1970 and 2011 and the observed low cloud cover between years 1983 and 2008. One percent increase in relative humidity or in low cloud cover decreases the temperature by 0.15 °C and 0.11 °C, respectively. In the time periods mentioned before [1979-2011] the contribution of the CO2 increase was less than 10% to the total temperature change.”

            Hamdan, 2016 “The analysis showed that the main atmospheric parameters that affect the amount of global radiation received on earth’s surface are cloud cover and relative humidity. Global radiation correlates negatively with both variables. Linear models are excellent approximations for the relationship between atmospheric parameters and global radiation. A linear model with the predictors total cloud cover, relative humidity, and extraterrestrial radiation is able to explain around 98% of the variability in global radiation.”

          6. Jack Dale

            Kenneth – Song et al is a good paper. It is written by three academics from the School of Atmospheric Sciences, Nanjing University, China; they are well within their field of expertise.

            Nature only publishes 8% of the papers it receives. Predatory journals will publish just about anything for a fee.

            It really does not support any of your contentions. It is in line with the consensus views of climate science. If I can also quote from the paper:

            “The Earth’s environment is suitable for life because of the greenhouse effect. Our planet has become increasingly warm since the Industrial Revolution because of the increased GHG emissions, which greatly enhance the greenhouse effect.”

            “It is well accepted that the recent global warming slowdown is attributable to the joint effect of internal natural variability and external forcing12. In general, the warming hiatus is mainly driven by internal variability such as a negative phase of the IPO as well as a more La Niña-dominated state, with a minor external contribution8. However, a recent study found that the phase of the IPO could be modulated by anthropogenic aerosols, in which case external forcing was attributed to be the primary factor decelerating global warming55”

            BTW – why not just link to the paper, rather than your contextomy?

          7. Kenneth Richard

            It really does not support any of your contentions.

            Sure it does. It says that cloud cover variations and natural variability led to a hiatus in the greenhouse effect’s influence on radiative forcing/surface temperatures. In other words, natural factors overcame anthropogenic factors in eliciting climate change. Despite the rise in anthropogenic emissions from 6 GtC/year in 1992 to close to 10 GtC/year in 2014, the natural effects of cloud cover dominated the radiative forcing totals. This conclusion is not compatible with the claim by Gavin Schmidt and the IPCC that 100% of climate change is caused by human activity.

            So you agree with the authors on these points regarding the total greenhouse effect pausing its influence on temperature since 1992?

            “The oceanic Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect] … rate of change (−0.04 W m−2 yr−1) during 1992–2014 is not statistically significant.”

            “[T]he atmospheric and surface greenhouse effect parameters both become trendless when clouds are considered. … Overall, the downward tendency of clouds is the dominant contributor to the greenhouse effect hiatus.”

            In conclusion, the pause of the greenhouse effect since the 1990s may be one of the reasons for the global warming hiatus starting in the early 2000s.”

          8. Kenneth Richard

            Kenneth – Song et al is a good paper.

            Good. I’m glad you agree that cloud radiative forcing effectively canceled out CO2 radiative forcing within the greenhouse effect during 1992-2014, rendering the temperature changes during these decades largely a consequence of natural variability, and the rapid rise in CO2 emissions was inconsequential during this same period.

            Here are about 80 peer-reviewed scientific papers (now well over 100) that indicate that solar activity is a driving factor in past and modern climate change. See if you can “rebut” them all. After you do so, I’ll have 133 from 2016 for you to attempt to “rebut” too.

            Attribution Shift: Scientists Increasingly Link Climate Change To Solar Forcing In Scientific Journals
            http://notrickszone.com/2017/08/24/attribution-shift-scientists-increasingly-link-climate-change-to-solar-forcing-in-scientific-journals/

          9. Jack Dale

            Kenneth – Gavin Schmidt discusses natural forcings

            https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/

            BTW – I am not sure that you understand the IPCC’s use of “hiatus”

            ” Even with this “hiatus” in GMST trend, the decade of the 2000s has been the warmest in the instrumental record of GMST ” AR% – page 769.

            Do you understand the use quotes around the term “hiatus”? Are you “smart” enough to figure that out?

          10. Kenneth Richard

            BTW – I am not sure that you understand the IPCC’s use of “hiatus”

            IPCC:

            For the period 1998–2012, 111 of the 114 climate-model simulations show a surface-warming trend larger than the observations (Box SYR.1, Figure 1a).”

            “However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations, Section 9.3.2) reveals that 111 out of 114 realisations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble

            Almost all CMIP5 historical simulations do not reproduce the observed recent warming hiatus.”

            Hedemann et al., 2017
            http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3274.html
            https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/75831381/Hedemann%202017.pdf
            [T]he origin of the recent hiatus may never be identified. … The observed trend deviated by as much as −0.17 ◦C per decade from the CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5) ensemble-mean projection—a gap two to four times the observed trend. The hiatus therefore continues to challenge climate science.

            Fyfe et al., 2016
            http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html
            It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.

            http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525
            [A]s the global-warming hiatus enters its sixteenth year, scientists are at last making headway in the case of the missing heat.

            http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414 (press release)
            There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing,” says lead author John Fyfe, a climate modeller at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria, British Columbia. “We can’t ignore it.” … Susan Solomon, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, says that Fyfe’s framework helps to put twenty-first-century trends into perspective, and clearly indicates that the rate of warming slowed down at a time when greenhouse-gas emissions were rising dramatically.

            http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2138.html
            Surface global warming has stalled since around 2000 despite increasing atmospheric CO2.

            http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2111.html
            Fyfe et al. showed that global warming over the past 20 years is significantly less than that calculated from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). This might be due to some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and simulated internal variability. … As pointed out by Fyfe and colleagues, the observed rate of global warming over this period [1993-2012] is less than that simulated in all but two of 117 CMIP5 simulations.

            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7536/full/nature14117.html
            Most present-generation climate models simulate an increase in global-mean surface temperature (GMST) since 1998, whereas observations suggest a warming hiatus. It is unclear to what extent this mismatch is caused by incorrect model forcing, by incorrect model response to forcing or by random factors.

          11. SebastianH

            No. It says the greenhouse effect from increased CO2 concentrations were entirely overwhelmed and were effectively rendered inconsequential by the changes in cloud cover

            Either you are a very good troll or you really don’t understand it. Is your argument here that some other effect caused cooling and therefore the greenhouse effect just stopped working (going on a “hiatus”) or do you understand that the GHE never “paused” and that the net warming just slowed down because of a number of different factors (reduced cloud cover, increase in OHC, etc … see the paper)?

            This view is not compatible with the claim by Gavin Schmidt and the IPCC that 100% of temperature changes are caused by CO2.

            You don’t seem to understand this one either. Wenn you have some warming factor X and you take the temperature difference of a certain timespan and this difference is smaller than what X causes, then 100% of the difference were caused by this warming factor.

            You didn’t understand this form of attributing effects to causes before, so I don’t expect you do now. But you really should learn this basic math thingy …

          12. Kenneth Richard

            Is your argument here that some other effect caused cooling and therefore the greenhouse effect just stopped working (going on a “hiatus”)

            Does it ever stop? I explicitly write something. You decide to make up something else and then try to pass off that I wrote what you made up.

            I have never written that the “greenhouse effect just stopped working”. Those are your words. I wrote that because of the dominance of cloud cover changes within the greenhouse effect, the collective radiative forcing for the atmospheric greenhouse effect for the 1992-2014 period was “trendless” (-0.04 W m-2). That’s what the paper says. A trendless radiative forcing for the atmospheric GHE is different than saying “the greenhouse effect stopped working”. I didn’t write that. I wrote that the “greenhouse effect from increased CO2 concentrations were entirely overwhelmed and were effectively rendered inconsequential by the changes in cloud cover”.

            do you understand that the GHE never “paused” and that the net warming just slowed down

            The net warming occurring over the period can easily be attributed to the decrease in cloud cover, as the decrease in cloud cover allowed the SW effects of cloud cover changes to overcome the LW effects, thus producing a warming. The CO2 effect, because it is so much smaller, could be said to have been lost in the noise.

            Goode and Palle, 2007
            ftp://bbsoweb.bbso.njit.edu/pub/staff/pgoode/website/publications/Goode_Palle_2007_JASTP.pdf
            The decrease in the Earth’s reflectance from 1984 to 2000 suggested by Fig. 4, translates into a Bond albedo decrease of 0.02 (out of the nominal value of about 0.30) or an additional global shortwave forcing of 6.8 Wm2. To put that in perspective, the latest IPCC report (IPCC, 2001) argues for a 2.4 Wm2 increase in CO2 longwave forcing since 1850. The temporal variations in the albedo are closely associated with changes in the cloud cover.

          13. Jack Dale

            Kenneth – none of that refutes the view that temperatures from 2000 are the warmest in the instrumental record.

            You left out a sentence – classic contextomy.

            http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2138.html

            “A study finds that recent strengthening of Pacific trade winds has enhanced heat transport from the surface to ocean depths, explaining most of the slowed surface warming.”

            How many others are quote-mined?

          14. Kenneth Richard

            temperatures from 2000 are the warmest in the instrumental record

            Weren’t you claiming that there really was no “hiatus”…because that word was put in quotes by the IPCC (actually, it wasn’t in AR5)? Do you disagree that “the hiatus continues to challenge climate science” (Hedemann et al., 2017)?

            In the 15 years between the two major ENSO events of the last two decades, there was a 15-year warming hiatus:

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015/trend/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2015/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2015/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2015/trend

            Why do you think that a 15-year flat trend is not problematic when so many scientists obviously do think it is (many dozens of papers have been written about it)?

          15. Jack Dale

            Kenneth – nice 15 year cherry pick. Carl Mears gets annoyed when people abuse his data.

            The Recent Slowing in the Rise of Global Temperatures

            Authors:
            Carl Mears
            Date Added:
            Monday, September 22, 2014

            Recently, a number of articles in the mainstream press have pointed out that there appears to have been little or no change in globally averaged temperature over the last two decades. Because of this, we are getting a lot of questions along the lines of “I saw this plot on a denialist web site. Is this really your data?” While some of these reports have “cherry-picked” their end points to make their evidence seem even stronger, there is not much doubt that the rate of warming since the late 1990’s is less than that predicted by most of the IPCC AR5 simulations of historical climate. This can be seen in the RSS data, as well as most other temperature datasets. For example, the figure below is a plot of the temperature anomaly (departure from normal) of the lower troposphere over the past 35 years from the RSS “Temperature Lower Troposphere” (TLT) dataset. For this plot we have averaged over almost the entire globe, from 80S to 80N, and used the entire TLT dataset, starting from 1979. (The denialists really like to fit trends starting in 1997, so that the huge 1997-98 ENSO event is at the start of their time series, resulting in a linear fit with the smallest possible slope.)

            http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures/

          16. Kenneth Richard

            Kenneth – nice 15 year cherry pick.

            Can I assume you also agree that the 15 year cherry pick by the IPCC for the hiatus (no quotes) is “nice”?

            IPCC: “Nevertheless, the occurrence of the hiatus in GMST trend during the past 15 years raises the two related questions of what has caused it and whether climate models are able to reproduce it.”

            IPCC: “Almost all CMIP5 historical simulations do not reproduce the observed recent warming hiatus.”

            IPCC: “During the 15-year period beginning in 1998, the ensemble of HadCRUT4 GMST trends lies below almost all model-simulated trends (Box 9.2 Figure 1a)”

            IPCC: “For the period 1998–2012, 111 of the 114 climate-model simulations show a surface-warming trend larger than the observations (Box SYR.1, Figure 1a).”

            MetOffice: “The start of the current pause is difficult to determine precisely. Although 1998 is often quoted as the start of the current pause, this was an exceptionally warm year because of the largest El Niño in the instrumental record. This was followed by a strong La Niña event and a fall in global surface temperature of around 0.2oC (Figure 1), equivalent in magnitude to the average decadal warming trend in recent decades. It is only really since 2000 that the rise in global surface temperatures has paused.”

            Why did you falsely claim that the IPCC put the word hiatus in quotes for their last report? They didn’t, obviously. Do you deny that scientists – including those authoring IPCC reports and publishing papers for the journal Nature – agree that there was a 15-year hiatus in surface warming? Do you deny that scientists have concluded (in 2017) that the hiatus continues to challenge climate science? Why do you deny the hiatus occurred when even the IPCC acknowledges it?

            Speaking of the RSS dataset and Mears, who calls people “deniers” who don’t agree with him, this graph of temperature changes certainly doesn’t look very scary with regard to a sharp warming trend…

            http://images.remss.com/figures/blogs/2014/rss_model_ts_globe_tlt_mears.png

          17. SebastianH

            Kenneth,

            I have never written that the “greenhouse effect just stopped working”.

            Then why write this?

            It says the greenhouse effect from increased CO2 concentrations were entirely overwhelmed and were effectively rendered inconsequential

            I am no native English speaker, but to me this sounds like you think the effect of CO2 just wasn’t there (rendered inconsequential). So do you think that the same temperatures would have been measured if there weren’t an increased CO2 GHE present? Or – and I’ll gladly ask this again – do you understand that this hiatus is not a problem for the greenhouse effect theory? There could have been some other effect that causes a 100-degree drop and the greenhouse effect would have still increased over that period. Yes or no?

            as the decrease in cloud cover allowed the SW effects of cloud cover changes to overcome the LW effects, thus producing a warming.

            Why write this and then quote a paper that says “an additional global shortwave forcing of 6.8 Wm2.”? No LW effect has been subtracted from this SW forcing and therefore it is not comparable with a net forcing change of 2.4 W/m².

            The CO2 effect, because it is so much smaller, could be said to have been lost in the noise.

            That is not true and you would know that if you understood the mechanisms and basic physics.

          18. Kenneth Richard

            you think the effect of CO2 just wasn’t there (rendered inconsequential).

            The words “rendered inconsequential” – which is what happens when a tiny forcing is overwhelmed by a much larger forcing – is not the same thing as claiming that “the greenhouse effect just stopped working”. The latter is what you falsely claimed I wrote. Now you’re trying to claim that I wrote the CO2 effect “just wasn’t there”. Do you ever stop concocting your own wording, SebastianH? Does the lying ever stop? It is so frustrating trying to have a “discussion” with someone who is so blatantly dishonest. Do the people who know you personally view you as dishonest, or with having the reputation for dishonesty you have earned here?

            So do you think that the same temperatures would have been measured if there weren’t an increased CO2 GHE present?

            Considering the complete domination that clouds have vs. CO2 within both the GHE and in modulating SW, the measured temperature from change in CO2 is quite small by comparison and is likely to have been lost in the noise precisely because it is so small. Detecting an anthropogenic forcing signal and having it distinguishable from cloud radiative forcing therefore has a great deal of uncertainty associated with it. How many more times must this be repeated?

            do you understand that this hiatus is not a problem for the greenhouse effect theory?

            It’s not a problem for the greenhouse effect theory, especially re: clouds, which dominate the GHE radiative forcing. It is a problem for those claiming a dominant (i.e. 100% caused) anthropogenic influence on the climate due to the explosive increases in CO2 emissions and the overall trendless (-0.04 W m-2) atmospheric greenhouse effect (1992-2014). Cloud radiative forcing (both SW and LW), because its forcing values are so much larger, effectively comes close to canceling out the radiative forcing values allegedly attributed to CO2 concentration changes. This is highly consistent with other scientific analyses:

            Willett, 1974[R]ecent increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide have contributed much less than 5% of the recent changes of atmospheric temperature, and will contribute no more than that in the foreseeable future.”

            Dunbar, 1976[T]he measured increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, according to the most recent computations, would not be enough to have any measurable climatic effect.”

            Kauppinen et al., 2014 “We will show that changes of relative humidity or low cloud cover explain the major changes in the global mean temperature. … In the time periods mentioned before [1979-2011] the contribution of the CO2 increase was less than 10% to the total temperature change.”

            If the radiative effects of cloud cover changes overwhelm the changes associate with CO2 concentration changes such that CO2 concentration changes only contribute 5 to 10% of the temperature variation for recent decades, this is quite consistent with the Song et al. (2016) paper’s conclusions that the greenhouse effect from cloud cover changes was the primary determinant of what occurred with the GHE during 1992-2014. Hence, the anthropogenic impact on the greenhouse effect – despite explosive growth in emissions – is severely muzzled relative to the very noisy impact from natural variability (cloud cover changes).

            This is likely the 20th time I have explained this to you. I fully expect that you will, once again, twist my words around and claim that I wrote something else that I did not.

            The CO2 effect, because it is so much smaller, could be said to have been lost in the noise.

            That is not true

            So tell us why you believe the effects of CO2 radiative forcing is just as strong, if not stronger, than cloud radiative forcing when the exact opposite is widely acknowledged…

            Ramanathan et al., 1989 “Water vapour and cloud are the dominant regulators of the radiative heating of the planet. … The greenhouse effect of clouds may be larger than that resulting from a hundredfold increase in the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere.

        2. Jack Dale

          Kenneth it seems that Dai Davies got his degree at Canberra. He does not seem to teach there. His area of expertise, based on his PhD thesis is Automated Speech Recognition.

          It does not seem to pass this part of the CRAAP test:

          Authority: The source of the information.
           Who is the author/publisher/source/sponsor?
           What are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations?
           Is the author qualified to write on the topic?
           Is there contact information, such as a publisher or email address?
          Does the URL reveal anything about the author or source?

          1. dai davies

            My PhD was from ANU. I spent years looking at molecular spectroscopy. Please address my arguments, not me. Ad hominem attack is a recognition of failure.

            dai

          2. Jack Dale

            Sorry – I had Canberra on my mind.

            So what is your connection to Canberra? My search engines fail to find one.

          3. dai davies

            I taught Software Engineering there for the last six years before I retired.

            dai

          4. Jack Dale

            Got it.

            http://staff.estem-uc.edu.au/html/community/ACS/Staff%20and%20Facilities.doc

            Although I think this is an old list (2005); it does not include your Ph.D.

            Lecturers

            David Davies, BSc, MSc ANU

          5. Kenneth Richard

            This has now reached the level of harassment. Dai Davies has a Ph.D. This tactic of employing the ad hominem logical fallacy in an attempt to smear those with whom you disagree is anathema here. You have wasted about 20 posts trying to play “Gotcha!” That is apparently all you have, as I have seen precious little in the way of substance from you, much less any reason to assume you possess the intellectual weight to engage in an academic discussion re: molecular physics. Any future posts that do not contain relevant commentary related to the content of the paper(s) presented, but instead contain personal attacks and make reference to the qualifications of the individual…will be considered for deletion.

          6. yonason (from my cell phone)

            @Jack Dale 21. October 2017 at 5:14 PM | Permalink

            “Sorry – I had Canberra on my mind.” – Jack

            Your problem is that you have nothing in your mind, as is clear from your bitter, hate filled and fact-free ranting.

  16. dai davies

    Ric Werme,

    I use the 0.01 K form now. I was taught 0.01ºK, but recently read that it was now meant to be 0.01Kº and used that for a while. I’m a bit of a pedant, but it’s hard when the goalposts move.

    dai

  17. Cloudbase

    Sangfroid.
    You have described two different weather systems.1) with rising air and 2) with decending air. The air at 30,000 ft is circa -30C. Of cause it gets cold at night in a high pressure system. The GHG effect is miniscule and irrelevant.
    The changing climate is to do with Milankovitch Cycles affecting movements of our weather systems.This is the reason our climate has never been stable.
    Don’t let the mumpty get you down Dai 😉
    Excellent article.

    1. Jack Dale

      Milankovitch cycles would have us in a cooling phrase. We ain’t. Thanks to 1.5 trillion tonnes of CO2, a known GHG, being dumped into the atmosphere over the past 2.5 centuries raising levels to those that have not been noted for the past 3-5 million years. We broke the natural cycles.

      1. Kenneth Richard

        Milankovitch cycles would have us in a cooling phrase. We ain’t.

        The millennial-scale trends are that of an overall cooling. Over the course of the millennial-scale trends of cooling, there are short-term (centennial-scale) periods of natural warming and (deeper) cooling, largely elicited by changes in solar activity (i.e., the Medieval Maximum, Sporer/Maunder/Dalton/Gleissberg Minimums, and the Modern Grand Maximum) that briefly (geologically speaking) fall outside the overall long-term (millennial-scale) trend. In the last century, we’ve enjoyed a brief excursion from the centennial-scale solar minima cooling events that burdened the Earth’s inhabitants during the Little Ice Age. The Sun has only recently ended its Grand Maximum deviation, and many, many solar scientists are now predicting cooling in the decades ahead.

        Some illustrative examples of short-term warming and cooling events (centennial-scale) set against a background of a millennial-scale cooling trend can be found here:

        Esper et al., 2012 (Northern Europe)

        Rosenthal et al., 2013 (Pacific Ocean)

        Rosenthal et al., 2017 (Equatorial Atlantic)

        Yamamoto et al., 2016 (NW Pacific)

        Harning et al., 2016 (Iceland)

        Stenni et al., 2017 (Antarctica)

      2. Robert Folkerts

        Jack Dale says
        “during the time humans evolved”

        This idea of “evolving” is a belief system based on assumptions, and a bit of ” consensus science”. Not testable or provable.
        Not a whole lot different to the AGW nonsense.

        1. Jack Dale

          Natural selection is not based on belief, it is based on evidence. Proof is for mathematics and booze.

          1. Bartemis

            “during the time humans evolved”

            An empty, throwaway statement.

            Which humans, specifically? Humans have adapted to environments from the Sahara to the Arctic Circle in relatively very short spans of time.

          2. Robert Folkerts

            Jack Dale,

            Your comment was ” evolution”, now you appear to change your stance and equivocate ” natural selection”!

            By no means the same thing!
            You really ought to know that!

          3. yonason

            Yes, actually, “natural selection” has nothing to do with Darwinism. It’s effects are in the area of Micro-Evolution, not Macro. So equating little Evolution with BIG Evolution does nothing to help your cause, Jack.

            A portion of this fellow’s lecture is on why that is so.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMVfafAYTMg

            This distinguished professor from Oxford has scientific proof that Darwin was wrong. He believes in Evolution, but not Darwinism. As of now he and some colleagues are trying to figure out how it occurred. As of yet, we do not know.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2MwUgi8dlc

            The problem is that Darwinists are neither willing nor able to adapt, and to prevent themselves from becoming extinct, rely on denial, intimidation and deceit to preserve their privileged status, just as the warmist fanatics do. They are what’s holding up progress, by refusing to allow competing ideas. But in those fields, and others (nutrition, for another) progress is beginning to be made, and those who are obstructing it will fade into shame and then oblivion.

          4. Robert Folkerts

            Hi Yonason,

            I watched that video you linked to.

            I think there are many similarities in the style of debating experienced in the AGW subject and the evo / creation subject.

            It was very interesting to see how gently one evolutionist tells another evolutionist he is wrong.
            The normal style for dealing with a creation viewpoint is very similar to how the AGWists relate to sceptics.
            Plenty of anger, ad homs, and so on.
            As opposed to logical discussion.

  18. RickWill

    One of the problems with oversimplifying by averaging is that key features of the system are missed.

    A key feature with Earth’s atmosphere is that it does in fact inhibit OLR to a much greater degree than presented here. The measured data demonstrates that OLR does not exceed 320W/m^2 (over a 90day average) anywhere over the surface of the Earth:
    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/olr/olr.90day.gif
    And obviously the average is much lower than 320W/m^2. Given the radiating power of a tropical ocean at say 303K it is apparent that the atmosphere is doing more than delaying the heat transfer above a tropical ocean.

    This is inconsistent with using an average value of 340W/m^2 as the starting point for transmission from the Earth’s surface.

    I agree with the conclusion regarding the negligible impact of CO2 but it is a massive oversimplification to reduce Earth’s climate system to the elements discussed in the paper.

  19. dai davies

    Andy May,

    ‘Does anyone know where this has been submitted for publication and when it might come out with the radiative code?’

    Thanks for bringing that up. I was intending to comment. I have no intention of submitting to the legacy academic press. I’ve been a vocal critic of it for many years – well before climate science pulled it further down – so It would be hypocritical of me to change now. I’m happy to defend my work in public on the web.

    That aside, this is undergraduate level physics and if it weren’t such a politically hot topic it would have little academic interest. Any editor would quite rightly point that out if they bothered to reply at all.

    There are two physics problems here. The first, the diurnal smoothing, could be a weekly assignment for undergrads. The second, the delay calcs, would also if the students were given a hint as to the method.

    I’ve set myself a challenge that I could explain both of these to any interested party. I’ve had eleven years of undergraduate teaching, including five as a tutor in physics at ANU, so I understand the challenge of explaining physics at school leaver level. I’d like to be put to the test.

    We’re at a point where anyone who wants to put in a bit of effort can say to friends who challenge their scepticism, ‘I can explain the fundamental flaw in the climate models if you have a few minutes’. It really is that simple. They have assumed that the greenhouse/delay effect is setting our surface temperature because that was the only obvious mechanism. It seemed like a reasonable assumption to me a few years ago. Now there is a simple alternative and the assumption is no longer valid.

    The ATE calculations are in my Open Climate Modeller (OCM) visualisation package so you can vary parameters to see how they change results. The delay calcs are in the RadiativeDelay spreadsheet.

    dai

  20. dai davies

    RickWill,

    You are quite right. I’ve taken an extreme upper value for surface radiation. Reduce the starting value and the delay heating reduces. My figures of 0.14K for total heating mainly by water vapour, and 0.01K for the CO2 contribution should be viewed as upper limits.

    dai

    1. RickWill

      Dai
      I disagree that you have taken an extreme upper value. The radiating power of a tropical ocean at 303K is of the order of 430W/m^2. However the measured OLR data shows that way less than that actually makes it to the top of atmosphere.

      My point is that the atmosphere, in some locations such as above tropical oceans, does much more than delay the release of energy from the surface. It absorbs a very large proportion of it, typically more than 100W/m^2.

      1. dai davies

        RickWill,

        ‘It absorbs a very large proportion of it,… ‘

        Yes, but it can’t go on absorbing forever. It reaches an equilibrium when Ein = Eout.

        The general IR photon background created by molecular collisions exciting RG molecules moves energy about in all directions. It’s more intense in the lower atmosphere where collisions are more frequent, decreasing as you go up and as the mean free path of photons increases – eventually to infinity. You can plot this in the OCM package.

        Eventually it is transmitted to space. The key point of my article is how long this takes.

        The net flow, on average, from surface to space takes hours, but there’s a lot of mass in the atmosphere (about 10T/m^2) so the actual heating is small. As I say in the article, it’s roughly equivalent to a 200W lightbulb heating the air in a gym.

        dai

        1. RickWill

          Dai
          I agree that there is equilibrium but it is on a global scale and takes weeks to months for heat stored now in the tropics to be lost from the system. There is no radiative equilibrium on any particularly small area such as your 1m^2 or even much much larger areas.

          The atmosphere above the tropical ocean absorbs energy at around 100W/m^2 and it is retained for weeks or even months until it is transported to higher latitudes through convection and eventually released at latitudes where the OLR exceeds the total heat input resulting in net heat loss from the atmosphere.

          The radiation equilibrium is on global scale not on any chosen area less than the total planet area. Averaging this data is meaningless for a particular chosen area because the various functions for heat transfer are not simple relationships.

          As the data shows the tropical oceans have an average heat loss less than 320W/m^2 while the radiating power of the tropical ocean is 430W/m^2. If there was no convective transport of heat to higher latitudes the tropical oceans would boil off because the lack of local thermal equilibrium would result in ever increasing temperature (cf surface of the moon reaches 125C). That equilibrium CANNOT be achieved at all locations on the globe through radiation alone because water vapour limits the rate of OLR through the atmosphere. It is not a delay but a firm limit with an imbalance of at least 100W/m^2 over tropical oceans. That power imbalance will increase the temperature of the 10 tonne column of air by 1K every day.

          1. dai davies

            I’m not sure where we are here. There must be an equilibrium overall. Increased surface temperature will eventually balance input. As I see it, the transfer delay is central to the calculations of how much atmospheric heating there is.

            dai

          2. RickWill

            There is a firm limit on the amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere above the tropical ocean that results in a net gain of heat. The difference is of the order of 100W/m^2 that results in the air heating in the low latitudes. That heat is retained for weeks or months until it is eventually released as the atmospheric column moves to higher latitudes.

            The atmosphere over a tropical ocean is continually gaining heat so for that particular column the transfer delay is many weeks until it moves via convection to higher latitudes where there is a net loss of heat.

            The global precipitation rate provides a clue to where the atmosphere gains heat and loses heat:
            http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap10/global_precip.gif
            Taking the southern pacific it is apparent that the eastern and north eastern region off South America is gaining heat because precipitation is low and the north western off Australia to central region is losing heat as evidenced by high rate of precipitation at higher latitudes. The air circulation over the ocean is CCW and is driven by the thermal imbalance.

            Any model of the atmosphere that reduces or simplifies this complex system to a single static column 1m^2 provides little to no insight. Heating of the atmosphere is much more complex than what you describe the radiation transfer delay. A large quantity of water is being absorbed into the atmosphere in certain regions on a daily basis then carried thousands of kilometres to precipitate in other regions. This clearly demonstrates that no particular atmospheric column is in thermal balance. The radiation balance occurs globally over long periods not on any single atmospheric column with a short time delay.

  21. dai davies

    I should point out that I’ve retired from UC. Many academics only feel free to express dissent after retirement. At UC and ANU I felt free to express my opinions, though I copped some flack at times. I’m a compulsive contrarian, so can’t help it.

    Some years ago, at ANU, I expressed contrary views on catalytic (aka cold) fusion – that it was physically possible even if attempts so far had failed. I was invited to give a talk on the topic. It was well attended and the responses were civilised – not a tar pot or feather in sight.

    dai

    1. Jack Dale

      In what faculty did you teach at UC?

      1. dai davies

        It was software engineering, but do you really want to pursue this line? I’ve had many careers. Please address my ideas.

        dai

        1. Kenneth Richard

          Dai,

          Jack Dale has only the ad hominem logical fallacy with which to try to “discredit” your work. He has nothing else of substance to say. That’s why he incessantly writes about “predatory journals”, and why he tries to track down the academic qualifications of those who write something that contradicts his belief system. This is counter to scientific discovery, I know, but, again, that’s the only angle (i.e., intimidation, name-and-shame) he has to use.

          1. SebastianH

            Kenneth, if you want to discuss a novel idea without peer review, then let’s talk about unicorn farts and how they are responsible for global warming. If I were a retired professor of some university you’d not immediately call my idea bonkers … that’s the pattern here. We should discuss the content you say, but we don’t want to discuss unicorn farts, Kenneth. It’s like discussing with a troll, we can’t win, because they’ll drag us down and they have more experience at that level.

            There has to be some filter, so we (and you) don’t have to read all the junk that is out there. That can be peer review and in many cases basic knowledge of physics and math.

          2. Kenneth Richard

            we don’t want to discuss unicorn farts, Kenneth.

            Has someone here suggested we should be discussing unicorn farts, SebastianH? Or is this just another one of your straw man concoctions?

            Peer-reviewed journals accept junk science papers with regularity…

            https://wakeup-world.com/2017/08/17/the-failure-of-peer-review-especially-in-medicine/
            Any reviewer with more than a high-school knowledge of chemistry and the ability to understand a basic data plot should have spotted the paper’s shortcomings immediately. Its experiments are so hopelessly flawed that the results are meaningless. … The hoax paper was accepted by a whopping 157 of the journals and rejected by only 98. Of the 106 journals that did conduct peer review, 70% accepted the paper…”

          3. Jack Dale

            Kenneth – I have far more than that and you know it.

          4. SebastianH

            Has someone here suggested we should be discussing unicorn farts, SebastianH?

            That was an analogy … you know, those that you refuse to understand because they use different words than what is meant to be described.

            You want us to debate the content of the nonsense papers you present, but you continue to bring up papers that contain “unicorn farts”. There needs to be some kind of filter and even a bad one is better than none at all. Otherwise people will spend time pointlessly discussing the merits of junk science, because someone like you sees something in it that might have a point (because you want it to be true).

          5. Kenneth Richard

            Has someone here suggested we should be discussing unicorn farts, SebastianH?

            That was an analogy

            No, those of us familiar with disingenuous debate tactics refer to your bringing up “unicorn farts” and claiming that’s equivalent to alternative theoretical/exploratory conceptualizations of planetary temperature mechanisms as a straw man argument.

            you continue to bring up papers that contain “unicorn farts”

            No, I have never brought up a single paper containing the words “unicorn farts”. Just because you don’t agree that the CO2 greenhouse effect should even be questioned, or an alternative mechanism should be explored doesn’t mean that papers that challenge the conceptualization that humans have taken over from natural mechanisms and we are now primarily (~100%) responsible for heating the oceans, melting ice sheets, and raising sea levels (as you believe) doesn’t mean such exploratory excursions should be dismissed as the equivalent of “unicorn farts”. But, of course, since this is the sophomoric level of discourse you repeatedly stoop to, it is likely you are incapable of rising above the crass and ad hom.

          6. SebastianH

            “Unicorn farts” are equivalent to “it’s gravity/pressure”. There is no scientific basis to both …

            No, I have never brought up a single paper containing the words “unicorn farts”.

            I am beginning to doubt your ability to understand anything. Do you take everything literal?

            But, of course, since this is the sophomoric level of discourse you repeatedly stoop to, it is likely you are incapable of rising above the crass and ad hom.

            Hmm, well then deal with the unicorn farts theory of global warming. Don’t dismiss it because it comes from some blog commentator. Any counterpoint to that new alternative?

            Could be that you would not engage in such a discussion for the same reasons that sane people don’t engage into discussing the “alternatives” you bring up?

          7. Kenneth Richard

            Hmm, well then deal with the unicorn farts theory of global warming.

            Please provide a link to someone who is espousing this theory.

            Could be that you would not engage in such a discussion for the same reasons that sane people don’t engage into discussing the “alternatives” you bring up?

            So we’re insane if we don’t agree with your beliefs about CO2 as the climate-control knob?

            Did you realize, SebastianH, that most of the commentators here think it is you who are aligning yourself with pseudoscience by believing humans control the oceans’ temperatures, melt ice sheets, and modulate sea levels?

  22. cementafriend

    Above there is some mention of an opinion given by Dr Roy Spencer. I respect him as a scientist who does some honest work looking at data collected by satellites. However, he is a scientist who has no qualifications or experience in the engineering subjects of thermodynamics or heat&mass transfer. He clearly has no idea about conductive, convective, radiative and phase change heat transfer. This post may interest https://cementafriend.wordpress.com/2014/04/. If one does not understand evaporation, condensation and pressure differentials which drive storms and cyclones one can not start to understand weather and climate. Those who suggest reading chemistry and physics books are completely wrong. One has to read engineering books such as Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook which not only has chapters on Thermodynamics and heat transfer but also chapters on mathematics, statistics, fluid dynamics, reaction kinetics (which is 10 steps ahead of anything learnt by chemists), instrumentation, control theory, economics etc
    It is time more people called out the so-called climate scientists as unqualified incompetents who have no understanding about climate or climate changes.

    1. Bartemis

      This is a bad argument. Dr. Spencer has a BS in atmospheric sciences, and MS and PhD in meteorology. The claim that he has not studied the topics you mention in depth is not credible.

      That is not to say that he is necessarily right, or completely right, in the referenced instance. And, by *completely right*, I mean this: most of the conjectures regarding AGW are based upon hard science. However, the problem is so complex and extensive that most of the results rely upon assumptions to bound it and allow simplified models to reach a conclusion. But, the assumptions themselves are not well established and, in some cases, are flat out wrong.

      For example, we all know the frequently voiced sentiment that, all things being equal, an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration must result in rising surface temperature. This statement is not genuinely contentious among those who have basic knowledge of the processes involved. It is the *all things being equal* part of the statement, though, upon which any immediate conclusion ultimately rests. And, we know that all things do not, in fact, remain equal in the monumentally complex and dynamically interactive system governing the Earth’s climate.

      1. Kenneth Richard

        For example, we all know the frequently voiced sentiment that, all things being equal, an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration must result in rising surface temperature. This statement is not genuinely contentious among those who have basic knowledge of the processes involved. It is the *all things being equal* part of the statement, though, upon which any immediate conclusion ultimately rests. And, we know that all things do not, in fact, remain equal in the monumentally complex and dynamically interactive system governing the Earth’s climate.

        Precisely. And Dr. Spencer himself points out that clouds, in particular, do not remain equal, and are largely determinative in the Earth’s temperature fluctuations:

        “The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.”

  23. Jack Dale

    Human inputs of CO2 into the atmosphere increased from 11 millions tonnes per annum in 1751 per annum to 35.8 billion tonnes per annum in 2013. In that time period we dumped 1.5 trillion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. The inflow greatly exceeded the outflow. Hence a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 which directly attributable to the burning of fossil fuels.

    1. Bartemis

      It does not follow.

      1. Jack Dale

        We knocked the system out of balance.

        1. Bartemis

          Jack Dale 22. October 2017 at 4:53 AM

          “We knocked the system out of balance.”

          We are a tiny flea on the elephant’s back. To the extent “we knocked the system out of balance”, it is only to a proportionate level of our relative influence.

      2. Kenneth Richard

        Harde, 2017     
        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818116304787
        The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time 4 years. … Under present conditions the natural emissions contribute 373 ppm and anthropogenic emissions 17 ppm to the total concentration of 390 ppm (2012). For the average residence time we only find 4 years. … The stronger increase of the concentration over the Industrial Era up to present times can be explained by introducing a temperature dependent natural emission rate as well as a temperature affected residence time. With this approach not only the exponential increase with the onset of the Industrial Era but also the concentrations at glacial and cooler interglacial times can well be reproduced in full agreement with all observations. So, different to the IPCC’s interpretation the steep increase of the concentration since 1850 finds its natural explanation in the self accelerating processes on the one hand by stronger degassing of the oceans as well as a faster plant growth and decomposition, on the other hand by an increasing residence time at reduced solubility of CO2 in oceans. … Together this results in a dominating temperature controlled natural gain, which contributes about 85 % to the 110 ppm CO2 increase over the Industrial Era, whereas the actual anthropogenic emissions of 4.3 % only donate 15 %. These results indicate that almost all of the observed change of CO2 during the Industrial Era followed, not from anthropogenic emission, but from changes of natural emission.

        1. yonason

          @Kenneth Richard 22. October 2017 at 4:59 AM

          Really scary stuff, eh?
          http://ilovemycarbondioxide.com/images/totalCO2.png

          They can’t even fit all the CO2 onto a pie chart, and of the all the CO2, only a tiny fraction of that is from human activity.
          http://www.conceptdraw.com/How-To-Guide/picture/pie-donut-chart.png

          All CO2 is just 4/100ths of that 1% sliver, with our contribution an invisible slice of that (just 4/100ths of that 4/100ths). And, if, as Day Davies writes it’s only 1%, those calling for us to be in panic mode look all the more ridiculous for it.

          It’s difficult for me to imagine, given the greening of the planet of late, that such tiny additions of CO2 to the biosphere won’t be accommodated by natural processes that are in place and fully able to respond to and remove it. Panic over nothing in order to reduce plant food in the air, and impose expensive and unreliable power sources on everyone – why it’s almost as if they want people to become impoverished and die!

          1. yonason

            “Dai” not “Day.” Sorry.

        2. SebastianH

          Sorry, but Harde papers are a little bit “harde” to believe. It’s relatively simple math that human emissions cause the increase. Why? Because we emit way more than the yearly increase.

          But discussing that with you will lead to nowhere of course.

          1. Bartemis

            “It’s relatively simple math that human emissions cause the increase. Why? Because we emit way more than the yearly increase.”

            What an imbecilic statement.

          2. Kenneth Richard

            SebastianH: “It’s relatively simple math that human emissions cause the increase. Why? Because we emit way more than the yearly increase.”

            What an imbecilic statement.

            http://notrickszone.com/2017/06/29/evidence-review-suggests-humans-may-not-be-the-primary-drivers-of-co2-concentration-changes/#comment-1220640
            SebastianH ultimately relies repeatedly on the thoroughly discredited pseudo-mass balance argument, that says that if CO2 levels increase by less than the sum total of what we have put in over the years, then the increase is due to us. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of dynamic processes, in which outflow is proportional to all inflow. I.e., sink activity is stimulated by source activity.

            The pseudo-mass balance argument declares all sink activity to be wholly natural, and therefore is moved entirely to the “natural” side of the ledger. But, as sink activity is stimulated by all inputs, there is a portion of it that is brought into being by the anthropogenic input. That portion of the sink activity is, for all intents and purposes, artificial sink activity, and must be moved to the other side of the ledger.

            SebastianH betrays his fundamental misunderstanding in his comment at 2. July 2017 at 2:52 PM, likening the system in question to a static pool of water. If he added in a drain, and a separate “natural” inflow, he would have a better analogy that actually represents the situation. In such a case, the inflow from his garden hose could never affect the steady state level of the water in greater proportion than the proportion of his inflow to the “natural” inflow. If the rise is greater than this, then the cause is a necessarily a change in the natural flow.

          3. yonason

            “What an imbecilic statement.” – Bartemis to Chatbot_SebH

            Yes. That pretty much sums up most (if not all) of what SebH writes. I don’t think he is an imbecile, per se, just so brainwashed that he always comes across as one.

          4. SebastianH

            It has been discredited? By whom an when? And since when is “Devine intervention” yonason an authority on anything math/physics related? 🙂

          5. Kenneth Richard

            SebastianH: “It [the pseudo mass balance argument] has been discredited?”

            Bartemis writes a comment explaining why on Dr. Berry’s blog…

            http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/why-our-co2-emissions-do-not-increase-atmosphere-co2/#comment-10997
            Hi, Ed. The SkS [SkepticalScience/SebastianH] argument goes something like this.

            The annual increase is given by

            C = Ea + En + U

            where U is the natural sink uptake, Ea is anthropogenic emissions, and En is natural emissions.

            It is observed that C is approximately 1/2 of Ea, so we have

            0.5*Ea := Ea + En + U

            Therefore, En + U := -0.5*Ea which is less than zero. Therefore, nature is a net sink, and cannot be responsible for the observed rise.

            It is a very stupid argument. The reason is that this is a dynamic system. Nature reacts to the sum total of inputs. That means that U is composed of a sum of two terms, Un which is induced by En, and Ua which is induced by Ea, U = Ua + Un. We then have

            0.5*Ea := Ea + En – Ua – Un

            which says that nature on its own is

            En – Un := Ua – 0.5*Ea

            But, we don’t know Ua. If the sinks are very responsive, it can be as high as Ea itself, which leaves

            En – Un = 0.5*Ea

            and nature on its own is positive, therefore a net source. Only if Ua were less than 0.5*Ea, which would indicate a very weak response, would nature be a net sink.

            I have tried to get this very basic point across to the pseudo-mass balancers time and again, and they just do not get it, because they are not familiar with dynamic systems. The guy who wrote the argument up at SkS is a computer scientist, untrained in the hard sciences.

            The fundamental point is that, in a dynamic feedback system, all inputs induce a reaction. Ua would not exist if Ea did not. Ea causes it to be. U is not a static variable. It depends upon both En and Ea, and one cannot put it strictly on one side or the other of the ledger. It must be split up into portions, one due to forcing En, and one due to forcing Ea, Un and Ua, and each placed on the appropriate side of the balance.

          6. Kenneth Richard

            Dr. Ed Berry, atmospheric physicist
            http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/why-our-co2-emissions-do-not-increase-atmosphere-co2/
            Climate alarmists claim our CO2 emissions cause 100 percent of the observed rise in Atmosphere CO2. We will show why their claim is unphysical and invalid.

            Here is the alarmists’ four step argument they claim proves their case:

            From 1750 to 2010, humans added 171 units of CO2 to our Atmosphere and Atmosphere CO2 increased by 113 units. This leaves 58 units.
            Land and Oceans absorbed the 58 units of Atmosphere CO2.
            Therefore, Land and Oceans are net absorbers of CO2.
            Therefore, Human CO2 caused 100 percent of the increase in Atmosphere CO2 since 1750 and 1960.
            Here is my rebuttal to the Alarmists case:

            During the same period that Human CO2 emissions added 171 units of CO2 to our Atmosphere, the Land and Ocean CO2 emissions added 26,000 units to our Atmosphere. Land and Ocean also absorbed about 26,000 units of CO2 from our Atmosphere, including the 171 units from Human CO2. There were no 58 units left over.

            Fig. 2 illustrates how Land & Ocean CO2 emissions compare to Human CO2 emissions during this period. The ratio is 152 to 1.

            The alarmists case fails because it omits Land and Ocean CO2 emissions. Their omission leaves Human CO2 emissions as 100 percent and makes their claim that Human CO2 caused ALL the Atmosphere CO2 increase artificial.

          7. SebastianH

            I’ll come back to this later. Since he mentions computer science … Has he ever simulated such a system? Claiming that nearly all human emissions could be sunk and it is a natural increase that would be driving the total increase is as if he were claiming that somehow nature can decide which CO2 it will absorb. This sounds absurd …

          8. Kenneth Richard

            as if he were claiming that somehow nature can decide which CO2 it will absorb. This sounds absurd

            Please respond to what has actually been written, not to your made-up faux arguments that you call “absurd” after you have concocted them yourself.

            Dr. Ed Berry:

            The Atmosphere does not know whether its CO2 came from Land, Ocean, or Human CO2 emissions. No matter what the source, the greater the total Atmosphere CO2, the greater the flow of Atmosphere CO2 to Land and Ocean CO2. Therefore, Atmosphere CO2 will seek the same balance level with or without Human CO2 emissions.”

            “Global Warming alarmists claim Land and Oceans will continue to absorb the same amounts of atmospheric CO2 with our without human emissions. They reject physics 101 which tells us the rate of absorption by Land and Oceans will increase as atmospheric CO2 increases. If that were not true, there could be no “balance of nature” that the alarmists admit exists. Balance only occurs when flow rates are proportional to concentrations.”

          9. yonason

            Right, Kenneth. And even if they had the mass balance correct, they’ve still got the energy balance all bollixed up, as Dr. Anderson explains again here.
            https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2017/10/thermal-radiation-basics-and-their.html

            His conclusion to that article correctly assess the consequences of the cAGW folly.

            “Horrifically, this extremely wrongheaded hypothesis has been accepted by many as good theory and is used to justify the destruction of whole industries, with the loss of many jobs and much capital investment. It is used to justify imposing much higher energy costs on everyone, which most hurts the poor.”

            So, between the mass and energy balance errors, those religious fanatics have made sure they can’t be correct, even by accident.

          10. yonason

            @Kenneth Richard

            SebH just can’t stop fabricating what other people say!

            SebH writes…

            “Claiming that nearly all human emissions could be sunk and it is a natural increase that would be driving the total increase is as if he were claiming that somehow nature can decide which CO2 it will absorb. This sounds absurd …”

            Absurd it is. But it’s SebH’s misreading (or did he even bother to?) of the concept, not what hat Dr. Berry wrote that is wrong…

            Our Atmosphere does not treat Human CO2 any differently than CO2 from Land and Ocean. Human CO2 is simply another input to Atmosphere CO2 that will increase the outflow of Atmosphere CO2 to Land or Ocean by the same amount as the Human CO2 flow into the Atmosphere.” – Dr. Ed Berry

            NOTE – I am not responding to SebH, but merely commenting to Kenneth Richard on his inanity. This is why.

          11. Bartemis

            SebastianH 24. October 2017 at 8:56 AM |

            “Claiming that nearly all human emissions could be sunk and it is a natural increase that would be driving the total increase is as if he were claiming that somehow nature can decide which CO2 it will absorb.”

            Quite the contrary, it is when you presume that the per unit impact of human emissions is far greater than that of the natural inputs that you are giving nature the power to decide which CO2 it will absorb.

            Nearly all emissions *are* absorbed over a given yearly interval, both natural and human sourced. But, the natural inputs are so much greater in volume that they dominate the residual that remains.

        3. SebastianH

          From reading the comments here and the comments over at edberry.com I think someone hasn’t understood the mass balance argument.

          From Bart at edberry.com:

          The problem with this argument is that we must have the same ratio between Ua and Ea as we do between Un and En. Otherwise, we are saying that the sinks treat natural and human CO2 differently. Therefore Ua = Un*Ea/En, which is not insignificant, as Un/En is very nearly unity.

          Un/En can’t be nearly unity as an increase of the concentration is observed. Both terms must have the same ratio though (Un/En = Ua/Ea), so that is correct. It should be clear that Ua is not the absorption by humans, but the amount of human emitted CO2 that is absorbed by all sinks. And there lies the problem with your argument.

          But, we don’t know Ua. If the sinks are very responsive, it can be as high as Ea itself, which leaves

          En – Un = 0.5*Ea

          and nature on its own is positive, therefore a net source. Only if Ua were less than 0.5*Ea, which would indicate a very weak response, would nature be a net sink.

          No, Ua is not what humans sink, but the amount of human emitted CO2 that is absorbed by nature. If somehow Ua would be as big as Ea this would be a sign that nature “prefers” human CO2 over natural CO2. Also this violates the above equation Un/En = Ua/Ea.

          Regarding Ed Berry himself:

          “Global Warming alarmists claim Land and Oceans will continue to absorb the same amounts of atmospheric CO2 with our without human emissions. They reject physics 101 which tells us the rate of absorption by Land and Oceans will increase as atmospheric CO2 increases.

          Nope, nobody claims that the absorption stays the same. It highly depends on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere vs. in nature (mainly in the oceans). That is the very basis of the law of mass action.

          That’s a huge straw man.

          Back to Bartemis:

          Nearly all emissions *are* absorbed over a given yearly interval, both natural and human sourced.

          That “nearly” is the size of half of human emissions, and that is enough to increase the concentration to the observed levels. The sinks will eventually catch up when we manage to keep our emissions stable and at that point, your “nearly” will become very small.

          But, the natural inputs are so much greater in volume that they dominate the residual that remains.

          Is that so? The natural emissions and absorption seemed to be in a roughly balanced state before humans began to emit large amounts of CO2. For nature to dominate the residual now either the sinks must have decreased a lot (A) or the natural emissions increased (B). A can’t have happened since there is more CO2 in the atmosphere now and that increased the carbon sink of the oceans. And B didn’t happen because human emissions are enough to explain the difference.

          1. Bartemis

            “Un/En can’t be nearly unity as an increase of the concentration is observed.”

            Yes it can. Only when it is precisely unity do you not get a buildup.

            “If somehow Ua would be as big as Ea this would be a sign that nature “prefers” human CO2 over natural CO2. Also this violates the above equation Un/En = Ua/Ea. “

            Incorrect. It just means nature is voracious. Virtually all of Ea is removed. Virtually all of En also is removed. What is left is a residual with contributions from Ea and En in proportion to their relative sizes.

            “The natural emissions and absorption seemed to be in a roughly balanced state before humans began to emit large amounts of CO2.”

            We don’t actually know that. It is based upon unverifiable proxy measurements. It is highly unlikely, in my view, because it suggests high bandwidth regulation coupled with high sensitivity to our forcing, which is rather a contradiction.

            However regime changes can occur in a chaotic system such as this, so it is not impossible. But, the question is moot. Since the time we started measuring CO2 with any assurance, in 1958 at Mauna Loa, the rate of change of concentration is proportional to appropriately baselined temperature anomaly.

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:24/plot/hadcrut4sh/offset:0.45/scale:0.22/from:1958

            That tells us that, at the very least within this interval of time, the rise has been temperature driven, and not significantly dependent upon human inputs. And, in that interval of time, CO2 went from 315 ppm to 406 ppm, and that is the lion’s share of the observed rise.

            “A can’t have happened since there is more CO2 in the atmosphere now and that increased the carbon sink of the oceans. And B didn’t happen because human emissions are enough to explain the difference.”

            There is no contradiction. My math at the Berry site shows how it can come about.

          2. Bartemis

            There are no contradictions. It is very clear that human contributions to CO2 levels are negligible, as the rate of change is essentially driven by temperature:

            https://tinyurl.com/l4r6ex7

            My math at the Ed Berry site shows how it can come about.

          3. Bartemis
          4. Kenneth Richard

            Virtually all of Ea is removed. Virtually all of En also is removed. What is left is a residual with contributions from Ea and En in proportion to their relative sizes.

            Summed precisely. SebastianH prefers to think it’s just the En that “disappears”, or that is removed. The leftover from both are in proportion to the 96:4 En to Ea emission ratio, as the atmosphere doesn’t distinguish between En and Ea. SebastianH necessarily has to believe that the atmosphere does distinguish. This is all summed up nicely by Dr. Salby in his seminal textbook on atmospheric physics:

            Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate
            Together, emission from ocean and land sources (∼150 GtC/yr) is two orders of magnitude greater than CO2 emission from combustion of fossil fuel. These natural sources are offset by natural sinks, of comparable strength. However, because they are so much stronger, even a minor imbalance between natural sources and sinks can overshadow the anthropogenic component of CO2 emission.” pg. 546

            “The results for the two periods are in broad agreement. Together with the strong dependence of CO2 emission on temperature (Fig. 1.43), they imply that a significant portion of the observed increase in r˙CO2 derives from a gradual increase in surface temperature.” pg. 253

            Warming of SST (by any mechanism) will increase the outgassing of CO2 while reducing its absorption. Owing to the magnitude of transfers with the ocean, even a minor increase of SST can lead to increased emission of CO2 that rivals other sources.” pg. 546

            The resemblance between observed changes of CO2 and those anticipated from increased surface temperature also points to a major inconsistency between proxy records of previous climate. Proxy CO2 from the ice core record (Fig 1.13) indicates a sharp increase after the nineteenth century. At earlier times, proxy CO2 becomes amorphous: Nearly homogeneous on time scales shorter than millennial, the ice core record implies virtually no change of atmospheric CO2. According to the above sensitivity, it therefore implies a global-mean climate that is “static,” largely devoid of changes in GMT and CO2. Proxy temperature (Fig. 1.45), on the other hand, exhibits centennial changes of GMT during the last millennium, as large as 0.5–1.0◦ K. In counterpart reconstructions, those changes are even greater (Section 1.6.2). It is noteworthy that, unlike proxy CO2 from the ice core record, proxy temperature in Fig. 1.45 rests on a variety of independent properties. In light of the observed sensitivity, those centennial changes of GMT must be attended by significant changes of CO2 during the last millennium. They reflect a global-mean climate that is “dynamic,” wherein GMT and CO2 change on a wide range of time scales. The two proxies of previous climate are incompatible. They cannot both be correct.” pg. 254

          5. Kenneth Richard

            Now that SebastianH’s pseudo mass balance argument has been shown to be wrong (once again), look for him to respond in three ways:

            1) Concocting straw man arguments.
            2) Accusing Bartemis/Dr. Berry of not understanding “simple math” and how mass balance works.
            3) Name-calling and insults.

            The first has already been done: “as if he were claiming that somehow nature can decide which CO2 it will absorb. This sounds absurd”

            The second has also been accomplished: “I think someone hasn’t understood the mass balance argument.”

            Name-calling and insults are next.

          6. SebastianH

            Bartemis,

            “Un/En can’t be nearly unity as an increase of the concentration is observed.”

            Yes, it can. Only when it is precisely unity do you not get a buildup.

            But we are getting a buildup. The CO2 concentration is increasing. Equal Un and En can only happen in a balanced state, but you don’t trust the proxy data. This data (https://www.bas.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/003.jpg) shows that CO2 depends on temperature changes (if we can see the temperatures in the polar regions as a proxy for global temperatures).

            Incorrect. It just means nature is voracious. Virtually all of Ea is removed. Virtually all of En also is removed. What is left is a residual with contributions from Ea and En in proportion to their relative sizes.

            And how does that work? Let’s suppose nature is emitting 96 parts and also absorbs around 96 parts in a balanced state. Now humans burn fossil fuels and add 4 parts to the mix, but only 98 parts are absorbed. You are suggesting that since 98% of the emissions get absorbed the resulting absorption Un is now 94.08 parts and Ua 3,92 parts.

            While that is technically true, it does mean that the increased human emissions cause a decrease in Un. Isn’t that obvious?

            Since the time we started measuring CO2 with any assurance, in 1958 at Mauna Loa, the rate of change of concentration is proportional to appropriately baselined temperature anomaly.

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:24/plot/hadcrut4sh/offset:0.45/scale:0.22/from:1958

            I’ve seen that link over at edberry.com. The keyword here is “appropriately baselined”. So far the temperature increase caused by the increasing CO2 concentration has been roughly linear. Such a component can be easily “filtered out” the way you present the data. Take a look at:
            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:24/plot/hadcrut4sh/offset:0.45/scale:0.1/from:1958

            The same graph, but differently scaled. The temperature dependence (nobody denies that) is clearly visible, but the linear increase caused by the artificial increase of the CO2 concentration isn’t hidden anymore.

            That tells us that, at the very least within this interval of time, the rise has been temperature driven, and not significantly dependent upon human inputs.

            We actually know how CO2 concentrations change depending on temperature in a scenario without artifical input. Warmer oceans cause a certain net increase and that is roughly 7.5 ppm per K in the ranges we observed. It simply hasn’t warmed enough for the current increase to be temperature driven.

            While I don’t usually agree with Lüdecke/Weiss, they do a good job describing a simple model of the ocean to atmosphere and vice versa mechansim in this paper: http://www.journalrepository.org/media/journals/JGEESI_42/2017/Jan/Ludecke842016JGEESI30532_1_1.pdf

            Maybe you can comment on that and what you think happens differently in reality.

            @Kenneth:

            The leftover from both are in proportion to the 96:4 En to Ea emission ratio, as the atmosphere doesn’t distinguish between En and Ea.

            See the beginning of this comment about what that means.

            SebastianH necessarily has to believe that the atmosphere does distinguish.

            No, I don’t. So nature absorbs 98% of our emissions and stopped absorbing 2% of nature’s emissions and you think that means that somehow natures contribution dominates? The presence of human emissions caused this reduction of Un.

            I won’t comment on your quotes, as I have done that multiple times now. Leads to nowhere since you don’t understand the problem with those passages.

            Now that SebastianH’s pseudo mass balance argument has been shown to be wrong (once again)

            It hasn’t. You are falling for flawed math. Also this “argument” is based on the law of mass action. Do you suggest that this law is no accurately describing reality? 😉

            Kenneth, you probably don’t realize it, but by marginalizing your opponents and making up straw mans (constantly) yourself you are not helping your case. The clear lack of understanding of what you are quoting is another story. You quote what seems to support your case without asking yourself if any of those claims makes sense. Your skepticism is very onesided …

          7. Kenneth Richard

            So nature absorbs 98% of our emissions and stopped absorbing 2% of nature’s emissions and you think that means that somehow natures contribution dominates?

            Where is the position emboldened above coming from? Did someone claim that nature stopped absorbing 2% of nature’s emissions? Or is that your made-up position that you are claiming Bartemis or I wrote?

          8. SebastianH

            It follows from the equations. Either Un decreases accordingly or En must be larger. I hope you can calculate for yourself what En getting larger means for the equation.

          9. Bartemis

            “Let’s suppose nature is emitting 96 parts and also absorbs around 96 parts in a balanced state. Now humans burn fossil fuels and add 4 parts to the mix, but only 98 parts are absorbed. You are suggesting that since 98% of the emissions get absorbed the resulting absorption Un is now 94.08 parts and Ua 3,92 parts.”

            That is correct. That is how a dynamic system with proportional feedback works.

            “While that is technically true, it does mean that the increased human emissions cause a decrease in Un.”

            No, this is a genetic fallacy. It means only that the decrease in Un coincided with the increase in human emissions. It happens temperatures were increasing at the same time, and the temperature increase reduced natural absorption.

            Is it too shocking a coincidence for you that temperature happened to be going in the same direction as human emissions? The odds are merely a 50/50 coin toss.

            “I’ve seen that link over at edberry.com. The keyword here is “appropriately baselined”.”

            The baseline is an arbitrary value. It has to be something. I chose the value that best matches the data, along with an appropriate scale factor. When I do that, not only does the variation in temperature match the variation in CO2 rate of change, but the long term trend matches, too.

            So, we have two items, the variation and the long term trend, which are matching and are not influenced by the baseline figure which, again, is arbitrary. The odds of that dual match by happenstance are vanishingly small.

            “Warmer oceans cause a certain net increase and that is roughly 7.5 ppm per K in the ranges we observed. It simply hasn’t warmed enough for the current increase to be temperature driven.”

            I addressed that point specifically in my write-up at the Berry site. There is a rapid and relatively small dynamic associated with equilibration of the atmosphere to the surface oceans which has a sensitivity of ppm/K. That dynamic, it is true, is not responsible for most of the rise we have observed.

            But, there is also a long term dynamic associated with the equilibration of the entire oceans. This has a sensitivity of ppm/K/unit-of-time in the near term, and produces a persistent accumulation that builds over time. This model matches the data, which show consistent proportionality between the rate of change of CO2 and appropriately baselined temperature anomaly.

          10. Bartemis

            Thank you for the thoughtful reply, Seb. A response is in the queue. If it does not appear within a few hours, I will try reposting.

          11. Bartemis

            “While I don’t usually agree with Lüdecke/Weiss, they do a good job describing a simple model of the ocean to atmosphere and vice versa mechansim in this paper:”

            It’s entirely ad hoc. I’ve looked into several such models. If you dig down, you will always find that the existence of natural equilibrium is taken for granted, and the dynamics are built on top of that assumption. This produces an unnatural disparity between how natural inputs are treated up to the assumed equilibrium point, and how they are treated afterwards. And, that produces a schism between how natural and anthropogenic inputs affect the outcome, violating the principle that both species of CO2 must be treated equally.

            In the end, it results basically in patching together a high-pass filtered version of proportional temperature forcing with a complementary low-pass version of anthro inputs. It can be made to fit, to some degree, but it is very contrived, and arbitrarily dismisses the remarkable fact that, when the temperature data are scaled to fit the variation in the rate of change of CO2, the slope of the trend also matches. That particular consilience is filtered away in the high-pass response, swept under the proverbial rug, if you will.

            Key points: A) such models are physically non-viable, B) they ignore evidence of long term agreement (59 years and counting) between temperature and the rate of change of CO2.

          12. Kenneth Richard

            If you dig down, you will always find that the existence of natural equilibrium is taken for granted, and the dynamics are built on top of that assumption.

            And the only reason why the existence of a “natural equilibrium” (i.e., SebastianH has claimed that equilibrium value is 290 ppm) exists is because of the assumption that interpretations of past CO2 concentrations are definitively discernible from ice cores. The geologists came together and “agreed” that measurements indicating CO2 concentrations measured to be in the range of 500 ppm or 600 ppm during the mid-Holocene — or the 10s of thousands of measurements showing CO2 concentrations reached into the 420s ppm during the 1800s — must be wrong, and they instead “agreed” that the measurements showing lower values must be the right ones. The high measurements were discarded. Why? Confirmation bias. They assumed that modern CO2 concentrations must be human caused. So, tendentiously, the high CO2 measurements from the past just disappeared. Basing a theory on presuppositions and assumptions is not how science is supposed to work.

            http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg
            Neftel, et al. reported in 1982 rather high median CO2 concentrations in the preindustrial ice core from Byrd, Antarctica, of about 330 and 415 ppmv, with maximum value reaching 500 ppmv. However, in 1988, in the second publication on the same core, Neftel et al. did not show these high readings; the highest concentration reported was 290 ppmv, in agreement with the global warming theory.

            Pearman, et al. [1986] “on examination of the data,” rejected 43 percent of the CO2 readings from Law Dome, Antarctica core … because they were higher or lower than the assumed “correct” values. Thus, they concluded a value of 281 ppmv CO2 for the pre-industrial atmosphere.

          13. Bartemis

            Kenneth Richard 25. October 2017 at 10:29 PM

            That’s interesting stuff, Kenneth. I am certain that the orthodoxy on the ice core records is wrong. Either the models are wrong or, as you suggest, they have been interpreted wrongly. Otherwise, they just aren’t consistent with the behavior we can see in the modern, direct measurements.

            But, that is in addition to the point I was making, which is that one cannot treat the equilibrium condition as though it exists for no particular reason, and then glom on whatever additional dynamics one wants. Every new input has to be treated in the same way as every input that got you to equilibrium in the first place.

            I’m not sure how to put it plainly in words, so I will try to make the point with some math. Say we have a system with measured level x and input p which obeys a differential equation of the form

            1) dx/dt = -x/tau1 + p

            for some time constant tau1. For constant p, this system will achieve steady state when x = p*tau1, as that is the point at which dx/dt goes to zero.

            If we have an additional input a, then the proper way to treat it is

            2) dx/dt = -x/tau1 + p + a

            If a were constant, this would settle out to x = (p+a)*tau1.

            But, this is not what they do. In effect, they take the natural equilibrium point as a given, and model

            3) dx/dt = (p*tau1 – x)/tau2 + a

            for some other time constant tau2, which they can choose arbitrarily. If a is constant, this system has equilibrium point x = p*tau1 + a*tau2.

            This result is the same as equation (2) for a = 0, but produces a markedly different result when it is not. The inputs p and a are subject to different time constants tau1 and tau2, so they are not on an equal footing.

          14. SebastianH

            Sorry for replying this late …

            It means only that the decrease in Un coincided with the increase in human emissions. It happens temperatures were increasing at the same time, and the temperature increase reduced natural absorption.

            That is the core problem with your view on this. You see the woodfortrees graph and conclude that with proper scaling CO2 is directly proportional to the change in temperature. Further down you conclude that the ice core data aren’t consistent with the modern measured data because of this. But, and this is a big but, they are … you fail to see that the scaling in your graph hides the CO2 increase that was due to human emissions and completely dismiss that the temperatures increased by a large percentage because of that CO2 increase. It’s not the other way around.

            If you use a different scaling factor you get a graph that looks like this: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:24/plot/hadcrut4sh/offset:0.45/scale:0.05/from:1958

            Notice the difference? The derivative of the CO2 increase still depends on the temperatures (of course it does, as it has in the past … see the ice core data). But now the almost linear CO2 increase due to human emissions in that timespan is visible too.

            If you dig down, you will always find that the existence of natural equilibrium is taken for granted, and the dynamics are built on top of that assumption. […] But, that is in addition to the point I was making, which is that one cannot treat the equilibrium condition as though it exists for no particular reason, and then glom on whatever additional dynamics one wants.

            The equilibrium follows from the law of mass action, it is not arbitrarily set just so some equations deliver useful results. For a certain temperature and a certain amount of CO2/carbon dissolved in the oceans, there will always be an equilibrium CO2 concentration of the atmosphere. But if something else starts adding CO2 to the atmosphere and the temperatures haven’t risen accordingly the differential pressure will cause the oceans to sink this additional CO2. And surprise, we can measure the increasing acidification of the oceans.

            3) dx/dt = (p*tau1 – x)/tau2 + a

            for some other time constant tau2, which they can choose arbitrarily. If a is constant, this system has equilibrium point x = p*tau1 + a*tau2.

            That is not what “they” do. You seem to understand your math, but you are basing it on the wrong assumptions that the current CO2 concentration increase is caused by a temperature increase and that the equilibrium points (such as in the paper with the simple model I linked to) have been somehow arbitrarily chosen by “them”.

            Every new input has to be treated in the same way as every input that got you to equilibrium in the first place.

            And that is what “they” do, treating it the same way. You are the one who treats this differently by thinking that human emissions don’t play a significant role. And this leads to a disconnect between the correlation of CO2 to temperatures in past times (ice cores) and the correlation today (instrumental record). I hope you can understand my late-night-not-native English 😉

            @Kenneth:

            […] must be wrong, and they instead “agreed” that the measurements showing lower values must be the right ones. The high measurements were discarded. Why? Confirmation bias.

            The usual “they faked the data” argument, how predictable. Yeah, I know, you never used those words I just put in quotation marks. But this is what it boils down to …

            They assumed that modern CO2 concentrations must be human caused.

            No, we actually know that. It has been measured, the observations match all our models (derived from the laws of physics we came to understand during the existence of mankind). There is no plausible way that anything else could have caused the current CO2 concentration increase. That something would need to be able to neutralize all human CO2 instantly and act the same way as if human CO2 was not neutralized. It makes no sense at all to assume that this is what is happening, but then almost nothing coming from skeptics seems to make sense.

          15. Kenneth Richard

            The usual “they faked the data” argument

            Nope. They didn’t fake the data. They discarded data that disagreed with their presuppositions, and kept the data that agreed with their presuppositions. There’s a huge difference between discarding inconvenient data (which is well documented and actually happened) and just making up or faking data (your claim). Can you prove that the 90,000 measurements/observations that showed CO2 levels reached into the 420s ppm during the 1800s are wrong? Or are those observed data fake…because they disagree with what you believe to be true?

            Foscolos, 2010
            https://ejournals.epublishing.ekt.gr/index.php/geosociety/article/view/11157/11208
            http://blogs.sch.gr/sachinidi/files/2010/08/Climatic-Changes-Patra_2_v2.pdf
            “By the end of the 18th century eminent scientists explained the climatic changes on the basis of temperature and the ensuing glacial retreat. This disturbing observation led many prominent scientists to send air balloons equipped with special devices to trap air from the lower atmosphere in order to measure CO2 concentrations. Ninety thousand (90,000) measurements were carried out at 138 locations in 4 continents between 1810 and 1961. The data indicated that atmospheric CO2 concentrations, during the 19th century varied between 290 and 430 ppm (with an average of 322 ppm for the pre-industrial period). For the 20th century, the average concentration is 338 ppm when combined with comparable CO2 measurements carried out by Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, USA (1958- 2000). Measurement precision is ±3%.”

            They assumed that modern CO2 concentrations must be human caused.

            No, we actually know that.

            No, you actually believe that we “know” this. We don’t. But obviously your beliefs are not going to change on this.

            Again, you believe that the agreed-upon paleoclimate measurements of low atmospheric CO2 concentrations are known. But the 90,000 measurements that show CO2 levels reached into the 400s during the 19th century? Those aren’t known. They’re wrong. Fake. Why? Because you don’t agree with them.

          16. SebastianH

            Can you prove that the 90,000 measurements/observations that showed CO2 levels reached into the 420s ppm during the 1800s are wrong?

            You can not prove that something didn’t happen. But can you prove that those “measurements” are actually accurate? We are talking about the 19th century here … and you aren’t the least bit skeptical about this, because it supports one of your claims. What could we call this? Confirmation bias perhaps?

            If you could stop falling for those conspiracy theory “papers” … that would be great.

          17. Kenneth Richard

            But can you prove that those “measurements” are actually accurate?

            Of course I can’t prove that the measurements (why the quotes around measurements?) are actually accurate. And neither can you prove that the measurements that you believe in – the ones that discard the higher values and only accept the ones with the lower values – are accurate. That’s exactly why your certainty and lack of skepticism are so indicative of why this is indeed nothing more than a belief for you. You necessarily have to believe that measurements from ice cores do indeed accurately represent the paleoclimate record, with Holocene values in the 255-280 ppm range, to maintain the position that modern CO2 levels are unusual and thus unnatural. And yet simultaneously you necessarily have to believe that the high (400-700 ppm) CO2 measurements from Holocene-era ice cores that show today’s CO2 levels are neither unusual or outside the range of natural variability are not accurate. In other words, your entire case rests on the presupposition that the 90,000 ice core measurements that said 19th century CO2 values reached into the 420 ppm range are inaccurate, whereas the _____,000 measurements from ice cores (that toss out the high values) are not only accurate, but we KNOW they are accurate. You are CERTAIN they are accurate.

            This is why you are not the least bit skeptical, SebastianH. I can gladly write that I am uncertain about the CO2 values for the Holocene, as the measurements are inconsistent across datasets, with 10s of 1,000s of readings that reach into the 400 to 700 ppm range. Instead of dismissing those measurements – as you must do to maintain your beliefs – I will gladly say that I don’t know, and that my tendency to assume that a significant portion (perhaps 5-30%) of CO2 concentration increases are human caused may not be accurate after all. Perhaps it’s closer to 0%. Perhaps it’s closer to 50%. I don’t know, and I don’t mind writing I don’t know. You, though, claim that we KNOW that the paleoclimate measurements from ice bubbles accurately represent the atmospheric CO2 concentration…as long as that representation is in agreement with your presuppositions. If they do match up, then you KNOW. If they don’t match up, then…they’re wrong. Belief. See how easy it is?

            If you could stop falling for those conspiracy theory “papers” … that would be great.

            So is it your position that ice core measurements have not revealed CO2 values for the Holocene that ranged into the 400 to 700 ppm range? Are you claiming that these 90,000 measurements were just made up, or faked? If you believe these are fake measurements (and apparently you do, hence the quotes around the word), please support this claim that scientists faked the data.

          18. SebastianH

            You necessarily have to believe that measurements from ice cores do indeed accurately represent the paleoclimate record,

            Nope, not necessary.

            And yet simultaneously you necessarily have to believe that the high (400-700 ppm) CO2 measurements from Holocene-era ice cores that show today’s CO2 levels are neither unusual or outside the range of natural variability are not accurate.

            Nope, don’t need to believe anything here. But you need to believe that there is some kind of conspiracy going on that discarded perfectly fine values instead of a normal cleanup of data. Everything a skeptic needs to construct a baseless straw man argument and you fall for it …

            In other words, your entire case rests on the presupposition that the 90,000 ice core measurements

            Not ice core measurements, get your story straight.

            but we KNOW they are accurate. You are CERTAIN they are accurate.

            I trust measured CO2 concentration from ice cores with modern technology far more than any 19th century device that measured CO2 concentration while hanging on a balloon. And you?

            So is it your position that ice core measurements have not revealed CO2 values for the Holocene that ranged into the 400 to 700 ppm range? Are you claiming that these 90,000 measurements were just made up, or faked?

            Again, get your story straight. Those 90000 measurements were taken from balloons. They captured air in the lower atmosphere and measured the CO2 content. Do you really think that this has resulted in accurate measurements by modern standards?

            If you believe these are fake measurements (and apparently you do, hence the quotes around the word), please support this claim that scientists faked the data.

            Please stop making stuff up and construction straw man arguments. I put quotation marks around the word, because of the way and time those measurements were taken. See last paragraph of this reply … they can’t be considered accurate. I have a CO2 monitor on my desk and it says 668 ppm with the windows open just now. Do you trust this cheap sensor more, because it demonstrates that higher concentrations are possible? Or do you recognize that this might not be an accurate sensore?

          19. Kenneth Richard

            Wow. So now you’re even denying that we have ice core measurements that reveal CO2 reached into the 400 ppm to 700 ppm range. It must be really hard to remain consistent. I understand, though. You only believe in the right ice core measurements. You know those are the ones that are correct. The wrong ice core measurements that show 400 to 700 ppm CO2? They’re wrong because…they are. Ah, the trials of a true believer.
            ——————————————————–

            Jaworowski, 1997
            http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg
            The ice core data from various polar sites are not consistent with each another, and there is a discrepancy between these data and geological climatic evidence. One such example is the discrepancy between the classic Antarctic Byrd and Vostok ice cores, where an important decrease in the CO2 content in the air bubbles occurred at the same depth of about 500 meters, but at which the ice age differed by about 16,000 years. In an approximately 14,000-year-old part of the Byrd core, a drop in the CO2 concentration of 50 ppmv was observed, but in similarly old ice from the Vostok core, an increase of 60 ppmv was found. In about ~6,000-year-old ice from Camp Century, Greenland, the CO2 concentration in air bubbles was 420 ppmv, but it was 270 ppmv in similarly old ice from Byrd, Antarctica. … In the air from firn and ice at Summit, Greenland, deposited during the past ~200 years, the CO2 concentration ranged from 243.3 ppmv to 641.4 ppmv. Such a wide range reflects artifacts caused by sampling, or natural processes in the ice sheet, rather than the variations of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Similar or greater range was observed in other studies of greenhouse gases in polar ice.

            The failure to resolve the notorious problem of why about 30 percent of man-made CO2 is missing in the global carbon cycle, based on CO2 ice core measurements, suggests a systematic bias in ice core data. It is not possible to explain the ice core CO2 record in terms of a system with time-invariant processes perturbed by a combination of fossil fuel carbon release, CO2-enhanced biotic growth, and deforestation.

            Until 1985, the published CO2 readings from air bubbles in pre-industrial ice ranged from 160 to about 700 ppmv, and occasionally even up to 2,450 ppmv. After 1985, high readings disappeared from the publications. To fit such a wide range of results to the anthropogenic climatic warming theory, which was based on low pre-industrial CO2 levels, three methods were used: (1) rejection of high readings from sets of preindustrial samples, based on the credo: “The lowest CO2 values best represent the CO2 concentrations in the originally trapped ice”; (2) rejection of low readings from sets of 20th century samples; and (3) interpretation of the high readings from pre-industrial samples as representing the contemporary atmosphere rather than the pre-industrial one.

            Neftel, et al. reported in 1982 rather high median CO2 concentrations in the preindustrial ice core from Byrd, Antarctica, of about 330 and 415 ppmv, with maximum value reaching 500 ppmv. However, in 1988, in the second publication on the same core, Neftel et al. did not show these high readings; the highest concentration reported was 290 ppmv, in agreement with the global warming theory.

            Pearman, et al. [1986] “on examination of the data,” rejected 43 percent of the CO2 readings from Law Dome, Antarctica core … because they were higher or lower than the assumed “correct” values. Thus, they concluded a value of 281 ppmv CO2 for the pre-industrial atmosphere.
            ————————–
            Kauffman, 2007
            https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d9d9/eb6e213a1fa8fec2c877685baa81817b15a5.pdf
            In few fields considered to be science-based has there been such a high degree of polarization and refusal to consider alternate explanations of natural phenomena as in climate change at present.

            The scenario seems to be that between 1985 and 1988, a decision was made to present pre-1958 CO2 concentrations with no humps or dips and to proclaim a pre-industrial level of 280 ppm.

            Compared with the so-called pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm, a level of 410 ppm was found in 1812, rising to 450 ppm in 1825. There were levels of 370 ppm in 1857, and 4 sets of measurements gave 350–415 ppm around 1940 (Figure 10). From 1870–1920 values remained within 295–310 ppm. From 1955–1965 the values were 325 ppm. Beck chose the most carefully done assays for this graph. One was from Poona, India. An effort not described by Beck was one of 350 determinations near Point Barrow, Alaska, from 1947–1949, with a mean result of 420 ppm (Hock et al., 1952).

            The CO2 levels found at Mauna Loa range from 315 ppm in 1957 to 385 ppm in 2007, a period of 50 years. They are similar on Antarctica, showing good mixing of the atmosphere. Since there was a bigger rise from 312 to 415 ppm from 1927–1944 (27 years), shown by chemical assays as described above (Figure 10), there should be no reason for alarm at present. The start of the infrared data in 1958 showed a CO2 concentration that was 12 ppm lower by NDIR assay than the best chemical data of the period. The chemical data are very consistent with each other. This discrepancy has never been resolved.
            ——————————————

          20. Bartemis

            SebastianH 27. October 2017 at 12:00 AM |

            “…you fail to see that the scaling in your graph hides the CO2 increase that was due to human emissions and completely dismiss that the temperatures increased by a large percentage because of that CO2 increase.”

            Not possible. If temperatures rise monotonically with CO2, and the rate of change of CO2 is driven by temperature, then you have a positive feedback loop that could not be stabilized even by T^4 radiation. Temperature rises, causing a rise in CO2, causing a temperature rise, and so on ad infinitum. The system would quickly have diverged to a saturation condition eons ago.

            “Notice the difference?”

            Yes, I notice that the peaks and valleys no longer fit. There is a reason that the scaling is chosen as it is, and that is the reason.

            “The equilibrium follows from the law of mass action…”

            Incorrect. This is not a controlled lab experiment. This is an evolving chaotic system with persistent external stimulus.

            “And surprise, we can measure the increasing acidification of the oceans.”

            And, surprise, the oceans will be acidifying with an increase in atmospheric CO2 no matter the source. It’s tautological.

            “That is not what “they” do.”

            Actually, it is precisely what they do.

            “It has been measured, the observations match all our models (derived from the laws of physics we came to understand during the existence of mankind).”

            The rate of change is proportional to temperature anomaly. A model that assumes human inputs are the major driving force can only be made to match observations if it treats anthro and natural inputs differently, i.e., if it is non-physical.

            “There is no plausible way that anything else could have caused the current CO2 concentration increase.”

            I gave a consistent and physically viable mathematical description of a plausible way in which it could.

            ” It makes no sense at all to assume that this is what is happening, but then almost nothing coming from skeptics seems to make sense.”

            It is not assumed, it is observed. If it doesn’t make sense to you, the fault is not necessarily on our side. Perhaps you are swimming in waters that are over your head.

            The increase in concentration is overwhelmingly natural for the following reasons:

            A) Our inputs cannot account for a greater proportion of the rise than our proportionate input, which is tiny.

            B) Observations indicate that the rate of change matches temperature, which puts the arrow of causality firmly in the direction of temperature driving CO2, and not the other way around.

          21. Kenneth Richard

            If it doesn’t make sense to you, the fault is not necessarily on our side. Perhaps you are swimming in waters that are over your head.

            The increase in concentration is overwhelmingly natural for the following reasons:

            A) Our inputs cannot account for a greater proportion of the rise than our proportionate input, which is tiny.

            B) Observations indicate that the rate of change matches temperature, which puts the arrow of causality firmly in the direction of temperature driving CO2, and not the other way around.

            +1

  24. dai davies

    SebastianH,

    There are two distinct parts to my ‘in context’ article. The simplest is that the assumption that the greenhouse/delay effect sets the Earth’s surface temperature is false. There is another mechanism in the Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement effect – established science.

    This is simple logic that anyone can follow, surely? No need for specialist knowledge or peer review there. I’m pointing out that a foundation assumption of IPCC climate science is no longer valid. There is now a need to quantify the GHE and show it is strong enough to support the claims.

    The other part to the article is an attempt to quantify it. The proper scientific response to that is to come up with an alternative calculation.

    FWIW, as Pierre said, I do have relevant academic experience and qualifications in gas phase molecular spectroscopy. Whith the iodine molecule I2 rather than H2O or CO2, but the physics is much the same.

    dai

    1. SebastianH

      There is another mechanism in the Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement effect – established science.

      That is not established science. Static pressure doesn’t cause any warming like N&Z propose.

      This is simple logic that anyone can follow, surely? No need for specialist knowledge or peer review there.

      Again, I’ll point out that unicorn farts are the most likely cause of the currently observed surface temperatures. A logic that anyone can follow, right? That N&Z claim is the same kind of “established science”.

      The other part to the article is an attempt to quantify it. The proper scientific response to that is to come up with an alternative calculation.

      Based on the wrong assumption that N&Z are actually correct. The proper response is to point that out. You even noticed that the flux through the atmosphere is around 200 W/m², far less then what is actually lost by emission, etc from the surface. And you try to explain it away with smaller temperature extremes causing higher average temperature? You might view the energy as being delayed, ok … so there is a “waiting room” for energy … let’s call it heat content, shall we? And what happens when the delay causes the waiting room to fill up?

  25. dai davies

    Jack Dale,

    These figures look huge, but if you look at my IPCC CO2 article you will see, from their data, that our total CO2 production is just 1% of the active carbon cycle. There are many other problems with their analysis. I summarise a few of them.

    If CO2 doesn’t significantly heat the planet then it is just beneficial plant food.

    dai

  26. cementafriend

    Dai Davis CO2 certainly does not heat the planet
    1/ One can calculate the energy absorption by CO2 from the data Prof Hoyt Hottel measured and collected from emissivities of gases and mixtures of gases at various temperatures in his work on heat exchangers and furnaces. He has presented the data in graphical form and in equations such as equation 5-145 in Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook. It can be calciulated that at the present concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere the absorption of radiation energy from the earth surface is so small to be unmeasurable.
    2/ If heat is being absorbed the heat has to go somewhere as no object can continue to have is temperature increase for ever. Satellite measurements show that that radiation leaves the earth from the following sources a) direct from the earth surface -this is called by some the radiation window and has been found to be 66W/m2 and not the 40 W/m2 as originally guessed by Trenberth b) from water vapor in the atmosphere at various heights c) by CO2 at various heights but I believe from an equivalent height corresponding to a temperature of about 230K. d) from water and ice particles in clouds
    3/ The heating of the atmosphere is due mainly from convection and phase change of water vapor (or evaporation at water surfaces and condensation into clouds)
    4/ From the so-called 2nd law of Thermodynamics, gases in the atmosphere which are a lower temperature than the earth’s surface can not radiate heat to the surface.

  27. dai davies

    cementafriend,

    I did a similar calculation years ago using Hottel’s data, as others have, and, just as you say, got a much smaller value for temperature rise than I report now. I presume it’s good data, but conditions are different in the atmosphere, so I’ve use standard IPCC or more recent measurements of surface downward radiation. See article references for details.

    I disagree with your point 4. Gasses radiate in all directions. Whether a photon knows where it’s going to is too deep for me. Relativistic quantum mechanics is beyond me. Is a photon from Alpha Canis that hits my retina in both places at once from its perspective? Perhaps.

    dai

  28. dai davies

    cementafriend,

    My comment on your point 4 was cryptic at best. As a view that’s still commonly held it deserves a more serious response.

    The simple theoretical response is that the laws of thermodynamics are about average atomic behaviour and can’t be applied to specific events in atomic physics other than to describe average behaviour.

    Beyond that, my views on what a photon is were based on experience building radio antennae – big photon generators and absorbers. The temperature of antennae does not significantly effect their performance.

    dai

  29. dai davies

    I could be more specific with the example.

    The temperature of emitter and absorber in the antenna case is roughly paralleled by the length of the antenna.

    Molecular emission is like having a set of a few transmitting antennae of differing lengths with the emission from the shortest dominating for higher photon energy – cf more energetic molecular collisions at higher temperatures.

    A solid absorber would act like an almost infinite array of antennae of varying lengths able to absorb at almost any frequency.

    I’m still trying to formulate a presentation of my view of what a photon is, so thanks for getting me thinking again. In short, I think they’re a form of soliton.

    dai

    1. yonason

      What a photon is – one expert’s opinion.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7OEzyEfzgg

  30. dai davies

    Seeing the photon as a soliton resolves the wave/particle dilemma introduced with the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. Feynman is describing this false consensus view that has held pysics back for nearly a century, IMhO.

    dai

  31. Energy & Environmental Newsletter: November 6, 2017 - Master Resource

    […] Expert: Doubling Atmospheric CO2 Would Increase “Heating By less Than 0.01°C” […]

  32. Energy And Environmental Newsletter – November 6th 2017 | PA Pundits - International

    […] Expert: Doubling Atmospheric CO2 Would Increase “Heating By less Than 0.01°C” […]