0.15°C Since 1959
– Dr. B. Smirnov, Microphysics of Atmospheric Phenomena
Image Source: Springer
Purveyors of the viewpoint that rising CO2 emissions pose a grave threat to the planet via dangerous global-scale warming presuppose that the surface temperatures of the Earth are highly sensitive to parts per million (ppm) variations in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
And yet the accumulation of scientific publications documenting a far less consequential role for CO2 in the climate system just keeps growing and growing — especially in recent years.
An incomplete compilation of at least 75 scientific publications now document a very low climate sensitivity to CO2 concentration changes. Summarizing, doubling modern era CO2 concentrations from 280 ppm to 560 ppm may only raise surface temperatures by tenths of a degree – if that.
75 Scientific Papers Affirm Very Low Sensitivity To CO2
Expanding upon a 2016 scientific paper published in Europhysics Letters, Dr. Boris M. Smirnov, an atomic physicist, uses his field expertise in authoring another textbook entitled Microphysics of Atmospheric Phenomena. The volume is one of 20 physics books Smirnov has published over the last two decades.
In chapter 10, Smirnov asserts that infrared emission from water vapor dwarfs the atmospheric contribution from CO2 within the greenhouse effect, as CO2 only “contributes in small portions“.
In fact, Smirnov finds that doubling the modern era CO2 concentration will only result in a temperature increase of 0.4°C.
He further calculates that the increase in CO2 concentration from 1959 (316 ppm) to the present (402 ppm) has only contributed 0.15°C to surface temperatures. This means, of course, that the bulk of the temperature changes that have occurred in the last 55 to 60 years are not of human origin.
Steadily and gradually, the “consensus” position that says the climate is highly sensitive to variations in anthropogenic CO2 emissions continues to unravel.
It is shown that infrared emission of the atmosphere is determined mostly by atmospheric water. One can separate the flux of outgoing infrared radiation of the atmosphere from that towards the Earth. The fluxes due to rotation-vibration transitions of atmospheric CO2 molecules are evaluated. Doubling of the concentration of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere that is expected over 130 years leads to an increase of the average Earth temperature by (0.4±0.2) K mostly due to the flux towards the Earth if other atmospheric parameters are not varied.
[W]e take into account that CO2 molecules give a small contribution to the heat Earth balance and, therefore, one can use the altitude distribution of the temperature for the standard atmosphere model , and a variation of the CO2 concentration does not influence this distribution. … [I]njection of CO2 molecules into the atmosphere leads to a decrease of the outgoing radiation flux that causes a decrease of the average Earth temperature. But this decrease is below 0.1K that is the accuracy of determination of this value. Thus, the presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere decreases the outgoing atmospheric radiative flux that leads to a decrease of the Earth temperature by approximately (1.8 ± 0.1) K. The change of the average temperature at the double of the concentration of atmospheric CO2 molecules is determined by the transition at 667cm−1 only and is lower than 0.1K.
In particular, doubling of the concentration of CO2 molecules compared to the contemporary content increases the global Earth temperature by ΔT = 0.4 ± 0.2K. … From this we have that the average temperature variation ΔT = 0.8 ◦C from 1880 up to now according to NASA data may be attained by the variation of the water concentration by 200ppm or Δu/u ≈ 0.07, Δu = 0.2. Note that according to formula (2) the variation of an accumulated concentration of CO2 molecules from 1959 (from 316ppm up to 402ppm) leads to the temperature variation ΔT = 0.15°C. One can see that the absorption of a water molecule in infrared spectrum is stronger than that of the CO2 molecule because of their structures, and the injection of water molecules in the atmosphere influences its heat balance more strongly than the injection of CO2 molecules.
28 responses to “New Atmospheric Sciences Textbook: Climate Sensitivity Just 0.4°C For CO2 Doubling”
How about a meaningless comment about this article?
I need amusing.
Here you go:
Another one of Kenneth’s interpretations that are wrong. I leave it to you to find out why …
Here, once again, we see that SebastianH is unable/unwilling to appreciate the magnitude problem inherent in his beliefs.
‘[G]lobal annual evaporation equals ~500,000 billion metric tons. Compare that to fossil CO2 emissions of ~8.5 billion ton C/year.’
[E]ven the total level of [CO2] is only 827 billion tonnes of carbon equivalent. It would seem to be a case of the tail wagging the dog if the additions to [CO2] from human burning of hydrocarbon fuels have raised global temperatures enough (just 0.0125°C p.a. [per year] since 1950) to generate annual evaporation of 500,000 billion tonnes of [H2O].
How would Smirnov’s work counter the alarmists’ claims to the effect that the amount of climate warming we are supposedly causing (anthropogenic) is causing more water vapor? Therefore, if there is more water vapor in the atmosphere, increased global temperatures will result. Thus, their thinking goes that mankind has actually caused the global temperature increases (all of 0.8 degrees C since cira 1880).
If only a small fraction of the climate warming since the 1950s can be attributed to CO2 concentration increases, as shown by Dr. Smirnov, then CO2 forcing cannot explain the increases in water vapor. Besides, the IPCC acknowledges that humans only have a “small” influence on water vapor amounts.
IPCC AR4: “Water vapour is the most abundant and important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. However, human activities have only a small direct influence on the amount of atmospheric water vapour.”
And there is some debate about whether there has even been an increase in water vapor since the 1980s. For example:
Introduction: Water vapor is a principal atmospheric variable, and is a central component in both the Earth Energy Budget and the Global Water Cycle. Clouds and precipitation manifest its presence, its phase transitions are a source of energy to influence motions in the atmosphere, and its transport (e.g., atmospheric rivers can produce significant weather events. Increasing water vapor amounts in a warming climate could accelerate the global hydrologic cycle.
Conclusion: [A]t this time, we can neither prove nor disprove a robust trend in the global water vapor data.
I am extremely sceptical of AGW, including the physics behind it, but I consider that the assertion by the IPCC regarding water vapour is wrong.
On a daily basis, we are burning huge quantities of gas which produces water vapour as a by product. We are also spraying huge quantities of water for irrigation.
Whilst the residency time of water vapour in the atmosphere may be only 5 to 10 days, the fact that we are continuously repeating these processes 24/7 52 weeks of the year means that there is a lot more water vapour in the atmosphere on any given day than there was back in the early part of the 20th century.
Gas is a low CO2 emitter, but a water vapour emitter. Whether this explains some of the observed increase in water vapour over the years, I do not know, but it is something to investigate.
But since this planet is way too cold, none of this really matters. let us enjoy the warmth, it will end far quicker than we as a species would like when the Holocene comes to an end, and when the planet once more descends into the deep throes of the ice age that it is presently in.
Pierre has featured this fellow in the past, and he’s forecasting cold.
So, if he’s right we should, as you say, enjoy the warmth now while we can.
He has been “forecasting” that for a decade now … instead the temperatures increased.
Temperatures have only increased in the data-manipulating warming-biased imaginations of climate fraudsters.
I’ve posted Toney Heller’s stuff for America, and how they invent fictitious temperatures for large areas where there are no measurements. Here’s one for Australia, where the stations are programmed to not record temperatures deemed to be too low.
And if it hadn’t begun cooling, the arctic wouldn’t have stopped losing ice.
Stop making broad general statements like “…the temperatures increased.” Start addressing specific issues, and give credible support for your assertions. Failing that, you are just being a nuisance troll.
The keyword is “direct”, but Dale was talking about indirect influence. Warmer temperatures cause allow for more water vapor to be in the atmosphere.
Right. Which is why there is more water vapor in the tropics (40,000 ppm) than in the Arctic or Antarctica (~1,000 ppm). Since it doesn’t have to compete with water vapor as a greenhouse gas, CO2 forcing should be killing it–polar amplification–in those places. And yet neither Antarctica…
Stenni et al., 2017: “no continent-scale warming of Antarctic temperature is evident in the last century.”
…nor the Arctic…
…have undergone a net warming trend in the last 100 years. Can you explain why that would be…since that wouldn’t seem to be consistent with the models?
This is stated above:
“[I]njection of CO2 molecules into the atmosphere leads to a decrease of the outgoing radiation flux that causes a decrease of the average Earth temperature. ”
If the OLR is reduced then more heat is being retained so the temperature must INCREASE not DECREASE.
Any work based on “standard atmosphere” and averages is not going to have meaningful application to Earth’s climate system.
A decrease in the radiation flux that causes a decrease in temperature indeed amounts to an increase. That’s what that quotation means.
An example: A decrease in the decadal-scale incidence of volcanic eruptions that, by blocking SW radiation, cause a decrease in temperature leads to an increase in temperature.
I think I understand what it is implying but look at what you have stated “.. a decrease in temperature indeed amounts to an increase” [in temperature]
It is pathetic wording. It implies that temperature is interchangeable with heat.
The OLR reduces the heat content in the climate system. That does not mean the temperature changes. It is a matter of where the heat is stored and what temperature is actually being measured. Most of the global heat is in the oceans. So measuring temperature of the atmosphere or land surface are meaningless in terms of the heat content.
I have reread and it is poorly worded. The sentence would be better constructed to stop after flux.
It would then go on to state that the increase in retained heat increases temperature, all other things being equal.
No, the “…” must be included. It’s a decrease in the amount of flux that causes cooling that leads to warming.
Global satellite observations show the sea surface temperature (SST) increasing since the 1970s in all ocean basins, while the net air–sea heat flux Q decreases. Over the period 1984–2006 the global changes are 0.28°C in SST and −9.1 W m−2 in Q, giving an effective air–sea coupling coefficient of −32 W m−2 °C−1 …[D]iminished ocean cooling due to vertical ocean processes played an important role in sustaining the observed positive trend in global SST from 1984 through 2006, despite the decrease in global surface heat flux. A similar situation is found in the individual basins, though magnitudes differ. A conclusion is that natural variability, rather than long-term climate change, dominates the SST and heat flux changes over this 23-yr period.
“Smirnov finds that doubling the modern era CO2 concentration will only result in a temperature increase of 0.4°C.”
Ok Dr. B. Smirnov, prove your figures not with model but observations; without such proof then it is little more than model conjecture, and just as ridiculous as the UN-IPCC’s.
Again I say — Science, especially ‘Climate Science™’ has been deflected from studying, researching and, explaining real ‘testable’ observed phenomena, and it has become a ‘high confidence’ belief system depending on the output of unreal computer models.
I am having Smirnoff with my Smirnov.
Should Kenneth be “wrong” because [you reckon] he has misinterpreted Smirnov or because Smirnov himself is wrong (in your own personal expert opinion, of course)?
I don’t know whether or not Smirnov is correct or not. Climate sensitivity is up to debate, but …
… as Kenneth wrote it, is a wrong interpretation. It should be obvious why.
Can I assume you believe it’s a wrong interpretation because you maintain the belief that humans are capable of controlling the 500,000 billion metric tons of annual evaporation quantities with the +0.01 C change in temperature from year to year? Obviously you have no idea about the illogicality of the magnitude problem here.
‘[G]lobal annual evaporation equals ~500,000 billion metric tons. Compare that to fossil CO2 emissions of ~8.5 billion ton C/year.’
[E]ven the total level of [CO2] is only 827 billion tonnes of carbon equivalent. It would seem to be a case of the tail wagging the dog if the additions to [CO2] from human burning of hydrocarbon fuels have raised global temperatures enough (just 0.0125°C p.a. [per year] since 1950) to generate annual evaporation of 500,000 billion tonnes of [H2O].”
When will you stop making things up and “straw man” me while simultaneously claiming that I do that to you?
And you should really be more sensitive to the language used in papers … do you consider the paper to be of good scientific style? Don’t your BS bells ring when you read sentences like the one you just quoted?
I can see that you, once again, have nothing substantive to say. Calling a paper “BS” isn’t substantive.
Basing your arguments on junk science and coming to the wrong conclusions by creatively interpreting proper science papers has substance?
Should I cite your reply as a default reply to anything you post here? Would you find that helpful?