Atomic Physicist: Human CO2 Emissions Have An Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity Of A ‘Not Important’ 0.02 K

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
306Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
1Email this to someone
email

Dr. Boris M. Smirnov, a prominent atomic physicist, has authored 20 physics textbooks during the last two decades.  His latest scientific paper suggests that the traditional “absorption band” model for calculating the effect of atmospheric CO2 during the radiative transfer process is flawed.  New calculations reveal that the climate’s sensitivity to a doubling of the CO2 concentration is just 0.4 K, and the human contribution to that value is a negligible 0.02 K.


Smirnov, 2018

Collision and radiative processes in

emission of atmospheric carbon dioxide

“One can explain why the absorption band model is not suitable for the change of the radiative flux due to doubling of the concentration of CO2 molecules. This quantity is determined by spectral ranges where the atmospheric optical thickness is of the order of one. Because averaging over oscillations for the absorption band model removes such ranges from consideration, this model leads to a large error.”

[I]t follows for the change of the global temperature as a result at doubling of the concentration of atmospheric CO2 molecules [is] ∆T = (0.4 ± 0.1) K, where the error accounts for the accuracy of used values, whereas the result depends on processes included in the above scheme. Indeed, we assume the atmospheric and Earth’s albedo, as well as another interaction of solar radiation with the atmosphere and Earth, to be unvaried in the course of the change of the concentration of CO2 molecules, and also the content of atmospheric water is conserved.”

“Because anthropogenic fluxes of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulted from combustion of fossil fuels is about 5% [Kaufman, 2007], the contribution of the human activity to ECS (the temperature change as a result of doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide amount) is ∆T = 0.02 K, i.e. injections of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of combustion of fossil fuels is not important for the greenhouse effect.”

Conclusion

“Above, we connect the emission of a gaseous layer located over a hot surface with the greenhouse phenomenon in the Earth’s atmosphere due to CO2 molecules. This analysis exhibits the importance of interaction of a radiating molecule with surrounding air molecules that is essential both in broadening of spectral lines and for absorption of CO2 molecules by other atmospheric components, as well as emission of these components. The evaluations fulfilled show that the contribution of emission of CO2 molecules to the total radiative flux directed toward the Earth is approximately 20%, as well as this contribution to its derivation over the atmospheric carbon dioxide amount. Comparison of methods of the absorption band which uses the absorption coefficient averaged over its frequency oscillations and the ‘line-by-line’ method without this averaging exhibits the accordance of these methods for determination of the radiative fluxes and a strong difference in evaluation of its derivative. This shows the importance of the ‘line-by-line’ method for the analysis of climatic problems.”
“Note that above we give a simple algorithm to determine the total emission of the Earth’s atmosphere due to CO2 molecules with using the spectroscopic parameters of these molecules on the basis of classical molecular spectroscopy. We note the principal steps which allow us to obtain this algorithm in a simple form. First, there is a local thermodynamic equilibrium for vibrationally excited molecules. Therefore, radiation is created by vibrationally excited molecules which are formed in collisions with air molecules, and their number density is determined by the Boltzmann formula. Second, the atmospheric optical thickness exceeds one, i.e. radiation toward the Earth and outside are separated, and the radiative flux at a given frequency is the blackbody flux, so that the radiative temperature for this frequency is the temperature of an effective layer. Third, interaction between carbon dioxide molecules and other optically active atmospheric components is of importance. This means that a change of the concentration of CO2 molecules leads simultaneously to a change of the radiative flux due to other components.”
“Based on the total absorption coefficient, which is a sum of those due to CO2 molecules and other atmospheric components, we take into account this effect. As a result, one can evaluate an additional radiative flux to the Earth’s surface due to a change of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, and the corresponding analysis convinces us that contemporary injection of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of combustion of fossil fuels is not important for the greenhouse effect.”
Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
306Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
1Email this to someone
email

70 responses to “Atomic Physicist: Human CO2 Emissions Have An Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity Of A ‘Not Important’ 0.02 K”

  1. P Gosselin

    The incredible disappearing CO2 climate sensitivity.

    1. AndyG55

      someone is going to have to update this graph

      https://s19.postimg.cc/wsak2og8z/Climate-Sensitivity-Value-Estimates-Update2.jpg

      Gunna be lots of dots on the bottom axis soon !

      1. Yonason (from a friend's comp)

        I’ve posted his video on water vapor giving negative feedback. Here’s a more recent article by Carl Brehmer that exposes some key flaws in the AGW paradigm, and why they are important to understand.
        http://tech-know-group.com/essays/Are_They_All_Wrong_Then.pdf

    2. SebastianH

      Rather the incredible textbook author …

      If an author gets the human contribution to the CO2 concentration (5%? Ha!) increase wrong, how credible are his calculations that touch the same field of science?

      1. AndyG55

        “If an author gets the human contribution to the CO2 concentration “

        Except he DOESN’T

        You have been proven incredible non-fact on that point , time after time after time.

        You have ZERO credibility on ANYTHING, seb.

        Even if it was the more accepted 15% or so, CO2 contribution to warming is immeasurable..

        ..as you have constantly shown with your abject INABILITY to produce one single piece of real evidence for CO2 warming anything, anywhere, anytime.

        1. SebastianH

          Sorry AndyG55, human emissions are in fact around 5% of natural emissions per year. But they aren’t 5% of the increase in CO2 concentration. The math doesn’t work this way. And if an author gets this simple thing wrong (he cites it, but didn’t seem to bother checking if it the value could be correct), then what else does he get wrong?

          CO2 contribution to warming is immeasurable..

          Not true, no matter how often you repeat this mantra of yours.

          ..as you have constantly shown

          I see, so the validity of climate science depends on my ability to break through into your echo chamber of disinformation? And my failure to do that is proof that CO2 doesn’t cause warming? Wow 😉

          1. SebastianH

            Kenneth, this is a classic junk science “paper” and the fact that you are not capable to recognize it should make everyone worried about other links to papers you post and quote from.

          2. AndyG55

            “The math doesn’t work this way. “

            Not seb fantasy maths, anyway.

            “And if an author gets this simple thing wrong “

            FAR more correct than you will ever be. Not wrong, just doesn’t cow-tow to the erroneous garbage you put out.

            “And my failure to do that is proof that CO2 doesn’t cause warming”

            Shows just how EMPTY all your mindless babbling is. !!

            chant the mindless anti-science AGW mantra, seb

            Its ALL you have left.

            PATHETIC.

          3. AndyG55

            “And my failure to do that is proof that CO2 doesn’t cause warming?”

            You could just crawl back under your sparkling CO2 blanket, and read yet another AGW fantasy fairy-tale.

            Maybe that will help you find something you can use?

          4. AndyG55

            “a level of 410 ppm was found in 1812, rising to 450 ppm in 1825.”

            OMG, did they have SUVs and coal fired electricity back then ??

            Must have been horrendous !!

            But, somehow the world survived that 450 ppm.

            How is that even possible !!!

          5. tom0mason

            Another classic judgment from seb,

            “Kenneth, this is a classic junk science “paper” and the fact that you are not capable to recognize it should make everyone worried about other links to papers you post and quote from.”

            As discussed before your opinion is still worthless seb.

        2. david russell

          It seems rather plausible the humans are responsible for 100% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 in recent decades. The oceans are actually absorbing CO2 as is the biosphere.

          It’s hard to evaluate CO2 ppms from years prior to Keeling. So I in essence dismiss them.

          1. AndyG55

            No, as the biosphere runs better because of the natural warming, far more places contribute to atmospheric CO2.

            The whole process of natural growth and decay was held back in cooler places because of cold during the LIA.

            Biosphere has been playing catch up.

            Think about it. the AGW alarmists have been making all sorts of claims about melting releasing CH4, are you would have to be very that naïve to think that a whole heap more of the biosphere wasn’t contributing CO2

          2. AndyG55

            early morning typos, sorry. last bit should read..

            … and you would have to be very naïve to think that a whole heap more of the biosphere wasn’t using and contributing CO2 to the atmosphere because of the slight warming.

          3. Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar

            David russel

            That’s kinda funny, dismissing the chemical methods for determining the CO2 level. How do you suppose Keeling calibrated his relatively primitive NDIR gas analyser in 1957? Why, with chemical means!

            The chemical method is much more accurate than even a good gas analyser from Rosemount or Horiba. NDIR happens to be convenient, and continuous.

            The chemical methods used in the 20’s were extremely accurate. So personally, I see no reason to suspect the operators of all that equipment were unable to determine the CO2 concentration, particularly in the 20th Century.

            I agree it is very inconvenient for those who hold, without any evidence, that the CO2 level rose gradually and continuously since 1850, for example. The methods available at the time contradict that claim.

            It is also reasonable to expect that following the strong warming of 1920-1940 the concentration should have risen.

      2. david russell

        How much of atmospheric CO2 that is from humans: I haven’t a clue. But 100% of the increase of atmospheric CO2 has to from human sources. The oceans and biosphere are absorbing CO2.

    3. Yonason (from a friend's comp)

      This from 2012 should have tipped them off they were barking up the wrong Yamal Pine tree.
      https://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/industry-radiation-experts-call-it-greenhouse-gas-theory-debunked/

      1. tom0mason

        +10!

    4. david russell

      It’s rather impossible to decide if this guy has the physics right (to get to CS = .4C.

      But for sure he bolluxes up the “human contribution” part. That would be darned close to 100% going forward.

      1. AndyG55

        “That would be darned close to 100% going forward.”

        WRONG, don’t buy into that furphy !!!

        Actual science estimates between 5% and 15%

  2. sunsettommy

    John Kehr of the INCONVENIENT SKEPTIC, long ago showed that CO2 doesn’t warm the atmosphere, because the RATE of energy leaving the planet always exceeds the increase postulated warm forcing power of CO2.

    The Science of why the Theory of Global Warming is Incorrect!

    Excerpt:

    “If the Earth were to warm by 1.1 °C, the amount of energy lost would be almost 4 W/m2 greater than what it lost in 1984. If the Earth were to warm by 3.0 °C which is what is predicted by a doubling of CO2, then the amount of energy lost would be > 10 W/m2 the energy loss that existed in 1984.

    The science of this is very clear. The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot stop the Earth from losing more energy if it warms up.”

    http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2012/05/the-science-of-why-the-theory-of-global-warming-is-incorrect/

    1. AndyG55

      In fact OLR rose by 6W/m² from 1950-2010, as the Earth warmed NATURALLY as the solar energy picked up during the latter half of last century.

      https://s19.postimg.cc/r040iqprn/OLR_62.jpg

      This is equivalent to a mythical pseudo-forcing of CO2 climbing from 280ppm to 800ppm

      “The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place”

      Data shows this statement to be correct.

      CO2 and its fantasy “blanket effect” are a total NON-ENTITY when it comes to warming anything up.

      1. david russell

        I don’t seem to be able to reply to replies, so I’m doing so here.

        There’s too much unsupported opinion here.

        1) To my claim that it’s widely known that 25-30% of human emissions are absorbed by the oceans, the reply I got was “Hey, that’s just the IPCC’s opinion.” My riposte to this is 2-fold: a) that proves my point; and b) it’s easy enough to demonstrate, as we know very precisely how much fossil fuel emissions are and when you add that amount to the air it’s 33% more than the Keeling guys can measure. Whatever is going on in nature (which we can not precisely quantify), the heat sinks net remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

        2) To my point that the earth is greening, the response seems to be that the more plants flourish, the more they rot. Well living plants remove CO2, but rotting plants add methane and not so much CO2. So the “rotting point” misses the mark.

        3) Based on the above, it seems more certain that the growth of atmospheric CO2 is totally the result of human emissions.

        4) Something I recall about C14 should answer this question more scientifically. Fossil fuels don’t have C14, so an analysis of C14 ratios in the atmospheric CO2 should resolve any doubt as to my claims.

        1. AndyG55

          “Well living plants remove CO2, but rotting plants add methane and not so much CO2.”

          WRONG.

          Methane only gets formed in the absence of oxygen.

        2. AndyG55

          “it seems more certain that the growth of atmospheric CO2 is totally the result of human emissions.”

          No. that is an argument from ignorance.

          There are plenty of other increases in sources of CO2 that come into play through natural warming.

          Termites for instance.

          Whole tracts of land suddenly become active after being subdues by cold. Major CO2 sources are the jungles, and there is plenty of evidence that oceans have been net carbon sources. Basic physics says they should be.

          1. AndyG55

            ps. Methane is also converted quickly into CO2 in the atmosphere.

    2. SebastianH

      You guys are serious when you support claims like these, aren’t you?

      This is kind of backward. If the rate at which the planet loses energy towards space is greater than what it receives from the Sun, the planet cools. If it’s the other way around it warms (e.g. the heat content increases, internal variability and processes determines where this changes temperatures in whatever direction).

      CO2 concentration changes cause an imbalance meaning less energy will be lost to space for some time.

      Just to make it super clear. Even an Earth with a surface temperature of 100°C caused by Venus level atmospheric effects would not radiate more towards space than it receives from the Sun.

      1. AndyG55

        “CO2 concentration changes cause an imbalance meaning less energy will be lost to space for some time.”

        UNSUPPORTABLE anti-science BS, as usual, seb

        Just preach the anti-science AGW mantra seb

        Its all you have.

        1. Josh

          I spent a few weeks in Germany back in 2015. It was a good experience but I noticed that many Germans have drunk the greenie kool-aid as typified by our resident troll SebH on this site. I wonder if there is any other country on earth whose people are as brainwashed as they are. They are doing serious damage to their country’s reputation as the land of poets and thinkers. Time and again supertroll has had the errors in his thinking and his posts drawn to his attention and yet he lacks the humility and intellectual curiosity to grasp these.

          1. AndyG55

            “I wonder if there is any other country on earth whose people are as brainwashed as they are.”

            That unquestioning, unthinking “the elite are right and must be obeyed.. we must comply” mentality still exists from the 1930s, 40s.

          2. SebastianH

            This is funny, because you guys keep saying that your opponents never post anything with substance … so where is the substance in these two replies? It’s just more hatred and the hubris of feeling superior because you think you are the ones getting it right 😉

            Hint: you aren’t.

          3. AndyG55

            Oh dear, yet anothger EMPTY seb rant

            When will we see anything else.

            Here is your chance yet again, seb

            PRODUCE some empirical science that shows enhanced atmospheric CO2 does ANYTHING except enhance plant growth.

            Why won’t you take this opportunity when its on offer ????

            Come on…. don’t be so shy

            All that petulant attention-seeking of yours.. but then.. NOTHING !!!!

            We are all waiting .. stifling our laughter as you faceplant time, after time, after time, in a manic sort of slap-stick comedy act.

            Except you don’t seem to be acting.

            Its just how you are.

    3. Penelope

      Sunsettommy, I think I see a shortcoming in The Inconvenient Skeptic’s theory that you quote.

      As I understand it, his position is that a warming body must, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, radiate heat at a greater rate thus resulting in cooling. The difficulty that I have with it is that it seems to prohibit our emergence from the last ice age. Or the short term warming that we sometimes have. That is, if it applies to warming of CO2 etiology, then it applies to all warming.

      Feel free to correct me if I’ve misunderstood.

    4. david russell

      This makes no sense. The rate IR leaves the atmosphere is steady whatever the CO2 levels are and only varies as insolation or albedo vary or the net impact of heat sinks.

  3. Bitter&twisted

    How did this paper get past the climastrology “gatekeepers”?
    Oh it’s published in a “hard sciences” journal.
    The studies written by real scientists.

  4. tom0mason

    It is obvious that as the planet leaves the LIA period this planet will naturally warm-up. It is also obvious that as the planet defrosts out of the LIA then CO2 should rise. And that is the ONLY NATURAL EFFECT happening. Man’s contribution to CO2 levels is, when viewed in the historical context, piffling, meager, insubstantial, not worth looking at, TRIVIAL!

    Looking at the past 10k to 1 million years this process has happen many times, with CO2 being a lagging effect of the temperature. Never at any point in history when CO2 was high and the temperature was much warmer than has the bulk of life on the planet been threatened.

    However at any time when the planet cools (say 1°C lower than today), or when CO2 is at a low level, then many species have died off. Cold and lack of CO2 is the enemy here, NOT HEAT.
    It’s virtually inconceivable that this planet now can have too much CO2 in the atmosphere. Any level of CO2 above 400ppm is extremely good for life, and only those possessed of a ‘anomalous thought processes’ would believe otherwise.

    1. SebastianH

      It is obvious that as the planet leaves the LIA period this planet will naturally warm-up.

      True.

      It is also obvious that as the planet defrosts out of the LIA then CO2 should rise.

      True, but the physics don’t allow an increase like the one we observe. Nothing natural (except if you count human emissions as natural) about this.

      Man’s contribution to CO2 levels is, when viewed in the historical context, piffling, meager, insubstantial, not worth looking at, TRIVIAL!

      Not true.

      Looking at the past 10k to 1 million years this process has happen many times, with CO2 being a lagging effect of the temperature.

      CO2 lags the temperature as well as it amplifies temperature changes.

      Never at any point in history when CO2 was high and the temperature was much warmer than has the bulk of life on the planet been threatened.

      Are you conveniently forgetting the mass extinction events caused by extrem CO2 levels and warming?

      However at any time when the planet cools (say 1°C lower than today), or when CO2 is at a low level, then many species have died off. Cold and lack of CO2 is the enemy here, NOT HEAT.

      Care to give a source for that bold claim? Species have generally survived ice ages … real ice ages. Why do you think that a temperature like we experienced at the end of the 19th century caused “many species [to] die off”?

      It’s virtually inconceivable that this planet now can have too much CO2 in the atmosphere. Any level of CO2 above 400ppm is extremely good for life, and only those possessed of a ‘anomalous thought processes’ would believe otherwise.

      Why would the planet ever have “too much CO2”? The only ones thinking in these terms are pseudoskeptics. CO2 is good for life, the resulting temperature changes not so much.

      I kind of like your creativity in finding new ways to write insults down that don’t get “snipped”. If only you could apply this creativity to something more useful than this pseudoskepticism act.

      1. AndyG55

        seb DENIES all evidence that CO2 is TOTALLY NECESSARY for all life on Earth.

        …. and presents ZERO-EVIDENCE that it does anything except enhance plant growth

        Truly you have very deep cognitive malfunction, seb. !

        “but the physics don’t allow an increase like the one we observe. “

        ROFLMAO.. what a truly wacked out idea you have of physics, seb

        Just make up your own version, based on ZERO REALITY.

        Plenty of reasons for the warming since the LIA, ALL of it TOTALLY NATURAL. The climb up to a Grand solar maximum for a start.

      2. AndyG55

        “as it amplifies temperature changes”

        More scientifically unsupportable BS.

        “mass extinction events caused by extreme CO2 levels and warming? ”

        You mean the 30,000/year, that you can’t name one of ??

        Just make it up as you go along seb

        DESPERATION has set in for you , hasn’t it, little attention-seeker.

        so sad.. … roflmao !!

      3. AndyG55

        “the resulting temperature changes not so much.”

        ROFLMAO

        It really is just mindless anti-science parrot-like regurgitation for you, isn’t it seb.

        WHAT resulting temperature change?

        Where is the proof that CO2 causes any temperature change?

        You are just saying mindless things like that to get desperately needed attention, aren’t you seb

        Come on, admit it… be honest to yourself, at least.

      4. SebastianH

        Why do you always need to comment on everything I write in multiple incoherent comments, AndyG55? Just say you deny everything that climate scientists and physicists say is happening and instead believe in your own version of reality that is more compatible with how you like things to be. That’s perfectly ok, you know …

        1. AndyG55

          Why do you always make multiple idiotic anti-science attention-seeking comments every time you post anything ?

          Just say that you have NOTHING of any real science to back up anything you say.

          Stick with your fantasy version of non-reality , seb, that’s perfectly ok,

          Just don’t expect to be taken as anything but a joke with your empty cult-like rantings..

          1. Josh

            AndyG55 your comments make my day ☺

          2. SebastianH

            AndyG55 your comments make my day

            Because of the way he projects his own faults to others?

            You guys really think you are on the correct path here? Not a bit skeptic that you could be wrong because of all the headwind you are getting?

          3. AndyG55

            Poor seb, Only person with wind is you, seb

            .. and its hard to tell which end its coming from.

            You have been PROVEN wrong time after time after time, and you STILL can’t let your baseless ego admit it.

            Would it really be so hard to ADMIT that..

            .. you have ZERO EVIDENCE and ..

            .. you have been DUPED and CONNED and fallen for it all because of your non-thinking GULLIBILITY ?

            LET IT GO, seb

            The TRUTH will set your mind free from the AGW sludge that envelopes it.

      5. tom0mason

        Seb,
        Your version of physics is wrong!

        It is very clear you have no scientific education you just recite other people’s rubbish.

        So stop commenting your nonsense and get educated.

        Your comments to date are less than worthless!

        1. SebastianH

          Say this to a mirror and it becomes a correct statement.

          Sorry tomOmason, there is no “version of physics”, there is just physics. And you just got it wrong. You have some kind of fantasy about mankind’s emissions not playing a significant role and I’d guess you’ve come to that conclusion after reading countless blogs like this one. So please don’t point at me and claim that I would just be reciting rubbish … look at yourself, where did you get your “rubbish” from?

          1. AndyG55

            “there is no “version of physics”, “

            Then why is it that what you think is “physics” differs so radically from REALITY !!

            “You have some kind of fantasy about mankind’s emissions not playing a significant role”

            So PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE that it does, seb

            Proper scientific empirical evidence..

            .. NOT agenda driven anti-physics modelled garbage.

            Only person in a fantasy fairy-tale make-believe world IS YOU, seb

            .. but you are TOO IGNORANT to realise it and TOO ARROGANT to admit it even if you weren’t.

          2. Yonason

            @Andy.

            There is no “physics.” There is only reality. “Physics” is just our human attempt to describe reality as best we can. It is clear that the extremists can’t tell the difference between reality and their own misconceptions of it.

          3. AndyG55

            So true, Y.

            Certainly there is ZERO reality attributable to most of seb’s ideas of fantasy fizzics !!

      6. tom0mason

        The idea that nature not humans controls climate really bugs you seb. Tough it does and all your blather is just that.

        Seb, the anti-science advocate strikes again with more advocacy driven drivel.

        1. Josh

          ‘Your comments to date are less than worthless’

          Indeed. It’s called trolling for kooks 😀

          1. tom0mason

            LOL!

            But it’s such fun to wind trolls up and watch them tear-off in the direction you’ve decided will be most amusing. I must admit this particular troll rarely lets me down. 😉

  5. Adam Gallon
    1. tom0mason

      Thank-you Adam Gallon.

  6. Marinus

    To calculate the impact on temperature for GHG you always see a logarithmic formula for one particular component. Shouldn’t that be a formula for all GHG together including a weihting factor per component?

    1. RickWill

      The logarithmic function is simple geometry and the nature of absorption when EMR transmitting through a responsive medium.

      If half the EMR is absorbed in the first 10m then half of what arrives at the next 10m will be transmitted or one quarter of the original. On it goes halving for every 10m but never reaching zero transmitted. This process is described mathematically as a logarithmic function.

      Water vapour is the dominant infrared EMR responsive gas in Earth’s atmosphere. However there are some wavelengths where water vapour does not absorb much but CO2 does. At these wavelengths water vapour is considered transparent and does not absorb any of the EMR energy but CO2 does. In that regard the two gases can be considered independently.

      If both gases had the same absorption characterisers for all frequencies then CO2 would not make any difference as it is a tiny fraction compared with water vapour.

    2. tom0mason

      @Marinus 5. June 2018 at 9:12 PM
      I’m with you on that!
      Personally I feel plotting actual temperatures/time and CO2/time (not anomalies) on a log/linear graphs would us a better feel for what the temperatures and CO2 levels are doing.

      Just like audio frequency response, that’s on log-level(in dBs)/log-frequency scales as your hearing in very nonlinear, and linear scaling would overemphasize the inaudible.

  7. Penelope

    On seeing the Smirnov article reporting that CO2’s effect is logarithmic rather than linear, I remembered that I had heard about this years ago. Anthony Watt, in 2013 gave a presentation wherein he presents a graph of this and attributes it to the IPCC!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_-A-uDu2fQ @ 25:00

    He also covered the decrease in water vapor, whose increase is a sine qua non for the warmist argument. @17:00

    At 9:00 he reported that his own experiment demonstrates that replacing whitewash in 1979 with latex on the little boxes that contain the thermometers increases the measurement by as much as 1 degree.

    I am cheered to see that add’l studies add weight to earlier ones, but depressed that nothing seems to change. If only it were truly a scientific dispute instead of science vs political agenda.

    1. tom0mason

      So true Penelope,

      “If only it were truly a scientific dispute instead of science vs political agenda.”

  8. david russell

    In response to all the discussion about what gets emitted to outer space: CO2 doesn’t change this one iota. What gets emitted is a factor of TOA insolation less albedo + or – the effects of heat sinks. The theory of AGW from increased CO2 has to do with the raising of the effective emission altitude of IR due to higher concentrations of CO2. As the EEA rises, it gets colder (ref: lapse rate) in the troposphere, and this is what pushes up the surface temperature to compensate. But given a steady TOA insolation and albedo, the emission temperature never changes.

  9. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #318 | Watts Up With That?
  10. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #318

Leave a Reply

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close