A recent publication in Nature purported it had finally detected the radiative forcing of increasing atmospheric CO2.
German physical chemist Dr. Siegfried Dittrich slams the media’s assertions of proof that CO2 was guilty of the warming, claiming they are faulty and that they were passed on uncritically by German news weekly FOCUS ONLINE. Here’s the translation:
Climate Warming From Carbon Dioxide?
By Dr. Siegfried Dittrich, on the DPA German News Agency release appearing at Focus-Online 27 February 2015: “Climate warming through carbon dioxide: The proof: CO2 is indeed guilty of the greenhouse effect“.
‘The real guilt by CO2 for the greenhouse gas effect is finally proven.’ This was the subheading of a DPA release appearing at FOCUS Online on 27 February.
Later in the text it is written: ‘For the first time we are seeing the enhancement of the greenhouse effect in nature’, and at the Hamburg-based Max Planck Institute for Meteorology it was gleefully added that finally also the magnitude of the anthropogenic impact has become visible.
It all goes back to the latest surface radiation measurements recently published in an essay in Nature (details here and here). However no one seems to have noticed that the measurements actually showed the exact opposite of what is claimed to have been proven above, namely nothing other than what serious climate critics have always been saying about anthropogenic greenhouse effect.
The number for the increase in CO2-dependent back radiation given by Nature of 0.2 watt/m2 per decade is indeed in reality nothing more than trifle. Why would the earth be shocked when 1367 watts per square meter strikes the surface at noon along the equator? The ever-changing deviations from this so-called solar constant mean value are in fact considerably greater than the above given 0.2 watts/m2.
According to the IPCC, the surface radiative forcing increase in the event of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration is exactly 3.7 Watt/m2, a figure that has been independently confirmed on multiple occasions. Over the last decade the atmospheric CO2 concentration increased some 20 parts per million. Currently it stands at about 400 ppm. Here any undergraduate student is able to compute that the resulting surface radiative forcing increase is approximately 0.2 watt/m2, which has been confirmed by the above mentioned measurements.
Also the resulting global temperature increase can be computed using one of the IPCC equations, which also can be derived from the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law.
In Nature it is expressly remarked that the measured difference in surface radiative forcing of 0.2 watt/m2 is solely for cloud-free zones on earth. With an average 40% cloud cover and a 30% overlap between the present water vapor and CO2 absorption spectrum, the above calculated temperature value gets reduced from 0.06°C to 0.03°C. Here in reality we are talking about an effect that is barely measureable, and one that has no dramatic impact when combined with the fictional water vapor amplification, which incidentally the superfluous ‘Energiewende’ is based on ad absurdum. It is more than regrettable that FOCUS uncritically passed on these misinterpretations. A correction should be made immediately.
Dr. rer.nat. Siegfried Dittrich
19 responses to “German Physical Chemistry Scientist On Nature Article Of Proof Of CO2 Forcing: “Measurements Show Exact Opposite””
On a previous thread here on March 6, I showed how one CMIP5 model produced historical temperature trends closely comparable to HADCRUT4. That same model, INMCM4, was also closest to Berkeley Earth and RSS series.
Curious about what makes this model different from the others, I consulted several comparative surveys of CMIP5 models. There appear to be 3 features of INMCM4 that differentiate it from the others.
1.INMCM4 has the lowest CO2 forcing response at 4.1K for 4XCO2. That is 37% lower than multi-model mean
2.INMCM4 has by far the highest climate system inertia: Deep ocean heat capacity in INMCM4 is 317 W yr m22 K-1, 200% of the mean (which excluded INMCM4 because it was such an outlier)
3.INMCM4 exactly matches observed atmospheric H2O content in lower troposphere (215 hPa), and is biased low above that. Most others are biased high.
So the model that most closely reproduces the temperature history has high inertia from ocean heat capacities, low forcing from CO2 and less water for feedback.
I’m not fond of climate models, but I’m warming up to this one.
(Oh wait, it’s by the Russians! Can you spell “Big Oil?” sarc/off)
“I showed how one CMIP5 model produced historical temperature trends closely comparable to HADCRUT.”
Well, that’s not a good start !!
Matching to a heavily manipulated temperature record which has a manufactured warming trend….
Not a good start at all !!
The climate models all have serious errors built into the way they work.
And that is just one of the many many problems.
No question that the surface temperature datasets are flawed. Since we have access to unadjusted station histories, we can see when warming has been enhanced by unjustified changes and processing.
Most, including I, would stipulate that since the Little Ice Age ended ~1850 warming has occurred at a rate of 0.5C/century, or ~0.8C to present. In nature we observe that temperatures go down as well as up, and this is also true of HADCRUT4. There are multiple periods of cooling in between warming periods.
CMIP5 models are only able to project warming, never cooling. Only this model comes close to the variability seen in nature. And its estimates for 1989-2010 compare well to the satellite records, RSS and UAH.
One model produces a reasonable temperature history because it uses low forcing from CO2, high inertia from ocean heat capacities and minimal warming from H20. This should be noticed and considered. The question is: Why aren’t more models built like INMCM4? (Or as I like to call it: It’s Not the Most Convenient Model 4 alarmists.)
Everybody who can read German should take a look at the reader comments on the EIKE page:
The majority of the readers does not believe that CO2 has any effect and the moderator is really busy, explaining the facts to them. Really worth reading!
Thanks for this link!
8300 readings altogether? Over 10 years.
These radiation monitoring stations make about 5,000,000 readings every single year.
Down-welling long-wave (which is where the CO2 measurements come from) averages some 350 W/m2 and it varies by 100 W/m2 throughout a single day and throughout the year.
How do you tease a tiny insignificant 0.2 W/m2 signal out of that?
Measure CO2 spectrum only and forget about all the rest?
Using so little of the available data……..
I wonder…. did they use a model to “select” the correct data ?
And then they throw in, they say, adjustments for cloud cover and humidity.
And from that they find a 0.2 watt/meter^2 signal in a few hundred watts/meter^2 flux?
From 2 sites, with only 1 or 2 readings a day?
And then posit that as a global phenomenon?
Any bets on whether their “adjustments” are at least an order of magnitude greater than the signal?
Any bets on whether those adjustments are based on “best opinions” or “regional expectations” rather than fundamental physical processes?
Of course CO2 has some effect. But it’s one that is very likely well below what the agenda-driven IPCC says it is. So no need to go out and build a climate bomb shelter or anything stupid like that.
Minimal and insignificant, as shown by the study.
And immediately countered by the cooling of the atmospheric pressure gradient.
“The majority of the readers does not believe that CO2 has any effect and the moderator is really busy, explaining the facts to them.”
…and we all know trhat scientific facts are decided by majorities, right, sod?
In other news: Another kick in the face of correlation-is-causation-believing consensus idiots: Korean scientists find out that coffee is good for the cardiovascular system, not bad as believed for decades by consensualists.
I have commented on the paper in question here:
CERES estimates really put this finding in perspective.
No cigar for this one. The emission depth for CO2 666/cm IR is about 10 m; it is unaffected by cloud cover.
However, bear in mind that Atmospheric Radiant Emittance, called ‘back Radiation’ is a potential rather than a real energy flux; all it does is to reduce net surface IR to the atmosphere.
In the absence of the water cycle, that would mean the surface warms to ensure total surface heat loss = SW input, but the water cycle reduces that effect to exactly zero, on average [it’s a thermodynamic issue].
There is no CO2-AGW folks, hence no warming for 18+ years.
It might be worth another look at this study completed late last year. It shows that overall outgoing LWIR has been generally increasing at around 0.6 to 0.7 W/m2 per decade, for the last three decades. http://www.kiwithinker.com/2014/10/an-empirical-look-at-recent-trends-in-the-greenhouse-effect/
Hi, I can’t see how to contact you. I think you will like this article:
“It has frequently been stated that 2oth century warming was “unprecedented” or “cannot be explained”. This article sets out to test this assertion on CET the longest available temperature series. I find the CET data rejects the hypothesis of ‘climate change’ (>58%) & current ‘global warming’ (>72%) and that overall global temperature has not changed significantly more than would be expected.”
The problem with the CET records is that after Manley’s death and from 1974 the series was taken over by the Met Office and the recording sites were much altered after that date.
Philip Eden in his website http://www.climate-uk.com/page5.html details the discrepancies in this link and provides in another page, http://www.climate-uk.com/provisional.htm ,a set of records 1974 onwards,using sites that more closely align with those used by Manley.
It is all very well to watch the pea but some charlatans swap the variety.
People should listen very carefully to the words used in the following 2012 NASA video about the role of CO2 in the atmosphere. It contradicts the IPCC mantra. Watch and listen carefully:
[…] The Berkeley researchers claim to have found a radiation increase of “0.2 Watts per square meter per decade.” How much is that? German physical chemist Dr. Siegfried Dittrich notes: […]
[…] German Physical Chemistry Scientist On Proof Of CO2 Forcing: “Measurements Show Exact Opposite” […]
Reports of altered temperature data ended the AGW debate.
Data were altered to hide a secret solar force that produced, in solar cycle #24, the lowest sunspot number recorded since 1750.
(Sunspots are produced when powerful, deep-seated magnetic fields emerge through the photosphere.)
Data from the 1969 Apollo Mission to the Moon and the 1995 Galileo probe of Jupiter were also manipulated or hidden to avoid disclosing the unacknowledged solar force that we publicly identified in 2002.
See: “Super-fluidity in the solar interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate”, Journal of Fusion Energy 21, 193-198 (2002)]: http://www.springerlink.com/content/r2352635vv166363/