# To Global Temps Since 1850

A Swiss scientist known to have published hundreds of scientific papers in physics journals has authored a new scholarly paper that casts serious doubts on the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas influencing Earth’s temperatures.

This paper has been added to a growing volume of peer-reviewed scientific papers that seriously question estimates of a high climate sensitivity to significant increases in CO2 concentrations.

### 60 Low (<1°C) CO2 Climate Sensitivity Papers

The link above contains a compilation of over 60 scientific papers with “extremely low” (numerically ranging from 0.02°C to <1°C) estimates of the climate’s sensitivity to a 100% increase in CO2 concentrations (i.e., an increase from 285 ppm to 570 ppm).

Below are some of the key user-friendly (non-technical) points from Dr. Reinhart’s paper entitled Infrared absorption of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

A summarizing conclusion from the calculations may be that if we doubled today’s concentration (400 ppm) to 800 ppm, the consequent temperature response would be less than 1/4th of a degree Celsius.  Even with a ten-fold increase in today’s CO2 concentration (400 ppm) to 4,000 ppm, the resulting temperature change would amount to just 0.8°C.

### Abstract

Over 200,000 discrete absorption lines of CO2 are used for the numerical calculations. If the absorbed energy is converted entirely into heat, we deliberately overestimate the heat retention capability of CO2. The thermal occupation statistics of the CO2 energy states plays a key role in these calculations. The calculated heat retention is converted into a temperature increase, ∆T. Doubling the present CO2 concentration only results in ∆T [temperature increase of] < 0.24 K. At the present rate of CO2 concentration increase of 1.2% per year, it will take almost two hundred years to reach ten times the present concentration yielding ∆T < 0.80 K.

### CO2 ‘Very Weak’, IPCC Assumptions ‘Violate Reality’

Based on all these facts, we conclude that CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas. We emphasize that our simplifying assumptions are by no means trying to minimize the absorption potential of CO2. To the contrary, they lead to overestimating the limiting values. The assumption of a constant temperature and black body radiation definitely violates reality and even the principles of thermodynamics.

[W]e conclude that the temperature increases predicted by the IPCC AR5 lack robust scientific justification. The main problem is probably caused by the lack of considering the occupation probabilities of the energy levels.

### Temperature Changes In Response To Large CO2 Concentrations (800 ppm – 4,000 ppm)

We have calculated ∆Fmax and ∆Tmax for four concentrations namely 400 ppm, 800 ppm, 2000 ppm and 4000 ppm. The results are listed in Table I. They can be quite accurately fitted with logarithmic concentration dependence.

A doubling [to 800 ppm] of the present level of CO2 [400 ppm] results in ∆T [temperature change] < 0.24 K.

The tenfold value of [the present CO2 concentration, or 4,000 ppm] yields ∆T [temperature change] < 0.80 K.

At pre-industrial times, we had cco2 = 285 ppm. The resulting temperature increase [since pre-industrial] according to Eq. (11) only amounts to ∆T < 0.12 K.

### Solar Activity Correlates With Temperature, Non-Positive Feedbacks

Lu [and co-authors, 2013] establishes a correlation of ∆T with solar activity, cosmic rays and ozone reactions with fluorocarbons in the stratosphere. According to his result, CO2 only plays a minor role in the temperature evolution since pre-industrial times. Our calculation is compatible with his finding.

There remains the question of the existence of feedback. This effect is thought to amplify or attenuate a small temperature change. Such mechanisms are easy to imagine, but they are extremely difficult to quantify and to observe. Lindzen has tried to observe feedback by complicated correlation studies. He found a tendency to negative feedback that attenuates induced temperature changes because, in this perspective, the weak CO2 concentration effect is not magnified.

### Conclusion

Our results permit to conclude that CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas and cannot be accepted as the main driver of climate change. The observed temperature increase since pre-industrial times is close to an order of magnitude higher than that attributable to CO2. We find that the increase of CO2 only might become dangerous, if the concentrations are considerably greater than 4000 ppm. At present rates of increase this would take more than 200 years. Therefore, demands for sequestering CO2 are unjustified and trading of CO2 certificates is an economic absurdity. The climate change must have a very different origin and the scientific community must look for causes of climate change that can be solidly based on physics and chemistry.

### 249 responses to “Swiss Physicist Concludes IPCC Assumptions ‘Violate Reality’…CO2 A ‘Very Weak Greenhouse Gas’”

1. So weak that warming from CO2 has never been measured.

Purely theoretical.

Absolutely no CO2 warming signal in either satellite temperature record.

No CO2 warming signal in ocean sea levels.

No mechanism for warming a convective atmosphere or the oceans.

2. So he’s worked out from first principles how much energy is absorbed from the earth, by the CO2 molecules, then translated that into a steady state temperature rise. His upper limit on this rise assumes that the earth is an ideal black body and that all of the absorbed energy is converted to heat.

I’ve a couple of questions – can anybody help me out?

What else would it be converted into if not – ultimately – heat?
Presumably he is not accounting for convection within the atmosphere? Would this affect his results?

1. Andy G55: Once the Earth turns away from the Sun an enormous amount of heat is lost to Space. Secondarily the largest convection cells are from the Tropics as the Tropic of Cancer where heated air rises to the top of the atmosphere then travels North to the Arctic as this rising air pulls air from more northerly Latitudes ultimately the cold, dense air from the Arctic where the now ultra cold air from the top of the atmosphere crashes down onto the Arctic. The weakness of CO2 as a store of heat was noted long ago- forgive me as I am working from memory- such that, as described, there is NO linear response to rising CO2 levels. Heat exchange with dark Space (at night) is the ultimate heat sink due to the enormous difference in temperatures between a GMAT (global Mean Average Temperature) of 15 Celsius and Minus 276.5 Celsius.

2. “Presumably he is not accounting for convection within the atmosphere?”

And also the other major air movement advection.
There is rather a lot of it on rocky planets with atmospheres, including this one.

<em"Define advection: the usually horizontal movement of a mass of fluid (such as air or an ocean current) also : transport (as of pollutants or plankton)…"

1. And this leads to rapid upward energy movement when it hits mountains or even hills or warmer surfaces.

3. Well, that “paper” is of similar style as the paper last week that claimed all warming comes from adjusting data (which is false). It’s not much more than a blog post by some climate denier (he mentions Lindzen, a well-known denier).

Sorry for using the word “denier” in this comment.

P.S: that paper was on EIKE almost a year ago … is this a new revision?

1. snopes is NOT a scientific reference…. it is a load of garbage… about your level, in other words.

“claimed all warming comes from adjusting data”.. WHICH IS TRUE

Lindzen is an actual scientist, not one of the fantasy AGW scammers you like to cite.

Do you DENY that there is zero proof that CO2 causes warming of a convective atmosphere?

Do you deny that CO2 does not warm oceans

Seems the only DENIER here is you, seb-t.

2. Sorry for using the word “denier” in this comment.

No, you are not sorry, Sebastian, and you know it. People using dumb ad hominems always do it on purpose but your method is even dumber. You sound just like dimwits who interrupt someone in mid-sentence by saying:

“I don’t want to interrupt but …”

And if that was not dumb enough, in subsequent post you defend the use of the word “denier” again. Don’t you see that it doesn’t do your case any good? You should at least pretend that you are making an honest argument.

Can you explain why so many global warming alarmists argue like you do?

4. I was surprised that Dr. Reinhart published a paper at EIKE in 2016 (his Reference 14). The link results in Error 503, I hope EIKE will repair their server.

I am stunned by scientific capabilities of our friend Sebastian H. Not only he worked through the math really fast, but he also noted that the paper is of similar style as a paper about data adjustments. What a genius.

5. if we doubled today’s concentration (400 ppm) to 800 ppm,

Earth apparently has ways of doing this. “We”, meaning humans may not be able to do so.

The few calculations I’ve seen are based on assumptions that seemed quite aggressive.
Does anyone know of a paper that does this?

6. It seems that increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere from 400ppmv onwards has precious little effect on world temperature

7. The last 1000 years of temperature and CO2 levels show no correlation.
The last 10,000 years of temperature and CO2 levels show no correlation.
The last 1 million years of temperature and CO2 levels show no correlation.

Why does anyone think that this time it must be different.

Historical record alone say the CO2 levels and global temperature are NOT correlated.

1. Ah, but SebastianH doesn’t agree. He is firmly against those who deny his version. Like the king SebastianH is a Cnut – I think I spelt that right.

2. tomomason

You missed the last 100 years. Again there is no correlation.

It is clear that Seb-h has a credibility problem, ie, there just isn’t any.

8. The inflection points in the CO2 Temperature ice core reconstructions should be all anyone ever needs to see to know CO2 cannot be the main temperature driver.

Temperature drops first – CO2 continues to rise for a period before following temperature down. Then temperature turns up again while CO2 continues down for a period before turning and following temperature up.

If CO2 was a main driver then this could never happen particularly at the top of the temperature curve – simple end of discussion.

climate sensitivity is a made up value to try and fit CO2 to temperature data in their models to come up with a catastrophic outcome. No wonder it keeps coming down in value as actual temps are not following the script.

I am reminded of the big bang episode with Sheldon rock climbing and his comment that he is a tangent approaching an asymptote before he falls of the climbing wall.

This ultimately will be the climate sensitivity’s constants fate in the face of much larger drivers on climate.

1. You beat me to my second point.
Well said, you wrote it better than I probably could.

9. Low Sensitivity to CO2 was of course, the initial view of NASA/GISS

Back in the day when climate alarmists were banging on about global cooling and the threat of a new mini ice age, and at a period when the Northern Hemisphere had cooled by about 0.5degc from the highs of the 1940s, Climate Alarmists were proclaiming that Climate Sensitivity to CO2 was low.

It is only after the cooling stopped and there was a short warming period (say early 1970s to late 1990s) that Climate Alarmists started arguing that Climate Sensitivity to CO2 was high, even thoush that short warming period was no different to the warming seen between 1920 to 1940, or 1860 to 1880 as Phil Jones 9the alarmist from CRU) admitted, and even though the proxy record 9for what it is worth) shows no correlation between temperature and CO2, with CO2 lagging, not driving temperatures.

Perhaps Sebastian, and other of his ilk, should read the NASA/GISS paper written by the well known Climate Alarmist Schneider et al in 1971 published in Science volume 173.

This paper reports on the results/conclusions of their study:

It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2degK. (my emphasis)

The paper sets out their mathematical calculations all based upon the basic physiscs which is said to underpin AGW. So Schneider of GISS held very similar views to the Swiss physicist and to Lintzen.

GISS, back in the 1970s, held the view that CO2 has a role, but a very modest one, such that an 8 fold increase leads to less than 2 degC of warming.

10. It is only because of the endless adjustments made to the temperature data sets (by which I include station drop outs, and the shift from rural to urban and indeed to airport stations) that some consider that Climate Sensitivity to CO2 is more than modest.

I suspect that if we were to remeasure the best sited stations in the Northern hemisphere (thise that have remained truly rural with no land changeand no encroachment of UHI and those with the best practice and data record) with the same LIG thermometers as used in the 1930s/early 1940s and using the same method and practice (including TOBS at the individual stations in question) so that no adjustment is necessary to RAW data, we would find that the majority of the best sited stations in the Northern Hemisphere would show no warming from the highs of the 1930s/1940s notwithstanding that during this period about 95% of all human emissions of CO2 has taken place.

This suggests that Climate Sensitivity (if any at all) to CO2 is zero, or close thereto (whether because the effect is fully saturated by the time CO2 reaches 300 ppm, or otherwise).

1. Endless adjustments made to the temperature data sets, from a reducing number of climate stations over the years, with many of them now suffering UHI effects, mix in homogenization of temperatures across regions and add the dodgy infilling data over vast areas of the world.

And they have the temerity to say there’s proof that temperatures are rising. BS!

Even the much trumpeted UK CET is not immune, its major site is now very close to some horticultural hot-houses. See https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/06/11/how-much-is-the-cet-affected-by-uhi/

11. This is bad news. The current inter-glacial is overdue to end. Even if it wasn’t, warming is generally good, especially since so much of the world’s landmass lies at high latitudes.

1. Tab,

actually the Inter-glacial period is already ending, since it has been cooling for a few thousand years now,this link below shows a number of charts and evidence that the transfer from inter-glacial period into Glaciation is well underway.

The Holocene context for Anthropogenic Global warming

“Summary

Our current beneficial, warm Holocene interglacial has been the enabler of mankind’s civilisation for the last 10,000 years. The congenial climate of the Holocene epoch spans from mankind’s earliest farming to the scientific and technological advances of the last 100 years.

However all the Northern Hemisphere Ice Core records from Greenland show:

the last millennium 1000AD – 2000AD has been the coldest millennium of the entire Holocene interglacial.

each of the notable high points in the Holocene temperature record, (Holocene Climate Optimum – Minoan – Roman – Medieval – Modern), have been progressively colder than the previous high point.

for its first 7-8000 years the early Holocene, including its high point “climate optimum”, had virtually flat temperatures, an average drop of only ~0.007 °C per millennium.

but the more recent Holocene, since a “tipping point” at ~1000BC, has seen a temperature diminution at more than 20 times that earlier rate at about 0.14 °C per millennium.”

1. @sunsettommy 18. July 2017 at 7:47 PM

Well that might excite the old arguments as to what is the correct global temperature?
My answer has always been that the correct global temperature is were its at right now.
BTW Exactly the same answer applies for CO2 — whatever the current level is is where it should be, nature overall is choc-full of negative feedback processes to insure that it can not rise too much.

12. […] Fonte: notrickszone […]

13. Yes, a great post by Charles Higley, well said!:)

14. “The assumption of a constant temperature and black body radiation definitely violates reality and even the principles of thermodynamics.”

This should be obvious to everyone !

The “back radiative greenhouse effect” is described using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation in all of the simple models describing it including Richard Lindzen’s description.

I firmly believe that such application of a “law” empirically derived from experiments involving the emission of continuous spectra to substances which we all should know never emit continuous spectra is scientifically wrong !

All of the models invoke a “layer” of the atmosphere emitting sigmaT(atmos)^4.

To my mind this is absurd – gases emit line spectra and hence the SB equation does not hold – it is derived from continuous spectra as later theoretically described by Planck’s law.

Even Planck himself warned that objects sustaining convection currents should not be treated as blackbodies – Planck M. The theory of heat radiation. P. Blakiston’s Son & Co., Philadelphia, PA, 1914.

The only thing “settled” about climate science is that it is junk !

This should be obvious from the claim that the “atmospheric back radiation” has EQUAL heating power to the solar radiation – a claim that should be met with derision !

Climate science is nonsense – they do not understand even basic physics !

1. @Rosco

So true!

“This should be obvious from the claim that the “atmospheric back radiation” has EQUAL heating power to the solar radiation – a claim that should be met with derision !”

Just try a quick back of the envelope calculation —

Take a body of warmish (+10°C) ‘dry’ air over an ocean, say it picks up a 10,000 tons of water. How much energy does that take?

Now consider,(and here’s that never to be spoken about) advection, or horizontal winds, just moves that 10,000 tons of buoyant water as clouds at say 10 km/hr for 8 hrs. How much energy does that take?

Guess what nature does party tricks like that every day, some days the wind may blow a few million tons of dust off the desert, or whip up a storm at sea with wave 50meters high. No energy is used in these processes, well none that the models, modelers, or climate theoreticians can see.

Climate modelers are they just whistling in the …er, still air?
🙂

1. Ooops, over-blown storm!

It should be ‘with waves 15 meters high…’

15. I have made this same point before. Resorting to the device of ad hominem attack by the climate alarmists tells us all we need to know about their mental state.
They realize that their arguments, when closely examined, are so flimsy that they must resort to name calling to distract public attention away from the fact. Ad hominem is one among many of the logical fallacies earlier defined by Greek writers during the First Millennium BC.
HL

16. I am excited about the conclusion but wonder how it was reached especially in light of Gunnar Myhre’s work which implies 2X CO2 = 1.1C of warming. That’s about 5x the warming that Reinhart suggests, but I can’t believe that Myhre is wrong. So what’s the explanation for this discrepancy?

The following seems to be the key reason why Reinhart is about 1/5 the forcing of Myhre (.24 vs 1.1C). I don’t know what he means by “calculated heat retention.” Presumably he means that while the radiative forcing may be what Myhre suggests, that only 1/5th of it “is retained.” There’s something in his paper that says most of the radiative forcing energy goes to heat the atmosphere (as opposed to heating up the surface). Maybe that’s a clue, Maybe it’s a clue because air doesn’t retain heat very well , I dunno, Here’s the key passage (from the abstract):
[quote]
Over 200’000 discrete absorption lines of CO2 are used for the numerical calculations. If the absorbed energy is converted entirely into heat, we deliberately overestimate the heat retention capability of CO2. The thermal occupation statistics of the CO2 energy states plays a key role in
these calculations. The calculated heat retention is converted into a temperature increase, ∆T. Doubling the present CO2 concentration only results in ∆T < 0.24 K.
[end quote]

Can anyone explain how both Myhre and Reinhart can be right or are we stuck with having to choose one over the other. And if we have to choose, I'd say it's too early to choose Reinhart until we hear/see the response by the scientific community.

I suppose another troubling issue is that the various radiative forcing formulae seem to closely explain the warming since 1880 or so, despite a lot of interim variation. For example, the 1.83 W/M2 of CO2 forcing would explain about .55C of the .85-1C of warming, which seems plausible given there are other GHGs and some negative feedbacks.

17. AGW sceptics come in two main camps – those like Lindzen, Spencer, etc. who appear to accept the main tenets of global warming, but argue over the degree of climate sensitivity to CO2 changes, and the more radical type – who can often be found in the comments’ sections of popular sites – who dispute the physics itself.

It’s noticeable that these two groupings rarely engage with each other. A pity because I think these exchanges would be more enlightening than the usual back and forth brtween ‘believers’ and ‘deniers’.

1. The physics? The science.?

Please show us one single paper that empirically proves that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

The physics says that any energy absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere is immediately thermalised to the remaining 99.96% of the atmosphere and dealt with by the gravity/pressure/thermal effect.

The physics does not allow for any warming from CO2 of a convective atmosphere or of oceans.

1. There is some thermalizing of the atmosphere by CO2 but not much. Oxygen and Nitrogen are impervious to 15 micron bandwidth energy, which is what CO2 captures and emits.

This has nothing to do with convection, which is a separate process. CO2 can capture and emit IR whether it’s stationary or in motion (in convection).

However you are largely correct that CO2 cannot warm the oceans, although it may reduce the ocean’s ability to shed heat via convection as the ocean/air temp difference narrows.

1. collisional transfer of energy does not require the same frequency, and the whole atmosphere is controlled by convection.

COO2 emits very little below 11km.

https://s19.postimg.org/s6jyed10z/stratospheric_cooling.jpg

There is no valid mechanism whereby CO2 can warm a convective atmosphere

Nor does CO2 reduce the ocean’s ability to shed heat via convection. That is yet another anti-science fallacy.

as the ocean/air temp difference narrows

Quite bizarre that at one point you say there is not much thermalisation, then turn around and say the ocean/air temp difference narrows.

Please come up with a more coherent load of utter BS next time.

1. While CO2 has 3 absorption peak frequencies it’s the one around 15 micron bandwidth that is the focus of GHE for CO2. IR at say 23 microns isn’t captured by CO2 and thus CO2 has no GHE for that bandwidth (other GHGs do). Furthermore the CO2 molecule emits at the same frequency it captures. This is true in still air (no convection) or moving air (no convection).

Your second paragraph doesn’t tell me anything one way or the other.

Your third paragraph is presumably your main point and I can’t see it. What CO2 does to create GHE is to absorb and re-radiate IR say between 14-16 microns. Each molecule of CO2 is indifferent to convection.

The oceans are warmer than the air above them therefore the oceans shed heat via convection. The amount of heat shed by convection is proportional to the spread between the ocean surface temperature and the air temperature above the ocean. If more atmospheric CO2 warms the air the per force this temperature gap narrows and thus conductive cooling of the ocean increases. What’s bizarre about that. I asserted that I’ve seen no actual measurement of this phenomenon, but it’s seem obvious based on how conduction works.

2. “What CO2 does to create GHE is to absorb and re-radiate IR ”

https://s19.postimg.org/s6jyed10z/stratospheric_cooling.jpg

Is obvious that science and physics is a subject you have great difficulty with.

3. “Furthermore the CO2 molecule emits at the same frequency it captures.”

Again, the base-level nil-education of the standard brain-washed AGW dolt. !

The re-emit time in the lower atmosphere is MAGNITUDES slower than collisional time.

CO2 does not re-emit below about 11km, because it doesn’t get a chance to.

https://s19.postimg.org/s6jyed10z/stratospheric_cooling.jpg

2. And I repeat……

Please show us one single paper that empirically proves that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

1. A paper isn’t necessary. Increased atmospheric CO2 warms the air. The ocean is warmer than the air and has massive heat stability (it’s a heat sink in other words). So when the air warms, the oceans…. not so much. However, “not so much” doesn’t mean “not at all.” The oceans are warmed as a by-product of atmospheric CO2-induces warming by the reduction of ocean conductive cooling.

Convective atmosphere is no more relevant to this than the color of the sky.

2. There is NO empirical evidence that CO2 causes warming of oceans, or slows the natural cooling of atmosphere.

In fact, increased CO2 lowers the atmospheric specific energy just a tiny amount, so should actually COOL the atmosphere.

3. “A paper isn’t necessary”

ROFLMAO… now that really IS a pathetic response!!

So we just have to accept your misguided low-level non-comprehension of basic atmospheric physics?

Is that what you are saying?

You have GOT to be joking !! 🙂

4. Convective atmosphere is no more relevant to this than the color of the sky.

Proving categorically that you have ZERO comprehension of atmospheric physics.

WELL DONE. !

Junior high beckons you ! 🙂

3. There is some thermalizing of the atmosphere by CO2 but not much.

CO2 can warm the air

Make up your nil-educated mind, would you !!!!

18. […] Swiss Physicist Concludes IPCC Assumptions ‚Violate Reality’…CO2 A ‘Very Weak Greenhouse Gas’ […]

19. I have read the paper and the author talks of line spectra. He goes into detail as to the isotopic effects. I understand the origin of all of these lines, These are from changes in vibrational levels in the molecules. They are complicated by simultaneous transitions in the rotational energy levels thus giving a forrest of individual peaks. These vib-rotational lines are relatively high in energy and do not have much coincidence with black body radiation at 288K. What does have coincidence with black body radiation is the so-called continuous radiation absorption by CO2 at low infra red energy. These do not seem to correspond with vibrational bands. Did Reinhart account for this radiation? He does not seem to have said so in his paper.

Could someone enlighten me of the origin of this continuous spectrum, is it vibrational -colissional? And so in effect it really is a continuous spectrum and not a discrete line spectrum.

20. This is a reply to Kenneth Richard’s July post to me (I don’t seem to be able to reply directly in line, for some reason).

With respect, I can only interpret your position is CO2 has no impact on the atmospheric temperature. This is so for the very simple reason that CO2 can’t warm the oceans (according to you, either directly or indirectly) and that [only, or virtually only]the oceans warm the air, not vice versa (again according to you). Therefore the correct value for climate sensitivity to CO2 is …. zero [or virtually zero]. This leaves with only the sun, mitigated by atmospheric conditions is completely responsible for global temperatures (and you can throw in convection if you like).

Both Myhre and Reinhart and indeed every other scientist who has ventured into the climate sensitivity arena has completely missed the boat (again: according to you).

21. This is a reply to Andy55 in his July 28th post to me. There are many things we haven’t measured that we know scientifically. The principals of conductive heat transfer are well established. WE know from these principals that heat flows via conduction from a warmer to a cooler object that it is in contact with at a rate proportional to (inter alia) the temperature difference between the objects. We also know that the oceans are typically 1-2C warmer than the air above them. We have estimates of the amount of conductive heat transfer to the air. I accept that CO2 cannot warm the oceans, except possibly indirectly via reduced conductive cooling. How do I justify the word “possibly” here? Well we know from GHG theory that additional GHG concentrations increase IR back radiation to the earth thereby increasing the amount of heat the earth must shed for the global energy budget to remain in balance. We also know that given steady insolation and albedo and ignoring heat sinks, that the earth must radiate at 255K.

Now if convection was the mechanism for all this extra global shedding of heat, we wouldn’t have any atmospheric temperature rise to speak of, but we do — about 1C over 140 years or so. And of course if convection were the mechanism of heat removal of this extra heat, we would be see it in say increased rainfall. To my knowledge we do not.

In brief, your position seems unsupported by any evidence (e.g., of greater global rainfall over past 140 years). It seems to deny or ignore the radiative forcing of GHGs which is robustly supported theoretically although quite difficult to pin down in detail.

I’ve always felt Myhre’s formula was consistent with the facts. The increase of about 1.83W/M2 in CO2 forcing since 1715 (Myhre, 2013) produces about .55C of warming which is consistent with the actual temperature record, given there are other GHGs also warming the earth.

To my knowledge there’s no science that explains this 1C of warming that is based completely on …. well, what’s left other than insolation, presumably surface insolation? That would mean most likely that all global temperature variation is due to …. well, the amount of cloud cover. It’s an interesting theory, but needs some evidence. We don’t have any evidence of cloud cover globally prior to satellites.

1. Bring evidence.. OR DON’T

You are welcome to just “believe”

But real evidence is against your unsubstantiated baseless AGW religion.

“Now if convection was the mechanism for all this extra global shedding of heat, we wouldn’t have any atmospheric temperature rise to speak of, but we do — about 1C over 140 years or so. ”

ROFLMAO.

There is plenty of evidence that it is NOTHING TO DO WITH CO2.

Climate has changed MANY times in the past, without human CO2

Your religious “BELIEF” is anti-science, and shows a massive GULLIBILITY on your behalf.

And I wouldn’t give two figs for what passes as “your knowledge”

You say that “The principals of conductive heat transfer are well established.” yet you don’t seem to understand them at all.

Theory actually says there is little to no warming due to CO2, only the fantasies built around the AGW scam.

Find some actual EVIDENCE …. OR DON’T

… but please stop mincing and weaving around the issue.. its PATHETIC.

2. Well we know from GHG theory that additional GHG concentrations increase IR back radiation to the earth thereby increasing the amount of heat the earth must shed for the global energy budget to remain in balance.

ROFLMAO

Baseless suppository.

There is NO increase in the amount of heat. that is a child-minded fallacy of the AGW scam.

Increased heat can only come from a heat source.. or do you “believe” that CO2 is now a heat source?

That’s hilarious. 🙂

1. Increased heat can only come from a heat source

That’s not true. Heat content is not just the result of a source of heat, it is also the result of how effectively something can get rid of that heat/energy.

@David: AndyG55 thinks that gravity and atmospheric density is causing the observed surface temperatures of rocky planets with atmospheres. So apparently the density of Earth’s atmosphere must have increased in the last 100 years (according to him). He doesn’t think the greenhouse effect based on radiative gases exists.

1. Roflmao.

poor seb-t STILL totally unable to support the very basis of the AGW scam-religion. No warming effect from CO2 warming anywhere. Poor little trollette.

Furthermore…. he KNOWS that the gravity/thermal gradient exists, but cannot bring his brain-washed mind to accept REALITY or even comprehend it.

So apparently the density of Earth’s atmosphere must have increased in the last 100 years

And yet again, he intentionally mis-interprets, (or more likely its just base-level ignorance), what others have said..
….essentially TELLING LIES as always.

Its as if he has never bothered to even look at the actual SCIENCE, let alone try to understand it.

He even thinks that CO2 “magically” produces heat or stops energy transfer.

So hilarious 🙂

… your base-level ignorance and anti-science imaginings are a wonder to behold.

2. He doesn’t think the greenhouse effect based on radiative gases exists.

You have yet to come up with ONE SINGLE PAPER showing empirically that CO2 causes warming of a convective atmosphere or of oceans.

You are FIRING BLANKS, seb-t.

3. AG: Increased heat can only come from a heat source….

seb-t: “That’s not true.”

Come on seb-t….Please present one place where something gets warmer without an extra heat source.

This will be HILARIOUS. 🙂

1. Ehm, everything you put insulation on gets warmer without an extra heat source or needs less energy to maintain its temperature.

2. No, it DOES NOT get warmer.

That is a load of total anti-science BS. !!

“Needs less energy” roflmao!!!!

So there is a heat source… DOH !!

Your cognitive dissonance rings like a bell. !!

So hilarious.

3. I repeat..

“Please present one place where something gets warmer without an extra heat source.”

4. Insulation:

blocks air movement,

blocks conduction,

CO2 does NONE of these.

Another FAKE ANALOGY.

5. The atmosphere, which CO2 is a tiny part of, actually PROMOTES cooling of the Earth’s surface.

Please indicate which brand of insulation does this.

You are up the wrong creek, seb-t…

… and still without a paddle or canoe.

6. Can you explain why you believe that CO2 molecules […] function physically quite similarly to a block of insulation ensconced in the walls of a house?

Yes I can. Can you explain why they wouldn’t?

@AndyG55: just stop, you are making a fool of yourself.

3. About CO2 caused warming for which we have no evidence that it modulates temperature, the new chatbot writes…

There are many things we haven’t measured that we know scientifically

LOLOL – NO! Because? No data = no evidence. PERIOD! (see Dr. Richard Keen’s “show me the DATA” video.)

ALSO – All we know about CO2 and temperature is that they are either negatively correlated for small scale [CO2] change over short time scales, or not at all for large scale [CO2] change over long time scales (see section 2 here)
http://www.stallinga.org/Climate/GreenhouseGases.html

Then, about cloud cover, for which we DO have evidence of their influence on temperatures, it scribbles…

It’s an interesting theory, but needs some evidence.

If we knew nothing about clouds influence on temperature, we wouldn’t be able to forecast the weather.
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fcst/tmps/cld.rxml

And if clouds weren’t important, why would warmists be so worried about Svensmark’s theory of cloud formation? If clouds didn’t matter, neither would his theory.

From what I can tell, it’s the same science and logic challenged programmer writing the code for all of these chatbots.

1. It’s funny how you think there is no data for one thing but you strongly believe in a theory that cosmic rays influence climate by influencing the cloud cover which has already been debunked (no evidence).

1. Still waiting for evidence of CO2 warming of oceans or a convective atmosphere, seb-t

You are particularly DEVOID of it. !!

Its pretty far-fetched that you will ever present some.

1. “(0.2 W m-2, Feldman et al., 2015). ”

And let’s not forget that Feldman started at the base of an La Nina, and finished at the top of an El Nino.

There would have been extra radiation just from the extra temperature of the atmosphere.. so really, a very tiny number.. APPROACHING ZERO.

I wonder if he ever did the “proper” science thing and check his calculations using 2008… or just relied on that moderate El Nino for his tiny value. 😉

https://s19.postimg.org/6nqtliulv/Feldman_oops.png

2. Yeah, chatbot, real funny how evidence you don’t like is “no evidence.”

https://phys.org/news/2016-08-solar-impact-earth-cloud.html

They know that THEY CAN’T !!

Their whole intent is to just keep yapping mindlessly, trying to distract and avoid the FACT that there is no empirical proof that CO2 causes warming of oceans or of a convectively controlled atmosphere.

They KNOW they are FIRING BLANKS.

Its called “mindless, attention-seeking”,

ie….

“tr**ling”

2. Yeah, I know, but I like to keep reminding them that I do. 😉

22. I have concluded that neither Kenneth Richard nor Andy55 know climate science. Andy seems to believe that CO2 is not a GHG basically as a matter of principal, which is patently absurd. Kenneth has the plus of at least being polite. But despite his disclaimers he is stuck with CO2 is not a GHG either as I have shown (a. oceans warm the air, not the other way around; b) ‘no science showing CO2 warms oceans; therefore c) CO2 has no impact on global atmospheric temperature)

As a consequence for neither of them there is per force no such thing as climate sensitivity, as defined by “the atmospheric temp response to increased GHGs (sometimes limited to CO2, other times including other [human emitted] non condensing GHGs.”

Therefore F K Reinhart’s paper is a non-starter for them, barking up the wrong tree, or no tree at all. And that’s true for all the other papers on climate sensitivity — all bogus, all pseudo-science.

Indeed, I can’t see why either of them are the slightest bit interested in Reinhart’s paper (why post about it?).

Unfortunately I am interested in Reinhart’s paper because it seems to contradict the consensus CO2 forcing work of Gunnar Myhre (1998, 2013, 2016) which is universally accepted by the scientific community.

I’m not going to learn anything here it seems.

1. Poor ZERO EVIDENCE daftid

You have NOTHING except BRAIN-WASHED gullibility. !!

No you will not learn anything…..

BECAUSE YOU DON’T WANT TO.

I see no point in being polite to MINDLESS AGW TROLLS. !

1. oops, stuffed up the html markers on that post. !

2. “Andy seems to believe that CO2 is not a GHG basically as a matter of principal, which is patently absurd”

ROFLMAO…. still ZERO EVIDENCE, just mindless prattle

You have NO IDEA what I “believe (lol)” or know,

I guarantee its WAY more than you do, though.

You have made ZERO attempt to put forward any evidence.

Prove that CO2 causes warming of a convective atmosphere or of oceans.

Its very simple..

or just

run and hide.

3. ” Andy seems to believe that CO2 is not a GHG basically as a matter of principal,”

Thing is, I know guys that work with CO2 in lasers for a living. They laugh at the idea of calling CO2 anything but a “radiative gas”… and laugh at those pretending it has something akin the warming effect in a greenhouse.

Its a misnomer to call CO2 a GHG except in the case of it being used in a greenhouse to ENHANCE plant growth.

CO2 in the atmosphere does not function in any way like a greenhouse. Them’s just the FACTS.

The only substance in our atmosphere that has the power to majorly affect the natural atmospheric cooling rate set by gravity/pressure, is H2O.

4. “which is patently absurd”

ROFLMAO..

The only absurdity around here is the NON-science produced by you in your non-attempt to prove that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere or of oceans.

Anyone watching can see you dodging and weaving and generally just saying, with a pouting sulk..

“…. no.. not going to.. don’t have to..”

And no, while your mind remains locked against actual real science, and stuck in its brain-washed AGW stupor…

… you are not going to learn anything.

23. What’s interesting is that nearly every consecutive real science (as opposed to AGW pseudo-science) get closer and closer to a sensitivity of ZERO. 🙂

And yes CO2 is a gas used in greenhouses to enhance plant growth.

It is also a gas that absorbs a thin spectrum of LW radiation, then passes it onto the rest of the atmosphere.
It actually aids in the transfer of energy from the surface to the mid atmosphere. In the upper atmosphere where there is less probability of collision, it absorbs then radiates to space, helping to cool the planet.

Did you know that the GHE doesn’t even exist in a greenhouse?

1. So your problem with the greenhouse effect is the name of the effect?

1. What effect?

Calling the gravity based thermal affect “the greenhouse effect” is just bad science.

But its all you have, isn’t it seb-t.

Apart from your desperate trolling for attention.

24. To Andy_55, your position is clear from what you say, to wit, “show me a single paper the proves CO2 warms the convective atmosphere” (paraphrase). So per force you don’t accept there is a GHE on earth. Your position is silly, but I don’t care to argue. However, it can be refuted with a simple observation, “If as you say there can be no [CO2 only?] effect in a convective atmosphere, then provide a single paper establishing that.” You can’t. But then your position is per force incoherent. Mayre’s 1998 paper formulating CO2 radiative forcing is the accepted science (with updates 2013, and 2016). Convection is not a factor in any of his work.

I repeat: If you don’t think there’s a CO2 GHE on earth, why are you commenting on a paper analyzing CO2 radiative forcing? It’s your position that either there’s no such thing or that it’s completely neutralized [presumably] by convection. In any event whichever you chose you are refuted by the fact that there’s no science (no measurement or peer-reviewed paper) supporting either alternative.

1. ““show me a single paper the proves CO2 warms the convective atmosphere””

Well.. can you? OR NOT

Or are you just going to continue your brain-washed yapping, like a demented Chihuahua??

Poor ZERO SCIENCE daft-one. You can’t even support the very basis of your scam AGW religion.

Just “believe” (weird spooky music)

That’ll keep you happy . 😉

2. “If as you say there can be no [CO2 only?] effect in a convective atmosphere, then provide a single paper establishing that.””

I’ve asked for a single paper showing empirically that there is CO2 warming in a convective atmosphere.

YOU have FAILED MISERABLY !!

You obvious do not comprehend anything to do with science and the null hypothesis.

But that is to be expected.

3. “Convection is not a factor in any of his work.”

Then he is totally ignoring how the atmosphere functions.

That is his problem, not mine.

And stop the moronic “accepted science” yapping…

… it makes it look even more like you avoided any actual “science” in your basic education.

Science requires empirical PROOF.. so far you are EMPTY !!

1. Quite BIZARRE that someone thinks that they can work out warming sensitivity by totally IGNORING the main drivers of energy flow in the atmosphere.

Ignore the Ocean

Ignore Conduction

Ignore Convection

Ignore the Clouds

Ignore Winds

Ignore H20

Ignore the Sun…

Yeah.. That’ll work. ! 😉

4. “why are you commenting on a paper analyzing CO2 radiative forcing?”

And who the **** do you think you are to say what I should or shouldn’t comment on. !!

25. to Kenneth: We already know (it’s accepted climate science) that CO2 warms the atmosphere via radiative forcing following Myrhe’s F=5.35 x Ln(C/Co). For 2x CO2 that works out to 3.71W/M2 (ie, that’s what 5.35xLn(2) is). This has NOTHING to do with the oceans and for you to have brought this ocean angle up WITH ME is a red-herring. Said forcing would be the case with or with oceans.

This forcing works based on the basic thermodynamic principal that every object not at absolute 0 temp radiates IR. If a black body sphere with it’s own steady source of power (say the earth using the sun’s input net of reflection) radiates to outer space at absolute 0 temperature say 240 W/M2 of energy the sphere will have a temperature of 255K following Stefan-Boltzmann’s formula. If you put a perfectly absorbing heat shield around this object (and say it’s close enough that the area of the shield is not materially different from the area of the sphere), then the shield will heat up and also at some point radiate at 240W/M2 to outer space at 255K.

BUT (AND THIS IS THE KEY POINT) the sphere itself will no longer be at 255K, because the shield will be not only radiating IR to outer space (one direction) but also radiating IR back to the surface of the sphere (the opposite direction). The surface of the sphere will heat up and be warmer than 255K. That’s what’s going on with the GHE. It has nothing to do with convection, nothing to do with oceans vs ice vs land vs trees.

Now this is what Myhre has quantified for earth. It appears Reinhart has done the exact same thing on the face of it as Myhre, but come up with values that are slightly more than 1/5th of the values Myhre calculated. So Myhre’s values suggest a 1.1C warming per 2X CO2 vs Reinhart’s <.24C of warming for 2X CO2.

I can't believe either of these 2 made some simple mathematical error. If they are both making the same physics claim, they can't both be right.

I haven't read all the "radiative forcing" papers for CO2, but I do NOT believe other than Reinhart's paper that ANY OF THEM challenge Myhre's calculations. For example I aver that many (perhaps all) of the NoTrickZone papers alleging low climate sensitivity are doing so on an anecdotal basis having nothing to to with the physics of the matter. Another set may be including putative [negative] feedbacks to conclude low CO2 net warming.

Now it may be beyond your abilities (as it seems to be beyond my own abilities) to evaluate whether Reinhart and Myhre really are doing the same thing physics-wise and coming up with different values, and I'll be able to live with that.

But I consider Reinhart's paper to be revolutionary in its implications (if it's true, then AGW is a nothing-burger). So I really want to find out why Reinhart gets such a low value for CO2's effect on Earth temps.

1. “that CO2 warms the atmosphere via radiative forcing ”

No we don’t.

You have produced ZERO evidence that CO2 warms the atmosphere.

Then you go yapping meaninglessly.

Arts student? philosophy?

Whatever you are, “SCIENCE” is not a word you seem to comprehend.

Proof, evidence.. YOU HAVE NONE.

STOP AVOIDING !!!

2. “(it’s accepted climate science)”

ROFLMAO..

and then to the RIDICULOUS. !!

26. Andy55, you just are uniformed. Gunnar Myhre’s seminal 1998 paper (and 2013, 2016 follow ups) do the job. The IPCC TAR features Myhre’s work.

So there: 3 papers all by Myhre.

Now where’s your paper saying there’s no GHE in a convective atmosphere. Answer: there is none.

“Who am I to say you shouldn’t be commenting here?” Well, I’m the person who observes you don’t believe in climate sensitivity (any impact on temps from non-condensing GHGs) at all, you’re a person who’s position is incoherent (you have no paper of your own proving your thesis, or any data either), and who consequently doesn’t believe in climate science at all. Therefore your only purpose here is to make trouble.

1. Well inform me then.

Provide empirical proof of CO2 warming or the atmosphere or the oceans.

So far you are TOTALLY EMPTY of anything resembling actual science or proof.

Its seem you are just “BELIEVING” for the sake of believing.

You are the one that needs to go and get a better understanding of science before you make even more of a FOOL of yourself.

Provide scientific evidence.. OR DON’T

and let everyone know that..

YOU DON’T HAVE ANY.

2. “Well, I’m the person who observes you don’t believe ”

And I’m the person, among many, who sees that you do not have one tiny bit of real empirical evidence to back up your anti-science, brain-washed, AGW cult beliefs and rantings.

EVIDENCE.. !!! NONE !!!

3. “Now where’s your paper saying there’s no GHE in a convective atmosphere. ”

Again we see your TOTAL LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENTIFIC PROCEDURE.

It is up to YOU to prove that THERE IS.

And you have FAILED MISERABLY

27. To Kenneth: F=5.35 x Ln(C/Co) is no more a model than F=MA, or E=MC2. Unlike those however it’s heuristic formula (an estimate) good for a range of CO2 levels up to 1000 ppm. Myhre’s 2016 formula is a variation which is good up to 2000 ppm.

Work prior to Myhre was less accurate, equating 2X CO2 = 4W/M2 and 1.2C. And the TAR used Myhre, not the old values (why do you think, if it’ “just a model” — one of many?).

Nor is Myhre equating his work to climate sensitivity. It’s the direct radiative forcing effect of increased CO2, with no feedbacks considered. Sensitivity takes in feedback. And of course sometime climate sensitivity is limited to “from CO2” and other includes the other non-condensing GHGs.’

No climate scientist calls Myhre’s work theoretical or hypothetical…. it seems until now with Reinhart, who seems to be saying Myhre got it wrong…. by a huge amount. I intuit he’s not actually saying that and the clue to my intuition is his talk about thermal retention, which I don’t fathom (and apparently you don’t either).

Yes, transient climate sensitivity has nothing to do with the oceans. That is not to say that the ocean’s don’t affect the atmosphere, but climate sensitivities is a technical term (actually there are 2: transient which is short term, and equilibrium with is long term, and not observable in our 137 year history of modern temperature readings). The explanation you seek is merely a matter of definition.

Your 93% figure is a misquote. I don’t know what “the earth’s radiative heat exchange” means. It doesn’t mean anything I assert. Sunlight that doesn’t get reflected is exchanged at the surface where the sunlight hits. And while 70% of the earth surface is ocean, that doesn’t tell the whole story. More sunlight hits the surface close to the equator. And the amount of sunlight is mediated by aerosols.

1. Chatbot David Russel writes

To Kenneth: F=5.35 x Ln(C/Co) is no more a model than F=MA, or E=MC2.

Never taken (or passed) a physics course in your life?

F=MA has been tested and has never been found wanting in the classical domain.
E=MC^2 has likewise never come into question.

As to the climate change equation telling us what warming to expect, we find it doesn’t measure up to reality.
http://junksciencearchive.com/Greenhouse/Checking_their_homework.html
http://junksciencearchive.com/Greenhouse/forcing.html

And then there are those who have no patience with that simplistic nonsense whatsoever.
http://nov79.com/gbwm/equations.html

Bottom line, only a charlatan would try to associate something unproven with what is, in order to smuggle it past us.

1. As to the climate change equation telling us what warming to expect, we find it doesn’t measure up to reality.

The models match what is measured pretty good:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFxBfZ1UwAM1Xk_.jpg

And then there are those who have no patience with that simplistic nonsense whatsoever.
http://nov79.com/gbwm/equations.html

Oh dear … you really believe in those nonsense websites and what they write, do you? And what’s most fascination, you probably look at websites with the actual scientific facts as being fake and telling lies. Totally twisted worldview 😉

1. ROFLMAO..

The models match data specifically manipulated to match the models..

You really are deeply infused with the AGW scam, aren’t you seb.

Strange that you are still totally unable to support even the most basic piece of farce of the scam.

ZERO proof that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

EMPTY . !!

28. “Therefore your only purpose here is to make trouble.”

No, my purpose is to make you produce some actual EVIDENCE.

Seems I will have to admit to failure,

… because you are TOTALLY EMPTY of at such evidence.

Sorry, I guess I can’t expect you to put forward something that YOU JUST DON’T HAVE.

1. Just like you are able to back up your wild views about how physics works with evidence and sources? 😉

There is no substance to your insecure ranting and insult marathons in the comment sections of various blogs.

1. Poor empty seb.

ZERO evidence for the very basis of the AGW scam.

29. To Sebastion and Andy_55: the Eggert paper was copyrighted in 2009. Eggert didn’t even receive is PhD until 2015.

Moreover, Eggert’s paper doesn’t seem to have had any impact on Myhre who expanded his F=5.35 x Ln(C/Co) in 2016 to apply up to 2000 ppm. All of Myhre’s work is a “simplification” of a much more complicated phenomenon (remember Reinhart analyzed 200,000 different spectra). Myhre said his [original] formula was good up to 1000 ppm.

For those who think CO2 rising above these levels has no impact, I suggest you explain Venus’s temperature. And don’t try with “it’s the pressure, stupid” because pressure doesn’t have ANY impact on the temperature of a gas UNTIL/UNLESS the pressure changes. Under constant pressure, not at all… as a CO2 fire extinguisher demonstrates (CO2 under high pressure is at room temperature).

1. david russell,

WRT the Venus atmosphere — How do YOU explain that at an altitude from the surface of Venus where the Venuian atmospheric pressure equal 1 Earth atmosphere, the temperature is the same as here on Earth?
Surely this tends to indicate CO2 does nothing to the temperature of either Venus or Earth as pressure and atmospheric movement govern the temperatures. Or have YOU got another unreal model to cover that?

As you appear to like modeled proofs (no matter how worthless) you no doubt dismiss other OBSERVED ideas. If you still don’t get it please take the trouble to examine the “Radiative-Convective Model” that Robinson & Catling described in a letter to Nat Geo. While this is a simple model with one “Down” short wave radiative channel and two “Up” long wave radiative channels, it is derived almost entirely from “First Principles”:
http://faculty.washington.edu/dcatling/Robinson2014_0.1bar_Tropopause.pdf

Also have a look at the work of Nikolov and Zeller’s and their paper discussed here https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/07/09/pressure-warming-effect-featured-on-wnd-study-blows-greenhouse-theory-out-of-the-water/

But that is the problem with AGW advocates, sat as they are on their great fat complacencies, and in the scientific vacuum of consensus, they tend to ignoring real world effects. 😉

1. How do YOU explain that at an altitude from the surface of Venus where the Venuian atmospheric pressure equal 1 Earth atmosphere, the temperature is the same as here on Earth?

Is that really the case? Hell of a coincidence, isn’t it? Different TSI, different albedo (at that height) and different gas mixture and yet.

Regarding pressure and temperature profiles on Venus: http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm

See, it’s not the case …

1. *and yet same temperature?

1. “*and yet same temperature?”

Yes seb. same temperature at the same pressure.

… get over it.

Only explained by the gravity/thermal theory that works on all atmospheric planets.

2. Guess what great believer, there is an outfit called ESA and they had a probe out at Venus.

I suggest you look there.

1. I would also point you to the paper —
The structure of Venus’ middle atmosphere and ionosphere
M. Patzold1, B. Hausler2, M. K. Bird3, S. Tellmann1, R. Mattei2, S. W. Asmar4, V. Dehant5, W. Eidel2, T. Imamura6, R. A. Simpson7& G. L. Tyler7
Nature 450: 657–660. doi:10.1038/nature06239

The atmosphere and ionosphere of Venus have been studied in the past by spacecraft with remote sensing[1–4]or in situ techniques[3,4.]
These early missions, however, have left us with questions about, for example, the atmospheric structure in the transition region from the upper troposphere to the lower mesosphere (50–90km) and the remarkably variable structure of the ionosphere.
Observations become increasingly difficult within and below the global cloud deck (,50km altitude), where strong absorption greatly limits the available investigative spectrum to a few infrared windows and the radio range. Here we report radio-sounding results from the first Venus Express Radio Science5(VeRa) occultation season. We determine the fine structure in temperatures at upper cloud-deck altitudes, detect a distinct day–night temperature difference in the southern middle atmosphere, and track day-to-day changes in Venus’ ionosphere.

The temperature/pressure effect is still there (i.e. at the altitude giving ~1 Earth atmosphere the temperature is close to where this planet’s temperature normal sits.)

2. “Eggert paper was copyrighted in 2009. Eggert didn’t even receive is PhD until 2015.”

so what !

Its not Eggerts’s fault Myhre didn’t keep up with facts.

And your “god” Myhre, who’s feet you crawl at, ignored basically every other aspect of the atmosphere, to come up with a purely theoretical nonsense value which cannot have any relevance in the actual real atmosphere.

30. To Andy: I can’t and won’t engage with someone who is dishonest. You asked for evidence (a single paper). I provided 3 — all by Gunnar Myhre. I also showed how thermodyamics explains the GHE. Your position seems, “Well there’s no evidence for thermodyamics (e.g., the Stefan-Boltzmann black body temperature/energy formula).

You require me to justify all the science on which climate science is based, in essence the physics of radiant forcing of Stefan-Boltzmann. And yet you provide no evidence for your claims other than something written by a German college student who hadn’t even started his PhD program at the time. His assertion is that more CO2 from these levels will have ZERO impact on global temperatures. I’m sorry, but this is too nutty to even consider. The only matter of controversy today about CO2 induced global warming is “how much?” No serious scientist is arguing “No future impact at all.”

I started commenting for a specific reason, to wit, in the hope that someone could explain how Reinhart was so far different from the mainstream Myhre? No one seems prepared to even discuss this. Indeed, your position is: “They are both wrong [but you provide no basis for this].”

Frankly you are an unpleasant person who argues incoherently and a sophist to boot.

1. Science is made when OBSERVATION meet theory.
Those theoretical models stuffed full of their assumptions FAIL when held up to verification and validation of the REALITY!

1. Really? You believe that the models are failing because reality did something unexpected? Do you think those models are written in stone and can’t change over time? Do you consider F = m*a a failed theoretical model since it doesn’t work in all cases?

1. (for belief is all you have) seb,

“Really? You believe that the models are failing because reality did something unexpected?”

Reality does what it does, it just is.
Models are nonsense, stuffed full of their assumptions (aka guess-work). Models can NEVER model the climate as climate is NOT predictable.
Or (along with your other beliefs) do you believe climate is predictable?

2. ” I can’t and won’t engage with someone who is dishonest.”

How do you talk to yourself , then?

You are an unpleasant person who rants and raves and cannot provide one iota of real empirical evidence that CO2 causes warming of oceans or of a convective atmosphere.

You rely of a god-like worship of a guy who ignores basically every facet of the atmosphere, to come up with a purely theoretical value of radiative forcing, that cannot be close to reality because radiation is nothing but a bit player in the lower atmosphere.

As soon as other information is put forward showing your god’s work may be wrong , you go the ad hom route….. and you call me dishonest that’s just sick.??

——

What I asked of you has been to provide one single bit of actual measured proof that CO2 causes warming of a convectively controlled atmosphere.

(you were at least a level above seb, by saying CO2 couldn’t warm oceans….. tiny steps)

So far all we have seen is monumental DIVERSIONARY TACTICS as you worm and squirm and avoid the issue.

Radiation is a bit player in the lower atmosphere.

CO2 does not re-emit until 11km.

So far you have produce ZERO EVIDENCE.

You are EMPTY.

31. To Yonason: After sifting through your links your claim boils down to “CO2 forcing is invalid because it fails to take saturation into effect.” Your links are not to credible science sites, but that’s a minor quibble. The extra warming is not very much an artifact of “filling up the wings” of already existing CO2 molecules — as you suggest. What happens with more CO2 is that the “distance to extinction” of captured-then-reemitted [say in 15 micron bandwidth range] IR is reduced. So say that distance at 400 ppm CO2 is 25m. With 2X today’s CO2 levels, that distance would be then 12.5m. The significance of this is that there will be at 800 ppm TWICE AS MANY captures and reemissions than at 400 ppm, and thus more down-welling feedback IR.

As you know IR captured is reemitted in a random direction — meaning “half goes up and half goes down.” It’s the half that goes down that does the GHE. While the “half that goes down” doesn’t all make it all the way back to the earth, nonetheless there is for sure an increase of “IR going back to the surface” with increased CO2 concentrations [not to mention that such IR that doesn’t make it all the way back, heats the air directly]. This is heat in addition to that directly from the sun that gets to the surface and near surface.

All this IR back radiation (whether it gets all the way back to the surface or just heats the lower air), is heat that the earth must shed (ignoring heat sinks). The forcing doesn’t increase the temperature of the earth, which given constant insolation and albedo (and ignoring heat sinks) is always 255K viewed from outer space. But the surface does heat up. This is basic thermodyamics — an object will radiate to outer space faster that it will radiate to another object that is higher than absolute zero temperature and thus radiating back.

1. So the ASSUMPTION you have is that radiant energy hitting CO2 molecules only get absorbed and re-radiated at a different frequency?

Note 1.
Not all incoming solar (or any other IR) finds its way to a CO2 molecule. When the pressure is higher (i.e. on Venus) it is far more probable.
Note 2. Note that not all incoming IR that hits a CO2 molecule causes re-radiation.

CO2 is a linear molecule and thus has the formula (3N-5). It has 4 modes of vibration (3(3)-5). CO2 has 2 stretching modes, symmetric and asymmetric.
The CO2 symmetric stretch is not IR active because there is no change in dipole moment because the net dipole moments are in opposite directions and as a result, they cancel each other. In the asymmetric stretch, O atom moves away from the C atom and generates a net change in dipole moments and hence absorbs IR radiation at 2350 cm^-1.
The other IR absorption occurs at 666 cm^-1. CO2 symmetry with D∞h CO2 has a total of four of stretching and bending modes but only two are seen. Two of its bands are degenerate and one of the vibration modes is symmetric hence it does not cause a dipole moment change because the polar directions cancel each other.

In other words the CO2 molecule must already be in the correct state to absorb then re-radiate IR (all this taking place on a millionth of a second or less — including the re-radiation).

Note 3.
On this planet there is a very high abundance of water and its IR active region completely covers the very, very, very rare CO2’s IR active band. Therefore it is highly likely that incoming IR will interact with the water molecules (probably ONLY water molecules) as they are so abundant.

No doubt you have a model that proves this all wrong but that’s all you have in the AGW virtual world.

1. No doubt you have a model that proves this all wrong but that’s all you have in the AGW virtual world.

And what do skeptics have? Fantasy physics invented to be able to seemingly contradict everything (and itself).

All of you three notes seem to be some kind of desperate try to find some hair in the soup and suggest you haven’t read what the OP has written and don’t understand what it means.

1. And what do skeptics have?

We have our skepticism…And real science is about skepticism, and not the lazy complacency of sophistry wrapped theory, and bullying with consensus politicking.
Our skepticism about changing the way the whole world works based on the modeled nonsense of some very loud mouthed alarmist people. Wasting peoples’ time, money, and futures. Some of these alarmist allegedly have some scientific training. The probabilities are ludicrously ridiculous, the planet is not in danger and CO2 thus far has NOT performed as advertised (since Hansen’s first appearance by people like you.

It does reminds me so much of when we were all going to perish in the 1970 ice-age. That was nonsense then, this AGW is nonsense now.

2. What seb-t doesn’t have, is the remotest bit of PROOF to back up his baseless AGW scam/ religion.

His WHOLE existence is based around FANTASY and MAKE-BELIEVE, with zero real physics or science involved.

2. Again, ignoring all the other facets of the atmosphere.

Ignore the fact that the re-emit time in the lower atmosphere is several magnitudes slower than the collisional time.

Ingore the fact that the lower atmosphere is controlled by anything but radiation…ie convection and conduction, .

and most, IGNORE the fact that you cannot and have not produced one piece of empirical science that shows that increasing CO2 levels leads to atmospheric warming

32. To Kenneth Richards (and Andy) on ‘is Myhre’s work [just] a model’:

First Myhre is not defining climate sensitivity at all, which is a much broader concept. He’s only describing the first order impact of CO2 (and some other GHGs).

Secondly, when he talks of models, he’s describing different historical ways of applying HITRAN data (that’s actual measurements) to the real world problem of measuring CO2’s warming effect on Earth. The 3 models are really just different researcher’s choices of how many spectral lines to consider amoung the 400,000 in the HITRAN data base today for CO2.

Myhre uses line by line rather than “just the narrow or just the broad frequencies which the other 2 researchers limit themselves to.” It’s absurd to call this “just modeling.” It’s more “how much analysis is enough to get a useful result.” And it turns out that all 3 approaches are very close to one another.

Another matter to take into account is that Myhre considers that you have to not just take into account the CO2 impact for the tropics and leave it at that, so he nuances his work by melding 3 different tropospheric profiles (northern hemisphere, southern hemisphere and tropical) for reasons explained in his 1997 paper (which I didn’t look into).

So you are reading the wrong thing into Myhre’s talk about models. His basic approach is to apply HITRAN data to CO2 for a value of CO2 forcing and then express that conclusion in a simplified formula that’s easy to apply (and valid) for CO2 concentrations up to 1000 ppm). Indeed all 3 models are doing the same thing, but the other 2 are just “lazy man” models that consider less than the full complement of spectra (which don’t make much difference anyway).

I’ve spent way too much time correcting everyone’s understanding of the science of CO2 warming the planet. And it seems I’m wasting my time on those who are unwilling to learn and in one case unwilling to be civil Worse, I’ve gotten nothing in return on my original inquiry.

1. The daft one,

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, not mindless yapping , please.

You are totally ABSENT in that department.

Models are NOT evidence.

Learn some basic science.

You are surely wasting your time, and everyone else’s, until you do.

2. “I’ve spent way too much time correcting everyone’s understanding of the science of CO2 warming the planet”

And achieved NOTHING, because you have presented nothing, and your own understanding is WRONG in the first place.

You STILL are devoid of any measureable proof that raising CO2 level warms the convectively controlled atmosphere.

You go off on a tangent of god worship of a guy who ignores basically every aspect of the real atmosphere, doing everything you can to avoid the very crux of the issue.

You have not and cannot prove empirically that CO2 causes warming of a convective atmosphere. END OF STORY !!

You can only pretend that a theoretical calculation on radiation, leaving out basically every other aspect of the atmosphere, is any sort of proof. IT’S NOT.

33. To Kenneth: Mars is not Venus. Venus has a surface temperature of 864f.

34. Myhre is the world’s leading expert on CO2 radiant forcing. I was asked for a single paper and I provided Myhre who has maintained his position with minor enhancements for 2 decades.

According to the daft one. So what.

You have still not produced one tiny bit of measured EVIDENCE.

Empty. !! Devoid.

35. To everyone: Let’s confirm that we know what the meaning of climate sensitivity is:

Climate sensitivity is a metric used to characterise the response of the global climate system to a given forcing. It is broadly defined as the equilibrium global mean surface temperature change following a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration (see Box 10.2). [sorry: box 10 won’t copy]

1. ” Let’s confirm that we know what the meaning of climate sensitivity is:

Climate sensitivity is a metric used to characterise the response of the global climate system to a given forcing.”

Like solar forcing?

What is the sun’s effect on the climate?

2. “” Let’s confirm that we know what the meaning of climate sensitivity is:”

Let’s confirm that very successive paper from real scientists, takes that value closer and closer TO ZERO

Myhre’s work left out basically every facet of temperature forcing in the atmosphere.

Ignore the Ocean

Ignore Conduction

Ignore Convection

Ignore Clouds

Ignore Winds

Ignore H20

Ignore the Sun…

It is NONSENSE to consider it even close to reality.

36. Sebastian seems the only person posting here with any sense of the science. For my part, this is a waste of time. Good luck and good bye.

1. “Sebastian seems the only person posting here with any sense of the science.”

ROFLMAO.

He hasn’t produced any real science.

He is as devoid of it as you are. !!

I doubt you even know what “science” actually is.

One major part of science is EVIDENCE.

so far TOTALLY LACKING from your anti-science yapping.

Yes , you are wasting your time until you get rid of the AGW mind-blocks that stop you seeing the reality that there is no substance to the AGW scam religion.