The longstanding claim is CO2 (greenhouse gas) top-of-atmosphere (TOA) forcing drives climate change. But it is too cold at the TOA for CO2 (or any greenhouse gas) to exist.
Image Sources: Schneider et al., 2020, NASA, UCAR, CGA
TOA greenhouse gas forcing is a fundamental tenet of the CO2-drives-climate-change belief system. And yet the “global-mean longwave radiative forcing of CO2 at TOA” (Schneider et al., 2020) may not even exist.
It is easily recognized that water vapor (greenhouse gas) forcing cannot occur above a certain temperature threshold because water freezes out the farther away from the surface’s warmth H2O goes.
According to NASA, the TOA is recognized as approximately 100 km above the surface. The temperature near that atmospheric height is about -90°C.
CO2 is in its solid (dry ice) form at -78°C and below.
Therefore, TOA CO2 radiative forcing cannot exist if CO2 cannot be a greenhouse gas at the TOA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_(phase_transition)#/media/File:Comparison_carbon_dioxide_water_phase_diagrams.svg
As atmospheric pressure drops with altitude, the sublimation line get far cooler than -78ºC.. That -78ºC is at atmospheric pressure.
The Phase diagram in the link above shows that at 100Pa, the sublimation temperature is about -140ºC
[…] From NoTricksZone […]
Simply study the quantum mechanics of the CO2 molecule. It thermalizes 15 micron LWIR. That wavelengths are associated with -80C, Ice emits higher energy 12 micron LWIR. CO2 doesn’t warm anything, it stops temperatures from falling below -80C.
I agree but I have started to have doubts whether CO2’s radiant interaction has any effect (“warming” or cooling) at all on ambient atmospheric temperatures – and so, whether it keeps temperature from falling. When it radiates at a standard surface temperature as in Dr.Wittemann’s recent experiment or is observed where temperatures are 217K, and it is the major radiation interactive molecule, its 193.13K temperature is the same, while temperature seems to be related to altitude. It would be interesting to try and separate out the effects .
I believe that not even this is enough for the followers of the CO2 Church to reject their god!
I may be submitting past the comment deadline, but I downloaded the paper last night and skimmed the abstract and some of the contents. It appears to have nothing to do with CO2’s sublimation or radiantly interactive temperature points. It concerns “geo-engineering cloud to counteract radiant forcing. It was based on a succession of “simulations” based on earlier simulations, and the greatest simulation of them all (radiant warming itself) with little reference to operative fact — very typical of what we’ve learned to expect not only from alarmists but also certain well regarded “skeptics.” The paper was not only, in my view, hopelessly wrong and unfounded, but very behind the time. I am sorry that NASA scientists are still stuck in the consensus school of misdirection, but I gather that it pays well and must be hard to quit if the author has a family and house mortgage to support.
Then it must be bottom of the atmosphere forcing. Give me a $10m research grant and I’ll prove it.
Well, I am afraid CO2 still IS a GHG. However there seems to be finally some progress in the science. Interesting statement here by Wijngaarden..
“I think the consensus view, even when you talk about to people in the global warming community, is that a forcing for clear sky of CO2, which is about 3W/m2. When you take clouds into account that’s going to reduce it by about 30% to about 2W/m2. But that’s where there is a lot of uncertainty at the present time..”
Who in the world wide climate community could have come up with this figure? Oh, wait a moment, it is me 😉
https://greenhousedefect.com/the-holy-grail-of-ecs/the-2xco2-forcing-disaster
Plus without my knowledge I seem to have turned into “consensus”..
Forgot the link to the interview..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfwnKWIWPzk&t=3770s