Nope! That's bullshit!

Solar radiation output is nearly constant (that's why in physics one has the concept of the solar constant (which is monitored by satellites by the way located in the triple point close to the Sun), hence its impact on climate change is close to nill, because of the very small variations observed.

It is a different story if we include the Earth's atmosphere in the equation. A lot of molecules have an impact on the heating of the upper and lower atmosphere. Whereunder, CO2, CH4, H2O, dust and aerosols and quite some more. Humankind has added tons and tons of some of these molecules into the atmosphere (and still adds more,... and more).

This gives rise to climate change, with some nasty impacts on the bio-geology of Earth, drastic drops in biodiversity, changes in climate and sea level rise, not to speak about the meltdown of sea and land ice sheets, massive forest fires, intense hurricanes and rainfall leading to coastal flooding. We are just observing the start of climate change.

No time to waste no more.

Keep safe!

Frank

The amount of solar energy received by the Earth has followed the Sun’s natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs with no net increase since the 1950s. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past half-century. https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/189/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/

Thank you all so far. In fact, you helped stopping my hesitation about how much the sun plays a role in the climate change. However, I still have 22 more indicators to evaluate.

The Sun's primary radiation output centered in the visible does not vary much, as commented above. However, the UV output does vary more and this energy does influence molecular interactions in the high atmosphere (e.g. ozone production). It is widely thought, but not yet conclusively demonstrated, that the solar cycle influences cloud production and thus Earth's albedo. There is no question that variations in magnetic field strength across the solar cycle change cosmic ray energy deposition in Earth's atmosphere and thus atmospheric ionization effects. Ionized particles can act as nuclei for water aerosol formation, but demonstration that clouds density proportionally varies is still missing. Clouds vary greatly in type (not all increase albedo) and across time and space, so their net contribution is difficult to determine.

Hi Georges,

let me remind please of a simple fact: The net effect of a signal does not only depend on its absolute or relative strength, but likewise on the sensitivity of the receiver. I would recommend to look at the feedback cycles that a specific signal (resp. one among your indicators) activates or contributes to, and at the dynamical status of the receiver. In a state close to a critical transition, even a small perturbation might kick the target system into a different dynamical regime, with a changing role of feedbacks, etc., i.e. the response might be highly nonlinear. In a "laminar" dynamical phase of its evolution, far from any bifurcation, on the other hand, a small perturbation will cause a linear response, and not more than (part of) a small, maybe gradual, shift of the system's state. States in question, however, may range from equilibrium to chaotic dynamics at very different timescales - from, say, diurnal to paleoclimatic. Your timescale of interest is the present global warming , I guess. I mean, the Earth system is not in a "laminar" state at present, close to (quase-) equilibrium. An indirect hint is the existence of solar signatures in data of the atmospheric water cycle and beyond. Which does not prove that the present global warming is solar driven to any substantial degree. It is just a hint at a possible dynamical status of the climate system, where any small perturbation might leave its signature. Its feedbacks stabilize a dynamic regime, but may also contribute to rapid change. You have chosen a tricky task ... Good luck! (Seriously!)

Regards

Peter

Hi Peter

Great thanks for your input that I like most and that was in one sense waking me up. In your assumption and consideration, you mention the non-linear effects that could change a situation from a near-equilibrium to a chaotic dynamic. This means, I should use my indicators in a non-linear space, a signal or wave space. This should change our view to quantum entanglement between earth and sun. Entanglement could provoke fast non-cyclic changes from outer space to surrounding and far distant planets. By following the quantum related track, we should somewhere arrive to what you mentioned as signal or wave causing linear or highly non-linear to chaotic effects between two entangled objects. I suppose, only following this track will be very tricky and time consuming, but possibly highly rewarding for discovering an alternative approach.

Quantum entanglement applies to quantum-level individual or paired systems. Huge systems like the Earth are made of a vast number of individual quantum systems, mostly acting according to statistical laws, not quantum laws. This is where the laws of thermodynamics apply.

HI Donald.

I refer to the following article https://www.space.com/41569-ancient-quasars-evidence-quantum-entanglement.html

Hi Georges, Donald,

classical physics suffices to stake out the field that I have in mind. Recall Edward Lorenz' paper on the interaction of two different dynamic regimes (in summer and winter) to qualitatively explain the generation of interannual (to centennial and beyond) climate variability. I have run a small General Circulation Model (GCM) of the troposphere in an operational mode aimed at sounding the attractor sets in the back of its intriguing solutions in boreal summer and found a full (yet reverse) "route to chaos" in the model's planetary monsoon system, which has much in common with observation. That is: according to the model , the real climate system might pass a number of bifurcations during each seasonal cycle, so it traverses both more "laminar" phases and critical transitions, which together make up a high sensitivity of the present-day climate regime on Earth. The GCM has about 4.000 formal degrees of freedom (about a hundred times those of the Lorenz system(s)) but behaves low-dimensionally in part - and this has set the trace to a study of observed climate dynamics in order to verify the qualitative conclusion (of low-dimensional behavior) of the necessary existence of a substantial degree of internal synchronization - which may be found indeed (for related papers cf. my RG account). Physically purely classical, but dynamically advanced regimes suffice to qualitatively understand observed climate dynamics, including multidecadal variability (like the "hiatus" regime), solar signatures etc. As for climate change, I think that the quasi-equilibrium view on the system does not provide a proper perspective. The very existence of solar signals might point to "chaos control" as a more adequate one to understand the system's dynamics. Of course, this does not immediately help to answer important questions about climate change. But to come back to your title question, we are witnesses of a natural experiment, namely the combined impact of reduced insolation (we are in a Dalton-like minimum) and further rising greenhouse gas loads. We shall see ...

Yes. I thought that it was evident.

The sun contributes about 16% of warming as calculated from the SSN anomaly time-integral, ocean cycles about 19% and water vapor about 65% 1909 to 2019. CO2 doesn't contribute anything significant. http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com

Howdy Dan Pangburn,

And what about the very simple observation that if there is no solar irradiation field, there is no atmospheric heating! How can you state that the sun contributes for only 16% of the Earth's atmospheric heating, when it is clearly 100%.

No solar radiation no heating, it's as simple as that!

In the longwave thermal IR the earth emits a bit of heat, true, but that does not make plants grow and fix CO2 you know! Plants only photosynthesize in the PAR range (Photosynthetic Active Radiation), which is roughly equal to the wavelength range visible for the human eye. And true as well, without atmosphere, solar radiation causes enormous temperature differences between irradiated surfaces and shaded ones. A problem area for satellite builders to take good care of. I invite you to spend a day on the sunny side of Mercurius!

Your 16% won't survive that!

Cheers,

Frank

Satellite measurements of outgoing IR clearly show the significant effect of atmospheric CO2 in reducing the IR loss rate across ~13-17 microns. When the IR loss rate is slowed, and solar heating is maintained, the Earth must warm. That is how greenhouse warming works.

Essentially all original Earth heating derives from solar insolation. The degree that solar heat is retained (greenhouse gases), reflected (cloud and surface albedo), and/or stored for a period of time (deep ocean mixing) determine the global temperature.

Georges,

That quantum entanglement you refer to in distant quasars applies to specific quantum level entities (e.g. photons) or pairs of entities; further immense gravity in quasars distort the physics.

In our surrounding world quantum is known to apply only to specific quantum entities or pairs of quantum systems (e.g., entanglement). Systems made of a huge number of electron bonded molecules (like Earth) do not act in concert, but largely independently. Statistical parameters like thermodynamics apply to those.

Don

@Frank Veroustraete,

You obviously did not look at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com or you would not have made the stupid mistake of assuming that ‘warming’ was referring to the total output of the sun. It is obviously referring to 16% of the average global temperature change from 1909 to 2019.

Spend some time with the blog/analysis before you jump to bogus conclusions.

Howdy Dan,

First, stupid mistakes do not exist. Mistakes do exist. You made one by assuming that CO2 does not have a significant impact on the Earth's climate. Where I live we call someone making that type of mistake a climate change denier.

Have a look at the following sites

- https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/temperature-change

- https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/7_knutti.reto.3sed2.pdf

How about that man!

It's not that difficult to understand for an engineer, isn't it?

Cheers,

Frank

Frank

First of all, everybody is free and should be free in his believes and thinking. Please stop calling even indirectly "climate change denier". You should know that a "climate change denier" does not specifically deny that climate is changing, but maybe does not fully support all what the IPCC writes and claims. In all IPCC reports are more assumptions (most not justified) than real facts. IPCC is to some extend a sort of indicator, not a dogma. There is a big difference between a climate change denier, who doesn't accept climate changes will happen and a critical thinker who very well believes in climate change, but who is and should not accept all what a well paid IPCC report tells.

@Frank Veroustraete’

I would agree that dumb questions don’t exist. Stupid mistakes happen often… to everyone. Usually, it’s a bogus initial perception before having thought about it. Sometimes it is a false perception as a result of being relentlessly indoctrinated by people one has perceived to be knowledgeable who are actually wrong.

As to your first link, I investigated that more than 12 years ago and made my findings public in a paper still available on line at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html . It’s well known that correlation does not prove causation. A little more subtle is that there might be no clue in a correlation as to which is the cause and which is the effect. In this case, the clue is the logic that something cannot be caused by an event that follows it. CO2 change follows temperature change. This is a little more obvious in a graph of just the last glaciation using the Vostok data. That graph is in the Middlebury paper.

The presentation at your second link is just wrong.

For the record, I am not a climate change denier. A literal interpretation of that is ridiculous. Climate has always changed. What I have discovered is that CO2 has nothing significant to do with it.

Optimum attribution of the three factors listed in my 11/4 posting results in a 96.6% match with measured average global temperatures 1895 to 2019. About 2/3 of the temperature increase since 1909 is from water vapor increase. As shown in Section 7 of the analysis at https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.co WV has been increasing faster than possible from temperature increase.

Much of this is probably new to you. It is pointless to decide my work is wrong simply because it disagrees with what someone else has done. I invite rational challenge but please be very specific.

Howdy Georges,

Did I limit someone's freedom of speech or thinking? Tell me where I did this!

The essence of a scientific approach is to criticize theories and measurement methodologies! And of course come up with better ones.

I don't believe in Climate Change, but I have read and published about it, and I have - till now - not seen any substantial proof that the IPCC nor NOAA and many other scientists have made major mistakes or biased measurements.

And I do that in an old European tradition of 'free thought'. That is not the same as denying someone's approach to understand climate and its changes in time!

If anyone is indoctrinated here, I am damn not. I am a genuine European freethinker!

Secondly, I did not get any comment at all on the IPCC exercise and for sure not on the NOAA data! Shall I start giving proof about their solid theoretical and experimental background then? No question of belief, just freethinking like Descartes!

Cheers,

Frank

Hi Frank

We should all be freethinkers, as you mentioned. We should not criticize but using our freedom to express our opinion, as you and most of us just do it.

There are indeed some good "lateral thinking points" coming our of this question.

best wishes

Georges

Yes, I think so. And you probably meant a mathematical model, not a mathematical term.

Thanks Natalia. Yes, sorry I meant mathematical model.

The Milankovitch theory suggests that normal cyclical variations in three of the Earth’s orbital characteristics are probably responsible for some past climatic change. The basic idea behind this theory assumes that over time these three cyclic events result in the variation of the amount of solar radiation that is received on the surface of the planet Earth.

The first cyclical variation, known as eccentricity, controls the shape of the Earth's orbit around the Sun. The orbit gradually changes from being elliptical to being nearly circular and then back to elliptical in a period of about 100,000 years. The greater the eccentricity of the orbit (i.e., the more elliptical it is), the greater is the variation in solar energy received at the top of the atmosphere between the Earth's closest (perihelion) and farthest (aphelion) approach to the Sun. Currently, the Earth is experiencing a period of low eccentricity. The difference in the Earth's distance from the Sun between perihelion and aphelion (which is only about 3%) is responsible for approximately a 7% variation in the amount of solar energy received at the top of the atmosphere. When the difference in this distance is at its maximum (9%), the difference in solar energy received is about 20%.

The second cyclical variation results from the fact that, as the Earth rotates on its polar axis, it wobbles like a spinning top changing the orbital timing of the equinoxes and solstices. This effect is known as the precession of the equinox. The precession of the equinox has a cycle of approximately 26,000 years. According to illustration (A), the Earth is closer to the Sun in January (perihelion) and farther away in July (aphelion) at the present time. Because of precession, the reverse will be true in 13,000 years and the Earth will then be closer to the Sun in July (illustration B). This means, of course, that if everything else remains constant, 13,000 years from now seasonal variations in the Northern Hemisphere should be greater than at present (colder winters and warmer summers) because of the closer proximity of the Earth to the Sun.

The third cyclical variation is related to the changes in the tilt (obliquity) of the Earth's axis of rotation over a 41,000 years period. During the 41,000 year cycle, the tilt can deviate from approximately 22.5 to 24.5°. At the present time, the tilt of the Earth's axis is 23.5°. When the tilt is small there is less climatic variation between the summer and winter seasons in the middle and high latitudes. Winters tend to be milder and summers cooler. Warmer winters allow for more snow to fall in the high latitude regions. When the atmosphere is warmer it has a greater ability to hold water vapour and therefore more snow is produced at areas of frontal or orographic uplift. Cooler summers cause snow and ice to accumulate on the Earth's surface because less of this frozen water is melted. Thus, the net effect of a smaller tilt would be more extensive formation of glaciers in the polar latitudes.

It indicates no net increase in solar energy received by the Earth since the 1950s. And you know well, the same period, global temperature and CO2 has risen significantly. Therefore it implies Sun a cause for global temperature warming trend over the past half-century is “Unlikely”.

Thanks Bakshi for your interesting and credible graph.

However, if we can eliminate sun radiation as a cause for global warming, then my next question will be: Do we have evidence about cause and effect between global warming and CO2 increase? IN our highly complex earth climate model, it's just not scientifically acceptable that we rely all our assumptions and in a number of dogmatic views on one only indicator; CO2. I suppose I will have to ask a new question about the causality between CO2 and global warming.

Thank you, Georges Seil , for the appreciation!

I agree with you that current global climate model have some uncertainties associated with it. Notably even IPCC scientist at several platform acknowledged that and do mentioned about those uncertainties and the prediction (for example- - the snow-albedo feedback etc..). The former may be because more comprehension is required to understand the complex interaction and this indeed on the ongoing road of learning.

Nevertheless, based on scientific studies, the potential corollaries implies that due to greenhouse gases meddling with earth system the global average temperature has been warmed and please note there is no credible hypothesis for this other than the net effect of the carbon dioxide; CO2.

I hope it will interest you if I mention the role of green house activities in global warming is also been revealed using causality between CO2 and global warming.

Sharing below the reference of a paper which also talks over the role of human activities in global warming.

Stips, A. et al. (2016) unambiguously shows one-way causality between the total Greenhouse Gases and the annual global mean surface temperature anomalies. Specifically, it is confirmed that the former, especially CO2, are the main causal drivers of the recent warming.

Ref.: Stips, A. et al.On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature. Sci. Rep.6, 21691; doi: 10.1038/srep21691 (2016).

“I suppose I will have to ask a new question about the causality between CO2 and global warming.”

Good to learn that!

Total solar radiation output, as monitored by solar flare intensity, & direct measurements, has varied over the past several decades by only about 0.1%, as the above graph shows. This is too small to explain global warming over the past century. Over the past few centuries, solar flare counts show slightly greater variations, ~0.2%. This may have played some role in the Little Ice Age cooling. However, 0.2% of the average solar energy received by Earth (341 watts/sq-meter) is only ~0.7 w/m^2, which is insufficient to produce a significant temperature change.

However, there are other suggested solar-related mechanisms that might produce much large global temperature variations.

The largest and most likely of these is that known (and measured) cyclic variations in solar wind and magnetic field intensity modulates the flux of galactic cosmic rays in the inner solar system. Because such cosmic rays (mostly very high energy protons) create ionized particles in Earth's atmosphere, and because such ionized particles can serve to nucleate water drops (the CERN accelerator facility has done relevant experiments on this), cosmic ray variations may produce variations in density of high albedo clouds in the atmosphere and thus vary Earth's global albedo. The mechanism seems plausible, but direct evidence is lacking. Even the IPCC admits that cloud density is the largest uncertainty in their models.

Another possible solar variable that might produce significant changes in solar input energy to Earth is the UV to visible ratio, which is know to vary much more that overall solar irradiance. Because UV is strongly absorbed in the stratosphere (it both creates and destroys ozone), the ratio variation might change the way solar energy is distributed, with a consequential effect on temperature. This possible factor is even less well understood the the effect of cosmic rays.

The role of the Sun in causing past global temperature changes remains an enigma.

That is a totally meaningless graph. TSI is a forcing and temperature change is contributed to by the time-integral of forcing. The graph is like comparing the reading of a Watt meter with the reading of a Watt hour meter. Besides that physical/mathematical nonsense, two different scales are used and TSI is only one of possible forcings.

Three main contributors to long-term average global temperature (agt) change are: 1) Increase of water vapor (WV is a greenhouse gas). 2) The influence of variation of solar output. The effect of this on agt is quantified by a proxy which is the time-integral of sunspot number (SSN) anomalies. 3) The net of all ocean surface temperature (sea surface temperature, SST) cycles which, for at least a century and a half, has had a period of about 64 years. Optimum combination of these three factors closely matches measured agt for as long as it has been accurately measured worldwide. The match has been 96+% 1895 to 2020. The contributions of each to the calculated temperature change of about 0.97 K from the low in 1909 thru 2020 were determined to be: WV 69.3%, solar 14.3%, SST 16.4%. The algorithm that produced this outcome is provided in Section 17 of http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com

Warming from increased levels of human-produced greenhouse gases is actually many times stronger than any effects due to recent variations in solar activity. For more than 40 years, satellites have observed the Sun's energy output, which has gone up or down by less than 0.1 percent during that period.

Hi Ahmad. I'm partly joining you in your view about solar radiation. However there is a huge difference between radiation and " cyclic variations in solar wind and magnetic field intensity modulates the flux of galactic cosmic rays in the inner solar system. " (by Donald Bogard - in this forum).

The tiny fluctuation in TSI is not a significant driver. Average global temperature (AGT) of earth is quite sensitive to cloud changes. The influence of cloud changes on AGT is assessed at http://lowaltitudeclouds.blogspot.com . Solar effect is magnified by the influence on clouds. Solar influence is quantified by the time-integral of the sunspot number anomalies and accounts for about 14.3 % of the AGT change 1909-2020.

Thanks Dan. From scied.ucar.edu i read: "Energy from the Sun that makes its way to Earth can have trouble finding its way back out to space. The greenhouse effect causes some of this energy to be waylaid in the atmosphere, absorbed and released by greenhouse gases. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's temperature would be below freezing.". In this case, I might question: what if we first have a warming from sun activities, generating CO2, and the GHG blocking the thermal energy from dissipating from earth? In this case, the cause is external warming and effect is producing CO2. Please consider this just as a cold question that requires opposite facts as answers.

During the last 30 years, more than 7 WV molecules have been added to the atmosphere for each CO2 molecule and, in the atmosphere, each WV molecule is about 1.37 times more effective at absorbing IR than a CO2 molecule. The WV increase is nearly all (about 90%) from increasing irrigation. WV increase accounts for all of the temperature increase attributable to humanity (about 0.6 K 1909-2019). Carbon dioxide, in spite of being a ghg, has no significant net effect on climate. https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com

It is true that water has a somewhat larger IR absorption capacity then CO2 and is many times more abundant. However, those characteristics only measure IR absorption and not the major cause of greenhouse warming.

Greenhouse warming is caused by the IR emission rate to space from each greenhouse molecule. That emission rate decreases as temperature to the fourth power. CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere and emits to space from the high troposphere (mostly). Water condenses out at colder temperatures and does not mix into the higher atmosphere. Thus, water emits IR to space from lower, warmer atmosphere and at a higher rate per molecule than CO2.

Because it is the DECREASE in emission rate per molecule that produces warming, average atmospheric water produces only about 2.5 times the cooling as CO2.

No doubt, both water vapor and CO2 are accountable for global warming. Recalling, Water vapor is only concentrated lower in the atmosphere, but CO2 mixes up to around 50 kilometers. And we know that higher the presence of these greenhouse gas may increases the chances of trapping the heat (i.e., the IR) more mightily. Consequently, this also makes CO2 a robust contributor in the entire heat balance of the planet.

And, may I add that aforementioned presented disparity might be a reason which makes CO2 a potential driver of global warming when there is only 0.04% of it in the atmosphere, while makes water vapor which vary from 0 to 4% less potent relative to CO2.

The degree that CO2 produces warming is still uncertain.

A doubling of atmospheric CO2, by itself, would produce about 1.1 deg-C of warming. But there are many feedbacks -- both additional warming and cooling produced by that CO2-caused temperature rise. These create a large range, even by IPCC estimates, in what the actual warming might be.

Thus, whether future CO2 warming is consequential or only minor is really still unknown. And, it depends on future CO2 emissions, which also are impossible to predict.

This HITRAN produced graph allows calculation of the relative absorb/emit intensity of WV and CO2. This and the increases in water vapor and CO2 allow determination that WV is about 10 times more effective at zero altitude warming than CO2. The details of the calculation are in Section 3 of the analysis at https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com

Dan,

CO2 does most of its relevant IR absorption in the 665 cm^-1 band (which is quite wide), whereas H2O has many quantum lines across a very wide IR spectrum (your graph). The HITRAN data you show gives H2O absorption mainly over 100-300 cm^-1. But your shown comparison has little to do with warming produced by CO2 or H2O.

First, at common Earth surface temperatures of ~300K, Earth's surface emits IR over a broad spectrum centered about 600 cm^-1. CO2 absorption is close to this. The HITRAN H2O bands shown absorb where surface IR FLUX is much lower, and so are much less relevant to absorbing surface IR.

H2O mostly emits IR to space from altitudes where temperature is ~270K. Even here the peak in outgoing IR flux occurs at ~550 cm^-1, still far above the HITRAN absorption quantum levels you show.

H2O simple does not have strong IR absorption near the peak flux intensity of outgoing IR. That is why most all IR emitted over 750-1,000 cm^-1 escapes directly to space without absorption.

Second, your comments also ignore my post above, where I state it is the REDUCTION in outgoing IR flux that produces greenhouse warming, not just relative IR absorption probabilities. IR emission FLUX depends on temperature, CO2 emits to space from much higher and colder atmosphere than does H2O, and so the NET CO2 space emission is reduced more than reduction in H2O emission,. This enhances the CO2 greenhouse effect over that for H2O.

H2O has more potential quantum IR absorptions than CO2 (x10 may be right), but they absorb Earth emitted IR at wave numbers where the emitted flux is lower. And further, H2O emits to space from warmer atmosphere where outgoing flux is not reduced to the extent as for CO2.

You are pursuing the wrong physics here.

P.S.

HITRAN is an IR absorption data base, not a means to use that base to estimate greenhouse warming.

Try using a model program that uses HITRAN data and the factors I mention above, to estimate greenhouse warming effects for each molecular species. Try MODTRAN, from the University of Chicago.

Don,

If you had looked at my link you might realize that some of your comments are true, some are misleading, some are false, and some are simply not relevant.

The HITRAN graph accounts for the relative number of molecules. The comparatively few CO2 molecules (there are about 24 times as many WV molecules) is why the contribution from CO2 is barely discernable compared to water vapor (WV).

The purpose of the HITRAN graph is to show the relative importance of CO2 and WV. The fact that it is called a ‘data base’ is not relevant. The relative importance is determined by the dimensionless ratio. The math equation for doing it is given at the link. This allowed calculating that the measured increase in WV is about 10 times more effective at ground level warming than the CO2 increase. The math for this is also at the link.

Of course it’s the reduction in outgoing flux that produces greenhouse warming. What I have demonstrated is that the flux reduction is from WV increase, not CO2 increase. In the troposphere, much of the flux absorbed by CO2 is redirected to WV via thermalization and the WV, mostly above 5 km or so radiates it directly to space. This is discussed further in Section 10 of https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com . The attached graphic is Fig 10 from there.

Did you not look at the graph I posted 2 days ago? The alarmists make the bizarre claim that CO2 increase started the warming, feedback from the warming caused WV increase which causes more warming. WV increase results from the increase of saturation vapor pressure which is calculated by algorithm in Section 7. The calculations and graph show that WV increase is MORE THAN POSSIBLE from temperature increase of the liquid water. The excess WV increase is from increased irrigation. READ THE ANALYSIS AT THE LINK!

It appears that you have been falsely indoctrinated. Do your own research, like I did. Additional stuff is at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com As you can see, I have done a lot of stuff with MODTRAN from U Chicago and also MODTRAN6 from Spectral Sciences. If you find a mistake, I want to hear about it, but be specific.

Most satellite spectra (including yours above) indicate the atmospheric temperature CO2 & H2O release to space. In the graph above, ~600-1,000 cm^-1 are not absorbed and indicate the surface temperature is ~285K. H2O is emitting over ~1399-1500 and at

Don,

The ordinate on the graph is energy flux. For any elapsed time, it is energy which cannot be destroyed. Where do you think the energy from the ‘notch’ centered on CO2 went? How could that happen?

Are you aware that the population of WV molecules declines about 1200 to 1 from surface to tropopause?

Are you aware that WV has been increasing about 1.5% per decade for at least as long as it has been accurately measured worldwide? See e.g. graph 2 days ago.

You say “very modest H2O emission over this region is significantly re-absorbed by CO2 at higher altitude and then emitted to space by the CO2.” This implies that the energy must stay at the same wavenumber. It does not. Absorb/emit is pretty much a continuous process throughout the atmosphere. But when a molecule absorbs a photon, it does not emit one immediately. It bumps into and shares the absorbed energy with surrounding molecules. Emission depends on the temperature of the gas. CO2 is transparent to photons emitted by WV at wavenumbers less than about 600/cm. From the graph it is seen that all radiation emitted in the range 500-600/cm is from between the altitudes 2-6 km and that the outward directed radiation in this range makes it all the way to space.

The assertion that WV increase is from feedback is wrong. This is demonstrated in Sect 7 and shown in the graph 2 days ago.

Merely based on absorption, water vapor (accounts for about 50+% of the absorption) sounds more significant relative to CO2 (accounts for 20% of the absorption) in the climate warming.

BUT it terms an oversimplified thought in reality and this is because of the fact that account of water vapor depend on temperatures and atmospheric circulation, while CO2 does not.

Response to Dan's Comments Above, by Paragraph:

"energy which cannot be destroyed. Where do you think the energy from the ‘notch’ centered on CO2 went? How could that happen? "

That energy went to warming the Earth. Because CO2 at high altitudes is emitting less radiation to space, more of the energy it absorbs from IR is transferred to translation energy of the atmosphere. Absorbing an IR depends little on temperature; emitting an IR is very temperature dependent. That is how greenhouse warming works. It resembles donning an overcoat on a cold day. The coat slows energy loss and your body warms to compensate. Energy from our warming comes from within (from the Sun on Earth) and more of it is retained and less loss.

CO2 molecular density declines dramatically with altitude. Thus, a 15 micron IR photon has a path length of about one meter near the surface before being absorbed by another CO2 molecule. Its path length at a space emission altitude of say 15,000 feet is much longer. That does not change the fundamental process. At some altitude, an IR emitted upward by CO2 has a greater probability of escaping to space than of being absorbed by another, higher CO2 molecule.

The effect of both warming and feedback on water vapor is much more complex than that of CO2. Even the IPCC recognizes that. I don't have a strong position here.

The ~15 micron band for CO2 absorption is multi-faceted.

The main absorption (the fundamental vibration band from v2-zero to v2-one) has many associated rotational bands. This produces a few dozen narrow quantum energy levels (ignoring translation energy, which can modify) over the range of ~14micron to ~16u, with the fundamental 15u quantum absorption being the most intense. In addition, there are other quantum vibration energy levels having associated rotation energies as part of the broad 15u CO2 band. These permit CO2 to absorb and emit IR over the broad range of ~10u to ~20u, all part of the wide 15u band. However, the probability of IR photon interaction decreases dramatically as the energy moves away for the 15u peak. For example, at 12u the IR emission probability is down by six orders of magnitude compared to 15u.

This broad 15u band for CO2 is what produces the shape of the CO2 absorption over ~550-800u in the graph you show above.

If you examine in detail the IR spectrum emitted by Earth's solid surface, it is not continuous. Rather it consists of a large number of very close-space quantum emissions representing the very many vibration frequencies possible in a multi-elemental material with many interconnected chemical bonds.

“That energy went to warming the earth” Well, that’s true if you look at it from the standpoint of the difference between the area below the 15 K, 0.99 emissivity grey-body curve for earth’s surface and the area below the red line. There is no way for that energy from the ‘notch’ to get back to the surface.

Your assessment ignores thermalization and the relaxation time of molecules. This results in the energy absorbed by molecules at the ‘notch’ being redirected to WV molecules. The WV molecules, especially in the range 500-600/cm and altitude 2-6 km, emit outward directed radiation energy directly to space. A through explanation of this, including graphs generated by MODTRAN6 showing the development of the notches with altitude, is in Sections 4 & 5 at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com

Energy leaves Earth as IR photons across a wide spectrum. If any part of that escape flux is retarded (e.g. lower emission at cold high altitudes), then Earth's energy loss is less and it must warm. That warming is largely accomplished by downward directed IR to the surface. There are abundant data measuring such downward IR, and it is part of an energy loop. Published graphs of Earth's Energy Balance show this. As the surface gets warmer, its IR emission increases in flux. Some of that increase occurs at frequencies not absorbed in the atmosphere, e.g. ~700-1,000u, which lies near the maximum IR flux from Earth's surface. Thus, because greenhouse gases decrease Earth's energy loss at certain frequencies, they increases energy loss at other frequencies. This works for CO2, H2O, CH4, etc.

The time elapsing between a CO2 molecule acquiring sufficient energy to emit an IR photon and the actual emission of that photon is about 0.1 to 1 sec. The time required to transfer that extra energy to another atmospheric molecule via collisions is orders of magnitude shorter. But, a CO2 molecule also acquires extra energy via molecular collisions, and some of those enable a 15u IR photon to be emitted. So there is an equilibrium of energy exchange among four elements: CO2 both absorbs and emits IR, and CO2 both transfers kinetic energy to other molecules and receives kinetic energy from them.

Near the high altitude that CO2 emits to space, there are very few H2O molecules to absorb. Further, the probability of H2O absorbing a photon with an energy near 15u is far less than the probability CO2 will absorb the photon. Thus, 15u photons emitted by H2O at lower altitudes are much more likely to be absorbed by CO2 than for the other way around.

“Thus, 15u photons emitted by H2O at lower altitudes are much more likely to be absorbed by CO2 than for the other way around.” Think about it. Sure a 15µ photon is more likely to be absorbed by a CO2 molecule. But because of thermalization, the energy is far more likely to be emitted by WV molecules and at a wavenumbers at which CO2 is transparent. At the surface, there are about 24 times as many WV molecules as CO2 molecules.

WV is responsible for the GHE popularly quantified at 33 K and the added WV attributed to human activities (about 90% from increasing irrigation. Area now being irrigated is about 4 times the size of France) is responsible for an additional about 0.7 K.

Near 15 microns and a common temperature, the intensity of IR emitted by CO2 is about two orders of magnitude greater than IR emitted by H2O. The path length of those ~15u IR from H2O are rather long before being absorbed. This means that H2O IR emitted to space derives from much lower in the atmosphere than CO2 and at much higher flux.

Satellite data do not resolve the ~15u emissions between CO2 & H2O. However, H2O is the main IR emitter just below CO2, say at 500/cm (~20u). In your graph above, compare the IR emission intensity between CO2 at ~15u and H2O at ~20u. The IR flux from CO2 is much lower, meaning CO2 outgoing energy is slowed much more than outgoing H2O energy, at the respective wavelengths. This is true regardless how many more H2O molecules may be emitting IR compared to CO2. The spectra sums across all species molecules.

It is not the number of species molecules emitting that is important, but the NET decrease in their emitted energy. CO2 is way ahead in the energy range 20-13u.

“IR flux from CO2 is much lower, meaning CO2 outgoing energy is slowed much more than outgoing H2O energy, at the respective wavelengths.” Below about the altitude of the tropopause, energy absorbed around 15µ is, because of thermalization, redirected to WV molecules where most of it is eventually emitted directly to space. That is what happened to the energy missing from the ‘notch’. Above the tropopause, there are more CO2 molecules than WV molecules so, again because of thermalization, some energy gets redirected from WV molecules to CO2 molecules where it is eventually emitted to space. The evidence of this redirection is that the notch at 50 km is about 12% less deep than the notch at 20 km. The spike centered on 15µ results because there is no pressure broadening.

This is all demonstrated in MODTRAN6 plots at several altitudes for the Standard Atmosphere shown here. Similar plots for tropics are in Section 5 at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com

We began this discussion far above on the topic of relative importance of H2O and CO2 in causing warming. You claimed CO2 had a much smaller effect and implied it was nearly insignificant compared to H2O vapor.

Global warming is produced by those greenhouse gas molecules that are emitting much lower IR flux into space compared to IR that would be emitted if those gas molecules were not present. I think you agree with that. You like MODTRAN. Using the conditions you give above, set CO2 to zero and note how much outgoing IR flux rises. Then set H2O vapor to zero (and CO2 back to 400) and note how much outgoing IR flux rises.

It will show that H2O retards outgoing flux just less than a factor of three times more than does for CO2. The warming effect of H2O is just less than X3 that of CO2, in spite of the greater water abundance.

The main reason this occurs is that CO2 emits to space from the high, cold atmosphere, thus greatly decreasing outgoing IR across the 15 micron band. H2O vapor mostly emits from the lower and mid-troposphere, where the higher temperatures enable it to release its relevant IR to space at much less reduction in IR flux.

The only part of the IR spectrum there is overlap between CO2 & H2O is the 15u band across ~13-17 microns. CO2 IR absorption/emission probability here is minor, whereas for CO2 it is quite strong. CO2 totally dominates here. Any 15u IR emitted by high altitude CO2 downward and absorbed by H2O, then emitted upward by H2O would likely be absorbed again by CO2. In contrast, IR emitted by H2O at, e.g. 7 or 22 microns, where CO2 does not absorb, would reach space even when emitted low in the atmosphere.

Transference of absorbed IR photons into kinetic motion of other gas molecules (I assume what you call "thermalization") is only a method of storing energy in the atmosphere. It plays no DIRECT role in slowing space-emitted IR and thus warming.

Henrik Andersen has been following our debate. Perhaps he wishes to comment on this??