When will the regular discussion about the impact of certain factors on the climate finally begin, instead of uncritically giving too much importance to CO2? The Milutin Milankovic cycles explain the large-scale climatic evolution. Discussions on the correlation between water and climate are much less frequent compared to the CO2-climate correlation. However, serious studies show that water is an essential factor that drives climate (much more than CO2!), rather than just being affected by climate, as commonly thought. What is the opinion of the Research Gate society on these issues?
Dear Risto
Follow the article
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-017-1978-0
Dear Girija,
Thank you for your answer and for the article you point out to me. It is very interesting and useful in that it represents a very good effort to quantify the historical responsibility for global atmospheric CO2 emissions.
However, even in it, the view that CO2 is a key factor that has a decisive influence on climate conditions is taken as an established fact, and too little attention is paid to other factors or they are simply ignored. This is fully in line with the views of the UNFCCC and IPCC, according to which the key impact of CO2 on climate is considered as an axiom, not a hypothesis. However, that is an idea that does not fully correspond to physical reality. Most climate models simply ignore important factors, such as changes in solar activity, the specifics of the rotation of the planet Earth, changes in the Earth's magnetic field, the Earth's core, the vast body of water in the oceans and vapour in the atmosphere, and so on. Simply, most of the models are too simple to deal with such a complex issue as climate.
Dear Pavan,
Thank you for your reply and for the link to the site, which I find very interesting.
Dear Risto V. Filkoski,
I agree with you on this issue.
Basically, CO2 emission is just a proxy for air pollution, and the climate is affected by not only air pollution, but also distance from the sea, ocean currents, direction of prevailing winds, shape of the land (known as 'relief' or 'topography'), distance from the equator, and human impacts... The relationship b/w water and climate should be studied more, attracting more attention, especially in the context of climate change with serious & frequent floods and droughts.
Best,
Risto V. Filkoski
CO2 is the most important factor in climate change at the moment. We have increased it by 40% over the last 250 years. We know that during the Milankovitch cycles the increase in CO2 amplified the solar effect, and that the water vapour content of the atmosphere depends on the surface temperature of the oceans, which is affected by the blanketing effect of CO2.
As an engineer, you must be aware that the Industrial Revolution began when it was found that we can do work by burning fossil fuels, but this produces CO2. This has led to a global economy which can only survive if we burn increasing amounts of carbon each year. That is not sustainable. It is imperative that we determine what the effects of this increase in CO2 will have on droughts, wild fires, melting sea ice, sea level rise, and increased precipitation which results in floods. We are already seeing disasters from those effects. The question now is can we stop in time to prevent total disaster.
Much study has been given into the degree of warming produced by increasing CO2 (e.g., the IPCC reports), but much less study has occurred into natural factors that HAVE caused warming and cooling. Here are two unanswered questions about the role of natural factors in recent global temperature changes.
What caused the cooling into the Little Ice Age over ~1600-1700, which was the coldest period in this interglacial (called the Holocene)? What was the cause of warming out of the L.I.A., which began after year 1700. Atmospheric CO2 remained low and relatively constant throughout this 1-2 deg-C temperature dip.
What caused the ~0.5 deg-C global warming over ~1910-1941, when atmospheric CO2 increased by only ~12 ppm (300-312 ppm). This was a temperature increase of ~0.042C per 1ppm CO2.
Compare that to the temperature increase of ~0.6 deg-C over 1970-2000, when CO2 increased by ~45ppm (325-370 ppm), for an increase of ~0.013C/1-ppm CO2. Note the difference in ratios of a factor of 3-4.
Also, why was temperature constant (possibly even decreased slightly) over ~1940-1970, when CO2 increased by ~20 ppm? (Atmospheric CO2 did not begin to significantly rise until ~1950.)
Natural factors obviously played an important role in determining global temperature in the recent past. There is every reason to think such natural factors are still operating. Without a good understanding of the effects of these natural factors, how can estimates of the role of increasing CO2 be accurately determined?
Dear Donald (Donald Bogard),
Thank you very much for your extremely helpful contribution. Basically, that was the point of starting this discussion. There are many open questions regarding the influence of certain factors on the climate, and a particularly important question is which of the factors humanity influences with its behaviour.
Dear Alastair,
Thank you very much for your valuable contribution.
As an engineer in thermal and power engineering, I can say that I am very familiar with heat transfer, or better to say, energy transfer, including the transfer of energy by radiation. Therefore, I am fully aware of the influence of gases with odd molecules, such as CO2, H2O, CH4 and others, on the radiation energy transfer intensity. However, this is one of the reasons for the scepticism regarding the claim that you treat as an axiom - that CO2 is by far the biggest culprit for a specific rise in the average temperature of the atmosphere in recent decades.
It is a fact that there is a 40% increase of CO2 content in the atmosphere in a relatively short period. However, only 0.04% of the air by volume is CO2. That means it is an increase from 0.03% to 0.04% by volume. Moreover, it is arguable how much of such growth is due to the impact of human activities.
By the way, we have to bear in mind that:
- The mass of air (including water vapour) in the atmosphere is about 260 times smaller than the mass of water in the oceans (additional quantities are located in the soil or stored in the ground and glaciers).
- The capacity of H2O for heat accumulation is considerably larger than the capacity of air to store heat. For example, using the data for the last four decades, calculation says that the stored heat in the oceans is about 94% of the total, and the remaining 6% is distributed to land, atmosphere and ice.
Finally, as an engineer in thermal and power engineering, I am well aware that since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, somewhere in England 2.5 centuries ago, fossil fuels have been used extensively in parts of the world. This is what makes Western countries (UK, USA, Germany, France and some others) by far the most accountable for the cumulative increase in GHG concentration in the atmosphere. Therefore, it is by no means acceptable to impose an exact price per ton of CO2 on developing countries (If it is fair to impose such a thing, at all!), which have a much smaller historical share in the GHG emission (as for the mentioned developed countries - huge emitters).
@ Risto
Here are some factors that produce global temperature change:
ALBEDO. Condensed atmospheric water (clouds) are very difficult to estimate globally, because they vary rapidly over space and time and some have greater albedo than others. (Albedo is the reflectance of incoming solar radiation such that Earth gains no energy from it. Overall Earth's albedo is about 30% reflected.)
Another important albedo factor is aerosols, including those emitted by volcanoes, plants, and humans. These also are not easy to quantify over time and space.
Another factor is surface albedo. Surface ice and snow are recognized, but also important are the nature of plant cover (forests have only half the albedo of human crops) and the nature of bare surfaces free of plants (dry sand has greater albedo compared to wet sand and dry soil, and these have greater albedo compared to wet soil). Humans have altered surface albedo over centuries and continue to do so.
SOLAR VARIATIONS. Variation in solar insolation over the ~11-yr sunspot cycles produce relatively small changes. However, ongoing work suggests that more important are variations in cosmic ray protons entering Earth's atmosphere because of the solar cycle. These protons are know to ionize atmospheric particles, which in turn attract water vapor molecules to produce tiny water drops. Variations in such water drops (clouds) can change Earth's albedo.
Evidence of past solar cycles (acquired via sunspot cycles and nuclear reaction products) show such variation; e.g., the solar cycle was quite low during the L.I.A. cold period.
Solar output also varies in the proportion of UV radiation. UV is responsible for both production and destruction of very high elevation ozone, which affects the atmospheric temperature gradient and thus may change outgoing IR emission rates.
OCEAN MIXING. As you commented, the ocean contains most of Earth's retained solar energy. Ocean temperature varies greatly from surface to great depths, and the vertical mixing at depth occurs over centuries. We know via ENSO events (el Nino & la Nina) that such vertical mixing varies over short times (few years) and influences climate, but how much do they vary over centuries? Surface climate is influenced not only by the rate solar energy is acquired and radiated away, but also by how much over a given time some of it is stored in the deep ocean, or released from the deep ocean.
Climate is Complex and nobody fully understands it.
Many of the politicians in the free world are committing their countries to self-harm by banning fossil fuels. They have been deceived by the IPCC and multiple faulty Global Climate Models (GCMs). The GCMs have erroneously determined that carbon dioxide (CO2) is contributing to Global Warming/Climate Change. CO2 has no significant effect on climate; never has; never will.
The GCMs are fundamentally wrong. One mistake is revealed by Dr. Christy’s graph showing GCM calculated temperature increase rates averaging about twice measured. Another mistake is the way they handle water vapor (WV) which is a so-called greenhouse gas. WV is a transparent gas, what you can see as clouds, etc. is tiny droplets of water or ice particles. WV is calculated within the GCMs with the result being that calculated relative humidity (RH) is approximately constant as the temperature increases (some models simply assume constant RH as the temperature increases). The GCMs should use measured WV.
WV has been accurately measured globally using satellite instrumentation and reported as Total Precipitable Water (TPW) since Jan 1988. The measured WV increase has been about 1.49% per decade. The measured WV trend has been about 43% more than is possible from temperature increase alone and is more than the trend calculated by the GCMs. This is shown graphically at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ntl57AEsPYfTppC0DUziRBnq0NV42g5B/view?usp=sharing which also has links to supporting data and analyses.
Since both have been accurately measured worldwide, more than 7 WV molecules have been added for each added CO2 molecule.
WV is a greenhouse gas (ghg). The part of the WV increase that is not accounted for in the GCMs is approximately the amount above that which would result from just temperature increase. This ‘extra’ WV is enough to account for all of the average global temperature increase attributed to humanity. The ‘extra’ WV comes mostly (about 90%) from increasing irrigation.
Another mistake in the GCMs is failure to account for the delay between the time a ghg molecule absorbs a photon and when it emits one. This delay is called relaxation time. It allows radiation energy absorbed by CO2 molecules in the troposphere (the troposphere is below about 8-16 km, depending mostly on latitude; higher at equator) to be ‘redirected’ by thermal conduction in the gas, to WV molecules which emit it at a longer wavelength. Much of the outward directed radiation from WV molecules in the troposphere makes it all the way to space. Details are in the links at the above graph.
Regardless of the WV increase that might result from any and all feedbacks, human activity has added more. Failure to account for actual measured WV is a mistake. Thermalization (absorption of IR energy and sharing it with surrounding molecules) and the huge gradient in WV of about 1200 to 1 on average, ground level to tropopause, are what allow much of the energy absorbed by CO2 in the troposphere to be redirected to WV molecules and radiated directly to space.
@ M.M.R.
Most of the factors influencing global climate given in this Nature paper and in others are about weather and regional climate rather than true global climate. A change in climate is defined as occurring over 30 years and a change in global climate would be defined as a change in Earth's average climate and average energy balance over this time.
Most changes mentioned here are regional and move the climate patterns around spatially without changing Earth's total energy balance. Milankovitch orbital changes are an exception because they initiate long-term, global climate changes that are sustained through changes in Earth's global albedo.
The three areas I name above -- Earth's albedo, solar insolation, and deep ocean mixing -- do change Earth's global climate and energy balance for times longer than 30 years.
@ D.P.
Water vapor is recognized as a strong greenhouse gas. However, satellites measuring that IR escaping to space demonstrate that part of that IR derives from BOTH water vapor and CO2. Both gases are contributing to global warming.
The greenhouse warming effect mainly derives from the fact that IR is emitted from greenhouse gases in inverse proportion to their temperature. Warming increases in proportion to the amount escaping IR is retarded because of lower emission.
Thus, IR emission that occurs in the higher, colder atmosphere has lower flux and reduces the rate of IR loss to space at those frequencies. High altitudes is where CO2 emits IR to space. Because H2O is a condensable gas, it mainly emits to space in the warmer, lower troposphere. Thus H2O IR emission is higher. and it produces less warming per molecule.
When a greenhouse gas absorbs an IR, that extra internal energy typically is transferred through molecular collisions to other gas molecules (N2, O2, Ar) on time scale of less than a millisecond, (A molecule can also gain internal energy visa such collisions.) This is a major process for heating of the atmosphere. The time required for gained internal energy to cause another IR to be emitted is longer, perhaps a fraction of a second. It is the lowering of emitted IR flux to space because of colder emitted conditions (compared to surface IR emission) that produces most greenhouse warming.
@D.B.
Your assertion “Both gases are contributing to global warming.” is misleading. The contribution from CO2 is tiny compared to WV. CO2 accounts for only about 10% of the warming at ground level and more CO2 in the stratosphere increases cooling. The net contribution from more CO2 might even be negative. This is derived in part 8 of Section 2 of http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
You say: “…IR is emitted from greenhouse gases in inverse proportion to their temperature.” This sounds like you are saying that the warmer a ghg is the less it radiates.
It is unclear what you mean by “…reduces the rate of IR loss to space at those frequencies.” If you mean that the IR flux is a bit reduced temporarily causing planet temperature to increase then of course; because of the first law of thermodynamics.
I don’t see how this follows: “Thus H2O IR emission is higher. and it produces less warming per molecule.”
Average time between molecule collisions is a fraction of a NANOSECOND and measured relaxation time is about 5 MICROSECONDS. Apparently you didn’t spend much time with http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com. Section 4 has links to the sources for the data.
I agree with “It is the lowering of emitted IR flux to space because of colder emitted conditions (compared to surface IR emission) that produces most greenhouse warming.” But perhaps we disagree with why the effective emitting surface gets colder. The way I see it, a molecule is warmer during its relaxation time i.e. the average time between when a ghg molecule absorbs a photon and when it emits one. Add more ghg molecules and you add more cumulative relaxation time giving the ghg molecules that can radiate to space more time to radiate so they get colder.
@ D.P. & Others
Neither H2O nor CO2 produce much cooling at ground level. Cooling results at that altitude where IR photons released from a greenhouse gas escape to space. For H2O, which condenses, that typically is in lower to mid-troposphere. For CO2, which does not condense, that occurs typically from high troposphere, even low stratosphere. For this reason H2O produces less warming per molecule than CO2. Overall, warming from H2O averages two to three times that from CO2, although water vapor is much more abundant than CO2. Examine any of the many published satellite spectra of outgoing IR.
When temperature goes down, the RATE of IR emission goes down, and greenhouse warming goes up -- Stefan-Boltzman relation.
The typical time for collisional transference of energy between atmospheric molecules obviously depends on their temperature and is much faster near ground level than at high altitude, where energy transfer from CO2 to other molecules is reduced by orders of magnitude compared to the surface.
Elapsed time between IR emissions from the CO2 molecule depends on the particular quantum IR frequency being emitted. The so-called 15 micron CO2 BAND is made up on a great number of individual quantum emission "lines" ranging over ~13-17 microns and each representing a different bond energy transfer for the CO2 molecule. IR intensity over this range varies by orders of magnitude, ~10^-23 to ~10^-19 cm^-1 mol^-1 cm^2. As atmospheric CO2 increases, an increasing flux of IR photons occurs from the "wings of the 15 micron band, where IR probability is less and "relaxation" time is longer.
Thus, the "relaxation" time between a CO2 acquiring sufficient energy to emit a photon depends on which photon frequency is emitted and is not a precise number. If we consider an average value, the literature suggests a delay time around one second. Prof. William Happer also suggests about one sec.
I don't understand your explanation of "why the effective emitting surface gets colder". High latitudes, where IR emission occurs, cool because that is where energy is lost from Earth. But less energy is lost compared to energy in the same wavelengths being emitted from the surface. (Warmer surfaces emit more ~15 micron IR than colder CO2 molecules at high altitude.) That drives the surface to further warm via downward directed IR, thereby increasing the upward ~15u IR flux, thereby increasing ~15u IR absorption by CO2, thereby via molecular collisions also increasing atmospheric temperature, thereby increasing the flus of ~15u IR escaping to space. A new, warmer, equilibrium temperature results.
@ D.P.
I looked at your site on climate change drivers. I have some criticism with specific points made in section #2 – “CO2 does not control climate”.
#s 1, 2, & 3. CO2 is not the only factor affecting climate on a geological time scale. The influential factors in a particular period are not always apparent and may be several. During the ice age, Milankovitch orbital cycles were dominant, but that does not preclude changing atmospheric CO2 from changing ocean CO2 levels from playing a secondary role.
Other factors at work over long time scales are continent positions, ocean mixing, mountain height and related weathering, nature of life forms (especially extent of continental shelves where carbonate precipitation strongly occurs), volcanic activity, time ~300 Myr ago when development of cellulose and lignin plant cells occurred (which no micro-organism could break down for some millions of years, so CO2 accumulated in coal deposits), etc. etc. etc. CO2 increases over the past 1-2 centuries has been much too fast to be explained by the above.
#4. This graph commonly shown by Christy demonstrates that models overpredict the warming atmospheric influence of CO2. Observed data still show warming.
#5. Correlation between CO2 and global temperature over past century-plus is ragged because CO2 is not the only influencing factor. Changes in albedo, ocean circulation, solar output likely are other influencing factors. That does NOT mean warming influence from CO2 is absent, only that CO2 does not act alone.
#s 7, 8, 9. Greenhouse warming does not occur based on what IR absorption and emission occurs at ground level. As I commented, warming occurs due to reduced IR escape to space from the cold environment existing at high altitudes. There, the IR emission from CO2 is retarded much more than IR from H2O.
#10. Increases in global temperature and atmospheric CO2 over past century-plus do demonstrate that CO2 is not the only warming factor.
From 1910 until 1941, global temperature increased by ~0.5oC, for a rate of increase of 0.17oC per decade. Over this same time, atmospheric CO2 increased by ~12ppm (300-312 ppm). The temperature increase per unit increase in CO2 was ~0.042oC/1ppm CO2. From 1940 until 1970, temperature decreased slightly (~0.1oC) while CO2 increased by ~20ppm. From 1970 until 2000, temperature increased by ~0.6oC, or ~0.2oC/decade. During this 30-yr period, CO2 increased by ~45ppm (325-370 ppm), and the rate of temperature increase per unit of CO2 was ~0.013oC/1ppm CO2 If increasing CO2 caused the more recent warming, natural factors must have been dominant over 1910-1970. It is reasonable to think they still play a role in global temperature changes.
NO, I do not read your site. It does a poor job of covering the real science.
DB, This is response to your ‘7 hours ago’ post
You say: “Neither H2O nor CO2 produce much cooling at ground level.” Is this a typo? Both produce warming at ground level. WV increase produces about 10 times more warming at ground level than CO2 increase. (part 8 of Section 2)
Much as you say, the explanation of WV cooling (significant outward directed WV radiation making it all the way to space) occurring substantially in the altitude range 2-6 km is described in interpretation of Fig 10 in https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com. Paleo assessments refute that CO2 has (or ever had or will have) a significant NET contribution to average global temperature. The planet plunged into and warmed up from the Andean/Saharan Ice Age while the CO2 level was at least several times the present. Apparently, cooling from more CO2 in the stratosphere essentially compensates for the slight warming from CO2 increase at ground level.
Relaxation time and temperature dependency is discussed in Section 4 of http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.comI used the 5 µs value as adequate demonstration that thermalization takes place. Longer relaxation time would only reinforce that conclusion.
I can’t tell what/where is ‘explanation of “why the effective…” that you are referring to. In simple terms: Solar output is essentially constant, the planet is warming. The only way the first law of thermodynamics works is if the effective emitting surface gets colder.
DB, This is response to your ‘3 hr ago’ post (now 6 hr ago).
I am well aware of the other factors at work over long time scales. 1, 2 & 3 are listed as contributing evidence of the lack of influence of CO2 on climate. The algorithm presented in Section 17 only addresses factors having a significant change since 1700.
#4 Everyone paying attention AFAIK agrees that there has been some warming. I have tracked many reporting agencies over the years and they all agree (close enough) although there have been some less credible ‘adjustments’ the last few years. I have even seen (but not challenged) some claims that Christy chart of GCMs was too high. End result: GCMs are too much higher than measured to be credible.
#5 Optimum attribution of the three factors that were explicitly considered results in a 96.6% match with measured average global temperatures 1895 to 2019. CO2 is not one of the factors. Realize that all factors not explicitly considered must fit into the unexplained 3.4% and/or by occupying a fraction of the effect otherwise accounted for by the factors explicitly considered.
#7,8,9 These parts only address the RELATIVE contributions to the greenhouse effect of WV vs CO2. The conclusion being that CO2 has no significant contribution. Much of this comes from an examination of Fig 1.5 with perhaps some insight from Fig 1 and accompanying discussion.
Planet warming results from increase in the ghg WV. More WV molecules means more cumulative relaxation time. Much of the radiation energy captured by CO2 molecules is redirected to WV molecules via gaseous conduction. The progression with altitude shown in Fig 0.5 & 0.6 demonstrate this. The steep gradient in WV molecules results in much of the outward directed radiation from them, starting at about 2 km and increasing at higher altitudes, making it all the way to space.
#10 See #5
Reality is what actually happens. What you call ‘real science’ is your interpretation. I have plenty of engineering/science skill and can’t find anything wrong with my interpretation. If you don’t take the blinders off and look, you won’t find anything wrong with my interpretation either. Bottom line: All this fuss about CO2 will waste a bunch of resources and have no significant effect on climate. We’ll see what happens.
@ D.P.
I think you and I are discussing somewhat different greenhouse warming elements – you how surface warming occurs and me how global warming occurs. I will try to give a general summary to see if we agree.
IR is emitted from Earth’s surface across a wide frequency spectrum with an emission rate proportional to temperature (T^4). Greenhouse gases absorb only certain frequencies of this IR (CO2 primarily in a 15 micron band, which extends with varying cross-sections over a several micron range). Most of the absorbed IR energy is transferred via kinetic collisions (on a very rapid time scale) to other atmospheric molecules, and a greenhouse molecule can also receive kinetic energy. (Pressure broadening you mention enables a molecular bond to absorb IR over a wider energy range than otherwise, because some of the kinetic energy can be combined with the absorbed IR energy to satisfy quantum requirements.) This is primarily how the atmosphere is heated.
Less frequently, an excited greenhouse gas molecule can emit an IR photon of about the same energy as one it absorbed. These IR photons are emitted in all spatial directions, and a fraction return to the surface and are absorbed, thus producing some additional surface heating. (Clouds enhance this effect.) The warmer surface subsequently can emit more IR. Such IR interactions explain greenhouse warming of the atmosphere and extra warming of the surface.
In the classical graphic showing Global Energy Flow into, around, and away from the Earth (e.g. graphic frequently updated by Trenberth and colleagues) the IR energy flow described above (enhanced with latent energy from water evaporation) is part of a large energy loop (over 300 watts/m^2) responsible for actually producing greenhouse heating of Earth’s surface. This loop represents energy moving between surface and atmosphere, but it does not produce direct greenhouse warming of the whole global Earth. Rather it produces greater or lesser REGIONAL warming, depending on the magnitude of this IR energy flow.
Most global greenhouse warming relies on the ratio of incoming solar energy and outgoing IR energy. When incoming energy exceeds energy outgoing to space, then global warming occurs.
The primary manner that Global Energy Flow produces GLOBAL greenhouse warming is that IR emission from greenhouse gases to space occurs from higher in the atmosphere, not the surface. Because the higher atmosphere is colder than the surface, the IR emission rate across greenhouse gas frequencies is decreased (by the Stefan-Boltzman relation) and less energy is transferred to space within those frequencies in comparison to the hypothetical case of no greenhouse gases to intercept the surface IR emission. As a consequence, the surface warms (via above mechanism) and a part of the IR energy not transferred to space at greenhouse frequencies is surface emitted at IR frequencies not absorbed, thus increasing overall energy loss.
Because of the spatial and time variation in IR energy flow between surface and atmosphere (the global energy flow Loop described above), it is difficult to use such data to determine the amount of additional greenhouse warming produced by a defined increase in greenhouse gas concentration or the ratio of additional warming produced by water vapor versus CO2. A much more precise way to determine these parameters is from satellite data. (Monitoring of IR escaping Earth is much more extensive than monitoring of IR flux back to the surface.) Satellite data of IR flowing to space as a function of frequency accurately measures that energy reduction in outgoing IR (compared to the Planck curve for no atmospheric IR absorption) for IR frequencies emitted by greenhouse gases at higher, colder altitudes (e.g., the 15u band of CO2). From such IR energy reduction (which is slightly more than 3 w/m^2 for a doubling of CO2), the amount of additional greenhouse warming can be estimated (~1 deg-C for doubling CO2). Similarly, additional global warming produced by H2O is about two to three times that produced by CO2. The reason the H2O/CO2 warming ratio is much lower than the atmospheric H2O/CO2 abundance ratio is that H2O emits IR to space from lower, warmer parts of the atmosphere where its IR loss to space is reduced compared to that for CO2. A higher space emission of IR for water results in a lesser greenhouse warming effect.
The MODTRAN type model calculations for the amount of IR energy flowing to space essentially calculate from IR quantum data the same parameters as those measured by satellite.
That IR involved in the global energy loop returning energy to the surface mostly was emitted from H2O and CO2 molecules at similar altitudes in the lower, warmer atmosphere. (IR directed downward from greater altitudes is likely absorbed before it reaches the surface, then emitted again.) Thus, the contributions to surface warming from H2O and CO2 ought to be similar to the H2O/CO2 abundance ratio, and the contribution of H2O to surface warming would be much greater than that from CO2. Clouds would enhance the difference even more.
DB,
Par 1: My assessment is that CO2 has no significant effect on climate and the observed warming is from measured increasing WV. IMO when people are talking about Global Warming they are talking about the temperature at the surface. I will comment on each paragraph of your post.
Par 2: OK except latent heat from WV heats the atm about twice as much as radiation. See my version of the K&T type chart Fig 1 at http://consensusmistakes.blogspot.com
Par 3: WV molecules can emit at any of over a substantial range of wavenumbers (See Fig 0.25 at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.comThey emit probabilistically as a result of the gas temperature and Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. I am more comfortable perceiving that the ‘back radiation’ cancels like radiation from the surface. End result is the same; the surface is warmer than it would be if there was no back radiation.
Par 4: The 341 W/m2insolation is average for the whole planet.
Par 5: Yup.
Par 6: Certainly the effective emitting surface of ghg is colder but the altitude of the emitting surface didn’t get significantly higher it just got colder. It got colder because there was more cumulative delay (from more WV molecules and therefore more molecule relaxation times) in the energy flow from the surface. The rest is OK except maybe for the last sentence. Increasing from what? The overall outgoing energy has to be less than the incoming for a warming planet.
Par 7: I avoid this area by treating the whole thing as ‘emergent structures analysis’ i.e. look at how the whole system behaves. I guessed at the three important factors and their relation. The results match average global temperatures 1895-2020 96.5%. CO2 was not one of the factors. Pretty good guess.
Par 8: OK, A pretty good example is at http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/modtran.doc.html
Par 9: An assessment of the relative effectiveness of CO2 and WV is done in part 8 of sect 2 in http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.comResults are that since Jan 1988 WV increase has been about 10 times more effective at ground level warming than CO2 increase. The ratio of molecule increase is 441/59 = 7.47 but the WV molecules are about 37% more effective because their absorption lines are spread out with the net result 10.2. With that, we agree.
@ D.P. and Others
All of the energy transfers you mention here are secondary effects and not the basic cause for GLOBAL warming. These secondary energy transfers (mainly IR but also includes latent heat and kinetic energy) are enhanced due to global warming and comprise the energy loop I described earlier.
.
Global warming occurs for One basic reason – energy arriving at Earth exceeds energy leaving.
IR escaping from the surface, if it moved uninterrupted to space, would give a balance between incoming and outgoing energy. However, greenhouse gases intercept that energy (CO2 over ~13-17 microns, near the peak of IR emission intensity) and emit it to space at considerably lower flux, because that final emission occurs at high, cold altitudes. Because greenhouse gases decrease outgoing IR energy, the globe must warm to compensate and restore a energy equilibrium.
IR absorption nearer the surface causes additional warming of the lower atmosphere. That atmosphere warming drives the energy loop between atmosphere and surface I described earlier. In response the surface receives IR from the atmosphere in addition to receiving solar long-wave radiation, and these combined produce a warming surface. Absorption of outgoing IR by greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere, creating the energy loop and a mechanism to increase global temperature.
However, the primary cause of this global warming is the fact that greenhouse gases (primarily H2O and CO2) decreased the flux of escaping IR across a broad frequency. The global Earth compensates by increasing its surface temperature, thus increasing its IR emission across a wide frequency. Those increased IR photons at wavelengths not absorbed by greenhouse gases carry more global energy into space than before, and the balance between incoming energy and outgoing energy is restored.
Satellites measure the IR flux decrease at frequencies involved in this described process. From such spectra the decrease in energy lost to space is accurately measured for various greenhouse gases, especially CO2. There is No question that atmospheric CO2 is a major contributor to the reduction in outgoing IR energy across a wide frequency, and therefore No question that CO2 is a significant contributor to global warming.
Further, IR measuring satellites contribute weather information. For example measuring the IR flux upcoming from water at a certain frequency gives information about the temperature of that IR emitting water and thus information about it altitude. Cloud heights are measured this way.
Your detailed concern with near-surface H2O examines the energy loop I described earlier. Within that loop, H2O is the major contributor to Surface warming, but that can be evaluated only locally or regionally (because of the high spatial and time variation in H2O distribution) and cannot be accurately evaluated globally. It is Not a direct cause of global warming.
The temperature anomaly vs time plot shown above is simply a plot of the algorithm presented in Sect 17 of http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com using reported data of SSN and WV and an approximation of ocean cycles with observed 64 y period.
The algorithm was a guess (theory?) until it was executed and found to produce an excellent (96+%) match to measured values for 125 years. CO2 was not a factor. Now it is an observation which remains valid until proven wrong.
The ~60-year temperature cycle you show has been pointed out by others, including a few published papers. Some attribute it to the AMO driving changes in surface energy through deep ocean mixing -- a slower analog to ENSO cycles of a few years.
Temperature increases over 1910-1940 were almost as large as warming over 1970-2000, and temperature was constant or decreasing over 1940-1970. In contrast, atmospheric CO2 increased slowly until ~1950, when added CO2 increased rapidly. These variations in CO2 are not consistent with the temperature changes. CO2 could NOT have been the only factor influencing temperature, and one or more natural factors must have been active. That implies they are still active.
Just because CO2 explains part of the estimated 33 deg-C total greenhouse warming does not mean it is the sole cause of recent warming. Some have estimated CO2 contributes about half of recent warming.
DB,
My analysis results in 69.3% of warming due to human activity (compared to other’s ‘about half’) but it’s from increasing WV, not increasing CO2. I rule out CO2 based mostly on paleo data.
I have been tracking AMO for years and it fits the 64 yr period pretty well over the period of study but I don’t expect that to continue forever. Current peak-to-peak approximation for the net of all ocean cycles is 0.308 K. The above graph shows the AMO data along with an approximation for the net of all ocean cycles with peak-to-peak of 0.359.
Some information about this question may be found at
Preprint Formation of CO and CO2 molecules under the tree roof and th...
I think this paper could help you;
The Relationship between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration and Global Temperature for the Last 425 Million Years, William Jackson Davis, September 2017.
That's available on the ResearchGate Server for download.
This earlier and demonstrably simpler paper comes to the same conclusion as WJ Davis’ paper. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283116859_Influence_of_Carbon_Dioxide_on_Average_Global_Temperature_During_the_Phanerozoic_Eon
Entertaining and informative talk on climate change by Dr. Willie Soon: https://rumble.com/vkc4vf-failed-climate-predictions-fake-science-for-50-yrs-with-professor-willie-so.html
Willie Soon omitted the spectacular prediction failure by Dan Pangburn in his overview. The predicted cooling starting just after year 2000 remains to be observed anywhere.
"When will the regular discussion about the impact of certain factors on the climate finally begin, instead of uncritically giving too much importance to CO2?"
Say, when will it? 'Tis a Gordian knot indeed. Here's an analogy between (1) human intelligence quotient studies ("IQ") deterministically favoring Christian white northern humans as superior to all other humans, and (2) atmospheric (and related) studies favoring CO2 caused by humans as a human-caused destructive force/major climate changer. The former lasted from c. 1890- c.1945 fueled by reification of data and biases of a dominant wealthy class consisting of only Christian western northern humans (male, white) who came up with anything to justify their "scientific" biases in plain view of gaping errors (eg Einstein a Jew, Tesla and Marconi Southern Europeans) silencing all else (partly removed due to conventional/ atomic war, but repercussions of presumed deterministic mental superiority of northern whites over all others persist). The USA wealthy were the main drivers. The latter began in c. 1980 fueled by reification of data and biases of a dominant wealthy class consisting of predominantly western northern (Christian and ex-Christian) humans (male, white) who will come up with anything to justify their "scientific" biases in plain view of gaping errors, silencing all else.The USA wealthy are the main drivers. Keep in mind how pre-determined racial superiority of white northern peoples was resolved (partially) above. To roughly quote Brecht: "Do not rejoice in his defeat you men...For although you killed the b*stard... the b*tch that bore him... Is in heat again."
Some factors that affect climate are
1) Altitude
2) Latitude
3) Ocean currents
4) Land-sea distribution
5) Topography
6) Vegetation
In a global scale some factors are
1) Greenhouse gases
2) Insolation
Some parameters that can cause long term climatic changes are
1) Variations in earth's eccentricity
2) Variations in earths's obliquity
3) Variations in earth's precession
4) Volcano eruptions
5) Variations in solar activity
Water vapor (WV) is a greenhouse gas (ghg). NASA/RSS data through their last report (for Jan 2021) show that average gobal Total Precipitable Water (TPW, here called WV) has been on an increasing trend of about 1.49% per decade. WV increase due to just temperature increase is readily calculated. The trend of the calculated WV increase rate, using actual measured average global temperatures (HadCRUT4), amounts to only about 1.04% per decade. Thus the measured WV has been increasing about 43% faster than possible from just temperature increase. The comparison is shown here graphically with links to methodology and data sources. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ntl57AEsPYfTppC0DUziRBnq0NV42g5B/view?usp=sharing . This demonstrates that there must be an additional source of WV.
The 43% extra WV is not from nature so it must be attributed to human activity. A preliminary study of likely WV sources shows that about 90% of the additional WV is from irrigation, 8.5% from cooling towers for electric power generation and only 1.5% from everything else.
A corroborating consideration is that at least since both have been accurately measured worldwide, at ground level about 7 WV molecules have been added for each CO2 molecule and each WV molecule is about 37% more effective at absorbing IR than a CO2 molecule.
These additional sources of WV can completely account for all planet warming attributable to humanity since before 1895. There is no significant contribution from any other ghg. Carbon dioxide does not now, never has and never will have a significant effect on climate.
It is always said that degradation or negetive changes in climate due to natural factors may be revocable means after passing time, it will come to the previous position while anthropogenic factors cause irrevocable losses in the climate which inturn create so many threats for human life, wild life as well as natural resources.... pollution, deforestation, erosion usually manmade, global warming effects mainly due to ozone layer depletion through GHGs, sea level rise or ice/ glacier melting, use of indiscriminate of pesticides and other fumigant in soil or in macro climate are the major manmade cause for climate change...
@ H.V.
The comment in your first sentence above is mostly NOT true.
The Earth has many restoring forces and mechanisms that, over time, tend to restore a major change in an environmental equilibrium back to its equilibrium condition. Such restoring forces act on human-induced changes just as well as on natural changes. For example, in the geologic past when volcanic activity added large quantities of CO2 to the atmosphere, over time that extra CO2 dissolved into the ocean and from there was precipitated as organic marine carbonates. The same forces act on human-added CO2, and about half of the human CO2 being added today is rather rapidly being dissolved into the ocean and inducing new green plant growth.
However, it typically requires time for restoring forces in Nature to reset an altered equilibrium. The problem with current human-added CO2 is that it is being added faster than Nature can restore the equilibrium, so CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere.
Generally the same can be said for other human-induced changes in environmental equilibrium, such as the ones you mention. Restoring forces in Nature operate on All environmental changes, but Nature requires time for them to work. It is the Rate that humans produced distortions that tend to overwhelm the natural system.
Steven Yaskell , "When will the regular discussion about the impact of certain factors on the climate finally begin, instead of uncritically giving too much importance to CO2?" Obviously it is basic science to compare factors quantitatively, so a it has been done. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter2-1.pdf
Well, it is not really necessary to read an IPCC report to find out what has been written there. If we consider the science settled and CO2 as the main factor to blame, then why this happens?
@RVF
The difference between models & observations mostly lies in the assumptions about future input parameters for the models -- factors like growth of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, technology advances, energy demand, living standards and environmental actions, etc., etc. As these are NOT known, assumptions are mostly guesses, and modelers have been guessing wrong.
Similarly, on the IPCC graph of impact factors given above by HRA there are significant uncertainties. Take clouds for example. They are so variable over time and space on small scales, even modelers admit they most guess at what sensitivity factor to use. And the IPCC does not consider the likely effect of variable cosmic ray intensity in Earth's atmosphere on cloud density. Earth's albedo is about 30%, and only a small variation (or uncertainty) in that value could imply a significant global temperature variation.
I add to my comments above about the graph shown by RVF.
Here is a summary of an important recent paper about Earth's albedo.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/10/10/radiative-energy-flux-variations-from-2000-2020/
This paper can explain the IPCC graph above. The IPCC assumes that increasing global warming occurs because of the greenhouse effect from increasing greenhouse gases. This new paper utilizes CERES satellite data to show and argue that part of the past warming occurred because clouds became more open to incoming solar short-wave radiation. The paper also argues that cloud albedo to incoming solar has shown decades-long variation in such albedo, possibly explaining past global temperature variations.
If the IPCC climate models underestimate such cloud short-wave albedo, and assume most warming results from increasing greenhouse gases, then their future model predictions based on actual and assumed increases in CO2 will exceed actual temperature increases, as the graph indicates.
Risto V. Filkoski
We are at the end of a La Nina which cools the Pacific Ocean covering almost half the total area of the Earth. You can see from the diagram that this is 0.3K warmer than the last La Nina in 2008. So global warming is continuing despite ENSO.
Here is a chart showing El Ninos in red and La Ninas in blue. https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/dashboard/img/nino34.png
Risto V. Filkoski , ".. , then why this happens?" The SMIP6 models predict surface air temperature means for the globe. This is compared to the "observation" data in ERSSTv5 which is NOAS reconstructed Sea surface temperature. So the figure compares the sea with the temperature for both land and sea. It is the apples and pears comparision mistake. Since you are in thermal engineering you have no problem in understanding why seas warm slower than air and that that is the reason the observed temperatures (in the sea) increase slower than the modeled air temperature for the globe including land. Hopefully you also cannot see a reason to compare two different areas (all the globe to only the seas).
Your figure show results from just 13 of the at least 36 CMIP6 that are published. Please give the reference for the figure so I can read which model were selected and the reason for omitting some models.
@ RVF
ENSO events last only a few years, not long enough to explain decade(s)-long global temperature trends. However, Atlantic Ocean circulation (e.g. AMO) moves in cycles of a few decades and change ocean mixing and energy interchange with the atmosphere. Possibly these cycles influence cloud albedo, as described in the paper I quote above, and thus global temperature trends.
Donald Bogard, The difference in the warming trend is from comparing model outputs for the globe with data only for the seas which warm slower. ENSO only explain the variability, not the trend. I think Alastair Bain McDonald especially mean ENSO explain the lower value in the last points in the dataset.
Dr. Zeke Hausfather showed this figure on twitter (@Hausfath) of the result for ocean sea surface temperature generated by the 12 CMIP6 models that have this parameter. It is evident that comparing apples to apples result in apples of comparable size.
Dear Donald Bogard Donald Bogard, Henrik Rasmus Andersen Henrik Rasmus Andersen, Alastair Bain McDonald Alastair Bain McDonald,
I very much appreciate your valuable contribution to the discussion of, in my opinion, a very important topic. I would say that I am really happy with the level of discussion. That was the point of raising this issue.
Conversely, if one takes a quick look at the mainstream media websites, one will see a bombardment of catastrophic reports with unsubstantiated predictions. My view is that such an approach leads to wrong solutions with very bad global consequences. We are witnessing such consequences in the energy sector these days.
By the way, a few days ago, I read somewhere that climate change caused by the human impact is responsible even for the volcanic eruption of Grand Canaria - Las Palmas.
Risto V. Filkoski
Donald Bogard
You provided only a link
The abstract in not convincing at all. There are 1000s of papers on this global dimming and FYI I work since 1990 in the field of aerosol/clouds and reflection of solar energy
I will have to read the actual publication (BTW in a heavily page-feeed journal?!)
@ HRA & RVF
I agree that ocean surface temperature (upper 700 meters?) is not what climate models are predicting for future warming in the graph shown above. Further, variation in deep ocean mixing between warmer surface and very cold depth can alter ocean temperature relative to solar energy input. Likely, variation in ocean mixing is one of the factors influencing global temperature over decadal to century time periods (e.g., AMO).
However, comparison of atmospheric temperature, measured both by satellite and balloon, also show model temperatures running up to twice the observed. And the atmosphere is where greenhouse warming occurs. Even Gavin Schmidt, head of NASA climate studies, recently admitted climate models were running "hot". Influence of cloud albedo should certainly be investigated more carefully.
Donald Bogard , Their is likely some models that show too much warming and other show too little. It seems the game is about the models that are used as basis for policy. Roy Spencer, who created the figure Risto V. Filkoski posted, knows the dataset and models well from decades of work on this field yet he could not find a good example so he had to make the 'huge mistake' to compare the models output with sea temperatures.
Perhaps you have a scientific reference for the "..also show model temperatures running up to twice the observed." and perhaps it isn't a blog post.
Donald Bogard, Risto V. Filkoski, Evaluating model predictions are best done a while after the predictions were made so the prediction power can be assessed by comparing with actual data collected after the publication. Here is the IPCC 4th Assessment Report models (CMIP3) compared to data before and after their publication according to Gavin Schmidt from NASA.
Back to the question
It is just the statement by an apparent dilettante
Does not give a reference for his knowledge
Again an example why real climatologists are so nauseated that they sign off en masse from ResearchGate because they are afraid to be associated with this kind of bogus. I am a retiree and do not care about my rating in the peer-community and will keep on debunking this bogus
Confusion often arises with the temporal scale of climate change. On the scale of hundred thousands of years, yes, the Milankovitch theory plays the major role. At a scale of hundred years, or decades, other factors can affect more than the slow variation caused by orbital change of the EArth. And then comes yearly and decadal variation of CO2 in the past 100 years or so
A very simple experience can convinced you that CO2 has a warming effect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ
Very simple experiment done at high school.
Alain,
I don't see the relevance of this experiment.
The heating lamp obviously emitted visible light. CO2 absorbs little in the visible, and the greenhouse effect of CO2 is because it absorbs strongly in the infrared, especially at 15 microns. Unless the light also emitted IR, the experiment does not reflect greenhouse warming by CO2, which occurs because CO2 decreases the rate Earth expels IR into space from the high atmosphere, requiring Earth's surface to warm.
Much better evidence that CO2 produces warming is easily seen in satellite spectra of IR escaping Earth. The large reduction in escaping IR over 13-17 microns is the effect of CO2. See the graph and explanation here:
How Atmospheric Warming Works - American Chemical Society (acs.org)
Dear Risto V. Filkoski
The human influence on the volcanic eruption of Gran Canaria: What was the reason given by the article?
I agree that water drives weather /climate system by its evaporation / condensation changes. However, it appears CO2 increases the air temperature which leads to more sea evaporation and condensation. In the last instance, the energy change (latent heat) is the only source of the POWER in the air that drives the wind, intensity of a hurricane, blizzard, etc.
Therefore, extra CO2 in the air results in more powerful weather systems.
best wishes
Dear Michael Issigonis Michael Issigonis,
Thank you for your contribution, but I have to admit, I don't understand the point: "The human influence on the volcanic eruption ... (of Gran Canaria or anywhere else)".
Water is indeed an essential and vital factor needs urgent focus on immediately.
One of two highlighted points, in my book;
Action Plan Climate Solution.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Action-plan-Climate-solution-Greenhouse-ebook/dp/B094C4TR7N
Yes, Risto V. Filkoski, human influence on the volcanic eruption. Human contribution add to catastrophe, effecting thermohaline aggregation.
And so is volcanic moltern lava flow is another source of alternative energy production type, not been worked on it to appropriate usage/functioning.
I briefly touched on this, in my book;
Chapters of science
On Amazon.
Regards,
Fatema Miah
I apologize for late delay in answering.
Donald Bogard said
"The heating lamp obviously emitted visible light."
Donald, the lamp emits not only in the visible but also in the IR spectrum.
The experiment is valid because the only thing different across the two bottles is that one contain much more CO2 than the other and shows a higher temperature.
How other explanations do you have ?
Atmospheric CO2 absorbs some IR radiation from the surface, especially around 15 microns, and that absorbed energy is transferred to surrounding molecules via kinetic collisions, thereby warming the atmosphere. This is an example of the experiment you describe.
The warmer atmosphere, in turn, emits some IR back toward the surface (back-radiation) thereby producing greenhouse warming of the surface. However, this process is not the major means by which NET global warming of Earth occurs. Rather, it is one of several ways that energy is moved around. (Water evaporation and condensation is another way.)
NET global warming occurs when the RATE some IR is expelled to space decreases because of its final emission from the high, cold atmosphere, rather than the warmer surface. The experiment you describe does not demonstrate that.
One of the factors affecting climate is solar activity, the effect of which on earth arrives with a significant lag time that makes it possible to improve court-medium-terms adaptation measures.
Ongoing researches are making huge progress in this field. Among them is this recent paper (attached), which concentrates on the solar influence on European precipitation, which has been documented by a large body of published case studies. The study is concentrating on the period 1901–2015 for which the monthly precipitation series of 39 European countries are compared.
The paper findings are fascinating: central Europe encountered a negative correlation between solar activity and rainfall, probably because short time lags of a few years are negligible on timescales beyond the 11 years solar Schwabe cycle. Flood frequency typically increases during times of low solar activity associated with negative NAO conditions and more frequent blocking. The Alps form the southern limit of the Central European solar-driven rainfall region because solar/rain relationships in the southern Alps appear to flip. Amazing!: Bravo for the research team behind this work
Jamel Chahed
You have to search for the credentials of
authors
journal
Low ratings: very questionable science
Three main factors affecting the climate:
solar radiation,
circulation of the atmosphere,
terrain relief (underlying surface).
In addition, one must take into account
Remoteness from the ocean - on the coasts, as a rule, there are less abrupt temperature changes, more precipitation, as you move inland, the situation changes exactly the opposite.
The absolute altitude of the terrain - with altitude, the temperature and pressure decrease.
Ocean currents. Cold currents contribute to a decrease in air temperature, a decrease in evaporation, and, accordingly, a small amount of precipitation, on coastal territories where such currents pass. Warm currents contribute to an increase in air temperature, an increase in evaporation due to which the amount of precipitation in coastal areas increases, where similar currents pass nearby.
Regards, Sergey
I can agree, that water influences clima, but there are other factors. Greehouse gases are proved like important source behind the Earth's increased warming. And there is no doubt that this is negative human activity.
Harry ten Brink Here is the Standard quotation (APA) of the paper I mentioned. It is of course on the paper itself:
Laurenz, L., Lüdecke, H. J., & Lüning, S. (2019). Influence of solar activity changes on European rainfall. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 185, 29-42.
Jamel Chahed
I would not use it as reference because to term it in simple wordings
The journal
is a paid postbox accepting every manuscript without referencing
is of the association of radio??
the authors have no credentials in precipitation reseacrh
Summary: forget it
Harry ten Brink
You asked also for the authors
On of them:
(10) Sebastian Luening (researchgate.net)
Jamel Chahed
Luening has no expertise in precipitation. He has publications on historic climate
Dear Dr Risto V. Filkoski . See the following useful link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/climatic-factor
Kindly check also the following useful RG link: Article Understanding climate change from a global analysis of city analogues
Also check please the following very good link: https://www.mcser.org/journal/index.php/jesr/article/view/2344
Aref Wazwaz
Best reference by far: a full encyclopedia of Climate Change composed by hundreds of world experts. Much better than an odd note in a very suspect journal.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis
Harry ten Brink
Another recent paper from the same author and members of his research team
Jamel Chahed
I already went to his page here and in GoogleScholar and already found this paper
that I cannot judge
What I know now is that he was on a very dubious paper by Willy Soon et al. on the sun as cause of the NH and temperature increase but ending with the conclusion that more studies are needed for verification: meaning in scientific terms that the paper has no sound basis.
As I wrote above:
There are thousands of relevant publications compiled into the recent AR6 report of IPCC, showing an absence in a relation of trends in climate parameters with solar activity.
Another issue is that regional climate parameters are for a large part dependent on large-scale meteorology and thus on changes of a larger scale that that of a region of the size of Europe etc. I witnesses this myself
This graph compares measured water vapor (WV) with what it would be if calculated from measured temperature. The measured WV has been reported monthly as Total Precipitable Water (TPW) (aka Total Column Water Vapor) anomalies by NASA/RSS at http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_202111.time_series.txtThe calculated WV is obtained by numerical integration using HadCRUT4 temperatures reported at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.6.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt:
The algorithm used to calculate water vapor is shown in section 7 of https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com . It is numerical integration which uses the average temperature for each time increment (month).
The file for change in WV calculated from change in temperature is generated in EXCEL employing numerical integration where each row contains:
WVn = WV(n-1) + (Tn – T(n-1))* R * WV(n-1)
Where:
WVn = calculated WV in month n, kg/m^2
Tn = temperature anomaly in month n, C°
R = effective rate of WV increase resulting from feedback of temperature increase, 0.067/C° (= 6.7 %/C°)
The starting calculated WV is adjusted to make the starting trends the same.
This shows that the measured WV trend is about twice what it would be if determined from temperature increase alone (feedback) as asserted by Climate Science. It also demonstrates that there is an additional source of WV. A survey of possible sources of WV from human activity is documented in Sect 6 of https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com. It revealed that about 90% of the WV from human activity on the planet is from irrigation.
The measured increase in water vapor (WV) can account for all of the average global temperature increase attributable to humanity with no contribution from CO2.
Pnagburn
This is the only contribution to the discussion that you present now for over a decade wthout any explanation
-What is it this graph
-Where is T increase from
-Never answer these questions
A simple Clausius-Clapeyron for global warming?
Finally you corrected yourself: irrigation 90% of manmade WV: yet 90% of ZILCH= ZILCH for extra WV from warming of the oceans
Bah
Much of Climate Science is contaminated by misinformation. The misinformation is so heavily imbedded in the accepted underpinnings of climate science that attempts to correct it are often branded as misinformation and sometimes even censored.
One mistake is the assertion that water vapor change is not a driver of climate change because the residence time of WV molecules in the atmosphere is so short; only a few days. WV molecules absorb/emit infrared radiation (IR) in the wavelength range associated with earth temperatures. This property makes it a (misleadingly named) greenhouse gas (ghg). As a ghg its influence on climate change depends on the population of WV molecules in the atmosphere at any time, and not on the duration any particular molecule is resident. Individual molecules precipitate out but they are continuously replaced. It is the average population reported as specific humidity or Total Precipitable Water (TPW) that matters to its dominance as a ghg.
TPW has been on an increasing trend. It has increased at an average rate of about 1.45% per decade since it has been measured worldwide; Jan 1988. Numerical values of anomalies have been reported monthly by NASA/RSS. Values through Nov 2021 are at http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_202111.time_series.txt . This WV increase alone is enough to account for all that humanity has contributed to climate change. It should be explicitly input to the models.
Another mistake is the assumption that WV is determined by the Clausius-Clapeyron equation. The C-C equation, by definition, only applies at saturation and saturation only occurs in clouds. This mistake leads to another mistake which is that WV changes with the temperature of the air. It does not except locally where saturated (clouds). The natural driver of WV is the temperature of the natural liquid water at the surface (the rate at which water evaporates depends also on wind speed and the partial pressure of WV in the atmosphere). Humanity has added to the surface water area and to WV directly; mostly (about 90%) from irrigation. Most WV is driven into the air in the tropics and other locations of warm water such as irrigated land in the desert summer.
Another mistake is the assumption of a single value of about 7% per Celsius degree for the feedback from temperature increase. The feedback varies with temperature. It is the percent slope of the saturation curve at a point divided by the temperature at that point. Accurate measurements of the saturation vs temperature for water and also for ice have been made by Wexler. They are shown in the above graph along with the 1/1 slope.
The numerical values are reported at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5312760/ for water and https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/81A/jresv81An1p5_A1b.pdf for ice. They are graphed as Figure 1.7 in http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com and also as Figure 4 in https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com .
As described at http://www.cas.manchester.ac.uk/resactivities/cloudphysics/background/ice/ condensed WV exists as both ice and super-cooled water (liquid water below zero C) in clouds. The saturation vapor pressure of super-cooled water can be calculated (accurately over a limited range) from its temperature using the Bolton equation which is p = 0.6112 * e^(17.67 * T / (T+243.5)) given at https://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Clausius-clapeyron_equation . (The feedback for this is given by the first derivative divided by temperature.)
As calculated from these curves, the feedback varies from below 6%/K to about 7%/K on most of the surface and up to more than 12%/K in the atmosphere. This could result in the perhaps counterintuitive condition that an increase in temperature causes an increase in specific humidity, a decrease in relative humidity at low altitude and an increase in average cloud altitude.
Dear Collegue Dan Pangburn , I agree with you. Based on 100 years of data on temperature and rainfall in Tunisia, we found a significant increase of 1.2 °C over the past century. However, for rainfall, no significant trend is detected and one may even note a slight increase. See our books:
(6) (PDF) National Water Security, Case Study of an Arid Country: Tunisia (researchgate.net)
(6) Sécurité Hydrique de la Tunisie, Gérer l'eau en conditions de pénurie | Request PDF (researchgate.net)
Correction:
replace "It is the percent slope of the saturation curve at a point divided by the temperature at that point." in my previous post with
'It is the percent slope of the saturation curve at a temperature divided by the pressure at that temperature.'
Jamel Chahed Do you know this? Drought in Brazil the "wettest" country:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03625-w?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=c5806cbdf7-briefing-dy-20220110&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-c5806cbdf7-45449862
Pangburn
after 20 years you have to still correct your own scribbles?
But, moreover, what do these illustrate?
And in the same period that a whole generation gets its complete education you still have NO idea of the drivers of the recent extended GreenHouseEffect by CO2
THAT IS THE fact that the OLR=Outgoing Long-Wave Radiation is emitted now at a greater height and at that height CO2 is a major actor
The absorption near the SURFACE and the total absorption of IR is almost fully dominated by Water BUT that is NOT the GreenHouse Effect
Man, read ONCE how the GreenHouseEffect works here simplified by Steve Carson
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/11/01/theory-and-experiment-atmospheric-radiation/
NOTICE: this is from 2010
A complete disgrace that you never read this
Dear Colleague Harry ten Brink Thank you for sharing this remarkable paper. I did not know it. I will give me the time to check it with interest. The graphs I showed are provided in our books:
Book National Water Security, Case Study of an Arid Country: Tunisia
(6) Sécurité Hydrique de la Tunisie, Gérer l'eau en conditions de pénurie | Request PDF (researchgate.net)
We are allowed to communicate copies of the book in french in the scientific sphere, just request on my RG page. Unfortunately, we are not allowed to do so with the English book
Some years ago we published, under the direction of Pr G. de Marsily de l'académie des Sciences, Paris, the following Chapter on water and food security in the arid region based on Climate Change models, available on:
(PDF) Changing Water Resources and Food Supply in Arid Zones: Tunisia (researchgate.net)
The Chapter shows the precipitation changes (in millimeters per day and percent) from the second half of the twentieth century to the second half of the twenty-first century, for December to March and June to September, calculated by the Météo-France model from the Centre National de Recherches Météorologiques for theInternational Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenario B2 (Académie des Sciences2006)
Pangburn
CC determines the WV concentration over the oceans
The rate at which the WV goes into the atmosphere indeed depends on turbulence and thus windspeed.
Every textbook on meteorology shows you this ultra-simple idea
You needed 20 years to fin d this out without once consulting a standard meteo textbook?
Shame on you
Dear all,
Here is a very interesting article on the issue of factors affecting climate:
https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/fulltext/2022/02000/world_atmospheric_co2,_its_14c_specific_activity,.2.aspx
What I like the most is the final paragraph of the Conclusion section:
"10. The assumption that the increase in CO2 since 1800 is dominated by or equal to the increase in the anthropogenic component is not settled science. Unsupported conclusions of the dominance of the anthropogenic fossil component of CO2 and concerns of its effect on climate change and global warming have severe potential societal implications that press the need for very costly remedial actions that may be misdirected, presently unnecessary, and ineffective in curbing global warming."
Enjoy reading!
R. Filkoski
Risto V. Filkoski
What kind of remedial you talking about?
Action is must, to manage the climate change, what's tipped already. Earth needs protection and carefully rules must be applied .
Energy sources must be selected from the concern factors, adding to greenhouse gases..
My books Action Plan Climate Solution I explained solution; To recycled greenhouse gases for energy sources.
And In Chapters of science I explained unthropogenic fossil component influences greenhouse gases primarily.
Regards
Fatema Miah
@ RVF
Human activity, especially fossil fuel burning, is the dominant reason atmospheric CO2 increased from ~280 ppm pre-industrial to ~420 ppm today. No question about that. But the causes of warming over the past two centuries are several and complex. It was not all greenhouse effect.
@ FM
There are many fossil fuel uses -- burning for energy production, manufacture of various chemicals, agriculture, making of polymers (e.g., plastics), etc. There is NO quick substitute for any of these today. Stopping fossil fuel use in any area without a reliable and affordable substitute will disrupt some aspect of modern society and is likely to be rejected eventually. Replacing uses of fossil fuels will require considerable time, innovative new technology, capital expenditures, and lots of public support. And changes must be carried out on a global scale, not by country or region. Today little of this kind of support exists. Given that, the alternative is to prepare for expected climate change effects. An advantage of this approach is that it can be done locally or regionally, and a global response is not required to achieve positive results.
Corroborating evidence:
“Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.”
https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/fulltext/2022/02000/world_atmospheric_co2,_its_14c_specific_activity,.2.aspx
You are mixing CO2 derived from fossil fuels with CO2 that naturally cycles among large CO2 reservoirs -- atmosphere, oceans, plants/soil. The latter involves larger amounts than the former, but normally consists of equilibrium exchange movement (in & out) of CO2 among the reservoirs. This exchange has always occurred, is well known in geochemistry, and by itself does not increase CO2 in any one reservoir. By contrast, recent CO2 addition from fossil fuel is not part of past natural CO2 exchange and thus acts to increase CO2 in the reservoir to which it is added -- the atmosphere. As a secondary consequence, increased atmosphere CO2 alters the natural CO2 exchange among reservoirs and causes part (about half) of the extra fossil CO2 added to the atmosphere to move into oceans and and plants/soil., and there is evidence of both occurring. Fossil fuel CO2 has significantly altered the natural CO2 cycle.
Dear Fatema Miah ,
I am not talking about remedial. I am just citing the final paragraph of an interesting article, which I sincerely recommend you to read.
Regards,
RVF
Risto V. Filkoski
Why would YOU recommend ONE single e-note as enjoyment?
Such BS as directly shown in the fact that 1800 is used as reference point for temperature
Go read the IPCC report and the 100s of publications on whihc it is based on the evidence that the current rapid temperature increase is cause by extra GREENHOUSE gases. It appears that in ResearchGate every layman can shout out his ignorance without even having any experience in the relevant disciplines as can be seen in his CV
A disgrace
Dan Pangburn
Now a chemist overnight? Took me 6 years of hard study to become a physico-chemist
The assumption that 14C has the same fate as 12C is plain WRONG
And why do you hook up with the latest post and do not read yourself on 14C?
And Both of you did notnotice that this e-thing is in a journal on HEALTH? did you not wonder why: I tell you those editors and possible reviewers are ignorant in climate science
Harry ten Brink Dear Harry ten Brink,
I appreciate Your contribution to the discussion.
Btw, I have read the IPCC report and many many of the 100s of publications ...
Kind regards!