Official IPCC estimates of future global warming may be overstated
Press Release
London, 20 September – A new paper reduces the estimate of climate sensitivity – the amount of warming expected for a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations – by one third. The results therefore suggest that future global warming will be much less than expected.
The paper, by independent scientist Nic Lewis, has just appeared in the journal Climate Dynamics. It is an important challenge to the official view of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Lewis has critiqued a 2020 assessment of climate sensitivity by Sherwood et al., which strongly influenced the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report, in 2021. Lewis commented:
“It is unfortunate that Sherwood et al.’s assessment of climate sensitivity, which underpinned the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, contained such serious errors, inconsistencies and deficiencies in its methods”.
After correcting the Sherwood et al. methods and revising key input data to reflect, primarily, more recent evidence, the central estimate for climate sensitivity comes down from 3.1°C per doubling of CO2 concentration in the original study to 2.16°C in the new paper.
This large reduction shows how sensitive climate sensitivity estimates still are to input assumptions, and that values between 1.5°C and 2°C remain quite plausible.
- Climate sensitivity represents the long-term global temperature increase caused by a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. There are different measures of climate sensitivity. Both the Sherwood and Lewis papers estimate the so-called ‘effective’ climate sensitivity, which reflects a new equilibrium state projected from centennial changes after a doubling of the CO2 concentration. This measure is considered the most relevant one for predicting climate change in the coming two centuries.
- Climate sensitivity has always been a very important, but also highly uncertain, parameter in the climate change discourse. Earlier IPCC reports assessed its value as likely to be somewhere between 1.5°C and 4.5°C, with a best estimate of 3°C. However, prompted by the Sherwood paper, the 2021 Sixth Assessment Report moved that range upwards, to 2.5 to 4°C. Although for outsiders this might sound boring, for insiders it was a revolutionary change.
- Lewis’s corrections and revisions lead to a likely range of 1.75 to 2.7°C, which is not only lower but is also much less uncertain than either the 2021 official IPCC assessment or the very similar Sherwood et al. estimate (2.6 to 3.9°C).
- Nic Lewis is the lead or sole author of ten peer-reviewed papers on climate sensitivity. He was a participant in the 2015 workshop that kicked off the World Climate Research Programme project that led to the Sherwood et al. 2020 paper, but he was not a co-author of that paper.
Lewis commented:
“The substantial reduction in assessed climate sensitivity upon updating key input data suggests that the increase in the bottom of the climate sensitivity range in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report was unjustified”.
Lewis’s paper is entitled ‘Objectively combining climate sensitivity evidence’. It can be freely downloaded here. A detailed explanatory article about the paper is available here.
CO2 doesn’t cause warming. If anything it is the other way around although there are also cases of high CO2 levels and colder temperatures. So probably the best is not to associate CO2 with temperature.
The radiative thermodynamic missing link.
Baloney alert
That’s just wrong.
Where is the evidence CO2 doesn’t cause warming?
Where is the evidence it does.
Measured evidence.. not erroneous partial theory or models.
If I pee into the ocean, logic says that the level of the ocean should rise.
Now try to measure it.
Sherwood Idso ~ “CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change.” published in Climate Research, Vol 10: 69-82, April 9, 1998
At a presence of only 4/100ths of one percent of atmosphere and an increase of only 1/100ths of one percent in the last sixty years, atmospheric CO2 is hardly “clearly enhancing” the greenhouse effect.
the cyanide fallacy
I had to Google it:
If I take cyanide, I will die.
I did not take cyanide.
Therefore, I will not die.
Again, that’s not what I am saying
The OP said “CO2 doesn’t cause warming.”
Is that statement correct?
Considering that the world has been almost as warm 80 years ago as now at vastly lower CO2 levels and then dropping colder until about 1975 in spite of ever increasing emissions would prove CO2’s power is very much overwhelmed by other factors.
1, radiative physics
2.correct predictions.
Show us a text that shows a 100% reflecting surface can warm a hot body beyond what it already is.
Maybe you can show us where Planck went wrong.
Page 107, Section 93
Page 118, Section 102
I had to Google again… the English translation is WW1 era. Just curious. There’s nothing wrong with a 122 year-old book, Newton is older.
Planck, M. (1914). The Theory of Heat Radiation. Masius, M. (transl.) (2nd ed.). P. Blakiston’s Son & Co. OL 7154661M
Planck has impressed me. As you probably know, he was the researcher that coined the term quanta which was later changed to photon. I like quanta better because it describes the EM wave better. I also like the Kindle version so you can bookmark, highlite, search, make notes, etc.
”Where is the evidence CO2 doesn’t cause warming?”
”Where is the evidence it does.”
”1, radiative physics
2.correct predictions.”
Not even wrong.
how do you prove a negative?
Yes, good point
wrong
x^n+ y^n= z^n
the equation has no solutions in integers nor n greater than or equal to 3
how do you prove a negative. i have a neat proof that wont fit in this comment box
When the total destruction of our current energy system is advocated, it is incumbent on those who claim CO2 is the cause of climate change to absolutely prove with physical emprical evidence that it in fact does do so before action is taken. It is not incumbent on anyone to first prove that it does not.
I agree, however, the OP stated “CO2 doesn’t cause warming.”, which is incorrect.
As Idso stated:
Back in the real world, rather than a computer model or under ideal, isolated laboratory conditions, the OP is correct – CO2 does not cause warming; the wavelengths are being swamped by water vapour. Whatever increase in CO2 we can measure can be proven, by real world observation, to be a response to increases in temperature, not the other way round. Now prove this to be incorrect – link to one research paper that unequivocally proves CO2 drives temperature increase; just one that uses real world observations to prove the hypothesis.
Richard,
Did I say CO2 drives temperature increase?
I’ve already quoted from Idso’s 1998 paper – see above, do you disagree with Idso?
I noticed you haven’t referenced the point I made about the OP being correct, which you disagreed with. I, at no point during my post, stated, intimated or inferred that you had at any point said that CO2 drives temperature increase and you are in the wrong for suggesting as much, for which I accept your apology and forgive you your silly mistake.
My point still stands, though; if you believe CO2 causes any amount of warming, then link to a credible report that proves that this is so. I don’t think it’s possible as no research can do the impossible. Warming causes CO2 increase in response; any horticulturist will tell you the same – warmth increases plant growth, which increases transport of CO2, plus anyone who has looked at the Greenland ice cores will tell you CO2 lags temperature increase.
wrong the wavelengths are not swamped. at altitude where it matters
But the warming attributed to CO2 is not occurring at altitude where it becomes difficult to measure either way. The extreme warming attributed to CO2 this summer occurred only several metres above the ground and dissipated at altitude.
how do you priove the destruction of our energy system
Advocated for or threatened not destroyed as yet.
We don’t – we advocate the precariously principle
Ice core and other temperature proxies indicate that the world has been warmer than currently at various times in the past, for example ~6000 BC during the Green Sahara phase, ~1500BC during the Minoan period, and also at the end of the Roman Republic and Middle Ages, 2000 and 1000 years ago respectively.
Ice cores also show that CO2 levels were much lower than today.
What’s left to prove?
I hope for the sake of the planet that CO2 does hold in the heat – ice ages will come back, guaranteed, and the biosphere will need every help it can get.
Not only glaciation during high CO2. Generally CO2 increased during glacial inception, such as inception of the end-Ordovician (Saharan-Andean) glaciation:
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/07/05/the-ordovician-glaciation-glaciers-spread-while-co2-increased-in-the-atmosphere-a-problem-for-carbon-alarmism/
I suppose cloudy nights also arent warmer eh?
I think an ECS in the range of 1.6-1.8 is most likely. This is because there are several independent routes to that tight range:
How is this range developed?
I just gave five independent methods zoning in on that range or a bit higher. I place the highest relative weight on EBM, then Callendar, and then INM CM4.8, then finally my convoluted Lindzen Bode rework using AR4, Dessler 2010 cloud feedback ~zero, and ARGO vs CMIP5 ocean precipitation.
educted cherry picking and hopium
Rud, good luck getting the UN IPCC CliSciFi practitioners to look at any evidence not vetted by Leftist politicians.
DF, have know that for years. When Marcott came out in Science in 2013 with his ‘new’ hockey stick, I was able to clearly show in months that it was based on intentional academic misconduct. Posted at Judith’s. Then sent a copy of that post to McNutt, then chief editor of Science, explaining would also be in a forthcoming book if not retracted. McNutt’s assistant acknowledged receipt of my email and attached essay. McNutt never got back.
So, it was published in ebook Blowing Smoke as essay ‘A High Stick Foul’.
which was roundly and fairly ignored
So academic/scientific fraud is “fairly ignored?”
Rud, I have your ebook “Blowing Smoke” and reread sections periodically. Awhile back I asked you if anything is happening with the Marcott fraud. You responded in the negative, indicating additionally that his PhD-granting (thesis is the basis of his 2013 paper) Oregon State University was uninterested in his fraud.
Yup. Neither his Oregon university nor Science was interested. He was hired as an associate professor at U Wisconsin Madison (main campus). I wrote them also, and never got a reply. So it seems that cademic misconduct in furtherance of global warming scares is OK. In my ebook Blowing Smoke I provided a number of additional irrefutable examples.
And acquaintances wonder why I don’t trust the government.
Curious if you have looked at Smirnov’s work? Physicists who do the line by line calculations get much lower results than the IPCC range.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341932879_Atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_and_climate
“If the concentration of atmospheric CO2 molecules is
doubled without a change the other atmospheric param-
eters, the change of the radiative ux to the Earth due to
CO2 molecules is 7.2 W/m2, whereas the change of the
total radiative flux with accounting for screening fluxes
from other components is 1.3 W/m2 that corresponds to
the global temperature change of 0.6 ± 0.3 K”
From that quote
“If the concentration of atmospheric CO2 molecules is
doubled without a change the other atmospheric param-
eters“
It’s a no feedback calculation. Radiation only.
Since feedbacks are negative, it’s an upper limit.
Water molecules increase 7% for every degree of sea surface warming, which is a primary positive feedback of a few watts per degree…until the water vapor is convected high enough to form clouds whereupon a few hundred watts of sunlight is reflected off the clouds back to outer space….
Additionally, it takes energy to evaporate that 7% increase.
No. The water vapor feedback MUST be positive. We know that both from the lab and from the real world. The big question is by how much.
Be careful though on what you attribute to “feedback”. Water and water vapor also absorb a goodly amount of the sun’s near IR. That is not feedback, it is an indirect path of the sun’s insolation.
You can see in the attached image how much near IR water and water vapor absorbs before reaching the surface. CO2 also absorbs some.
Which makes no sense.
What causes the increase in water vapor? Higher temperature right?
If that’s the case why doesn’t water vapor on its own cause runaway feedback?
Its a much more effective GH gas and infinity available to the atmosphere.
The only plausible answer is that there is a self limiting feedback mechanism in the atmosphere.
“Self-limiting feedback”
This is so obvious. I don’t know why it is always ignored. Even a feedback amplifier can still amplify. The negative feedback just keeps it under control. It’s like an automatic gain control in a radio. You can still turn the volume up, the AGC just keeps you from getting blown out by a strong signal. It is a limiter, nothing more.
That seems to be where many of the critics are headed today. Whether it be the oceans, clouds, evaporation, latent heat, or whatever, there *are* limiting processes at play. If there weren’t such at play the Earth would have become a frozen ball or a molten rock long ago.
nope
Smirnov is calculating CO2’s forcing independently. Those calculations show that CO2 doesn’t have a strong enough forcing to produce strong positive feedbacks. That’s why they have never been observed in the real world.
He takes into consideration water vapor’s actual forcing in the paper.
“As it follows from Table 2, doubling of the concen-
tration of atmospheric carbon dioxide causes an increase
of the radiative ux due CO2 molecules by 7.2W/m2,
whereas radiative uxes due to water molecules and
water microdroplets decrease by 3.0W/m2 and 2.9W/m2
correspondingly, and the change of the total radiative ux
is 1.3W/m2. In addition, the contribution of 30% to the
change of the radiative ux due to CO2 molecules is creat-
ed by vibration transitions at wave lengths near 9.4µm and
10.6µm which are used in CO2 lasers. The contribution of
this frequency range to the total radiative ux due to car-
bon dioxide molecules is about 2%.”
“Radiation only.”
So ignoring the main energy movers in the atmosphere. OK !
So its a basically meaningless and irrelevant calculation.
Like all calculations of CO2’s imaginary effect on temperature…
“So ignoring the main energy movers in the atmosphere. OK !
So its a basically meaningless and irrelevant calculation.”
In order to estimate CO2’s influence it must be isolated. The finding that it has a tiny forcing is far from meaningless. It shows that climate crisis nut jobs are irrelevant.
You only appear to have read half of it. The other half is:
“…whereas the change of the
total radiative flux with accounting for screening fluxes
from other components is 1.3 W/m2 that corresponds to
the global temperature change of 0.6 ± 0.3 K”
The very notion that atmospheric CO2 has ANY effect on temperature is a “no feedback calculation.”
Per real world observations, the actual, as opposed to hypothetical, effect is indistinguishable from ZERO.
Ah we may have found a good definition of Net Zero at long last!
thats the planck response!!!!!
no feedbacks
It shows that strong positive feedbacks are not possible from such a tiny forcing.
From the paper-
“The frequency range near the left boundary of the absorption band of the CO2 molecule does not give the contribution to the change of the total
radiative flux toward the Earth because of a strong absorption by water molecules at such frequencies. Hence, an increase of the radiative flux due to carbon dioxide molecules is compensated by the decrease of the radiative
flux due to water molecules at these frequencies.”
That’s some next level cherry picking there. You could teach a course.
2.16 K is a pretty significant increase from his previous estimate of 1.76 K in 2018 and 1.64 K in 2015.
But it is via a completely different method. Here he corrected Sherwood’s errors, but otherwise used his method. The 1.64 in 2015, and then the reworked 1.65 in 2016 responding to the first paper’s critiques, used the energy budget method (EBM).
Is Lewis 2022 really fixing “errors” from the Sherwood et al. 2020 publication?
Shouldn’t wait and see what Sherwood et al. 2022 have to say in response to Lewis 2022 before assuming Lewis is right and Sherwood et al. wrong?
Interesting point. I read both before posting this late comment. Lewis correctly characterizes his paper as mainly correcting Sherwood errors.
”…previous estimate…”
An estimation that’s costing nations billions.
Ah yes, using tried and true Climastrology principles, a 0.52K increase in the upper limit estimate over 7 years of research proves, yes PROVES that by 2100 the estimate will be well above 7.5K! Or do I miss the point of your comment?
It is of course NOT an increase or a trend, but rather a bracketing of the range by different methods.
The 2.16 K, 1.76 K, and 1.64 K figures are not upper limit estimates. They are medians. And I don’t see how the series of Lewis publications “PROVES” that by 2100 scientific understanding will have evolved to consider 7.5 K as viable. Regardless the fact is that Lewis 2022 has presented a significantly different median ECS estimate than his previous publications. Is 2.16 K now correct? What is wrong with the 1.76 or 1.64 K estimates? Are the changes to the Sherwood et al. 2020 publication really fixing “errors” as Lewis says? Do you wonder what Sherwood et al. 2020 have to say of the Lewis 2022 methodology?
You have already been told that Nic Lewis is using Sherwood’s methodology. He is merely correcting Sherwood’s blunders.
Does Lewis hold a monopoly on correctness?
How close do you think Lewis followed Sherwood et al.’s methodology?
What did Lewis do that was not correct?
I don’t know. Do you think Lewis did something that was not correct?
Troll response.
“Do you think Lewis did something that was not correct?”
You are the one suggesting this. It’s up to you to identify what that is? Weasel deflections don’t count.
Gyan 1 said: “You are the one suggesting this.”
I did no such thing. It was you that implied that Lewis made a mistake. Don’t put that on me.
And I’m not suggesting Lewis 2022 even made a mistake. I have no idea either way. It’s a pretty complex topic; way out of my league to determine either way if Lewis made a mistake or not. I will say that Lewis has a history of identifying errors and leading to the retraction of at least one publication..Resplandy et al accepted Lewis’ criticism and acknowledged the error. Has Sherwood et al. or others done this yet?
I’m just trying to figure out why a bunch of commenters on a blog that prides itself for being skeptical aren’t being very skeptical and instead appealing to authority for correctness instead of letting Sherwood et al. and others review Lewis publication for correctness. Is it because the conclusion indicates a lower ECS? What if it Lewis had only performed the objective Bayesian analysis and reported a higher ECS? Do you think the rhetoric would have been different?
This is how it SHOULD be done. I’m sure that Laura Resplandy was embarrassed to see her error. But she had the integrity to acknowledge it, retract the paper and republish it without the error. Ohhh… Pat Frank…. It’s not ever too late….
Cool off starts tomorrow. As does paraglider ground handling practice at Creve Coeur Lake Memorial Park. Come see a 70 year old man get blown around!
Word salad in the house
bdgwx, thanks for the reminder, and the bird dog to new info. I hadn’t realized that Resplandy et. al. published a corrected version until now. Different values, but the same conclusions. So, did Nic Lewis ever question the conclusions?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31882758/
Resplandy’s retraction notice admitted Nic’s changes resulted in much larger uncertainty levels such that the paper could not scientifically justify their results. So, yeah, Nic did, correctly, question the conclusions.
Oh, and BTW, I think the current situation is that Resplandy said she would publish a revised study in the future using a different publisher.
Do you have updated information, BOB?
No, just the updated, 2019 revised/corrected version, that I’ve already linked to. And I do see a changed “result”. She dropped her claim that “suggests that ocean warming is at the high end of previous estimates” and replaced it with “confirmation of heat uptake estimated from ocean data.”.
These are from the abstracts (both new and old versions are paywalled to me) , and tell me that (1) Nic Lewis is doing good, necessary work, and (2) Laura Resplandy acted professionally. Do you have any other “results” negated by Nic Lewis?
“I did no such thing.”
“Does Lewis hold a monopoly on correctness?”
That implies to me you are questioning if he is correct. I’m not the one doing that.
I have read most of his papers and have found his analysis to be superior to what he reviews and is standard in climate pseudoscience. Correcting errors is a huge part of what he does. I’ve yet to see a valid refutation of any of his papers. Many have tried and he always invalidates their arguments. If Sherwood disputes Lewis he would and should. Those kinds of discussions are some of the most illuminating for outing bad methodology.
bdgwx said: “Does Lewis hold a monopoly on correctness?”
Gyan1 said: “That implies to me you are questioning if he is correct. I’m not the one doing that.”
It implies that I’m questioning whether Lewis is the only one that can be correct.
I think most people will recognize that the rhetoric of this article and comments below seem to be skewed in favor of Lewis 2022 only because of either the 1) the result or 2) the author or possibly a combination of both. Let’s wait and see what everyone else has to say once they’ve had the chance to review the material.
“Important New Paper Challenges IPCC’s Claims about Climate Sensitivity“
…
“”the central estimate for climate sensitivity comes down from 3.1°C per doubling of CO2 concentration in the original study to 2.16°C in the new paper“
Nic Lewis says that Sherwood’s value is too high. But his value is still within the IPCC range.
Until AR6 the range was always 1.5-4.5. AR4 said best estimate 3. AR5 didn’t give one because the CMIP5 model median said 3.2 but EBM said 1.65.
I think the sun will rise between 5 and 7 am 😉
That’s a pretty good range almost anywhere on the planet for tomorrow’s Equinox. You haven’t got nearly enough range for the Solstices.
LOLZ he used Sherwood’s methodology and corrected Sherwood’s errors. Ostensibly, it is a take down of Sherwood’s extremism. Did you miss that?
The paper is titled
“Objectively combining climate sensitivity evidence”
That’s what he did, and 2.16 is the answer he got.
Invincible ignorance, Nick, invincible ignorance…
If it’s 2.16 then it’s entirely benign, right? Will we ever achieve a full doubling of CO2?
For this we should destroy the economies of all developed nations and risk famine?
Have you lost your mind?
Did Sherwood et al. 2020 really have errors?
Did Lewis 2022 really fix them?
Yes.
How do you know?
You obviously don’t understand Nic Lewis’s paper. I am assuming that you have actually read it. You then make the mistake of assuming other people have the same level of ignorance as you do.
Yes. I have read it. I will be the first to admit that I do not understand all of it. I’ll also be the first to admit that Lewis is a far smarter guy then I’ll ever be. My questions still stand. Did Sherwood et al. 2020 really have errors? Did Lewis 2022 really fix them? How do you know?
Bdgwx, I have now noticed that your first comment on this thread was only four minutes after the first comment. This means that you didn’t bother to read Nic Lewis’s paper before commenting. You may have noticed that my first comment on this thread was a day later than your comment. This delay was caused by me taking the time to read the paper and making sure that I understood what Nic Lewis was actually saying.
I didn’t bother reading all of Lewis 2022 before my first comment. I didn’t need to because the 2.16 K figure was in the article. All I needed to do was read the abstract to verify that it was correct. In fact, none of my comments require me to read all of Lewis 2022. I just did it because I was interested and felt I might learn something.
My questions still stand. Did Sherwood et al. 2020 really have errors? Did Lewis 2022 really fix them? How do you know?
New questions…Do you fully understand the content in Lewis 2022? Do you think Rud Istvan fully understood the content in Lewis 2022 prior to his first comment?
“Did Sherwood et al. 2020 really have errors?”
If you actually read Lewis 2022 you would know that Sherwood 2020 had quantifiable errors.
I did read Lewis 2022. The only quantifiable error I see is the coding mistake that caused a standard deviation to be 1/10 its actual value which Lewis says didn’t affect the main result. The way I’m reading the publication it seems like the differences arise more from methodological choices than from actual mistakes or errors. He even describes the differences as arising not only from the remedy of an error, but from alternative interpretations and the use of more recent lines of evidence as well. And if we’re going to honest I think all of us would admit this is thick material requiring incredibly specialized knowledge to decipher. I know that I’m certainly not qualified to adjudicate the matter. So no, I don’t know that Sherwood et al 2020 had quantifiable errors that significantly impacted their result or not just by reading the paper.
“I don’t know that Sherwood et al 2020 had quantifiable errors that significantly impacted their result or not just by reading the paper.”
You don’t know exactly because “I know that I’m certainly not qualified to adjudicate the matter”
One example justifying that Lewis is correct and Sherwood erred-
“Sherwood20 incorrectly used their F2×CO2 value rather than regress 2×CO2F when estimating S from both Process and Historical evidence, wrongly asserting that the related overestimation issue only affects S estimation for GCMs. This misconception results in Sherwood20’s estimates of S from
Process and Historical evidence being biased high.”
You should study e.g. Tab. 1…Tab.3 of Lewis (2022). All his assumptions are well documented. If you have further doubts: read the Supporting Informations.
The necessary assumption to have a sensitivity (ECS) to an increase in CO2 is that CO2 is sensitive to infrared.
CO2 does have absorption lines at three frequencies, but you have no evidence that that will increase temperature.
In fact thermodynamics says that you get the same temperature increase with the same energy input no matter the source.
It is easy to show using specific heat tables that doubling CO2 doesn’t cause an increase in temperature. Unless the claim is that gases have different properties in the atmosphere than in a lab.
mkelly, the voice of reason in the ECS bullshit wars.
Agree.
CO2 long wavelength emissions are cold.
Gaseous CO2 is limited to photon by photon quantum emissions based on being a polar molecule after being kicked into one of several vibrational states by absorbed photons. One CO2 15 micron photon only has a Photon energy of 1.3 x 10^-21 Joules. (797.5 J/mole divided by 6.022 x 10^23 molecules/mole ..that’s ten^ minus 21). Hence why CO2’s main absorption/emission wavelength corresponds to a Planck radiation temperature of 193K (-80C).
In contrast, Planck radiation from Earth’s surface is measured in Joules per second (watts) per square meter, and the total radiation over all wavelengths is proportional to temperature to the 4th power.
Dipole radiation emissions are just photons at one wavelength and emit in all directions, so won’t make a dent in surface or atmospheric temperatures because they don’t have the full spectrum T^4 power.
CO2’s weak intensity emission photons can’t even melt an ice cube let alone raise the temperature of any molecule above -80C absorbing them.
Baloney alert
Warning, warning. Ignorance surge approaching!
While I am a skeptic that there is a serious problem, and that any temperature increase will be small per doubling, there will be a direct effect. Your statement shows that you do not understand the effect of the lapse rate and location of absorbing gases.
The statement I attached is from a thermodynamics book. Since you brought up lapse rate what is the new lapse rate? As you know it is dependent on the Specific heat of air.
I suggest, you burn all your winter jackets. After all, your energy input (78% of your expended calories) stays roughly the same, no matter what you are wearing.
Did you read the attached statement from a thermodynamics book?
No need, I’ve read a similar textbook 32 years ago, while studying at the Ural Federal University, Department of Theoretical Physics.
Next guess?
Somewhere between 0.0 and 25.
I find it funny watching all the learned scientific giants clambering to get to the top of the ”we really don’t have the faintest clue” pile.
All these guessing monkeys – yes ALL OF THEM – are directly to blame for the current generation of paralyzed climate zombies and their idiotic predictions of looming climate catastrophe.
A pox on the lot of them.
Case in point…. Last night on ABC TV here, a show about climate change. The narrator….”These reef scientists are testing the reaction of corals to the hot, acidic ocean conditions predicted in the future”…..
IPCC projections…. ROFLMAO
A Grimm Bros fairy tale has more scientific relevance.
Don’t expect Greta to be nice to you.
And why would I care. 😉
Do you really want to get on the doom pixie’s bad side? If you do then you know that she’ll tell you to shove something up your a£$e, don’t you?
Because next Christmas she might put a lump of coal down your drawers.
I think a spin of the chocolate prize wheel at the fair gives a comparable result to all the other ECS estimates.
But without the hundredths of a degree flourish.
It is all fun and play, unless you realize ECS estimates are excluding overlaps. Once you introduce them, which is very feasible even with modtran, ECS melts like ice in the sunshine..
https://greenhousedefect.com/the-holy-grail-of-ecs/a-total-synthesis-the-ecs-estimate
ES….your total IR is 228 Watts, which is below the Planet average of 240. As you increase the IR by changing the locality and cloud cover to be closer to clear sky, the offset ground temperature you require will increase (indicating higher ECS) as the upward IR goes to about 290. It will not get anywhere close to the IPCC’s 3-4.5 degrees per 2xCO2, in fact will stay around .7 for many selected scenarios except “clear sky”.
Modtran is generally accepted to be good on IR, anybody got any comments on why it appears to show 2xCO2 is balanced by a Planck temperature increase of only 0.7 C ?
“your total IR is 228 Watts, which is below the Planet average of 240”
You are right. It is because the chosen cloud scenario here is too intense. I posted this example just for the sake of demonstration, and I discussed these issues in depth in the article. And it will also answer your final question..
And btw. the temperature offset already includes WV feedback..
This is US standard atmosphere, not the planetary average.
US std is meant as a proxy for the global average.
now do their past estimates
Kudo’s to Nic for correcting errors using their own methodology. What is missing in these discussions are all the low sensitivity papers out there below 1C.
https://notrickszone.com/2021/02/01/molecular-physicists-new-publications-add-to-the-list-of-over-130-low-co2-climate-sensitivity-papers/
Anyone not intending to live “centuries or even millennia” (Wiki) ought to worry about the ECS any more than the next global glaciation.
With Klaus Schwab playing around with contrails and trying to block the sun’s rays to earth I am a BIT worried about the next glaciation,
It was officially admitted by the IPCC scientists, the last models run to hot. Even Greenhad Rahmstorf told about, of course in a way it’s still dramatic.
But they had no clue why.
Thanks Nic we know. 😀
And the models for CMIP6 run hotter than the CMIP5 models.
Have to increase the ECR range to continue scaring people to justify Nut Zero.
The old “it’s worse than we thought” strategy
The difference is, about CIMP6 models they talked about,for CIMP5.models they didn’t admit it.
In 2007, Jeffrey Kiehl noted that projected climate sensitivity changed over a factor of 2 to 3, depending the sets of parameters chosen during model tuning.
The chosen parameters embedded offsetting errors in the simulation over the calibration period.
It’s therefore not that, “[climate sensitivity] values between 1.5°C and 2°C remain quite plausible.” It’s that climate sensitivity values are physically meaningless.
This obvious truth seems hard to grasp for many, including many skeptics.
“It’s that climate sensitivity values are physically meaningless.”
Yes. In other words, as I see it, climate sensitivity values cannot be distinguished from zero by any reliable means available to us.
This is visually apparent to me from the high resolution images and animations from the GOES EAST geostationary satellite for longwave Band 16. The constant motion, the formation and dissipation of clouds, the vertical mixing, etc. affirms the heat engine concept of poleward and surface-to-high altitude circulation as a response in large part to the radiative coupling of the atmosphere to the surface. The end result is not a “trap” but a huge array of highly variable emitters.
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/fulldisk_band.php?sat=G16&band=16&length=12
I know there are contributors and readers here who take the position in good faith that ECS is almost certainly greater than 1C, but I don’t see how that can be asserted confidently given how the atmosphere performs.
In an enclosed lab doubling CO2 will increase temperature by 1.2C. In the atmosphere where heat is free to escape I have trouble understanding why people think it could be higher than that. The strong positive water vapor feedback has never been observed in the real world.
A mild water vapor feedback has been observed as a warmer troposphere holds more water vapor. So the real world effect of CO2 in the troposphere, with that mild water vapor positive feedback, may somewhat exceed what is measured with lab spectroscopy using artificially dried air.
I would love to see a calculation comparing that mild water vapor feedback to what can escape through the atmospheric window compared to an enclosed room..
Rule-of-thumb estimate: if the total GHE is 33K, CO2 part 18% = ~6K (as they say themselves), and the curve is logarithmic, then the ECS must be roughly equal to ln(2) or ~0.7K. Very close to Smirnov.
PF – good to hear from you.
A post on another thread triggered something for me. Thermal capacitor.
I still believe the atmosphere as a whole acts as an insulator whereby it will never exceed the temperature of the surface. It can only slow cooling. That is using a specious assumption that the atmosphere is totally transparent to the sun’s insolation.
However, the thermal capacitor is interesting. N2/O2 can act as a capacitor that is charged by CO2 thermalization. As the sun passes zenith, the capacitor begins a reverse process of thermalizing CO2 which holds the temperature later in the day from dropping precipitously. Then at night, temperatures would show an exponential discharge, just like a capacitor, and that is what temperatures over land at least, do look like.
The downward trend continues and gets ever closer to the real value – ZERO.
If there is such a thing as climate sensitivity causing Earth’s surface to warm, why is the Southern Ocean steadily cooling over the satellite era, the Nino34 region and tropics with zero trend and the Northern Oceans warming? There is nothing in the GHE theory that forecasts CO2 to be selective. It is only supposed to do ONE thing – warm.
Earth’s surface temperature in mid latitudes is highly correlated with solar EMR, with peak intensity gradually shifting northward as the precession cycle advances. Tropical ocean surface is temperature limited to 30C and high latitudes ocean surface water is limited to -1.8C.
It should be further noted that not every month of the year is experiencing the same warming trend in the NH. Some regions with reliable records show some months have declining trends. All consistent with the variation in solar intensity.
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNhG4gM4gmzW9MS07d
Using the historical period (instrumental) record as one line of evidence is fraught with uncertainties not only due to the dodgy record but also the attribution problem.
However some skeptics fall for the same logical fallacy as alarmists viz. “the fallacy of the single cause, also known as complex cause, causal oversimplification, causal reductionism, and reduction fallacy” (Wiki).
I have no idea how this comment relates to my comment?
I must have misunderstood, I thought you were contending that the Earth’s climate response to increasing GHGs including atmospheric CO2 was zero and that the only climate driver was the Sun.
How could you conclude that when I give three completely different factors in the one paragraph – orbital changes, hard upper limit of 30C and hard lower limit of -1.8C. All through entirely different processes.
Rick,
ditto.
It has been customary in science to confirm that the starting point.measurements are validated. The pre-satellite measurements are not. The more you analyse, the worse it looks. There is a problem when authors take at a as correct without their personal validation. Myths grow and prosper.Geoff S
That is why I prefer to use satellite data that is validated against reliable surface data like the NOAA/NCEP Reynolds and actual calculated for the regional solar intensity based solely on orbital geometry and a solar constant..
The only measured data not coming from satellites in the link I provided above was the GHCN record for the USA. I chose the middle of the USA because the land use has not changed dramatically over the past 40 years.
I also discuss the solar variability appearing in the tropical temperature record in some detail.
Anyone who accepts all of Wiki as the truth, I have a bridge I can sell you in NY.
I don’t accept all of Wiki as the truth.
Neither does its Founder, Chris.
Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger blasts site for left-wing bias: ‘The word for it is propaganda’
‘You can trust it to give a reliably establishment point of view on pretty much everything’
https://fxn.ws/3lOiBzn
7/16/21
NASA claims TOA solar energy has been declining since the 1960s and we have few TMAX temperature records since then as a result
We also have had large increases of CO2 since the 1960s, and we have had many TMIN temperature records as a result.
That adds up to no correlation with solar intensity, as shown by the few TMAX temperature records.
The clear evidence is that surface temperature is highly correlated to solar EMR in outside the tropics. Correlation coefficients of 97% over very wide range of EMR and temperature – look at the link I provided before making an uninformed comment
Where are all the tropics TMAX records from increasing solar energy reaching Earth’s surface?
And why are there so many TMIN records in colder climates, if not from the greenhouse effect increasing?
You have made an uninformed response.
The Solar EMR is constantly changing over any location on Earth – no two days or dates are ever the same at a single location. The attached shows how solar EMR has changed over the last 520 years to the next 80 years at 30N. The long term annual trend is upward but the spring trend is significantly up. That will reflect in summer temperature given the thermal lag.
So you need to put the statement in context. NH summer temperature records will have ever higher values for a couple of thousand years.
This is why the global temperature is rising. It has nothing to do with CO2.
Don’t take my word for it. You can use this calculator to assess how orbit is altering solar EMR at different latitudes and time of the year.
http://vo.imcce.fr/insola/earth/online/earth/online/index.php
Sometimes it can be sluggish or needs reloading.
“So you need to put the statement in context. NH summer temperature records will have ever higher values for a couple of thousand years.”
Irrelevant for a 50 year period
You’re wasting your time:
‘How could you [Chris Hanley] conclude that when I give three completely different factors in the one paragraph – orbital changes, hard upper limit of 30C and hard lower limit of -1.8C.’
That’s all folks! The MInoan and Medieval warm periods, like the Little Ice Age absoutely / positively never happened.
RADIATIVE FORCING BY CO2 OBSERVED AT TOP OF ATMOSPHERE FROM 2002-2019
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.10605.pdf
“The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report predicted 0.508±0.102 Wm−2RF resulting from this CO2 increase, 42% more forcing than actually observed. The lack of quantitative long-term global OLR studies may be permitting inaccu-racies to persist in general circulation model forecasts of the effects of rising CO2 or other greenhouse gasses.”
Same question – how come CO2 is selective in what it warms, cools and leaves alone>
Attached is OLR over the Southern Ocean.
All climate models are based on the premise that solar intensity is constant over an annual cycle at any location, clouds are unrelated to surface conditions and the surface temperature is only influenced by CO2 Any modelling based on those assumptions is WRONG.
There are many temperature variables including ocean circulation, regional variables and measurement errors.
They may have a different net temperature effect in different regions. No one claims CO2 is the only climate change variable.
Every climate model has the implicit assumption that CO2 dominates.
Attached shows the temperature anomaly for the Southern Ocean from the Australian ACCESS climate model. The anomaly in all models is the same but absolute temperatures can vary hugely from model-to-model. So they agree on trend but not on what the present temperature is. There is no science, they agree on a trend and then put it into the models. It is consensus science.
This shows historic/predicted warming of almost 1C for the satellite era. SO has actually cooled 0.3C over the satellite era.
“Every climate model has the implicit assumption that CO2 dominates.”
So what?
The climate models make wrong predictions.
They can’t account for regional trends
Their assumptions are obviously wrong
They predict whatever “management” wants predicted
“Management” wants CAGW predicted
That requires a high ECS dominated by CO2 and a large water vapor positive feedback.
Forget about changes in ocean circulation and changes in cloudiness. Too complicated.
“SO has actually cooled 0.3C over the satellite era.”
That must be some new type of math unrelated to observations?
Rick, look at the surface temperatures of the Sea of Marmara. It’s warming at three times the rate (roughly) as the open oceans.
There are warming causes that are not CO2. Search on my FB for a suggested cause. Is it a big or small factor.?
JF
The body of water is geographically constrained with limited connection to open ocean. It is similar to the Mediterranean in that regard but it will likely have lower thermal inertia because of its depth being less than the Med. It appears to rising at a similar rate to the Mediterranean but slightly lower temperature because it is further north. The med is getting very close to the 30C limit and is big enough to support its own weather systems – termed Midicanes.
Being geographically constrained, it will establish its own deep currents probably with anti-clockwise surface currents but deep current due to differential evaporation. The average temperature increase will reflect the long term average increase in solar input. The summer peak temperature will reflect the higher spring solar EMR. This is how the solar EMR has and will change at 40N in April:
-1.000 373.489453
-0.900 373.872773
-0.800 374.258234
-0.700 374.645437
-0.600 375.034002
-0.500 375.423566
-0.400 375.813785
-0.300 376.204330
-0.200 376.594883
-0.100 376.985132
0.000 377.374769
0.100 377.765110
0.200 378.154160
0.300 378.541432
0.400 378.926421
0.500 379.308615
0.600 379.687501
0.700 380.062572
0.800 380.433341
0.900 380.799342
1.000 381.160145
The nullschool site does not have the resolution to resolve the surface currents.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2022/08/21/0600Z/wind/surface/currents/overlay=wind/orthographic=-332.80,38.96,3655
But you get some idea of the circulation from the Black Sea. The thermal inertia will be a function of the depth of the water. The deep oceans take thousands of years to reflect warming or cooling at depth. Current warming in the oceans over the past decades is due to the net water cycle slowing down causing more heat retention.
The Persian Gulf is another example of geographically constrained water circulation. It gets to surface temperature of 35C now and will get warmer as the peak solar intensity continues to move north. Open ocean water cannot exceed 30C because cloud persistence limits sustained the temperature rise above that. Geographically constrained bodies are not large enough to support their own weather system or get involved in the full latitudinal range of temperature from -1.8C to 30C as the major oceans experience.
Isn’t it just that simple? Models are wrong because they ignore cosmic rays that influence cloud formation and the sunlight reflectivity of those clouds? Isn’t that what Svensmark has been telling us for the last 14 years? Didn’t his experiment provide convincing evidence? Why don’t I ever see reference to Svensmark here on WUWT?
Should be reported as 0.5±0.1 W/m², not as 0.508±0.102 W/m².
The only thing correlated to increasing atmospheric CO2 is increasing funding for climate science.
The measured greening of the planet attributed to our emissions is the only empirical evidence of CO2’s effect.
But the effort to limit the eternally forecast damage is resulting in the worst waste of resources in human history and unfathomable negative unintended consequences.
Where will the lights go out next? South Australia led the way. Then Texas>. Who’s next?
Market distortions often come from corruption. Ideologues always think the end justifies the means. The real world isn’t their thing so are oblivious to unintended consequences.
“The real world isn’t their thing so are oblivious to unintended consequences.”
I think today’s political class are ideologues and fully understand the world and the consequences of their decisions and fully desire those consequences and are working hard to make them happen.
Not for themselves, of course, but for the peons. Jet planes and Heat for Me and my Pals but not for Thee.
Yes, those responsible for the ideological brainwashing know exactly what they want to achieve from it.
The Chinese model of authoritarian control of information and markets is what they are after.
Moss Landing, California had a lithium battery fire today. Shelter in place orders and highway 1 closed in both directions. They shut it all down and are letting it burn out. It opened for operation in June this year and is the largest battery storage facility in the nation.
Don’t you mean “was” the largest?
Still the largest and California brags about it. Of course, it only provides 4 hours of service, so its essentially useless. They are using solar to charge batteries which charge other batteries. And you can pay more to buy this green energy from Central Coast Community Energy.
A great advertisement for buying a Tesla and parking it in your attached garage.
UK. A few years ago we got within two weeks of running out of methane. It’s worse now.
JF
I pick Germany as the next candidate, given current geopolitical events and the stupidity of their political class. Of course, it is quite possible their political class is not stupid but are evil, in which case their current decisions make perfect sense.
You are ignoring increasing downwelling infrared radiation.
You are also ignoring the greenhouse warming symptoms of many higher TMINs in colder (drier) climates, during colder (drier) months with far fewer TMAX records set in the tropics during the Summer (which would be a symptom of more sunlight reaching Earth’s surface).
Tha’s a lot of ignoring.
“You are ignoring increasing downwelling infrared radiation.”
That is not empirical evidence of CO2’s effect on climate. Line by line calculations show it is tiny compared to natural variability.
That should be a clue to you that CO2 does not create additional warming of the surface. It does slow cooling so night temps will be higher.
I wonder if CO2 and solar/wind spending correlate? Wouldn’t it be surprising if spending on green energy is what raises CO2!
The funding is positively correlated. The reliability of power grids is negatively correlated. So more than just one correlation.
There’s also the curious correlation between increasing atmospheric CO2 and “adjustments” to temperature records. But, I’m sure that’s just a “coincidence”.
Adjustments could account for up to half the claimed warming since 1880
Adjustments account for the disappearance of significant global cooling from 1940 to 1975
Adjustments and poor data quality (mainly pre-World War II data) have to be one of the many manmade causes of global warming. In addition to CO2, methane and the Urban Heat Island effect.
I’ve moved on to light pollution as CO2 is all a bit yesterdays-
How an effort to reduce fossil fuel use led to another environmental problem: light pollution (msn.com)
Clearly the Gummint has to step in with free sunnies-
11928458-3×2-940×627.jpg (940×627) (abc.net.au)
The thing I missed here is feedbacks. Did Sherwood’s and Lewis’ corrected version of Sherwood’s work include all feedbacks (positive and negative) or are they suggesting CO2 on it’s own will cause this increase in temperature. I understand that this is not Lewis’ work, it is his effort to show that if Sherwood had done his work correctly he would have a lower result, the one Lewis shows.
Yes, both studies included all feedbacks at their estimated values (with uncertainties allowed for), or an estimate of total feedbacks where a temperature increase is used to derive the climate sensitivity estimate (with uncertainties allowed for).
Thank you, Nic.
Finally! A comment from the other end of the horse. Thanks, Nic.
Were the estimated feedbacks clearly and reasonably derived in your opinion? Who provided the estimates?
I didn’t see the correct answer in the comments:
No one knows the correct ECS
There are plenty of guesses.
One is likely to be right
The science is not settled
So the ECS guesses will continue
I think that is the correct answer.
”One is likely to be right”
Why?
Because there are so many guesses that just about all the possibilities within the IPCC range have been claimed by some scientist.
I do – so close to zero it is unmeasurable. Any additional mass in the atmosphere will increase the ocean limit temperature of 30C. But CO2 contribution to mass is unmeasurable.
All the forecasts are narrowing in on ZERO. If ZERO was a politically correct answer then that is what would now be commonly accepted.
Gross exaggeration that all forecasts “are narrowing in on zero”
They are also narrowing in on +1 degree C
and on +2 degrees C.
Think about it this way, can an insulator raise temperature on its own? An insulator can only slow the cooling of a hot body. This has never been disproved. Only when the insulator becomes warmer than the hot body (when the heat source is removed) will the insulator warm the other body, but only to equilibrium.
What you say is only true if there is no source of energy heating the hot body. If CO2 is an insulator and the Sun continues to shine then the surface will warm as the cooling function will have been diminished.
The sun IS a heat source. It does heat the surface until equilibrium is reached. Which by the way doesn’t really happen for many reasons. But the insulator does not affect the process between the sun and the surface since the assumption is usually that the atmosphere is transparent to the sun’s insolation.. CO2 will slow the cooling process but not reverse it.
‘CO2 will slow the cooling process but not reverse it.’
Everything else equal, this holds during the daytime too, right?
It holds as long as the surface remains hotter than the atmosphere. CO2 can not reverse the laws of thermodynamics. Net radiation is from hot to cold. Look at the two body Stefan-Boltzmann equation. There is a reason that Thot comes first and Tcold is subtracted.
Planck says this.
Page 118, Section 102
Page 107, Section 93
Jim, thanks for the Planck references. I only posted my question in response to your previous comment re. Tmin (increasing) vs Tmax (little changed), above, i.e.,
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/09/20/important-new-paper-challenges-ipccs-claims-about-climate-sensitivity/#comment-3605210
FN – Thanks.
I just think people need to rethink “back radiation”. It certainly does exist. However, it can not drive the surface from 270 to 271, that is, back up the cooling gradient, because of what Planck calls “compensation”. It can however, increase the time it takes to cool from 270 to 269. My numbers are just examples and not indicative of actual temps.
I think CO2 also charges a thermal capacitor made up of N2/O2 while the sun is shining. That capacitor is then discharged at night. If you examine the temperature profile of land, daytime temperatures pretty much follow a sine positive sine wave curve. But at night, it is an exponential curve just like a resistor-capacitor discharge. That’s one reason I don’t like averages, they don’t capture the actual temperature behavior.
JG,
The capacitor analogy sounds reasonable, however, as a simple ex-ChE, I like the ‘leaky bucket’ analogy, wherein the water level in the bucket is a function of inflow (assumed constant) and the number of holes in the bucket. Plug a couple of the holes and the water level in the bucket will indeed increase until other holes become operative and/or increased hydrostatic head increases the flow rate through the currently flowing holes.
On this basis (and using your example numbers), I would agree with you and Dr. P. that LW back radiation itself doesn’t raise the surface from 270 to 271, while positing that impeding LW to space while absorbed SW from the sun remains constant does raise the surface from 270 to 271*. Does this seem reasonable to you?
*PS – I’m not buying what the IPCC is selling re. CO2 since the paleo evidence is overwhelming that that feedbacks in the Earth climate system work to maintain stasis around slowly evolving set points determined by orbital mechanics, solar influences and/or continental drift.
No, it can not raise the temp to 271. You are making the mistake that energies add. Without doing the calculations, let’s say the Earth’s surface is is at equilibrium with the sun at 270 and emitting at 200 W while the atmosphere is at 250 and emitting 150 W. We also need emphasize that this only exists at an infinitely small point in time otherwise we need to start using complicated integrals.
The Earth’s surface will radiate only radiate at 270 because that is temperature derived. Then back radiation is absorbed, BUT the back radiation is immediately compensated for making the net outgoing 50 W. This is why the Stefan-Boltzmann equation with two bodies works to calculate the net energy that is radiated.
I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that this makes the atmosphere continue to warm. That is what happens to the insulation in your house too, although not by radiation. With weather stations being in the atmosphere they are measuring atmospheric temperature changes and not the changes in the actual surface.
It is a pet peeves of mine that climate science talks about the surface (soil/ocean) but then turn around and call the atmosphere near the boundary the same thing. They are different thermodynamic bodies and should be treated that way.
Lastly remember that CO2 near the boundary is bombarded not only from below (the surface) but also from above (back radiation).
Thanks Jim,
‘I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that this makes the atmosphere continue to warm.’
I agree that the so-called GHE is strictly a LW phenomenon that occurs between the Earth’s surface and TOA. Other than that, I think I may be just having a frame of reference issue with the above. Are you saying that T_surface is strictly a function of absorbed SW, i.e., it is not effected by emitted LW, thermals and evapotranspiration effects? Thanks again.
Nope, not saying anything like that. I’m only talking about radiation. This is all complicated since it is all tied together. That is one reason why I don’t like using averages. The sun doesn’t heat the Tsurface based on an average and therefore none of the various atmospheric processes occur based on an average either.
Jim, I’ll go with Max Planck’s clear example as opposed to your contrived and convoluted “reasoning.”
Jim, your first paragraph conflicts with Mr. Planck’s: “For example, if we let the rays emitted by the body fall back on it, say by suitable reflection, the body, while again absorbing these rays, will necessarily be at the same time emitting new rays, and this is the compensation required by the second principle.“
Its emission of “new rays” requires the body (Earth’s surface) to heat up beyond its original temperature. The GHE, writ large.
Why do you say it needs to heat further? You do realize that you are trying to refute the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for two bodies don’t you? It doesn’t require one to increase the temperature of the hot body to get the net radiation does it?
I think you misunderstand what Planck was trying to say. Here is another statement from Planck.
Page 8, Section 7.
Note the “The fact that the body A is cooled by B” part of the statement. He doesn’t say that body A’s temperature must rise to get rid of B’s radiation. He says it is cooled.
You need to study the entropy section also. A cold body raising the temperature of a warm body violates the laws governing entropy. Entropy increases which means hot bodies cool and in doing so warm cold bodies thereby increasing entropy.
As I said, the hearth’s surface just keeps radiating at whatever it temperature dictates. If it happens to absorb energy that is less than it’s own, it compensates. The compensation just means it COOLS slower, not that the temperature must increase to get rid of the extra energy.
Think about how you would ever reach equilibrium if the hot body’s temperature kept rising from absorbing energy from a cold body!
‘If it happens to absorb energy that is less than it’s own, it compensates. The compensation just means it COOLS slower, not that the temperature must increase to get rid of the extra energy.’
Jim / Dave,
I think an answer to the following would help me:
Ok. A red-hot ingot in space cools at a given rate. The same red-hot ingot in space, now in close proximity to a similar, but cooler, ingot now cools at a slower rate. Got it. Now consider the same red-hot ingot in space, but connected to a power source such that it maintains a constant temperature. Does placing a second cooler ingot in close proximity to the powered ingot cause it’s temperature to rise?
No. This is pretty much what the earth is only with a variable heat source.
If the ingot is in equilibrium with the heat source then it is at a constant temperature. It will radiate at that constant temperature. It will continue to radiate at that rate.
I know you are trying to work out why the ingot doesn’t get hotter. Let’s take three blocks, B1, B2, and B3. B1 is a source and is in equilibrium with B2. Let’s assume that B1 and B2 are each sending the other one 200 W and so they are in equilibrium. Now since heat is radiated in all directions at once. B2 is also sending B3 200 W. Let’s say B3 is at a lower temperature and only sending 150 W toward B2. The net heat of 50 W will be directed towards B3.
Let’s take the position that the B3 radiation is added to the B1 radiation at B2. That would make B2 radiate 350 W and its temperature would increase dramatically. It would quickly become hotter that the source and consequently heat the source to a higher temperature. Yet at the same time B3 would become much hotter because it is also receiving 350 W now and B3 will send more back to B2. And, we go around the circle again with everything getting hotter and hotter forever. I hope you see that can’t happen.
So what would logic dictate? It would say that since B1 and B2 are in equilibrium that will remain. This the best entropy solution for these two bodies. B2 will continue to heat B3 until it too is at equilibrium with both B1 and B2 and the system will be at maximum entropy.
What we are dealing with in your example is entropy. That is a difficult subject. Here are a couple of references.
Law of Entropy Explained – Smart Energy Education
Entropy – Meaning, Definition Of Entropy, Formula, Thermodynamic Relation (byjus.com)
Planck also gives an example.
Page 8, Section 7
“A body A at 100◦ C. emits toward a body B at 0◦ C. exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body Bi at 1000◦ C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by Bi is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, Bi a stronger emitter than A.
Max Planck. The Theory of Heat Radiation by Max Planck (p. 9). Prabhat Prakashan. Kindle Edition.
‘I know you are trying to work out why the ingot doesn’t get hotter.’
Yup. Here’s what I think you are saying:
(All Ingots are isolated in deep space, except as noted)
1) Warm Ingot A by itself radiates and cools at some rate, x.
2) Warm Ingot A in proximity with cooler Ingot B radiates and cools at a rate < x.
3) Ingot C, powered by some constant heat source, by itself so that it is neither heating nor cooling, radiates at some rate, y.
4) Ingot C, powered by the same constant heat source, but now in proximity with cooler Ingot B, still radiates at some rate, y, hence, is neither heating nor cooling.
Have I stated this correctly and is there experimental evidence to corroborate this?
Thanks for your patience.
No, I am saying Ingot C is the constant source and through what ever means only heats Ingot A. Like the sun heating the surface only. Ingot B is placed where only energy from Ingot A can interact with it and it interacts only with Ingot A.
Then assume A and C are in equilibrium exchanging equal quantities of radiation and both at the same temperature of course.
Ingot B can be whatever temperature you want as long as it is cooler than A and that it is only warmed by radiation from A.
This should duplicate the basic system of sun, earth’ s surface, and atmosphere dealing with radiation.
One must then show that “back radiation” from B can raise the temperature of A (and C) making it radiate more and how that doesn’t create an ever increasing temperature exchange.
So far I haven’t seen any reference to contradict Planck’s “compensation” explanation. All of my thermodynamic training says heat flows from hot to cold and that cold can not increase the temperature of a warm body, otherwise equilibrium could never be acheived.
As far as experiments, I have made none and only read about those done by Planck. I would hope that you as I do find it insane that no physicist has ever done an experiment that shows back radiation from a cold body can make a hot body even hotter (and not just make it cool slower). That would pretty much settle the issue once and for all. You would think with all the money in climate science that kind of an experiment would be greatly sought after. Maybe someone here can provide a paper.
I’m still not convinced. In (my) scenario 2 (above), I think we agreed that the presence of the cooler body reduced the cooling rate of the warmer body. So wouldn’t it be true in scenario 4 that the cooler body will also reduce the cooling rate of the warmer body? And given that the warmer body in scenario 4 has a constant heat source but is now cooling at a slower rate, wouldn’t it be true that the temperature of the warmer body must be higher than that of the same body in the absence of the cooler body, i.e. scenario 3?
Note, there’s no infinite feedback loop here, just as there isn’t any in the case of wrapping a hot water pipe with insulation, as in all my scenarios the bodies (Ingots) are isolated in space and radiating against a backdrop slightly above 0K. And I should also mention that I’m focusing on transitory effects here, i.e., not long term equilibrium, if that makes a difference.
Again, thanks for your patience.
I don’t disagree with this statement. Assume the cooling gradient, in simple terms, is 2 degrees per unit of time, without the cooler body. Then in one unit of time, the warm body would cool by 2 degrees. *
Now let’s add the cooler body and assume the cooling rate is now 1 degree per unit of time. Then in one unit of time, the warm body would cool by 1 degrees.
So in any given unit of time, the temperature with a cool body would be warmer by 1 degree than with no cool body. This is not the same as making the hot body hotter. To do that, the cold body would have to become warmer that the warm body.
This does not imply though that the warm body actually rises in temperature against the cooling gradient. If the gradient was changed from cooling, a positive value, to a negative value, then the warm body would actually rise in temperature.
‘So in any given unit of time, the temperature with a cool body would be warmer by 1 degree than with no cool body.’
Bingo! So now we’re hopefully in agreement. So-called green house gases in the atmosphere don’t raise the temperature of the Earth’s surface, they just keep the Earth’s surface from cooling as fast as it would in the absence of said gases. Hence, on a relative basis, Earth’s surface with an atmosphere containing green house gases is warmer than it would be in the absence of green house gases.
I liken this result to a perfect hot water heater capable of maintaining a constant tank temperature of T_hw regardless of flow rate. Given two pipes from the tank, one insulated and one not insulated, the surface temperatures of the two pipes, at equilibrium will be T_i and T_ni, respectively where,
T_hw > T_i > T_ni
Let me know if this sounds right to you.
It is correct. It is also basically what I said in my first post. Planck calls it compensation when dealing with radiation. It is where the radiation is based on temperature but the apportionment is partially “hot” and partially “cold” which means the cooling gradient is slowed.
In your case you are dealing with all three types, conduction from water -> pipe (a certain gradient), conduction through the pipe (another gradient), and convection/radiation (two other gradients) from the outside of the pipe to either the air or the insulation. With the insulation there will be another gradient across the insulation and then another pair of gradients to the air for convection and radiation. Not an easy task. Reminds me of the final project in my last thermo class.
Also, remember that the sun is what determines the actual “hot” temperature of the actual surface and nothing else. GHG theory proposes that the back radiation power is added to the incoming power from the insolation and it is not. The atmosphere acts like the insulation in your wall. The wall side of the insulation approaches the temperature of the wall but its heat conductance is much lower (hopefully), so less heat moves across it in a given unit of time, i.e. the gradient. As I said in an earlier post, thermodynamics is a complicated business whether you are dealing with conduction, convection, or radiation.
‘Also, remember that the sun is what determines the actual “hot” temperature of the actual surface and nothing else.’
Indeed, like 1,366*(1-0.30)/4 W/m^2 on ‘average’ SW, except there are places / times that receive the full truck load at any given time, as well as other places that receive zip.
I believe the greatest ‘success’ of climate alarmism (CliSciFi) has been to have its skeptics continually talk past each other on the subject of back radiation.
And actually,
T_hw > T_i > T_ni
holds at any time, not just at equilibrium.
I’ll stick with Planck. Take a body with an external power source such that it stays at some temperature T radiating at some R. If some of the body’s R is reflected back (not coming from another body) to the body as Rr (“reflected rays”), the equivalent of which is immediately emitted by the body (Planck, not me). The body is then emitting at R + Rr. The increase in the body’s emissions must relate to some increase in the body’s temperature.
The Earth’s temperature (which determines its radiation) is dependent on so many massive transfers of energy that the pissant contributions of increased atmospheric CO2 is a difficult calculation. It is clear that the approximately 1% contribution of the theoretical increase to energy flows by industrial development will not lead to runaway global warming despite positive feedback. I’m unable to argue the scientific details of this on a blog, given that I refuse to devote my remaining life to becoming a climate scientist and, additionally, following cranks down Alice’s rabbit hole.
I forgot to address the “new rays”. These are not additional rays generated by absorbing the cold bodies energy. They are the continuous generation of new rays from moment to moment based on the temperature. If new rays weren’t continuously generated, an object would generate one blast and be done.
This is one reason why I hate discussing things using averages.
Jim, in this case Planck’s “new rays” are simply a reflection of a portion of a body’s emissions back to the body. There is no cold body energy involved.
This is one reason why I hate going down Alice’s rabbit hole with cranks.
”
Give a source for your assertion.
By claiming a ‘reflection’, you are saying that the hot body never absorbs the “back radiation”, but just reflects it back to the cold body?
That’s a unique perspective but I think problematic. You will then have the problem of the cold body getting both the reflected energy but also the regular energy from the hot body. That doesn’t add up because again, you could never have equilibruim.
Read up on the GHE.
Nice refutation dude. Tell us what the GHE raises the temperature of, the surface, i.e., the land/oceans or the lower atmosphere where the land thermometers are?
Its a system, Jim. Kinda like: “Its dead, Jim.”
Your argument is that reflected heat from a colder body can warm a hotter body.
This is, in essence, a positive feedback loop. As Jim pointed out this would result in an infinitely increasing temperature at the hotter body, the temperature of both bodies would continue to go up with the feedback continually adding to the temperature of the hotter body.
That just isn’t a physical reality. All it really represents is a slow down in the cooling of the hotter body. The reflected heat is merely replacing heat that has already been lost by the hotter body.
The formula you are looking for is:
no reflection: H_a1 = H_a0 – H_lost
with reflection: H_a1 = H_a0 – H_lost + xH_lost
where x is always less than 1.
a0 and a1 are points in time where a1 > a0
Even if x were equal to one H_a1 would just equal H_a0, the object wouldn’t get hotter, it would just stay at the same temp.
The only source of fire in our system is the sun. It’s the only thing that can raise the temp of the earth.
Tim, both you and Jim are misstating what I wrote. That is one of the reasons I hate going down Alice’s rabbit hole with cranks.
I prefer, as stated above, to go with Max Planck on his discussion of “reflected rays.”
This isn’t a refutation of anything. Please provide a page number or section number of the translation of Planck’s paper.
No one is mistating what you wrote. You are trying to say that a cooler object can heat a warmer object. It can’t. It’s that simple.
I didn’t say anything, especially about a cold object heating a warmer object. Look above for the specific Planck quote.
In my example I made it clear I was talking about a body with an independent power source. In a simplistic case of the Earth’s surface, radiation from the atmosphere is added to that of the Sun. The Earth then radiates in accordance with its temperature.
The massive energies being swapped around the Earth’s chaotic and dynamic climate system determines the various temperatures, weather & etc. The effect of mankind’s total contribution to the perturbation of radiative flows is about 1% since the Industrial Revolution. That is not going to materially affect our climate.
Fin
You need to find some text references that show how that works. I’ve showed you what Planck says about how compensation works. You haven’t shown anything to refute that. Please address the issue of how temperature would not continue to grow to in a geometric progression if the sun’s energy and “back radiation” were directly additive. You also need to address the issue of entropy when this occurs as Planck does. I’ll be honest none of the texts I have ever studied shows a cold body increasing the temperature against a cooling gradient. Slowing cooling, yes, but never reversing cooling.
This isn’t the first time Nic has pointed out errors in a study making exaggerated claims about the climate.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1585-5
Good on him.
“Official IPCC estimates of future global warming may be overstated”
Gee! Gosh! Whoda thunkit? Etc.
And they will continue to be overstated because that’s what the IPCC does.
Charles Rotter,
I’ve been trying to get someone, anyone, to do an article on non-co2 warming causes. Some parts of the planet are warming much faster than the average. The Sea of Marmara is the leading example but there are many other examples, Lake Superior, Tanganyika, Baltic Sea, Eastern Mediterranean etc.
Ruf and Evans published about microplastic pollution and found that that did not cause warming, but the associated surface smoothing did. This is a warming contribution that has not been quantified. Is it significant or negligible?
Remember Tom Wigley’s ‘why the blip’? If the irreducible bit of his blip was, as I believe, caused by surface pollution, and Ruf and Evans gyre warming was caused by the same if should now be possible to estimate a non-co2 warming contribution. The latter’s satellite technique provides a method of observing total ocean surface smoothing.
If you search on my name on YT you will find my anecdotal descriptions of sea surface pollution by oil/surfactant.
I’m not capably of collating the data on anomalous ocean warming, but I’m sure there are those here who are. Could I ask you to prod some of them to explain the temperature records of – as an example – Lake Michigan which is handy for the University, and they can have fun unravelling the surfactant and spilled oil contributions.
JF
Just follow the sunlight anywhere outside the tropics.
I did this note on solar EMR and temperature:
Temp_EMR_Trends.pdf
If you do not have the knowledge to do your own calculation for orbital changes then you can get information for month and latitude from here:
http://vo.imcce.fr/insola/earth/online/earth/online/index.php
The actual temperature is highly correlated to sunlight for any particular location outside the tropics or where sea ice is ever present. Land responds twice as fast and twice the temperature range as water to the same solar input.
I also published a couple of articles on the ocean temperature limit:
http://www.bomwatch.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Bomwatch-Willoughby-Main-article-FINAL.pdf
This goes into detail on the Persian Gulf.
This one looks specifically at the convective engine:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/23/ocean-atmosphere-response-to-solar-emr-at-top-of-the-atmosphere/
The large oceans have very long time constants for deep warming or cooling unless the net water cycle is slowing down or speeding up. Small, geographically constrained bodies have faster thermal response.
Oil pollution reduces spray and bubble breaking by suppressing waves. Fewer clouds.
JF
Julian, apparently much to our surprise, we learned after the Gulf oil spill, because we started monitoring the Gulf for oil, that a whole lot of oil seeps into the waters naturally. How do you propose to monitor natural oil and determine how much of that there is worldwide in the seas, gulfs and oceans? We can do nothing about natural oil seepage from the depths of the earth.
Another thing we have learned due to man caused oil spills is that there are bacteria which eat the oil. How do we quantitate that and factor it into the equation?
Also, why do you believe Wigley’s blip and his desire to rid the CAGW proponents of it had anything to do with oil? That makes zero sense to me. Oil is natural and has been with us and seeping into oceans for milineas. Why now would oil be a culprit?
Oil, natural and anthropogenic is oxidised of course. Just abandoning the idea of oil pollution warming because of that seems a bit wimpish.
Israeli ish farmers used to increase warming in their ponds by adding a little light oil. You could repeat that in an experiment. During a high pressure wind lull, prepare two ponds, one clean, one oiled. Measure the temperature changes.
My position on this is ‘from a basic understanding of what happens to an oiled water body – smoothing lowers albedo and reduced evaporation – what would you expect to happen when you spread the surface with light oil?
Have you looked at the Sea of Marmara? Why is it warming so fast?
JF
Apply for a grant from the NSF. Hire any expertise you may need. WUWT denizens don’t seem willing to do your work.
BTW, in ’73 I was getting my feet oily on Tampa (?) beach. The oil seeps were known about then.
JF
Look up Jim Steele articles here on natural causes of climate change.
Or at his website:
A Walk On The Natural Side (perhapsallnatural.blogspot.com)
The problem with the ECS guesses is not enough decimal places !
While earning my BS degree, I learned the value of lots of decimal places.
One decimal place = baloney, malarkey, wild guess, and BS
That’s why I know +1.5 degrees C, is baloney, a number pulled from a hat, or from two feet below the back of the hat
If they had said +1.525 degrees C. is the tipping point, that would be real science
Three decimal places.
The real deal.
So give me an ECS with three decimal places if you want me to believe it.
Or, even better, with four decimal places.
End of science lecture.
i offset some of your downvotes. Some folks need a sense of humor.
Good satire such as this needs “plausible” alternative readings. To be effective satire needs the unsuspecting.
The CO2 climate sensitivity paradigm is a red herring and misleads. The estimates of so called ECS tell us nothing of what will actually happen with real temperature, even if this unphysical sensitivity to CO2 is somehow exactly correct. A low ECS does not guarantee a low temperature change, nor does a high ECS guarantee a high temperature change. The field of climatology is in its darkest age to date, littered with ignorance.
Sherwood is I believe the academic who actively tried to prevent Christopher Monckton from speaking in Sydney some 10 years ago.
We’ve experienced roughly 1.2 C warming above the 1850-1900 mean with a roughly current EEI (2005-2019) of 0.8 W/m^2. If ECS = 2.16 then λ = 0.58 and that means ~0.47 C additional is built into current current conditions, and the total equilibrium temperature should be ~1.7 C. Again, if λ = 0.58, then that implies we need 1.7/0.58 = 2.9 W/m^2 from some set of forcings to explain current warming. If we take round RF numbers of 2.1 W/m^2 for CO2, 0.9 W/m^2 for other GHGs and -0.8 W/m^2 from aerosols, that means we’ve experienced a total of ~2.2 W/m^2 radiative forcing. Where did the other 0.7 W/m^2 come from?
If ECS = 3.2 C, then λ = 0.86 and we would expect 1.9 C total warming from the 2.2 W/m^2 increase in forcings. Since EEI is 0.8 W/m^2, about 0.7 C of that is in the current energy imbalance, leaving 1.2 C for the rise in temperatures. This fits empirical data precisely.
So it seems that for 2.16 C to be correct, we need 1) to find 0.7 W/m^2 somewhere or 2) to show that the above estimates are off by that amount or 3) some combination of the two.