Is The CO2 Effect Too Weak To Explain Warming?
Dave Price
That's what this guy, Nasif Nahle Sabag, is arguing:
For example, the real radiative equilibrium temperature of Earth is 300.15 K (27 °C), and we want to know the anomaly caused by carbon dioxide, which concentration in the atmosphere was 381 ppmv. If the standard concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 280 ppmv (another subjective number because the real one was fixed by scientific associations and boards, and its value is 350 ppmv), the anomaly in the temperature of the lower troposphere (the layer of air just above the ground and in contact with the surface with not more than one meter thick) caused by CO2 (Partial Pressure from 381 ppmv [CcdL] = 0.00034 atm-m) under a total atmospheric pressure of 1 atm is:Seems to hang together fairly well. Anyone care to try to shoot holes in this?
[Equations at link]
Thus, the anomaly of the lower troposphere temperature caused by the increase of CO2, on June 15, 2007 at 18:05 hrs. (UT) was 0.02 K, which is equal to 0.02 °C.
Sabag appears to believe increases in solar radiation are more likely to be responsible, and argues that case in this thread, citing data that do appear to show solar irradiance has been rising both in the past 400 years and the past 50, though (as pointed out in the thread) the correlation to temperature is lagging (ironically, lagging correlation is of course the same argument warming skeptics have made against the long-term CO2/temperature correlations), and he gives some interesting formulas for surface warming based on irradiation.
We should be skeptical, but in both directions: with the recent revelations that James Hansen is not only receiving six-figure payments from Soros but actually once worked to bolster claims the same problem (air pollution from fossil fuels) would bring about a "catastrophic" Ice Age, the whole climate change industry starts to look like a bit like a cause in search of a convenient crisis.
Where have you been?
Hansen particularly feels the need to be seen as "saving the world", regardless of what reality is.
Global warming (the science) is probably worth discussing in a sober, dispassionate fashion without, ahem, politicians, actors, activists, etc, etc.
Hanky B
His math is sound, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to say whether his formulas are acceptable. If they are, the math shows that CO2 can't store enough heat to cause current and predicted warming.
Also CO2 absorbs only certain wavelengths, and very little of the sun's radiance at wavelengths which CO2 absorbs reaches the Earth. (See graph) But solar radiance reflected back into the atmosphere from the earth is shifted to a lower wavelength, and constitutes much of what is absorbed by CO2.
Hansen accepted no money from GAP
One minor difference between Earth and Venus that might have escaped your attention. It's only 0.72 AU from Sol, so it receives twice as much sunlight per square meter as the Earth does. Other than that minor detail, it's a clear demonstration of what global warming could look like on Earth.
No, he accepted $720,000 worth of services from OSI. Funny how Hansen uses the term "Swift boating" as a synonym for unjustified attack. Having read the book and followed the controversy closely, I view it as a term for being caught in a lie.
Venus' atmosphere is much, much thicker than Earth's, with 93 times greater pressure at the surface. It's thick enough to make the planet isothermal; the poles have the same temperature as the equator. In fact, Venus' atmosphere is so thick it is believed to have exerted enough tidal force to actually slow the planet's rotation, and the pressure crushed some terrestrial probes sent to the planet.
So if you increase the Earth's atmospheric density by two orders of magnitude, and make it mostly CO2 as opposed to less than 1%, then yes, you could have a runaway greenhouse effect. Of course, it would crush us to death long before heat became an issue.
And the global cooling claim? also BS.
If the warming on Venus is due to CO2, then how could you explain that at a pressure of 1 bar the temperature of the Venerean atmosphere is 260 K (-13.15 °C)?
Ha, Tim Lambert? Are you kidding me?
Hansen actually confirms what I wrote in that piece: he authored a tool that helped bolster claims fossil fuel use would lead to an Ice Age. Whether he bears "responsibility" for the theory is arguable; that he worked with climatologists making apocalyptic claims exactly opposite to apocalyptic claims he makes today is not.
Are we supposed to believe there's no connection? The Soros Foundation report actually mentions Hansen! They take credit for it:
"The campaign on Hansen's behalf resulted in a decision by NASA to revisit its media policy."
In the "catastrophic" global warming scenarios, most of the warming is caused by water vapor, not CO2. The argument is that CO2 causes a little warming, which causes more water to evaporate from the surface, increasing the water vapor in the atmosphere. The increased water vapor then causes even more warming. The size (and even the sign) of this "water vapor feedback" is the point at issue.
While the spectroscopy of CO2 is understood more than well enough for these calculations, the behavior of water vapor is not understood at all well. What's more, the primary mechanism for moving water vapor up into the atmosphere, thunderstorms, cannot be included in the General Circulation Models (GCMs), because the GCMs don't have enough spatial resolution.
The result is that the modelers, for all practical purposes, get to pick whatever number they want for the water vapor feedback, and stick it into their models. They always pick large positive numbers, for no particular reason. And that unaccountable preference is the scientific basis for the global warming crisis.
It will be a long time before our computer models are sophisticated, powerful or accurate enough to model what water vapor does to the atmosphere's temperature.
To say that increased CO2 will increase ONLY the warming effect of water vapor is absolutely ludicrous, but that's what the GW alarmists do.
Among other preposterous things.
Lambert refutes all your claims handily, and I notice that you don't even really address the problems he points out: you coyly dodge them. The claimed "six-figure" amount of money that "went" to Hansen is a complete fabrication (and merely citing that Soros' group lobbies NASA is not any sort of answer to how Lambert showed that he claim was a lie) and developing a tool that people used is not the same thing as him working on or publishing a paper. Again, you're account is extremely dishonest, as always.
You're like the creationist who tried to tell me that pigs are more like humans than apes... and cited a Weekly World News article to "prove" it.
Thus, most of the energy from the sun passes right through the CO2 in the atmosphere, but some of the infrared energy re-radiated by the earth is intercepted and re-radiated by the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. Mr. Saba is applying the Stefan-Boltzmann law to a situation in which it does not apply.
No, he's not using blackbody and graybody emissivities of CO2, but the values of emissivity obtained from experimentation by Hottel and other scientists. I see his formulas are corrected applied and widely used by the ipcc.
http://www.biocab.org/Emissivity_CO2.html
Nahel method is correct at heat stored and heat transfer, and has nothing to do with blackbody and graybody emissivities, it's based on experimental works, so the argument of Chris Crawford about opacity-transparency is off topic.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.