The radiative effect of added carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is a first order climate forcing and its influence on global warming has been robustly demonstrated.
GHE theory fails because of two erroneous assumptions: 1. near Earth space is cold & w/o GHE would become 255 K, -18 C, ball of ice & 2. radiating as a 16 C BB the surface produces “extra” GHE energy aka radiative forcing (nee caloric).
Both
Are
Just
Flat
Wrong
!!!
Without the atmosphere, water vapor and its 30% albedo Earth would become much like the Moon, a barren rock, hot^3 400 K on the lit side, cold^3 100 K on the dark.
“TFK_bams09” GHE heat balance graphic & its legion of clones uses bad math and badder physics. 63 W/m^2 appears twice (once from Sun & second from a BB calculation) violating both LoT 1 and GAAP. 396 W/m^2 upwelling is a BB calc for a 16 C surface for denominator of the emissivity ratio, 63/396=0.16, “extra” & not real. 333 W/m^2 “back” radiating from cold to warm violates LoT 1 & 2. Remove 396/333/63 GHE loop from the graphic and the solar balance still works.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules (60%) render a terrestrial BB (requires 100%) impossible as demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
Since both GHE & CAGW climate “science” are indefensible rubbish alarmists must resort to fear mongering, lies, lawsuits, censorship and violence.
"Adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere thus allows more upwelling long wave radiation to be captured before it can escape to space, and this energy is re-radiated back towards the Earth’s surface, thus resulting in a warming of the Earth system. The result is global warming due to the radiative effect of carbon dioxide." This does not convince me that man-made CO2 accumulation is driving massive changes in climate. The key issue is not some warming but how much warming, and this article does not address that issue, except to cite an IPCC graph, which, to me, is the opposite of convincing. If, as I'm convinced by the science, increasing CO2 concentration has a diminishing effect per unit added, and if the greater part of the maximum CO2 greenhouse effect has already been obtained at 400 ppm, sure, there is SOME "warming due to the radiative effect of carbon dioxide," but so what? Wasn't the earth warmer or as warm as now during the Holocene Optimum (10k ya), the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period? I feel that perhaps the greatest bit of bad luck humanity has had in the last 1000 years is the coincidence of the end of the Liitle Ice Age with the beginning of fossil fuel use. But, as they say, correlation is not causation. I could add a quote or two from Feynman about how science is done, but you probably already know them. P.S. Why no mention of H2O, by far the most important greenhouse gas?
I think you are correct that nearly all the effect of CO2 has occurred by 400ppm. All the radiation in the wavelength that CO2 has been absorbed at this point. Adding more CO2 is negligible because there’s little for it to absorb.
You are correct that merely citing IPCC is an error. There are two Cardinal Sins in Science: Assuming correlation means causation. And Appeal To Authority. Merely Citing IPCC is the latter.
The notion of CO2 in the atmosphere radiating heat back to the surface is wrong. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that heat cannot transfer from a colder body (the atmosphere) to a warmer one the earth surface and lower atmosphere. If heat did follow a downward route then entropy would be decreasing which is only allowed by a part of a closed system which is more than offset by increases in the rest of the system
Hi! Thank you for this; I am somewhat late to the climate change debate and continue to look for words that can help me understand all sides of the controversy. I am particularly interested because I spent over 20 years in the electric utility industry and have some concept of the magnitude of changes the current net-zero goals are likely to bring. For year, I have told friends that I will know utilities (and their regulators and other stakeholders) are 'serious' about CO2 and climate change when they actually begin to work with customers on increasing their comfort with an intermittent supply of electricity to the premise (what counts as a customer in utility-speak). Instead, if anything, utilities and their cohorts seem to just more loudly proclaim the continuing validity of "as much as you want, whenever you want it."
In any event, a couple of questions you might address in a future piece:
1. The historical record, as seen through ice and other types of cores, seems to show a lag between temperature and CO2 increases. Wouldn't one usually think of the first as causal and the second as effect? Why is that not true here?
2. Can you explain in the same clear way as in this article how human-caused CO2 can be distinguished from all other CO2 and why it is safe to assume that all other CO2 would be the same now as in 1750 if it weren't for fossil fuels?
3. I am confused by the variation in how long people say that CO2 stays in the atmosphere. Can you shed some light on this?
I think Roger was going to forward you a couple of other really basic questions I had about the output of the IPCC radiative forcing models and the time/area scales used to make the necessary calculations. Again, I know my questions are really basic but I honestly didn't know until today what the numbers on the IPCC scenarios everyone talks about even meant! And I worked in an industry close to this whole issue. Imagine the lack of understanding out there by people not close to this at all. That scares me even though the notion of climate change does not. Thank you for your generous time in contributing to this Substack.
GHE theory fails because of two erroneous assumptions: 1. near Earth space is cold & w/o GHE would become 255 K, -18 C, ball of ice & 2. radiating as a 16 C BB the surface produces “extra” GHE energy aka radiative forcing (nee caloric).
Both
Are
Just
Flat
Wrong
!!!
Without the atmosphere, water vapor and its 30% albedo Earth would become much like the Moon, a barren rock, hot^3 400 K on the lit side, cold^3 100 K on the dark.
“TFK_bams09” GHE heat balance graphic & its legion of clones uses bad math and badder physics. 63 W/m^2 appears twice (once from Sun & second from a BB calculation) violating both LoT 1 and GAAP. 396 W/m^2 upwelling is a BB calc for a 16 C surface for denominator of the emissivity ratio, 63/396=0.16, “extra” & not real. 333 W/m^2 “back” radiating from cold to warm violates LoT 1 & 2. Remove 396/333/63 GHE loop from the graphic and the solar balance still works.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules (60%) render a terrestrial BB (requires 100%) impossible as demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
Since both GHE & CAGW climate “science” are indefensible rubbish alarmists must resort to fear mongering, lies, lawsuits, censorship and violence.
It would seem that the biogeophysical would result in negative forcing. CO2 is absorbed thus decreasing the amount in the atmosphere. This is especially true as the earth greens with ever increasing CO2 absorption by flora. Also the oceans are absorbing CO2 with increased phytoplankton, I doubt that that is being considered in climate warming. The complexity and currently little understood impact of the total biogeophysical forcing may be why current climate models have not been able to forecast current observed global temperatures.
Also i would think that El Nino, Pacific and Atlantic multi decadional osselations are much too large and persistent to be caused by spacial gradients in the horizontal pressure fields. Their existence as oceanographic phenomena drives the climate not visa versa.
A warm welcome to Roger Sr, his work was amongst the first I encountered in my efforts to understand the issues of climate change. I am delighted to know he will be writing more here.
I do have aquestion related to the uptake of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere. As I understand it, about 40% of our annual emissions end up in the atmosphere. This fraction has stayed constant while our emissions have almost triple since the 1970's.
Why is this fraction constant, and what does that mean for the estimation of residence time for CO2?
One thing that I didn't get from this article is how a gas that is only 0.04% or the atmosphere can have such a large effect on warming. What's the explanation for this out sized effect?
Best I’ve seen explaining the role of CO2! A question. Can we see the pandemic in recent data? Presumably the shutdown/slowdown of various economies resulted in less CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels for a time. Has this shown up in the data? Thanks.
Thank you! Reading the paper it appears, despite the reduction in CO2 emissions during the pandemic, there was not the expected response in atmospheric CO2 concentration. More work to be done on the models??
“Some of this absorbed heat is also reflected back into space. The fraction of the reflected heat is called the albedo, with larger albedo values indicating greater reflection.”
I’m confused. I thought albedo is the fraction of the sun’s irradiation that is reflected back into space at unaltered wavelength, without being absorbed and converted to heat.
By what mechanism is radiation re-radiated down to Earth? And why only in that direction?
The radiative effect of added carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is a first order climate forcing and its influence on global warming has been robustly demonstrated.
It has???
Without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the Earth’s climate would be much colder.
Just
Flat
Wrong
!!!!
Carbon dioxide makes up only about 0.04% of air but even so, it has major effects on the Earth’s climate.
No, it does not.
"The Biogeochemical Effect of Added Carbon Dioxide"
There is none!
1 Earth is cooler w GHE (water vapor = albedo) not warmer, 278 K w/o not 255 K.
2. TFK_bams09 GHE graphic is junk.
3. Surface cannot radiate "extra" energy as 396 BB.
GHE is bogus and CAGW a scam.
GHE theory fails because of two erroneous assumptions: 1. near Earth space is cold & w/o GHE would become 255 K, -18 C, ball of ice & 2. radiating as a 16 C BB the surface produces “extra” GHE energy aka radiative forcing (nee caloric).
Both
Are
Just
Flat
Wrong
!!!
Without the atmosphere, water vapor and its 30% albedo Earth would become much like the Moon, a barren rock, hot^3 400 K on the lit side, cold^3 100 K on the dark.
“TFK_bams09” GHE heat balance graphic & its legion of clones uses bad math and badder physics. 63 W/m^2 appears twice (once from Sun & second from a BB calculation) violating both LoT 1 and GAAP. 396 W/m^2 upwelling is a BB calc for a 16 C surface for denominator of the emissivity ratio, 63/396=0.16, “extra” & not real. 333 W/m^2 “back” radiating from cold to warm violates LoT 1 & 2. Remove 396/333/63 GHE loop from the graphic and the solar balance still works.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules (60%) render a terrestrial BB (requires 100%) impossible as demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
Since both GHE & CAGW climate “science” are indefensible rubbish alarmists must resort to fear mongering, lies, lawsuits, censorship and violence.
"Adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere thus allows more upwelling long wave radiation to be captured before it can escape to space, and this energy is re-radiated back towards the Earth’s surface, thus resulting in a warming of the Earth system. The result is global warming due to the radiative effect of carbon dioxide." This does not convince me that man-made CO2 accumulation is driving massive changes in climate. The key issue is not some warming but how much warming, and this article does not address that issue, except to cite an IPCC graph, which, to me, is the opposite of convincing. If, as I'm convinced by the science, increasing CO2 concentration has a diminishing effect per unit added, and if the greater part of the maximum CO2 greenhouse effect has already been obtained at 400 ppm, sure, there is SOME "warming due to the radiative effect of carbon dioxide," but so what? Wasn't the earth warmer or as warm as now during the Holocene Optimum (10k ya), the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period? I feel that perhaps the greatest bit of bad luck humanity has had in the last 1000 years is the coincidence of the end of the Liitle Ice Age with the beginning of fossil fuel use. But, as they say, correlation is not causation. I could add a quote or two from Feynman about how science is done, but you probably already know them. P.S. Why no mention of H2O, by far the most important greenhouse gas?
Ron,
I think you are correct that nearly all the effect of CO2 has occurred by 400ppm. All the radiation in the wavelength that CO2 has been absorbed at this point. Adding more CO2 is negligible because there’s little for it to absorb.
You are correct that merely citing IPCC is an error. There are two Cardinal Sins in Science: Assuming correlation means causation. And Appeal To Authority. Merely Citing IPCC is the latter.
energy is re-radiated back towards the Earth’s surface,
Stone cold violation of LoT 2.
Forgot the link! ( https://doi.org/10.53234/scc202304/05)
This is an interesting paper which pretty much debunks the whole CO2 theory and does explain why it has never been the cause of warming previously!
The notion of CO2 in the atmosphere radiating heat back to the surface is wrong. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that heat cannot transfer from a colder body (the atmosphere) to a warmer one the earth surface and lower atmosphere. If heat did follow a downward route then entropy would be decreasing which is only allowed by a part of a closed system which is more than offset by increases in the rest of the system
Hi! Thank you for this; I am somewhat late to the climate change debate and continue to look for words that can help me understand all sides of the controversy. I am particularly interested because I spent over 20 years in the electric utility industry and have some concept of the magnitude of changes the current net-zero goals are likely to bring. For year, I have told friends that I will know utilities (and their regulators and other stakeholders) are 'serious' about CO2 and climate change when they actually begin to work with customers on increasing their comfort with an intermittent supply of electricity to the premise (what counts as a customer in utility-speak). Instead, if anything, utilities and their cohorts seem to just more loudly proclaim the continuing validity of "as much as you want, whenever you want it."
In any event, a couple of questions you might address in a future piece:
1. The historical record, as seen through ice and other types of cores, seems to show a lag between temperature and CO2 increases. Wouldn't one usually think of the first as causal and the second as effect? Why is that not true here?
2. Can you explain in the same clear way as in this article how human-caused CO2 can be distinguished from all other CO2 and why it is safe to assume that all other CO2 would be the same now as in 1750 if it weren't for fossil fuels?
3. I am confused by the variation in how long people say that CO2 stays in the atmosphere. Can you shed some light on this?
I think Roger was going to forward you a couple of other really basic questions I had about the output of the IPCC radiative forcing models and the time/area scales used to make the necessary calculations. Again, I know my questions are really basic but I honestly didn't know until today what the numbers on the IPCC scenarios everyone talks about even meant! And I worked in an industry close to this whole issue. Imagine the lack of understanding out there by people not close to this at all. That scares me even though the notion of climate change does not. Thank you for your generous time in contributing to this Substack.
GHE theory fails because of two erroneous assumptions: 1. near Earth space is cold & w/o GHE would become 255 K, -18 C, ball of ice & 2. radiating as a 16 C BB the surface produces “extra” GHE energy aka radiative forcing (nee caloric).
Both
Are
Just
Flat
Wrong
!!!
Without the atmosphere, water vapor and its 30% albedo Earth would become much like the Moon, a barren rock, hot^3 400 K on the lit side, cold^3 100 K on the dark.
“TFK_bams09” GHE heat balance graphic & its legion of clones uses bad math and badder physics. 63 W/m^2 appears twice (once from Sun & second from a BB calculation) violating both LoT 1 and GAAP. 396 W/m^2 upwelling is a BB calc for a 16 C surface for denominator of the emissivity ratio, 63/396=0.16, “extra” & not real. 333 W/m^2 “back” radiating from cold to warm violates LoT 1 & 2. Remove 396/333/63 GHE loop from the graphic and the solar balance still works.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules (60%) render a terrestrial BB (requires 100%) impossible as demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
Since both GHE & CAGW climate “science” are indefensible rubbish alarmists must resort to fear mongering, lies, lawsuits, censorship and violence.
How does the radiative effect of CO2 become radiative forcing?
It would seem that the biogeophysical would result in negative forcing. CO2 is absorbed thus decreasing the amount in the atmosphere. This is especially true as the earth greens with ever increasing CO2 absorption by flora. Also the oceans are absorbing CO2 with increased phytoplankton, I doubt that that is being considered in climate warming. The complexity and currently little understood impact of the total biogeophysical forcing may be why current climate models have not been able to forecast current observed global temperatures.
Also i would think that El Nino, Pacific and Atlantic multi decadional osselations are much too large and persistent to be caused by spacial gradients in the horizontal pressure fields. Their existence as oceanographic phenomena drives the climate not visa versa.
A warm welcome to Roger Sr, his work was amongst the first I encountered in my efforts to understand the issues of climate change. I am delighted to know he will be writing more here.
I do have aquestion related to the uptake of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere. As I understand it, about 40% of our annual emissions end up in the atmosphere. This fraction has stayed constant while our emissions have almost triple since the 1970's.
Why is this fraction constant, and what does that mean for the estimation of residence time for CO2?
It would be great to hear from Steve Koonin in Honest Broker.
You probably saw my review of Koonin's book here: https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/unsettled-climate-science-so-what
I've been told (a bit ago) that he has written a response to my review for TNA, which I would be happy to share here and invite his participation.
This recent paper by Richard Lindzen provides a different view on the roll of CO2 in climate change. https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/2022-09-22-Lindzen-global-warming-narrative.pdf
It would be interesting to get Sr's take on the science and Jr's take on the comments re. current policies.
One thing that I didn't get from this article is how a gas that is only 0.04% or the atmosphere can have such a large effect on warming. What's the explanation for this out sized effect?
Best I’ve seen explaining the role of CO2! A question. Can we see the pandemic in recent data? Presumably the shutdown/slowdown of various economies resulted in less CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels for a time. Has this shown up in the data? Thanks.
Here is a recent paper on exactly this question: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2021GL095396
Thank you! Reading the paper it appears, despite the reduction in CO2 emissions during the pandemic, there was not the expected response in atmospheric CO2 concentration. More work to be done on the models??
“Some of this absorbed heat is also reflected back into space. The fraction of the reflected heat is called the albedo, with larger albedo values indicating greater reflection.”
I’m confused. I thought albedo is the fraction of the sun’s irradiation that is reflected back into space at unaltered wavelength, without being absorbed and converted to heat.
Good catch! That’s a typo👍
And I should say, at the fault of the editor not the author 😉