Over the deade the authors examined (2000 to 2010), the average level of the gas (CO2) in the atmosphere went up by 22 parts-per-million. And the time series shows a steadily rising trend in its impact, layered on top of the seasonal changes. By the end of that period, the gas was retaining an extra 0.2 Watts for every square meter of the Earth’s surface compared to the start.
Still, it seems worth noting that the continued increase in greenhouse energy retention measured during this time coincides with a period where the Earth’s surface temperatures did not change dramatically. All that energy must have been going somewhere.
Newsflash: the greenhouse effect really exists | Ars Technica
The authors started in the 2000 La Nina, and ended at the 2010 El Nino – when troposphere temperatures were half a degree warmer. Then they noticed that there was slightly more downwelling longwave radiation, which they blamed on increased absorption from the increase in CO2.
The increase in DLWR was due to the warmer troposphere during the El Nino. Warmer air emits more longwave radiation. The higher concentration of CO2 will also emit more DLWR radiation, but that is not due to increased absorption. I don’t know how scientists can get any more clueless than that.
I think co2 levels were increased due to the heavy breathing of Pachauri. That would show perfect correlation.
The researchers isolated the signature of CO2 by using counterfactual spectra. Once this was done, the increase in spectral forcing was observed to be isolated to the spectral regions that correlate to CO2 absorption bands.
In other words, they fully ruled out temperature or water vapour as being a contributor to the increase in spectral forcing within the CO2 bands. Had they not done so, I can’t imagine their paper would have even been considered for publication.
Did you read the paper?
Notice that the so-called “forcing” does not match the RSS/UAH temperatures values in any way shape or form..
Natural variation FAR, FAR out-weighs ANY pseudo-warming effect of CO2.
Hmmmm,
So they never really detected it, but after adjustments they were allowed to keep their jobs.
Exactly! More modeled nonsense. And yet another useless study we will have to refute.
Oh, don’t worry, it’s just “confirmation bias”. sarc
Another WUWT Furffy posting me thinks
More media manure:http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/predators-killer-shrimp-great-lakes-waters/42954365
Steve, your article certainly does qualify as junk science for the evening. Did you read the paper by Feldman et al.? The authors were able to pick out those wavelength bands specific to CO2. The graph of their measurements of downward, CO2-specific radiation correlates precisely with steadily rising CO2 (with annual variations due to photosynthesis and respiration in the northern hemisphere) over the measurement interval (2000 to 2010). The graph looks _nothing_ like the graph of tropospheric temperatures shown in your article. And I might add that, because CO2 is a well-mixed atmospheric gas, the measurements made by the authors at their two widely-separated American study locations would be expected to be very similar to measurements made anywhere else in the world.
The exact values discussed in the paper are from model calculations against the measurements, rather than direct observations at each of the two sites.
More modeled mayhem. I have seen enough of their failed models and fraudulent adjustments to know that the models cannot be trusted.
Going on 19 years with no warming, even Phil Jones admitted this would be enough to invalidate the models. Fantasize on your own dime.
The authors are TOO LATE their finding have already been trashed.
I went to a guest lecture for physics grad students this fall that used observational data to show why CO2 will not be responsible for anymore warming beyond a microscopic amount.
I do not have to even look at the study to easily tear it apart.
#1. The active wavelengths for water vapor and CO2 mostly overlap. I do not know if you have enough physics to understand, but the wavelength that is absorbed by CO2 can not be the same as the wavelength emitted. There is a shift. SEE: The Pound–Rebka experiment This is part of the confounding. The main CO2 bands are saturated only the ‘wings’ can absorb The critical point of the physics lecture I went to is neither Lorentzian nor Voigt line shapes are correct in the far wings and these are the shapes used in the models. Cross sections depend on far-wing lineshape at band edges and this is what supposedly drives further warming.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png
#2. Albedo, a measure of water, clouds and ice increased during the time frame of that study.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/earth_albedo_bbso.png
#3. CO2 radiates ABOVE the tropopause. (the black line)
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/images/stratospheric_cooling.jpg
This is very important because if there are clouds especially thunderheads no radiation is seen. It is all absorbed by water. Don’t forget that something like 99% of IR is absorbed by water vapor in the troposphere… It doesn’t actually get back to the surface… (There is that line shift again.)
Experimental data shows no CO2 radiation at the surface and barely any CO2 radiation at 11 KM. CO2 is actually radiating in the stratosphere ~ 47 KM above the surface. This is in agreement with what Dr Robert Brown, a physicist at Duke University said. He explains why CO2 emits in the STRATOSPHERE.
And I didn’t even get into the silly “CO2 is uniform” propaganda since I just posted the rebutal to that already this week.
If 0.2W/m^2 is a big deal for climate change then global energy output should also be a big deal.
In 2012 primary energy production was 5273Mtoe (http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/keyworld2014.pdf), which works out to 6.132E+10MWh (conversion factor from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonne_of_oil_equivalent)
The earth’s surface is 510072000 km^2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth).
That works out to 0.0137W/m^2 (please check that).
I can’t find any mention of global climate models including anthropic heat output. Is it possible that including anthropic heat output would significantly affect climate models? If so then some of the warming attributed to GHGs may be actually be due to the heat we dump.
Is that worth looking into?
N.B.:
– The number includes renewables but they account for just a few % .
– Perhaps quite a lot of that heat is being dumped into the ocean via water cooling of power stations.
– Some of that energy is buried in our rubbish or locked up in materials,
– The heat we dump into the atmosphere goes into the lower atmosphere, which may make it more significant for surface temp measurements.
oops… I picked the OECD total instead of the world total for primary energy. The world total is 13371 Mtoe so the forcing works out to 0.0347W/m^2.