Why CO2 does not govern the earth's surface temperature

I have neither bent nor broken rules.
Here's the relevant opening paragraph of the section you claim to be looking for.
Game. Set. Match.

The Adams Transitional Geomagnetic Event
and wider implications
Overall, the signals discussed above suggest
that contemporaneous climatic and environ-
mental impacts occurred across the mid- to
lower latitudes ~42 ka, coincident with Earth’s
weakened geomagnetic field immediately pre-
ceding the reversed state of the Laschamps
(Fig. 4). We describe this as the “Adams
Transitional Geomagnetic Event”(hereafter
“Adams Event”), named after the science
writer Douglas Adams because of the timing
(the number “42”) and the associated range of
extinctions (33). Previous studies may have
failed to identify such a relationship between
the Laschamps and climatic impacts because
of the lack of temporal resolution and by
focusing on the period of actual reversed
geomagnetic field (41.5 to 41.1 ka) (5,6)rather
than the preceding extended phase of much
weaker geomagnetic field (42.4 to 41.5 ka). . . .

 

One problem with your description is that it is not quantitative. One must create a model of the atmosphere and do the calculations of outgoing infrared
at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) and downward longwave radiation by all greenhouse gases to the Earth's surface. This has been done and I don't
know any climate scientist that doubts the results. The downward radiation by carbon dioxide to the Earth's surface can be calculated from a model
of the atmosphere and radiation transfer code. It has been measured at a few locations and the results agree with those calculated from radiation transfer code.
Those experiments are expensive to perform so they aren't done very often. If it is so easy to disprove AGW then why hasn't someone performed this type
of experiment and disproved it? I notice that you didn't reference any scientific source or paper to back up your claim.


MEASUREMENTS OF THE RADIATIVE SURFACE FORCING OF CLIMATE W.F.J. Evans*, Northwest Research Associates, Bellevue, WA / Trent University,
Peterborough, Ontario and E. Puckrin, Defense R&D Canada-Valcartier, Val-Belair, Quebec

In order to investigate this global threat, an ongoing program of measurements of the downward atmospheric infrared radiation, otherwise known as the greenhouse radiation of the atmosphere, was undertaken at Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario (44o N, 78o W).

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION A typical winter spectrum of the downward radiance in the 5-16 µm wavelength range is shown in Figure 1, with the emission from several greenhouse gases identified. The spectrum was measured at a resolution of 0.25 cm



The experiment above was performed on a clear day with the sun overhead and the humidity was low. The downward radiative flux of 14
greenhouse gases at the Earth's surface was calculated using radiation transfer code and compared to the measured values. The results
were very close. A background thermal emission spectrum made up gases that had overlapping bands with the particular gas being
measured was subtracted from the thermal spectrum of the gas being measured.

In humid conditions it is true that water vapor absorbs around 95% or more of carbon dioxide's emission towards the Earth's surface.
This is not true under dry conditions that are common in many regions of the world and dry conditions are often seasonal. In the case where
we have 95% or more of carbon dioxide's downward radiation being absorbed by water vapor, this still increases the downward flux
because water vapor is now radiating more energy downward by absorbing additional energy from carbon dioxide.

Schwarzschild's equation for radiative transfer - Wikipedia

In the absence of thermal emission, wavelengths that are strongly absorbed by GHGs can be significantly attenuated within 10 m in the lower atmosphere. Those same wavelengths, however, are the ones where emission is also strongest. In an extreme case, roughly 90% of 667.5 cm−1 photons are absorbed within 1 meter by 400 ppm of CO2 at surface density,[18] but they are replaced by emission of an equal number of 667.5 cm−1 photons. The radiation field thereby maintains the blackbody intensity appropriate for the local temperature. At equilibrium, Iλ = Bλ(T) and therefore dIλ = 0 even when the density of the GHG (n) increases. In other words, Schwarzschild's equation predicts no radiative forcing at wavelengths where absorption is "saturated". The radiative forcing from doubling carbon dioxide occurs mostly on the flanks of the strongest absorption band.[19]

 

No, this is about events happening after 42.000 years ago. I want to know what evidence there is that the Earth's climate was intergalcial-like earlier
than that. "from interglacial-like conditions (with surface temperatures within 1 to 1.5°C of today’s 54 to 42 ka) to a fully glacierized state. . . ."

The above quote from the No Tricks Zone is false and they are playing a trick on their readers.

 

I've read such false and absurd claims, too.

Yes, if you just make up some numbers, attribute all unexplained changes to greenhouse gases, and assume there was no increase in water vapor, change in ocean circulation, etc., when all that ice melted.

If you incorrectly assume that the actual causes of the change did not exist, and falsely attribute it to CO2.

No they weren't. CO2 played no measurable role in the transition from glacial to interglacial temperatures. It simply has almost no effect on surface temperature.

No, that's just an absurd claim with no credible basis in empirical fact. If an increase of 30ppm caused 1.5C of warming at the end of the last ice age, the recent increase of 130ppm should have caused ~4C. It clearly hasn't.

No it wasn't. Volcanic eruptions were no more severe in the LIA than at other times. It was reduced solar activity alone that caused the LIA. The largest volcano in at least several thousand years, Tambora, occurred at the end of the LIA, and was bigger than the three LIA eruptions combined.

It was the cause.

And I demolished it.

But vulcanism was not especially great during the LIA, so that explanation is out.

I understand that the anti-fossil-fuel hysteria campaign has to get rid of the MWP and LIA, and will tell any lie to do so.

No, in fact it was indisputably global, and it was indisputably caused by reduced solar activity. It was just more pronounced in the Northern Hemisphere because there is so much more land in the Northern Hemisphere, especially in the most sensitive latitudes between 50 and 70.

Notice how dishonest Wikipedia is on this topic, due to the influence of William Connolley, one of the most dishonest men who ever lived. Because the LIA was not a true ice age, Wikipedia correctly says it was not a true ice age of global extent. It only adds, "of global extent" in order to falsely imply that it was not of global extent when it indisputably was.

 

Sorry, but it's the plain language in the research.
"A groundbreaking new study in Science suggests warm interglacial-like conditions (surface temperatures within 1°C of today’s) persisted from 54 to 42,000 years ago even though CO₂ levels idled around 200 ppm at that time. A sudden geomagnetic shift that intensified galactic cosmic rays and cloud formation and reduced ozone levels ~42,000 years ago resulted in global-scale cooling, rapid glacier advance, disappearing water sources (lakes), plummeting sea levels, and a catastrophic peak in large animal extinctions."

 

I have already provided evidence that increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide increase the amount of downward infrared towards the
Earth's surface. If doesn't have to happen directly carbon dioxide molecules near the surface. Carbon dioxide can emit a photon that can be
captured by water vapor and transfer energy to the Earth's surface via water vapor.

Your idea that increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide somehow doesn't affect what is happening at the Earth's surface because there is a
greater concentration of carbon dioxide molecules at the emission height + a greater surface area and number of CO2 molecules emitting out to space
is true but irrelevant. You are missing the big picture. There are more CO2 molecules at all layers of the atmosphere transmitting more energy from the
Earth's surface out to space at a much colder temperature than the surface. That automatically makes the earth-atmosphere system less efficient at
removing heat. By adding more CO2 to the atmosphere that means that less energy emitted from the Earth's surface directly makes its way out to space.
Only a very small percentage of the Earth's blackbody radiation passes through the atmosphere without being absorbed. Adding more of any greenhouse
gas narrows that "atmospheric window" and results in a planet that is less efficient in removing heat. The amount of energy radiated by the Earth's surface
and by each layer of the atmosphere is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature. Bottom line: you can't add more of any greenhouse gas without
that warming the Earth's surface and that is why I had never heard any climate scientist discuss what you were trying to tell me about what happen with
a greater concentration of CO2 molecules at a greater elevation.

 

It's not in the research. You have not been able to defend your initial post or answer any of my questions.
All you are doing is quoting the No Tricks Zone statement and not what the Science Magazine article states. It seems like you are lying and that
is a violation of forum rules.

Science Magazine

A global environmental crisis 42,000 years ago
Alan Cooper

Geological archives record multiple reversals of Earth’s magnetic poles, but the global impacts of these
events, if any, remain unclear. Uncertain radiocarbon calibration has limited investigation of the potential
effects of the last major magnetic inversion, known as the Laschamps Excursion [41 to 42 thousand
years ago (ka)]. We use ancient New Zealand kauri trees (Agathis australis) to develop a detailed record
of atmospheric radiocarbon levels across the Laschamps Excursion. We precisely characterize the
geomagnetic reversal and perform global chemistry-climate modeling and detailed radiocarbon dating of
paleoenvironmental records to investigate impacts. We find that geomagnetic field minima ~42 ka, in
combination with Grand Solar Minima, caused substantial changes in atmospheric ozone concentration
and circulation, driving synchronous global climate shifts that caused major environmental changes,
extinction events, and transformations in the archaeological record

 

It seems to me that you have made my point.
"We find that geomagnetic field minima ~42 ka, in combination with Grand Solar Minima, caused substantial changes in atmospheric ozone concentration and circulation, driving synchronous global climate shifts that caused major environmental changes, extinction events, and transformations in the archaeological record."

 

False. I identified the fact that water vapor is not only a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, but is 40x more abundant than CO2 in the atmosphere -- and that multiple is even larger at the earth's surface, and gets even larger where surface temperatures and absolute humidity are higher.

No, one must actually use samples of surface atmospheric air with different levels of CO2 added, and measure the difference the CO2 makes to radiative heat transfer.

Cite it.

So, locations in the high arctic, in the winter, at night, or on top of a mountain, so there was minimal water vapor present...? That kind of location?

Until the experiment is done with different levels of CO2 in typical surface atmospheric air, it is irrelevant. Oh, wait a minute, that's right: Angstrom already did that experiment more than 100 years ago, and it proved adding CO2 has almost no effect.

You can't publish widely known and undisputed 100-year-old results in a peer-reviewed journal. Hello?

With this preamble, they immediately proved that they were not engaged in science and intended to be dishonest. And they were:

Winter in Ontario, so, minimal water vapor in the air. Check.

No $#!+. They obviously chose the coldest day they could, after a long cold snap that removed as much water vapor from the air as possible. They probably measured the humidity each morning, and if it wasn't at least 50% below normal for that time of year, they just postponed the measurement until the air was dry enough to make their lies plausible. Anti-fossil-fuel scaremongers are very anxious to deceive their readers by such methods.

But somehow, water vapor, which is known to have a far larger greenhouse effect than all other GHGs combined, did not make it onto their graph.

Such a mystery.

To you, that is.

I see. So, we have to be terrified by the threat of CO2 increasing the earth's surface temperature -- but only when and where it is below -40.

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that....

There is no additional energy from CO2, only a microscopic increase in its insulating effect, like adding 2 cotton blankets on top of an existing stack of 100 wool and 2 cotton blankets.

See the bolded sentence, which conclusively refutes anti-fossil-fuel hysteria. The "flanks" of the strongest absorption bands are narrow segments of the IR spectrum that account for almost none of the total energy. IR absorption is almost entirely saturated by water vapor except where extreme cold has condensed it out of the air.

Anti-fossil-fuel hysteria simply has no credible basis in valid empirical science. None.

 

Yes: microscopically. Funny how not being "quantitative" is only a problem when someone else does it....

Like the cotton blanket on top of a stack of 100 wool blankets. Right.

That's not my idea. CO2 has no effect on temperature at the earth's surface because water vapor is both a more powerful GHG than CO2 and so much more abundant there.

Nope. You are.

All true, but all irrelevant because you have not quantified the effect on surface temperature, and can't. Everything you said above would still be perfectly correct if ECS was 0.00000001C -- which is probably closer to the real number than the IPCC's estimate of 1.5 - 4.5C.

 

It seems that your point was to provide evidence in support of the position that rapid temperature change (on a geological scale) doesn't
necessarily correlate with a significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. You didn't provide any comments with the
NYZ post so I don't know. The NTZ post was trying to exaggerate that point by distorting the Science Magazine article.
I don't deny what is quoted above from Science Magazine. I am calling the "No Tricks Zone" an unscrupulous website that intentionally
exaggerated the amount of climate change by falsely claiming that the 12,000 year period prior to the 42,000 year ago event was
interglacial-like with temperatures 1.0 to 1.5 below the present day. There were glaciers covering Canada and extending into the
northern U.S. at 42,000 years ago but it may have been much warmer in other regions. The Science Magazine article didn't provide
any evidence of global warm conditions prior to the 42,000 year ago event.

Your lack of concern about the integrity of the NTZ and your post stating that the NTZ opinions were "the plain language in the research"
tells me that you don't care about the truth. Your only concern seems to be in using propaganda to promote a political agenda. You never
express any doubt about the controversial positions copied from other sites that are often way outside of the mainstream but you reject the most
respected and corroborated climate science. Opinions on this Environmental forum have zero impact on public opinion so it doesn't make
much sense to spend so much time pushing a political agenda when the effort will all be for naught.

 

This article first presents measurements of downward flux under dry conditions
in order to determine what each greenhouse gas spectrum, except water vapor, looked like. There was still some potential interference from water vapor so that
was subtracted out using a radiation transfer model simulation. Then. they made measurements during the summer months with greater humidity to assess water vapor. They also compared the changes in each greenhouse gas's emission
over time in order to determine the enhanced greenhouse effect.

Models using radiation transfer code quantify the effect. The experiments like the one from this study also quantifies the enhanced greenhouse effect.
As far as I know, not a single climate scientist rejects the findings from
radiation transfer code models. You and some others on this forum are
rejecting science that is considered settled.

 

Bringiton: "All true, but all irrelevant because you have not quantified the effect on surface temperature, and can't. Everything you said above would still be perfectly correct if ECS was 0.00000001C -- which is probably closer to the real number than the IPCC's estimate of 1.5 - 4.5C."

The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)is without a doubt above 1.5 degrees C. There is plenty of experimental and theoretical evidence to support that.
The water vapor positive feedback is considered to be close to 2 and then there is the ice albedo positive feedback plus some small positive cloud feedback.
So, the ECS is probably around 3.0 +/- 1.0. No climate scientist that I have ever heard of would claim the the ECS is less than 0.1. That is somewhere beyond
the realm of rationality.


This statement from the Wikipedia article refutes your premise that CO2's
absorption by water vapor prevents CO2 from affecting the earth's surface.
Carbon dioxide's photons are absorbed by water vapor and water vapor
transfers this absorbed energy by emitting another photon of the same wavelength. So, carbon dioxide's excess energy still warms the surface.

In the absence of thermal emission, wavelengths that are strongly absorbed by GHGs can be significantly attenuated within 10 m in the lower atmosphere. Those same wavelengths, however, are the ones where emission is also strongest. In an extreme case, roughly 90% of 667.5 cm−1 photons are absorbed within 1 meter by 400 ppm of CO2 at surface density,[18] but they are replaced by emission of an equal number of 667.5 cm−1 photons. The radiation field thereby maintains the blackbody intensity appropriate for the local temperature

 

Sorry, but it seems to me your commitment to "consensus" climate science blinds you to plain presentations of evidence. It's especially disappointing that this leads you to lash out with unfounded accusations against NTZ. I can only conclude that a reckoning with the evidence might be too damaging to beliefs you cherish. You might want to review another thread I created: Eschatology and Global Warming.

 

Nope. They simply attributed the remaining water vapor absorption to other GHGs.

I.e., they pretended water vapor had no effect.

Retaining the false and absurd assumption that it had no effect in winter.

While pretending water vapor had no effect.

By ignoring the fact that non-water vapor GHGs have no effect in the presence of water vapor.

By falsely attributing water vapor absorption to other GHGs.

The models are correct as models. It's how they are used that is dishonest.

No, those who are trying to find some way around Angstrom's results are.

 

The data are otherwise.

Molecular Physicist’s New Publications Add To The List of Over 130 Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity Papers

By Kenneth Richard on 1. February 2021

Several more estimates of extremely low CO2 climate sensitivity have been added to the database in the last year. The collection of scientific papers that assess a very low (under 1°C for a doubling of CO2) or a non-quantified, but negligible climate sensitivity has swelled to over 130. In 2015, when it was first published, there […]


Recent CO2 Climate Sensitivity Estimates Continue Trending Towards Zero

By Kenneth Richard on 16. October 2017

Updated: The Shrinking CO2 Climate Sensitivity A recently highlighted paper published by atmospheric scientists Scafetta et al., (2017) featured a graph (above) documenting post-2000 trends in the published estimates of the Earth’s climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 concentrations (from 280 parts per million to 560 ppm). The trajectory for the published estimates of transient climate response […]

 

Garbage.

No there isn't. Angstrom proved it false over 100 years ago.

By anti-fossil-fuel scaremongers. I have explained why that estimate is false and absurd.

Cloud feedback is probably negative.

No it isn't.

No it isn't. It could well be true, and I have explained why.

 

I am not going to reply to the above posts because I don't think that there are many individuals reading these posts who know much about climate
science or have much interest in the technical details. All of my posting and probably all of the posting from the other side isn't swaying anyone.
Also, few individuals bother to read these posts. It is all much sound and fury signifying nothing. In the future I will avoid political forums completely.

 

I am not here to sway anyone, but to satisfy my own conscience that I did not fail to speak up when I saw something wrong being done.
Good luck in your future endeavors.

 

No, it most certainly does not, and Wikipedia is not a credible source for climate-related information because all such information on the site is controlled and censored by anti-fossil-fuel scaremonger and liar William Connolley.

There is no "excess energy," only the insulation effect of adding one cotton blanket to a stack of 40 wool blankets.

This says absolutely nothing that is inconsistent with what I said.

 

What a gracious concession.

 

I'd like to thank you for all the work you have done in these threads. Sometimes it's lonely telling the truth.

 

It is my pleasure. Thank you for your commitment.

 

Perhaps I conceded to early. I understand the futility of my effort but I may post a few things from time to time for my very limited fan club.

I take science seriously but political forums are another matter.

I was wondering what the climate was like prior to 42,000 years ago. Was it really comparable to the 19th century which would have been
1.0 - 1.2 degrees on the average cooler than today? The article discussed previously from Science Magazine does not say much about what the climate
was like 42,000 years ago to 52,000 years ago except that in the mid-latitudes of the S. hemisphere it was around 1.0 - 1.5 degrees less than present
day - based on very limited proxy evidence. Why did the climate model used for the analysis at 42,000 years ago have ice covering all of Canada?

These glaciers haven't been this small in over forty thousand years (nationalgeographic.com)
Canaries in a cold mine?
At that time, 40,000 years ago, the planet was deep in a cold phase. An ice sheet miles thick stretched across the North American continent, and humans wouldn’t arrive for at least another 15,000 years.

This cold stage stretched back to about 115,000 years ago, the last time the planet as a whole was as warm as it is today


Crisis Ensued The Last Time Earth's Magnetic Poles Flipped, Researchers Say : NPR
James Channell a geologist at the University of Florida, questioned whether other kinds of historical records, like ice cores, support the idea of a global climate crisis around 42,000 years ago. He works mostly on the North Atlantic, he says, and isn't aware of anything very dramatic going on there at that time

 

No Mike, it is absurd to think that CO2 can drive large temperature trends when it doesn't even drive small ones and at the 414 ppm level very little warm forcing left to add to the "heat" budget.

Here is a simple explanation on why CO2 warm forcing effect is very small, it as a long known fact that even many warmist scientists agree, they are banking on the POSITIVE climate feedback for the big warming effect, which still hasn't shown up, from Watts Up With That?


"Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.5 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation.


The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise …":
LINK