Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Is the CO2 effect saturated?

What the science says...

Select a level... Basic Intermediate Advanced

The notion that the CO2 effect is 'saturated' is based on a misunderstanding of how the greenhouse effect works.

Climate Myth...

CO2 effect is saturated
"Each unit of CO2 you put into the atmosphere has less and less of a warming impact. Once the atmosphere reaches a saturation point, additional input of CO2 will not really have any major impact. It's like putting insulation in your attic. They give a recommended amount and after that you can stack the insulation up to the roof and it's going to have no impact." (Marc Morano, as quoted by Steve Eliot)

The mistaken idea that the Greenhouse Effect is 'saturated', that adding more CO2 will have virtually no effect, is based on a simple misunderstanding of how the Greenhouse Effect works.

The myth goes something like this:

  • CO2 absorbs nearly all the Infrared (heat) radiation leaving the Earth's surface that it can absorb. True!
  • Therefore adding more CO2 won't absorb much more IR radiation at the surface. True!
  • Therefore adding more CO2 can't cause more warming. FALSE!!!

Here's why; it ignores the very simplest arithmetic.

If the air is only absorbing heat from the surface then the air should just keep getting hotter and hotter. By now the Earth should be a cinder from all that absorbed heat. But not too surprisingly, it isn't! What are we missing?

The air doesn't just absorb heat, it also loses it as well! The atmosphere isn't just absorbing IR Radiation (heat) from the surface. It is also radiating IR Radiation (heat) to Space. If these two heat flows are in balance, the atmosphere doesn't warm or cool - it stays the same.

Lets think about a simple analogy:

We have a water tank. A pump is adding water to the tank at, perhaps, 100 litres per minute. And an outlet pipe is letting water drain out of the tank at 100 litres per minute. What is happening to the water level in the tank? It is remaining steady because the flows into and out of the tank are the same. In our analogy the pump adding water is the absorption of heat by the atmosphere; the water flowing from the outlet pipe is the heat being radiated out to space. And the volume of water inside the tank is the amount of heat in the atmosphere.

What might we do to increase the water level in the tank?

We might increase the speed of the pump that is adding water to the tank. That would raise the water level. But if the pump is already running at nearly its top speed, I can't add water any faster. That would fit the 'It's Saturated' claim: the pump can't run much faster just as the atmosphere can't absorb the Sun's heat any faster

But what if we restricted the outlet, so that it was harder for water to get out of the tank? The same amount of water is flowing in but less is flowing out. So the water level in the tank will rise. We can change the water level in our tank without changing how much water is flowing in, by changing how much water is flowing out.

water tank

Similarly we can change how much heat there is in the atmosphere by restricting how much heat leaves the atmosphere rather than by increasing how much is being absorbed by the atmosphere.

This is how the Greenhouse Effect works. The Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and water vapour absorb most of the heat radiation leaving the Earth's surface. Then their concentration determines how much heat escapes from the top of the atmosphere to space. It is the change in what happens at the top of the atmosphere that matters, not what happens down here near the surface.

So how does changing the concentration of a Greenhouse gas change how much heat escapes from the upper atmosphere? As we climb higher in the atmosphere the air gets thinner. There is less of all gases, including the greenhouse gases. Eventually the air becomes thin enough that any heat radiated by the air can escape all the way to Space. How much heat escapes to space from this altitude then depends on how cold the air is at that height. The colder the air, the less heat it radiates.

atmosphere
(OK, I'm Australian so this image appeals to me)

So if we add more greenhouse gases the air needs to be thinner before heat radiation is able to escape to space. So this can only happen higher in the atmosphere. Where it is colder. So the amount of heat escaping is reduced.

By adding greenhouse gases, we force the radiation to space to come from higher, colder air, reducing the flow of radiation to space. And there is still a lot of scope for more greenhouse gases to push 'the action' higher and higher, into colder and colder air, restricting the rate of radiation to space even further.

The Greenhouse Effect isn't even remotely Saturated. Myth Busted!

Last updated on 13 February 2014 by dana1981. View Archives

Printable Version  |  Offline PDF Version  |  Link to this page

Related Arguments

Further reading

V. Ramanthan has written a comprehensive article Trace-Gas Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming.

Comments

1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Comments 1 to 50 out of 318:

  1. My apologies for what is in effect a repost, but I asked this question at the bottom of a second page of comments where I first saw this diagram. Here I can be first :-) (and I think it's a relatively important question)

    There is one thing that bothers me about figure 1 (the differential spectrum). The decreased emission in certain absorption bands makes perfect sense. But it's a fact of the (surface) instrumental record that the planet was (a little) warmer in 1996 than in 1970 (somewhere in the 0.1 to 0.2C range). So shouldn't the flat parts of the differential spectrum be just a bit above zero?

    I suppose it's possible due to different instruments (i.e. different satellites) that they had to normalize, but it would have been so much better if they didn't. Does anyone have the answer?
  2. I suppose it's also possible that the satellites were in more-or-less low equatorial orbits, were thus only measuring the tropics, and the tropics have seen the least surface warming. Ok, I'm out of ideas for the moment.
  3. What I don't understand about this argument is that we have a clear demonstration of what high levels of CO2 can accomplish in respect to greenhouse effect with Venus. From what I understand Venu's atmosphere is over 95% CO2 and it's surface tempuratures are almost 500 degrees celcius. That makes it hotter than Mercury the closest planet to the Sun.

    If CO2 had a saturation point wouldn't Venus have reached it or am I totally misunderstanding the premise?
  4. GFW, as I understand it, Figure 1 shows outgoing radiation. Therefore, if the Earth has warmed, more radiation remains inside, i.e., less radiation goes out. Therefore, the net outgoing radiation must be below zero (less radiation going out, i.e. radiation that remains inside the atmosphere, in a transient radiative imbalance, until the earth warms enough as to "expel" again the same energy that comes in, going back to equilibrium (at zero) but with a higher temperature given that the greenhouse blanket is now thicker). In this graphic the different wavelengths are differenciated, so we can see which exact wavelengths are being trapped inside (those that are below zero), i.e. the exact wavelengths that are responsible for the warming inside. The rest of wavelengths escape to space the same as before (the components for those wavelengths have not changed, so the same energy goes in and out), and that's why they are at zero level.

    rlasker3, I think you are perfectly right. If the CO2 saturated, we woudn't see that runaway greenhouse effect in Venus.
  5. Your half correct PeterPan

    The figure in this article is out going radiance but is only part of the actual figure from the Harris 2001 paper. It has been manipulated to highlight the drops in radiance CO2 and CH4. I'm not trying to suggest dishonesty it's just a way to present the data.

    In the 'real' data the 0 point is actually lower, you can see this in the publication. So what you have comparing 1970 and 1996 is reductions in radiance at the C02 and CH4 positions but increases in radiance in the areas in between.

    I've never seen any good explanations for the changes at these other wavelengths. Or seen any reasoning behind highlighting the spectra in the CO2 and CH4 regions and ignoring the rest of the spectra. My own explanation would be that while there is increased energy retention at the wavelengths absorbed by CO2 and CH4 there are also other changes which are allowing more energy to escape at different wavelengths.

    I have no problem with suggesting that this paper identifies a signature in the radiance data for an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere but without complate analysis of the spectra (which the publication doesn't do) you can't conclude that this is leading to warming
  6. i thought venus's atmospheric pressure has a lot to do with its temperature?
  7. Wouldn't a much more useful test of a saturation point be, testing for a saturation point? This only seems to directly indicate that if there is such a saturation point, we haven't hit it yet, not that there is no saturation point to hit.

    I haven't been able to find anything to this effect, but a test in a laboratory using a similar method to observe the absorption rate of the same wavelengths passing through a chamber with various concentrations of the gasses we would expect to see in the upper atmosphere could show whether it does have an asymptotic behavior and thus 'saturates'?

    Just seems somewhat fishy that the logic goes "It could reach a saturation point!" "But it's still increasing as we increase the CO2, so there is no saturation point!", analogous to "If you eat too much candy you get sick!" "But I've been eating candy for the last 20 minutes and I continue to feel fine!"
  8. NkThrasher, that has been done. A long time ago, and repeated with increasing precision and thoroughness right up to currently. See the post How do we know CO2 is causing warming?; in that post, look in the green "Acknowledgements" box just above the start of the Comments section. Click on the link "laboratory measurements...".
  9. What do you make of this claim?

    http://jimpeden.blogspot.com/2009/11/norm-kalmanovich-on-global-warming-hoax.html

    I haven't read it thoroughly, but it seems like they are missing the fact that CO2 is absorbed at several different wavelengths.

    The post devolves into the usual questioning of motives, but I was curious to hear thoughts on the main claim about the 14.77 micron band being used up.

    Thanks, M
  10. mazibuko,
    the problems with those guys is that their reasoning looks straightforward and anyone can understand it. The mistake he makes becomes apparent only if you know the physics. So common people tend to trust those bogus falsifications.

    The problem with that "falsification" is not just related to the single band he considers, he arbitrarly put a limit to the amount of radiation CO2 can absorb. This is not true both experimentally (as shown in this post) and theoretically even for the 15 micron band alone; and it would not matter anyway.
  11. Hi Riccardo,

    Thanks for the answer and links. I have trouble enough keeping on top of the literature in my own field, so it is very useful to come to a place like this and have someone with a good knowledge of the particular issue provide/point me to a summary.

    I saw a good clip on Richard Dawkin's TV today about how to spot baloney, which is perhaps apropos to this matter. One common form of baloney occurs when someone claims that his/her theory shoots down an existing and better understood theory, based on falsifying only one particular aspect of the better understood theory. The new theory, however, can't explain all the other phenomena that are explained by the better understood theory. Thus, the notion that all the multiple lines of evidence for a human forcing on climate can be falsified because all those silly (and agenda-driven!) scientists overlooked CO2 saturation seems to qualify as baloney.

    Thanks again, M
  12. NkThrasher #7: the whole concept of saturation is based on a misconception of how radiation is passed up, level by level, through the atmosphere. Spencer Weart has some good non-technical descriptions of this, which I've adapted here.
  13. hey guys, i think you should all look at Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi's theory on the saturated effect of greenhouse gases. you can download his paper for free on scribd.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/25071132/The-Saturated-Greenhouse-Effect-Theory-of-Ferenc-Miskolczi .

    i would love it if you guys have a look at it and get back to me.. because it looks very very convincing.. so if someone can have a look at the math involved and see if its all legit that would be excellent.. here is the link to the summary report of his findings aswell;

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/25071473/Saturated-Greenhouse-Effect-Theory

    He says that the climate models used by the ipcc are based on old math from the 1920's which make an assumption that the atmosphere is infinitly large.. he redoes the math with proper boundary conditions and comes up with very interesting results.. i'll leave it up to you guys to look further into it

    email me on coatesy91@hotmail.com if you'd like to send me your thoughts if youd prefer that than this comment

    cheers
  14. qball17 #13

    That's not a proper scientific paper, it's a paper from the partisan Science and Public Policy Institute (home of among others the rather badly discredited "Lord" Christopher Monkton, and the australian geologist Bob Carter). If there was any merit in the presentation/summary that you printed, then it would be easy for him to publish in a reputable scientific journal. So you have to ask the question why hasn't he?

    The papers cited at the top of this page are a much better source for you to form your opinions from.
  15. qball17,
    Miskolczi's "paper" is well known and badly flawed. As Eli at Rabett Run ironically puts it, his theory could be summarized in just two sentences:
    "The greenhouse gas theory that has been used for the last century is TOTALLY WRONG! The proof is left as an exercise for the reader.".
  16. so the atmosphere is infinitely large is it? so what is the better model? can you show me some solid evidence that debunks the saturated greenhouse effect and proves that CO2 drives climate?
  17. the reason why he couldn't publish it was because NASA refused to let him, so then he went back to hungary and made his paper.. just like all the other scientists who say how hard it is to get a scientific journal published that is against or is skeptical about anthropogenic climate change. Don't you find it funny how all the readily available journals are CO2 CO2 CO2.. how can science come up with such a definite conclusion with all the other factors that would contribute.. this issue has turned into a political one, not scientific... how do these papers justify the CO2 lag behind temperature, and solar activity etc etc
  18. and by the way.. the title of this topic is ridiculous.. its not the "saturated Co2 effect", its the "saturated GREENHOUSE effect".. we all know that we can increase the concentration of CO2.. what about the work from Dr. Nicola Scafetta?
  19. and another thing.. he did publish it in hungary.

    Dr. Miskolczi first published his work in the Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Services in 2004, Volume 108, No 4. He published further statistical proof in the same Journal in 2007, Volume 111, No. 1. In the 5 years since he first published his results, not one peer review has come back disproving his theory, or his Constant. To date, not one scientist has come forward to disprove Miskolczi’s theory that the Earth’s climate is at equilibrium, and that Carbon Dioxide cannot be released in amounts great enough to upset that equilibrium.
  20. you should have a look at the following link and see what you think..
    http://miskolczi.webs.com/Answers_to_some_criticism.htm
    it also has a link to his 2004 paper which people don't look at, that is why they get confused and see his paper as making too many assumptions etc.. its because 2007 paper is the sequel to his 2004 paper where he defines many of his terms and comes up with the science behind the theory
  21. qball17, please refrain from nitpicking, and refrain from using over-the-top terms such as "ridiculous." You might also read more carefully, and when something doesn't make sense, consider the hypothesis that you might not be parsing it correctly; the title is "Is the CO2 Effect Saturated?," which to most readers parses correctly as "Is the CO2-Effect Saturated?"

    As for Scafetta, scroll down to the link to his paper in this post: It’s the sun.
  22. Hi

    How can these guys be right “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner ,

    Ive beeen looking for rebuttals to there paper but now luck so far can anyone help ?

    thanks Dave
  23. Hi

    ok ive realised from google searching that someone is posting this in just about any blog they can and by the body of the post it seems to be the same person .
    thanks Dave
  24. Hi, Daved. You're right, people do post links to that paper a lot. Fortunately, this site is here to help people quickly assess those kinds of claims.

    The short answer is that the "falsification" paper by G&T is just nonsense. You can find a rebuttal to it on this site at

    The greenhouse effect and the 2nd law of thermodynamics

    Or, if you want more depth, there's a lot of discussion of this at the website "Science of Doom":

    On Having a Laugh – by Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009)

    On the Miseducation of the Uninformed by Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009)

    and subsequent posts at Science of Doom.
  25. Thanks Ned

    After another hour of searching I found Science of Dooms response in another blog with a link to his ? blog .
  26. A few of your links are not working, but I think I found them.

    Griggs 2004
    http://rose.bris.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/1983/999/1/paper.pdf

    Philipona 2004
    http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2004/2003GL018765.shtml

    However, I could not find the Chen 2007 article.

    And thanks for the informative article.

    Blessings,
    Response: I've updated the links (and tracked down Chen 2007). Many thanks for the URLs - let's hope they stay active for as long as possible :-)
  27. This page makes the argument that the lower layers of the atmosphere are ruled by convection, and that it's the "temperature of this 'last' layer" that is important for radiation of energy. However, the majority of the warming projected by the IPCC is caused by water vapor feedback in the troposphere. The outer layers of atmosphere do not have water vapor. So the argument on this page seems counter to any argument of water vapor feedback.
  28. After thinking on this I think I understand the IPCC argument better. I think the idea is there are two areas of increased warming. One is the outer atmosphere which is caused by CO2 as this article talks about. The second is the area between the troposphere and stratosphere, which is caused by H2O feedback. This increased H2O would supposidly prevent radiation from the troposphere to the relatively still stratosphere.

    The problem with the H2O feedback idea is it brings us back to the "skeptic" arguments raised in this article. H2O can approach (but never reach) saturation just like CO2 can. So each additional amount of H2O does less warming. Except now we don't have the counterarguments that the H2O is getting farther apart or that the H2O that is radiating is getting cooler and therefore radiates less (because it's getting warmner). I tried to be brief so I hope that makes sense.
  29. Climate4you has graphs that may conflict with this statement.

    "So we have multiple lines of empirical evidence for an enhanced CO2 greenhouse effect. Satellite measurements confirm that less longwave radiation is escaping to space. Surface measurements detect increased longwave radiation returning back to Earth at wavelengths matching increased CO2 warming. And of course the result of this energy imbalance is the accumulation of heat over the last 40 years."

    Graph which indicates that longwave radiation is not following CO2 increase.

    Explanation given to the above graph: "For the equatorial region, the diagram above suggests a certain chain of events, indicating the existence of a mechanism regulating the surface temperature: Periods of surface warming appears initially to be associated with decreasing outgoing longwave radiation (OLR). After some surface warming, OLR then stops decreasing and instead begins to increase, and after a while, surface air temperature then begins to decrease, etc. This chain of events is clearly illustrated by, e.g., the time period around the 1998 El Niño event (diagram above).

    Part of the explanation of the above succession of events might be that tropical surface warming leads to enhanced atmospheric convectional transport of heat to high levels of the atmosphere above the Equator, resulting in enhanced longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere. This, in turn, eventually leads to surface cooling, which results in reduced atmospheric convection, etc. Also the potential connection to variations in tropical sea surface temperatures and the tropical cloud cover is interesting, and should be considered in a more detailed analysis."

    This graph shows poor correlation of CO2 to Longwave raditation.

    This graph questions the conclusions of the Skeptical Science.
    Response: Your first link is broken.
  30. Still won't connect. I will try another graph from Climate4you that shows the same thing, cycles but no downward direction for the outgoing longwave radiation.

    Outgoing longwave radiation cycles but does not trend down.
  31. Norman, where exactly is that image on climate4you.com? The image itself does not give enough information about exactly what the graph represents (e.g., what wavelengths).
  32. Tom, I believe this is the graph and related text in question.

    However, it says nothing about wavelength. The suggestion seems to be that increasing CO2 should reduce ALL wavelengths of OLR... which doesn't seem an accurate statement of greenhouse gas behavior to me. In short, a straw man... the graph shows that total long wave radiation is not decreasing, but the claim that it should be has no basis in AGW theory.
  33. Norman, without knowing more about the image you linked to, it is difficult to respond. But I'm going to guess that your graph presents an average across a really wide range of longwave radiation. In contrast, Figure 1 at the top of this Skeptical Science page (the Intermediate tabbed pane) is presented to illustrate the reduction of outgoing radiation in the very particular wave numbers that are specific to greenhouse gases. Your graph does not contradict that.

    Energy trapped (delayed in escaping, really) by greenhouse gases raises the temperature of the atmosphere/land/water, which causes an increase in that system's attempted emission of radiation to space. Radiation outside of the greenhouse gases' absorption wavelengths will merrily escape to space, so total longwave radiation escaping will increase. The problem is that the escaping total cannot increase fast enough to prevent the temperature from increasing, because the increase in the escaping radiation is a response to the increasing temperature.
  34. Thanks CB! I didn't think to look in the "temperature" section for that graph. I skimmed there, and skimmed the result of clicking the "i" for more info, and though I found no listing of the wavelengths covered by "total OLR," I take that to mean you are correct that it covers a wide range.
  35. Norman - I think you are falling for a lot of denialist junk. At best this is amateurs making simplistic analyses about data they dont understand and at worst, the work of clever people practicing on the uninformed (and who dont want to be informed).

    A first cut filter for the rubbish is the simple question of "is it published?". There are glittering prizes for anyone who can disprove climate theory or come up with an improved theory. If the analysis is sound then why wouldnt you publish? The unscrupulous will say one thing to a naive audience (eg congress) but dont make such claims to their peers.

    However, this is a good site for finding out what is wrong with the some of wild stuff out there.
  36. Tom Dayton

    "Radiation outside of the greenhouse gases' absorption wavelengths will merrily escape to space, so total longwave radiation escaping will increase."

    The graph does not seem to show this increase. It does not show a trend in increase or decrease, just cyclic pattern. If the Earth is warming then the Outgoing longwave radiation should increase for all wavelengths not absorbed by GHGs. I do not see an increase or decrease.
  37. Re: Climate4you stuff

    Went to Norman's website source for his graph & poked around a bit. On this page I noted that:

    1. All data is in absolute temps, not anomalies
    2. They establish the post-industrial runup in the temperature trend and use that trend to de-trend the signal in the data. I.e., they "hide the incline" in the 20th Century temperature data.
    3. They attribute 100% of CO2's effects on temperatures when comparing the CO2 rise to temps, showing that since temps don't rise in lockstep with CO2 levels it can't be the CO2 affecting temps
    4. They use a paper by Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu as a basis to say that any warming since the LIA is just a reflection of the Earth returning to "normal" and that it's a natural cycle.

    Trenberth demolished Akasofu here.

    The whole site is a bait-trap for the unwary.

    The Yooper
  38. Norman, the only way energy leaves the earth is radiation, mostly LW. What it should do is match incoming energy at TOA (first law). If it doesnt, (it doesnt), then planet is accumulating heat but you dont expect to see a trend. The surface heats because of increased GHG effectively impede the efficiency with which the surface can radiate (LW is radiated back onto the surface). You would expect TOA outgoing LW to increase only if the cause of warming was more incoming energy from the sun.
  39. The problem posed by Norman has nothing to do with the saturation of CO2, any comparison with fig. 1 here makes no sense.
    The OLR is a balance between the increasing blackbody emission from the earth surface (some 250 W/m2 with a variability of some tens of W/m2) and anything that can block it, including CO2 absorption (of the order of 1 W/m2 over the full period of the figure). The former depends on temperature. Anything else being equal, if for some reason temperature does not rise fast enough the OLR decreases (of a fraction of a W/m2), and viceversa. If you add ENSO, clouds, GHG and all other sources of variability, it's a mess. Trying to draw any conclusions eyeballing a graph like the one shown by Norman is meaningless.
  40. Yooper - Thanks for the Climate4you evaluation! I had taken a quick look at it, saw that all the temp records appeared to not show 20th century temperature increases, but hadn't had time to dig far enough to find out why. Apparently the creator of the site is attempting to compare the various records GISS, UAH, RSS, etc.) against each other - apples/oranges, really, especially surface vs. satellite.

    Norman, detrending the data without saying you're doing it is rather deceptive (the real data is there, but at least one level deeper, and the detrended graphs are not labeled clearly as such). I would rate Climate4you as a junk site as well.
  41. Re: Climate4you

    I also went to a ring of sites linking to it (there are dozens) - all very similar, some with even more polish.

    Some of the data manipulation gets sophisticated - to the point that (coupled with the quality graphics) the "errors" become intentional (the knowledge needed to pull off what they're trying to do makes it obvious they should know better).

    That's why I called it a bait-pile (deer season in 6 days colors my thinking process a bit).

    The Yooper

  42. Figure 1: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

    Well, well, well. Let's see.


    FIGURE 1. Examples of IRIS and IMG observed and simulated spectra for a three-month average (April–June) over selected regions. a, Observed IRIS and IMG clear sky brightness temperature spectra for the central Pacific (10°N–10°S, 130°W–180°W). b, Top, observed difference spectrum taken from a; middle, simulated central Pacific difference spectrum, displaced by -5 K; bottom, observed difference spectrum for 'near-global' case (60°N–60°S), displaced by –10 K. c, Component of simulated spectrum due to trace-gas changes only. 'Brightness temperature' on the ordinate indicates equivalent blackbody brightness temperature.

    "Component of simulated spectrum due to trace-gas changes only" is not the same as "Change in spectrum [...] due to trace gases". If you have references, you are expected to omit misquotations.

    Observed (as opposed to simulated) near-global difference spectrum (Fig. 1. b, bottom) does not show an overall energy imbalance. There is simply more outgoing longwave radiation in the atmospheric window, compensating for somewhat less radiation elsewhere. It is consistent with a slightly decreasing average upper tropospheric IR optical depth at water vapor absorption bands (especially in the water vapor continuum).

    I would also like to know if measurements were performed in the 400 cm-1 - 1600 cm-1 (6.25 μm - 25 μm) range, why Harries at al. only show the 710 cm-1 - 1400 cm-1 (7.14 μm - 14.08 μm) range? The so called arctic window is below 625 cm-1 (above 16 μm). At these frequencies all absorption/emission is from water vapor, therefore changes in brightness temperature spectrum here should be rather informative.
    Response: Harries explained that the spectra below 700 were too noisy to include. See the "Response" in the green box of this comment on the post about the American Thinker article.
  43. BP, those graphs you pasted were presented and discussed thoroughly in the comments section of the post Have American Thinker Disproven Global Warming?".

    Norman, the answer given to you by Riccardo is expanded in the comments of that other post. I suggest you start with comment 72 by Pierre-Normand, followed by my much less technical analogy in comment 71.
  44. BP and Norman, in my previous comment I should have also said to look at Pierre-Normand's followup comment 78 on that other post, in which he corrected a misstatement he made in his comment 72.

    Also note that a large portion of the many comments on that post (Have American Thinker Disproven Global Warming?) is in response to the American Thinker article's writer suffering a similar misunderstanding that Norman has--that total outgoing longwave radiation must change in lockstep with greenhouse gas levels. See further the comments 80 by me and 81 by Pierre-Normand.

    The entire set of comments on that post is very enlightening, by folks far more knowledgeable than me, so I suggest that BP and Norman read them all.
  45. The question of the total outgoing longwave amount is addressed by Harries in his responses to John Cook's questions, in the green "Response" box of this comment on the American Thinker post.
  46. #43 Tom Dayton at 10:58 AM on 10 November, 2010
    BP, those graphs you pasted were presented and discussed thoroughly in the comments section of the post Have American Thinker Disproven Global Warming?

    Not thoroughly enough. Near-global difference spectrum of brightness temperature between 750 cm-1 and 900 cm-1, where the atmospheric window is really transparent (except for the water vapor continuum), is about +2 K. No layer has warmed nearly that much between 1970 and 1996, therefore the upper troposphere must have got more transparent at this IR frequency band, making lower (warmer) layers "visible" to satellites. It means a negative water vapor feedback. Worth mentioning that effective warming (by lowering) of photosphere in this band should have been even greater, because brightness temperatures are calculated for black body equivalent temperatures, while actual emissivity is always lower than that. It is also consistent with balloon radiosonde measured decreasing humidity trends above the 700 mbar level.

  47. #40 KR

    "Norman, detrending the data without saying you're doing it is rather deceptive (the real data is there, but at least one level deeper, and the detrended graphs are not labeled clearly as such)."

    Not sure which page in Climate4you you looked at. You must have done a very quick look to make the conclusion it is a a "junk" site. He does label his graphs as detrended and he explains the purpose (sometimes it pay to take time to read what the analysis is about). The claim was made that the warming from 1981 to present was unique. The warming slope from 1908 to 1940 is very similar to the present one. Have another look and see what the person is attempting with his analysis.
  48. Berényi Péter,

    Please clarify. Do you believe that the CO2 effect is saturated?
  49. Berényi Péter
    update your citation database, apparently NCEP is biased.
  50. Norman, can you please reference exactly where "The claim was made that the warming from 1981 to present was unique". I'd like to see the exact text of this supposed claim. The errors already pointed out to you dont ring any alarm bells for you?

1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

Link to this page



The Consensus Project Website

TEXTBOOK

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)

THE DEBUNKING HANDBOOK

BOOK NOW AVAILABLE

The Scientific Guide to
Global Warming Skepticism

Smartphone Apps

iPhone
Android
Nokia

© Copyright 2014 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us