CO2 Contributes 14% Of The Greenhouse Effect In The Arctic

I did an RRTM run with H2O mole fraction 0.00025 (approximating the Arctic) and got the following results.

Removal of all CO2 decreases downwelling longwave radiation by 14%, and increasing CO2 by 10X increases downwelling longwave radiation by 7%

So new we have the Earth constrained. CO2 is responsible for 1.3% of the greenhouse effect in the tropics, 2.5% in the mid latitudes, and 14% in the polar regions. These numbers are a far cry from the bloated garbage which Gavin publishes.

About these ads

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to CO2 Contributes 14% Of The Greenhouse Effect In The Arctic

  1. suyts says:

    Steve sorry for being OT, but I’m in a hurry. And I thought you’d be interested. Have you seen this?
    http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/can-someone-explain-to-me-how-this-is-controversial/

    2nd Amendment attack by the left. Joe the plumber. The link in post is to huffpo……. tata.

  2. daveburton says:

    Is there a web interface to RRTM anywhere?

    • No, and it is a pain to set up because they don’t provide a gfortran makefile for windows or linux. I had to create one myself to avoid using PGI’s $3,000 compiler.

  3. Eric Simpson says:

    Those numbers for CO2 are very low, sure. Yet I still maintain that CO2 doesn’t do squat. There is no empirical evidence at all that it does squat; there is only an ambiguous arguable theoretical model. I think that whenever we suggest that CO2 might have a warming effect, we should temper that by noting that the whole AGW theory was based on a false claim by the ipcc of a temperature / CO2 causal correlation. The ipcc claim has since been refuted, yet the theory and CO2′s role in it just sail along as if nothing has changed.
    Probably 98% of the population does not know this key point about CO2 presented in this video. That’s why we need to get this 3 minute video to be viewed more widely by the general public, so I hope you will watch and share it; see algor called out for repeating the bogus ipcc claim of a causal temp / CO2 correlation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg

  4. Ken Gregory says:

    “The Economist” article “The Melting North” states;
    “There is no serious doubt about the basic cause of the warming. It is, in the Arctic as everywhere, the result of an increase in heat-trapping atmospheric gases, mainly carbon dioxide released when fossil fuels are burned. Because the atmosphere is shedding less solar heat, it is warming …”
    http://www.economist.com/node/21556798

    We can test this claim by measuring the increase in the greenhouse effect (GHE). The GHE is the difference between the surface temperature and the effective temperature at the top of the atmosphere. The graph below shows the annual temperatures in the latitude band 60 degrees north to 85 degrees north as measured by satellite and ground stations from 1979 to 2011. The red curve is the GHCN/CAMS t2m dataset, which is the actual average air temperature (not anomalies) 2 m above the ground. The satellite and surface measurement anomalies were adjusted to actual temperatures to match the GHCN/CAMS t2m 1980 actual temperature.
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/ArcticTemp.jpg
    The surface and satellite temperature trends from 1979 are 0.412 C/decade and 0.465 C/decade, respectively.

    The blue curve in the graph below shows the OLR from the NOAA database in the same northern latitude band as the temperature data, 60 N to 85 N. The corresponding black body emission temperature at the top of the atmosphere is shown by the red curve.
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/ArcticOLR_ToaTemp.jpg
    The graph shows the OLR in the far north has increased significantly since 1993, contrary to the Economist article statement which incorrectly stated “the atmosphere is shedding less solar heat”.

    The GHE is just the difference between the surface temperatures and the effective TOA temperatures, as shown in the graph below.
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Arctic_GHE.jpg
    The blue curve in the graph below shows the change in the GHE from 1979 to 2011 from satellite data. The best fit line shows an insignificant upward trend. The red curve shows the change in the GHE based on surface data. It shows an insignificant downward trend. Together, the two curves show that there has been no increase in the GHE in the far north. This means that the increase in Arctic temperatures could not have been caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The warming was caused by black carbon from Asia, change in ocean circulation and less clouds due to an active Sun.

    NOAA OLR data is from http://climexp.knmi.nl/select.cgi?id=someone@somewhere&field=noaa_olr

  5. edmh says:

    Is Gavin Schmidt bad at sums?

    The IPCC confirms that all the warming since 1850 is ~ 0.7°C and asserts that this warming is wholly due to Man-made CO2 emissions. A trivial check sum can be done by translating percentages of the ~33 °C Greenhouse Effect into °C for each active constituent.

    The abstract of the NASA GISS paper http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf states:
    “Attribution of the present‐day total greenhouse effect
    ……….. With a straightforward scheme for allocating overlaps, we find that water vapor is the dominant contributor (∼50% of the effect), followed by clouds (∼25%) and then CO2 with ∼20%. All other absorbers play only minor roles. ……….”

    Gavin A. Schmidt, Reto A. Ruedy, Ron L. Miller, and Andy A. Lacis

    Transposition of the Gavin Schmidt’s values to °C of greenhouse effect is as follows:
    Water Vapour and Clouds ~75% ~24.75°C
    Other Greenhouse Gases ~25% ~8.25°C
    Other non H2O non CO2 GHGs gases (calculated according to CDIAC)
    ~1.2% ~0.41°C

    Carbon Dioxide at 390 ppmv ~7.84°C

    Natural CO2 280 ppmv (100% emissions since 1850) x 280/390
    ~5.63°C

    Man-made CO2 (full increase since 1850 Man-made 110 ppmv ) x 110/390
    ~2.21°C

    As the reported and acknowledged temperature increase since 1850 is known to be only ~0.7°C in total, how can this result be possible. Thus at 2.21 °C past Anthropogenic Global Warming is exaggerated to be more than three times the acknowledged temperature rise since 1850.

    Clearly neither Gavin Schmidt nor his peer reviewing colleagues carried out this trivial check sum before publication. Had they done so, they would have seen that these give a gross exaggeration of Man-made influence on temperature even from past CO2 emissions.

    All other published proportional data start out with water vapour and clouds accounting for ~95% of the greenhouse effect.

    Nonetheless those promoting the alarmist “Cause” expect the Western world to revolutionise its economies based on this type of assertion and calculation. This is the type of trivial due diligence that seems never to be undertaken in the Alarmist Global warming camp. Instead radical and vastly expensive policies are formulated to address Catastrophic Man-made Global Warming. Inaccurate assertions of this nature have been widely accepted by governments.

    These are the climate experts that World Governments via the UN IPCC depend upon and on which the Western world is basing its self-destructive and costly policy decisions.

  6. kramer says:

    Here’s what Freeman Dyson said about CO2:

    In humid air, the effect of carbon dioxide on radiation transport is unimportant because the transport of thermal radiation is already blocked by the much larger greenhouse effect of water vapor. The effect of carbon dioxide is important where the air is dry, and air is usually dry only where it is cold. Hot desert air may feel dry but often contains a lot of water vapor. The warming effect of carbon dioxide is strongest where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in mountainous regions rather than in lowlands, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime.
    http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge219.html#dysonf

  7. The Griss says:

    If you look at http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2013.png

    The ‘summer’ temperatures are basically on the 40 year average, while the winter temps seem to fluctuate a bit above the 40 year average.

    Are temperatures at say 255K instead of 245K really a big problem ?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s