How Much Would A Doubling Of CO2 Affect The Radiative Transfer Balance?

According to RRTM (the model used by NCAR) – if CO2 increases to 550 PPM in the tropics, the amount of downwelling longwave radiation would only increase by 0.6 watts/metre, or less than 0.2%

In other words, man made CO2 has almost no impact on the climate of the tropics. People who claim CO2 increases hurricanes have no idea what they are talking about.

About stevengoddard

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

7 Responses to How Much Would A Doubling Of CO2 Affect The Radiative Transfer Balance?

  1. Chewer says:

    550 PPM where?
    At 400′ above MSL, 1000′, 3000′ 15,000′???
    What are the atmospheric constituents, including C02 at 7500 above MSL at diurnal noon measured at around the globe?
    If you think anyone within the climatology institutions know the answer, think again!

  2. D.M. says:

    I don’t know how many people know about the revision to NASA’s heat budget diagram in 2011, but I only saw it for the first time today. It would appear that the warmists either don’t know about it or don’t want to know about it. The important thing about it is that the “back radiation” from CO2 (which causes catastrophic warming) has been removed and the whole thing now makes sense and complies with the known physical laws. I don’t have a direct link to this diagram and perhaps Steve knows how to find it, but it can be viewed here , at the bottom of the article. This diagram needs to be widely publicised and thrust in the face of any warmist that pops up!

    • Richard T. Fowler says:

      Doesn’t matter what diagram they put out, because the climate models and even meteorology models are still using it.

      The only person I’ve managed to find who has done any serious, honest, and hard-hitting work on the theoretical basis of the GH conjecture is Claes Johnson.


    • They changed the diagram because it was so obviously ridiculous, as only I, so far as I am aware, first strongly pointed out in 2010, here. But they never changed their theory — not just the “greenhouse effect”, but the underlying, radiation transfer theory (which is basically just a simple-minded “light extinction” model, of light extinction in passing through a nearly transparent medium), which is also clearly wrong, because it ignores conduction and convection, and reverses the real physics, making the temperature the effect of radiative transfer, instead of acknowledging that the supposed radiative transfer is due to the fixed temperature structure of the atmosphere. The definitive evidence remains my Venus/Earth comparison, which disproved the greenhouse effect, precisely confirmed the stable Standard Atmosphere model for the troposphere, showed that the atmosphere is warmed, not from the surface but by direct absorption of incident solar infrared radiation, and shoud have opened everyone’s eyes to the fact that radiative transfer–within the atmosphere, and between the surface and atmosphere– is the wrong way to approach the problem of atmospheric warming. Dr. Johnson (cf, Richard Fowler’s comment above) gets caught up in theoretical radiative transfer arguments, that boil down to “heat goes from warm to cold regions”, when the simple truth of the atmosphere is that the vertical temperature distribution of the troposphere has nothing to do with radiative transfer (which is just one of the three ways heat is transfered, after all–the other two basically ignored in the consensus theory) but is provided by the hydrostatic condition of the atmosphere, which imposes the well-known temperature lapse rate struture, defined by the Standard Atmosphere model. That structure is stable and predominates over all other conditions, globally, in the atmosphere, including night and day (wind and weather are essentially local and transient variations in the underlying stable structure). Until this basic understanding is learned and accepted by climate scientists, there will be no correction, and no progress, in climate science.

      • Richard T. Fowler says:

        Harry, while I am no expert on physics, it seems to me that there is more to the difference between your physics and Claes’ than may intially be apparent. Yours, for example (correct me if I’m wrong), seems to hold that there is no difference in the IR opacity of any atmospheric gas, while Claes does acknowledge such a difference.

        But he also has a physics that is radically different from the mainstream. According to him, his physics allows for at most about 15-30°C of total warming capacity from CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere, at prevailing concentrations. (That was an estimate on his part, though I haven’t to my knowledge seen specific calculations to support it. But if you follow his arguments, the estimate generally seems to mesh with them.)

        The last time I checked (several months ago), his radiation hypothesis had not been validated, apparently because it would require computing resources which he has had trouble maintaining control of. But I think his overal physics (which certainly go far, far beyond “heat goes from warm to cold regions” which is a mainstream idea) merits serious consideration.

        I’ve tried to follow your climatic work but have found it difficult to get past some of its implications which I haven’t been able to find adequate support for. I do agree with you that some portion of the total heating of the atmosphere comes from direct solar radiation, and I think it’s a travesty that mainstream models fail to include that. I’m not sure to what extent Claes has factored it into his climatic calculations, but it’s possible he has improperly overlooked it. Frankly I think there are a number of puzzle pieces that are readily available to him that he has overlooked, possibly for reasons of job security or the need to maintain what little reputation he still has in mainstream circles.


  3. RAVerhoeckx says:

    Anthropogenic ( i.e. man made ) global warming (AGW) is a hypothesis, not a theory. In the absence of evidence any hypothesis is equally valid. There is no evidence for AGW; non, not any of any kind. Hence, AGW is a superstition of exactly the same kind as astrology. It has no supporting evidence but many people believe it and think it can tell the future, but it is risky to act on that belief.There is a severe risk of preparing for warming and not cooling. And there is the risk in preparing for neitherbut trying to control climate of the planet becomes irrational logic.

  4. edcaryl says:

    The latest NASA energy budget diagram is here:
    It still shows a very large back radiation.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s