550 PPM CO2 Will Have Very Little Impact On The Climate

An increase of atmospheric CO2 to 550 PPM will increase the greenhouse effect by less than one fourth of one percent, according to the radiative transfer model used by Kevin Trenberth.

He knows this, yet pushes the global warming scam anyway.

ScreenHunter_475 Jun. 14 14.36


About stevengoddard

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

24 Responses to 550 PPM CO2 Will Have Very Little Impact On The Climate

  1. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    Hey, let’s cut Kev some slack here. He has been riding in First Class on the Glowball Warming Gravy Train for years and it wouldn’t be fair now that he is in the sunset of his career to be exposed as Grifter, a Con Man, a Fraudster, a Cheater. Those kind of accusations might have an impact on how history treats him and his buddies like Mikey, Gav, and Jimmy.

    Will they be the poster kiddies for scientific fraud or the wear the Jor-El cloak as the Saviours of Humanity?

    Easy answer to that question. Want to buy a bridge?

  2. The easiest way to see that the radiative transfer theory of the atmosphere is utterly worthless, is to note that in it–as propounded by the highest “experts” in that field–the Earth is claimed to radiate like a blackbody at the same temperature, in a vacuum. They all swear by this claim, yet any competent physicist must know that even a blackbody, if surrounded by an atmosphere, will not radiate as much as it does in a vacuum. This is so, despite their claim that they measure that much radiation coming off the surface (Roy Spencer is devoted to this as his unwavering faith). So it is obvious–to this competent physicist–that they don’t even know that they are measuring temperature, not infrared radiation intensity. This is such basic physics that any competent physical scientists should KNOW it (just one of the reasons why I keep saying–quote–there are no competent climate scientists, and no valid climate science).

    Of course, by assuming the Earth radiates like a blackbody in a vacuum, it made the power coming off the surface larger than the mean incident solar power, which is a violation of the conservation of energy. And when they point their “radiation” measuring instruments UPWARDS instead of downwards, near the surface, they find nearly as large a “downwelling” radiation as the “upwelling”. And the hapless fools don’t think to point their instruments PARALLEL to the ground, and find about as much “sidewelling” radiation as “upwelling” (because the temperature of the atmosphere they are measuring is about the same in that direction, too), and think twice, and hard. Thus was born “back radiation”, and Trenberth’s infamous global earth energy budget, with its huge loop of energy, larger than that from the Sun, between the surface and the atmosphere.

    Once you understand this, you know absolutely how empty of physical truth is current climate science. And you immediately realize that the truth–and sanity itself–is simply screwed, in this generation, because all of our institutions, and the power of the federal government, have been suborned, and are making this obscene perversion of science the very law of the land (the Supreme Court, for example–the highest, and “final”, judicial authority–has ruled carbon dioxide, the natural product of every breath we exhale, a “pollutant”, that the EPA is entitled to regulate strictly).

    • Gail Combs says:

      Chemical Engineer, John Kehr does a great job of explaining why Trenberths cartoon is so wrong: http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2010/11/the-earths-energy-balance-simple-overview/

      Trenberth really mucked up the physics.

    • Dmh says:

      GH effect exists, it’s only not important in the case of CO2.
      GH effect is important to understand the very different daily variations of temperatures in arid and non-arid places on Earth,


      e.g., the only difference between equatorial regions in S. America and N. Africa is the high level of humidity in the former and low in the latter. Temps vary importantly in the African deserts from day to night, but very little in the Amazon forest.
      GH effect is also important to understand the increase of temperature with altitude in the Stratosphere.

      • Gail Combs says:

        You are conflating the Greenhouse effect with the latent heat of vaporization.

        Sleepalot did a quicky look that I enlarge upon.

        You can see that in the real world if you look at Day/Night temps in Brazil (humidity 80% with no rain) vs Algeria ( humidity around 0%). SEE my comment

        This graph of the air temperature vs the sand temperature during a solar eclipse in the N. African desert is also enlightening. Air temps are much more effected by the loss of direct energy that the sand is. The air temperature drop is over 12 °C while the sand temperature drop is only ~ 5 °C.
        (H/T to Sleepalot for pointing all this out.)

        A few years later spurred by a comment by Sleepalot on WUWT, I did a different check.

        …The second point brought up by Sleepalot @ July 21, 2012 at 4:21 am, is the day/night cycle of off-again/on-again solar insolation and the rapid response of the air and land temperatures to the “switching -off” of the sun’s energy. Sleepalot then points out the actual effects of water on the temperature by comparing high vs low humidity.

        … Temp: monthly min 20C, monthly max 33C, monthly average 26C
        Average humidity 90%

        … Temp: monthly min 9C monthly max 44C, monthly average 30C
        Average humidity around 0%

        Take a good hard look at those two pieces of real world data and ask yourself what it is telling you.

        #1. The solar eclipse data tells you the earth & air temperature response (in low humidity) to a change in solar energy is FAST!

        #2 The effect of the addition of water vapor (~ 4%) is not to raise the temperature but to even the temperature out. The monthly high is 10C lower and the monthly low is ~ 10C higher when H2O is added to the atmosphere in this example. The average temperature is about 4C lower in Brazil despite the fact that Algeria is further north above the tropic of Cancer. Some of the difference is from the effect of clouds/albedo but the dramatic effect on the temperature extremes is also from the humidity.

        I took a rough look at the data from Brazil. Twelve days were sunny. I had to toss the data for two days because it was bogus. The average humidity was 80% for those ten days. The high was 32 with a range of 1.7C and the low was 22.7C with a range of 2.8C. Given the small range in values over the month the data is probably a pretty good estimate for the effects of humidity only. You still get the day-night variation of ~ 10C with a high humidity vs a day-night variation of 35C without and the average temp is STILL going to be lower when the humidity is high.

        This data would indicate H2O have two effects. One is to even out the temperature and the second is to act as a “coolant” at least if the “GHG” is H2O.

        The latent heat of evaporation is actually why the average is 4C lower when in Brazil vs Algeria. As one of the commenters at WUWT mentioned using temperature without humidity to estimate the global heat content is very bad physics.

        THE DATA
        For May 2012, Barcelos, Brazil (Lat: 1 South)
        Temp: monthly min 20C, monthly max 33C, monthly average 26C
        Average humidity 90%

        For May 2012, Adrar, Algeria (Lat: 27 North)
        Temp: monthly min 9C monthly max 44C, monthly average 30C
        Average humidity around 0%

        Sleepalot picked May which is midway between the vernal equinox and the summer solstice and therefore the sun would be midway between the equator and the Tropic of Cancer (the latitude line at 23.5° North) so the solar insolation at both locations would be roughly equal with a bit more expected in Barcelos, Brazil.

        Barcelos, Brazil elevation ~ 30 meters (100 ft)
        Adrar, Algeria ~ Elevation: 280 metres (920 feet)

        One would expect a drop in temperature of ~ 4C due to altitude for Adrar, Algeria so the difference between locations, taking into account altitude is ~ 8C higher in Adrar which is further north but with much lower humidity. – (wwwDOT)engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-temperature-d_461.html
        RACookPE1978 @ February 18, 2014 at 8:11 pm @ WUWT –

        was kind enough to

        ….duplicate below a “spreadsheet copy” of a spreadsheet I have for all latitudes for the actual radiation on to a horizontal surface at 12:00 on that “average” 342 watts/meter^2 day. Remember, top-of-atmosphere radiation is going to vary over the year from 1410 (high, on January 3) to the 1320 (the “low” value on July 3 each year). This is for a day in mid-September, near that “average” value on the equinox at time of minimum Arctic sea ice extents….

        So lets add Solar energy into the picture.

        Barcelos – 0.9750° S, “Direct Radiation Horizontal Surface” @ noon for 0S= 1150 watts/meter^2

        Adrar – 27.8667° N, “Direct Radiation Horizontal Surface” @ noon for 30S= 970 watts/meter^2

        Adrar, Algeria for September 2012:
        monthly min 24C, monthly max 40C, monthly average 33C
        Average humidity 22% (Humidity increased through the month)

        Barcelos, Brazil for September 2012:
        monthly min 22C, monthly max 33C, monthly average 26C
        Average humidity 81%

        There were 11 sunny days in
        Barcelos…………… Adrar
        min 22 °C………… min 24°C
        max 34 °C……………max 40 °C
        Avg 29 °C…………… Avg 33 °C
        humidity 76%……….. 22 %

        So Barcelos, 800 ft lower in elevation, with 180 watts/meter^2 extra solar energy is still ‘cooler’ than Adar by the same 4 °C.

        So much for the “greenhouse effect of water.

        • Dmh says:

          Very interesting comment Gail, thanks for taking the time to write this interesting analysis.
          I totally agree that latent heat is also important, and I completely forgot it in my previous comment.
          The latent heat is the part of the total energy that is not radiated back into the environment or transformed into linear kinetic energy of the molecules (therefore, temperature).
          Your argument is very robust, but I’d like to add some points for further analyses because, obviously, the process of absorption and re-emission of photons by the various types of molecules of the atmosphere exists.
          Therefore, if we consider the GH effect (GHE) as being caused by this absorption/re-emission process, it’s existence becomes trivial, the only non-trivial part being the magnitude of the effect.
          The points I’d like to add are the following:
          /1/ During the night the presence of dense cloud cover tends to keep the temperature warmer (slow the irradiation of the surface heat from the day to the upper atmosphere and outer space) than if the sky is clear.
          /2/ The effect of cloudiness varies depending on the height of the clouds and probably also on their thickness (not being much technical, just giving the main ideas), with lower clouds associated with cooler temperatures (need to find a link here…).
          /3/ The effect of cloudiness is mainly of GH type.
          Therefore, the effect of humidity should also vary as a function of cloudiness and an average estimate of the effects of humidity would not be realistic to determine the magnitude of the GHE, if this function is not taken into account properly.

  3. Rosco says:

    The theory as I understand it says O2 and N2 do not radiate much in the IR band – they are transparent to IR apparently.

    I don’t know or even care if this is correct but it seems strange that only a handfull of gases defy the “settled science” claim that all objects at a temperature greater than absolute zero radiate and such radiation is temperature dependent. Ambient air temperature is well within longwave IR range.

    That aside, everyone seems to overlook Trenberth etal’s claim that 83% of the radiation from the Earth to the vacuum of space comes from the atmosphere and therefore the 2-3% of the atmosphere that is water vapour and the tiny fraction that is other greenhouse gases are the only mechanism for this radiation.

    Because they claim 99% of the atmosphere doesn’t radiate IR at all or only a tiny fraction.

    But the whole atmosphere becomes heated – thermometers say so.

    So GHGs must not be the radiation “trap” claimed – O2 and N2 must be – as the only mechanism for them to “shed” energy is random collisions with a tiny percentage of the atmosphere capable of radiating IR. That sounds like a “trap” to me.

    That argument is exactly what they claim with their energy budget but they choose to ignore this viewpoint and concentrate on the “impossible loop” of backradiation.

    And everyone should realise averages cannot be used to calculate temperatures – every cook knows this – 1 hour at 180 C is equivalent in energy input to 10 hours at minus 18 C but the cake will not be the same.

    Surely increasing the opportunity for O2 and N2 to “shed” energy to space is likely to have zero net impact due to DWLR which must be offset by extra energy losses by 99% of the atmosphere ?

    • Morgan says:

      Yeah, increasing CO2 at the TOA increases radiation into space. They all know that, but shhh don’t tell anybody.

      • Dmh says:

        “increasing CO2 at the TOA increases radiation into space”
        But how this reflects into the other layers of the atmosphere (having in sight that the density and convection at TOA is very low)?

    • _Jim says:

      everyone seems to overlook Trenberth etal’s claim that 83% of the radiation from the Earth to the vacuum of space comes from the atmosphere

      First off, that would not explain “dew” (or frost, a later stage) formation while the air temperature remains above the dew point (or above freezing in the case of frost.)


  4. John Silver says:

    I and my green friends want 1200 ppm to be comfortable.

  5. matayaya says:

    Just a layman and not sure I followed all this, so help me. Isn’t the idea of the greenhouse effect shown mostly at night. It’s the rate of increase of the average nighttime temps that set the records, not the hot peaks of day. If the sun is not shining, isn’t it the upwelling long wave radiation held in by the greenhouse effect that is keeping the atmosphere warm?
    Another question, isn’t half of the sun’s incoming radiation in short wave photons not absorbed by the atmosphere then turned into long wave infrared, upwelling radiation that is absorbed by the atmosphere?

    • The term is downwelling longwave radiation.

      • matayaya says:

        Maybe you could parse that a little more for me. In my layman’s understanding, there is longwave and shortwave coming in from the sun, about half and half? The longwave coming in can be absorbed by the atmosphere before it reaches the surface of the earth whereas the short wave reaches the earth’s surface unimpeded by the atmosphere. Forget albedo for the moment. That short wave hitting the earth’s surface turns into infrared that then radiates up into the atmosphere where some is absorbed and radiated back to the earth’s surface. Some escapes the atmosphere.
        And what about the nighttime energy flow?

        • geran says:

          “The longwave coming in can be absorbed by the atmosphere before it reaches the surface of the earth whereas the short wave reaches the earth’s surface unimpeded by the atmosphere.”
          >>>>>Very good mata, some Warmists think that the atmosphere only receives LW from the Earth!

          “Forget albedo for the moment.”
          >>>>>Sorry, can’t forget albedo.

          “That short wave hitting the earth’s surface turns into infrared that then radiates up into the atmosphere where some is absorbed and radiated back to the earth’s surface. Some escapes the atmosphere.”
          >>>>>And, some of the visible (SW) is reflected into space also. Not all of it gets re-radiated as LW. (Ever heard of photosynthesis?)

          “And what about the nighttime energy flow?”
          The “nighttime” energy flow is only from the surface to space, unless there are clouds (water vapor). That is why nights are cooler than days.

          Hey Mata, are you actually trying to learn Earth science???

    • Gail Combs says:

      More than 70% of the earth’s surface is water. The short wave radiation, visible to extreme ultraviolet is absorbed by the oceans
      Graph 1 from Colorado.edu
      Ocean penetration depths by wavelength graph

      Much of the short wave energy from the sun interacts with oxygen and causes formation and destruction of ozone in the upper atmosphere. The top of the atmosphere, the thermosphere, is very hot (1000C +^) because of all the energy from the sun hitting it.

      • matayaya says:

        Gail, I’m sure I understand why you provided the charts showing the depth of solar radiation penetration into the ocean. Maybe where I said “surface” you assumed I meant only land. Are the charts to imply that is as low as ocean heat gets?

        • matayaya says:

          geran, you still have a bit to learn yourself. The earth would be 30 plus degree colder without its greenhouse effect. It’s not just “clouds” that keep us warm.

        • Dmh says:

          “The earth would be 30 plus degree colder without its greenhouse effect.”
          I don’t think anyone in this debate can deny this result, therefore I think the whole debate is not if GHE exists or not but how important it is and which are main agents of the GHE on Earth’s atmosphere.
          IMO, CO2 has presently no effect on Earth’s temperatures (if it has it’s almost at “noise levels”), however H2O and O3 seem to play an important role in our present climatic conditions.
          The following video of Morgan is very enlightening, IMO, regarding the CO2 “forcing”,

        • Dmh says:

          This analysis of F. Lansner (2008)
          shows zero effect of CO2 on global temperatures in the last ~ 35 years, along with strong response of the biosphere to the recent increased levels.
          The O3 layer in the stratosphere seems directly affected by CO2 levels, due to cooling and formation of mini crystals of water. But how important is this effect if lowering solar radiations do the same?
          What is the effect of less O3? There was a hole over the Arctic a few years ago that disappeared, and no catastrophe happened, and Antarctica has a O3 hole that increases and decreases seasonally and no abnormal climatic effect is observed there or in the SH, except the steady increase of the Antarctic ice extent.
          Does less O3 causes warming or cooling?
          What exactly is the influence of CO2 if, as Morgan shows in his video, it has also an appreciable cooling effect above certain levels?
          Etc., etc. There are so many non answered questions about the real effect of all these variables, no wonder “the models” fail, repeatedly. They’re based in flawed science.

  6. geran says:

    matayaya says:
    June 16, 2014 at 5:20 pm
    “geran, you still have a bit to learn yourself.”
    Yup, learning is a life long process.

    “The earth would be 30 plus degree colder without its greenhouse effect.”
    That’s like saying the Earth would leave its orbit without the same mass it has now. The statement is true, but has no bearing on what is happening.

    “It’s not just “clouds” that keep us warm.”
    Yup, there is that little fireball we call the Sun. That’s where the expression “It’s the Sun, Stupid” came from.

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s