We Can’t Account For The Dishonest Scientists, And It Is A Travesty That We Can’t

The graph below shows the increase in downwelling longwave radiation as CO2 increases. The red section shows the increase from 350 PPM to 400 PPM CO2.

As you can see, increased CO2 does almost nothing to the radiative balance of the atmosphere near the surface, and Hansen’s claims of increased heatwaves due to CO2 have zero basis in science. The greenhouse effect at the surface is dominated by water vapor, not CO2.

This graph was generated using RRTM – the model which Trenberth uses.

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

18 Responses to We Can’t Account For The Dishonest Scientists, And It Is A Travesty That We Can’t

1. You realise, you can get a very similar result by plotting surface temperature on a scale of absolute Kelvin!

2. 1) Is this effect including water vapor (I assume so since it says mid latitude summer), and if so at what percentage?
2) Can you show only from 280 to about 450? In W/m^2?

• Compare vs. the H2O graph at the same scale

• Anto says:

Feedbacks, Tony – it’s all in the feedbacks, dontchaknow?

3. Steve Case says:

And that downwelling radiation is what? 15 microns or so? And a black body that radiates predominantly at around 15 microns is like maybe a block of dry ice?

It will cancel out upwelling 15 micron radiation, but it ain’t gonna warm anything.

4. Steve Case says:

Uhm, downwelling from CO2 is what I mean.

5. No Tony you don’t understand. The alarmists finally admit that added CO2 doesn’t increase absorption near the ground, because they have a new argument they can fall back on…..adding CO2 decreases radiation at the TOA!

Here is how their new argument works. The extra CO2 means the radiation at the TOA from the CO2 happens at a higher elevation in the stratosphere, and the higher elevation is colder, and because it’s colder, it doesn’t radiate as much, so the earth warms.

Here is why their argument is wrong:

1. The stratosphere doesn’t get colder as you go higher. It stays the same temperature and eventually gets warmer as you go higher.
2. CO2 is not a blackbody radiator. It radiates at 15 microns which is 200 K which is colder than the stratosphere. It radiates more as you get closer to 200K.
3. The emissivity of CO2 increases with decreasing temperature, as the Hottel Charts tell us.
4. Most radiation from the earth has nothing to do with CO2. Most radiation comes from water vapor, cloud tops, and terrestrial radiation through windows where it’s not absorbed at all, and at frequencies, outside the precious little 15 micron band, where CO2 plays no part in anything.

• The people living at the top of the atmosphere should be thrilled by the warmer temperatures.

• They would, except they are suffering from asthma and heart disease from all the CO2.

• Gail Combs says:

Hey, wait a second. The Russians say that CO2 HEALS lungs and does other good things!

Lung Injury and Lung Trauma Treatment
Acute hyperventilation (routinely found during medical investigations in lung patients) can cause additional lung damage or injury to lung tissue and worsen any chronic condition, including lung cancers (lung tumor), chronic obstructive lung disease, lung fibrosis, lung nodules, lung carcinoma, blood clots in the lung, fibrosis of the lung, fluid in the lung, cystic fibrosis, asthma, bronchitis, emphysema, and many others. However, these pathological changes can be prevented or treated with a supplementary therapy that involves breathing training. Increased levels of carbon dioxide in the lungs can heal lungs and prevent complications due to these conditions. As a result, many patients can avoid lung transplantation so that there is less need for lung transplants

6. Truthseeker says:

Yes water has many important effects on weather and climate. CO2 has none. I think we can all agree on that, even the “Slayers” …

With H2O we are arguing about mechanisms, not impact (conduction / convection / latency / radiation). What we need to concentrate on is the CO2 is irrelevant to the climate. That is the heart of the alarmists argument that we need to stab repeatedly.

• It is incorrect to say that “CO2 has none”

• Truthseeker says:

According to your graph, it has no significant effect at current concentrations. When you remove the naturally occuring CO2, the man-made CO2 has none (to the nearest whole number) in terms of degrees K.

So man-made CO2 has no impact. None.

• No, it has a small impact – not “no impact”

7. emsnews says:

Correct, Steven.

CO2 has some effect! All sorts of things do this, too.

The debate is over ‘how much’? And the real debate being mostly ignored is, ‘Why all the repeated Ice Ages and why do all of them start gradually and end very suddenly?’ This is key to everything and has nothing to do with CO2 at all.

And it is a life and death debate because it is abundantly clear we are sliding into another Ice Age based on past statistics.

• Gail Combs says:

They do not know what causes D/O and bond events either.

8. Claudius says:

Seems to me that mostly everything that James Hanson publishes has very little scientific basis. How come NASA doesn’t fire that guy? Myers a national embarrassment.

9. gymnosperm says:

Well, this is all very good work showing that some model components have their feet on the ground, but as previously pointed out the ultimate output is distorted by the assumption that CO2 “controls” water vapor when actually the opposite is true but for us rowdy naked apes.

Check out what happens by their own admission when the pittance of CO2 is removed from the models. Quoting Andrew Lacis (2010):

“The scope of the climate impact becomes apparent in just 10 years. During the first year alone, global mean surface temperature falls by 4.6 °C. After 50 years, the global temperature stands at -21 °C, a decrease by 34.8 °C.”

For perspective a reasonable consensus would be that the difference between a glacial minimum and an interglacial maximum averages about 6C. To get 4.5C cooling in a year is absurd beyond words.

He left the original numbers which tell the story. Obviously with global average temperature at -21C, the oceans would freeze solid which is what the post USED to say. Unfortunately there has been a html “adjustment” that telegraphed through to my One Note with an attack of good sense acknowledgement that the tropical oceans remain ice free.

Honestly, I make undocumented adjustments to my own blog when I think of something new. Not about fundamental statements of fact.