Fred Singer Closing in on Fact: CO2 Doesn’t Affect Global Temperature
I write to concur with conclusions in Dr S Fred Singer’s recent essay: “The Climate Sensitivity Controversy”, by S. Fred Singer, American Thinker (October 15, 2014) and to solve the puzzles he posed.
In particular he concludes “climate sensitivity, CS, is close to zero”. This means any effect of CO2 on Earth’s temperature and climate is vanishingly small, hence unimportant. Singer leaves his warmist camp and joins the denier camp of skeptics.
I met Singer at his University of Houston lecture hosted by Prof Larry Bell on February 6, 2012 and his several talks at the latest Heartland Institute ICCC, Las Vegas, July 7-9, 2014. He has played an important role in disputing alarmist global warming claims for decades. He has received many awards.
Singer reveals he assumes CO2 warms Earth because it is called a greenhouse gas, which does not make it so. It is also green plant food, which does chemically make it a coolant. Great confusion arises when a radiating gas, which cools the atmosphere, is incorrectly labeled a greenhouse gas and then warming is arbitrarily assigned to it, by virtue of the nomenclature change.
I discovered in 2012 introducing radiating gases like H2O and CO2 to the atmosphere actually cools the Earth slightly and had useful direct email exchanges with Singer on the matter. Naturally I am pleased he has reached a similar conclusion, perhaps by another way.
The proper way to calculate CS is from the laws of physics, chemistry, biology and chemical engineering with correct physical properties. Relying on empiricism and data regression for large complex engineering systems is well known to be incorrect and flawed. They never represent the nonlinear world outside their domain of fit; cannot extrapolate, only interpolate. Same for stock market charting. The whole data fitting exercise to support GHGT (greenhouse gas theories) is worthless from its inception. (Except it conveniently proved CO2 lags temperature by 800 years from Al Gore’s 420,000 year trend, proving CO2 could not cause these temperature changes; the sun did it.)
My way is physics, the Stefan Boltzmann Law of radiation intensity from all matter proportional to its temperature and emissivity. This Law works for entire planets, even when there are clouds, thermal feedbacks and hurricanes.
I parted company with Singer with his current “Of course, the proper way to determine Climate Sensitivity (CS) is empirically -- by using the climate data.” two years ago. That is wrong. He expresses misgivings himself.
Singer and GHGT promoters are wedded to the idea of correlating temperature and CO2 data, which alone can only prove correlation, never causation. A corollary error is to account for other known causes driving temperature, like solar, and ascribe all response discrepancy actually due to unknown causes, to CO2. Another error is to statistically fit data to empirical equations and attempt to extrapolate outside the validity domain of the data. Interpolation is allowed, extrapolation of nonlinear natural world outside the domain is not. A fourth error is to deviate from the scientific method practice which uses experimental data to falsify proposed theories that don’t predict nature’s behavior well, rather than claim validity of when predictions are confirmed by luck. A fifth error is to keep data analysis methods used to support validity of hunches confidential, particularly when publically financed. (Newton’s Principia Mathematica made him famous by full disclosure.) Worst of all is filing defamation lawsuits against skeptics questioning secret GHGT methods, assumptions and scientific basis. Even smearing them and attacking their character is unacceptable. Five strikes and you are way out. These principles are well known to control systems engineers, but not UN IPCC GHGT promoters that lack credentials.
Singer correctly notes there are several different temperatures involved; a source of confusion I discovered years ago. The GHGT literature is intellectually incoherent, a mess. He is correct to point out atmospheric global warming ceased since 1997 until now, 2014. The globe warms about half the time, 4.6 billion/2 = 2.3 billion years. It cools half the time also.
He has been wandering around in the swamp of atmospheric feedbacks, positive or negative, proclaiming it is all too complicated and controversial. Like esteemed MIT Professor Richard Lindzen and other meteorologists, he is trapped in his feedback swamp and can’t get out.
Feedbacks are the province of control systems engineering. (I know what feedback control is and how to build it. In 1997 I proved any thermostat for Earth adjusting fossil fuel combustion is unmeasurable, unobservable and uncontrollable; it will never work. Even Lord Monckton is beginning to consider control systems engineering; I encountered him personally in Las Vegas.)
Singer calls for more research, while promoters at UN IPCC and global climate change organizations are already wasting $1 billion/day in hopeless controversy and useless assessment reports.
Inventing a new mechanism of radiant heat transfer, back-radiation, from cold atmospheric CO2 molecules back down to Earth’s surface, with intensity 333 w/m2 (compared to solar intensity reaching surface which averages 161 w/m2 of surface) warming it further, causing it to radiate up even more intensely at 396 w/m2, violates FLoT and SLoT, constituting a perpetual motion machine creating energy to drive global warming, an impossibility of nature. Heat does not flow from cold matter to hot matter, heating hot further; only from hot to cold. This is engineering fraud of the first order. GHGT has been falsified by eminent physicists.
Singer closes with two puzzles, both of which I have solved.
If non-radiating O2 is exchanged for absorbing/emitting CO2, emissivity, e, of planet to space must increase.
I = σ e (T/100)4
If e increases with CO2 at constant I, T goes down. Therefore CO2 causes global cooling.
I = intensity of any radiating body, w/m2, of its spherical surface, measured by Earth satellite spectrophotometers to be about 239.
T = temperature of radiating body, K
σ = Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law constant, 5.67
e = emissivity of radiating body, fraction 0 < e < 1. Perfect radiator black body e = 1, radiates a given intensity at lowest possible temperature. Colorful Earth radiator e = 0.612 emits given intensity at temperature higher than black body.
I = (1 – albedo)S/4, conservation of energy, in = out, neglecting photosynthesis, volcanoes.
S = solar radiation intensity, 1365 to 1370 w/m2 incident disk or 1365/4 to 1370/4 w/m2 of incident sphere.
Albedo = reflectivity, fraction, mostly by clouds, estimate 0.7.
Substituting: I = (1 – alb) S/4 = σ e (T/100)4
Dividing by σ e: (T/100)4 = (1 – alb) S/4 σ e = I/σ e
If S increases, T increases. If alb or e increase, T decreases.
If Earth were a perfect black body emitter,
(1 – 0.3) 1366/4*5.67*1.000 = 42.16 = 2.5484 or T = 254.8K = -18.33C
Actually GHGT promoters say it is a colorful 0.612 emitter,
(1 – 0.3) 1366/4*5.67*0.612 = 68.890 = 2.8814 or T = 288.1K = 14.95C
The difference 14.95 – (-18.33) = +33.3C is the difference between colorful Earth’s radiating temperature and its theoretical black body equivalent when radiating at same intensity, 239.
J Hanson, Al Gore and EPA mistakenly declared this 33C to be the greenhouse gas effect.
Double radiating atmospheric CO2 concentration and emissivity to space increases a small amount, say 0.001 to 0.613.
(1 – 0.3) 1366/4*5.67*0.613 = 68.777 = 2.8804 or T = 288.0K = 14.83C.
So global sensitivity is 14.83 – 14.95 = -0.12C, global cooling. Controversy resolved by elementary algebra; no need for $1 billion/day research to prove the impossible, global warming. If you disagree with Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law of physics, used successfully since 1884, take it up with them, not me.
Latest estimate of emissivities fits observation of radiation intensity to space from globe and surface.
Three S-B equations, plus energy conservation equation, Is + Ia = Ig, plus emissivity combo assumption eg = (es*Is + ea*Ia)/(Is + Ia) is five equations with 9 unknowns. Specify four unknowns from measurement; Ts, Ta, Ig, Is, and solve for remaining five unknowns: Ia, es, ea, eg, Tg.
To estimate CS, must estimate the effect of doubling [CO2] on ea and Is. Then resolve for Ia, eg, Ts, Ta, Tg.
For example, assume [CO2} from 400 to 800 ppm, ea from 0.82811 to 0.82911 and Is from 40 to 39.9. Result is:
| CO2 400 ppm | Intensity | Emissivity | S-B Temperature |
| Surface | 40 | 0.10233 | 15.000 |
| Atmosphere | 199 | 0.82811 | -18.000 |
| Globe | 239 | 0.70664 | 4.760 |
| CO2 800 ppm | |||
| Surface | 39.9 | 0.10233 | 14.820 |
| Atmosphere | 199.1 | 0.82911 | -18.045 |
| Globe | 239 | 0.70778 | 4.648 |
| Change | |||
| Surface | -0.1 | -0- | -0.180 |
| Atmosphere | 0.1 | 0.001 | -0.045 |
| Globe | -0- | 0.0012 | -0.112 |
CO2 increases emissivities, 0.828 and 0.707, slightly. Surface intensity, 40, drops as atmosphere absorptivity increases and atmosphere intensity, 199, increases by that amount. Total intensity, 239, is fixed by energy balance. So radiating temperature of surface 15.0C drops, global 4.6C drops and atmosphere -18.0C drops. My assumptions give CS = -0.112C.
The difficult part to quantify this is to estimate the effect of CO2 on atmospheric emissivity and absorptivity. In any case the effect is cooling, CS < 0. This is one of the ways radiating gases like CO2 affects global cooling. Global warming by CO2 induced radiant energy transfer does not exist, even if you call it a greenhouse gas.
Since heat capacity, Cp, of CO2 is greater than the heat capacity of the O2 it displaced by the oxidation reaction, increasing CO2 increases heat capacity of the atmosphere. This rotates the temperature vs altitude profile counterclockwise about its centroid, at about 5 km and -18C, since its slope for any planet is –g/Cp, easily derived from conservation of energy, SLoT, as kinetic energy is converted to potential energy with altitude, cooling. While bulk average global atmospheric temperature is unaffected, lower altitude air warms and upper altitude cools. Surface would warm accordingly.
There are several mechanisms for CO2 to affect temperatures; I have identified two warming and four cooling. My best guess net is -0.5C < CS < 0.3C. No wonder data regression can’t find it.
The dear fellow Singer is on the right track to suspect “CS is indeed close to zero”. I salute his candor, bravery and scientific correctness. He just didn’t know why. Now he should. Skepticism is a valid intellectual position of philosophy.
If Dr S Fred Singer can just convince his colleague Dr Roy W Spencer that CS = 0 and get Spencer to disclose how he determines Earth’s emissivity vs CO2 in order to estimate its temperature from his satellite spectrometer measurements of intensity, we would learn together what Earth’s global temperature is and strengthen scientific consensus that anthropogenic CO2 is innocent. It is green plant food after all. Which is very cool.
Add comment
A great example of commenting guidelines can be found here. These are suggestions everyone should try to follow. Please note: 'Don’t take criticisms personally, don’t rise to bait or attempts at gotchas. Make the points YOU want to make.'
PLEASE report SPAM/egregious comments using the 'Report to administrator' link. Recent comments are last. To respond to a comment, click the Quote link beneath that comment.
Comments
This guy also didn't believe that CFCs affected the ozone layer or that second-hand smoke affects anyone's health.
When you can't find any legitimate science to support your beliefs, you can always find Singer.
Apologies - I'm glad Dr Latour worked out the math
Plus if you actually read who wrote the above article Comrade, you might realise it was written by our New and Improved "Second to Last" refuge from Co2 Socialists. Some Doctor or other named Latour?
When you realize that The Second Law of Thermodynamics can be used to explain the energy flows which maintain planetary core and surface temperatures, then you are left with no uncertainty that the CO2 conjecture is the greatest scientific mistake in all history.
"If e increases with CO2 at constant I, T goes down. Therefore CO2 causes global cooling. "
is far too simple.
You assume that I is constent. This is not consistent with empirical evidence; measurements.
You have 3 variables (I, e, T), not 2, and the equation is not solved by only changing 1 variable.
Recent measurement have shown, however, that I has increased with increasing CO2 (ref. Changes in global net radiative imbalance 1985-2012, Richard P. Allan, et al.). onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10 .1002/2014GL060962/abstract
Analyses supporting Allan et al.:
Analysis shows the "missing heat" has gone to space & less "heat trapping" from increased greenhouse gases hockeyschtick.blogspot.no/2014 /10/analysis-shows-missing-hea t-has-gone-to.html and
An Empirical Review of Recent Trends in the Greenhouse Effect av Robin Pittwood, Kiwi Thinker wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/08 /an-empirical-review-of-recent -trends-in-the-greenhouse-effe ct/
The two primary findings of this empirical study are:
• Outgoing radiation has not declined over this period as expected by IPCC models. In fact it has increased. The missing heat has gone back to space – as usual and in the quantity as per Stefan Boltzmann’s law, via OLWIR, and
• The increasing greenhouse effect expected by IPCC models, is not evident in the measurements. It appears there has been no increased greenhouse effect over this period.
This study analysed two important factors directly associated with the greenhouse effect, atmospheric temperature and outgoing radiation, and finds that the trends observed, along with an empirical derivation of the Stefan Boltzmann relative emissivity factor directly contradicts the greenhouse theory built into the IPCC models.
The global temperature and climate mechanisms are much more complicated than you have described in your post. Regarding radiation, I recommend prof. Claes Johnson; Mathematical Physics of Blackbody Radiation www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/ambsblack.pdf and debunking the AGW dogma here: CO2 Climate Alarmism Debunked by Mathematics, 2011. www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/climatemathematics.pptx
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060962/abstract
hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2014/10/analysis-shows-missing-heat-has-gone-to.html
wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/08/an-empirical-review-of-recent-trends-in-the-greenhouse-effect/
I did assume intensity I of radiator Earth was constant, independent of [CO2], and so stated. In fact I stated I = (1 – albedo)S/4. (Of course albedo*S/4 is reflected.) This means only significant source of energy radiated by Earth is incoming solar not reflected. I assumed increasing CO2 does not increase rate of radiant energy transfer to space. Now I am free to make assumptions and readily admit validity of conclusions depend on validity of assumptions.
If you think CO2 affects I, where does the heat come from? Of course if CO2 affects albedo, the change in radiation rate is balanced by change in reflection rate. I have no evidence CO2 affects cloud cover or albedo, so that is a reasonable simplifying assumption. Your empirical measurement references may add a correction. What is the consensus quantification of I = function [CO2]?
I know combustion releases heat with CO2 because oxidation is exothermic; photosynthesis consumes solar power with CO2 because it is endothermic. So I assumed over reasonable periods they cancel, a reasonable simplifying assumption. So does everybody else.
Oceans absorb CO2 with cooling and effervesce it with warming. That only affects emissivity.
When you find a significant heat source or sink from CO2, quantify it, show how it affects intensity and I will consider it.
In any case, can you see the merit of considering the global effect of CO2 on atmosphere’s emissivity to get a good approximation of T with S-B Law? Just because it is “far too simple” does not mean it is incorrect or not useful. I think it a rather good model of the situation and illustrates actual global cooling, which many say is impossible. The S-B Law is valid for the radiating planet no matter what is going on below or what it is made of. The only thing that affects T is intensity and emissivity, and if intensity is assumed constant, the affect is clearly cooling.
I respect the work of Prof Claes Johnson. Your comments do not refute my analysis and conclusion.
.....and....
best statement
ever
even if the
debate
that never happened
had been won
it would not
alter the laws
of nature
great
i wish i'd have
said that
Cough cough religion cough!
Even the laws of nature , mathematics and physics. And even common sense.
All's they have to do is legislate and it is done.
And drug driven idiots like crazy eyes Pelosi believe this.
Hey, why don't we legislate out Quantum Mechanics because we don't like it and it's holding too many kids back in school.
99.9% of the molecules in the atmosphere are inert - they do not radiate on their own. That other 0/1% do radiate. But, unlike some are wont to say, they do not wait around for a photon before radiating one. The greenhouse hypothesis uses simple terms that people can grasp, like greenhouse gases can trap heat. Here's a simple thought - radiative gases radiate CONSTANTLY, based on their temperature and emissivity. Half that radiation is space directed, the other half earth directed. But, what about the inert gases? THEY are the ones that trap heat. They can't radiate. They STAY at a given energy level until they collide with something that is either 'hotter' (more energy) or 'colder', (lower energy). By thermal law, when a collision between two object of different temperature occurs, and energy transfer takes place from the warmer to the cooler.
So, if a CO2 (or any greenhouse gas) is radiating, it is cooling. It radiates constantly, and it cools constantly as a result. Any collision with an inert gas will cause the inert gas to LOSE energy to the lower energy GHG. Thus, by the very nature of gases alone, CO2 and other GHG's are a cooling influence on the atmosphere.
Secondly, the gas laws state that pressure temperature and volume define a gas's characteristics. Increase pressure alone, temperature increases. Decrease pressure alone, temperature decreases. The atmospheric column can be though of as several 'containers' of atmosphere, where temperature is defined by altitude (pressure), neglecting any effects of wind. So, the lapse rate exists every place on earth. The higher the altitude, the lower the temperature, at least in the boundary layer, where we live. Why is this important? Because the gas laws are INDEPENDENT of the TYPE of gas. All gases obey the same laws. So, if our atmosphere was 100% CO2, there would STILL be the same lapse rate. The only thing that would be different is that earth would be cooler, since there would be a larger emitting 'sphere'. Those that say GHG can heat the earth do not understand the nature of the liquid and solid earth, which emit trillions of photons for every photon that arrives from a gh gas. It is a physical impossibility to impinge a sparse population of photons onto earth's surface thereby heating it. Thermal law says that if the surface is heated, it will simply radiate more. That, my friends, is a thermostat, one that is controlled by the thermal laws. You can't heat a surface WITHOUT it radiating more.
The temperature of earth is a result of the size and weight of the atmosphere. That is why there is a lapse rate. It is why high places are cold and low places are hot. Think Death Valley - the only difference between it and the surrounding land is that it has more atmosphere stacked on it. Thus, hotter.
So - CO2 and all ghg's are a cooling influence.
Inert gases can trap heat, and do, until they collide with something.
Earth's temperature is a result of the atmosphere which resides on it at any given place, neglecting wind.
Quote:claesjohnson.blogspot.ca/2015/02/venus-vs-earth-atmospheric-mass.html
RSS feed for comments to this post