The “greenhouse effect,” very simplified, is this: solar radiation penetrates the atmosphere and warms the surface of the earth. The earth’s surface radiates thermal energy (infrared radiation) back into space. Some of this radiation is absorbed and re-radiated back to the surface and into space by clouds, water vapor, methane, carbon dioxide, and other gases. Water vapor is the principle greenhouse gas; the others are minor players. Without the greenhouse effect the planet would be an iceball, about 34 C colder than it is. The term “greenhouse effect” with respect to the atmosphere is an unfortunate usage because it is misleading. The interior of a real greenhouse (or your automobile parked with windows closed and left in the sun) heats up because there is a physical barrier to convective heat loss. There is no such physical barrier in the atmosphere.
Carbon dioxide is a “greenhouse” gas, so let’s examine its theoretical and actual effect on temperature.
Even the IPCC agrees that the hypothetical capacity of carbon dioxide to change temperature is given by the formula: Tc = áln(C2/C1), where Tc is the change in temperature in degrees Centigrade and the term ln(C2/C1) is the natural logarithm of the CO2 concentration at time two divided by the concentration at time one. The constant á (alpha) is sometimes called the sensitivity and its value is subject to debate. This relationship was proposed by Svante August Arrhenius, a physicist and chemist, around 1896. This logarithmic formula produces a graph in the form shown at the left. This shows that as the concentration of carbon dioxide increases, its effects have less and less influence. This graph is the pure theoretical capacity of carbon dioxide to warm the atmosphere in absence of any confounding feedbacks. The different curves represent different values of alpha.
The reason it works this way is because carbon dioxide can absorb only a few specific wavelengths of thermal radiation. The current concentration of carbon dioxide has absorbed almost all available radiation in those wavelengths so there is little left for additional carbon dioxide to absorb. Notice too, that water vapor absorbs many of the same wavelengths of thermal radiation. Also notice that in a certain part of the spectrum there is an open window of no absorption.
We see, therefore, that increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have a decreasing hypothetical effect on temperature. That is also why our proposed attempts to decrease atmospheric carbon dioxide will have almost no effect on temperature.
The IPCC says that warming will produce more water vapor which will enhance greenhouse warming, a positive feedback. All their climate models are based on this assumption. Sounds reasonable except in the real world, it doesn’t happen. Increased water vapor produces more clouds which block the sun thereby inducing cooling, a negative feedback.
Dr. Roy Spencer explains here why doubling the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere will add only 3% to Earth’s greenhouse effect. Spencer has further discussion here in which he says, “that about 50% of the surface warming influence of greenhouse gases has been short-circuited by the cooling effects of weather.”
The atmosphere is not static; we have weather which tends to dissipate heat into space. According to real world measurements, the negative feedbacks overwhelm the theoretical positive feedback posed by the IPCC.
An example of negative feedbacks:
In 2001, a paper by M.I.T. researchers proposed that warming dissipated high-altitude cirrus clouds which had the effect of dumping heat into space, thereby helping to regulate earth’s temperature. This paper was controversial because it went against the orthodoxy of global warming and there were many detractors. However, in 2007 researchers from the University of Alabama, using NASA satellite data found evidence to support the theory. In 2009, the original M.I.T. researchers, using National Centers for Environmental Prediction’s 16-year (1985-1999) monthly record of sea surface temperature, together with corresponding radiation data from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment, found more real world evidence in support of the theory (see PDF). It might be noted that 11 major climate models used by the IPCC assume positive feedback, but real world data shows a temperature-moderating negative feedback. However, the role of clouds is still poorly-understood and more real-world data is needed.
What happens on other planets:
Venus has a surface temperature of about 900 F and an atmosphere composed of 96% carbon dioxide. The temperature is the same from equator to poles, from day to night (Venus rotates on its axis in 2,802 hours rather than 24 hours). Venus is often touted as the extreme example of run-away greenhouse warming. But, there is almost no greenhouse warming on Venus because little, if any, direct sunlight gets to the surface. The atmosphere is too thick. In 1975, the Russian Venus lander Venera 9 measured clouds that were 30–40 km thick with bases at 30–35 km altitude. The surface air pressure on Venus is about 92 times greater than that on Earth. The high pressure alone can explain most of the high surface temperature. Although Venus gets almost twice the solar irradiation of Earth, Venus’ high albedo reflects back 65% of the sunlight.
Venus has almost no water vapor in the atmosphere (about 0.002%), and therefore lacks the major greenhouse gas that Earth has.
Mars has an atmosphere composed of 95% carbon dioxide and only a trace of water. Its atmosphere is very thin. Its surface pressure is about 2% that of Earth. The temperatures on the two Viking landers, measured at 1.5 meters above the surface, range from + 1° F, ( -17.2° C) to -178° F (-107° C). However, the temperature of the surface at the winter polar caps drop to -225° F, (-143° C) while the warmest soil occasionally reaches +81° F (27° C) as estimated from Viking Orbiter Infrared Thermal Mapper (NASA data). Again, no water vapor, no greenhouse effect.
The greenhouse model is a simplified story that helps explain how our atmosphere works. However, the real world is very complicated and still not fully understood. Even global warming alarmist James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, had this to say: “The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change.” — James Hansen, “Climate forcings in the Industrial era”, PNAS, Vol. 95, Issue 22, 12753-12758, October 27, 1998.
And even the IPCC once admitted, “In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate state is not possible.” — Final chapter, Draft TAR 2000 (Third Assessment Report), IPCC.
Human carbon dioxide emissions are 3% to 5% of total carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, and about 98% of all carbon dioxide emissions are reabsorbed through the carbon cycle. (Source )
Although Earth’s atmosphere does have a “greenhouse effect” and carbon dioxide does have a limited hypothetical capacity to warm the atmosphere, there is no physical evidence showing that human carbon dioxide emissions actually produce any significant warming. If you disagree with that statement, then produce some physical evidence to refute it.
UPDATE March 3, 2011: A new paper in Geophysical Research Abstracts (Vol. 13, EGU2011-4505-1, 2011) reports that detailed spectrographic analysis found that because of the overlap absorbance of the much more abundant water vapor for long wave radiation, the effective sensitivity of carbon dioxide and methane as greenhouse gases is only one-seventh that claimed by the IPCC and used in climate models.
Therefore humans are unnatural?
The natural carbon cycle involves the production/consumption of carbon. Humans do exhale – but energy production involves humans using historic carbon from earlier carbon cycles that are not contemporary. It isnt part of a ‘natural’ carbon cycle. It imposes a delta which will be balanced. Life on earth isnt in jeopardy. But expect different behaviors to the perturbation in the natural carbon cycle.
Your first sentence negates your argument. BTW what is the difference between “historic” carbon being put back in the atmosphere from a natural forest fire and humans burning wood? Do you think nature can distinguish between a molecule of carbon dioxide produced by humans from a molecule of carbon dioxide from another source?
You ask bad questions.
being put back in the atmosphere from a natural forest fire and humans burning wood
all part of the current carbon cycle. Petroleum isnt. Petroleum is a part of an historic carbon cycle. Nature specializes is balance. Nature balanced the carbon that is now present in petroleum. However, the current biological cycle doesnt include petroleum. The use of petroleum – that is carbon from a previous cycle – imposes a delta to the current cycle. Petroleum is no longer a part of the natural carbon cycle.
Everything that is done in nature by man forces a rebalance. That is after all what nature does – it seeks a balance or equilibrium.
Your claim that this
The natural carbon cycle involves the production/consumption of carbon.
negates my argument demonstrates that you dont understand the point. And frankly I am not disposed to waste any more time.
” And frankly I am not disposed to waste any more time.”
Conceding defeat so early? Then why the last hit n’ run atttack? No wish to restore “balance” or “equilibrium” to the debate?
You are out of your league.
Humans – NO.
Cars, airplanes, power stations – YES.
“If you disagree with that statement, then produce some physical evidence to refute it.”
If arguments based on pure emotion alone won’t cut it then I doubt you will get many takers.
Hey Jim Bodkins, wouldn’t coal be historic carbon? Why didn’t this horrible cataclysm start in the 1800’s?
Ya, know. it takes time to pour billions of tons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Climate science is not a robust science, and there is no atmospheric greenhouse effect as put forth by the UN IPCC; the comparison of atmospheric temperatures of Venus and Earth definitively proves this (see my website for the really simple analysis, if you’re interested). Note how even the analysis in the article here, which minimizes the greenhouse effect while accepting it theoretically, speaks of atmospheric absorption of infrared radiation that has been emitted by a warmed surface, but it completely fails to note that the incident sunlight contains a continuous spectrum that is more than half infrared radiation, and the atmosphere absorbs most of that infrared directly, from above. The Venus/Earth data very simply proves (not theoretically, but by direct physical evidence, on a planetary scale) that the atmosphere (of both Venus and Earth) is warmed by direct absorption of incident solar infrared radiation, not by absorption of radiation from the surface. Few will admit this in the present intellectual brawl, although it is a transparent demonstration for any competent physical scientist, because it means that climate scientists are incompetent, because they had the Venus/Earth data almost 20 years ago which disproved the greenhouse effect once and for all. I have submitted this analysis to “Physics Today”, but they will not publish it for the entire science community, and the public, to see it and judge it openly for all to see. This is called suppression of the truth, and is the calling card of a tyrannous authority.
Mr. Huffman’s website is http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/
Mr. DuHamel; We ended our correspondence about a year ago because we are diametrically opposed on this issue. Sadly, you are as wrong today as you were then. — ‘The probable reason you are not published is because you ideas are so far off the wall, not because of tyrannous authority.
Well, Mr. Divine,
Perhaps you could specify how you think the greenhouse effect works. Perhaps you could provide some physical evidence showing that our carbon dioxide emissions have a significant effect on global temperature. BTW, the UofA professor that claims our emissions will cause sea level to rise one meter by 2100 could not provide physical evidence to support human causes. See: http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2011/02/17/science-fiction-from-the-university-of-arizona/
Can you provide the evidence or is it just ideology for you?
Trying to prove your point by applying bench data to a global scale phenomena is the wrong approach. Both sides do it and it just confuses the whole debate. Its really very simple. We are now releasing huge amounts of fossil carbon too rapidly for natural processes to adjust. It took millions of years of plant growth/death/decay/sequestration to create our vast stores of fossil fuels during which time the planet cooled considerably and new species evolved to adjust. Think of what is happening now as a return to the age of dinosaurs. The high levels of CO2 and gaseous H2O that existed then resulted in photosynthetic growth beyond what mankind has ever experienced. As any biologist will tell you, a rapid change to an ecosystem results in the extinction of most species and the flourishing of those that remain. The age of the cockroach is coming fast…
Comments are closed.