"Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth¡¯s atmosphere"
First phrase, first lie. The single most important climate-relevant blah blah blah is water vapour, not CO2 by a great margin. It makes about 90% of the global warming effect. I mean that this is a lie because they supposedly are scientists and they must know it. Anyway, this is bad news for those that, like me, receive Exxon checks, we need more antropogenic alarmists ;)))) This list is becoming truly about everything. 2013/6/15 <[email protected]> > It's amazing how much damage the Anthropogenic CO2 can do to the Solar > Photosphere. ;-) > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: smitra <[email protected]> > To: everything-list <[email protected]> > Sent: Sat, Jun 15, 2013 10:43 am > Subject: Re: On Global Warming----The sun is getting a little hotter > > Not assumed to be caused, but known to be caused. The science is clear, > it's only that the vast majority of the population is science > illiterate to the point that many people with university degrees in > economics, engineering etc. don't know much about physics and are > susceptible to the same nonsense as most lay persons. > http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.full > > ABSTRACT > > Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single > most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth¡¯s atmosphere. > This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, > does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current > climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing > greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial > greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature > structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor > and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of > the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 > and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial > greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound > Earth state. > > It often is stated that water vapor is the chief greenhouse gas (GHG) > in the atmosphere. For example, it has been asserted that ¡°about 98% > of the natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapour and stratiform > clouds with CO2 contributing less than 2%¡± (1). If true, this would > imply that changes in atmospheric CO2 are not important influences on > the natural greenhouse capacity of Earth, and that the continuing > increase in CO2 due to human activity is therefore not relevant to > climate change. This misunderstanding is resolved through simple > examination of the terrestrial greenhouse. > > The difference between the nominal global mean surface temperature (TS > = 288 K) and the global mean effective temperature (TE = 255 K) is a > common measure of the terrestrial greenhouse effect (GT = TS ¨C TE = 33 > K). Assuming global energy balance, TE is also the Planck radiation > equivalent of the 240 W/m2 of global mean solar radiation absorbed by > Earth. > > The Sun is the source of energy that heats Earth. Besides direct solar > heating of the ground, there is also indirect longwave (LW) warming > arising from the thermal radiation that is emitted by the ground, then > absorbed locally within the atmosphere, from which it is re-emitted in > both upward and downward directions, further heating the ground and > maintaining the temperature gradient in the atmosphere. This radiative > interaction is the greenhouse effect, which was first discovered by > Joseph Fourier in 1824 (2), experimentally verified by John Tyndall in > 1863 (3), and quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896 (4). These studies > established long ago that water vapor and CO2 are indeed the principal > terrestrial GHGs. Now, further consideration shows that CO2 is the one > that controls climate change. > > CO2 is a well-mixed gas that does not condense or precipitate from the > atmosphere. Water vapor and clouds, on the other hand, are highly > active components of the climate system that respond rapidly to changes > in temperature and air pressure by evaporating, condensing, and > precipitating. This identifies water vapor and clouds as the fast > feedback processes in the climate system. > > Radiative forcing experiments assuming doubled CO2 and a 2% increase in > solar irradiance (5) show that water vapor provides the strongest > climate feedback of any of the atmospheric GHGs, but that it is not the > cause (forcing) of global climate change. The response of the climate > system to an applied forcing is determined to be the sum of the direct > (no-feedback) response to the applied forcing and the induced radiative > response that is attributable to the feedback process contributions. > The ratio of the total climate response to the no-feedback response is > commonly known as the feedback factor, which incorporates all the > complexities of the climate system feedback interactions. For the > doubled CO2 and the 2% solar irradiance forcings, for which the direct > no-feedback responses of the global surface temperature are 1.2¡ã and > 1.3¡ãC, respectively, the ~4¡ãC surface warming implies respective > feedback factors of 3.3 and 3.0 (5). > > Because the solar-thermal energy balance of Earth [at the top of the > atmosphere (TOA)] is maintained by radiative processes only, and > because all the global net advective energy transports must equal zero, > it follows that the global average surface temperature must be > determined in full by the radiative fluxes arising from the patterns of > temperature and absorption of radiation. This then is the basic > underlying physics that explains the close coupling that exists between > TOA radiative fluxes, the greenhouse effect, and the global mean > surface temperature. > > An improved understanding of the relative importance of the different > contributors to the greenhouse effect comes from radiative flux > experiments that we performed using Goddard Institute for Space Studies > (GISS) ModelE (6). Figure 1 depicts the essence of these calculations, > including the separation of the greenhouse contributors into feedback > and forcing categories. > > In round numbers, water vapor accounts for about 50% of Earth¡¯s > greenhouse effect, with clouds contributing 25%, CO2 20%, and the minor > GHGs and aerosols accounting for the remaining 5%. Because CO2, O3, > N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) do not condense and > precipitate, noncondensing GHGs constitute the key 25% of the radiative > forcing that supports and sustains the entire terrestrial greenhouse > effect, the remaining 75% coming as fast feedback contributions from > water vapor and clouds. > > We used the GISS 4¡ã ¡Á 5¡ã ModelE to calculate changes in > instantaneous LW TOA flux (annual global averages) in experiments where > atmospheric constituents (including water vapor, clouds, CO2, O3, N2O, > CH4, CFCs, and aerosols) were added to or subtracted from an > equilibrium atmosphere with a given global temperature structure, one > constituent at a time for a 1-year period. Decreases in outgoing TOA > flux for each constituent relative to the empty or the full-component > atmosphere define the bounds for the relative impact on the total > greenhouse effect. Had the overlapping absorption been negligible, the > sum of the flux differences would have been equal to the LW flux > equivalent of the total greenhouse effect (GF = ¦ÒTS^4 ¨C ¦ÒTE^4 = 150 > W/m2), where ¦Ò is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. We found the > single-addition flux differences to be overestimated by a factor of > 1.36, whereas in the single-subtraction cases, the sum of the TOA flux > differences was underestimated by a factor of 0.734. By normalizing > these fractional contributions to match the full-atmosphere value of > GF, we obtained the fractional response contributions shown in Fig. 1. > > Because of overlapping absorption, the fractional attribution of the > greenhouse effect is to some extent qualitative (as shown by the dashed > and dotted extremum lines in Fig. 1), even though the spectral integral > is a full and accurate determination of the atmospheric greenhouse > strength for the specified global temperature structure. Still, the > fractional attribution is sufficiently precise to clearly differentiate > the radiative flux contributions due to the noncondensable GHGs from > those arising from the fast feedback processes. This allows an > empirical determination of the climate feedback factor as the ratio of > the total global flux change to the flux change that is attributable to > the radiative forcing due to the noncondensing GHGs. This empirical > determination leads then to a climate feedback factor of 4, based on > the noncondensing GHG forcing accounting for 25% of the outgoing flux > reduction at the TOA for the full-constituent atmosphere. This implies > that Earth¡¯s climate system operates with strong positive feedback > that arises from the forcing-induced changes in the condensable species. > > A direct consequence of this combination of feedback by the condensable > and forcing by the noncondensable constituents of the atmospheric > greenhouse is that the terrestrial greenhouse effect would collapse > were it not for the presence of these noncondensing GHGs. If the global > atmospheric temperatures were to fall to as low as TS = TE, the > Clausius-Clapeyron relation would imply that the sustainable amount of > atmospheric water vapor would become less than 10% of the current > atmospheric value. This would result in (radiative) forcing reduced by > ~30 W/m2, causing much of the remaining water vapor to precipitate, > thus enhancing the snow/ice albedo to further diminish the absorbed > solar radiation. Such a condition would inevitably lead to runaway > glaciation, producing an ice ball Earth. > > Claims that removing all CO2 from the atmosphere ¡°would lead to a 1¡ãC > decrease in global warming¡± (7), or ¡°by 3.53¡ãC when 40% cloud cover > is assumed¡± [8] are still being heard. A clear demonstration is needed > to show that water vapor and clouds do indeed behave as fast feedback > processes and that their atmospheric distributions are regulated by the > sustained radiative forcing due to the noncondensing GHGs. To this end, > we performed a simple climate experiment with the GISS 2¡ã ¡Á 2.5¡ã AR5 > version of ModelE, using the Q-flux ocean with a mixed-layer depth of > 250 m, zeroing out all the noncondensing GHGs and aerosols. > > The results, summarized in Fig. 2, show unequivocally that the > radiative forcing by noncondensing GHGs is essential to sustain the > atmospheric temperatures that are needed for significant levels of > water vapor and cloud feedback. Without this noncondensable GHG > forcing, the physics of this model send the climate of Earth plunging > rapidly and irrevocably to an icebound state, though perhaps not to > total ocean freezeover. > > 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¡ãC. After 50 years, the global temperature stands at ¨C21¡ãC, a > decrease of 34.8¡ãC. Atmospheric water vapor is at ~10% of the control > climate value (22.6 to 2.2 mm). Global cloud cover increases from its > 58% control value to more than 75%, and the global sea ice fraction > goes from 4.6% to 46.7%, causing the planetary albedo of Earth to also > increase from ~29% to 41.8%. This has the effect of reducing the > absorbed solar energy to further exacerbate the global cooling. > > After 50 years, a third of the ocean surface still remains ice-free, > even though the global surface temperature is colder than ¨C21¡ãC. At > tropical latitudes, incident solar radiation is sufficient to keep the > ocean from freezing. Although this thermal oasis within an otherwise > icebound Earth appears to be stable, further calculations with an > interactive ocean would be needed to verify the potential for long-term > stability. The surface temperatures in Fig. 3 are only marginally > warmer than 1¡ãC within the remaining low-latitude heat island. > > From the foregoing, it is clear that CO2 is the key atmospheric gas > that exerts principal control over the strength of the terrestrial > greenhouse effect. Water vapor and clouds are fast-acting feedback > effects, and as such are controlled by the radiative forcings supplied > by the noncondensing GHGs. There is telling evidence that atmospheric > CO2 also governs the temperature of Earth on geological time scales, > suggesting the related question of what the geological processes that > control atmospheric CO2 are. The geological evidence of glaciation at > tropical latitudes from 650 to 750 million years ago supports the > snowball Earth hypothesis (9), and by inference, that escape from the > snowball Earth condition is also achievable. > > On million-year time scales, volcanoes are the principal source of > atmospheric CO2, and rock weathering is the principal sink, with the > biosphere acting as both source and sink (10). Because the CO2 sources > and sinks operate independently, the atmospheric level of CO2 can > fluctuate. If the atmospheric CO2 level were to fall below its critical > value, snowball Earth conditions can result. > > Antarctic and Greenland ice core data show atmospheric CO2 fluctuations > between 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm) over the > glacial-interglacial cycles during the past 650,000 years (11). The > relevant physical processes that turn the CO2 control knob on > thousand-year time scales between glacial and interglacial extremes are > not fully understood, but appear to involve both the biosphere and the > ocean chemistry, including a significant role for Milankovitch > variations of the Earth-orbital parameters. > > Besides CO2, methane is another potent greenhouse control knob, being > implicated in the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximummass extinction 55 > million years ago, when global warming by up to 5¡ãC (12) occurred > because of a massive release of methane from the disintegration of > seafloor clathrates (13, 14). Methane is the second most important > noncondensing GHG after CO2. Of the 2.9 W/m2 of GHG radiative forcing > from 1750 to 2000, CO2 contributed 1.5 W/m2, methane 0.55 W/m2, and > CFCs 0.3 W/m2, with the rest coming from N2O and ozone (15). All of > these increases in noncondensing GHG forcing are attributable to human > activity (16). > > Climate control knobs on the solar side of the energy balance ledger > include the steady growth in luminosity since the beginning of the > Solar System (from about 70% of present luminosity, depending on the > postulated early solar mass loss), as hydrogen is consumed in nuclear > reactions in the solar interior (17, 18). Milankovitch variations of > the Earth-orbital parameters, which alter the relative seasonal > distribution as well as the intensity of incident solar radiation > within the polar regions, are another important solar energy control > knob that is intimately associated with glacial-interglacial cycles of > climate change. For solar irradiance changes over the past several > centuries, an increase by about 0.1 W/m2 is inferred since the time of > the Maunder minimum, based on trends in sunspot activity and other > proxies (19). > > Of the climate control knobs relevant to current climate, those on the > solar side of the energy balance ledger show only negligible impact. > Several decades of solar irradiance monitoring have not detected any > long-term trends in solar irradiance beyond the 11-year oscillation > associated with the solar sunspot cycle. Large volcanic eruptions can > happen at any time, but no substantial eruptions have occurred since > the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991. > > In a broader perspective, CO2 greenhouses also operate on Mars and > Venus, because both planets possess atmospheres with substantial > amounts of CO2. The atmospheric greenhouse effect requires that a > substantial fraction of the incident solar radiation must be absorbed > at the ground in order to make the indirect greenhouse heating of the > ground surface possible. Greenhouse parameters and relative surface > pressure (PS) for Mars, Earth, and Venus are summarized in Table 1. > > Earth is unique among terrestrial planets in having a greenhouse effect > in which water vapor provides strong amplification of the heat-trapping > action of the CO2 greenhouse. Also, N2 and O2, although possessing no > substantial absorption bands of their own, are actually important > contributors to the total greenhouse effect because of > pressure-broadening of CO2 absorption lines, as well as by providing > the physical structure within which the absorbing gases can interact > with the radiation field. > > The anthropogenic radiative forcings that fuel the growing terrestrial > greenhouse effect continue unabated. The continuing high rate of > atmospheric CO2 increase is particularly worrisome, because the present > CO2 level of 390 ppm is far in excess of the 280 ppm that is more > typical for the interglacial maximum, and still the atmospheric CO2 > control knob is now being turned faster than at any time in the > geological record (20). The concern is that we are well past even the > 300- to 350-ppm target level for atmospheric CO2, beyond which > dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system would exceed > the 25% risk tolerance for impending degradation of land and ocean > ecosystems, sea-level rise, and inevitable disruption of socioeconomic > and food-producing infrastructure (21, 22). Furthermore, the > atmospheric residence time of CO2 is exceedingly long, being measured > in thousands of years (23). This makes the reduction and control of > atmospheric CO2 a serious and pressing issue, worthy of real-time > attention. > > > > Citeren Roger Clough <[email protected]>: > > > > > On Global Warming----The sun is getting a little hotter > > > > Up to the present day, studies of global warming were > > based on CO2 levels in the atmosphere, assumed to be caused by > > automobiles (the supposed greenhouse effect). > > But more resent studies show that total solar irradiation (TSI) -- > > solar radiation coming from outside of the atmosphere- not CO2 levels-- > > is the driving force: > > > > http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/06/soon-and-briggs-global-warming-fanatics-take-note-sunspots-do-impact-climate/ > > > > > > > > C02 levels are not reliable indicators of what causes surface > > temperature warming (the supposed greenhouse effect) ? > > . > > Why ? Because some of the CO2 in the atmosphere is there because as > > the earth warms, the > > oceans warm and CO2 gases sare less soluble in warmer water, so fizle out > > into the atmosphere. So it is doubtful to say that current levels of CO2 > > are entirely from automobiles. > > > > So current scientific evalutations as in the graph below do not rely on CO2 > > measurements, they use solar radiation which is not influenced by C02 levels > > and relate that instead to surface gtemperatures. > > > > The total solar radiation (TSI) is not obtained from measurements > > made on earth, so > > it isn't supposed to include greenshouse gas effects. It is measured > > these days by satellite, > > but is reconconstructed from pre-satellite days (<1979 ) based on a model > > based on the number of sunspots. > > > > http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/abs/2007/19/aa6725-06/aa6725-06.html > > > > "Reconstruction of solar total irradiance since 1700 from the surface > > magnetic flux > > N. A. Krivova, L. Balmaceda, and S. K. Solanki > > > > Max-Planck-Institut f? Sonnensystemforschung, Max-Planck-Str. 2, > > 37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany > > e-mail: [email protected] > > > > (Received 9 November 2006 / Accepted 23 February 2007) > > > > Abstract > > Context.Total solar irradiance changes by about 0.1% between solar > > activity maximum and minimum. Accurate measurements of this quantity > > are only available since 1978 and do not provide information on > > longer-term secular trends. > > Aims.In order to reliably evaluate the Sun's role in recent global > > climate change, longer time series are, however, needed. They can > > only be assessed with the help of suitable models. > > Methods.The total solar irradiance is reconstructed from the end of > > the Maunder minimum to the present based on variations of the surface > > distribution of the solar magnetic field. The latter is calculated > > from the historical record of the sunspot number using a simple but > > consistent physical model. > > Results.Our model successfully reproduces three independent data > > sets: total solar irradiance measurements available since 1978, total > > photospheric magnetic flux since 1974 and the open magnetic flux > > since 1868 empirically reconstructed using the geomagnetic aa-index. > > The model predicts an increase in the solar total irradiance since > > the Maunder minimum of $1.3^{\rm +0.2}_{\rm -0.4}$ Wm-2. " > > > > > > > > Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 3/30/2013 > > "Coincidences are God's way of remaining anonymous." > > - Albert Einstein > > ____________________________________________________________________ > > > > > > > > Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/15/2013 > > See my Leibniz site at > > http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough > > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > > DreamMail - The first mail software supporting source tracking > > www.dreammail.org > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "Everything List" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > > send an email to [email protected]. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email > to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
