Part Five Geological Facts

This will be a short section placed here to show what the past was until recently when all this history mysteriously disappeared. The point to these Charts is that climate has NEVER been a constant with global temperatures ranging from a low of around 12 degrees C to a high of around 22 degrees C and CO₂ ranging from under 300 ppm to as high as 7,000 ppm. We are presently at 400 ppm CO₂ with a global temperature of around 14.6 degrees C which is historically low as can be seen on the following chart going back 600 million years. It would seem that a mean temperature of 17 degrees C, as shown here, and a CO₂ level of over 1000 ppm would be more normal then what we have now so why the hysterical political movement to control CO₂?

The next chart is more current going back to the last ice age some 11,000 years ago. This chart is particularly interesting as it shows that there have been 4 cycles of cold and warm going back over 4,000 year. Based on those 4 cycles and considering the difficulty of determining exact dates and temperatures it can be said that over the past four thousand years there have been 4 cycles of about one thousand years duration with an amplitude of maybe 1.5 degrees C. And we are what would appear to be a peak of the forth cycle, indicating that we can expect a downward movement to start in the next hundred years or so. Based only on this observation It should be possible to develop a model that would be valid over this period of time and where we have human records to support these temperature changes.

However, there are also some significant temperature variations with shorter durations as shown on the next Chart. This Chart is of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation or AMO where there appears to be a 60 some year cycle of under one degree C there is also a larger cycle in the pacific known as La Nina and El Niño.

The Pacific variations are not as consistent as those in the Atlantic are,but there is a greater variation as can be seen in the next chart where the La Nina and El Nino events are shown as a multivariate index called the ENSO.

The purpose to showing this four Charts is to establish that there are geological and even decadal variations in climate and none of these have anything to do with mankind or CO₂; therefore any proper theory of Climate must consider these variables as a base to work from. Only when that is done can considerations be given to things like Carbon Dioxide, which probably is only a bit player in Climate.

In the next section we’ll put this all together and show what is really happening with Global Climate and also why the Warmists and their obedient media are so wrong.

Part Four A Model for CO₂ levels

Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) has been measured very accurately since 1958 By NOAA-ESRL and the trend published monthly; for example this is the chart for January 2015 where the CO₂ level was 399.96 ppm. There is little to no reason to not believe these postings by NOAA-ESRP since they are direct measurements using calibrated equipment at the Mauna Loa location in the Hawaiian Islands.

These NOAA records go back to March 1958 and the pattern seen in the above Chart goes all the way back to that date which is a summer peak and a winter trough. NOAA and others have determined that in pre-industrial times the CO₂ level was in the range of 270 to 280 ppm and then as the use of coal and then oil began the level of CO₂ started to rise. Scientists observing this pattern assumed that all the increase was caused by man, however in ecological times CO₂ has in fact risen and fallen and it appears to follow increases in temperatures and since there were no humans we could not have created these past changes so there is more to this than just a simple CO2 and temperature relationship.

The next Chart shows a diagram of the planet’s Carbon cycle. There is no doubt that man is adding to the CO₂ in the atmosphere but the overall movement of CO₂ into and out of the planet’s atmosphere is significantly great probably by 30 or more also indicating that CO2 caused by mankind is not the main player here. One must also understand that carbon Dioxide is a requirement for plant life and higher levels are better than lower levels. Commercial Greenhouse raise the level of CO₂ to over 1000 ppm to speed up planet growth and 1200 ppm, 3 times where we are at now, would not cause any problems for plants or mankind.

So since more CO₂ is good and less CO₂ is bad for all life on the planet why has it been targeted for removal? Well the only reason is that some have determined that the global temperature of the planet is directly linked to the level of CO₂. Therefore CO₂ must be removed from the atmosphere or we will destroy all life on the planet. This seems to be counter to Nature but Scientists have determined that they know what is really going on in the climate so we must trust them.

This theory of CO₂ being the reason that the Global temperature is going up is based solely on the sensitivity level of CO₂ being 3.0 degrees C as discussed in the previous post; so what we need next is to show what the future level’s of CO₂ will be so we can see if there really is a direct link between CO₂ and global temperature later in this series. The next Chart is of the entire NOAA published CO₂ level from March 1958 to January 2015. There is no doubt that the level is going up and it even seems to be accelerating and the calculated mean level of CO₂ will probably be over 400 ppm by the end of 2015.

In order to make projections into the future we need to model this NASA CO₂ data and the closest fit end up being a form of a logistics curve. If we assume a starting point of January 1600 as 270 ppm for CO₂ than the following equation will produce a curve that matches the NASA-ESRL data mean and goes to 1000 ppm around 2300. This curve fits both historical and projected levels of CO₂ in the available literature.

 CO₂ = 270 + 730 / ( 1 + 8.75 * EXP ( .001733 * (4612 – M )))

M represents the number of months from January 1600 which means that January 2015 is M = 4981 and that gives a CO2 value of 399.98 ppm verses the actual of 399.96 or an error of .02 ppm which is basically no error. The following Chart shows a part of the curve generated by this equation.

There is no question about the level of CO2 in the atmosphere; however there is uncertainty as to the source of all of the increase. But for discussion purposes we will concede that most if not all the increase is due to the use of fossil based fuels, i.e. coal, petroleum, natural gas and wood.

The next issue discussed here will be a look at some historical records on temperatures and CO₂ levels.

Part Three Carbon Dioxide and Water sensitivity

In looking at climate change one must look at the greenhouse effect which brings one to water H₂O and carbon dioxide CO₂; although there are other factors they are minimal and can be ignored since H₂O and CO₂ are the main contributors. We know from the previous post in this series that the total Greenhouse effect is 33.4 degrees Celsius and that requires only one assumption and that is that the global temperature is 14.6 degrees Celsius today. We are ignoring the current NASA January 2015 publication for Global temperatures since they are obviously false and the purpose of this series of technical papers is to show why. For the record, NASA states that the Global temperature for January 2015 was 14.94 degrees Celsius (an anomaly of 94). I believe that it is closer to 14.59 degrees Celsius (an anomaly of 59).

The makeup of the 33.4 degrees C of the Greenhouse effect is extremely important in understand climate; therefore the Global temperature. In the previous post where we established the 33.4 degree value for the Greenhouse effect we left the discussion with the problem of how much of that 33.4 degrees C is water and how much is CO₂. To make that determination we need to know both the sensitivity value of water and CO₂.so let’s get into that issue now.

The next Chart shows a plot of some of the debated CO₂ values starting with .65 degrees C the cyan plot and moving up to 1.0 degrees C the light green plot, to 1.5 degrees c the yellow plot, to 2.0 degrees C the orange plot, to 2.5 degrees C the red plot to 3.0 degrees C the dark red plot. The X axis shows CO₂ in ppm and the Y axis is in degrees Celsius. There is a black vertical line at 400 ppm the present level of CO₂ in the atmosphere and another at 500 ppm in purple for what might be expect by 2050. The cyan rectangle is placed on the plot for .65 degrees C value and shows the area of current concern which is between the vertical Back line, where we are now, and where we could be in 35 years. It’s clear the remaining effect of CO₂ with a sensitivity value from .65 degrees C will contribute very little to any future climate change.

The dark red rectangle in the Chart is placed on the plot for a sensitivity value of 3.0 degrees C which what the IPCC uses in their GCM’s. Because of the shape of the curve you can see that there could be a significant additional warming to the planet if the 3.0 degrees C value is correct. According to the IPCC in their Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) issued in 2014 this value (climate sensitivity or CO₂ forcing) is likely to be in the range 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C with a best estimate of about 3.0 degrees C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5 degrees nor greater 4.5 degrees C. However there are scientists that think that the CO₂ climate forcing values maybe as low as .4 degrees C. Since the GCM models are very, very sensitive to this number the admitted range of uncertainty is a major problem that sheds doubt to the validity of the GCM models.

But since we already know that the values the IPCC uses were developed in 1979 by the NAS what has happens since then? The next chart shows 28 studies and the range of values that each author believes is the correct value for CO₂ sensitivity that is expected. The older values are on the right and the newer ones on the left except for the NAS 3.0 degree C value which is shown twice once as the NAS in 1979 and the other as the IPCC’s AR5 from 2014 which is shown to the far left since it is still what the IPCC uses; one can see how far off it is from the more current studies.

The range in these studies is from about .02 degree C to 10.0 degree C with an estimated average of around 1.9 degrees C. It’s clear from Chart that 3.0 degrees C is higher than what much of the peer reviewed studies support and in reality values closer to MIT’s Lindzen of .65 degrees C work much better in practice. However whichever it is its surly not certain or there would not be such a wide range of estimates. Also it is very interesting that the trend is down which is significant since with time we normally get closer to the truth rather than further away.

Much of the very wide range of estimates for CO₂ forcing results from the way that solar insolation enters the planet’s atmosphere and how much water is assumed to be in the atmosphere. These are major factors and are not well understood or the range of values would not be what they are. The next Chart shows the incoming and outgoing radiation frequencies involved in calculating the forcing values incoming on the left and outgoing on the right. Also there two absorption bands for CO₂ with a black and red oval around them; in the black one there is one common band with water and one that is not but since there is very little energy there they can probably both be dismissed. Then if we look at the outgoing radiation which is now in the Infrared (IR) we can see there is only one common band shown with the red oval. So the process in question is how much does the CO₂ absorb incoming insolation, if any, and more importantly how much outgoing IR is absorbed and then how much of the re-radiated IR is then absorbed by the water H₂O?

CO₂ is only .04% of the atmosphere and water is .25% overall and has a wide range from almost 0 to 5% so any calculation of what affect CO₂ can have on trapping thermal energy is not an easy task. Complicating this even more is the question of how long does the water hold the heat as it does eventually send it out of the earth’s atmosphere. In my opinion this issue is so complicated that it may not be solvable with complex equations based on physics and chemistry and so a better method might be to back into it from the 33.4 degree value which is close to being reasonable. From geological records we know that the planet has never overheated even when CO₂ was almost 20 times more than it is now at 7,000 ppm or we would not be here. We also know that the IPCC climate models appear to have a runaway positive feedback bias showing global temperatures at levels never experienced on the plant for high levels of CO₂.

So first let’s assume a lower value for CO₂ such as .65 degrees C since it would prevent the runaway heating effect. The next Chart shows a CO2 plot in green based on the .65 degree value. Also shown are two lines the first at 400 ppm where we are now and the second an arrow pointing to the right from the intersection of the curve and the 400 ppm. If this curve is correct then we can expect only another half degree Celsius increase due to Carbon Dioxide even if it doubles to 800 ppm.

What so many people forget when they are discussing the subject of Climate Change or Anthropogenic Climate Change is that the primary greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is Water, just plain old H₂O at .25% or 2,500 ppm. The Carbon Dioxide CO₂ that so many are extremely worried about is only a minor player at only .04% or 400 ppm. The how that these two interact in our atmosphere along with incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared (IR) is what keeps the atmosphere of the planet 33.4 degrees Celsius warmer than it would be without these two gases. In other words as previously discussed the planet would be an ice ball and probably devoid of life without them.

When studying climate in relationship to Water and the various other trace gases such as CO₂, Ozone, and Methane one finds that there are only a few bands (frequencies) of visible (incoming) or Infrared radiation (outgoing) where the trace gases could affect water which is the repository of the heat making up that 33.4 degrees Celsius of warming as previously shown here   Ozone absorbs ultra violet which is very important to us but does not interact with the water or the Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere so it can be dismissed for considerations involving changes in global temperature. Methane at present levels is only 1.8 ppm and so even though it could be a factor at higher levels it can also be dismissed for now; and so for all practical purposes that only leaves Water and Carbon Dioxide to consider for changes in the climate with the variations of these gases in the atmosphere.

When we look at the previous Chart of absorption bands it shows the radiation transmitted by the atmosphere or absorbed it would seem that the ratio of absorption of energy by Carbon Dioxide to Water is about 1 to 6 or in other words 16.7% CO₂ and 83.3% H₂O. We know following the logic used here that 5.5 degrees Celsius was the approximate amount of increase in the atmosphere from Carbon Dioxide using a forcing value of .65 degrees C and so if we subtract that from 33.4 degrees Celsius we get a remainder of 27.9 degrees Celsius. That must then be the amount contributed by the water itself to the process and we can make another chart showing the contribution due to water shown next. To make the chart we have water at 2500 ppm and we know the amount of increase in temperature must be 27.9 degrees Celsius so what sensitivity value will produce that curve? This Chart shows that if the sensitivity value of water is approximately 2.45 degrees C than we get the required value to made this logic work.

This process makes sense since if the numbers were reversed and we made Carbon Dioxide have a sensitivity of 3.0 degrees Celsius (as the IPCC claims it is) than the warming from CO₂ would be 26.0 and there would be no room for the water as there would only be 7.4 degrees available for the water. However, since we know the absorption bands of the CO₂ and Water and we know the distribution on energy coming in and gong out we also know that this is not possible.

Therefore the ~.65 sensitivity value must be a close approximation of the actual situation in the atmosphere and the IPCC value that they use of 3.0 degrees Celsius must be wrong.

In the next section we’ll look at Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and see if we can develop an equation to forecast its past and future levels where we need to look at future Global temperatures.

Part Two CO2 and Water

The issue of whether global climate is natural or manmade is complex, so much so that I do not believe we have the knowledge nor computer power to simulate global climate at sufficient resolution to justify trying to modify human behavior. However having said that commonsense tells us that pollution is bad and should be minimized, where possible, and in the US we have already done this and we are now passing into the realm where the benefits no longer justify the coasts. Energy and lots of it is fundamental to maintaining an advanced society and so the true nature of Climate is critical since the current mode in the political class is that Climate is affected by the production of energy and therefore must be controlled. This belief has manifested itself in the concept of anthropogenic climate change meaning that man is changing the global climate by his very existence. And this belief is being promoted by many to include Bill gates of Microsoft. Gates at a TED presentation in 2010 presented an equation on where CO₂ comes from and that if we don’t stop the CO₂ increase there will be dire consequences for mankind. In previous posts here I have explained that so further discussion here is not needed.

To determine whether climate is changing we need a base and that base is, what is the natural global temperature of the planet?

The natural or base temperature of the planet is directly controlled by solar radiation which is known with great accuracy and precision. Once that is known it’s a simple calculation to determine the base temperature. This is done using the following method. There are three sources of energy that determine the climate on the earth: the radiation from the sun which is said to be 1366 Wm² The actual value based on the orbital range is from 1414.4 Wm² in January to 1323.0 Wm² in July and there is also an eleven year sun spot cycle with a range of 1.37 Wm². The hot core of the planet adds ~0.087 W/m² and the gravitational effects of the moon and the sun (tides) adds another ~.00738 Wm². Of these three the sun’s radiation is by far the most important but considering all three the range during an eleven year solar cycle is from a high of ~1415.3 Wm² to a low of ~1322.4 Wm² so a more accurate mean would be 1368.34 Wm².

The energy emitted by the planet must equal the energy absorbed by the planet and we can calculate this using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Which is the energy flux emitted by a blackbody is related to the fourth power of the body’s absolute temperature. In the following example the tidal and core temperatures are added after the albedo adjustment since they are not reduced by the albedo.

E       = σT⁴
σ     = 5.67×10^-8 Wm² K sec
A       = 30.6% (the planets albedo, this is not actually a constant)

σT_bb⁴ x (4πR_e²) = S πR_e² x (1-A)
σT_bb⁴ = S/4 * (1-A)
σT_bb⁴ = 1368.24/4 Wm² * .694
σT_bb⁴ = 247.46 Wm²
    T_bb = 254.36 K

Earth’s blackbody temperature                         Earth’s surface temperature

T_bb = 252.23^O K (-20.92^O C) low                         T_s = ~287.75^O K (14.6 ^O C) today
T_bb = 254.36^O K (-18.79^O C) mean
T_bb = 256.54^O K (-16.51^O C) high

The difference between the calculated blackbody and the current temperatures is what we call the ‘greenhouse’ effect that averages 33.39^O Celsius (C), today (18.79 C +14.6 C = 33.39 C), although the range is from 35.52^O C to 31.11^O C from variations in the earths orbit and the 11 year solar cycle. This documented variation means that the stated Blackbody radiation as shown here will give a 4.41^O variation or let’s say 14.0^O C plus or minus 2.2^O C because of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law which has a 4^th power amplification. This will result in a slow 11 year cycling fluctuation of energy in the tropics where the bulk of the energy comes that is not inconsequential.

It is also known that the bulk of this 33.4 degrees C is found in the water in the earth’s atmosphere, and that some of it comes from CO₂. The water in the atmosphere acts as a kind of thermal buffer that delays the incoming radiation from the sun from leaving. If this were not the case there would be no life on earth and it would be nothing but an ice ball so we should be very glad that there is a greenhouse effect.

The above calculation is an exact calculation of the value of the TOTAL current greenhouse effect and is in agreement with accepted values although the one presented here is more exact then the 33 degrees C generally used. The main variable in this calculation is the planets albedo (the amount of reflected light of the planet) whose main component is the planets clouds. Since a small change in the albedo will change the amount of radiation absorbed by the planet and that small change in incoming radiation is multiplied by a factor of 4 the level and makeup of the clouds if more important than any other factor including CO₂.

The IPCC climate models are not capable of handling the complexity of cloud formation and so adjustments and work-a-rounds are used and they are not models they are assumptions. In my opinion this is one the two reasons that the IPCC climate models tend to support a run-a-way thermal build up and why they are afraid of CO₂. What the models have ignored is that the planet has had a very stable temperature for 600 million years despite CO₂ being, at times, over 17 times greater levels than the present. Today’s IPCC climate models cannot handle the CO₂ levels that existed in the past and so they are missing something.

Lastly in this section since the planet would have a stable temperature at any given level of CO₂ that means that there must be some balance between the water and the CO₂ for every level of CO₂ and water. Since we know that the two must equal 33.4 degrees C and that water is the primary greenhouse gas that means that the effect from CO₂ must be less than that of water. This brings us to the next problem the sensitivity value of CO₂ as it must not be great than that of water by definition. The Sensitivity value is a number that describes the amount of effect the CO₂ has on temperature. However the 1979 NAS Chaney report stated that it is probably 3.0 degrees C and that is what the IPCC uses today. If the CO₂ sensitivity value is 3.0 degrees C than its affect on the climate must be greater than that of water and since that is not possible that means that the CO₂ sensitivity value must be less than 3.0 degrees C.

If that is the case, which I think it is, than the CO2 sensitivity value cannot be 3.0 degrees C. And if that is true then the IPCC Climate models are wrong because they are programmed to use this value; and they will not work with a different value. Or I should say that they will not support the Politicians wishes if it is not 3.0 degrees C and then these scientists would lose their jobs.

This will give the reader a basic understanding of what the Greenhouse effect is and how it is calculated. The next post will be on CO₂ and water sensitivity.

Last Sunday February 15 I wrote a post here on why NASA was manipulating temperature date buy making the past colder and the present warmer.  Today right on clue The Huffingtonpost wrote two posts on this very subject.

Despite The Recent Snow, The U.S. Has Actually Been Having An Unusually Warm Winter

UN Negotiators Agree On Early Draft Of Climate Deal For Upcoming Paris Conference

Why would they have done this only a few days after the NASA data release, it takes time to write these posts and so the most likely reason is they were ready for this story before the NASA data was released.

The last part of what I wrote in that post is that this data manipulation will continue until the Paris UN Climate conference building up to a crescendo in October / November just in time for the conference. I will post what the NASA numbers will be before the next data release in mid March.

Here is the graphic from what I posted in NASS-GISS Date Manipulation is fact not speculation V2 a few days ago on this subject.