Ingenious or Misleading Rationalization for the "Pause" in Global Warming?

[Left] The temperature of a glass of ice water "Pauses" at freezing until nearly all the ice melts.

[Right] Top: The ice water effect is due to the Heat of Fusion of water. Does that effect apply to the melting of polar ice caps, and explain the statistical "Pause"? Bottom: The IPCC's climate theory produced climate models that grossly over-estimated warming and failed to predict the "Pause". 

"A glass of ice water in a hot place is certainly warming," said the confident questioner, "despite the thermometer 'pausing' at freeing until most of the ice has melted. Don't look at the thermometer to detect the warming, watch the ice cubes melt!"

"Seriously," he continued, "we should watch the alarming melting of glaciers and polar sea ice rather than the 'Pause' in Global Warming according to thermometer readings."

When I give talks about climate science to intelligent audiences, my general theme is that Global Warming is REAL, and partly due to human activities, but it is NOT a big DEAL.,

• Yes, the Atmospheric "Greenhouse" effect is real. It is responsible for the Earth being about 33⁰C (60⁰F) warmer than it would be absent "Greenhouse" gasses in the Atmosphere.
• Yes Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) is a key "Greenhouse" gas, second only to Water Vapor (H₂O).
• Yes CO₂ has increased by about a third during the past century (from 300 to 400 parts per million), mostly due to unprecedented burning of large quantities of coal, oil, and natural gas.
• Yes, temperatures have gone up by about 0.8⁰C (1.5⁰F) over the past century. 
• Warming is mostly natural and due to Earth's recovery from the depths of the last ice age, some 18,000 years ago. 
• No matter what we do, the Earth will warm for hundreds or thousands of years, then plunge into the next ice age. Of course this will not happen monotonically. There will be multi-decade periods of warming and of cooling, just as the Medieval Warm Period (1000-1200s) was considerably warmer than today, and the Little Ice Age (1600-1700s) was much colder.
• IPCC climate theory and computer models have failed to match actual satellite temperature data. Alarming predictions have not come to pass. They totally missed the statistical warming "Pause" of the early 2000s. [The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]
• [See the lower right section of the figure] For several periods, even the lowest edge of the Yellow error band is warmer than the highest edge of the Blue band! [These error bands are 5%-95% statistical confidence limits, which means there is less than 1 chance in 20 any point outside a band is due to random error. Thus, there is less than 1 chance in 20 x 20 = 400 that any point in the White space between the Yellow and Blue bands is due to random error. Either the NASA satellite sensor systems are badly out of order or the IPCC climate models are terribly wrong!]
• The gross failure of the IPCC models to correctly predict warming, despite a significant increase in CO₂, proves that the models, and the underlying IPCC climate theories, are wrong. 
• The most generous explanation is that the IPCC climate scientists simply over-estimated the sensitivity of climate to CO₂ increase by a factor of two to three. 
• The most likely explanation is that their climate theory is either incomplete or totally wrong, so their models failed. Either that, or, for political purposes, they purposely jiggered the model parameters to create alarming projections and keep research funding coming from we taxpayers to their organizations. 

Rationalizations for what happened to the excess heat due to human-made CO₂:

• The Oceans absorbed it! 
• The melting Ice Caps absorbed it!

How can the world's leading climate theorists and modelers still be considered competent if they did not know about the heat capacity of the oceans? (Or, apparently, even the Ice Water Experiment! :^)

The Abstract for the recently published study by Michael "Nature Trick - Hockey Stick" Mann, et. al admits the reality of the "Pause" "temporary slowdown". Guess what he blames it on?:

The temporary slowdown in large-scale surface warming during the early 2000s has been attributed to both external and internal sources of climate variability. Using semiempirical estimates of the internal low-frequency variability component in Northern Hemisphere, Atlantic, and Pacific surface temperatures in concert with statistical hindcast experiments, we investigate whether the slowdown and its recent recovery were predictable. We conclude that the internal variability of the North Pacific, which played a critical role in the slowdown, does not appear to have been predictable using statistical forecast methods... [emphasis mine]

In other words, the unpredictable "internal variability of the North Pacific" ate my alarmist projection! (A variation on the old "dog ate my homework" excuse :^)

Why was it not predictable?

• Because statistical forecast methods are weak? 
• Because the alarmist climate theory is wrong? 
• Because they knew better but did not dare to reign in their catastrophic predictions for fear of losing research grants?

I find it amazing that so many of my friends (who are otherwise intelligent people) cling to their firm belief in a coming human-caused climate catastrophe. Their confidence is based on the alarming predictions rooted in IPCC climate theory and computer models.

Yet, like the confident questioner I mentioned in the first paragraph, they seem to acknowledge that the IPCC theorists did not know about the relatively simple concepts of ocean heat capacity, or even the temperature profile of ice water due to the Heat of Fusion!

If these  models could not correctly predict a near-term event, such as the "Pause", why put any credence in their catastrophic predictions for 50 or 100 years hence?

How Does the Ice Water Experiment Relate to Earth's Proportion of Ice to Liquid Water?

To satisfy my own curiosity, I decided to do some research and figure out how much the melting of glaciers, sea ice, and ice sheets might have reduced Global Warming since 1979. This period includes the statistical "Pause" (or "temporary slowdown in large-scale surface warming during the early 2000s" as Mann refers to it).

The Ice Water Temperature Pause Experiment works for two reasons:

1. It takes nearly 80 times as much energy to melt a given mass of ice as it does to raise an equivalent mass of water 1⁰C (1.8⁰F). (This is called the heat of fusion associated with the state transition of water from solid to liquid form.)
2. The Ice Cubes make up a substantial percentage of the total mass of the ice water mixture. (When the ice cubes melt down to a small proportion of the water, the temperature does rise.)

So, what is the percentage of ice to liquid water on Earth, and has enough of it melted to account for the failure of the IPCC models since 1979, or during the "Pause"?

According to Debenedetti, Pablo G. & H. Eugene Stanley. "Supercooled and Glassy Water."Physics Today. Vol. 56, No. 6 (June 2003): 40 (quoted by http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/HannaBerenblit.shtml) here is what we need to know about the Earth's Ice and Water:

• 1,300 x 10⁶ km³ of water in the oceans [10⁶ km³ = millions of cubic kilometers]
•      33 x 10⁶ km³ of ice in the polar ice caps
•   3 x 10⁶ km³ in the Greenland ice shelf and
• 30 x 10⁶ km³ in the Antarctic ice shelf
•     0.2 x 10⁶ km³ of ice in glaciers
•     0.1 x 10⁶ km³ of water in lakes
•     0.0012 x 10⁶ km³ of water in rivers
•     0.22 x 10⁶ km³ of water in annual precipitation

We can see from the above that virtually all of the Earth's liquid water is in the oceans and virtually all the ice is in the polar caps. Even if we froze all the water in lakes, rivers, along with annual precipitation, and combined that with the ice in glaciers, the total would be 0.32 x 10⁶ km³, less than 1% of the total ice caps and less than 0.03% of the total water on Earth!

If both the Arctic/Greenland and Antarctic Ice were to melt, that would account for a reduction in warming of about 33 x 80 / 1300 = 2⁰C (3.6⁰F). Wow! That seems substantial, and there certainly would be catastrophic flooding in some low-lying places if all the Earth's ice melted.

However, actual ice melt rates are much, much, much less, according to https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/ice_sheets.html

... best estimates of mass balance changes per year for 1992 through 2011: Greenland: lost 142 ± 49 gigatons; East Antarctica: gained 14 ± 43 gigatons; West Antarctica: lost 65 ± 26 gigatons; Antarctic Peninsula: lost 20 ± 14 gigatons. [net annual melt loss 213 gigatons]

Conveniently, 1 gigaton is the weight of one cubic kilometer (km³) of fresh water. So, 213 gigatons is equal to 213 km³ of ice (momentarily ignoring the fact that 1 km³ of ice weighs a bit less than 1 km³ of sea water). Lacking more specifics, let us assume an average annual melt rate of 213 km³ is at least roughly representative of average annual melt rates from 1979 to 2015. Thus, the total melt for 1979-2015 would be 213 x 36 = 7688 km³, which we will round up to 8000 km³ to more than make up for the difference in weight of ice and sea water.

So how much does all that melting amount to in terms of delayed temperature increase? 80 x 8000 / 1,300,000,000 = 0.000492⁰C, which we may round up to 0.0005⁰C (0.0009⁰F) of the warming since 1979, and even less of the missing warming during the "Pause".

So, total Earth ice melt accounts for less 0.09% of the warming missing from the IPCC's alarming projection. Not so impressive, is it?

So, if anyone hits you with the Ice Cube Temperature Pause Experiment, congratulate them on being 0.09% right (and thus 99.91% wrong :^)

Ira Glickstein

WELCOME to VISUAL IRA !

Kurt Vonnegut Sums Up the Situation of Humans and Other Life on Earth. Use the Main Menu (below-right) for desired topics→

The Atmospheric "Greenhouse" Effect is Real, and the Earth is Warming. How Much Global Warming is due to Human Activities?	Einstein's Special Relativity (1905) and General Relativity (1915) Revolutionized Physics Forever
CLIMATE SCIENCE TOPICS	RELATIVITY TOPICS
[Click desired Topic]	[Click desired Topic]
INTRODUCTION	INTRODUCTION
PHYSICAL ANALOGY	ENERGY
ATMOSPHERIC WINDOWS	INSIGHT
EMISSION SPECTRA	TWIN PARADOX
MOLECULES AND PHOTONS	EXCEL SPREADSHEET MODEL
LIGHT AND HEAT
REAL NOT BIG DEAL	TIME AND RELATIVITY

Practical "Artificial Intelligence Advisers" YOU Can Use - Computer-Aided Decision Making	Hierarchy Theory - "The Magical Number Seven (plus or minus two) - Optimal Span
AI ADVISER TOPICS	HIERARCHY TOPICS
[Click desired Topic]	[Click desired Topic]
INTRODUCTION	INTRODUCTION
BAYESIAN INFERENCE	tbs
NASH BARGAIN ADVISOR	tbs
tbs	tbs
tbs	tbs
tbs
tbs	tbs

MORE OF MY STUFF YOU MIGHT FIND INTERESTING

• The Virtual Philosophy Club - Courteous Discussion of Serious Topics
• Visual Ira - Visualize Science and Technology With Ira
• "2052 - The Hawking Plan" (Free online Novel) Amore, amorality and Stephanie Goldenrod's mission to save civilization for an infinite future.
• Life, Liberty, and Technology - My predictions for the next several decades (companion site to my novel)
• Curb Your Enthusiasm - Fantasy Episode
• My YouTube Videos
• My "What is Time?" Video
• I'm a Guest Contributor to the World's Most Popular Climate Website, Watts Up With That?

Light and Heat for VISUALIZING the Atmospheric "Greenhouse" Effect

Guest Post by Ira Glickstein 

Solar "light" radiation in = Earth "heat" radiation to Space out! That's old news to those of us who understand all energy is fungible (may be converted to different forms of energy) and energy/mass is conserved (cannot be created nor destroyed).
Originally Posted by me to Watts Up With That, the world's most popular climate website, where it attracted almost 12,000 page views and 958 comments. (Click here to view my original posting and read the Comments.

My Visualizing series [Physical Analogy, Atmospheric Windows, Emission Spectra, and Molecules/Photons] has garnered almost 2000 comments, mostly positive. I've learned a lot from WUWT readers who know more than I do. However, some commenters seem to have been taken in by scientific-sounding objections to the basic science behind the Atmospheric "Greenhouse Effect". Their objections seemed to add more heat than light to the discussion. This posting is designed to get back to basics and perhaps transform our heated arguments into more enlightened understanding :^)

Solar "light" energy in is equal to Earth "heat" energy out.

[Click on image for larger version]

As I've mentioned before, during my long career as a system engineer I've worked with many talented mathematical analysts who always provided precise results, mostly correct, but some precisely wrong, usually due to mistaken assumptions. I got into the habit of doing a "back of the envelope" calculation of my own as a "sanity check" on their results. If their results matched within reasonable limits, I accepted them. If not, I investigated further. In those days my analysis was really done using a slide rule and scrap paper, but I now use spreadsheets.

The graphic above is based on an excellent spreadsheet from http://serc.carleton.edu/files/introgeo/models/mathematical/examples/XLPlanck.xls. It uses Planck's Law to calculate the black body radiation spectrum from the Sun, as observed at the top of the Earth's Atmosphere. It also may be used to calculate the radiation spectrum from the Earth System (Atmosphere and Surface, see below for explanation) at any assumed temperature. (I will refer to this spreadsheet as "Carleton" in this posting.)

I modified the Carleton spreadsheet to compute the mean Solar radiation per square meter absorbed by the Earth System, which turns out to be 240 Watts/m^2. I then used the spreadsheet to determine the effective mean temperature of the Earth System that would emit an equal amount of energy to Space, and that turned out to be 255 Kelvins (-18ºC which is 1ºF).

Since the mean temperature at the surface of the Earth is 288 Kelvins (+15ºC which is 59ºF), that leaves 33 Kelvins (33ºC which is 58ºF) to be accounted for. Guess how we acount for it?

The yellow curve (above left) shows that Solar radiation is in a tall, narrow "shortwave" range, from about 0.1μm (microns, or millionths of a meter) to about 4μm, which we call ultra-violet, visual, and near-infrared. The vertical axis is Intensity of the radiation, measured in Watts/m^2/μm, and the horizontal axis is Wavelength, measured in μm. If you divide the area under the yellow curve into vertical strips, and add up the total area, you get 240 Watts/m^2.

Since we humans sense the visual portion of this radiation as "light", that is the name we give it, and that has led to the false assumption that it contains no "heat" (or "thermal") energy.

The violet curve (above right) shows that, assuming a mean temperature of 255 K, Earth System radiation to Space is in a squat, wide "longwave" range, from about 5μm to beyond 40μm, which we call mid- and far-infrared. If you divide the area under the violet curve into vertical strips, and add up the total area, you get the same 240 Watts/m^2 as is under the yellow curve.

DETAILED EXPLANATION

Left: Actual Solar radiation spectrum observed at top of Atmosphere, compared to black body model. Right: Black body Earth System radiation spectrum out to Space.

The graph on the left shows the actual observed Solar radiation spectrum (in red) as measured at the top of the Atmosphere. It is superimposed on a black body model (in blue) showing very good correlation. Thus, while the Sun is not exactly a black body, it is OK to assume it is for this type of "sanity check" exercise.

If you calculate the area under the curve you get about 1366 Watts/m^2. That means that a square meter of perfect black body material, held perpendicular to the Sun, would absorb 1366 Watts.

However, the Earth is not a perfect black body, neither is it a flat surface perpendicular to the Sun! So, to plot the yellow curve at the top of this posting, I had to adjust that value accordingly. There are two adjustments:

• The Earth may be approximated as a sphere, with the Sun shining on only half of it at any given time. The adjustment factor for this correction is 0.25.
• The albedo (reflectiveness) of the Earth system, primarily clouds and light-colored areas on the Surface such as ice, causes some of the Solar radiation to be reflected back out to Space without contributing any energy to the Earth System. The adjustment factor for this correction is 0.7.

After applying these adjustments, the net Solar energy absorbed by the Earth System is 240 Watts/m^2.

The graph on the right shows the black body model for an Earth System at a mean temperature of 255 K, a temperature that results in the same 240 Watts/m^2 being emitted out to Space.

Of course, the Earth System is not a perfect black body, as shown by the graph in the upper panel of the illustration below, which plots actual observations from 20 km looking down. (Adapted from Grant Petty, A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation, Figure 8.2, http://www.sundogpublishing.com/AtmosRad/Excerpts/index.html.)

The actual measured radiation is the dark squiggly curve. Note that it jigs and jags up and down between the topmost dashed curve, which is the black body spectrum for a temperature of 270 K and a lower dashed curve which is the black body spectrum for 230 K. This data was taken over the Arctic, most likely during the daytime. The Petty book also has a graph looking down from over the Tropical Pacific which ranges from 300 K down to 210 K. Observations will vary by tens of degrees from day to night, summer to winter, and Tropical to Polar.

However, it is clear that my result, based on matching 240 Watts/m^2, is within a reasonable range of the true mean temperature of the Earth System as viewed from Space.

NOTE ABOUT THE ABOVE ILLUSTRATION

WUWT readers will notice some apparent inconsistencies in the graphs above. The top and bottom panels, from Petty, peak at 15μm to 20μm, while the purple, blue, and black curves in the middle panel, and the Earth System curves from the Carleton spreadsheet I used (see above) peak in the 9μm to 11μm range. Also, the Petty black body curves peak at a "Radiance" around 100 mW/m^2/sr cm^-1 while the black body curves from Carleton peak at an "Intensity" of around 14 W/m^2/μm. Furthermore, if you look closely at the Petty curves, the labels on the black body curves are mirror image! What is going on?

Well, I know some of the reasons, but not all. (I hope commenters who are more fluent in this than I am will confirm my explanations and provide more information about the differences between "Radiance" and "Intensity".) I have Googled and Wikied the Internet and am still somewhat confused. Here is what I know:

• The horizontal axis in Petty's plots are what he calls "Wavenumber", increasing from left to right, which is the number of waves that fit into a cm (centimeter, one hundredth of a meter).
• This is proportional to the frequency of the radiation, and the frequency is the inverse of the wavelength. Thus, his plots are the mirror image of plots based on wavelength increasing from left to right.
• The spreadsheet I used, and my previous experience with visual, and near-, mid-, and far-IR as used in military systems, always uses wavelength increasing from left to right.
• So, when I constructed the above illustration, I reversed Petty's curves, which explains why the labels on the black body curves are mirror image.
• Fortunately, Petty also included a wavelength legend, which I faithfully reproduced, in non-mirror image, at the top of each plot.

But, that still does not explain why the Petty black body curves peak at a longer wavelength than the Carleton spreadsheet and other graphics on the Internet. I tried to reproduce Petty's blackbody curves by multiplying the Carleton values by the wavelength (μm) and that did not move the peak to the right enough. So, I multiplied by the wavelength again (μm^2) and, voila, the peaks agreed! (I hope some WUWT reader will explain why the Petty graphs have this perverse effect. advTHANKSance!)

ANSWERING THE OBJECTIONS TO BASIC ATMOSPHERIC "GREENHOUSE EFFECT" SCIENCE

First of all, let me be clear where I am coming from. I'm a Lukewarmer-Skeptic who accepts that H2O, CO2 and other so-called "greenhouse gases" in the Atmosphere do cause the mean temperature of the Earth Surface and Atmosphere to be higher than they would be if everything was the same (Solar radiation, Earth System Albedo, ...) but the Atmosphere was pure nitrogen. The main scientific question for me, is how much does the increase in human-caused CO2 and human-caused albedo reduction increase the mean temperature above what it would be with natural cycles and processes? My answer is "not much", because perhaps 0.1ºC to 0.2ºC of the supposed 0.8ºC increase since 1880 is due to human activities. The rest is due to natural cycles and processes over which we humans have no control. The main public policy question for me, is how much should we (society) do about it? Again, my answer is "not much", because the effect is small and a limited increase in temperatures and CO2 may turn out to have a net benefit.

So, my motivation for this Visualizing series is not to add to the Alarmist "the sky is falling" panic, but rather to help my fellow Skeptics avoid the natural temptation to fall into an "equal and opposite" falsehood, which some of those on my side, who I call "Disbelievers", do when they fail to acknowledge the basic facts of the role of H2O and CO2 and other gases in helping to keep temperatures in a livable range.

Objection #1: Visual and near-visual radiation is merely "light" which lacks the "quality" or "oomph" to impart warmth to objects upon which it happens to fall.

Answer #1: A NASA webpage targeted at children is sometimes cited because they say the near-IR beam from a TV remote control is not warm to the touch. Of course, that is not because it is near-visual radiation, but rather because it is very low power. All energy is fungible, and can be changed from one form to another. Thus, the 240 Watts/m^2 of visible and near-visible Solar energy that reaches and is absorbed by the Earth System, has the effect of warming the Earth System exactly as much as an equal number of Watts/m^2 of "thermal" mid- and far-IR radiation.

Objection #2: The Atmosphere, which is cooler than the Earth Surface, cannot warm the Earth Surface.

Answer #2: The Second law of Thermodynamics is often cited as the source of this falsehood. The correct interpretation is that the Second Law refers to net warming, which can only pass from the warmer to the cooler object. The back-radiation from the Atmosphere to the Earth Surface has been measured (see lower panel in the above illustration). All matter above absolute zero emits radiation and, once emitted, that radiation does not know if it is travelling from a warmer to a cooler surface or vice-versa. Once it arrives it will either be reflected or absorbed, according to its wavelength and the characteristics of the material it happens to impact.

Objection #3: The Atmospheric "Greenhouse Effect" is fictional. A glass greenhouse works mainly by preventing or reducing convection and the Atmosphere does not work that way at all.

Answer #3: I always try to put "scare quotes" around the word "greenhouse" unless referring to the glass variety because the term is misleading. Yes, a glass greenhouse works by restricting convection, and the fact that glass passes shortwave radiation and not longwave makes only a minor contribution. Thus, I agree it is unfortunate that the established term for the Atmospheric warming effect is a bit of a misnomer. However, we are stuck with it. But, enough of semantics. Notice that the Earth System mean temperature I had to use to provide 240 Watts/m^2 of radiation to Space to balance the input absorbed from by the Earth System from the Sun was 255 K. However, the actual mean temperature at the Surface is closer to 288 K. How to explain the extra 33 K (33ºC or 58ºF)? The only rational explanation is the back-radiation from the Atmosphere to the Surface.

Ira Glickstein

Global Warming is REAL, but NOT a Big DEAL

Guest essay by Ira Glickstein, PhD

Originally Published January 12, 2014 at Watts Up With That?

We’ve reached a turning point where it is hard for any Global Warming Alarmist to claim (with a straight face) that the world as we know it is about to end in the coming decades unless we stop burning fossil fuels. Anyone deluded or foolish enough to make such a claim would be laughed at by many audiences.

GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL

Yes, the world has warmed 1°F to 1.5°F (0.6°C to 0.8°C) since 1880 when relatively good thermometers became available. Yes, part of that warming is due to human activities, mainly burning unprecedented quantities of fossil fuels that continue to drive an increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels. The Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect is a scientific fact!

BUT GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT A BIG DEAL

Alarmist Theory is Handcuffed to High Estimates of Climate Sensitivity

As the animated graphic clearly indicates, the theoretical climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are handcuffed to inordinately high estimates of climate sensitivity (how much temperatures are expected to rise given a doubling of CO2). Since the advent of good satellite-based global temperature data in 1979, observed temperatures have risen at a fraction of the IPCC predicted rate even as CO2 continues to rise.

Relax, there is not and never has been any near-term “tipping point”. The actual Earth Climate System is far less sensitive to CO2 than claimed the IPCC climate theory, as represented by their computer models. Global Warming since 1880 is mainly due to Natural Cycles and Processes not under human control. Yes, the same Natural Cycles and Processes that were responsible for the many Ice Age cycles that repeatedly occurred about every 100,000 years or so.

A GREAT TIME TO PUT ALARMISTS IN THEIR PLACE

Last week, by a stroke of good fortune, I happened to be scheduled to present“Visualizing the Atmospheric ‘Greenhouse’ Effect – Global warming is real, but how much is due to human activities and how big is the risk?” to the Philosophy Club in the Central Florida retirement community where I live.

Everyone in the highly interactive and supportive audience was aware of newspaper and TV reports of the drama of those ill-fated Global Warming “Research” activists whose Russian ship, the Academik Shokalskiy, got stuck in the summer ice of the Antarctic. (Fortunately, those people are safe, having been rescued by a helicopter from a Chinese icebreaker.) In addition to the Antarctic adventure gone wrong, in the week leading up to and following my talk, the media was overrun by stories of the “polar vortex” literally freezing large parts of the US and even causing Florida temperatures to drop below 30°F (0°C).

Of course, everyone knows that the cold wave is only anecdotal evidence and “weather is not climate”. However, photos and videos of researchers stuck in the Antarctic summer ice as well as scenes of American life frozen in place for days on end, when combined with clear and irrefutable evidence of a slowdown in warming since 1979 and no statistically significant warming since 1996 (as depicted in the graphic above), has considerable emotional impact. Audiences often react more to emotions than their reason.

My animated PowerPoint Show, which should run on any Windows PC, is available for download here. (NOTE: I knew that many members of the Philosophy Club audience, while highly intelligent and informed, are not particularly scientifically astute. Therefore, I kept to the basics and invited questions as I proceeded. Since most of them think in Fahrenheit, I was careful to give temperatures in that system. By contrast, my 2011 talk to the more scientifically astute members of our local Science and Technology Club Skeptic Strategy for Talking about Global Warming was more technical. Both presentations make use of animated PowerPoint charts and you are free to download and use them as you wish.)

My presentation is based on my five-part WUWT series entitled “Visualizing the ‘Greenhouse Effect'” – 1 – A Physical Analogy, 2 – Atmospheric Windows, 3 – Emission Spectra, 4 – Molecules and Photons, and 5 – Light and Heat.  The series, which ran in 2011, generated tens of thousands of page views at WUWT, along with thousands of comments. I wrote the series this website attracts some viewers who reject the basic physics of the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect.

HOW A REAL GREENHOUSE WORKS

I explained how a real physical Greenhouse works and how that is both similar and different from the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect. The Greenhouse descriptions I learned in high school, as well as those available on the Internet, consider only the RADIATIVE effect. The glass roof of the Greenhouse allows visible light to pass through freely, heating the soil, plants, and air, but is opaque to the resultant infrared radiation, which is partly re-radiated back down into the Greenhouse, warming it further.  That part is true, but far from the whole story. The MAIN reason a Greenhouse stays warm is that it is airtight to restrict CONVECTION and it is insulated to restrict CONDUCTION. In fact, it is possible to construct a successful Greenhouse using a roof made from materials that allow both visible and infrared to pass freely, but is impossible to make a working Greenhouse that is not both airtight and insulated.

HOW THE ATMOSPHERIC “GREENHOUSE” EFFECT WORKS

All warm objects emit radiation at a wavelength dependent upon the temperature of the object. The Sun, at around 10,000 °F, emits “short-wavelength” infrared radiation, centered around 1/2 micron (one millionth of a meter). The soil, plants, and air in the Greenhouse, at around 60°F to 100°F (15°C to 40°C), emit “long wavelength” radiation, centered around 10 microns (with most of the energy between 4 and 25 microns).

The Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect works because:

1. Short-wavelength radiation from the Sun passes freely through the gases that make up  the Atmosphere,
2. About a third of this Sunlight is reflected back by white clouds, dust, and light-colored objects on the Surface, and that energy is lost to Space,
3. The remaining two-thirds of  the Sunlight energy is absorbed by the Sea and Land Surface and causes it to warm,
4. The warm Surface cools by emitting long-wavelength radiation at the Bottom of the Atmosphere, and this radiation passes towards the Top of the Atmosphere, where it is ultimately lost to Space,
5. On the way to the Top of the Atmosphere, much of this radiation is absorbed by so-called “Greenhouse” gases (mostly water vapor and carbon dioxide) which causes the Atmosphere to warm,
6. The warmed Atmosphere emits infrared radiation in all directions, some into Space where it is lost, and some back towards the Surface where it is once again absorbed and further warms the Surface.
7. In addition to the RADIATIVE effects noted in points 1 through 6, the Surface is cooled by CONVECTION and CONDUCTION (thunderstorms, winds, rain, etc.)

THANK GOODNESS FOR THE ATMOSPHERIC “GREENHOUSE” EFFECT

If not for the warming effect of “Greenhouse” gases, the Surface of the Earth would average below 0°F (-18°C), which would prevent life as we know it. This effect is responsible for about 60°F (33°C) of warming. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Earth Surface has warmed about 1.5°F (0.8°C) since good thermometer data became available around 1880. Some skeptics (including me) believe the actual warming is closer to 1°F, and that government agencies have adjusted the thermometer record to exaggerate the warming by 30% or more. However, it doesn’t really matter whether the actual warming is 1°F or 1.5°F (0.6°C or 0.8°C) because we are arguing about only 0.5°F (0.2°C), which is less than 1% of the total warming due to the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect.

HOW SENSITIVE IS THE CLIMATE TO HUMAN ACTIVITIES?

The IPCC claims that the majority of the warming since 1880 is due to human activities. It is true that we are burning unprecedented amounts of fossil fuel (coal, oil, gas), and that we are making land use changes that may reduce the albedo (reflectiveness) of the Surface. Most of the increase in Atmospheric CO2 (a 40% rise from about 270 to nearly 400 parts per million by volume) is due to human activities.

The IPCC claims that Climate Sensitivity (the average increase in Surface temperatures due to a doubling of CO2) is between 3°F and 8°F (1.5°C and 4.5°C).  Some skeptics (including me) believe they are off by at least a factor of two, and possibly a factor of three, and that Climate Sensitivity is closer to 1°F to 3°F (0.5°C to 1.5°C). As evidence for our conclusions, we point to the fact that virtually ALL of the IPCC climate models have consistently over-estimated future temperature predictions as compared to the actual temperature record. Indeed, for the past 17 years as CO2 levels continue their rapid climb, temperatures have leveled off, which is proof that Natural Cycles, not under human control or influence, have cancelled out warming due to CO2 increases. Thus, Natural Cycles must have a larger effect than CO2.

VISUALIZING THE ATMOSPHERIC “GREENHOUSE” EFFECT

As I noted above, I wrote the “Visualizing” series for WUWT (1 – A Physical Analogy, 2 – Atmospheric Windows, 3 – Emission Spectra, 4 – Molecules and Photons, and 5 – Light and Heat) because some WUWT viewers are “Disbelievers” who have had an “equal and opposite” reaction to the “end of the world” excesses of the Global Warming “Alarmists”.  By failing to understand and accept the basic science of the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect, they have, IMHO, “thrown the baby out with the bathwater”.

Answering Some Objections to the Atmospheric “Greenhouse”Effect

Some WUWT commenters seem to have been taken in by scientific-sounding objections to the basic science behind the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect. Their objections seemed to add more heat than light to the discussion. This section is designed to get back to basics and perhaps transform our heated arguments into more enlightened understanding :^)

The main scientific question for me, is how much does the increase in human-caused CO2 and human-caused albedo reduction increase the mean temperature above what it would be with natural cycles and processes? My answer is “not much”, because perhaps 0.2ºC to 0.4ºC (0.1ºC to 0.2ºC) of the supposed 1.5ºF (0.8ºC) increase since 1880 is due to human activities. The rest is due to natural cycles and processes over which we humans have no control. The main public policy question for me, is how much should we (society) do about it? Again, my answer is “not much”, because the effect is small and a limited increase in temperatures and CO2 may turn out to have a net benefit.

So, my motivation for this Visualizing series was not to add to the Alarmist “the sky is falling” panic, but rather to help my fellow Skeptics avoid the natural temptation to fall into an “equal and opposite” falsehood, which some of those on my side, who I call “Disbelievers”, do when they fail to acknowledge the basic facts of the role of H2O and CO2 and other gases in helping to keep temperatures in a livable range.

Objection #1: Visual and near-visual radiation is merely “light” which lacks the “quality” or “oomph” to impart warmth to objects upon which it happens to fall.

Answer #1: A NASA webpage targeted at children is sometimes cited because they say the near-IR beam from a TV remote control is not warm to the touch. Of course, that isnot because it is near-visual radiation, but rather because it is very low power. All energy is fungible, and can be changed from one form to another. Thus, the 240 Watts/m^2 of visible and near-visible Solar energy that reaches and is absorbed by the Earth System, has the effect of warming the Earth System exactly as much as an equal number of Watts/m^2 of “thermal” mid- and far-IR radiation.

Objection #2: The Atmosphere, which is cooler than the Earth Surface, cannot warm the Earth Surface.

Answer #2: The Second law of Thermodynamics is often cited as the source of this falsehood. The correct interpretation is that the Second Law refers to net warming, which can only pass from the warmer to the cooler object. The back-radiation from the Atmosphere to the Earth Surface has been measured (see lower panel in the above illustration). All matter above absolute zero emits radiation and, once emitted, that radiation does not know if it is travelling from a warmer to a cooler surface or vice-versa. Once it arrives it will either be reflected or absorbed, according to its wavelength and the characteristics of the material it happens to impact.

Objection #3: The Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect is fictional. A glass greenhouse works mainly by preventing or reducing convection and the Atmosphere does not work that way at all.

Answer #3: I always try to put “scare quotes” around the word “greenhouse” unless referring to the glass variety because the term is misleading. Yes, a glass greenhouse works mainly by restricting convection, and the fact that glass passes shortwave radiation and not longwave makes only a minor contribution.

Thus, I agree it is unfortunate that the established term for the Atmospheric warming effect is a bit of a misnomer. However, we are stuck with it. But, enough of semantics. Notice that the Earth System mean temperature I had to use to provide 240 Watts/m^2 of radiation to Space to balance the input absorbed from by the Earth System from the Sun was 255 K. However, the actual mean temperature at the Surface is closer to 288 K. How to explain the extra 33 K (33ºC or 58ºF)? The only rational explanation is the back-radiation from the Atmosphere to the Surface.

Ira Glickstein

Read more detail, including the 958 responses

Introduction to VISUALIZING Climate Science

• "Global Warming" (aka "Climate Change") attracts a diverse range of viewpoints. 
• Those I call "Alarmists" spout loud-mouthed propaganda predicting imminent "tipping point" disaster unless we humans immediately cease burning unprecedented amounts of coal, oil and gas and stop land development that reduces the albedo (reflectivity) of the Earth surface. 
• Their irrational counterparts on the other side, who I call "Disbelievers", reject the basic scientific proof of the Atmospheric "Greenhouse" gas effect, and claim it is all a political ruse.  
• Those in the middle (Warmists, Lukewarmers, and Skeptics) accept the basic science, but make different estimates of how much human activities have actually increased world-wide temperatures and the danger inherent in moderate temperature rise.  They therefore differ on how much needs to be done in response. 
• Those I call "Warmists" argue for maximum reasonable responses to what they perceive as a serious human-caused warming problem,. 
• The Skeptics" argue for minimal action for what they perceive as mostly natural climate cycles that are only slightly due to human activities. 
• The "Lukewarmers" argue for moderate corrective action. I count myself as a "Lukewarm Skeptic".

WHY CLIMATE SCIENCE IS IMPORTANT 

There is no doubt that:

• Average surface temperatures on Earth have increased by about 1.5⁰F (0.8⁰C) over the past century. 
• The so-called Atmospheric "Greenhouse" Effect is real. That is, the presence of "Greenhouse" Gases in the Atmosphere, mainly water vapor (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2), makes the Earth surface some 60⁰F (33⁰C) warmer than it would be absent those gases. All else being equal, increases in Atmospheric CO2 tend to raise average global temperatures.
• Some of the temperature increase is due to human activities. Most of the recent rise in Atmospheric CO2 is due to human activities, mainly burning unprecedented amounts of fossil fuels (coal,oil, gas). Changes in land use due to worldwide agricultural and industrial development have reduced the albedo (reflectivity) of the Earth's surface, which contributes to warming.

KEY ISSUES OF CLIMATE SCIENCE

The issues (and my answers):

• How much of the average global temperature increase is due to human activities? 
• Most likely less than a third of the net warming over the past 100 years is due to human activities. That amounts to only about 0.5⁰F (0.3⁰C). 
• The official Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that human activities are responsible for more than half of the warming. However, the lack of any statistically significant net warming over the past two decades, despite continued, mostly human-caused CO2 rise, casts serious doubt on that claim.
• How much of the warming is due to natural cycles not under human control or influence, and how dangerous is moderate warming?
• Most likely more than two-thirds of the warming is totally natural and due to the Earth's recovery from the "Little Ice Age" (LIA), a near-disastrous time of low crop yields that occurred between the years 1650 and 1850. 
• The LIA followed the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) that occurred between 900 and 1200. History shows that the MWP and other moderately warm periods such as that associated with advances in the Roman empire, are generally beneficial to human life and civilization.
• Geological evidence and ice core data indicate that, well-prior to the appearance of humans on Earth, natural cycles of ice ages have recurred every 100,000 years or so. We are currently in a warming inter-glacial period between ice ages.
• Why have the predictions of continued rapid warming based on the official Climate Theory put forth by the IPCC failed to materialize?
• IPCC Climate Models, based on their Climate Theory, predicted that average surface temperatures would rise more than 0.7⁰F (0.4⁰C) between 1980 and 2015, in tandem with rising CO2 levels . 
• Actual increases during this thirty-five year period have been less than a third of that estimate. The excellent, and highly reliable global satellite record, available since 1979, shows absolutely no net increase since 1998. The terrestrial record (surface-based thermometers) has recently been "adjusted" to yield a tiny increase, but nowhere near what had been predicted. 
• The IPCC computer climate models are based on a Climate Theory that is far too sensitive to CO2 levels. The theory predicts that a doubling of Atmospheric CO2 will cause warming of between 1.5 to 4.5⁰C (3 to 8⁰F). Based on several decades of observations, the actual sensitivity of Climate to CO2 is most likely 0.5 to 1.5⁰C (1 to 3⁰F). That is the only reasonable explanation of the failure of the IPCC Climate Theory.
• According to Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Instead of following Feynman's advice and changing an obviously flawed Climate Theory, the IPCC scientists have "adjusted" the data! But, even the "adjusted" data fails to match up with the outlandish predictions of the IPCC Climate Models.
• What can and should be done to mitigate that increase? 
• Very little beyond moderate "green" energy conservation along with transition from fossil fuels to alternatives such as water, wind, solar, nuclear, recycling of biowaste, and so on. 
• Even if we in the US and Europe and other highly-developed countries take maximum "green" action, China, India, and other rapidly-developing economies will continue to increase their use of coal, oil, and gas, totally cancelling out any effect our actions may have. 

 MY QUALIFICATIONS TO COMMENT ON CLIMATE SCIENCE

Academic System Science Credentials
The Global Climate System is very complex, with innumerable interacting parts. I earned a PhD in System Science (1996) and therefore have academic credentials and knowledge of how to analyze, model, and attempt to understand complex systems. For example:

• Some components of the Climate System tend to provide positive feedback that increases warming, such as rising CO2 levels that cause surface temperature increases that, in turn, cause less CO2 to be absorbed by the oceans and rivers and more CO2 to out-gas from these water features, further increasing Atmospheric CO2. 
• Other components cause negative feedback, such as the tendency of higher morning temperatures to produce greater evaporation and therefore more daytime clouds and thunderstorms earlier in the day. 
• Thunderstorms and daytime clouds have a net cooling effect, making this process a type of automatic "thermostat". with the result stabilizing temperatures despite CO2 rise.
• Daytime clouds increase the albedo (reflectivity) of the Earth surface and therefore have a net cooling effect 
• Nighttime clouds absorb and re-emit long-wave radiation, causing a net warming effect.
• Here is a simplified model constructed by a leading Warmist, Kevin Trenberth, a lead IPCC author and US NCAR researcher. See comments here.

The Earth’s annual radiation budget. The numbers are all in W/m2 (Watts per square meter), a measure of energy. Of the incoming radiation, 49% (168÷342) is absorbed by the Earth’s surface. That heat is returned to the atmosphere in a variety of forms (evaporation processes and thermal radiation, for example). Most of this back-scattered heat is absorbed by the atmosphere, which then re-emits it both up and down. Some is lost to space, and some stays in the Earth’s climate system. This is what drives the Greenhouse Effect [Figure from Trenberth et al. 2009].

Professional System Engineering Credentials
My decades-long professional career was in System Engineering (IBM, Lockheed-Martin) so I have practical experience with really complex human-made systems.

• I have actual "hands-on" experience attempting to properly construct and evaluate computer models of complex avionics systems. 
• I've "burnt my fingers" on models of the Doppler-Inertial Navigation systems that were in use prior to the advent of GPS.
• I've "stubbed my toes" on models of the multiple redundant data bus systems interconnecting multiple computers, sensors, displays, and actuators on modern aircraft.
• I know, from sometimes bitter experience, how difficult this task may become, and how easy it may be to fool ones-self.

Academic System Engineering Teaching Credentials
I've also been an adjunct professor at the Thomas J. Watson School of Engineering at Binghamton University (NY) and the University of Maryland University College, teaching both under-graduate and graduate-level courses in Computer Science, Artificial Intelligence, Artificial Life, and System Engineering.

Online Climate Publication Credentials

Since 2010, I've been a Guest Contributor to the world's most popular Climate website, Watts Up With That?, where my topic postings have attracted hundreds of thousands of page views and thousands of comments.

CONCLUSION

So, please click on each of the CLIMATE SCIENCE TOPICS listed at the top of the right-hand column under the Blog title.

advTHANKSance !

Ira Glickstein