The CO2 GHE demystified

Abstract: This post describes a new approach to calculating the CO2 greenhouse effect. Instead of calculating radiative transfer  from the surface up through the atmosphere to space, exactly the opposite is done. IR photons originating from space are tracked downwards to Earth in order to derive for each wavelength the height at which more than half of them get absorbed within a 100 meter path length.  This identifies the height where the atmosphere becomes opaque at a given wavelength. This also coincides with the “effective emission height” for photons to escape from the atmosphere to space. A program has been written using a standard atmospheric model to perform a line by line calculation for CO2 with data from the HITRAN spectroscopy database. The result for CO2 is surprising as it shows that  OLR from the central peak of the 15 micron band originates from high in the stratosphere. It is mostly the lines at the edges of the band  that lie in the troposphere.  The calculation can then show how changes in CO2 concentrations effect the emission height and thereby reduce net outgoing radiation(OLR). The net reduction in OLR is found to be in agreement with far more complex radiative transfer models.  This demonstrates how the greenhouse effect on Earth is determines by greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere and not at the surface.

Fig 5b: The CO2 emission height profile for 300ppm and for 600ppm smoothed with a resolution of 20 lines.

The CO2 emission height profile for 300ppm and for 600ppm smoothed with a resolution of 20 lines.

Continue reading

Posted in AGW, Climate Change, climate science, Physics, Science | Tagged , | 9 Comments

Ice Ages revisited

In 2006 Gerard Roe published a paper “In defense of Milankovitz” [1] which showed a good qualitative agreement between the rate of change in ice volume with Arctic summer melting as measured by maximum insolation at 65N. The ice volume (temperature proxy) as measured by the Benthic DO16 stack is not correlated directly with insolation but instead interglacials are better correlated with the eccentricity cycle.

I have re-anlaysed data from a previous analysis to look for a correlation with the differential of Bentic DO16 data [2]. I use an orbital calculation of maximum insolation at the North pole to look for correlations. The result if shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Comparison of Ice Volume (Temperature proxy) from Benthic Fora data. Upper graph Rate of Change DC/DT overlayed with maximum 'm-d summer' insolation at North Pole (watts/m2). Shown below are the Ice Volume data

Figure 1: Comparison of Ice Volume (Temperature proxy) from Benthic Fora data. Upper graph Rate of Change DC/DT overlayed with maximum ‘m-d summer’ insolation at North Pole (watts/m2). Shown below are the Ice Volume data

Continue reading

Posted in Climate Change, climate science, Ice Ages, Science | 5 Comments

Radiative Equilibrium & Convection

Surface heat loss by moist convection dominates over radiative heat loss from the surface. If somehow you could switch off convection then surface temperatures on Earth would need to rise by about 60 deg.C to bring the atmosphere into a pure radiative equilibrium with space.

Figure 1: Comparison of the net upward  radiative flux in the main CO2 absorption band. In black - with convection. In red - pure radiative energy balance.

Figure 1: Comparison of the net upward radiative flux in the main CO2 absorption band. In black – radiative transfer with convection. In red – pure radiative energy balance without convection.

I became fascinated by an article written by Richard Lindzen about 10 years ago [1] in which he wrote, when discussing the greenhouse effect on Earth.

When all these things (greenhouse gases,clouds, water vapour) are accounted for in sophisticated radiative transfer models, the equilibrium surface temperature works out to be 350K or about 80C. But the equilibrium temperature decreases rapidly with height reaching a minimum of 210K (-60C) about 8 miles above the surface…. But the rapid decrease in temperature with altitude cannot be sustained because it is unstable to convective overturning.

In the absence of convection  the surface could only cool  through radiation alone. A pure radiative equilibrium on Earth would then result in a much larger  greenhouse effect with a surface temperature of 350K !
Continue reading

Posted in AGW, Climate Change, climate science, Science | Tagged , | 4 Comments

Trends in Atmospheric Water Vapour

The basis of IPCC predictions is that any moderate warming caused by increased CO2 levels is enhanced by more evaporation from the oceans. Water vapour is itself a strong greenhouse gas and this increase results in a large “positive feedback” boosting climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 as high as 6C.
This is all just  theory however, so it is important to observe whether water vapour in the atmosphere has actually increased or not in response to increasing CO2. The data shown below are from the NASA NVAP [1] project based on radiosonde, TIROS,TOVS & SSM/I satellite based data. This data was kindly brought to my attention by Ken Gregory [2].

Fig 1: total Precipitative water vapour in 3 levels in the atmosphere im mm. The 3 curves are Northern Hemisphere, Southern Hemisphere and the “Global average” – see 2) below.

Fig 1: total Precipitative water vapour in 3 levels in the atmosphere im mm. The 3 curves are Northern Hemisphere, Southern Hemisphere and the “Global average” – see 2) below.

Continue reading

Posted in AGW, Climate Change, climate science, Oceans, Science | Tagged , , | 18 Comments

Met Office backtracks on Global Warming

The UK Met Office has revised one of its forecasts for how much the world may warm in the next few years. It says that the average temperature is likely to rise by 0.43 C by 2017 – as opposed to an earlier forecast that suggested a warming of 0.54C. The explanation is that a new kind of computer model using different parameters has been used.   – David Shukman, BBC Science Editor

Have things finally begun to crack with the CAGW narrative?  Lets look at the recent data and compare it to Met office forecasts from just 4 months ago.

Fig 1:Comparison of HADCM2 Model results from 2000 against decadel averaged global temperatures.

Fig 1:Comparison of HADCM2 Model results from 2000 against decadel averaged global temperatures. The last point is a hypothetical value in line with the new MET office long termprediction

What is really going on here is that their sophisticated climate models are being continuously tuned so as  to “backcast” and  agree with past temperature data. There has been no warming for ~15 years. As a result the parameters are now showing little AGW at all for the next 10 years.

Continue reading

Posted in AGW, Climate Change, Institiutions, UK Met Office | Tagged , | 32 Comments

Effective Emission Height

What exactly is meant by the term “Effective Emission Height (EEH)”?  It is often used to explain the greenhouse effect because, it is claimed, increased CO2 levels will raise the EEH to a slightly colder level, reducing OLR, and thereby “forcing” a surface temperature rise in order to restore energy balance. EEH is essentially some imaginary height in the atmosphere approximately where the temperature matches the effective temperature of Earth (255K). This is because a hypothetical black body at this temperature would produce the necessary  240 watts/m2 – to balance incoming absorbed solar radiation.

However the EEH still has no real physical meaning since radiation is escaping to space from all heights in the atmosphere, and also from the surface. Figure 1 shows the main sources of IR radiation  reaching space, as least as far as I see it.

Fig 1: The main sources of IR photons escaping to spaceA) Infrared window clear sky and via clouds. 2) Greenhouse gas emissions throughout the atmosphere dominated by H2O and to a lesser extent CO2. The figures arre described in the text.

Fig 1: The main sources of IR photons escaping to spaceA) Infrared window clear sky and via clouds. 2) Greenhouse gas emissions throughout the atmosphere dominated by H2O and to a lesser extent CO2. The figures in watts/m2 are described in the text. The Trenberth energy balance diagram actually uses  30 watts/m2 for cloud top radiation. If you prefer this value then add the extra 20 watts to H2O radiation.

Continue reading

Posted in AGW, Climate Change, climate science, Science | Tagged , , , | 8 Comments

Devastating report on Wind Farm performance

A new study by Prof. Hughes (Univ. Edinburgh) makes grim reading for DECC and  government plans for expanding wind farms in the UK. The study analysed the actual electricity generation figures from wind farms both in UK and in Denmark. They show that the performance falls dramatically after just a few years of operation. The lifetime for turbines is at least  10 years less than previously assumed, and runs a cart and horses through renewable energy plans.  The load factor falls from 24% to 11% after 15 years !  So a “2 megawatt” turbine actually produces 480 Kwatts when new, but only 220 Kwatts after 15 years. In order to replace the DRAX coal power station (4 GW) with such wind turbines would now need 25,000 of them covering  a staggering 4000 square kilometers ! The over-generous subsidies paid to wind farm operators may have actually acted as a disincentive  to improve efficiency !

Continue reading

Posted in Energy, Science, wind farms | 10 Comments

Any AGW signal in UK temperature data ? – Nope !

The Central England Temperature data is the longest continuous instrument measurements in the world from 1650 – 2012 [1].  Do they show evidence of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)? Likewise detailed UK station temperature measurements since 1940 are available through  Hadcrut4 dataset[2]. Do these show recent enhanced temperature rises due to ever increasing CO2 levels?  The answer to both questions is a definitive nope!  There is no AGW signal present in either  dataset  - see figure 1.

Fig 1:  Above - Annual average temperatures from 1650-2012. Red line is a linear fit, blue line is a Fourier low pass filter. Overlaid in purple is Hadcrut4 for UK stations.Below: Monthly average temperature anomalies for all Hadcrut4 UK/Ireland stations. In blue is a Fourier low pass filter. Red is a linear fit showing zero trend.

Fig 1: Above – Annual average temperatures from 1650-2012. Red line is a linear fit, blue line is a Fourier low pass filter. Overlaid in purple is Hadcrut4 for UK stations. Below – Monthly average temperature anomalies for all Hadcrut4 UK/Ireland stations. In blue is a Fourier low pass filter. Red is a linear fit showing zero trend.

The only significant continuous trend is an apparent  0.026C/decade recovery from the little Ice Age over the last 360 years. This has not changed or accelerated. There is no hockey stick!  In fact there has been no change whatsoever in UK average temperatures since 1940 !

Continue reading

Posted in AGW, Climate Change, climate science, Science, UK Met Office | Tagged , , | 11 Comments

Which wins out? Convection or Radiation

“Convection can only begin once it becomes more energy efficient than radiating heat directly to space. Some refractive/absorbent atmosphere is needed to tip the energy balance.”

I recently wrote that statement on a blog discussion. The convective flow of heat to the top of the atmosphere needs energy because the convection cycle does work. That is because convection and the maintenance of the lapse rate is a heat engine. I have tried to analyse this statement quantitatively through two thought experiment – one for radiation and one for convection. Firstly lets look at radiation.

Case 1 as shown in Figure 1. In this scenario there is 100% Radiative transfer of heat to space through an absorbant atmosphere and no convection. Here we imaging an Earth like surface but  with a vacuum gap immediately above it. Above this vacuum gap follows a 100% IR absorbant layer acting like a black body, and above that empty space. Convection from the surface is impossible so it can only cool by radiation. Energy balance ensures that the top layer reaches 255K and acts like a black body radiating equally upwards and downwards. It then follows that the ground surface temperature must be 303 C in order to radiate the 480 watts/m2 – a total extra energy cost of 240 watts/m2. The actual extra radiation on Earth today is 150 watts/m2.

Figure 1.

Case 2 as shown in Figure 2. This scenario is of an Earth like surface which can only lose heat through convection. This thought experiments takes an exactly opposite situation to Case 1. Now the planet surface is assumed to have zero emissivity (it is covered with a completely reflective IR foil transparent to solar radiation) so no radiation can escape to space. The atmosphere is the same as that on Earth, and all energy is transported to the top of the atmosphere by convection where it then radiates away to space. The atmosphere follows the dry adiabatic lapse rate. To simplify the maths we are going to make some simple and (unphysical) assumptions. Air is warmed at the surface rises immediately (isothermally) to the TOA where it cools. It then descends immediately (isothermally) to the surface where it again warms to cycle again.

Figure 2: Convection as a Heat engine.

These assumptions allow us to make a minimum  estimate of the work done by the convective heat engine based on the  carnot cycle. To balance the incident solar energy maintaining a surface temperature of 288K and a TOA temperature of 255K needs  7.5g/sec m^2 to be convected expending a minimum of  40 watts/m2.  In reality of course the air rises adiabatically cooling as it rises so this is just a ball park figure.

A planet with no atmosphere can only radiate IR from its surface to balance energy. Imagine it slowly gaining an atmosphere which absorbs IR.  Little changes until the absorption length becomes about the same as the distance to the top of the atmosphere. Convection starts once a small amount of energy is absorbed by the atmosphere thereby setting up an initial lapse rate.  This now allows heat to pass directly to the free radiation zone higher up, and it also enables radiative transfer of heat through the atmosphere to begin.  Eventually the balance between radiative transfer of heat and convective transfer of heat will depend on the optical depth of the atmosphere. This also determines the height of the troposphere. On Venus for example convection dominates heat transfer from the surface and the tropopause is over 60 km above the surface.

Now consider a volcanic vent deep underneath the Atlantic Ocean. The lava oozing out of it is say at 1000C and radiating as a black body. All that radiation is absorbed within 100m by the surrounding water and cannot escape (to space) to cool the vent. Instead the surrounding water gets super-heated and then rises by convection to be replaced by colder water. All the heat is carried away by convection currents and essentially none of it by radiation. Eventually the excess heat reaches the surface and is exchanged with the atmosphere. Convection wins hands down in this case.

Exactly the same process happens in the atmosphere as it is heated from below by the surface. Even though some of the IR can escape directly to space most of the heat is instead transported away by convection and especially for the 70% of the surface covered by oceans by evaporation. It is convection that sets up and maintains the lapse rate. Latent heat release reduces the dry adiabatic lapse rate up to cloud tops. The lapse rate itself makes it thermodynamically possible for radiative transfer of heat. Without it there would be no greenhouse effect.

The subtle point though is that it is only because the IR refractive index of the atmosphere is less than 1, that convection can start and be maintained at all. I think everything is linked together through one “atmosphere effect” which includes convection, latent heat and radiative transfer. So to discuss the “greenhouse effect” in isolation from convection and evaporation is wrong and so is discussing thermodynamic effects without including radiation.

 

Posted in AGW, Climate Change, climate science, Physics, Science | Tagged , , | 7 Comments

Why CO2 is not the cause of “Hothouse Venus”

Update 30/11: I have now updated the model to include all CO2 absorption bands. The new profile of absorbed radiation is shown  in Figure 4 below. The conclusion remains the same.

We have been led to believe that a “run-away” CO2 greenhouse effect is the cause of  very high  surface temperatures found on Venus, and that unless we curb carbon emissions  we risk a similar fate on Earth.  I am now convinced  that this narrative is complete nonsense because  CO2 absorption of IR radiation from the surface of Venus turns out to be tiny, and the reason for this lies with Wien’s displacement law.  Only  2% of the 740K Planck spectrum emitted by the surface actually falls within the main CO2 absorption band. While this is  indeed  absorbed within the first few meters,  the rest of the heat radiation (>90% of it) passes straight through.  I was myself surprised to discover this after  running my simple greenhouse model for Venus (described here).  I expected to see huge upward radiative transfer and  ”back radiation” fluxes. Instead I found very small CO2 induced radiative transfer and almost zero back radiation. Essentially all CO2 sourced IR radiation is absorbed within each layer in the atmosphere, because the optical depth is small for the Venusian troposphere.  Wien’s displacement law then governs how much IR is absorbed by the atmosphere at each successive height above the surface.   To understand  this – just look at Figures 1 and 2.

CO2 is NOT the cause of the “greenhouse effect” on Venus !   Despite the fact that it forms 95% of the atmosphere, CO2  really is  an insignificant greenhouse gas on Venus !

Fig 1: CO2 absorption for different temperatures. The blue shading represents the main CO2 absorption band. The percentage of total SB radiation absorbed within the CO2 band is shown next to each temperature.

The top graph in figure 2. below shows  the energy fraction absorbed by the atmosphere at different heights above the Venusian surface. Note how it peaks from 45-55 km and then rapidly falls to just 3% by 61 km. The temperature at 50 km  turns out to be about the same as the Earth’s surface (288K) !

Fig 2: Fraction of SB energy flux (sigmaT^4) absorbed by CO2 in Venusian atmosphere,

The CO2 greenhouse model is based on 100m thick layers, each in local thermal equilibrium at the measured lapse rate. The absorption and emittance of IR by CO2 molecules is calculated using derived values of partial pressure and measured Beer-Lambert absorption data. For Venus Ts= 740K, lapse rate = 10.45K/km, CO2=0.95, P0 = 93 atmospheres, g= 8.9 m/s2. The code can be found here and the result it produces are shown in Figure 3.

Fig 3: Black curve- Radiation flux within CO2 band 13-17 microns in the Venusian atmosphere composed of 95% CO2. The dashed curve shows the surface emittance in this band for a temperature of 740K (no CO2 present). The small magenta curve is the “back radiation” from levels above. It is zero until 60 km up in the atmosphere, as the optical length is << 100m below.

Discussion

I am well aware that I have ignored pressure broadening of the CO2 absorption band, and also excluded other smaller narrow absorption lines. However, I think this cannot change the overall conclusion that the CO2 greenhouse effect on Venus is between 1 and 2 orders of magnitude too small to explain the high surface temperatures.  So if CO2 is not responsible for the scorching temperatures on Venus, what is ?

It must be the other 5% of the atmosphere, which contains  SO2 (150ppm), H2O (20 ppm) and  the thick H2So4  clouds covering the planet.  The high overall density means that even the partial pressure of H2O is not dissimilar to that on Earth. It is this greenhouse mixture  covering a much broader IR spectra which traps the bulk of the IR emitted from the surface. CO2 is insignificant in comparison.

Furthermore there are  violent convective circulations on Venus and strong polar vortex winds. Convection maintains the lapse rate moving heat up through the atmosphere far more effectively than by radiative transfer. When finally the air  sufficiently above about  60 km the heat can then radiate freely to space.

Update 30/11: The model has been updated to include all 4 absorption bands for CO2. The 4.1-4.5 micron band is important for the lower Venus atmosphere as the Planck spectrum shifts to lower wavelengths . The new profile with height is shown in figure 4 and the relative fraction for each band versus height shown in Figure 5.

Fig 4: Radiation profile versus height on Venus for all CO2 absorption bands. The profile just for the 13-17 micron band is shown in blue.

Fig 5: Relative fractions of full SB radiation falling in each of the 4 CO2 absorption bands versus height on Venus. The 4.1-4.5 micron band becomes dominant at low altitudes.

The atmosphere on Venus is fully opaque below ~40km for absorption of IR by CO2. There is no back radiation to the surface since all re-emitted photons are absorbed immediately. Heat is transported upwards by convection until a level where the atmosphere thins sufficiently to radiate to space.

 

Posted in AGW, Climate Change, climate science, Physics, Science | Tagged , | 3 Comments