Fallacy of ninety seven percent (Donald Rapp) USofA

The Fallacy of the Ninety-Seven Percent February 12, 2018 Donald Rapp E-mail communication to mbrexchange From: Donald Rapp It has become a fashionable exercise for some to count the number of published climate papers that seem to subscribe to the alarmist agenda. Unfortunately it is thoroughly unclear exactly what that agenda is. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of published papers are specific, narrowly focused, and relate to a particular aspect of climate change; very few deal with the big picture of climate change vs. greenhouse gases.

In particular, a social scientist, Naomi Oreskes has acquired a great reputation as counter-in-chief and has often been an honored speaker at climate conferences.

Ultimately, it seems that the main thing that the overwhelming majority agree to is that human activity affects climate. Exactly how many believe any specific degree of how it affects climate, and what are the consequences of that climate change, is more difficult to pin down. Believing in “the safety of numbers” some who know little about climate change, would rather rely on a vote.

In this particular article, the point is raised that the overwhelming majority might not always be right – which is true.

What we are dealing with here is a lack of specific, concrete evidence of the role of rising CO2 in climate change. But the fact that we don’t know everything does not mean that we know nothing! We do know that without greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the earth would be totally frozen. We do know that the earth warms as CO2 rises from zero.

We do understand the IR absorptivity of CO2. We do have some imperfect understanding of flow of energy through the atmosphere. But we also know that the warming effect of CO2 is lessened as more and more CO2 fills the atmosphere due to gradual saturation of the absorption bands. We can roughly estimate the warming effect of any concentration of CO2. One simplistic explanation is shown below the dashed line.

This warming effect is partly counterbalanced by other factors that affect climate: ocean absorption of energy, clouds, humidity, winds, land use, El Nino/La Nina cycle, ocean currents, snow/ice variability at high latitudes, etc. But the signal is still there through the noise.

Bottom line: Its going to get warmer in the 21st century and we don’t need the so-called 3% to prove it.

1

DR ======================================= Lindzen (2007) described the effect of additional absorption by CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. He pointed out that the simplistic description of the greenhouse effect is that greenhouse gases and clouds “inhibit cooling of the Earth by thermal radiation, and serves as a blanket which causes the Earth to be warmer than it otherwise would be”. Lindzen objected to this description because as he said: “... the surface of the Earth does not cool primarily by thermal radiation”.... There is so much greenhouse opacity immediately above the ground that the surface cannot effectively cool by the emission of thermal radiation. Instead, heat is carried away from the surface by fluid motions ranging from the cumulonimbus towers of the tropics to the weather and planetary scale waves of the extra-tropics. These motions carry the heat upward and poleward to [altitudes] where it is possible for thermal radiation emitted from these levels to escape to space.”

The lower atmosphere is relatively opaque to IR radiation but as the altitude increases, the density decreases and transmission of IR improves. Lindzen defined an altitude sufficiently high that the optical depth for IR is about 1 so that transmission of IR is attenuated roughly as e^-1. This is a region of the atmosphere that can radiate energy from the Earth to space. He provided a description of the effect of adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Lindzen’s picture of how the greenhouse effect works.

The temperature of the atmosphere decreases with altitude to some level known as the tropopause. The height of the tropopause varies from about 16 km in the tropics to about 12 km at 30° latitude, and to about 8 km in polar regions. Before adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the altitude at which the optical depth for IR was around 1 is denoted A in Figure 1. When greenhouse gases are added to the atmosphere, the level at which the optical depth is around 1 is raised in altitude due to the additional absorption by the greenhouse gas. As Lindzen pointed out, “because the temperature of the atmosphere decreases with altitude, the new characteristic altitude for emission is colder than the previous altitude”. The new altitude for emission is B, and T1 > T2. Since IR emission is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature, emission from altitude B is reduced compared to what it was at altitude A. Thus the Earth cannot cool as effectively. The Earth will therefore warm until the temperature at altitude B approaches the original temperature. This is shown in Figure 2. The original temperature at the surface is TS, leading to the vertical temperature profile shown as the slanted dotted line. Before the temperature rises, the temperature at the altitude for emission is T2 at point 2. After the surface temperature rises to TS’, the new vertical temperature profile is the slanted solid line and the temperature at altitude B rises back to T1. The Earth is now back in thermal balance.

Figure 2. Lindzen’s picture of how the greenhouse effect works; part two. ======================================== 2

Lindzen (2007) described the effect of additional absorption by CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. He pointed out that the simplistic description of the greenhouse effect is that greenhouse gases and clouds “inhibit cooling of the Earth by thermal radiation, and serves as a blanket which causes the Earth to be warmer than it otherwise would be”. Lindzen objected to this description because as he said: “... the surface of the Earth does not cool primarily by thermal radiation”.... There is so much greenhouse opacity immediately above the ground that the surface cannot effectively cool by the emission of thermal radiation. Instead, heat is carried away from the surface by fluid motions ranging from the cumulonimbus towers of the tropics to the weather and planetary scale waves of the extra-tropics. These motions carry the heat upward and poleward to [altitudes] where it is possible for thermal radiation emitted from these levels to escape to space.”

The lower atmosphere is relatively opaque to IR radiation but as the altitude increases, the density decreases and transmission of IR improves. Lindzen defined an altitude sufficiently high that the optical depth for IR is about 1 so that transmission of IR is attenuated roughly as e^-1. This is a region of the atmosphere that can radiate energy from the Earth to space. He provided a description of the effect of adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Lindzen’s picture of how the greenhouse effect works.

The temperature of the atmosphere decreases with altitude to some level known as the tropopause. The height of the tropopause varies from about 16 km in the tropics to about 12 km at 30° latitude, and to about 8 km in polar regions. Before adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the altitude at which the optical depth for IR was around 1 is denoted A in Figure 1. When greenhouse gases are added to the atmosphere, the level at which the optical depth is around 1 is raised in altitude due to the additional absorption by the greenhouse gas. As Lindzen pointed out, “because the temperature of the atmosphere decreases with altitude, the new characteristic altitude for emission is colder than the previous altitude”. The new altitude for emission is B, and T1 > T2. Since IR emission is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature, emission from altitude B is reduced compared to what it was at altitude A. Thus the Earth cannot cool as effectively. The Earth will therefore warm until the temperature at altitude B approaches the original temperature. This is shown in Figure 2. The original temperature at the surface is TS, leading to the vertical temperature profile shown as the slanted dotted line. Before the temperature rises, the temperature at the altitude for emission is T2 at point 2. After the surface temperature rises to TS’, the new vertical temperature profile is the slanted solid line and the temperature at altitude B rises back to T1. The Earth is now back in thermal balance.

Figure 2. Lindzen’s picture of how the greenhouse effect works; part two.

3

COMMENT – HOWARD CORK HAYDEN Sometimes we know things. Sometimes we know less than nothing --- as when we claim to something that turns out not to be true. (Flat earth, ulcers caused by stress, the relatively short age of the earth as promoted by Kelvin, the Army is tough and not susceptible to the flu, the continents don’t move, …)

I’ve invented a morning-after pill for men. (“It’s OK, Honey. I’ll take a pill in the morning.”)

“We do know that the earth warms as CO2 rises from zero.” Precisely when, during the last 4.5 billion years, has the CO2 level been zero? What is of concern is the increase from (say) 300 ppmv to 600 ppmv. What we do know is that the increase from 200 ppmv to 300 ppmv numerous times during the last half-million years came after temperature increases. We also know that over the same period, the CO2 decreases came after the temperature decreases. Retroactive causality anybody? Wanna commit posthumous suicide?

“We do understand the IR absorptivity of CO2.” Measurements have been made at relatively high pressure where collisional broadening greatly increases absorption. The increased IR absorption occurs way out in the wings of the spectrum, where the absorption cross-section is so low that IR presently escapes the atmosphere. Adding CO2 captures some of that IR (the probability is proportional to the product of the molar density and the absorption cross-section), but most of the additional IR is captured high in the atmosphere (on top of the blanket, so to speak), and that is the region where most IR to space originates. Furthermore, the absorption cross-section at those low pressures is most assuredly not the same as is measured in lab experiments. (Some drop to below nuclear cross-sections. How about 0.1 barns at 749 cm-1?)

The climate is changing. The climate has always been changing. Whether the climate is warming or cooling depends on the time frame chosen. The general trend for the last 8,000 years or so has been one of cooling. The general trend for the last 150 years (0.000 000 3% of the age of the earth) the climate has been warming. Compared to 60 million years ago, the earth is really cold.

Cheers, Cork Howard "Cork" Hayden corkhayden@comcast.net www.energyadvocate.com and www.valeslake.com P.O. Box 7609 Pueblo West, CO 81007 Consensus is the enemy of science 4