Correlation between temperature and CO2

[westwall]

One simple term...........MEDIEVAL WARMING PERIOD..........done.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/13/study-earth-was-warmer-in-roman-medieval-times/

The climate crusaders never want you to know about it!! No SUV's rolling around the planet = lose.

The MWP and LIA certainly do show that CO2 is not the main control knob for climate. Natural factors rule (but CO2 still has a bit part).

I don't even think it's effect is measurable. I think that the GHG effect of water vapor is so overwhelming that the CO2 signal is for all intents, invisible.

I concur that H2O is the dominant greenhouse gas.

But CO2'S effect is not invisible, especially if you consider the total effect not just the effect of rising CO2.

If CO2 was not present the the atmospheric window would be widened, allowing more radiation to escape freely to space, and would cool the atmosphere by removing one of its sources of energy input.

And here I disagree with you. It is invisible. Were there no water vapor its effect would be measurable. However, as we all know, water vapor is the dominant GHG and it simply obliterates whatever effect CO2 would have absent the water vapor. The effect from the CO2 is so miniscule as to be completely immeasurable. We see this in the raw data that we do have access to. No matter how much the CO2 level has increased, the net result has been zero.

We see this in the paleoclmate record as well.

 

[mamooth]

Did any of you warmers out there actually get the point of the OP?

I've already pointed out how bad your use of statistics was, being that you chose to focus on short term noise instead of signal. No competent statistician or scientist would have made such a basic error

Your own second graph showed just how strongly CO2 correlates with temperature. It would be far more sensible for you to fall back to the "correlation is not causation" position, as at least that isn't directly contradicted by the data, like your primary claim is.

You later added on a big logical fallacy. You searched around, founding a better correlation, and implied that meant the first correlation doesn't exist. Your conclusion in no way follows from your premise. No competent statistician or scientist would have made such a basic error.

 

[mamooth]

And here I disagree with you. It is invisible. Were there no water vapor its effect would be measurable. However, as we all know, water vapor is the dominant GHG and it simply obliterates whatever effect CO2 would have absent the water vapor.

As has been pointed out, CO2 blocks a different spectral window, so that claim is nonsense.

 

[IanC]

One simple term...........MEDIEVAL WARMING PERIOD..........done.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/13/study-earth-was-warmer-in-roman-medieval-times/

The climate crusaders never want you to know about it!! No SUV's rolling around the planet = lose.

The MWP and LIA certainly do show that CO2 is not the main control knob for climate. Natural factors rule (but CO2 still has a bit part).

I don't even think it's effect is measurable. I think that the GHG effect of water vapor is so overwhelming that the CO2 signal is for all intents, invisible.

I concur that H2O is the dominant greenhouse gas.

But CO2'S effect is not invisible, especially if you consider the total effect not just the effect of rising CO2.

If CO2 was not present the the atmospheric window would be widened, allowing more radiation to escape freely to space, and would cool the atmosphere by removing one of its sources of energy input.

And here I disagree with you. It is invisible. Were there no water vapor its effect would be measurable. However, as we all know, water vapor is the dominant GHG and it simply obliterates whatever effect CO2 would have absent the water vapor. The effect from the CO2 is so miniscule as to be completely immeasurable. We see this in the raw data that we do have access to. No matter how much the CO2 level has increased, the net result has been zero.

We see this in the paleoclmate record as well.

I don't see how H2O removes or even obscures the CO2 effects at 15 microns.

I can understand why you think H2O is dominant. I can't understand why you think that true statement proves CO2 has no influence.

 

[IanC]

link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40641-016-0039-5#Fig1

This is a recent article on atmospheric physics and modeling. I don't necessarily agree with all of its statements and conclusions but it is good to know what climate science is thinking.

As is usually the case, there was an interesting tidbit of information that clears up an ignored anomaly on my part.

There is a sharp spike in the middle of the CO2 band. This is the most favoured and easily absorbed wavelength for CO2. Why is it at an increased level instead of decreased? The answer lies in the atmosphere's temperature gradient. The emission height for this narrow band is much further up in the sky, well into the stratosphere, at a height where temperature actually increases with height rather than decreases like in the troposphere. Good to know. Just like when a line cuts a curve into two segments there are two intercepts. In this case the intercept temperature is the one higher in the atmosphere rather than the lower one which I had (reasonably) assumed.

 

[westwall]

One simple term...........MEDIEVAL WARMING PERIOD..........done.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/13/study-earth-was-warmer-in-roman-medieval-times/

The climate crusaders never want you to know about it!! No SUV's rolling around the planet = lose.

The MWP and LIA certainly do show that CO2 is not the main control knob for climate. Natural factors rule (but CO2 still has a bit part).

I don't even think it's effect is measurable. I think that the GHG effect of water vapor is so overwhelming that the CO2 signal is for all intents, invisible.

I concur that H2O is the dominant greenhouse gas.

But CO2'S effect is not invisible, especially if you consider the total effect not just the effect of rising CO2.

If CO2 was not present the the atmospheric window would be widened, allowing more radiation to escape freely to space, and would cool the atmosphere by removing one of its sources of energy input.

And here I disagree with you. It is invisible. Were there no water vapor its effect would be measurable. However, as we all know, water vapor is the dominant GHG and it simply obliterates whatever effect CO2 would have absent the water vapor. The effect from the CO2 is so miniscule as to be completely immeasurable. We see this in the raw data that we do have access to. No matter how much the CO2 level has increased, the net result has been zero.

We see this in the paleoclmate record as well.

I don't see how H2O removes or even obscures the CO2 effects at 15 microns.

I can understand why you think H2O is dominant. I can't understand why you think that true statement proves CO2 has no influence.

I am talking about the temperature. Water vapor retains enough heat that whatever effect CO2 could have is completely wiped out. It's not a question about effect at X microns, it is simply the Earth is at this temp and the water vapor makes it so. CO2 doesn't. The belief that infinitesimally small amounts of gas can have inordinately huge temperature effects is simply not supported by anything.

 

[westwall]

link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40641-016-0039-5#Fig1

This is a recent article on atmospheric physics and modeling. I don't necessarily agree with all of its statements and conclusions but it is good to know what climate science is thinking.

As is usually the case, there was an interesting tidbit of information that clears up an ignored anomaly on my part.

There is a sharp spike in the middle of the CO2 band. This is the most favoured and easily absorbed wavelength for CO2. Why is it at an increased level instead of decreased? The answer lies in the atmosphere's temperature gradient. The emission height for this narrow band is much further up in the sky, well into the stratosphere, at a height where temperature actually increases with height rather than decreases like in the troposphere. Good to know. Just like when a line cuts a curve into two segments there are two intercepts. In this case the intercept temperature is the one higher in the atmosphere rather than the lower one which I had (reasonably) assumed.

No modelling that we have seen is worth a damn. It just isn't. They are so primitive that they do not reflect reality save by accident alone. I look at the CFD models that the F1 race teams are using that cost tens of millions of dollars to operate and they are working almost 24/7 to develop parts. They are dealing with relatively few variables compared to the Earth/Climate engine, and they are only able to produce beneficial results less than 1% of the time. And those benefits result in tenths of a second speed improvement.

The majority is simply scrapped because the models don't give a benefit. Then, when they actually build those parts and test them in the real world they are only beneficial 10% of the time. Those are the most advanced computer models in the WORLD. And they basically suck for the most part.

Yet you demand that computer models that would seize in an instant if they tried to do what these models are doing are somehow worth paying attention to is simply incomprehensible.

 

[westwall]

And here I disagree with you. It is invisible. Were there no water vapor its effect would be measurable. However, as we all know, water vapor is the dominant GHG and it simply obliterates whatever effect CO2 would have absent the water vapor.

As has been pointed out, CO2 blocks a different spectral window, so that claim is nonsense.

And it is such a miniscule amount of blockage that it simply doesn't matter. The belief that the Earth is susceptible to nearly non existent gases is preposterous.

 

[IanC]

link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40641-016-0039-5#Fig1

This is a recent article on atmospheric physics and modeling. I don't necessarily agree with all of its statements and conclusions but it is good to know what climate science is thinking.

As is usually the case, there was an interesting tidbit of information that clears up an ignored anomaly on my part.

There is a sharp spike in the middle of the CO2 band. This is the most favoured and easily absorbed wavelength for CO2. Why is it at an increased level instead of decreased? The answer lies in the atmosphere's temperature gradient. The emission height for this narrow band is much further up in the sky, well into the stratosphere, at a height where temperature actually increases with height rather than decreases like in the troposphere. Good to know. Just like when a line cuts a curve into two segments there are two intercepts. In this case the intercept temperature is the one higher in the atmosphere rather than the lower one which I had (reasonably) assumed.

No modelling that we have seen is worth a damn. It just isn't. They are so primitive that they do not reflect reality save by accident alone. I look at the CFD models that the F1 race teams are using that cost tens of millions of dollars to operate and they are working almost 24/7 to develop parts. They are dealing with relatively few variables compared to the Earth/Climate engine, and they are only able to produce beneficial results less than 1% of the time. And those benefits result in tenths of a second speed improvement.

The majority is simply scrapped because the models don't give a benefit. Then, when they actually build those parts and test them in the real world they are only beneficial 10% of the time. Those are the most advanced computer models in the WORLD. And they basically suck for the most part.

Yet you demand that computer models that would seize in an instant if they tried to do what these models are doing are somehow worth paying attention to is simply incomprehensible.

I dunno. The modeling for this seems pretty good.

 

[westwall]

link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40641-016-0039-5#Fig1

This is a recent article on atmospheric physics and modeling. I don't necessarily agree with all of its statements and conclusions but it is good to know what climate science is thinking.

As is usually the case, there was an interesting tidbit of information that clears up an ignored anomaly on my part.

There is a sharp spike in the middle of the CO2 band. This is the most favoured and easily absorbed wavelength for CO2. Why is it at an increased level instead of decreased? The answer lies in the atmosphere's temperature gradient. The emission height for this narrow band is much further up in the sky, well into the stratosphere, at a height where temperature actually increases with height rather than decreases like in the troposphere. Good to know. Just like when a line cuts a curve into two segments there are two intercepts. In this case the intercept temperature is the one higher in the atmosphere rather than the lower one which I had (reasonably) assumed.

No modelling that we have seen is worth a damn. It just isn't. They are so primitive that they do not reflect reality save by accident alone. I look at the CFD models that the F1 race teams are using that cost tens of millions of dollars to operate and they are working almost 24/7 to develop parts. They are dealing with relatively few variables compared to the Earth/Climate engine, and they are only able to produce beneficial results less than 1% of the time. And those benefits result in tenths of a second speed improvement.

The majority is simply scrapped because the models don't give a benefit. Then, when they actually build those parts and test them in the real world they are only beneficial 10% of the time. Those are the most advanced computer models in the WORLD. And they basically suck for the most part.

Yet you demand that computer models that would seize in an instant if they tried to do what these models are doing are somehow worth paying attention to is simply incomprehensible.

I dunno. The modeling for this seems pretty good.

Pretty graphs can be created from whole cloth. They aren't real. That being said, OK. You are dealing with the upper atmosphere, which is basically inert due to density. You have a few chemical compounds who's characteristics are extremely well known, and the models are still far enough off to make a significant alteration of the data line.

 

[IanC]

link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40641-016-0039-5#Fig1

This is a recent article on atmospheric physics and modeling. I don't necessarily agree with all of its statements and conclusions but it is good to know what climate science is thinking.

As is usually the case, there was an interesting tidbit of information that clears up an ignored anomaly on my part.

There is a sharp spike in the middle of the CO2 band. This is the most favoured and easily absorbed wavelength for CO2. Why is it at an increased level instead of decreased? The answer lies in the atmosphere's temperature gradient. The emission height for this narrow band is much further up in the sky, well into the stratosphere, at a height where temperature actually increases with height rather than decreases like in the troposphere. Good to know. Just like when a line cuts a curve into two segments there are two intercepts. In this case the intercept temperature is the one higher in the atmosphere rather than the lower one which I had (reasonably) assumed.

No modelling that we have seen is worth a damn. It just isn't. They are so primitive that they do not reflect reality save by accident alone. I look at the CFD models that the F1 race teams are using that cost tens of millions of dollars to operate and they are working almost 24/7 to develop parts. They are dealing with relatively few variables compared to the Earth/Climate engine, and they are only able to produce beneficial results less than 1% of the time. And those benefits result in tenths of a second speed improvement.

The majority is simply scrapped because the models don't give a benefit. Then, when they actually build those parts and test them in the real world they are only beneficial 10% of the time. Those are the most advanced computer models in the WORLD. And they basically suck for the most part.

Yet you demand that computer models that would seize in an instant if they tried to do what these models are doing are somehow worth paying attention to is simply incomprehensible.

I dunno. The modeling for this seems pretty good.

Pretty graphs can be created from whole cloth. They aren't real. That being said, OK. You are dealing with the upper atmosphere, which is basically inert due to density. You have a few chemical compounds who's characteristics are extremely well known, and the models are still far enough off to make a significant alteration of the data line.

I'm having a hard time figuring out how you are coming to the conclusion that CO2'S effect is invisible. You complain that the model output is different by a few widths of the line yet you ignore the large chunk taken out by CO2.

CO2 absorbs 15 micron IR and adds it to the total energy of the atmosphere. If CO2 was not present then all that energy would simply escape to space like the atmospheric window.

I simply can't understand your reasoning. Water has practically no overlap at 15 microns.

 

[westwall]

link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40641-016-0039-5#Fig1

This is a recent article on atmospheric physics and modeling. I don't necessarily agree with all of its statements and conclusions but it is good to know what climate science is thinking.

As is usually the case, there was an interesting tidbit of information that clears up an ignored anomaly on my part.

There is a sharp spike in the middle of the CO2 band. This is the most favoured and easily absorbed wavelength for CO2. Why is it at an increased level instead of decreased? The answer lies in the atmosphere's temperature gradient. The emission height for this narrow band is much further up in the sky, well into the stratosphere, at a height where temperature actually increases with height rather than decreases like in the troposphere. Good to know. Just like when a line cuts a curve into two segments there are two intercepts. In this case the intercept temperature is the one higher in the atmosphere rather than the lower one which I had (reasonably) assumed.

No modelling that we have seen is worth a damn. It just isn't. They are so primitive that they do not reflect reality save by accident alone. I look at the CFD models that the F1 race teams are using that cost tens of millions of dollars to operate and they are working almost 24/7 to develop parts. They are dealing with relatively few variables compared to the Earth/Climate engine, and they are only able to produce beneficial results less than 1% of the time. And those benefits result in tenths of a second speed improvement.

The majority is simply scrapped because the models don't give a benefit. Then, when they actually build those parts and test them in the real world they are only beneficial 10% of the time. Those are the most advanced computer models in the WORLD. And they basically suck for the most part.

Yet you demand that computer models that would seize in an instant if they tried to do what these models are doing are somehow worth paying attention to is simply incomprehensible.

I dunno. The modeling for this seems pretty good.

Pretty graphs can be created from whole cloth. They aren't real. That being said, OK. You are dealing with the upper atmosphere, which is basically inert due to density. You have a few chemical compounds who's characteristics are extremely well known, and the models are still far enough off to make a significant alteration of the data line.

I'm having a hard time figuring out how you are coming to the conclusion that CO2'S effect is invisible. You complain that the model output is different by a few widths of the line yet you ignore the large chunk taken out by CO2.

CO2 absorbs 15 micron IR and adds it to the total energy of the atmosphere. If CO2 was not present then all that energy would simply escape to space like the atmospheric window.

I simply can't understand your reasoning. Water has practically no overlap at 15 microns.

I agree but the issue is the water vapor has already kept the planet warmed to a point that whatever effect CO2 could have is completely lost within the background. If we REMOVED ALL the CO2 from the atmosphere we wouldn't notice temperature wise. That's the point.

 

[IanC]

link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40641-016-0039-5#Fig1

This is a recent article on atmospheric physics and modeling. I don't necessarily agree with all of its statements and conclusions but it is good to know what climate science is thinking.

As is usually the case, there was an interesting tidbit of information that clears up an ignored anomaly on my part.

There is a sharp spike in the middle of the CO2 band. This is the most favoured and easily absorbed wavelength for CO2. Why is it at an increased level instead of decreased? The answer lies in the atmosphere's temperature gradient. The emission height for this narrow band is much further up in the sky, well into the stratosphere, at a height where temperature actually increases with height rather than decreases like in the troposphere. Good to know. Just like when a line cuts a curve into two segments there are two intercepts. In this case the intercept temperature is the one higher in the atmosphere rather than the lower one which I had (reasonably) assumed.

No modelling that we have seen is worth a damn. It just isn't. They are so primitive that they do not reflect reality save by accident alone. I look at the CFD models that the F1 race teams are using that cost tens of millions of dollars to operate and they are working almost 24/7 to develop parts. They are dealing with relatively few variables compared to the Earth/Climate engine, and they are only able to produce beneficial results less than 1% of the time. And those benefits result in tenths of a second speed improvement.

The majority is simply scrapped because the models don't give a benefit. Then, when they actually build those parts and test them in the real world they are only beneficial 10% of the time. Those are the most advanced computer models in the WORLD. And they basically suck for the most part.

Yet you demand that computer models that would seize in an instant if they tried to do what these models are doing are somehow worth paying attention to is simply incomprehensible.

I dunno. The modeling for this seems pretty good.

Pretty graphs can be created from whole cloth. They aren't real. That being said, OK. You are dealing with the upper atmosphere, which is basically inert due to density. You have a few chemical compounds who's characteristics are extremely well known, and the models are still far enough off to make a significant alteration of the data line.

I'm having a hard time figuring out how you are coming to the conclusion that CO2'S effect is invisible. You complain that the model output is different by a few widths of the line yet you ignore the large chunk taken out by CO2.

CO2 absorbs 15 micron IR and adds it to the total energy of the atmosphere. If CO2 was not present then all that energy would simply escape to space like the atmospheric window.

I simply can't understand your reasoning. Water has practically no overlap at 15 microns.

I agree but the issue is the water vapor has already kept the planet warmed to a point that whatever effect CO2 could have is completely lost within the background. If we REMOVED ALL the CO2 from the atmosphere we wouldn't notice temperature wise. That's the point.

I read somewhere that the missing CO2 chunk is about 8% of the total radiation. 1/12 of the area under the curve seems about right to me.

If we added that 8% to outbound radiation and subtracted the greater fraction of that 8% from atmospheric energy input, we would see immediate and massive cooling off the surface.

How would H2O make up for increased direct energy loss to space and the decreased energy input into the atmosphere?

What you are saying does not make sense to me. Am I missing something?

 

[westwall]

No modelling that we have seen is worth a damn. It just isn't. They are so primitive that they do not reflect reality save by accident alone. I look at the CFD models that the F1 race teams are using that cost tens of millions of dollars to operate and they are working almost 24/7 to develop parts. They are dealing with relatively few variables compared to the Earth/Climate engine, and they are only able to produce beneficial results less than 1% of the time. And those benefits result in tenths of a second speed improvement.

The majority is simply scrapped because the models don't give a benefit. Then, when they actually build those parts and test them in the real world they are only beneficial 10% of the time. Those are the most advanced computer models in the WORLD. And they basically suck for the most part.

Yet you demand that computer models that would seize in an instant if they tried to do what these models are doing are somehow worth paying attention to is simply incomprehensible.

I dunno. The modeling for this seems pretty good.

Pretty graphs can be created from whole cloth. They aren't real. That being said, OK. You are dealing with the upper atmosphere, which is basically inert due to density. You have a few chemical compounds who's characteristics are extremely well known, and the models are still far enough off to make a significant alteration of the data line.

I'm having a hard time figuring out how you are coming to the conclusion that CO2'S effect is invisible. You complain that the model output is different by a few widths of the line yet you ignore the large chunk taken out by CO2.

CO2 absorbs 15 micron IR and adds it to the total energy of the atmosphere. If CO2 was not present then all that energy would simply escape to space like the atmospheric window.

I simply can't understand your reasoning. Water has practically no overlap at 15 microns.

I agree but the issue is the water vapor has already kept the planet warmed to a point that whatever effect CO2 could have is completely lost within the background. If we REMOVED ALL the CO2 from the atmosphere we wouldn't notice temperature wise. That's the point.

I read somewhere that the missing CO2 chunk is about 8% of the total radiation. 1/12 of the area under the curve seems about right to me.

If we added that 8% to outbound radiation and subtracted the greater fraction of that 8% from atmospheric energy input, we would see immediate and massive cooling off the surface.

How would H2O make up for increased direct energy loss to space and the decreased energy input into the atmosphere?

What you are saying does not make sense to me. Am I missing something?

Eight percent and they can't back that number up with observed data. That's the problem. Everything they have is based on models and nothing more. The point I am trying to make is the climatologists have made a claim that the Earth is affected by incredibly tiny amounts of energy. They can't show how this occurs, but they claim it. I am saying that the water vapor is an enormous blanket that keeps the heat in and the reality is the climatologists can't see the forest for the very large tree's that are in their way.

 

[IanC]

This Planck curve is real data. Even if it's not, it has the same shape as real data, and slightly adjusted for the temperature of any specific location.

How much of the Greenhouse Effect is due to CO2? The CO2 notch appears to be about a quarter of the area above the line to the 300K Planck curve. By eyeball. Any way you look at it CO2'S influence is not insignificant.

I agree that H2O is dominant, the most influential. But that does not negate the role of CO2.

You said the surface would be just as warm without CO2. How can that be? H2O has little reactivity in the CO2 band, so it must be examined separately. How would water make up for it?

Nature is always striving to lose energy. Why would water become less efficient at transporting energy away? I suppose freezing it would work somewhat but you said the temperature would stay the same so that isn't really an option.

Can you give me some sort of explanation of what you mean?

 

[westwall]

This Planck curve is real data. Even if it's not, it has the same shape as real data, and slightly adjusted for the temperature of any specific location.

How much of the Greenhouse Effect is due to CO2? The CO2 notch appears to be about a quarter of the area above the line to the 300K Planck curve. By eyeball. Any way you look at it CO2'S influence is not insignificant.

I agree that H2O is dominant, the most influential. But that does not negate the role of CO2.

You said the surface would be just as warm without CO2. How can that be? H2O has little reactivity in the CO2 band, so it must be examined separately. How would water make up for it?

Nature is always striving to lose energy. Why would water become less efficient at transporting energy away? I suppose freezing it would work somewhat but you said the temperature would stay the same so that isn't really an option.

Can you give me some sort of explanation of what you mean?

At the density that CO2 exists in our atmosphere what would happen if all of the water vapor were to disappear. What would the surface temperature of the planet be with NO water vapor but with the CO2 concentration that we do have?

 

[IanC]

This Planck curve is real data. Even if it's not, it has the same shape as real data, and slightly adjusted for the temperature of any specific location.

How much of the Greenhouse Effect is due to CO2? The CO2 notch appears to be about a quarter of the area above the line to the 300K Planck curve. By eyeball. Any way you look at it CO2'S influence is not insignificant.

I agree that H2O is dominant, the most influential. But that does not negate the role of CO2.

You said the surface would be just as warm without CO2. How can that be? H2O has little reactivity in the CO2 band, so it must be examined separately. How would water make up for it?

Nature is always striving to lose energy. Why would water become less efficient at transporting energy away? I suppose freezing it would work somewhat but you said the temperature would stay the same so that isn't really an option.

Can you give me some sort of explanation of what you mean?

At the density that CO2 exists in our atmosphere what would happen if all of the water vapor were to disappear. What would the surface temperature of the planet be with NO water vapor but with the CO2 concentration that we do have?

A very primitive first estimate would be roughly 3/4 of the Greenhouse Effect of 33C. So about 25C colder.

Of course it would also effect the amount of energy going into the atmosphere, and it would basically kill convection so we would not have weather as we now know it.

 

[westwall]

This Planck curve is real data. Even if it's not, it has the same shape as real data, and slightly adjusted for the temperature of any specific location.

How much of the Greenhouse Effect is due to CO2? The CO2 notch appears to be about a quarter of the area above the line to the 300K Planck curve. By eyeball. Any way you look at it CO2'S influence is not insignificant.

I agree that H2O is dominant, the most influential. But that does not negate the role of CO2.

You said the surface would be just as warm without CO2. How can that be? H2O has little reactivity in the CO2 band, so it must be examined separately. How would water make up for it?

Nature is always striving to lose energy. Why would water become less efficient at transporting energy away? I suppose freezing it would work somewhat but you said the temperature would stay the same so that isn't really an option.

Can you give me some sort of explanation of what you mean?

At the density that CO2 exists in our atmosphere what would happen if all of the water vapor were to disappear. What would the surface temperature of the planet be with NO water vapor but with the CO2 concentration that we do have?

A very primitive first estimate would be roughly 3/4 of the Greenhouse Effect of 33C. So about 25C colder.

Of course it would also effect the amount of energy going into the atmosphere, and it would basically kill convection so we would not have weather as we now know it.

In the concentrations that we have now? Might want to recalculate that.

 

[Old Rocks]

This Planck curve is real data. Even if it's not, it has the same shape as real data, and slightly adjusted for the temperature of any specific location.

How much of the Greenhouse Effect is due to CO2? The CO2 notch appears to be about a quarter of the area above the line to the 300K Planck curve. By eyeball. Any way you look at it CO2'S influence is not insignificant.

I agree that H2O is dominant, the most influential. But that does not negate the role of CO2.

You said the surface would be just as warm without CO2. How can that be? H2O has little reactivity in the CO2 band, so it must be examined separately. How would water make up for it?

Nature is always striving to lose energy. Why would water become less efficient at transporting energy away? I suppose freezing it would work somewhat but you said the temperature would stay the same so that isn't really an option.

Can you give me some sort of explanation of what you mean?

At the density that CO2 exists in our atmosphere what would happen if all of the water vapor were to disappear. What would the surface temperature of the planet be with NO water vapor but with the CO2 concentration that we do have?

Atmospheric Moisture Residence Times and Cycling: Implications for Rainfall Rates and Climate Change


Abstract
New estimates of the moistening of the atmosphere through evaporation at the surface and of the drying through precipitation are computed. Overall, the e-folding residence time of atmospheric moisture is just over 8 days. New estimates are also made of how much moisture that precipitates out comes from horizontal transport versus local evaporation, referred to as ‘recycling’. The results depend greatly on the scale of the domain under consideration and global maps of the recycling for annual means are produced for 500 km scales for which global recycling is 9.6%, consisting of 8.9% over land and 9.9% over the oceans. Even for 1000 km scales, less than 20% of the annual precipitation typically comes from evaporation within the domain. While average overall atmospheric moisture depletion and restoration must balance, precipitation falls only a small fraction of the time. Thus precipitation rates are also examined. Over the United States, one hour intervals with 0.1 mm or more are used to show that the frequency of precipitation ranges from over 30% in the Northwest, to about 20% in the Southeast and less than 4% just east of the continental divide in winter, and from less than 2% in California to over 20% in the Southeast in summer. In midlatitudes precipitation typically falls about 10% of the time, and so rainfall rates, conditional on when rain is falling, are much larger than evaporation rates. The mismatches in the rates of rainfall versus evaporation imply that precipitating systems of all kinds feed mostly on the moisture already in the atmosphere. Over North America, much of the precipitation originates from moisture advected from the Gulf of Mexico and subtropical Atlantic or Pacific a day or so earlier. Increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere produce global warming through an increase in downwelling infrared radiation, and thus not only increase surface temperatures but also enhance the hydrological cycle, as much of the heating at the surface goes into evaporating surface moisture. Global temperature increases signify that the water-holding capacity of the atmosphere increases and, together with enhanced evaporation, this means that the actual atmospheric moisture should increase. It follows that naturally-occurring droughts are likely to be exacerbated by enhanced potential evapotranspiration. Further, globally there must be an increase in precipitation to balance the enhanced evaporation but the processes by which precipitation is altered locally are not well understood. Observations confirm that atmospheric moisture is increasing in many places, for example at a rate of about 5% per decade over the United States. Based on the above results, we argue that increased moisture content of the atmosphere therefore favors stronger rainfall or snowfall events, thus increasing risk of flooding, which is a pattern observed to be happening in many parts of the world. Moreover, because there is a disparity between the rates of increase of atmospheric moisture and precipitation, there are implied changes in the frequency of precipitation and/or efficiency of precipitation (related to how much moisture is left behind in a storm). However, an analysis of linear trends in the frequency of precipitation events for the United States corresponding to thresholds of 0.1 and 1 mm/h shows that the most notable statistically significant trends are for increases in the southern United States in winter and decreases in the Pacific Northwest from November through January, which may be related to changes in atmospheric circulation and storm tracks associated with El Niño–Southern Oscillation trends. It is suggested that as the physical constraints on precipitation apply only globally, more attention should be paid to rates in both observations and models as well as the frequency of occurrence.

Atmospheric Moisture Residence Times and Cycling: Implications for Rainfall Rates and Climate Change

If all the water vapor in the atmosphere were to disappear, in eight days we would be right back where we are now. 3/4 of the Earth's surface is covered with water, and the atmosphere would immediately absorb water in relationship to the temperature of the air. And then the winds would distribute that moist atmosphere back over the Earth.

 

[Old Rocks]

CO2 emissions change our atmosphere for centuries

In the carbon cycle diagram above, there are two sets of numbers. The black numbers are the size, in gigatonnes of carbon (GtC), of the box. The purple numbers are the fluxes (or rate of flow) to and from a box in gigatonnes of carbon per year (Gt/y).

A little quick counting shows that about 200 Gt C leaves and enters the atmosphere each year. As a first approximation then, given the reservoir size of 750 Gt, we can work out that the residence time of a given molecule of CO2 is 750 Gt C / 200 Gt C y-1 = about 3-4 years. (However, careful counting up of the sources (supply) and sinks (removal) shows that there is a net imbalance; carbon in the atmosphere is increasing by about 3.3 Gt per year).

It is true that an individual molecule of CO2 has a short residence time in the atmosphere. However, in most cases when a molecule of CO2 leaves the atmosphere it is simply swapping places with one in the ocean. Thus, the warming potential of CO2 has very little to do with the residence time of CO2.

What really governs the warming potential is how long the extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere. CO2 is essentially chemically inert in the atmosphere and is only removed by biological uptake and by dissolving into the ocean. Biological uptake (with the exception of fossil fuel formation) is carbon neutral: Every tree that grows will eventually die and decompose, thereby releasing CO2. (Yes, there are maybe some gains to be made from reforestation but they are probably minor compared to fossil fuel releases).

Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is “getting full” and the bottleneck is thus the transfer of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean. This transfer largely occurs by the slow ocean basin circulation and turn over (*3). This turnover takes 500-1000ish years. Therefore a time scale for CO2 warming potential out as far as 500 years is entirely reasonable (See IPCC 4th Assessment Report Section 2.10).

CO2 emissions change our atmosphere for centuries

Water has a residence time of hundreds of years, water vapor of less than ten days. Water vapor is a feedback to CO2 and CH4. Warm the atmosphere with those GHGs and you get more water vapor. Cool the atmosphere by reducing those GHGs, and you get less water vapor in the atmosphere.