• Home
  • Current News
  • Professor Singer Finds CO2 Has Little Affect on Global Temperature V2

Professor Singer Finds CO2 Has Little Affect on Global Temperature V2

Written by Dr Pierre R Latour

I write to concur with conclusions in Dr S Fred Singer’s recent essay: “The Climate Sensitivity Controversy”, by S. Fred Singer, American Thinker, October 15, 2014. And to solve the puzzles he posed. Singer and Latour

In particular he concludes “climate sensitivity, CS, is close to zero”. This means any effect of CO2 on Earth’s temperature and climate is vanishingly small, hence unimportant. Singer leaves his warmist camp and joins the denier camp of skeptics.

I met Singer at his University of Houston lecture hosted by Prof Larry Bell on February 6, 2012 and his several talks at the latest Heartland Institute ICCC, Las Vegas, July 7-9, 2014. He has played an important role in disputing alarmist global warming claims for decades. He has received many awards.

Singer reveals he assumes CO2 warms Earth because it is called a greenhouse gas, which does not make it so. It is also green plant food, which does chemically make it a coolant.  Great confusion arises when a radiating gas, which cools the atmosphere, is incorrectly labeled a greenhouse gas and then warming is arbitrarily assigned to it, by virtue of the nomenclature change.

I discovered in 2012 introducing radiating gases like H2O and CO2 to the atmosphere actually cools the Earth slightly and had useful direct email exchanges with Singer on the matter. Naturally I am pleased he has reached a similar conclusion, perhaps by another way.

The proper way to calculate CS is from the laws of physics, chemistry, biology and chemical engineering with correct physical properties. Relying on empiricism and data regression for large complex engineering systems is well known to be incorrect and flawed. They never represent the nonlinear world outside their domain of fit; cannot extrapolate, only interpolate. Same for stock market charting. The whole data fitting exercise to support GHGT (greenhouse gas theories) is worthless from its inception. (Except it conveniently proved CO2 lags temperature by 800 years from Al Gore’s 420,000 year trend, proving CO2 could not cause these temperature changes; the sun did it.)

My way is physics, the Stefan-Boltzmann Law of radiation intensity from all matter proportional to its temperature and emissivity. This Law works for entire planets, even when there are clouds, thermal feedbacks and hurricanes.

I parted company with Singer with his current “Of course, the proper way to determine Climate Sensitivity (CS) is empirically — by using the climate data.” two years ago. That is wrong. He expresses misgivings himself.

GHGT promoters are wedded to the idea of correlating temperature and CO2 data, which alone can only prove correlation, never causation. A corollary error is to account for other known causes driving temperature, like solar, and ascribe all response discrepancy actually due to unknown causes, to CO2. Another error is to statistically fit data to empirical equations and attempt to extrapolate outside the validity domain of the data. Interpolation is allowed, extrapolation of nonlinear natural world outside the domain is not. A fourth error is to deviate from the scientific method practice which uses experimental data to falsify proposed theories that don’t predict nature’s behavior well, rather than claim validity of when predictions are confirmed by luck. A fifth error is to keep data analysis methods used to support validity of hunches confidential, particularly when publically financed. (Newton’s Principia Mathematica made him famous by full disclosure.) Worst of all is filing defamation lawsuits against skeptics questioning secret GHGT methods, assumptions and scientific basis. Even smearing them and attacking their character is unacceptable. Five strikes and you are way out. These principles are well known to control systems engineers, but not UN IPCC GHGT promoters that lack credentials.

Singer correctly notes there are several different temperatures involved; a source of confusion I discovered years ago. The GHGT literature is intellectually incoherent, a mess. He is correct to point out atmospheric global warming ceased since 1997 until now, 2014. The globe warms about half the time, 4.6 billion/2 = 2.3 billion years. It cools half the time also.

He has been wandering around in the swamp of atmospheric feedbacks, positive or negative, proclaiming it is all too complicated and controversial. Like esteemed MIT Professor Richard Lindzen and other meteorologists, he is trapped in his feedback swamp and can’t get out.

Feedbacks are the province of control systems engineering. (I know what feedback control is and how to build it. In 1997 I proved any thermostat for Earth adjusting fossil fuel combustion is unmeasurable, unobservable and uncontrollable; it will never work. Even Lord Monckton is beginning to consider control systems engineering; I encountered him personally in Las Vegas.)

Singer calls for more research, while promoters at UN IPCC and global climate change organizations are already wasting $1 billion/day in hopeless controversy and useless assessment reports.

Inventing a new mechanism of radiant heat transfer, back-radiation, from cold atmospheric CO2 molecules back down to Earth’s surface, with intensity 333 w/m2 (compared to solar intensity reaching surface which averages 161 w/m2 of surface) warming it further, causing it to radiate up even more intensely at 396 w/m2, violates FLoT and SLoT, constituting a perpetual motion machine creating energy to drive global warming, an impossibility of nature. Heat does not flow from cold matter to hot matter, heating hot further; only from hot to cold. This is engineering fraud of the first order. GHGT has been falsified by eminent physicists.

Singer closes with two puzzles, both of which I have solved.

If non-radiating O2 is exchanged for absorbing/emitting CO2, emissivity, e, of planet to space must increase.

I = σ e (T/100)4

If e increases with CO2 at constant I, T goes down. Therefore CO2 causes global cooling.

I = intensity of any radiating body, w/m2, of its spherical surface, measured by Earth satellite spectrophotometers to be about 239.

T = temperature of radiating body, K

σ = Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law constant, 5.67

e = emissivity of radiating body, fraction 0 < e < 1. Perfect radiator black body e = 1, radiates a given intensity at lowest possible temperature. Colorful Earth radiator e = 0.612 emits given intensity at temperature higher than black body.

I = (1 – albedo)S/4, conservation of energy, in = out, neglecting photosynthesis, volcanoes.

S = solar radiation intensity, 1365 to 1370 w/m2 incident disk or 1365/4 to 1370/4 w/m2 of incident sphere.

Albedo = reflectivity, fraction, mostly by clouds, estimate 0.7.

Substituting: I = (1 – alb) S/4 = σ e (T/100)4

Dividing by σ e: (T/100)4 = (1 – alb) S/4 σ e = I/σ e

If S increases, T increases. If alb or e increase, T decreases.

If Earth were a perfect black body emitter,

(1 – 0.3) 1366/4*5.67*1.000 = 42.16 = 2.5484 or T = 254.8K = -18.33C

Actually GHGT promoters say it is a colorful 0.612 emitter,

(1 – 0.3) 1366/4*5.67*0.612 = 68.890 = 2.8814 or T = 288.1K = 14.95C

The difference 14.95 – (-18.33) = +33.3C is the difference between colorful Earth’s radiating temperature and its theoretical black body equivalent when radiating at same intensity, 239.

J Hanson, Al Gore and EPA mistakenly declared this 33C to be the greenhouse gas effect.

Double radiating atmospheric CO2 concentration and emissivity to space increases a small amount, say 0.001 to 0.613.

(1 – 0.3) 1366/4*5.67*0.613 = 68.777 = 2.8804 or T = 288.0K = 14.83C.

So global sensitivity is 14.83 – 14.95 = -0.12C, global cooling. Controversy resolved by elementary algebra; no need for $1 billion/day research to prove the impossible, global warming. If you disagree with Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law of physics, used successfully since 1884, take it up with them, not me.

Latest estimate of emissivities fits observation of radiation intensity to space from globe and surface.

Three S-B equations, plus energy conservation equation, Is + Ia = Ig, plus emissivity combo assumption eg = (es*Is + ea*Ia)/(Is + Ia) is five equations with 9 unknowns. Specify four unknowns from measurement; Ts, Ta, Ig, Is, and solve for remaining five unknowns: Ia, es, ea, eg, Tg.

To estimate CS, must estimate the effect of doubling [CO2] on ea and Is. Then resolve for Ia, eg, Ts, Ta, Tg.

For example, assume [CO2} from 400 to 800 ppm, ea from 0.82811 to 0.82911 and Is from 40 to 39.9. Result is:

CO2 400 ppm             Intensity       Emissivity      S-B Temperature

Surface                              40              0.10233              15.000

Atmosphere                   199              0.82811             -18.000

Globe                               239             0.70664                 4.760

CO2 800 ppm

Surface                             39.9           0.10233              14.820

Atmosphere                   199.1          0.82911             -18.045

Globe                               239             0.70778                4.648

Change

Surface                              -0.1              -0-                     -0.180

Atmosphere                       0.1           0.001                  -0.045

Globe                                -0-              0.0012                -0.112

CO2 increases emissivities, 0.828 and 0.707, slightly. Surface intensity, 40, drops as atmosphere absorptivity increases and atmosphere intensity, 199, increases by that amount. Total intensity, 239, is fixed by energy balance. So radiating temperature of surface 15.0C drops, global 4.6C drops and atmosphere -18.0C drops.  My assumptions give CS = -0.112C.

The difficult part to quantify this is to estimate the effect of CO2 on atmospheric emissivity and absorptivity. In any case the effect is cooling, CS < 0. This is one of the ways radiating gases like CO2 affects global cooling. Global warming by CO2 induced radiant energy transfer does not exist, even if you call it a greenhouse gas.

Since heat capacity, Cp, of CO2 is greater than the heat capacity of the O2 it displaced by the oxidation reaction, increasing CO2 increases heat capacity of the atmosphere. This rotates the temperature vs altitude profile counterclockwise about its centroid, at about 5 km and -18C, since its slope for any planet is –g/Cp, easily derived from conservation of energy, SLoT, as kinetic energy is converted to potential energy with altitude, cooling. While bulk average global atmospheric temperature is unaffected, lower altitude air warms and upper altitude cools. Surface would warm accordingly.

There are several mechanisms for CO2 to affect temperatures; I have identified two warming and four cooling. My best guess net is -0.5C < CS < 0.3C. No wonder data regression can’t find it.

The dear fellow Singer is on the right track to suspect “CS is indeed close to zero”. I salute his candor, bravery and scientific correctness. He just didn’t know why. Now he should. Skepticism is a valid intellectual position of philosophy.

If Dr S Fred Singer can just convince his colleague Dr Roy W Spencer that CS = 0 and get Spencer to disclose how he determines Earth’s emissivity vs CO2 in order to estimate its temperature from his satellite spectrometer measurements of intensity, we would learn together what Earth’s global temperature is and strengthen scientific consensus that anthropogenic CO2 is innocent. It is green plant food after all. Which is very cool.

Acknowledgment

This is an edited version of earlier “Singer Closing in on Fact: CO2 Doesn’t Affect Global Temperature”, Pierre R Latour, October 26, 2014, http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/fred-singer-closing-in-on-fact-co2-doesnt-affect-global-temperature.html.

Under fear and duress of threat of lawsuit by Lord Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchly on April 16, 2015, author Latour succumbed to Monckton’s unreasonable demand and requested PSI to remove it the same day. This version has been edited and approved by Monckton to satisfy his demands, recognizing him as the self-appointed censor of skeptics of the GHGT.

He was kind enough to provide his version of GHGT1. While the approach is different, he concludes the upper bound on CS < 0.8C, which does not conflict with my work. I believe my climate model is simpler and more rigorous than his, with no adjustable fudge factors or assumptions.

  1. Christopher Monckton, Willie W H Soon, David R Legates, William M Briggs, “Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model”, Science Bulletin (Jan 2015) v60 n1:pp 122-135, Science China Press. http://wmbriggs.com/public/Monckton.et.al.pdf

Tags: , , , , ,

Comments (20)

  • Avatar

    Stephan

    |

    Did nobody see the logical error in this article by Dr. Latour? He states that if the emissivity is higher, the temperature of the absorbing body should be cooler. Let’s say you have an emissivity of 0.6, then 0.4 of the light is reflected. If you raise the emissivity from 0.6 to 0.61, then the reflected light is now 0.39. The correct way is to first multiply the incident solar energy flux (I use 341.25 W/m^2) by 0.6 (or 0.61) which gives the [b]absorbed[/b] energy. When you then calculate the temperature of the radiator with that same emissivity, you get divide by the same emissivity value and you get a temperature which is independent of emissivity, it cancels out! Indeed, in thermal equilibrium, the body also radiates the same amount of energy off which it receives, and as it should be, due to laws of thermodynamics, there is no difference in temperature. One could envision the inside of a large sphere that is a perfect blackbody emitter (but not necessarily). We then place another, smaller sphere in its center. Independent of the emissivity of the inner body, it will reach the same temperature as the outer body. It reaches its equilibrium only faster, the higher its emissivity is! Otherwise, you could run a heat engine between these two bodies, and that violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Two bodies are in thermodynamic equilibrium if they have the same temperature!

  • Avatar

    Mervyn

    |

    We are talking about the heat in the atmosphere, that some people call the ‘greenhouse heat effect’ (GHE).

    If it is accepted that 95% of the GHE is attributed to water vapour, and the remaining 5% to ‘greenhouse trace gases’ of which CO2 represents 72% in effect, then 3.6% (5% x 72%) of the GHE is attributed to atmospheric CO2. And seeing that the IPCC AR4 deemed only 3% of CO2 entering the atmospheres, annually, relates to human activity, it can be comfortably assumed that only 0.11% (3.6% x 3%) of the GHE can be attributed to CO2 from human activity.

    This human contribution to atmospheric heat is therefore statistically insignificant and scientifically irrelevant.

    So, it is of no surprise that what Dr Singer says about climate sensitivity is true.

  • Avatar

    Martin Hertzberg

    |

    Inversion conditions are discussed in the paper. Give me your e-mail address and I will send you a copy of the paper.
    My e-mail is ruthhertzberg@msn.com.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      You see, Martin, we are already having a public debate on your paper and it does not look well judging from the abstract. If you want to convince the readers of this site, not just me, it is up to you to remove the pay wall, because I doubt if any of them will buy it. Besides, I do not want to be privileged this way.

      You can still comment on what I said in my previous comment if you wish, I expect much fun and am all ears.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      Right, now I understand what you mean by “no net radiation from the atmosphere that reaches the Earth’s surface to be absorbed by it”. But what about [i]”Inversion conditions are thus the only ones in which the so-called “greenhouse effect” can possibly have any form of physical reality”[/i]? Why do you call a “hot warms cold” situation “greenhouse effect”? This is not what they call “greenhouse effect”. Why give it some legitimacy? Besides, to know that there is no “greenhouse effect” you do not need to study “The Night Time Radiative Transport Between the Earth’s Surface, Its Atmosphere, and Free Space”, you just need to understand that it is self-heating by own heat, which is physically impossible. You know the story, right? Just in case you do not, here we go: [i]”The Sun is able to heat the earth up to -18°C only, the inner heat is negligible, but the earth is +15°C warm, this is the “greenhouse effect””[/i]. Sounds familiar? But OK, I hope you had fun with your paper.

  • Avatar

    Martin Hertzberg

    |

    `Of course they are non linear. The paper uses the proper T to the fourth power dependence. It also discusses wavelength regimes that may involve different T dependences.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      “Estimates are made for the exchange of radiative fluxes between the Earth’s surface, its atmosphere, and free space [b]on the basis[/b] of their [b]average [/b]thermal structure”… Still not gonna pay $35.

      Or let me guess: you have some punctually measured temperatures “climate science” stile and derive “average thermal structure” from that? Not any better. You are not getting my $35.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      Or look at this one from your abstract: [i]”Under the normal atmospheric temperature structure there is no net radiation from the atmosphere that reaches the Earth’s surface to be absorbed by it”[/i]. Really? First of all it does not make sense to talk about absorption of “net radiation”. It sounds nonsensical to me. Radiation can be absorbed or not, but “net radiation”???

      There is another thing. Imagine you have continuously about +10°C maximum day temperature and then bang, +25°C at night! “WTF?” would you ask probably. Simple: the warmer air from the South has come to your colder neighborhood. So what you have now is still cold surface and warm air above. Why on earth should this warmer air not radiate to the colder surface? Maybe you could explain that. But free of charge only, no $35 from me. I do not bill you for my useful comments, right?

  • Avatar

    Martin Hertzberg

    |

    For a complete analysis go to:

    Martin Hertzberg “The Night Time Radiative Transport between the Earth’s Surface, Its Atmosphere and Free Space”
    Energy and Environment, Vol 23 No. 5.
    2012,pp 819 – 835.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      $35? Thanks a lot. Since you can read my analysis free of charge, I suggest you remove the pay-wall.

      P.S. Wait a moment, do not bother, I’ve found that already: [i]”Abstract Estimates are made for the exchange of radiative fluxes between the Earth’s surface, its atmosphere, and free space on the basis of their average thermal structure and estimated values for the emissivity and absorptivity of those individual entities.”[/i] Deriving radiative fluxes from average thermal structure seems unscientific to me, since the dependency is not linear.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    Pierre, I have just found the CO2 total emissivity value: 0.0017. Considering the alleged 0.7 for the solid earth, how exactly in your understanding would such a low emissivity thing put between the solid earth and space INCREASE the emissivity of the planet? Physical mechanism, please.

  • Avatar

    Just Thinking

    |

    One of the lukewarmists is now pushing for huge government studies and projects to stop the next ice age.

    Maybe the quiet sun will bring on the blizzards, maybe it won’t, but I don’t trust anyone glibly dismissive of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to study it. More billions down the rat hole.

    Neither am i sanguine about crazy schemes to spread huge blankets of black ash over snowfields to melt them, but how can we take back the power they’ve taken to do these things?

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    Pierre:
    “I discovered in 2012 introducing radiating gases like H2O and CO2 to the atmosphere . . . “

    I think I’ve tried about five times now to get the following point across, to no avail. So now I’m going to employ the Garrett Morris method ( https://goo.gl/aSW4Dl ):

    THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A NONRADIATING GAS!!! ALL GASES CONVERT KINETIC ENERGY (HEAT) TO SOME WAVELENGTH OF RADIATION AND ALL GASES HAVE THE ABILITY TO ABSORB THE SAME WAVELENGTH OF RADIATION AND CONVERT IT TO KINETIC ENERGY. ALL GASES BOTH WARM AND COOL THE ATMOSPHERE.

    • Avatar

      Joseph A Olson

      |

      ST

      You are thick as a brick…heat flow is a HOT > COLD vector, and NO cooler body WARMS a warmer body. Any mass between a heat source and a heat sink will slow the thermal transfer, but by definition, DELAYED COOLING IS NOT WARMING.

      I too met Fred Singer in Houston, Feb 2012 and that the Heartland ICCC-9, Luke LITTLE Warmist echo chamber in Vegas. My report on this event….

      “Mommie, Can We Play Obombie Origami”

      Then i finally met the elusive Judy Curry at Heritage/TPPF conference in Houston, Sept 2014 and wrote this….

      “Lukewarm Lemmings and the Lysenko Larceny”

      Both articles are at FauxScienceSlayer.com website. Thanks for thinking.

      • Avatar

        solvingtornadoes

        |

        [quote name=”Joseph A Olson”]ST
        You are thick as a brick…heat flow is a HOT > COLD vector, and NO cooler body WARMS a warmer body.[/quote]
        You simpletons only have one message. And everybody has heard it. Like Doug Cotton you act as though you discovered the second law of thermodynamics yesterday. And since that is your only insight you just keep repeating it.
        [quote name=”Joseph A Olson”]
        Any mass between a heat source and a heat sink will slow the thermal transfer, but by definition, DELAYED COOLING IS NOT WARMING.[/quote]
        Why are you telling *me* this? I’m the one that explained it to you. (Or, to be more precise, I’m the one that explained that you slayers were talking past your audience because you failed to delineate the difference between flow and net flow.
        [quote name=”Joseph A Olson”]
        I too met Fred Singer in Houston, Feb 2012 and that the Heartland ICCC-9, Luke LITTLE Warmist echo chamber in Vegas. My report on this event….

        “Mommie, Can We Play Obombie Origami”

        Then i finally met the elusive Judy Curry at Heritage/TPPF conference in Houston, Sept 2014 and wrote this….

        “Lukewarm Lemmings and the Lysenko Larceny”

        Both articles are at FauxScienceSlayer.com website. Thanks for thinking.[/quote]
        LOL. Yeah, so? Did you even read my post before you responded? What’s relevance?

        You slayers are so pretentious. You have nothing new to add to the discussion. You couldn’t make a scientific discovery if your lives depended on it. As a group you slayers constantly introduce conceptual errors into the discussion, and you think because you can measure something and because it seems simple that, therefore, reality is simple.

        Reality isn’t simple. You might as well get used to it, it’ isn’t going to change.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [i]”I discovered in 2012 introducing radiating gases like H2O and CO2 to the atmosphere actually cools the Earth slightly […] If non-radiating O2 is exchanged for absorbing/emitting CO2, emissivity, e, of planet to space must increase.”[/i]

    Well, I am thinking, if the solid earth radiates to space through non-radiating O2 or first to an extent to CO2 and then by CO2 further to space, where is here an increase in emissivity? You should take into consideration that it is like putting one radiating thing over another radiating thing. Do not see how your conclusion can be right just like that.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [i]”I = intensity of any radiating body, w/m2, of its spherical surface, measured by Earth satellite spectrophotometers to be about 239.”[/i]

    Come on, Pierre. It is just the result of a)nonsensical usage of the AVERAGE solar constant, b)nonsensical usage of AVERAGE albedo and c)nonsensical dividing the result of a and b by 4. Very, very nonsensical, just think about such a wrong handling of averages. And now it is COINCIDENTLY the same value that allegedly has been measured? Please, give me a break.

  • Avatar

    vvurpillat

    |

    very interesting

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [i]”The difference 14.95 – (-18.33) = +33.3C is the difference between colorful Earth’s radiating temperature and its theoretical black body equivalent when radiating at same intensity, 239.”[/i]

    This is physically impossible, Pierre, because such a warmer surface would radiate away more energy than it gets from the source of heat Sun. There can not be any difference.

Comments are closed