onsdag 13 mars 2013

The Fabrication of CO2 Alarmism Decoded 1

The scientific evidence in support of CO2 global warming alarmism consists of the following outgoing long wave radiation OLR spectrum produced by a combination of mathematical modeling and measurement in the form of the software Modtran and the Nimbus 4 Iris interferometer:

The graph shows the difference in OLR between preindustrial level of 300 ppm (green curve) and doubled 600 ppm (blue curve on top of green), which is seen as a slight widening of the ditch between wave numbers 550 and 800 attributed to CO2 and which amounts to a warming effect of 3.7 (or 3.39) W/m2. This is the prime  scientific evidence of a global warming effect of doubled CO2 of 3.7 W/m2, which commonly is translated to a warming of 1 C, an evidence which has been cut in stone as an undeniable truth basooned by CO2 alarmists and not questioned by leading climate sceptics.

The OLR spectrum shows the continuous spectrum radiated from the Earth surface through the "atmospheric window" for wave numbers 800 - 1200, and the jagged line spectrum of H2O for wave numbers up to 550, and the ditch 550 - 800 attributed to CO2, which is the evidence of CO2 warming.

The spectrum in the ditch with it's flat bottom at 220 K, is constructed in a two-step procedure:
  1. Identification of a line spectrum from the presence of CO2 (Hitran, interferometer).
  2. Translation of the line spectrum to a continuous spectrum defining atmospheric irradiance (Modtran modeling).  
Step 1 can be performed as direct physical measurement (as shown in Radiation of Solid vs Gas), while Step 2 is based on a model of spectral line broadening which determines the irradiance supposedly resulting from the line spectrum. 

The scientific basis of CO2 alarmism thus rests on a mathematical model of broadening of the line spectrum of the trace gas CO2 and the mathematical model is very simple as it describes the line broadening in terms of the parameter p x L where p is the partial pressure of CO2 and L is the path length. 

Classical experiments by Hottel and Leckner  concern the case p ~ 1 bar and L ~ 1 m, while for atmospheric CO2 warming p ~ 0.0001 bar and L ~ 10000 m, to which direct extrapolation may not be possible. 

The net result is that CO2 alarmism is based on a simple mathematical model without direct experimental support and thus is ready to collapse once this fact becomes known and acknowledged, first by climate skeptics then by the general public and finally by CO2 alarmists.   

The next post will in more detail analyze the fabrication of the CO2 ditch in the OLR spectrum as the main evidence of CO2 warming put forward.

11 kommentarer:

  1. there is no extrapolation involved in the pL case.
    pL is simply proportional to the amount of air: denser air * shorter path = less dense air * longer path.

  2. This is a simple model for which experimental support is missing, because measurement of absorption effects of small concentrations of CO2 of over path lengths of kilometers is not feasible.

  3. yes, it might be a simple model. but there's no extrapolation. the term extrapolation has a precise meaning and should not be used here.

  4. Well, this may be a matter of vocabulary. Experiments over meters is possible, but not over kilometers, so some form of extrapolation is involved.

  5. no, it's not. there is a model based on some assumptions, as always. if you want to call assumptions extrapolations, you might do so. you can also call experiment theory, red blue or even invent new words.
    there is a slight risk that people want understand what you're talking about.
    but maybe that is the point.

  6. Claes, The paper "Estimate gas Emissivities for Equipment and Process Design" by Anil K Mehrotra, Kunal Karan, and Leo A Behie in Chemical Engineering Progress, Sept 1995 might interest you. They have formed a database for a number of gases including CO2 & H2O from a range of references and then formed equations, following the Hottel method, which can be put in computer programs to give emissivities. You can download the paper here http://www.ucalgary.ca/mehrotra/node/37 -first one on the list

  7. Yes, I have seen this update of Hottel. My question is if the Hottel chart is applicable to atmospheric CO2 at very small concentration and long path length, since such experiments have not been performed, as far as I understand. So what is the emissivity of a 0.2 bar atmosphere with 0.03% or 0.06% CO2?

  8. In his paper

    “Prediction of the Standard Atmosphere Profiles of Temperature, Pressure, and Density with Height for the Lower Atmosphere by Solution of the (S-S) Integral Equations of Transfer and Evaluation of the Potential for Profile Perturbation by Combustion Emissions”


    Robert H. Essenhigh uses (Table 1) the Hottel and Egbert absorption/emission factor k=1.48 atm-1m-1 for the carbon dioxide at concentration p=0.0004 atm and the range band 13-17 microns.
    That means an optical depht τ0 = 1.48x8000x0.0004=4.74 and a height where τ=1 of 8000ln(4.74)=12440 meters, i.e., within the terrestrial tropopause. The extrapolation works very well.

    Instead using the HITRAN - MODTRAN data you obtain for τ=1 the height of about 84000 meters, almost within the terrestrial mesopause (sic!).

    Then: Hottel is true, HITRAN – MODTRAN is false.


  9. In any case, Essenhigh says that doubled CO2 has negligible influence on global climate.

  10. Just because he errs in applying theHottel data, but mainly because the used theory of radiative transfer is incorrect.