Understanding OLR and DLR vs Radiance Measurement by CERES and Pyrgeometer.

Outgoing Longwave Radiation OLR from the Top of the Atmosphere ToA is measured by a CERES satellite looking down on ToA equipped with a sensor as one end of a thermocouple with its other end kept at a steady temperature generating a voltage scaling with the temperature difference at its ends. 

The CERES instrument is calibrated by determining a gain factor from sensor temperature to radiance letting the instrument look at a black body of known temperature $T_B$ with assumed Planck radiation $\sigma T_B^4$ while recording the sensor temperature. With the gain factor so determined the instrument reports radiance from ToA from a reading of sensor temperature. This is the simplest form of calibration assuming linearity. Very primitive technique, where the details of the instrument do not matter. It is like measuring intensity of rainfall using your hands to collect water calibrated to a faucet. The accuracy is at best 1 W/m2 or 0.4% of the same size as estimated Earth Energy Imbalance from CO2.  

A pyrgeometer measuring Downwelling Longwave Radiation from the atmosphere to the Earth surface also uses a sensor as one end of a thermocouple with the other end kept a base temperature, and also measures a voltage scaling with temperature difference. The calibration is here different because the outgoing radiation from the sensor can no longer be included in the calibration process, but has to be supplied through a Planck formula $\epsilon\sigma T^4$ with $T$ sensor temperature and $\epsilon$ sensor emissivity. The accuracy is at best 5 W/m2 again too big to detect global warming if present.

OLR and DLR are thus measured in a similar way, but with different forms of calibration the difference being that OLR faces empty space ay 0 K, while DLR faces the Earth surface. The accuracy is not enough to decide any size of global warming, although it is claimed that trends can be detected. 

In both cases Planck's Law in the form $\sigma T^4$ is used, which in the case of DLR is incorrect because the correct form is $\sigma (T^4-T_E^4)$ with $T_E$ Earth temperature expressing negative DLR.  

Summary: Measurements of OLR and DLR are made to detect global warming. The accuracy of the instruments is not good enough to detect any warming if present. DLR measurements can be questioned since an incorrect Planck Law is used. OLR and DLR as radiance as process variable fluctuate and as such are difficult to measure.  

EEI is a cornerstone of global warming alarmism, and so measuremennt of EEI has become a prime task for instrument technology, which does not seem to have delivered. The effect of EEI on surface temperature is unknown and impossible to measure and DLR is a misconception based on an incorrect form of Planck's Law.

ChatGPT on objective of CERES: 

CERES connects to global warming because it:

• Measures the planetary energy balance directly at TOA.

• Detects changes in OLR and OSR (reflected shortwave) caused by greenhouse gases, aerosols, clouds, and ice.

• Provides the evidence that Earth is currently taking in more energy than it loses — the physical basis of global warming.

ChatGPT on objective of measuring DLR :

• Provide a direct measure of the atmosphere’s infrared emission to the surface, essential for closing the surface energy budget, quantifying the greenhouse effect, tracking climate change, and validating models.

We read that the objective of CERES is to support global warming alarmism by measuring and reporting EEI attributed to CO2. But the objective is not reached, because (i) the accuracy of the measurement is not better than 1 W/m2, which is the expected size of EEI, and (ii) attribution to CO2 to is not credible because it is swamped by changes of cloud cover. We read that the objective of measuring DLR by a pyrgeometer is to quantify greenhouse effect. Both cases amounts to "chasing after wind" using "ghost detectors". 

Temperature or Radiative Flux? Pressure or Convective Flux?

The prime evidence put forward to support global warming alarmism is a measurement of the spectrum of  Outgoing Longwave Radiation OLR from the Earth into cold empty space showing that total OLR is 1% less than total incoming short wave radiation from the Sun with the message that the Earth is heating up. 

The measurement is done from satellites (AIRS and ISIS) looking down on the atmosphere using instruments in the form of spectrometers supposedly measuring radiative fluxes over a range of infrared frequencies forming the spectrum, see previous posts on OLR.  The instruments use bolometers based on thermopiles sensitive to temperature and compute radiative fluxes using complex software for radiative heat transfer such as Modtran. The instruments thus directly measure temperature and then report radiative flux after postprocessing. To confirm global warming,  better accuracy than 1% is required for total OLR and also of course for total incoming radiation. Is this possible?

To compute radiative flux from input of temperature using software for radiative heat transfer requires input of coefficients of emissivity, absorptivity and transmissivity, and so has serious issues as concerns accuracy. 

To see a basic issue, let us compare with a more familiar setting of seeking to compute the fluid flux in a pipe or around an object from reading pressure. We then recall that pressure can be read by a pitot tube:

where the left open end is inserted into the fluid and so takes on the stagnation pressure or total pressure in the fluid passing by and then is read by a nanometer to the right. We understand that measuring pressure can be done with high precision, but if we now ask about the total convective fluid flux, we will have to supply additional information about the nature of the flow. If the flow is steady, inviscid, incompressible and irrotational, then Bernouilli's  Law can be used to compute fluid velocity and so convective flux, but that is a very special case. 

We thus see that reading temperature by a thermopile or pressure by a Pitot tube can be done directly by an instrument for which the physics is transparent. 

On the other hand, to report radiative/convective flux from reading of temperature/pressure is a complicated issue requiring detailed additional information, which may not be available. 

Direct measurement of total flux by some form of capturing technique like that in an anemometer, also is subject to very big uncertainties.  

Supporting global warming on an assessment of OLR measured to less 1% precision lacks credibility. 

AIRS Atmospheric Infrared Sounder Measuring Temperature

This is a follow up to the previous post on a debate with Will Happer concerning satellite measurement of Earth atmosphere: What is directly measured at distance: temperature or radiation? My view is that temperature is directly measured and so can be reliable, while radiation is computed using some complex software for radiative heat transfer and so is unreliable. It seems that Happer is not perfectly happy with such a clear statement but does not give a clear alternative. 

Let us see take a look at the most advanced system, which is the AIRS Atmospheric Infrared Sounder monitored by NASA presented as follows:

• AIRS is the first instrument ever to produce a three dimensional map of temperature and water vapour in the atmosphere directly measured from satellites: 

We understand AIRS directly measures temperature at distance and that this can be very useful information!

We recall that there are several instruments like bolometers, pyrgeometers and infrared cameras which read temperature at distance typically using a thermopile sensor taking on source temperature at one end by radiative equilibrium at distance (like a thermometer in contact) and instrument reference temperature at the other end thereby reporting a voltage depending on temperature difference, thus reporting source temperature. 

Why is then Happer speaking about measuring radiation? It is because global warming alarmism is based on an idea that the Earth absorbs more energy from the Sun than it emits to outer space as Outgoing Longwave Radiation OLR. Evidence is then presented as measured incoming and outgoing radiation, of size around 340 W/m2, from which a difference of less 1% is obtained and reported as alarming. That requires high precision measurement outgoing radiation from direct measurement and so it must be tempting to believe that this is what AIRS offers. But it does not.  

Happer is not a climate alarmist, but he seems to be stuck with the alarmist dream of measuring OLR to a very high precision. Strange.

PS We may compare reading temperature vs radiation with determining a persons bank net vs determining the power of the person. The bank net can be directly read which is not possible for power. 

Similarly, all lake side properties around the lake share the level of the lake, while their value is more difficult to decide.  

Spooky Action at Distance in Global Warming

This is a follow up of a discussion with prof Will Happer on Outgoing Longwave Radiation OLR from the Earth into outer space, which determines global warming or cooling, as concerns measurement of temperature and radiation by AIRS spectrometers in satellites looking down on the atmosphere with output (clear sky): 

We see a graph of radiative flux as function of frequency on a background of corresponding blackbody spectra at varying temperatures from 225 K at the top of the troposphere, over 255 K in the middle and 288 at the Earth surface. We see major radiation from H20 for lower frequencies at temperatures around 255 K,  from CO2 at 225 K and from the Earth surface at 288 K through the atmospheric window.

This graph is presented as the essential scientific basis of climate alarmism with the ditch in the spectrum giving CO2 a substantial role even if H20 and the window has major role. But the change in the ditch by doubling CO2 from preindustrial level is much smaller of size 1% of total incoming radiation from the Sun. 

In any case the measured spectrum of OLR by AIRS serves as key evidence of global warming by human CO2 emissions, but it requires an accuracy of less than 1%. 

Is this the case? We recall the spectrometer of AIRS is based on the bolometer which is an instrument measuring temperature in some frequency band at distance, from which radiation is computed using Modtran as software to solve Schwarzschild's equations of radiative transfer line by line. This is a complex computation involving coefficients of emissivity and absorptivity which are not precisely known. There are many posts on this topic under Schwarzschild and OLR and bolometer. Results are reported as radiative forcing from increasing CO2, typical of size 1% of total incoming. 

Thus temperature is directly measured while radiation is the result of a complex computation for which an accuracy of less than 1% is required. You have to be a believer in global warming to believe that this accuracy is met. In other words, the evidence of global warming supposedly being presented by the OLR spectrum is not convincing if you have the slightest inclination towards skepticism.

Back to Happer, who claims that it does not not matter what is directly measured, since there is a connection between temperature and radiation, and so one may as well view that AIRS measures radiation. Our discussion came to halt at this point. 

But to me it is clear that a bolometer (or pyrgeometer) is an instrument which directly measures temperature and if the instrument reports radiation, it is the result of a computation of unknown accuracy, which more precisely can be grossly misleading. In other words, reported temperature is reliable while reported radiation is not. 

The key observation is that CO2 radiation is measured to have temperature 225 K which means that it comes from the top of the atmosphere as the highest level where presence of CO2 is detected by the AIRS bolometer, with higher levels being transparent. 

The radiative forcing of 1% is thus based on a computation for which the accuracy is not known to be less than 1%. Your conclusion? 

The key question is then what can measured at distance, temperature or radiation? There are several instruments that can directly measure temperature at distance, such as infrared cameras, bolometers and pyrogeometers, all based on radiative equilibrium at distance rationalised as Computational Blackbody Radiation. This is an analog to measuring temperature by a thermometer in contact.  

But there are no instruments directly measuring radiation by some kind of photon capturing technique. Believing that this is possible represents belief in a some form of spooky action at distance. And you? And Happer?

PS In a letter to Max Born in 1947 Einstein said of the statistical approach to quantum mechanics, which he attributed to Born: I cannot seriously believe in it because the theory cannot be reconciled with the idea that physics should represent a reality in time and space, free from spooky action at a distance. This is  a different setting than that considered here: Reading temperature at distance is not spooky. Reading radiation is spooky action at distance.

The Fabrication of CO2 Alarmism Decoded 4

The scientific evidence behind CO2 alarmism consists of OLR spectra produced by a combination of modeling and measurement (Modtran/Hitran/IRIS) predicting a radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m2 by doubling the concentration of atmospheric CO2 from a preindustrial level of 300 ppm to 600 ppm (with 390 ppm the present level) with an estimated warming effect of 1 C. 

The OLR spectra are computed by radiative transfer models based on models of spectral emissivity of atmospheric CO2 determined by line spectra combined with line broadening models, which determine a  warming effect of 3.7 W/m2 from doubled CO2 resulting from an increase of the effective altitude of emission on the "shoulders" of the line spectrum of CO2 around the main resonance at wave number 667 forming a ditch in the spectrum between 550 and 800 with a total area representing a warming of about 20 W/m2, about one tenth of a total of about 200 W/m2 as shown in a previous post.

This effect can be studied more closely by the online Gas-Cell Simulator by Spectral Calc, which gives the following absorptivity for an atmosphere at 0.5 bar with 300 and 600 ppm of CO2 at a path length of 2000 m: 

The Gas-Cell Simulator shows an absorptivity increasing with p x L, where p is the partial pressure of CO2 and L the path length, with a switch to absorptivity greater than 0.5 (defining an effective emission altitude) occurring between 300 and 600 ppm CO2 at a path length of 2000 m (with full saturation between wave numbers 640 and 700).

The effective altitude of OLR emission for wave numbers 580 - 620 on the left shoulder may thus be estimated to increase by 2000 m upon doubling of CO2 until the tropopause is reached, which could mean a temperature drop of 13 C. With a shoulder width of 80 out of a total width of 250 the CO2 ditch between 550 and 800 and 13 C about one fifth of the total temperature drop in the ditch of about 65 C, this gives a warming effect of about 0.3 x 0.2 x 20 = 1.2 W/m2 for one shoulder.

We thus arrive at a warming effect of about 2 - 3 W/m2  from an increase of CO2 from 300 to 600 ppm, which gives an insight into the background of the crucial 3.7 W/m2 as the starting point of climate alarmism. 

We see that the effect comes from a simple model of line broadening of the weak spectral real lines on the shoulders of the CO2 spectrum around the main resonance at 667. The model is simplistic and the effect is so small that it cannot be measured, and so from scientific point of view it can only be viewed as a speculation which could as well be half or twice as big, thus without much substance. 

Yet this is the main scientific evidence put forward in support of CO2 alarmism. Note that the fact that the number 3.7 W/m2 cannot be trusted as scientific evidence, does not itself give reason to restrictions on CO2 emissions putting more burdens on humanity. Lack of evidence is not a reason to put someone in jail. What would be needed is positive scientific evidence that CO2 can cause global warming with observable negative effects, but that is missing.

PS  When climate skeptics state that for sure they understand very well that there is a CO2 greenhouse effect, as any knowledgable scientist must do,  they refer to the radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m2 with 1 C warming from doubled concentration, but then forget that this effect has very weak scientific support. They seem to get caught in an argument stating that even if the effect is too small to ever be detected, the effect is undeniably real as an expression of the line spectrum of CO2.

But this means violating the essential principle of science to not give a negligible effect a major role, which is required in order to be able to make meaningful predictions as the goal of science.         

The Fabrication of CO2 Alarmism Decoded 3

We are now ready to take the final step in the evaluation of the main scientific evidence underlying  CO2 alarmism, which consists of outgoing long wave radiation OLR spectra produced by a combination of mathematical software (Modtran)  and measurement of the line spectrum of atmospheric CO2 (IRIS interferometer).

The warming effect or "radiative forcing" of CO2 is seen as the area of the ditch in the OLR spectrum in the wave number band 550 - 800 containing the line spectrum of CO2 around the main resonance 667, which by Modtran is predicted to increase by 3.7 W/m2 upon doubling of the concentration of CO2 to 600 ppm from preindustrial level of 300 ppm, which is commonly translated to a global warming of 1 C.  Starting from the present level of 395 ppm Modtran predicts a global warming of 0.5 C from radiative forcing of 2 W/m2.

Global warming of 0.5 C is too small to be observed and thus cannot give rise to alarm. In any case CO2 alarmism starts from 1 C warming from doubled CO2, which is then inflated to 3 C by postulated feedback effects for which scientific evidence is missing.

The scientific evidence of the warming effect of CO2 thus boils down to the Modtran prediction of 3.7 W/m2 upon doubling to 600 ppm as the increase of the ditch area. Inspection of the OLR spectrum produced by Modtran shows that bottom of the ditch is connected to temperature 220 K which is the minimum temperature of the troposphere with top at 10 km and the constant temperature in the tropopause between 10 and 20 km. The increase in ditch area is thus seen to come from the shoulders of the spectrum around wave number 600 and 800 containing weak spectral lines of CO2.

This effect can be studied by the Gas-Cell Simulator by Spectral Calc with a free version online, which is similar to Modtran. Spectral Calc shows to produce atmospheric CO2 spectra with a simple dependence on the parameter p x L, where p is the partial pressure of CO2 (bar) and L is the path length (m).  The switch from transparency to opaqueness shows to occur for p x L ~ 1, which indicates that the effective emission altitude on the shoulders could increase by 1000 m upon doubling of CO2. With a lapse rate of 6 C/km and a width of the shoulders of 100, this can be estimated to a radiative forcing of the same size as the 3.7 W/m2 by Modtran.

We have now decoded the radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m2 from doubled CO2 predicted by Modtran as the result of a very simple model of line broadening of the weak spectral lines of CO2 on the shoulders of the line spectrum around the main resonance 667. The effect could as well be 2 W/m2, or 1 W/m2, in which case CO2 alarmism would have nothing to start from.

Increasing CO2 beyond 600 ppm lifts the effective emission altitude of the main resonance of CO2 at 667 into the warmer stratosphere with a cooling effect, which may dominate the warming effect from the shoulders. The same evidence in the form of Modtran predicting 1 C warming by an increase from 300 ppm to 600 ppm, thus may give cooling under further increase.  

It is mind-boggling to realize that the scientific basis of CO2 alarmism asking for a complete transformation of human civilization into a carbon-free society, consists of simple ad hoc model of broadening of a CO2 line spectrum predicting global warming of 1 C from radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m2 by doubled CO2, which could as well be instead 0.5 C, too small to be observed.

The mantra of 3.7 W/m2 will certainly be repeated in the upcoming IPCC 5th report as the foundation of the house of cards of CO2 alarmism.  The time of reckoning is here as soon as leading climate skeptics (finally) realize and articulate the weakness of the 3.7 W/m2 card.

PS1 World Leading Swedish Meteorologist Lennart Bengtsson is now switching from warmist to skeptic and will have to retract his support to IPCC expressed in a statement by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which will change Swedish climate politics.

PS2 The falling house of cards is now creating head lines in the press.    

The Fabrication of CO2 Alarmism Decoded 2

Let us continue the evaluation of the basic evidence of CO2 warming in the form of OLR spectra generated by (i) the software Modtran and (ii) the IRIS spectrometer carried by the Nimbus 4 satellite:

We see that the OLR spectrum generated by (i) Modtran based on the Hitran line spectrum database (red) and (ii) from direct measurements by the IRIS spectrometer data (black), are essentially the same. This does not mean that theory and measurement give the same result, which is bingo in science, but only that both OLR spectra are computed using the same model for radiative (heat) transfer based on line spectra data from Hitran and IRIS, which happen to be similar. The close similarity thus gives a warning sign rather than confirmation of correctness.

The warming effect of CO2 is expressed by the ditch in the spectrum between wave numbers 550 and 800, with the bottom of the ditch associated with the emission temperature 220 K occurring in the tropopause. This is the minimum temperature of the atmosphere and thus gives maximal warming effect of CO2. Running Modtran with different concentration of CO2 from 50 ppm to 1000 ppm puts the bottom of the ditch at 220 K with the central resonance at 667 climbing to higher temperature reflecting emission from the stratosphere.

Modtran/IRIS translates a line spectrum to a continuous spectrum with the CO2 warming effect expressed as the area of the ditch in the spectrum between 550 - 800. The area depends on the bottom of the ditch anchored at 220 K for CO2 concentrations larger than 50 ppm, and on the width which is slightly increasing with increasing concentrations. The warming effect of doubled CO2 from 300 ppm then comes out to be 3.7 W/m2, which serves as the starting point of CO2 alarmism. This effect is not directly measured but comes from a model of line broadening in a translation of a line spectrum to a continuous spectrum.

In an upcoming post I will scrutinize the line broadening model. To prepare, note that the emission altitude and thus temperature is determined by the fact that the atmosphere above that altitude is essentially transparent to the chosen wave number. Increasing CO2 concentration will then mean increasing altitude and then cooling above the tropopause as seen for 667. The key question of OLR can thus be reduced the tractable problem of transparency at sufficient altitude without resolving the complex heat transfer within the atmosphere. This makes it possible to decode fabrication of artificial warming if present.

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.

Summary of Big Bluff of Warming Effect of CO2

CO2 alarmism fostered by IPCC is based on a proclaimed "heat trapping" or "radiation blocking" effect of CO2 as atmospheric trace gas causing a "radiative forcing" of 3.7 W/m2 upon doubling of preindustrial concentration into 600 pm from todays 390 ppm.

The evidence of substantial  "radiative forcing" of CO2 presented by IPCC consists of spectra of outgoing longwave radiation OLR and downwelling longwave radiation DLR produced by instruments specially designed to measure DLR and OLR.

In a recent sequence of posts on DLR and OLR as parts of Big Bluff, I have given evidence that

• DLR-measurement is based on a formula without physical reality.
• OLR-measurment shows non-physical strong emissivity of CO2 in the 600 - 800 band.    

The main reason of CO2 alarmism as a proclaimed warming effect of CO2 supposedly supported by measurement of DLR and OLR, thus evaporates upon inspection into fabricated evidence without real physics, only fictional invented physics.

In this fabrication governmental institutions use instruments and software designed by commercial companies according to governmental specifications, to fabricate instrumental evidence of non-existing physics, such as DLR.  The scale of this scientific fraud is unprecedented, with the DLR-Pyrgeometer Formula as a glaring example of unphysical fabricated physics.

Of course you may argue that because the fraud is unprecedented, it simply cannot be true that it is fabricated evidence, and thus it must be correct science. But this is not a scientific argument: The fact that the scale of the (possibly) fabricated evidence is beyond comparison, does not make it true.     

Modtran: High Emissivity of 1 ppm CO2!

The uchicago modtran solver produces the following outgoing long wave radiation OLR spectra for a dry atmosphere with varying concentrations of CO2: 0 ppm, 1 ppm, 400 ppm and 600 ppm:

We see an effect of reducing OLR from 379 W/m2 to 373 W/m2 by adding 1 ppm CO2 to a carbon free atmosphere: Thus a warming effect of 6 W/m2 by adding 0.0001% CO2 to a dry atmosphere!!

We see warming effect of about 2 W/m2 by increasing CO2 to 600 ppm from present 400 ppm.

We see the effect of 6 W/m2 from the ditch in the spectrum (second graph from top) centered at the main resonance of CO2 at wave number 667, developing by adding just 1 ppm of CO2!

We thus see a very big effect from a very small cause, which directly triggers sound scientific skepticism: If one grain of salt can change the world, then either 10 grains will end it, or the effect quickly saturates maybe to no effect by adding more. Since the first option is absurd, only the second is thinkable and this is the IPCC logarithmic saturation effect: 6 W/m2 from 0 to 1 ppm, and 2 W/m2  from 400 to 600 ppm.

We compare with the absorption spectrum for 1000 m of 1 ppm CO2 computed by spectralcalc showing extreme sparsity of the absorption away from the narrow interval 667-669:

We thus find good reason to question the spectra produced by Modtran which serve as the main scientific evidence of a warming effect of CO2.

Low Emissivity of Atmospheric CO2

Recent posts suggest a low emissivity of atmospheric CO2 away from its main resonance at wave number 667.  To check let us compute the transmittance of a transparent atmosphere at 225 K after adding 400 ppm CO2 over a distance of 100 m at a pressure of 200 mb using the free version of the commercial software SpectralCalc to get the following spectrum with a blowup around 667:

We see that the transmittance is zero in the narrow interval 664 - 668, where 400 ppm CO2 makes the atmosphere opaque, while outside this interval the transmittance is low only in a small portion of the spectrum. In other words, the total emissivity of 400 ppm CO2 is very small which means that CO2 has a very limited capability to "block radiation" from the Earth surface, thus contradicting typical OLR spectra with full blocking in the interval 600 - 800.

Further, changing to 600 ppm gives almost the same transmittance spectrum, signaling small radiative forcing from doubling of the preindustrial concentration of CO2:

PS Further evidence is given by Ed Caryl.

String Instrument as Model of Blackbody Radiation

A string instrument like a guitar or piano offers a conceptual model of blackbody radiation which can help to remove the mystery surrounding this phenomenon. The sound of a string instrument is generated by plucking strings in contact through bridges with a soundboard which generates sound waves in the surrounding air.  The basic mathematical model takes the form:

• wave equation for soundboard + acoustic damping force = string force,

where the acoustic damping force models the sound force output from the instrument and the string force is the force on the soundboard transmitted from a plucked string through bridges. 

The analysis presented on Computational Blackbody Radiation shows the following fundamental relation as a consequence of resonance between sound board and string: 

• output sound energy = string energy 

which is to be compared with a case of non-resonance:

• output sound energy < < string energy.

We see that a soundboard in resonance with a string transmits the full string plucking energy into output sound energy, while in the case on non-resonance only a small fraction is transmitted, see PS below for some more details.

In blackbody radiation this phenomenon comes out as high emissivity in the case of resonance and low emissivity in the case of non-resonance. 

For example, CO2 has a main resonance at wave number 667, which gives high emissivity for wave numbers close to 667 independent of concentration, but low emissivity away from 667.

CO2 alarmism is based on high emissivity of atmospheric CO2 in the whole wave number band 600 - 800, which however most likely is an incorrect assumption.

PS The analysis on Computational Blackbody Radiation exhibits a phenomenon of near-resonance under small acoustic damping with the string force being in-phase with the soundboard displacement (and thus out-of-phase with the soundboard velocity), as the key to a good instrument with string and soundboard working together to produce a good sound.   

Fabricated Evidence of GHE from CO2

The blogosphere offers many attempts to explain the CO2 greenhouse effect GHE, since it is not well explained in the scientific literature and it is the basis of CO2 alarmism. We find on Barret Bellamy Climate The GH effect of CO2 the following outgoing long wave emission OLR spectra with varying concentrations of CO2 as a trace gas (from 0 to 1000 ppm with 390 the present level) computed by Modtran:

 

Figure 2APortions of the emission spectra of the atmosphere with varying concentrations of CO₂(in ppmv as indicated in each portion). The portions of Planck curves are for comparative temperatures; from the top downwards the curves are appropriate for the temperatures 300 K, 280 K, 260 K, 240 K and 220 K. The horizontal axis gives the wavenumbers in cm^-1

 

Figure 2BPortions of the emission spectra of the atmosphere with varying concentrations of CO₂(in ppmv as indicated in each portion). The portions of Planck curves are for comparative temperatures; from the top downwards the curves are appropriate for the temperatures 300 K, 280 K, 260 K, 240 K and 220 K. The horizontal axis gives the wavenumbers in cm^-1

We see the ditch around the main resonance at 667 widening as the concentration of CO2 is increasing. We see that the effect from the present 390 to a doubling of preindustrial level to 600, is very barely noticeable as a slight widening of the ditch. Barrett Bellamy offers the further remarkable information about the total emissions:

• The spectral portions show only the emissions from water vapour and CO2when it is present. Consider the emission when CO2 is absent and assume that the global mean temperature is 280 K (7°C). The radiance to space is estimated to be 286.2 W/m2, considerably greater than the value required for radiative balance (235 W/m2). 
• Adding just 1 ppmv of CO2produces a noticeable effect and the Q branch of the spectrum is particularly obvious. The estimated radiance to space is 281.7 W/m2, a reduction of 4.5 W/m2. Such an atmosphere would be radiating less energy to space and the system as a whole would be warmer. Even 1 ppmv of CO2has a warming effect!

We read that even 1 ppm (0.0001%) of CO2 added to a carbon free atmosphere would have a warming effect or "radiative forcing" of 4.5 W/m2. Amazing! 

We read that the total effect of the present 390 ppm of CO2 is about 50 W/m2, about 20% of the total forcing from the Sun. Remarkable. (It is stated that Modtran with 390 ppm gives OLR of 258.7 W/m2 to be compared with 235 for radiative balance, suggesting that something is wrong).

Both 4.5 W/m2 for 1 ppm and 50 (or 28) W/m2 for 390 ppm signal a big effect of CO2 as a trace and thus serve as the chief scientific evidence of the existence of a GHE from CO2. Not surprising it is also claimed that doubling to 600 would give a radiative forcing of about 4 W/m2, which fits with the canon  defined by IPCC.

But is the evidence credible? Well, the numbers are computed by the commercial software Modtran marketed by Spectral Sciences Incorporated. The numbers are not supported by direct observation. The numbers are surprisingly big and against all forms of physics intuition of the possible effect of an trace gas: 4.5 W/m2 from 1 ppm simply seems impossible! 

In a sequence of posts on OLR I have questioned to ability of a small presence of CO2 to block the radiation from the Earth surface in the entire interval 600 - 800 represented by the ditch. The analysis of blackbody radiation presented on Computational Blackbody Radiation suggests that CO2 even as a trace gas can absorb and emit radiation in a narrow band around its main resonance at 667, but that the emissivity is small away from 667. The analysis thus gives mathematical support of the intuitive conviction that 1 ppm of CO2 cannot cause a radiative forcing of 4.5 W/m2. 

We are thus led to suspect that Modtran does not give a correct description of atmospheric radiation, and therefore that the main evidence of a GHE from CO2 is fabricated incorrect evidence. 

A similar attempt to justify a GHE from CO2 is given on The Science of Doom.  It is a remarkable that the most serious attempts to prove GHE are those made by amateur bloggers.

It is also remarkable that virtually nobody seems to be willing to question the evidence of GHE supplied by Modtran, as if Modtran cannot be questioned. Maybe it is like Coca Cola,which with its secret recipe cannot be questioned.

The "Hockey Stick" of the OLR Spectrum

As CO2 global warming alarmism is now losing credibility after 15 years of stationary temperatures and emerging fear of a coming ice age, it becomes possible for the first time scrutinize the core scientific evidence of the warming effect of CO2, which has been accepted by leading skeptics including Lindzen, Spencer, Singer and WUWT, namely the ditch between wave number 600 and 800 in the outgoing long wave radiation OLR spectrum produced by the IRIS and AIRS infrared spectrometers carried by satellites:

It is difficult to question evidence of this form, which bears the sign of hard physics as precise numbers produced by elaborate expensive instrumentation, because it requires knowledge of both instrument and processing of directly measured data, which both can be hidden in difficult technicalities.

Therefore the ditch in the spectrum, interpreted as a warming effect or "radiative forcing" from atmospheric CO2, has served CO2 alarmism as an "undeniable scientific fact" which cannot be questioned, with a warming effect of about 1 C upon doubling of atmospheric CO2. To refer to the spectrum has come to signify a deeper insight carried by both alarmists and skeptics, hidden to ordinary people not used to read spectra.

To question this "undeniable scientific fact" makes you into a "denier" destined to dwell on one of the lowest levels of Dante's Purgatorium.

In any case I have done so in a sequence of posts on OLR and I have come to the conclusion that the ditch in the spectrum attributed to CO2 is a misrepresentation of reality, or fabrication of fake evidence, similar to that of the "hockey stick", which started the fall of global warming alarmism.

I hope that skeptics are now read to question the OLR spectrum as the key evidence of CO2 warming with the same ardor as in the case of the hockey stick. Physicists have a special responsibility because the OLR spectrum is physics and not climate science.

But to be honest, very few seem to be interested in discussing the OLR spectrum, as if it is given once and for all by some superhuman intellect and thus beyond human understanding and scrutiny. But it is fabricated by people like you and me, and since it is the very basis of CO2 alarmism maybe some day someone will picks the thread. Since the first "hockey stick" attracted so much attention, may this new "hockey stick", if it is a "hockey stick", will deserve some as well.

Anyway, here are the key questions:

• How was the OLR spectrum produced? 
• What was directly measured by the sensors, and what was computed in post processing?
• Does the spectrum describe reality with radiation "blocked" by CO2?

These are precise scientific questions which can be answered by using basic physics and mathematics, if only there is an interest in doing so. Alarmists are not interested but skeptics should be.

Maybe Fred Singer will then find reason to reconsider his message:

• I am opposed to those who criticize the global warming scare, basing it on what I consider to be incorrect physics. CO2 is certainly a greenhouse gas and should produce some increase in atmospheric temperatures but it is so small we cannot detect it.

Singer is convinced that "CO2 certainly is a greenhouse gas", probably because he takes for granted that the OLR spectrum is correct science.  Singer is a physicist and should be able upon close inspection to tell if it is or not.  

If it is impossible to detect that "CO2 is a greenhouse gas", then it would be incorrect physics to declare that in any case "CO2 is a greenhouse gas". If ghosts cannot be detected, then it is not correct physics to nevertheless declare that "there certainly are ghosts" but they are "so small we cannot detect them". Right Fred?

PS1 WUWT reports:

• Following last night’s State of the Union Address in which the president pledged to implement a job-killing climate change agenda, U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-3) today introduced legislation to prohibit the United States from contributing taxpayer dollars to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 
• “The American people should not have to foot the bill for an international organization that is fraught with waste, engaged in dubious science, and is promoting an agenda that will destroy jobs and drive up the cost of energy in the United States,” Luetkemeyer said. “Unfortunately, the president appears to be ready to fund these groups, revive harmful policies like cap and trade, and further empower out of control federal regulators at a time when we should be doing everything possible to cut wasteful spending, reduce regulatory red tape, and promote economic growth.”

Apparently, Luetkemeyer has read the OLR spectrum and understood that the science is dubious...

PS2 Fred does not seem to be willing to answer my question about the reality of the OLR spectrum, but I think the question asks for an answer.

OLR Spectra Decoded as Fake!?

Consider the following outgoing long wave radiation OLR spectrum delivered by the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder AIRS flying on the Aqua satellite:

The graphs show the brightness temperature as function of wave number, with the brightness temperature the temperature of a blackbody with the same radiance at a given wave number as that recorded by the spectrometer (in principle bolometer) sensor, with in particular a zoom of the wave number interval 645 - 685 containing the main resonance at 667 of CO2.

We see a low brightness temperature of about 220 K and a peak at the main resonance at 667 of 250 K.  Both these brightness temperatures are lower than the temperature of 295 K in the atmospheric window between 800 and 1200, as if the sensor has recorded the presence of CO2 both at the tropopause (220 K) and in the middle of the troposphere (250 K).

We understand that a bolometer sensor measures radiance calibrated to blackbody radiance and thus cannot distinguish between low emissivity/high temperature and high emissivity/low temperature. This means that the assignment of brightness temperature is influenced by an unknown emissivity, which explains why the assigned brightness temperature is high at the main resonance 667 for which the emissivity is high, and low in the weak resonances surrounding the main resonance for which the emissivity is low. But it does not make sense that CO2 radiates from different temperatures for different frequencies, because all frequencies are assumed to have the same temperature.

The spectrum constructed is thus an artificial spectrum reflecting the sensitivity of the bolometer, which may be chosen so that resonances of CO2 are picked up before the continuous spectrum from the Earth surface, and then are assigned brightness temperatures according to radiance, as shown above. The weak resonances with low total emissivity of CO2 away from 667,  are then assigned a low brightness temperature (220 K) at full emissivity, as if all of the radiation from the Earth surface was blocked in the whole interval 600 - 800.

The OLR spectrum delivered by AIRS is thus an artificial spectrum constructed so as to hide that away from the main resonance 667, CO2 has small emissivity and thus cannot block all of the radiation from the Earth surface (even under doubled concentration from preindustrial level).

OLR spectra delivered by AIRS (and IRIS) are viewed as the key evidence of "heat trapping" or "radiation blocking" by atmospheric CO2. If these OLR spectra show to be fakes misrepresenting physics, the main scientific argument of CO2 alarmism evaporates.  So what does true science tell: fake or not fake?

PS To help discussion, recall the sparseness of the CO2 spectrum around 667 as pictured in the previous post.

Model of Atmosphere with CO2 shows Small Emissivity

Computed transmittance of atmosphere with CO2 with main resonance at wave number 667. Notice that the atmosphere is effectively transparent, except in a small interval around 667. The effect of CO2 is thus small.

Here is a another argument indicating that the effect of the atmospheric trace gas CO2 on the radiation balance of the Earth is small.

We recall the model of blackbody radiation studied on Computational Blackbody Radiation as a collection of oscillators with small damping with equal oscillator internal energy T representing temperature, with oscillator resonance frequencies n varying from 1 to a cut-off set at T and each oscillator radiating

• E_n = gamma T n^2    

where gamma is a universal constant, which is Planck's law. Summing over n from 1 to T, we obtain the total radiance

• E = sum_n gamma T n^2 = sigma T^4 

which is Stefan-Boltzmann's law with sigma = gamma/3. In the case of only one resonance frequency n = T, the radiance would be reduced to  

• e = gamma T T^2 = gamma T^3 ~ E/T

with the reduction factor 1/T. 

The radiance of an atmosphere which is fully opaque over the entire spectrum would radiate E, while an atmosphere opaque only for a specific frequency near cut-off T, would radiate e ~ E/T with a reduction factor  1/T. 

We conclude that the emissivity of transparent atmosphere with a trace gas like CO2 with only a few isolated resonances, would scale like 1/T and thus be small as soon as T is bigger than say 100 K.  

We thus find theoretical evidence from a basic model that the emissivity of the Earth's atmosphere with the trace gas CO2 would be small, and thus that CO2 would have little effect on the Earth's radiation balance.

Note that the sparseness of CO2 as a trace gas, gets expressed as a spareseness of absorption spectrum rather than small mass fraction because of the universality of blackbody radiation as being independent of the mass of the oscillators.

Story of Vanishing Evidence of CO2 Warming

In the late 20 century as the cold war was coming to an end, the fear of nuclear war was replaced by a fear of anthropogenic global warming caused by emissions of CO2 from burning of fossil fuels.

Governments united under UN gave massive support to science for producing evidence of global warming by CO2, evidence which governments could use to motivate a special tax on CO2, which would lead society into a new world without CO2-emissions, with lots of tax money to be spent by politicians.

Scientists started, with great enthusiasm stimulated by generous government grants, searching for evidence of a warming effect of CO2 in the form of a  "greenhouse effect" with CO2 named "greenhouse gas" because of its capability of absorbing and emitting infrared radiation at isolated specific frequencies, because of its unsymmetric molecular structure, as observed in an early study by the Swedish Nobel Laureate Svante Arrhenius from 1896.

But finding evidence was difficult because CO2 is an atmospheric trace gas (now 390 ppm) and it is always difficult to find evidence of a big effect from a small cause, because this can only happen in unstable systems and such systems have no permanence allowing study.

An idea which developed was that doubling of CO2 would cause a "radiative forcing" of extra 2 - 4 W/m2 to be added to the 240 W/m2 received from the Sun, which was connected to a global warming of 1 C. Of course 1 C would be barely noticeable, but that was the best that could be squeezed out of CO2 alone, but with feedback from the system under "radiative forcing" from doubled CO2, the warming could be inflated to 3 C, which would enough to motivate a tax on CO2 to save the world.

The whole story of global warming by CO2 then rested on finding evidence of "radiative forcing" of  2 - 4 W/m2 from doubled CO2 and scientists were ordered to construct instruments for recording radiation spectra, which could show this effect.

But this turned out to be virtually impossible, because 2 - 4 W/m2 was too small to be measured: It required an accuracy below 1% which was impossible to achieve in practice. The difficulty of a big effect from a small cause showed its real face.

To counter this "small cause - big effect" syndrome, new physics of "back radiation" was invented showing a warming of 300 W/m2 of the Earth surface from the colder atmosphere as a big cause, but the new physics violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics and thus belonged to fiction.

What then remained of scientific support of CO2 alarmism based on observation, was a recorded global warming 1970 - 1998 of 0.5 C, which was connected to an increase of atmospheric CO2 from 330 to 370 ppm during the same time.

But this connection disappeared during 1998 - 2013, which went by without global warming, while CO2 continued to increase to 390 ppm.

The evidence of global warming by CO2 has thus today crumbled to nil,  which presents a difficult case for the new report by IPPC under UN in charge of CO2 alarmism, to be presented in September. Without scientific support, a CO2 tax cannot be motivated and the whole BIG BLUFF project of unprecedented  dimensions, collapses.

... and All the King's Horses and all the King's Men Couldn't put Humpty together again...

This is a summary of a study I was led into starting in 2009 and I have reported on this blog.

Radiative Heat Transfer as Resonance Phenomenon

The analysis of blackbody radiation exposed on Computational Blackbody Radiation suggests that radiative heat transfer is a phenomenon of near-resonance between bodies communicating through electromagnetic waves combined with a phenomenon of high-frequency cut-off, which effectively leads to one-way heat transfer from warm o cold.

Vieving radiative heat transfer this way removes the non-physical aspects which appear when viewing radiative heat transfer as a two-way exchange of photon particles carrying heat energy back and forth from warm to cold and from cold to warm. The latter view is common in e.g. climate science with in particular downwelling long wave radiation DLR from a cold atmosphere supposedly warming the Earth surface. The non-physical aspects concern the idea of infrared photons and violation of the 2nd law in heat transfer from cold to warm.

The model analyzed on Computational Blackbody Radiation consists of a system of bodies with each body consisting of a set of oscillators subject to small radiative damping, which communicate by sharing a common force carried as an electromagnetic wave. In equilibrium the bodies share a common temperature and there is no heat transfer between the bodies.

Each body is like a radio receiver/sender communicating with the other bodies through resonance transmitted by a  force carried by electromagnetic waves, thus interacting over distance by resonance.

If one body is heated (e.g. internally), then its oscillator amplitude increases and so the corresponding balancing force and the residual force is transmitted to the other bodies which in resonance restore force balance reaching a common temperature. The result is that the heated body transfers heat energy to the surrounding colder bodies, by resonance over distance.

With this view, the functioning of an infrared thermometer can be understood as a set of oscillators which by resonance assumes the same temperature as a target at distance.

Similarly a selective infrared thermometer can be conceptualized as an oscillator with a specific resonance frequency with capability of at distance measuring at the temperature of a body with the specific resonance. It will operate like a sensitive radio sensitive receiver which can tune in on a weak sender at a specific frequency.

The Interferometric Reflectance Imaging Sensor IRIS carried by the Nimbus 4 satellite can be seen as such a selective infrared thermometer capable of measuring the temperature of the atmospheric trace gas CO2 through its main resonance at wave number 667, which produced the following spectrum supposedly demonstrating the warming effect of CO2 as the ditch around 667:

But as discussed in previous posts on emissivity, it is not all clear that the above spectrum constructed from measuring the temperature of the trace gas CO2 describes the emission spectrum of the Earth + atmosphere in the range of resonance of CO2. Most likely, it does not.

PS Here is a transmittance spectrum of CO2 from Scienceofdoom computed with spectralcalc illustrating the sparseness of the absorption away from 667. It does not seem plausible that the transmittance of a O2 - N2 atmosphere with a trace of CO2 is close to zero in the whole interval 600 - 800.

Here is a close-up of computed transmittance through 1 m atmosphere with typical CO2 concentration at 0.1 bar showing the sparseness of absorption:

Inflated Modtran Effect of Atmospheric Trace Gases

What is the effect of the atmospheric trace gas CO2 (390 ppm or 0.039%) on global climate? The answer by IPCC consensus is given in the following graph:

which shows the spectrum of the outgoing longwave radiation OLR from the Earth with atmosphere as computed by the software Modtran on the basis of certain satellite measurements.

The idea is that the ditch in the spectrum in the wave number interval 600 - 800 can be attributed to the main absorption line at 667 of CO2.  The total effect is then supposed to be the area between the Planck curves for 288 K and 220 K in the interval 600 - 800, which comes out to be about 40 W/m2. The total "radiative forcing" of atmospheric CO2 is thus supposed to be about 40 W/m2 (disregarding overlap with H2O),  which by Stefan-Boltzann's Law can be connected to a temperature rise of about 10 C.  The total effect of CO2 as the main cause of the ditch, would thus be global warming of 10 C. (With half the ditch attributed to CO2, the effect would be 5 C,  which by Lindzen is cut down to 2.5 C without disclosing the reason). PS With 20 instead of 40, and half of 20 attributed to CO2 one would get 10 W/m2 and thus Lindzen's 2.5 C.

If CO2 was complemented by other trace gases together covering the whole spectrum, the warming effect would be 288 - 220, that is a whopping 68 K, from the mere presence of trace gases.

Is this reasonable? Is it possible that trace gases, making the atmosphere opaque for certain wave numbers, can make the full atmosphere opaque over the entire spectrum?

No, it does not seem to be reasonable, as detailed in an earlier discussion, which means that the above spectrum computed by Modtran does not seem to describe reality.

Yet the Modtran spectrum is the very basis of CO2 alarmism as the core evidence that the presence of of a trace gas can cause substantial global warming.

So there is the question: Can the presence of trace gases make the atmosphere fully opaque?

CERES: No Global Warming Detected

In previous posts we have decoded the BIG BLUFF of CO2 alarmism based on fabricating evidence of a global warming effect of CO2 in large scale experimental projects such as ERBE followed by CERES designed to produce measurements of radiative fluxes. While ERBE focussed on outgoing long wave radiation OLR as one-way heat flux from the Earth + atmosphere into outer space at 3 K, which is physical heat flux, CERES has lifted the ambition to include two-way heat fluxes between different parts of the atmosphere and the Earth surface, which lack physical reality:

 

The objective of CERES is described as follows on Daily Press Febr 14 2012:

• Clouds and the Earth's Radiant System CERES is one of five earth science experiments aboard Suomi NPP, a $1.5 billion satellite NASA launched into space Oct. 28 2012 from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.
• Managed at NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, CERES measures the amount of sunlight that enters Earth and how much sunlight and thermal radiation is reflected back to space. The concept is known as Earth's energy budget.
• According to NASA, the sun annually provides the planet about 340 watts per square meter — roughly the energy radiated from six incandescent light bulbs. If the planet returned an equal amount of energy to space, temperatures would be constant, Loeb said.
• That is not occurring. Instead, roughly 0.8 watts per square meter stays on Earth.
• The energy is trapped by greenhouse gases, such as water vapor and carbon dioxide, that come from burning fossil fuels and other sources. Clouds also play a role; they reflect sunlight back into space and, depending on their height and thickness, prevent it from leaving the planet.
• The imbalance helps explain why global temperatures increased 1.4 degrees since last century and sea levels are rising, Loeb said.
• NASA uses computer models to summarize the images into daily and monthly reports that date back to 1985. That's when another Langley instrument, ERBE, or Earth Radiation Budget Experiment, began monitoring the planet.
• Four successive CERES instruments — the one launched in October is a fifth generation — followed, providing data used by, among others, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 
• The panel, which shared a Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore, wrote what many view as the definitive report on climate change.

CERES has four main objectives:

1. For climate change analysis, provide a continuation of the ERBE record of radiative fluxes at the top of the atmosphere (TOA), analyzed using the same algorithms that produced the ERBE data.
2. Double the accuracy of estimates of radiative fluxes at TOA and the Earth's surface.
3. Provide the first long-term global estimates of the radiative fluxes within the Earth's atmosphere.
4. Provide cloud property estimates that are consistent with the radiative fluxes from surface to TOA.

CERES primary measured data are obtained as output:  

• scanning thermistor bolometer sensors which measure Earth-reflected and Earth- emitted filtered radiances in the broadband shortwave (0.3 μm - 5.0 μm), broadband total-wave (0.3 μm - >100 μm), and narrow-band water vapor window (8 μm-12 μm) spectral regions. 

We see that CERES is used to record radiative heat fluxes using sophisticated technology with the ambition to discover effects of global warming by CO2 as an radiative imbalance.  To the disappointment of the designers and users of CERES including IPCC Al Gore,  the instruments show next to nothing: An imbalance of 0.8 W/m2 out of 340 W/m2 is smaller than any thinkable measurement error. 

CERES (like LHC) thus discovers nothing, and what we can now expect is a new bigger project with more sensitive instruments with doubled accuracy with the hope of finding something which is not zero as evidence of global warming by CO2. 

This will not be cheap, but when you go to an expensive restaurant you expect to be offered something special, and so the high price and sophistication of the instrumentation can be seen as a guarantee that something will be discovered.