A CLOSER LOOK AT CLIMATE CHANGE (PART 8)

THE IPCC's FUZZY MATH

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a group of influential scientists under the auspices of the United Nations whose main function is to peer review and approve papers written by various climate scientists from all over the world for publication. It's a selective group whose members and associated scientists have a clear mandate to toe the line, which means they must adhere to the official, "mainstream" position that the Earth is undergoing a climate crisis of Brobdingnagian magnitude - a crisis wholly caused by us dastardly, irresponsible humans. A primary function of this panel is to direct or influence policy makers around the world so they will compel their constituents - by means of rigid enforcement, if necessary - to quell their use of fossil fuels and stop "polluting" the planet. It's a disturbing example of the politicization of science to create or influence policies that can adversely affect millions.
Every few years the IPCC sponsors a summit - their last one was in December 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark - where they try to persuade heads of state and other policy makers to pass stiffer laws against carbon dioxide "polluters". Like the ones before, nothing got done except the blowing of a lot of hot air. And that's probably a very good thing.

OK, here comes the science part. I'm going to play with some of the IPCC propaganda and use their formulas and equations to try to show how they're trying to manipulate the world's governments, media, and citizens. If the technical details don't interest you, please feel free to skip over the next few paragraphs and pick back up again when I resume my commentary, where the dark-blue typeface resumes.


At the heart of the IPCC's argument in favor of human-induced global climate change is a parameter called the climate sensitivity factor l (lambda). It's a numerical value derived from computer models dealing with radiative forcing parameters associated with a hypothetical doubling of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere from its pre-industrial count of 280 ppmv. The IPCC's accepted value for l falls within a range of 0.8 - 1.2.  A l value of 0.8° yields a 3° C increase while a l value of 1.2 yields a more broadly accepted 4.5° C rise in global temperature with a doubling of CO2. One chart even shows a projected temperature increase guided by a l value as high as 1.7 (described below) - which would truly be catastrophic if it were only true. Meanwhile, those in the so-called skeptic camp suggest the true value of lambda (l) is well below 0.1, which works out to a temperature increase of less that 1/2° C if the atmospheric CO2 concentration doubled to 560 ppmv from its pre-industrial count of 280 ppmv. This number, l, is a value derived from purely arbitrary assumptions based on how hot it will get if the CO2 reaches 560 ppmv.  

Math is pure logic, and I've included the following paragraph to make a purely logical argument in favor of 1.) lowering the value of l to a substantially lower value than the currently accepted minimum l value of 0.8, and 2.) make an argument that even when using the IPCC's rather liberal numbers, there is alarmist propaganda out there that is ridiculously misleading.  

There is formula that is used to determine the hypothetical value of lambda (l) after which lambda (l) can be plugged into another formula to see how hot it's going to get with a rising CO2 complement of the earth's atmosphere. Here they are:


DT_S = l D F 

where DT_S  is the rise in global temperature, and
D F   is the increase of radiative forcing due to the increase in the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. 
                                                                      
Here's the formula for finding the radiative forcing value D F       

DF = 5.35 X ln C/C_O W m^-2

[Radiative forcing is the term used to describe a sort of back pressure caused by the trapping of outgoing infrared radiation by greenhouse gasses (GHG) much as pressure inside a balloon keeps it from deflating to a flaccid state by air pressure trapped inside it.
Just as there is a slight pressure differential inside the balloon that keeps it from going limp, the radiative forcing of a GHG translates to an equal amount of extra radiation from the sun reaching the earth if the radiative back pressure were discounted.]

The efficacy of the DF formula (above) is not currently being disputed for calculating forcings for CO2 concentrations by most scientists on either side of the AGW divide, although one paper (Myrhe, et. al. 1998) asserts the relationship breaks down below 915 ppmv because it's a logarithmic function. What is being debated is the value of lambda, the climate sensitivity parameter, which is purely hypothetical.


OK, let's have some fun. Here's an alarmist chart that spells doom for the planet:

OOPS! DAMN!  This blog server is rejecting all of my attempts to post images!  I can't even upload an image of my dog!? I wonder if the global-warming storm police are trying to shut down my ability (or right) to clearly communicate my reality-based views? Probably not - maybe it's just a server glitch. But.... one never knows, does one?
So I'll make my point without the chart - you'll just have to take my word that I'm not making this stuff up. If I am able to upload charts and photos in the future, I'll replace this paragraph with the visual aids I prefer to use to get my point across.

NOTE: HERE ARE LINKS TO THE CHARTS I WAS UNABLE TO UPLOAD: 

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/natural-vs-agw_warming.png
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_vs_measured_co2.png

I have a column chart here that resembles a steep bluff arising from a flood plain. The "bluff" arising steeply towards the upper right of the chart is an alarmist perspective of what the global temperatures will do if CO2 levels keep increasing - all the way up to 560 ppm, which is twice the pre-industrial level. Superimposed on this chart is the predicted increase in temperatures based on the much more conservative model of Richard Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi (2009). These superimposed values represent the continuation of the gradual upslope and virtual leveling off of the flood plain.


According to the data based on Lindzen-Choi model, the global temperature will warm up by 0.2° C in the event the atmospheric CO2 doubles from where it was in the 1700s, which was around 280 ppm. Plugging that 0.2° C increase into the formula, we get a value for the climate sensitivity parameter, lambda (l), a value of 0.08. This is 1/10th of the most conservative "official" values of lambda - 0.8. But there's more!

According to the chart, the temperature has already risen 2.2° C, and by the time the CO2 has doubled, the temperature will have risen 6.2° C! That's where it was back in the steamy dinosaur days! Here, the value for the climate sensitivity parameter lambda is 1.68. This would be pretty dire stuff, if it were true. But it can't be true, because the consensus is that temperatures have gone up only about 0.6° C since the Keeling CO2 measurements began 50 years ago - not 2.2° C.  I have another chart that I was going to include in this post that is based on identical data and parameters, but it has a different layout, and would have been an excellent compliment to the "bluff" chart.
OK, let's see what the value l might be if we consider the consensus rise in the Earth's temperature over the last half-century and a 34.5% increase of CO2. Here we go:

C = 390 ppm (the current count)

CO  = 315 ppm (the count at 1957 per Keeling)

Using the formula for CO2 forcing we get 5.35 X ln (390/315)=1.143 Wm^-2

That's our value for DF
Now, to find lambda (l) using the first formula

DF, the increase in radiative forcing, is

1.143 Wm^-2

DT_S , the temperature change is about 0.6° C
according to data compiled by Dr. Phil Jones of the CRU in East Anglia UK. Plugging 0.6° C into the formula to find l yields:

l = DT_S / DF = 0.6° C / 1.143 = 0.525
 

Now, when the atmospheric CO2 concentration doubles, we get a radiative forcing  

DF of 3.71 Wm^-2

How do we know that? Plugging the numbers into the formula  we get:

C / CO = 560/280 = 2. The natural logarithm (ln) of 2 is 0.693 so 0.693 X 5.35 = 3.71 Wm^-2


That’s our radiative forcing value DF
Now, when you plug in our derived values for l


DT_S = lDF = DT_S = 0.525 X 3.71 = 1.95° C


OK, we're done with the math - you can start reading again. So, if the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere were to keep rising to 560 ppm from the 390 ppm we have now, we'd (allegedly) see a temperature rise of 1.95°C - not 3° or 4.5° or even 6° C as the IPCC claims.

Now, what are we to make of this? This result is far smaller than what the IPCC is threatening will happen. Yet it's far larger than the 0.15° to 0.2° C rise postulated by Lindzen and Choi based on the quantum mechanical behavior of CO2.


There are still plenty of questions. One, the formulas are the IPCC's formulas, and they were derived from computer models that are at best questionable and often don't agree with one another. And two, (very important here) these equations assume that the 0.6° C rise in the earth's temperature during the 53 years of David Keeling's measuring of atmospheric CO2 is due to the CO2 and not the sun, which appears to be increasingly active, on average, over the last 100 plus years. If the sun is what's warming the earth, and not CO2, then the Lindzen-Choi climate sensitivity parameter (l= .04) may be closer to the mark. 

With this presentation (above) I've tried to show directly by means of alarmist charts the type of fear propaganda the IPCC and its minions are trying to bamboozle us with. If you looked at these charts and didn't know any better you would be afraid. Very afraid. That's part of the problem - some of the people who don't know any better - they wouldn't know science if it punched them in the face - they buy into this stuff hook, line, and sinker. They believe everything they hear and devote their attention to the most dire, most dramatic scenarios we're told may happen or will happen, depending on the source. The people I'm referring to are the policy makers - the politicians who are angling to write laws that will make us stop "polluting" the air with CO2. Such monstrosities as Cap'n'Trade, utility taxes over and above the taxes we already pay on utilities, and other maneuvers that are supposed to make us conserve. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for not wasting energy, whether it's gasoline or electricity. But the politicians - people like Reps. Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, who co-authored the cap'n'trade bill in the house that the Senate wisely killed - are vying to run up the costs of utilities to "encourage" conservation and "encourage" people to get rid of their old appliances and cars and buy new (and expensive) energy efficient appliances and cars. The well-to-do can certainly afford to buy this expensive new stuff and feel good about themselves for doing so. They can afford to upgrade their homes (and mansions) to make them more energy efficient as well, but what about the less fortunate? What about the people who would like to save on their utility bills but are stuck with their old, energy-inefficient beaters and leaky refrigerators and vintage electric stoves and microwaves, and live in drafty, ramshackle apartments without insulation? 
Last year we had a "Cash for Clunkers" program that benefited the well-to-do but hurt the less fortunate who couldn't afford to buy sleek new cars (See my post of 8/9/2009 - Cash for Clunkers - a bad idea).  Moreover, low-income people had trouble finding used cars at a price affordable to them because the CforC program depleted the used car market and made used cars more expensive. President Obama, whom I support on many issues, is allowing the IPCC to lead him by the nose. He is a prime example of a prominent world leader (one of many) who's been snared by the alarmist dogma of the IPCC and its associated apocalypse-mongers. There's a real danger here. IPCC-affiliated scientists, with a lot of help from the media (who think the global warming issue makes good copy), are propagating a dangerous and potentially devastating agenda for no good reason other than to make a lot of money for themselves. The IPCC, part of the UN, is a political organization with policy objectives that suit their own ends. They get billions in funding approved by sympathetic but ignorant government bureaucrats worldwide and are, by extension, depriving funds for scientists who practice climate science as a dispassionate search for the Truth. Not only that, they are impeding the publication of research papers by scientists who don't agree with their views on this issue. Further, they're influencing government bureaucracies to implement harmful policies that will, or are, being hurtful to ordinary people. A case in point: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently declared CO2 a pollutant, for crying out loud! I guess that means every human being on Earth is spewing pollution out of their mouths with every breath - about 1.6 billion metric tonnes worth per year. And that's just the people! Factor in the animal and plant life in the entire biosphere and you have a staggering amount of "pollution" being emitted. It makes no sense to arbitrarily call it pollution.
With the EPA now invoking CO2 as a pollutant we can look forward to even higher electric bills, which are already high, because of heavy taxation, brutally cold winters and stifling hot summers and existing restrictions.

As someone with a rich background in science, I can see what's going on through the weeds of propagandistic proclamations and dogmatic boilerplate by a cadre of people who must think I'm stupid, and must think everybody else is stupid as well. In many cases they're right about that. Unfortunately many politicians, bureaucrats, and media types are missing the boat, but fortunately..., an increasing number of people are waking up to what's going on, and they're not buying it any more. At some point this alarmist movement will finally become discredited and piddle out, like the infamous "hockey stick" chart by Mann, et.al. (see CLCC - 5  Quack Science - posted on 11/14/2010). We can only hope this movement's demise doesn't come too late.  With my next post (CLCC - 9) I'll discuss one notable (and noble) scientist who thinks it's all a lot of malarkey, and what the apocalyptics are saying about him. Stay tuned.

A CLOSER LOOK AT CLIMATE CHANGE (PART 7)

HOW MUCH CARBON DIOXIDE IS TOO MUCH?

Here's a little thought experiment (I borrowed the term from Albert Einstein). Imagine you're at a huge stadium watching a football game. Take Michigan Stadium, for example. I've been there. The place holds a lot of people with a lot of air in their lungs. A lot of people - as in 110,000 people. To get a perspective, here's what the place looks like from 3,000 feet:

OK, imagine you're at the game - the place is packed with one-ninth of a million screaming fans, of which 23,100 of them are rooting for the other team - let's assume the other team is Washington State University (WSU) - they were the visiting team when I took this photo from my Cessna. That leaves most of the remaining 86,900 odd fans rooting for Michigan. The 23,100 WSU fans represent the 21% oxygen component of the atmosphere, with most of the rest representing the 78% nitrogen component. But then there are some oddballs. There are about 3,100 fans who cheer the Michigan cheerleaders - they represent the water vapor component (it's a humid day), and 1,100 fans (the argon component) cheering for the WSU's cheerleaders . But there is one element that has the play-by-play announcers' (the media's) attention, and that's the 43 Hell's Angels who've distributed themselves randomly throughout the crowd. They're just there to make noise.
So... that's our fan base in a nutshell.

OK, here we go.
Michigan scores a touchdown! The 86,900 fans cheer loudly. Hear 'em? They're loud as hell. WSU scores, and their 23,900 fans let out a prolonged whoop. Although it's not as impressive as the roar from the 86,900 Michigan fans, they hold their own as noise makers. Now, there's a time out, and the Michigan cheerleaders are prancing and dancing - you hear a smattering of cheers from their 3,100 fans. The WSU cheerleaders have their turn and their 1,100 fans loudly voice their approval. OK, you're in this big, cavernous stadium, and eleven hundred people can still make enough noise to get noticed by any blind people (the refs) that happen to be in the stadium. But what about the bikers? There's forty-three of them. How much noise do you think they can make in comparison to the 86,900 Michigan fans, or even the 1,100 WSU cheerleaders' fans screaming at the top of their lungs? OK, you get the picture? The upshot of this parable is: out of every 110,000 molecules of air, only 43 of them are carbon dioxide molecules.

Carbon dioxide currently makes up 0.039% of the atmosphere. That's thirty-nine thousandths of one percent. It's a greenhouse gas, to be sure, but as a greenhouse gas it's only about 20% as potent as water vapor. So, on a humid day, when when the air contains about 2.8% H2O, the humidity constitutes 99.7% of the greenhouse effect.

What everybody's worried about is that 1/4 to 1/3 of one percent  (0.3 %) of greenhouse effect driven by carbon dioxide is heating up the planet enough that there will be more humidity and thus more greenhousing by water vapor which will warm the planet up even more and make more water vapor and heat the planet up even more... - it's called a runaway greenhouse effect. There's another concern that that 0.28% greenhouse effect by carbon dioxide will turn into 0.56% and then 1.12% and that will lead to more humidity that will in turn lead to more warming and so on and so on and so on.....! It could happen! (But probably won't). Nobody really knows for sure. But what irritates me is that the apocalyptics are playing Chicken Little - they're pushin' too hard on me and a lot of other people to warrant any credibility. It's like, whoever makes the most noise gets the attention, you know, the squeaky wheel, but it's not good attention.

Richard Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and is widely considered at the top of the heap of atmospheric scientists. In 2009 Dr. Lindzen co-published a paper with Yong-Sang Choi, a young graduate assistant, in the journal Geophysical Research Letters known as LC 2009. In this paper Lindzen and Choi argued for a much smaller climate sensitivity parameter, called lambda (l), than the "official" IPCC-sanctioned value based on an increase of temperature falling within a range 3° C to 4.5° C if the atmospheric CO2 concentration were doubled. According to the IPCC, the value of  l then, is between 0.8 and 1.2. The LC2009 paper suggested the real value for l was 0.04, which translates to a rise of global temperature of only 0.15° C with the doubling of CO2. That's only 1/20th to 1/30th of the "official" IPCC line for the doubling of CO2. As expected, their paper elicited a howl of protest from the apocalyptics. Almost immediately an army of global warming proponents rushed to publish rebuttals and try to discredit LC2009.

As physicists, Lindzen and Choi employed quantum mechanical principles as a foundation of their work - they predicated their study on the quantum mechanical behavior of the CO2 molecule when it gets hit by quanta of long wave (infrared) radiation trying to escape into space. Below is a chart based on their work.

Below is another similar chart that's quite instructive.

They look like left handed (reverse) hockey sticks, don't they?

According to these graphs, we are not heading towards a global catastrophe. Again, these charts are derived from the physical traits of the CO2 molecule (which is better depicted as OCO, or better yet, O=C=O) insofar as it's ability to trap long wave radiation in the earth's atmosphere. This is because when a CO2 molecule gets hit by a quantum of longwave radiation, wiggles and wags for a micro-second or two before emitting the quantum (or photon, if you will) at a slightly lower energy level and returning to its ground state. Its linear structure and stable double covalent bonds limit the number of frequencies that can affect it to only 3 relatively narrow bands (2.7, 4.5, & 15 microns). There's a formula with which the modes of vibration, or "degrees of freedom" of a given molecule can be affected by longwave radiation. That formula is simple: 3n-5, where n is the number of atoms in a given molecule. With CO2, there are three atoms, two oxygen and one carbon, so one could assume that 3 X 3 - 5 equals four degrees of freedom. One of those degrees of freedom are invalid with CO2, so the CO2 molecule has only three degrees of freedom to vibrate (absorb longwave radiation). That's why as far as greenhouse gasses are concerned, it's one of the weaker ones.
Another factor to consider is that as the concentration of CO2 increases, the absorbtion bandwidths DO NOT increase, only the amplitude increases (up to a point - ca. 915 ppmv). What this means is that outgoing longwave radiation is absorbed closer to the surface of the earth. Rather than being almost completely absorbed say, within the first kilometer of the lower atmosphere, the lion's share of outgoing radiation gets absorbed within say, a half-kilometer of the earth's surface. While it may yield slightly higher night-time temps within the lowest levels of the atmosphere, this effect is NOT cumilative. As soon as the sun comes up and visible radiation heats the surface of the earth, the slight increase in temperature in the lower atmosphere from overnight gets completely overwhelmed. Another thing to consider is that outgoing longwave radiation occurs only at night. Again, after the sun comes up, all the longwave radiation gets obliterated by the sunshine that is now heating the earth directly.  

As stated above, once the concentration hits about 915 ppmv, OCO completely runs out of steam (Myrhe et. al. 1998). It's called saturation, or activity extinction, where additional CO2 concentrations have little to no effect. Think of a large bell. Tap it with a hammer and it will ring. Hit the bell a little harder and it will ring a little louder and keep ringing longer. Hit it harder yet and it will ring even louder and longer. But there comes a point when no matter how hard the bell is struck, it won't ring louder or longer beyond that point. The bell has reached a saturation point.  

Are Lindzen, Myrhe, and other scientists correct? I guess time will tell. All scientists who study complex systems like climate can do is offer their opinions and educated guesses. That goes for both sides of the AGW issue. We run into problems when scientists, who are, after all, foibled human beings, interject their personal opinions and beliefs into what is supposed to be a dispassionate pursuit of the Truth. And where we run into BIG problems is when politics gets involved that directs scientists to misuse science in pursuing political mandates rather than pursuing and/or finding real answers to difficult questions.