Care to comment further on that "correlation"? My observation is that it damn sure isn't a linear one. It isn't even proportional.
From here.
Care to comment further on that "correlation"? My observation is that it damn sure isn't a linear one. It isn't even proportional.
From here.
from Wikipedia article on Carbon Dioxide, History section
Because, historically, the changes in the carbon cycle have been caused by changes in the temperature (caused by changes in the earth's orbit) it is difficult to say to what extent the reverse will be true.
We're now in uncharted territory and it's my contention that a massive change in atmospheric composition is most likely to lead to some sort of very uncomfortable dislocation and least likely to have no serious consequences whatever.
One of the contributors to the UN/IPCC reports had this to say concerning the direct radiative effects of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
"the direct radiative effects of doubled CO2 can cause a maximum surface warming [at the equator] of about 0.2 K, and hence roughly 90% of the 2.0-2.5 K surface warming obtained by the GCM is caused by atmospheric feedback processes described above."
"Increased Atmospheric CO2: Zonal and Seasonal Estimates of the Effect on the Radiation Energy Balance and Surface Temperature" (V. Ramanathan and M. S. Lian), J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 84, p. 4949, 1979.
The UN/IPCC models achieve their results by selectively multiplying changes in heat balance for changes in CO2 concentration 10 times and more over that of any other mechanism of thermal variation. Where radiative forcing of CO2 is selectively multiplied by 10, other mechanisms of similar magnitude are not allowed to be enhanced by the same thermally driven "atmospheric feedback processes described".
The atmospheric "feedback processes described" are those implemented into UN/IPCC climate models. They constitute speculative and inadequate mechanisms at best, presumptive at worst, by which the atmosphere might respond to changes in radiative heat balance.
None of the "feedback processes" are based in any measured direct or parametric relationship selectively coupled to CO2 concentrations alone. This selective sensitivity (i.e. instability in the model) is inferred to be a cause of greater change than the presumed initiating power input to the system.
In otherwords, according to the UN/IPCC modelers, we have a case of selective CHAOS, butterflies create hurricanes but dragonflies can't.
Using your graphic, a 0.27oC change in Earth's surface temperature for each CO2 doubling is depicted:
and is a confirmation of what we can estimate from first principles:
Given:
The temperature of the Earth's surface with an atmosphere is 288oK (+15oC).
and the blackbody temperature of the Earth without atmosphere at 255oK (-18oC)
One may apply the Stefan-Boltzman relation:
E=sT4
where:
E = total amount of radiation emitted by an object per square meter (Watts m-2)
s is a constant called the Stefan-Boltzman constant = 5.67 x 10-8 Watts m-2 K-4
T is the temperature of the object in K
to determine the total GHG radiative forcing necessary to maintain the atmosphere/surface greenhouse temperature at the current 288oK surface temperature of the earth.
Under constant albedo conditions (CO2 does not contribute to earth's albedo) The total flux at the Earth's troposphere/surface system due to greenhouse factors is:
Flux (E288) at the Earth's surface with atmosphere = 5.67*10-8(288oK)4 = 390.08 w/m2
Blackbody flux (E255) without atmosphere = 5.67*10-8(255oK)4 = 279.74 w/m2
==================================================================
difference = 110.34 w/m2
The (natural + anthropogenic) CO2 contribution is 3.6% of atmospheric greenhouse warming. When expressed in terms of overall radiative forcing acting on both atmosphere and surface all radiative flux associated with CO2 must, of necessity, be:
0.036*110.34 w/m2 = 3.97 w/m2
However, CO2 IR flux at the surface from CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is less than half that total CO2 contribution of 3.97w/m2 for the system, (at least half of the CO2 radiant forcing is emitted and/or scattered by clouds & dust upward to be lost to space and atmospheric heating rather than contributing towards global surface warming.)
Re-cycling of Infra-Red Energy
According to Dr Hugh Ellsaesser's IPCC submission, "The direct increase in radiative heating of the lower atmosphere (tropopause level) due to doubling CO2 is 4 wm-2. At the surface it is 0.5 - 1.5 wm-2". Schlesinger & Mitchell (1985), estimated this surface flux at 2 wm-2. Thus, depending on the model, or modeler, the estimates for increased surface flux following a CO2 doubling, varies between +0.5 and +2 wm-2. An above-averaged figure of +1.5 wm-2 will be assumed here for purposes of analysis and comparison.
At the current surface temperature (288oK) Doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration from 340ppmv can only add 1.5w/m2 at the surface for a total surface radiative forcing of
390.08+1.5 = 391.58w/m2
providing a
(391.58/5.67*10-8)0.25-288oK = 0.277oK (C)increase in surface temperature for doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
A result well within any reasonable expectation of our rough estimate of 0.27oC associated with CO2 doubling derived from the paleo CO2-temperature record above.
