Change in Lapse Rate with Little Change in Surface Temperature

Climate Audit Article Link


Water Vapor Feedback … an increase in one greenhouse gas (CO2) induces an increase in yet another greenhouse gas (water vapor) resulting in a positive feedback…


To be more specific on this point, Raval and Ramanathan 1989 have recently employed satellite data to quantify the temperature dependence of the water vapor greenhouse effect. From their results, it readily follows (Cess, 1989) that water vapor feedback reduces ΔF/ΔTs from the prior value of 2.2 wm-2 K-1 to 2.3 wm-2 K-1. This in turn increases λ from 0.3 K m2 w-1 to 0.32 K m2 w-1 and thus increases the global warming from ΔTs= 1.2 deg C to 1.7 deg C.


There is yet a further amplification caused by the increased water vapor. Since water vapor also absorbs solar radiation, water vapor feedback leads to an additional heating of the climate system through enhanced absorption of solar radiation. In terms of ΔS/ΔTs as appears within the expression for λ, this results in ΔS/ΔTs = 0.2 wm-2 K-1 (Cess et al 1989) so that λ is now 0.48 Km2w-1 while ΔTs=1.9 deg C. The point is that water vapor feedback has amplified the initial global warming of 1.2 deg C to 1.9 deg C, an amplification factor of 1.6.


Hockey stick weighs in

Hockey Stick Article Link

In order to recover the balance of energy, the radiation temperature increases from point b to point c. A 1 K warming at the effective radiation height is enough to recover the energy imbalance caused by the radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m2 for 2xCO2 from Stefan-Boltzmann law as shown in Fig.2. Under the FLRA, the surface temperature increases in the same degree of 1 K from Ts1 to Ts2 in Mitchell (1989) and Held & Soden (2000). However, it is erroneous since the FLRA failed in Section 2.


Fig. 2. Global warming theory based on the radiation height change. Physical reality: The surface temperature increase is 0.1 ~ 0.2 K with the slightly decreased lapse rate of 6.3 K/km from 6.5 K/km.


In reality, the bold line in Fig.2 shows the surface temperature increases as much as 0.1~0.2 K with the slightly decreased lapse rate from 6.5 K/km to 6.3 K/km. Since the zero feedback climate sensitivity CS(FAH) is negligibly small at the surface, there is no water vapor or ice albedo feedback which are large positive feedbacks in the GCMs studies of the IPCC. The following data support the above picture.


(A) Kiehl & Ramanathan (1982) show the following radiative forcing for 2xCO2.

Radiative forcing at the tropopause: 3.7 W/m2.

Radiative forcing at the surface: 0.55 ~ 1.56 W/m2 (averaged 1.1 W/m2).


The surface radiative forcing is greatly reduced by the IR absorption overlap with water vapor plentifully existing at the surface. This denies the FLRA giving the uniform warming throughout the troposphere in the 1DRCM and the GCMs studies.


(B) Newell & Dopplick (1979) obtained a climate sensitivity of 0.24 K considering the evaporation cooling from the surface of the ocean.


(C) Ramanathan (1981) shows the surface temperature increase of 0.17 K with the direct heating of 1.2 W/m2 for 2xCO2 at the surface.


(D) The surface climate sensitivity is calculated from the energy budget of the earth in Fig. 3 and the surface radiative forcing of 1.1W/m2 as follows.

Natural greenhouse effect:     289 K – 255 K = 34 K

Natural greenhouse energy:    Eb – Es = 333 – 78 (W/m2) = 255 (W/m2)

Climate sensitivity factor :     34 K/255 (W/m2) = 0.13 K/ (W/m2)

Surface radiative forcing:         0.55 ~ 1.56 W/m2 (averaged 1.1 W/m2 )

Surface climate sensitivity:        0.13K/(W/m2) x 1.1 (W/m2) = 0.14 K


Adding in the GHE reduced to 11C (D Heald) the CS becomes 0.05K


Section for a video or follow-on comment

We should revisit occasionally what the proper role of government is.   As the constitution was a good sense of direction, we need a core set of principles to add in order to deal with the future.


So many want to engineer society, remove risk, assist certain groups, rather than let individuals thrive and raise communities.  Why?


Is Democracy where we all "get it good and hard" or is it the best means to a free society?


Should we roll with the special interests, or make the government achieve its proper role, what is that role, and how to do this?


When do deficits and governments become too large?


Government is becoming more elitist while trying to sell corrections to problems it created, what makes this possible?


Add Comments


Powered by Disqus