Latest News (hidethedecline)

9,25 - a factor that could close the global warming debate

Posted by Frank Lansner (frank) on 7th September, 2010
Latest News (hidethedecline) >>

The CO2-sensitivity describes the warming effect induced by a doubling of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, and is thus the epicentre of the global warming discussion. Estimates of the CO2 sensitivity are very different, and the value range used by IPCC appears unlikely to physically impossible. To show this, I will focus on the factor "Fw" between the total CO2 warming and then the warming from a single doubling of CO2 concentration.

The total CO2 warming effect is obviously many times bigger than the warming from a single CO2 doubling. Example: When changing CO2 concentration from 5 ppm to 320 ppm we have 6 doublings. But on top of these 6 doublings, how much warming effect is introduced when CO2 concentrations are changed from 0 to 5 ppm etc? In the following I use the online model MODTRAN:


Fig. 1. Above is illustrated the warming effect of CO2 for 3 different climatic areas. Zero W/M2 represents the net forcing of the atmosphere fore a given scenario with CO2 concentration set to 0 ppm.
For each area is shown a clear sky scenario as well as a light rain scenario. All other variables in MODTRAN are left as the default values. The results from MODTRAN are total atmosphere outgoing radiation, and thus when changing concentrations of CO2 we get total atmosphere responses incl feedbacks if present.

Fig 1 Shows 6 doublings of CO2 concentration: 5-10-20-40-80-160-320 ppm where every doubling shows warming effect of similar size (–as could be expected due to the logarithmic declining effect of adding more CO2 to the atmosphere).
From the graph above we can see that the total CO2 warming effect today equals around 9 times the warming effect of one doubling of CO2 concentration.

Fig 2. For a better compare between the scenarios on fig1, these are now shown as %-values of the total CO2 warming effect for (Forcing) with today’s concentration of 390 ppm CO2, equals 100%. It appears that clear sky, rainy sky, Arctic area, tropics, subtropics scenarios has a very similar profile indeed and I find that this result shows that we can consider these %-trends to be rather global.

Fig 3. The average global CO2-doubling can now be calculated more accurate to be near 10,8% of the full CO2 warming effect at 390 ppm. (Or, the “CO2-sensitivity” warming effect is around 10,8% of the total CO2 warming effect, globally.)

Thus, the “best estimate” of the factor between total CO2 warming effect and the warming effect from one CO2 doubling - Fw – can be calculated. Best estimate (so far) Fw = 9,25.

CO2-warming-total (K) = 9,25 * CO2-warming-from-one-doubling (K) = 9,25 * CO2 sensitivity (K)

I have used MODTRAN for this result, but it is universal that the doublings must have near same warming effect and thus the individual doubling will have just some fraction of the total value. For now, the factor 9,25 is best estimate.


Hansen – CO2 sensitivity.

Now how does the factor 9,25 between total CO2 warming effect and CO2 warming effect from a single doubling support the viewpoints of James Hansen on CO2 sensitivity?

James Hansen often refers to a CO2-sensitivity of 6 K… 6 K warming effect for each single CO2 doubling:
Fig 4 James Hansens CO2 sensitivity of 6 K gives around 55,5 K of total CO2 effect using the factor Fw = 9,25. As the total warming effect of all greenhouse gasses is assumed to have a warming effect of approx 33 K, the Hansen CO2-sensitivity demands that the total CO2 related warming effect is bigger than all the greenhouse gasses effect combined.

The overall CO2 warming effect is supposed to be around 10-15-2% of the total warming effect of the atmosphere, here we use 15%. Since CO2 is assumed to account for 15% of the total 33K greenhouse effect on Earth, the CO2 total warming effect is around 5 K. So just ONE CO2 doubling of Hansen’s CO2 sensitivity of 6 K has a bigger warming effect than the total warming effect supposed to be possible.

It is therefore highly odd that Hansen’s claim of 6 K CO2 sensitivity has been taken seriously anywhere at any time.

Here the “greenhouse wheel” where supposedly scientists imagine that we by year 2100 can have warming of over 7 K in fact with less than one CO2 doubling to cause this:
Fig 5. To account for their 7 K temperature increase, they must have played with a CO2-sensitivity of perhaps 10 K? So these honourable “scientists” believes that one CO2-doubling might resemble a third of the combined earth greenhouse effect?

IPCC – CO2 sensitivity

Then, how does the factor 9,25 between total CO2 warming effect and CO2 warming effect from a single doubling support the viewpoints of IPCC on CO2 sensitivity?

IPCC AR4 viewpoints for the CO2 sensitivity :

IPCC “best estimate” of warming from one CO2 doubling is 3 K.
Using the Fw = 9,25 we learn, that if one doubling warms 3 Km then the total CO2 warming should be around 28 K ( = 9,25 * 3 )

We must then remember again that the total warming effect of the atmosphere is generally accepted to be near 33 K. The warming effect related to CO2 should then be around 85% of the total Earth atmosphere greenhouse gas effect. And without CO2, the atmospheres warming effect should be reduced to 15% of todays atmosphere…. On a globe with mostly water-ocean surface…
The IPCC numbers where each doubling of CO2 represents 3 K it simply does not fit at all with the total warming effect of the atmosphere.

IPCC then claimed:
“Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded..”
Well, 4,5 K for CO2 sensitivity gives a total CO2 effect of 41,6 K. This is 126% of the total earth greenhouse effect, so we could rephrase:
“Values of CO2 related warming substantially higher than 126% of the total greenhouse gas warming cannot be excluded..” …

Idso´s and Lindzens estimates for CO2 sensitivity.
What if we assume that CO2 is responsible for the 15% of the 33K greenhouse warming effect on Earth? This corresponds to 5 K. If true, the CO2 warming from one doubling should be

CO2 sensitivity = CO2warming-total / Fw

CO2 sensitivity = 5K / 9,25 = 0,54 K

So just using the generally accepted knowledge that CO2 sholuld account for around 15% of the total Earth greenhouse effect, and using the also generally accepted knowledge that total Earth greenhouse effect is 33K, then the CO2 sensitivity should be near 0,54K

Idso 1998 suggests 0,4 K, and Lindzen suggests 0,5 K these results appears sound and realistic in strong contrast to values from IPCC and Hansen.

Hansens 350 ppm ”safe level”

Fig 6. When working with CO2 – effect, one cant help wondering what Hansens ”safe level” of 350 ppm CO2 is all about.

Fig 7. NASA´s, James Hansen has claimed 350 ppm to be a safe level of CO2:
- Just 1,5 % less Warming effect from CO2 and we are “safe”.. ?

If CO2 has a total warming effect of 5 K – as previously calculated -  the difference between the Hansen “safe level” CO2 warming and todays level is around  0,075 K.

I wonder if the peoble creating the 350 ppm demonstrations knows this?
I wonder how they will react when they find out.


Idso 1998:



Last changed: 7th September, 2010 at 16:06:53



Alan D McIntire By Unknown on 17th September, 2010 at 16:57:19
Look up "Voigt Profile". Here's a link

The effect of CO2, or any gas, starts out as linear when there are 1,2.....n molecules in the atmosphere. As the concentration increases, the effect gradually reduces, and becomes proportional to
the square root of the logarithm of the gas concentration. Note, the
increase is in wattage to the earth's surface, NOT in temperature.
the surface currently gets about 390 watts average. A doubling of
CO2 would supposedly increase that by 3.7 watts, to 393.7 watts.

I learned about the Voigt profile by reading this:

specifically the response:

Comment from: michael hammer May 15th, 2009 at 11:22 pm

"SJT: sorry but again i have to disagree with you. Line absorption profiles follow a Voigt profile. I have integrated the area under this profile at various concentrations. When i also included the effect of the analysis described in my first post on Jennifer’s site I then got an almost perfect agreement to a logarithmic response. Hence the analysis I did (which converts the loss from 10^-N to 1/N) needs to be incuded to get the logarithmic response.

Gordon; you express surprise at my posting and claim there is no mechanism for positive feedback. I thought I had made it very clear that i do not agree with the IPCC data. HOWEVER, for the sake of this post I indicated I am using their data. Why? because if I used data I think is closer to the truth that would be used as the excuse why I get a different outcome. By using their data I overcome that issue and my point here is to show that even using their data an 0.5C rise by 2008 does not fit with a further 3C rise by 2070. The 0.5C by 2008 is experimental (although not all is necessarily due to CO2) which sort of leaves 3C by 2070 out in the cold.

Louis; of course the model can be expressed in a more detail, I am trying to make it as simple as possible to show the essence of the conflict in the IPCC claims.

Luke; as to your reponse to my comment about climate being stable enough to allow life to continue to flourish, you misunderstand what I meant. If the positive feedback goes above 1 the system runs away even without any forcing. In this case, what that means is the temperature increases until all the oceans boil away completely. There would be no liquid water on the planet. Further and more significantly, before life started on earth the current oxygen would have been carbon dioxide because oxygen is very reactive and would have long reacted with the free carbon. It is photosynthetic life that reduced the carbon dioxide to free oxygen and carbohydrates, cellulose and the like. Thus before life formed, the CO2 level would not have been 280ppm or 380 ppm but more like 200,000 ppm. If the feedback could go above 1 the earth’s surface would never have cooled enough for life to start in the first place..."
Thankyou, Albert (or Dave Springer?) By Frank Lansner on 12th September, 2010 at 10:08:36
I really appreciate this comprehensive collection of relevant knowledge. It would be nice to make a post on CO2-science history.

K.R. Frank Lansner
Were is the experimental data that proves that the "greenhouse gas effect exists" By Unknown on 11th September, 2010 at 19:01:54
This is a very interesting exersise in Hypotheses but there is no experimental data to show that any of this or that the ghg effect exist. When someone does some experimental work and publishes it and lets stop all this Hot air that only proves that people can write fairy-tales
List of references:
The paper "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics" by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4 2009
Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
Scientific Publishing Company,
Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.

Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12 link
that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.
from the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95,
The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
By Alan Siddons
from: at March 01, 2010 - 09:10:34 AM CST

The below information was a foot note in the IPCC 4 edition. It is obvious that there was no evidence to prove that the ghg effect exists.

“In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.”

After 1909 when R.W.Wood proved that the understanding of the greenhouse effect was in error and the ghg effect does not exist. After Niels Bohr published his work and receive a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. The fantasy of the greenhouse gas effect should have died in 1909 and 1922. Since then it has been shown by several physicists that the concept is a Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Obviously the politicians don’t give a dam that they are lying. It fits in with what they do every hour of every day .Especially the current pretend president.
Paraphrasing Albert Einstein after the Publishing of “The Theory of Relativity” –one fact out does 1 million “scientist, 10 billion politicians and 20 billion environmental whachos-that don’t know what” The Second Law of thermodynamics” is.

The bottom line is that the facts show that the greenhouse gas effect is a fairy-tale and that Man-made global warming is the World larges Scam!!! The IPCC and Al Gore should be charged under the US Anti-racketeering act and when convicted - they should spend the rest of their lives in jail for the Crimes they have committed against Humanity.

Web- site references: Ponder the Maunder
many others are available.

The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance."
—Albert Einstein

Add Comment