- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012

- Messages
- 38,834

- Reaction score
- 13,406

- Location
- Texas

- Gender
- Male

- Political Leaning
- Conservative

and something popped up that caught my attention.

In W Zhong - 2013, They cover the traditional AGW concept and come up with their table1

https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/wea.2072

Which says that increasing CO2 from zero to 2000 ppm would change the total outgoing energy by -25.5 Wm-2,

and would change the Net (downward – upward) flux change at the tropopause by 38.2 Wm-2.

Where should we measure all the energy entering or leaving the system, at the boundary, or somewhere in the middle?

I.E. the top of the atmosphere or the tropopause?

I calculated the energy imbalance based on the top of atmosphere number, to see what the multiplier would be.

25.2/ln(2000/1)=

**3.35**, and this struck me as close to another multiplier based on an entirely different set of measurements.

Feldman 2015, measured actual down welling infrared over a change in CO2

http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

His actual number was .22 Wm-2 as CO2 increased from 369ppm to 392ppm,

so .22/ln(392/369)=

**3.63**,

The official number is currently 5.35 X ln(CO2high/CO2low), but here we have two completely different ways of measuring

CO2 response, that come up with multipliers that are much closer to each other than to the official number.

If we take the average of the two multipliers (3.63 + 3.35)/2=3.49, and push it into a CO2 doubling, we get,

3.49 X ln(2)=2.41 Wm-2 for a doubling of CO2, or about .73 C.

This lower measured sensitivity could well be the reason the models based on the 2XCO2 assumption of 3.71 Wm-2 are too high!