**The
Climate Catastrophe
- A Spectroscopic Artifact?**

by **Dr.
Heinz Hug**

*(Reactions to Dr Hug's controversial paper (downloadable zip file)
here)*

** Summary **

Laboratory measurements of the infrared absorption
of carbon dioxide using an **FT-IR** spectrometre
suggest that the radiative forcing for CO2 doubling
must be much less than assumed by climate scientists until now. A reduction
factor of **80** is likely.

** Introduction**

Originally the CO2 greenhouse
effect obviously was considered from the 'normal' infrared (IR) absorption
**[1]**. Supposed
with today's concentration it would exist a decadic extinction of *E*
= 4 which means the transmission *T* = I/Io =
10* ^{-E}* has been reduced to 0.0001 (in the vicinity of the
maximum peak of 15 µm). Every scientisct who is familiar with basic
IR spectroscopy from analytic chemistry would agree that there is a

In the literature we often see emission spectra
**[3]** and sometimes
absorption spectra of CO2 as well **[4]**.
But an interested chemist is missing ** molar related figures of the
extinction**. CO2 is one of the most intensively
investigated molecule. This is why we find enough quantitative data in
the literature

** Metering
method**

A 10 cm glass cylinder (150 cm^{3},
with IR-transparent window) was filled with synthetic CO2-free
and vapour-free air. Then a microlitre syringe was used to add CO2
so that the concentration was 357 ppm (concentration in 1993). Moreover
2.6% water vapour was added. Applying the IR beam source (a so-called ** Globar
**, an electrically heated silicon carbide bar at 1000 to
1200 degC and an adjustable interference filter) on one side, the absorption
spectrum arriving at the other end was recorded. Then CO2
was added to make 714 ppm. The equipment was an

** Results**

Fig. 1 shows the unprocessed spectrum of the 15 µm band for 357 ppm CO2 and 2.6% H2O.

*Fig. 1: Unprocessed spectrum of the 15 µm
band*

The absorption peak depends on the spectral
resolution which was 2/cm for this spectrometer. With a finer resolution,
e.g. 0.5/cm, the peak would become higher and sharper, thus yielding a
higher extinction coefficient. The R- (Delta*J* = +1) and the P- (Delta*J*
= -1) can be clearly identified as well as the Q-branch (Delta*J*
= +0) of the n3 band (15 µm or 667 cm^{-1}).
The n2 band (4.2 µm or 2349 cm^{-1})
which only has an R- and P-branch, was measured as well. The decadic extinction
coefficients at the ** band maximum** were evaluated as

e = 29.9 m^{2}/mol
for n2 and e = 20.2 m^{2}/mol
for n3

To calculate the transmission in the total
atmosphere, an average CO2 content was taken (from
the volume of the atmosphere and the mass) as* c* = 1.03** _{*}**10

*E*(n2)
= 29.9 m^{2}/mol** _{*}
**1.03

In the same way we find *E*(n3)
= 2080. This means that the transmission *T* around the peak maxima,
defined as 10^{-E}, amounts for 357
ppm to

*T*(n2)
= 10 ^{-3080} and* T*(n3)
= 10 ^{-2080}

These are extremely small transmission values
which are making any greenhouse increment by CO2 doubling
absolutely ** impossible**. Jack Barrett found similar results

Inserting e = 20.2 m^{2}/mol
for the n3 band into Lambert-Beer's law, using 357
ppm for the CO2 concentration and a 10 m layer, we
find the extinction

*E* = 20.2 m^{2}/mol** _{
* }**0.0159 mol/m

As the transmission *T* = 10^{-3.21}
is 0.6 per mille, we conclude that the relative absorption around the peak
is 1-*T* = 99.94% which takes place already within a 10 m layer near
ground. Of course, here only the absorption of an IR beam has been accounted
for - but shouldn't we expect that the 15 µm band is re-radiated
by CO2 molecules? According to Jack Barrett **[2]**,
most of this energy is thermalized from collisions with other molecules
(N2, O2, H2O)
long before re-radiation takes place so that the energy gets out of the
CO2 band. Half of this thermalized IR can be considered
to enhance the back-radiation and thus warming the ground.

The conclusion of total radiative saturation
was tried to be cancelled out sophistically by assuming that (more) tropospheric
warming may be caused by radiative transfer in a ** cascade**
model with sequential IR absorption and re-emission by CO2.
Then - only within the absorption band - the radiative transfer eqation
has to be solved

d*l* = *l*** _{*}**n

This results in a complex equation system
**[12]**. One problem
is that the radiative transport depends on the temperature gradient in
the atmosphere - but this cannot be preset but ought to be calculated.
So an iterative scheme has to be applied. The modeller then has to determine
to what fraction the soil is warmed by back-scattered IR and by warmed
air.

For the edges of the 15 µm band the
absorption area is certainly smaller than what is used by IPCC. IPCC **[1990,
p. 48]** states *"The effect
of added carbon dioxide molecules is, however, significant at the edges
of the 15 µm band, and in particular around 13.7 and 16 µm"***[13]**.

To check for this we ** hyothesized**
that we can omit the decadic extinction increase above

*Fig. 2: Spectral processing scheme*

We integrated from a value *E* = 3 (above
which absorption deems negligible, related to the way through the whole
troposphere) until the ends (*E* = 0) of the R- and P-branch. So the
edges are fully considered. They start at 14.00 µm for the P-branch
and at 15.80 µm for the R-branch, going down to the base line *E*=0.
IPCC starts with 13.7 and 16 µm **[13]**.
For the 15 µm band our result was:

15 µm band | 357 ppm | 714 ppm |

total integral 624,04 cm ^{-1} - 703,84 cm^{-1} |
0.5171/cm | 1.4678/cm |

sum of slope integrals | 1.1110_{*}^{-4}/cm |
9.7910_{*}^{-4}/cm |

*Table 1: 15 µm band total
integration and slope integrals E = *0 to* E *= 3

Crucial is the ** relative increment of
greenhouse effect **. This is equal to the difference between the
sum of slope integrals for 714 and 357 ppm, related to the total integral
for 357 ppm. Considering the n3 band alone (as IPCC
does) we get

(9.79** _{*}**10

** Conclusions**

It is hardly to be expected that for CO2 doubling an increment of IR absorption at the 15 µm edges by 0.17% can cause any significant global warming or even a climate catastrophe.

The ** radiative forcing for doubling**
can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of
32 W/m

**This is roughly 80 times less
than IPCC's radiative forcing.**

If we allocate 7.2 degC as greenhouse effect
for the present CO2 (as asserted by Kondratjew and
Moskalenko in J.T. Houghton's book *The Global
Climate***[14]**),
the doubling effect should be 0.17% which is 0.012 degC only. If we take
1/80 of the 1.2 degC that result from Stefan-Boltzmann's law with a radiative
forcing of 4.3 W/m^{2}, we get a similar value
of 0.015 degC.

Kondratjew and Moskalenko are referring to
their own work **[15]**
- but when we checked their Russian book on that page, it turned out that
this was nothing but an index of terms and nowhere else a deduction of
this broadly referred 7.2 K figure **[16]
**could be found. It should be mentioned that the radiative
forcing for the present CO2 concentration varies considerably
among references. K.P. Shine **[17]**
specifies a value of 12 K whereas according to R. Lindzen CO2
only accounts for about 5% of the natural 33 degC greenhouse effect. This
1.65 degC is less than a quarter of the value used by IPCC and leads to
a doubling sensitivity of 0.3 to 0.5 degC only **[18]**.

What is really true? Is there anybody to present a scientific derivation or a reference where this figure is not copied or just stated from assumptions, but properly calculated?

** References**

**[1]
Roger Revelle, Scientific American, 247, No.2, Aug. 1982, 33 - 41 **

**[2]
Jack Barrett, Spectrochim. Acta Part A, 51, 415 (1995) **

**[3]
R.A. Hanel et al. Journal of Geophysical Research, 77, 2629 - 2641 (1972)
**

**[4]
Hermann Flohn, Nachr. Chem.Tech.Lab, 32, 305-309 (1984) **

**[5]
L.S.Rothman et al., Appl.Opt. 26, 4058 (1987) **

**[6]
Heinz Hug, Chemische Rundschau, 20. Febr., p. 9 (1998) and: Klima 2000
(Heuseler), 2, 23-26 (1998) 1/2 and: http://www.wuerzburg.de/mm-physik/klima/artefact.htm**

**[7]
Paul S. Braterman, Spectrochim. Acta Part A, 52, 1565 (1996) **

**[8]
Keith Shine, Spectrochim. Acta Part A, 51, 1393 (1995) **

**[9]
John Houghton, Spectrochim. Acta Part A, 51, 1391 (1995) **

**[10]
Richard S. Courtney, Spectrochim. Acta Part A, 53, 1601 (1997) **

**[11]
Richard P. Wayne, Chemistry of Atmospheres, Oxford University Press, 2nd.
Edition, 44-49 (1991), **

**[12]
Murry L. Salby, Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics, Academic Press, 198-257
(1996) **

**[13]
Climate Change 1990. The IPCC Scientific Assessment, p. 49 **

**[14]
K.Ya. Kondratyev,N.I. Moskalenko in J.T.Houghton, The Global Climate",
Cambridge Universitiy Press, 225-233 (1984) **

**[15]
K.Ya. Kondratyev, N.I. Moskalenko, Thermal Emission of Planets, Gidrometeoizdat,
263 pp (1977) (in Russian) **

**[16]
C.-D. Schönwiese, Klimaänderungen, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg,
p. 135 (1995) **

**[17]
Henry Charnock, Keith P. Shine, Physics Today, Dec 1993, p. 66**

**[18]
Richard S. Lindzen, Proc. Nat. Acad. of Sciences, 94, 8335-8342 (1997)
8 and (in German) Klima 2000 (Heuseler), 2, 3-8 (1998) 5/6**

July 31, 1998

**Heinz Hug,** Wiesbaden, Germany

Fax +49/611-543301

http://www.john-daly.com//artifact.htm

**Return to** **Climate
Debate Guests Page**

**Return to** **"Still
Waiting For Greenhouse" ** main page