See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273079885

The Roles of Greenhouse Gases in Global Warming

Article  in  Energy & Environment · July 2012

DOI: 10.1260/0958-305X.23.5.781

CITATIONS READS
8 579

1 author:

Antero Ollila
Aalto University
26 PUBLICATIONS   125 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

No project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Antero Ollila on 29 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

THE ROLES OF GREENHOUSE GASES IN GLOBAL WARMING

by

Antero Ollila (Finland)

Reprinted from

ENERGY &
ENVIRONMENT
VOLUME 23 No. 5 2012

MULTI-SCIENCE PUBLISHING CO. LTD.

5 Wates Way, Brentwood, Essex CM15 9TB, United Kingdom
 781

THE ROLES OF GREENHOUSE GASES IN GLOBAL

WARMING
Antero V.E. Ollila
Adj Assoc Prof, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering,
Aalto University, Espoo, Finland
Otakaari 1, Box 11000, 00076 AALTO, Finland; e-mail: aveollila@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT
Scientists are still debating the reasons for “global warming”. The author questions
the validity of the calculations for the models published by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and especially the future scenarios. Through
spectral calculations, the author finds that water vapour accounts for
approximately 87% of the greenhouse (GH) effect and only 10% of CO2. A
doubling of the present level of CO2 would increase the global temperature by only
0.51 °C without water feedback. The IPCC claims that a temperature increase of
0.76 °C for 2005 was caused in part by water (about 50%), because relative
humidity (RH) stays constant in their model. The calculations prove that CO2
would have increased the temperature by only 0.2 °C since 1750 and that the
measured decrease in water since 1948 has compensated for this increase. This
study has also produced results indicating a negative feedback for relative
humidity. The simulations of this study propose that the IPCC’s model
atmospheres could be approximately 50% too dry.

Keywords: climate change, global warming, greenhouse phenomenon,

greenhouse gases, warming potentials, humidity, water vapour.

1. INTRODUCTION
The greenhouse (GH) effect is a natural phenomenon that can be studied through
theoretical calculations and temperature and radiation measurements. The outgoing
long-wave (LW) flux to space (value 239 Wm-2) has been measured using ERBE
(Earth Radiation Budget Experiment) satellites and it corresponds to a theoretical
surface temperature of -18 °C for the Earth. The greenhouse effect is a reality because
the observed surface temperature of the Earth is about 15 °C. The difference
between the theoretical and the real surface temperatures of the Earth is the
greenhouse effect in degrees. The most cited value is 33 °C, which can be found in
the scientific literature on the topic.[1, 2]
782 Energy & Environment · Vol. 23, No. 5, 2012

Utilising Planck’s function of radiation, one can calculate that the required energy
flux emitted by the Earth’s surface must be approximately 391 Wm-2. It is difficult to
calculate an accurate value for the surface temperature according to radiation laws
because the Earth is not a black body. At any rate, the observed recent changes could
be regarded as signs of global warming.

2. SPECTRAL CALCULATION TOOL

The author has utilized a spectral calculation tool prepared and maintained by GATS
Inc., which is available on the Internet.[3] This tool is quite flexible and the most
accurate absorption line lists for the common GH gas molecules are available. In this
article, the author uses the name SpectralCalc for this tool; the official name used for
it by GATS Inc. is the Spectral Calculator.

2.1 Molecular spectra calculations

Molecules emit and absorb radiation only at certain frequencies or wavenumbers,
thereby creating changes in their quantum energy levels. This produces a unique
spectrum for each gas molecule species. According to Kirchhoff’s law, the
absorptivity is the compliment of transmittance, which eqn 1 below shows:

Absorptivity = 1- transmittance (1)

The SpectCalc tool produces the transmittance values only; the absorptivity values can
easily be calculated using eqn 1. The absorption lines appear as dips in the
transmittance spectrum lines. Each line has a width and a depth, which are determined
by the quantum mechanical properties of the molecule in question.
The spectrum of a gas molecule can be calculated using the basic physical laws, but
it is not accurate enough for practical calculations. The collection of line parameters
for a group of absorption lines is called a line list; the list has been derived by fitting
laboratory spectra measured in various conditions. In this way, each absorption line is
specified by a set of parameters. Using this data, an absorption line can be calculated
for a given concentration, temperature and pressure. HITRAN is probably the most
comprehensive and commonly used line list for atmospheric applications and it is
available when using the SpectralCalc tool. [4]
In order to simulate the transmittance spectrum of a gas mixture over a given
spectral range, the absorption lines of each gas must be calculated. The complete
spectrum is the product of the individual, absorption-line spectra. The individual line
spectra cannot be directly summarized in the case of overlapping frequencies.
The algorithms that calculate molecular spectra in this way are known as line-by-
line models, and they produce the most accurate values for molecular absorption. The
SpectralCalc tool uses line-by-line modelling for the molecular transmission and
emission calculations. In actual calculations SpectralCalc uses LinepakTM algorithms,
which Gordley et al. have described in detail. [5] Many international research
institutes, including NASA, use LinepakTM software for spectral calculations, which
proves the correctness and validity of SpectralCalc.
The roles of greenhouse gases in global warming 783

2.2 Atmospheric spectral calculations

Calculating the spectrum in a complicated path, like through the planetary atmosphere,
requires special arrangements. SpectralCalc divides the path into segments, which are
approximated by constant temperature, pressure and gas concentrations. [3] The
transmittance spectrum of the whole path is the product of individual spectra of the
segments. These calculations may become computationally very intensive and,
therefore, SpectralCalc has been designed to maximize efficiency without losing
accuracy.
The SpectralCalc tool offers an opportunity for individual researchers to calculate
and analyze the GH phenomenon. Atmospheric path calculations are possible from a
minimum height of 1 km to a maximum height of 600 km. Six different atmospheric
models are readily available: standard, tropical, mid-latitude summer, mid-latitude
winter, polar summer and polar winter. Users can modify the GH concentration
profiles by scale factors and the temperature by offset changes.
The author has used the SpectralCalc tool to verify some basic features of the GH
phenomenon and especially the effects of GH gas concentration changes. Even though
SpectralCalc is a very powerful calculation tool, a user cannot calculate the
transmission or absorption spectrum, for example in the range of 4-100 micrometres
(µm), with one calculation operation only. The author calculated the absorption values
in the ranges of 4-5, 5-6, 6-7, 7-10, 10-15, 15-20, 20-30 and 30-100 µm in an air
column of 11 km. Each calculation produced a list of transmission and wavelength
values varying from 403 to 564 points. The absorption of radiation energy for each
wavelength was calculated by multiplying the absorption values by the calculated
radiance values emitted by the Earth’s surface at a given temperature.
Two test runs were carried out for checking the correctness of radiation absorption
procedures of integration. By selecting the transmission value as zero and the
temperature as 255.2 K, the total absorption in an air column of 11 km was 238.61
Wm-2. SpectralCalc’s black body calculator for the same temperature gave a reading
of 240.52 Wm-2, which indicates 0.79% accuracy. The SpectralCalc tool does not
recalculate the temperature profile if there is radiation absorption in the atmosphere
that causes a temperature change. This problem will be discussed in Chapter 5.

3. AVERAGE CLIMATE OF THE EARTH

When we specify the concentrations of GH gases, we need to specify the part of the
atmosphere where the GH phenomenon actually happens and the actual average
composition of the average atmosphere.

3.1 The height of the atmosphere in GH phenomenon

Many spectral radiation calculations include the whole atmosphere, because satellites
monitoring radiation values are orbiting above the atmosphere. Scientists believe that
the GH phenomenon happens in the troposphere at a height below that of 11
kilometres2. The height of the troposphere varies between 8 and 15 kilometres, with
the standard height being 11 km. Limiting the GH effect to just the troposphere can
also be justified by the fact that global warming has taken place in the lower parts of
the atmosphere.
784 Energy & Environment · Vol. 23, No. 5, 2012

The author calculated the radiation flux absorption values (W/m2) using the
SpectralCalc tool for the average atmosphere, which will be discussed in more detail
later on, for the air columns extending from the surface to different heights in clear sky
conditions. The flux absorption value for 120 km was 308.34 Wm-2 (100 %), for 11
km 302.71 Wm-2 (98.0%), for 2 km 287.90 (93.3%), and for 1 km it was 272.22 Wm-
2
(88.1%). These results confirm that a height of 11 km for atmospheric calculations
is a sound choice.

3.2 The average global atmosphere profiles

Because the SpectralCalc tool can calculate radiation absorption values only for a
single atmosphere composition at a time, it is essential to define the average global
atmosphere (AGA). There is a standard climate model for this in SpectralCalc [3], but
it is actually the U.S. standard atmosphere for the year 1976. While the gas
concentration values are applicable for the year 1976, the water concentration turned
out to only be approximately 50% of the true global actual values.
There is no generally accepted AGA model known to the author and that is why the
AGA profiles had to be calculated. The calculations are based on the five available
atmospheric models in SpectralCalc, which were originally produced by Ellingson et al. [6]
The AGA values were calculated in a step-by-step process. The first step produced
the average values for polar and mid-latitude atmospheres by averaging the summer
and winter profiles. Then, the preliminary AGA profiles were produced by combining
the three atmospheres according to their average geographical areas. One way of doing
this is to define the tropical belt as being between 23.5 degrees North and South, the
mid-latitudes as being from 23.5 degrees to 60 degrees and the Polar Regions as being
between 60 and 90 degrees. By utilizing these definitions, the calculations produced
weighting factors of 0.391, 0.461 and 0.148 for these regions. Finally, the weighting
factors were fine-tuned to produce an average surface temperature of 288.2 K. After
this fine-tuning, the following weighting factors were achieved: tropical climate 0.4,
mid-latitude climate 0.45 and polar climate 0.15.
One restriction of the SpectralCalc tool is that a user cannot freely define the
atmospheric profiles. One has to select one of the six available atmospheres. The
author selected the polar summer atmosphere (PSA) because it is closest to the AGA
values. Table 1 summarizes the AGA and PSA atmosphere profiles. Actually, the
temperature profile for the PSA is 2.6 degrees colder than the one for the AGA profile
and the pressure profile is 5.4 mbar lower than the AGA profile in the troposphere.
The pressure profile cannot be adjusted and the difference has no practical impact. The
temperature profile could be adjusted by a temperature off-set. Because the surface
temperature is the same as the AGA value and 88% of the absorption takes place
below 1 km, the PSA temperature profile has not been adjusted.
The AGA profile for water resulted in a total content of water in the troposphere of
2.69 prcm (precipitable water in centimetres). Miskolczi has calculated from TIGR
(The Thermodynamic Initial Guess Retrieval) climatological balloon observation
library and from NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) data that
the total precipitable water amount in the average global atmosphere is 2.6 cm. [7] The
calculated AGA water amount is only 3.5% higher than this value. Finally, the PSA
water profile was adjusted to 2.6 prcm.
The roles of greenhouse gases in global warming 785

Table 1. Average global atmosphere profiles and modified polar summer

atmosphere profiles.

Polar Average Polar Average Mod. Polar Average

summer global summer global summer global
Altitude atm. atm. atm. atm. atm. atm.
3 3
(km) T (K) T(K) P (mbar) P (mbar) Hum. (g/m ) Hum. (g/m )
0 288.20 288.23 1010.0 1013.9 11.112 12.037
1 281.70 283.68 896.0 900.2 7.403 8.264
2 276.30 278.84 792.9 797.9 5.194 5.756
3 270.90 274.45 700.0 705.3 3.348 3.122
4 265.50 268.29 616.0 622.0 2.112 1.607
5 260.10 262.00 541.0 547.1 1.245 0.999
6 253.10 255.58 474.0 479.5 0.672 0.571
7 246.10 249.10 413.0 418.9 0.361 0.316
8 239.20 242.58 359.0 364.8 0.162 0.166
9 232.20 236.31 310.8 316.4 0.047 0.082
10 225.20 230.36 267.7 273.6 0.014 0.037
11 225.20 226.02 230.0 235.7 0.004 0.013

In its latest report, the IPCC has reported accurate concentration values for CO2, CH4
and N2O for the years 1750 (before industrialization) and 2005, but not for O3. [8]
Vingartzan has surveyed the numerous studies on O3 surface concentrations; [9] the
average value for the year 1750 is 0.02 ppm, while the average value for the year 2000
is between 0.04 and 0.05 ppm. The O3 values of the SpectralCalc tool vary from
between 0.024 and 0.091 ppm in the troposphere and these O3 profiles has been
applied in the AGA simulation calculations.
The other GH gas concentrations in the SpectralCalc climate models are almost the
same as those reported by the IPPC, except for that of CO2, whose value is 330 ppm.
Table 2 provides a summary of the GH gas concentrations and the final scale factors
applied in the SpectralCalc tool for the AGA simulations.

Table 2. Surface GH gas concentrations reported by IPCC [8] and the scale
factors applied in SpectralCalc [3] for the average global atmosphere (year 2005).

GH gas IPPC value (ppmv) Polar Summer (ppmv) Scale factor

H2O not reported 11900 1.2384
CO2 379 330 1.149
CH4 1.774 1.700 1.044
N2O 0.319 0.310 1.029
O3 not reported 0.0241 1.0
786 Energy & Environment · Vol. 23, No. 5, 2012

4. RADIATION ABSORPTION CAPACITIES OF GREENHOUSE GASES

Each GH gas has its own absorption band. The warming caused by a GH gas depends
on the gas concentration and the radiation absorption at each band.
In order to illustrate the magnitudes of the absorption bands of the GH gases, the
author has produced the absorption bands using the SpectralCalc tool for the AGA.
The graphical presentations of the absorption bands are depicted in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2.

Figure 1. The black body absorption spectra of the Earth at 15 ºC and the absorption
bands of H2O and CO2 based on the average global atmosphere (AGA) conditions.

Figure 2. The absorption bands of O3, N2O, and CH4 gases based on the AGA
conditions.
The roles of greenhouse gases in global warming 787

The band areas give rough estimates of the warming capacities of GH gases. These
illustrations make it clear that H2O and CO2 play the major roles in the absorption of
radiation flux energy. Because the presentations in Fig.1 and 2 are calculated for one
GH gas at a time, they do not take into account the overlapping phenomenon. This is
very essential in wavelengths from 13 to 18 µm for H2O and CO2.
The IPCC does not treat H2O in the same way that it does the other GH gases. In
its view, the other GH gases produce radiative forcing, but H2O produces positive
feedback. In its last report, [10] the IPCC admits that H2O is the strongest GH gas, but
it does not report concentrations or warming potentials for it.
The essential difference is that the IPCC model does not use the direct radiation
absorption capacities of the GH gas molecules. It also uses a time-scale characterising
factor, which is a measure of the retaining time of a GH gas in the atmosphere.
Combining the absorption potentials and the retaining time produces a factor called the
Global Warming Potential (GWP). [11,12] Water has a very short retaining time -
evaporation and precipitation can happen in days or even in hours - but, for example,
CH4 and N2O are stable gases that remain in the atmosphere for decades. This means
that it would take a very long time to remove these GH gases from the atmosphere.
The IPCC has not reported the way in which it uses GWP values in its calculations or
whether these GWP values are only an artificial means of emphasising the roles of
anthropogenic GH gases.
The author’s opinion is that the methodology of combining two totally different
properties of GH gases into one factor is not needed or justified in global warming
models. The calculation for or estimation of the concentrations of GH gases in the
future will entail a separate process, and those values can easily be applied in any
models, as can be the absorption potentials, which are stable constants by nature based
purely on the molecular properties of GH gases. The combination of molecular
properties and retaining times produces a value that can give the wrong idea about the
warming effects now occurring.
Regarding H2O as a less powerful GH gas can be criticized, too. Even though its
residence time is very short when compared with other GH gases, H2O is ever-present
in various concentrations but seldom constant at any particular concentration for a
predictable period of time and at a predictable location.

5. RADIATION ABSORPTION AND SURFACE TEMPERATURE

In each different atmosphere a situation has been established where the surface
temperature and radiation absorption in the atmosphere are in balance. The main
variables are the surface temperature and the atmospheric humidity, which affect the
radiation flux absorption.
The author has calculated the radiation absorption for five different atmosphere
models, which are available in SpectralCalc. Also, two extra simulations were carried
out: one for a surface temperature of -18 °C in polar winter conditions and another for
a surface temperature of 36.6 °C in tropical climate conditions. In these calculations
the relative humidity was kept the same as in the original polar and tropical climate
models. The results of these calculations are presented in Fig.3.
788 Energy & Environment · Vol. 23, No. 5, 2012

Figure 3. Simulation results for five different atmospheres showing the relationship
between radiative flux absorption and surface temperature. The straight line indicates
the relationship around the average global atmosphere (AGA).

The dependency of the surface temperature on radiation absorption is slightly

nonlinear. The straight line in Fig. 3 illustrates this linear relationship around an
average temperature of 15 °C, which is expressed in eqn 2:

∆Ts = ∆E/5.35, (2)

where ∆Ts is the surface temperature change and ∆E is the radiation absorption change
caused by a GH gas or gases. This value has been used to transform the absorbed
radiation fluxes into surface temperatures. The AGA simulation, which produced the
point 15 °C/302.71 Wm-2, is almost exactly on the linear line. It should be noticed that
the term “radiative forcing” used by IPCC has its own definition – for example there
are no feedback elements – and that is the reason, why radiation flux and surface
temperature relationship as calculated above has different value than that of IPCC.
It should be noted that all other values in these calculations represent real climate
conditions, except for the radiation absorbed value, which is calculated theoretically.
One problem when calculating the radiation absorption is that, for example, CO2
increase will increase the temperature, but the SpectralCalc tool does not adjust the
temperature profile during the calculation. A user should carry out iterative
calculations. The relationship between absorbed energy and the surface temperature in
Fig.3 is important, because it is an experimental relationship. It can be used to
calculate the new surface temperature, which is in balance with the radiation
absorption change in the atmosphere without repeated calculations.
The author carried out a mathematical analysis to determine the nature of the
relationship if the surface temperature would be linearly dependent on the absorbed
The roles of greenhouse gases in global warming 789

radiation, H2O concentration (prcm) and relative humidity (RH). One could select the
surface values for these variables, but in this analysis values at the height of 1 km were
used. The justification for this selection is that at a height of 1 km, approximately 88%
of the radiative energy flux has been absorbed. Table 3 shows the above variables for
five different atmospheric models.

Table 3. Atmosphere model conditions at a height of 1 km. The absorbed

radiation has been calculated for an air column of 11 km.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atmospheric model Pressure, Tempe- Rad. abs., H2O,
hPa rature, K Wm-2 prcm RH, %
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polar winter 887.8 259.1 163.68 0.4209 79.33
Mid-latitude winter 897.3 268.7 216.57 0.8616 73.01
Polar summer 896.0 281.7 293.53 2.0964 69.14
Mid-latitude summer 902.0 289.7 334.24 2.9456 64.95
Tropical 904.0 293.7 379.11 4.1223 71.18

The achieved multiple linear regression, eqn 3, is as follows:

Ts = 279.195186 + 0.111723 * E + 1.78532587 * C – 0.4941032 * RH, (3)

where Ts is the surface temperature (K), E is the absorbed radiation (Wm-2), C is the
H2O concentration (prcm) and the RH is the relative humidity (%). The correlation r2
is 0.9999 and the standard error for the estimate is 0.215 K. This linear fitting indicates
a very high correlation.
This correlation clearly shows that absorbed radiation is the major factor in
explaining the surface temperatures. The roles of H2O can be explained according to
its two functions: it is a major contributor to infrared radiation absorption (see Chapter
7) in the troposphere and, at the same time, via moist air thermodynamics, relative
humidity has a strong negative impact on the climate system mechanism. This
mechanism has been proposed by several climate researchers, such as Miskolczi7 and
Paltridge et al. [13]
The limitations of this analysis are that the amount of input material is very narrow
and that this is a mathematical exercise without an impact mechanism. At any rate, it
provides a fairly good indication that a negative feedback mechanism for relative
humidity could exist. This mechanism can explain why the surface temperature
remains stable in the cases of increased concentrations of other GH gases like CO2.

6. SATURATION AND OVERLAPPING PHENOMENA

GH gas concentrations affect the radiative absorption. The IPCC has stated that the
radiative effect of absorption by water vapour is roughly proportional to the logarithm
for its concentration. [10] The IPCC does not specify this relationship in detail.
790 Energy & Environment · Vol. 23, No. 5, 2012

When a GH gas concentration increases, the absorption no longer increases in a

linear fashion at a certain point; rather, the curve begins to bend downwards. This
phenomenon is called saturation, which begins when a GH gas like CO2 or H2O has
captured nearly all of the available photons within a certain LW band.
There is no simple way to calculate the degree of saturation. The practical way is
to carry out simulation calculations with different GH gas concentrations. These
calculations are easy to do when using the SpectralCalc properties. Only CO2 and H2O
are interesting gases. Surface temperatures have been calculated using eqn 2.
Fig. 4 shows the results for the CO2 calculations. The linear part of radiative flux
absorption is linear until approximately 50 ppm; thereafter, the saturation phenomenon
increases.

Figure 4. The absorption energy fluxes in the average global atmosphere (AGA) as
a function of the CO2 concentration.

Fig. 5 shows the results for H2O calculations. The linear part of radiative flux
absorption is linear until approximately 0.1 prcm; thereafter, the saturation
phenomenon increases.
The overlapping phenomenon of absorption bands is another inaccuracy factor
existing in brief absorption calculations. It is a fact that the overall warming effect
cannot be calculated by merely summarizing the warming effects on the basis of
directly multiplying the concentrations and absorption potentials if they have
overlapping bands.
An important benefit of the SpectralCalc tool is that it can utilize calculation
methods, as described in Chapter 2, which are advanced enough that saturation and the
overlapping phenomenon will not cause inaccuracies. [5]
The roles of greenhouse gases in global warming 791

Figure 5. The absorption energy fluxes in the average global atmosphere (AGA) as
a function of the H2O concentration.

To illustrate the impact of a warmer climate and a higher concentration of H2O and
CO2, the author has produced the radiation emission of the Earth, the H2O absorption
graph and the CO2 absorption graph for a concentration of 800 ppm for the tropical
atmosphere. The results are depicted in Fig. 6.

Figure 6. The black body absorption spectra of the Earth at 26.4 ºC and the
absorption bands of H2O and CO2 (800 ppm) in the tropical atmosphere.
792 Energy & Environment · Vol. 23, No. 5, 2012

We can see that the increase of water in the warmer climate means a bigger band
area, resulting in higher radiation absorption. The CO2 concentration is an artificial
choice and it illustrates that the increase in the CO2 concentration does not result in the
so big change in its band area. Fig. 6 reveals also that H2O can almost totally (76-
100%) absorb radiation flux in the waveband from 13 to 18 µm without CO2. This
means that these two major GH gases overlap heavily and it has a clear impact on the
GH effect contribution.

7. GREENHOUSE EFFECT CONTRIBUTORS

The author has calculated the warming effects of different GH gases by utilising the
AGA conditions for the year 2005. Based on the calculations in Chapter 5, the
absorbed radiation for the AGA conditions at 15 ºC is 302.71 Wm-2, whereas the same
value at -18.0 ºC is 156.18 Wm-2. The difference between these two values is 146.53
Wm-2. It is a measure of the total climate warming of all GH gases.
The radiation absorption changes (Wm-2) caused by each GH gas can be calculated
as percentages in comparison to the total radiative warming or according to eqn (2)
around the AGA in comparison to 33 K. The calculations were carried out by
removing one GH gas at a time from the atmospheric model in the SpectralCalc tool
and by keeping other GH gases present in the AGA. These results are summarized in
Table 4.

Table 4. GH effects of individual GH gases in the average global atmosphere

(AGA). Percentage values have been calculated with respect to the total
radiative warming in the AGA (146.53 Wm-2) and in respect to the GH
phenomenon in degrees (33 K).

Two other calculations were carried out for CO2: in the polar atmosphere without CO2,
the change in absorption radiation is 23.3%, whereas in the tropical atmosphere the
change is 5.9%. These results indicate that when humidity values are lower, the CO2
impact will be higher. They also indicate that the water content in the atmosphere
defines what the CO2 levels will contribute to the GH phenomenon.
It is interesting to compare these results with the results published by Kiehl and
Trenberth [14] and Lacis et al., [15] which are depicted in Table 5. While all of the
values are based on the radiation absorption calculations, the values are very different.
Kiehl and Trenberth have used the U.S standard atmosphere for the year 1976 and the
values are for clear sky conditions. [14] Lacis et al. have used the Goddard Institute’s
GISS model for a cloudy sky. [15]
The roles of greenhouse gases in global warming 793

Table 5. Contributions of GH gases in global warming according to different

studies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GH Gas Kiehl and Trenberth,14 % Lacis et al.,15 % This study, %
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H2 O 60 50 87
CO2 26 20 10
CH4, N2O 6 5 1
O3 8 2
Clouds - 25 -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The impact of H2O is much higher than reported by Kiehl and Trenberth; [14] the CO2
contribution is only 10% and the impact of other anthropogenic gases is much lower
(3%) than that of 14%.
What could be the explanation for the significant differences in the contributions of
the various GH gases? Kiehl and Trenberth report that they have removed sequentially
atmospheric absorbers from the model.14 This does not sound like a precise
description.
The key element seems again to be the water. In the author’s analysis the starting
point is that H2O is constantly present in the atmosphere, but the concentrations of
other GH gases may vary because they are anthropogenic by nature and their
concentrations are low. Oceans and seas cover about 70% of the Earth’s surface and
this means that water is always available in the atmosphere. The limiting factor is the
amount of energy available for evaporation.
Kiehl and Trenberth have used the U.S. standard atmosphere for 1976 and have
even reduced the humidity by 12% in their study, which also includes calculations on
the effects of GH gases. [14] The water content of this atmosphere is approximately
50% that of the average global atmosphere (AGA). When the U.S. standard
atmosphere for 1976 was applied in SpectralCalc simulations, the results were 279.90
Wm-2 for all GH gases present in the atmosphere. The same value, 156.18 Wm-2 for -
18.0 ºC, can be applied as for the AGA calculation, resulting in a total GH effect value
of 123.72 Wm-2 for the atmosphere in question. SpectralCalc simulations produce the
following GH effects: CO2 26%, CH4 and N2O 2.6% and O3 2.0%, leaving H2O at
approximately 69%. The CO2 effect is exactly the same percentage as reported by
Kiehl and Trenberth. [14]
Lacis et al. have concluded that clouds have a positive impact; they assign them a
value of 25%. [15] The role of clouds in the GH phenomenon seems to be unclear and
very different results have been reported by scientists. The IPCC reports that scientists
do not have a clear understanding of the impact of clouds and they leave clouds out of
their model. Svensmark and Friis-Christensen have listed three references in which the
cooling effects vary from 17 to 35 Wm-2. [16] It looks as if researchers more
commonly focus on the cooling effect of clouds than the warming effect.
794 Energy & Environment · Vol. 23, No. 5, 2012

8. CLIMATE CHANGE
The IPCC has concluded that climate change – a temperature increase of about 0.76 °C
between 1750 and 2005 – is caused by an increase in the anthropogenic GH gases.

8.1 Full Scale Test

We can say that mankind has carried out a full-scale scientific test by increasing the
CO2 content from 280 ppm to 379 ppm (99 ppm increase) during the period from 1750
to 2005, producing approximately a 0.76 °C increase in the temperature according to
IPCC reported values. [8] Thus, we can obtain a rough estimate that 389 ppm of CO2
produces a total maximum GH effect of 3.0 K, assuming a linear relationship. Because
the general estimate for the total GH effect is 33 K, [1,2] the total impact of CO2 is
only 9%, leaving 91% for H2O and other GH gases, assuming a linear dependency.

8.2 Calculation of global warming from 1750 to 2005 by simulations

The change in anthropogenic GH gases has been significant if we are thinking in terms
of percentage values. The IPCC’s report reveals that the total net anthropogenic
forcing is 1.6 Wm-2, which is practically same as the CO2 forcing of 1.66 Wm-2
because the other radiative forcing factors eliminate each other. [8] That is why it is
enough to calculate the radiative absorption change caused by the increase in CO2
from 280 ppm to 379 ppm. A simulation of this change in the AGA produces a
radiation absorption flux change of 1.05 Wm-2, which is equal to a temperature
increase of 0.2 K.
Because water has the biggest role in radiation absorption, it is important to analyse
whether or not there is any data available about the atmospheric water trends as well
as the way in which way the IPPC has actually calculated the H2O impact for this
change.
In the IPCC’s model the relative humidity (RH) remains constant if the temperature
changes. [10] When an increase in the CO2 raises the global temperature, the constant
RH means more water content. According to the IPCC, the net effect of water vapour
in amplifying the warming effect of CO2 is about 50%. [10] The calculations with the
SpectralCalc tool in the U.S. standard climate for a change in CO2 of between 280
ppm and 379 ppm produces a radiation absorption flux change of 1.73 Wm-2, which
corresponds to a temperature change of 0.32 K. If the constant relative humidity is
assumed, the increase in temperature rise would be 0.30 K. The net warming effect
would be 0.62 K, which is close to the IPCC’s value of 0.76 K.
It should be noticed that calculating an increase in the temperature in the way
described above includes the problem of positive feedback. Because there is a positive
feedback from H2O, the procedure described above will never end. That is why the
above calculation represents a simplified estimate of this mechanism.
The positive feedback of H2O is not a generally accepted scientific fact. Some
researchers, such as Held and Soden, [17] have proposed a positive feedback, but
many researchers have found that the RH has a negative feedback [7, 13], as discussed
in Chapter 5.
If there is no CO2 in the atmosphere, according the SpectralCalc simulation in the
AGA the absorbed radiation would be 285.92 Wm-2 (see Fig. 4), which is equal to a
The roles of greenhouse gases in global warming 795

3.1 K decrease in temperature (10% effect). Interestingly enough, Miskolczi and

Mlynczak have arrived at approximately the same conclusion (9% decrease in the GH
effect and a 2.5 K decrease) based on their spectral radiation calculations. [18]
As mentioned in Section 3.2, Miskolczi has analysed the TIGR and NOAA
databases, which provide atmospheric time series data for global temperature, H2O
and CO2 trends from the years 1948 to 2008. [7] He has calculated that the H2O
content has decreased by 0.0106%/year, which produces a total decrease of 0.6466%
over the course of 61 years. When the SpectralCalc simulation is carried out applying
the 280 ppm CO2 concentration and the above water content, the radiation absorption
value is 302.24 Wm-2. When this is compared to the present AGA value of 302.71, it
is equal to a temperature change of +0.09 K only. This means that, according to
SpectralCalc simulations, it is impossible to find real temperature rise based on a CO2
increase of 99 ppm.
There is a debate about the reliability of radiosonde humidity trends [13]. The
former Product Manager of Vaisala – the worldwide market leader manufacturer-
Veijo Antikainen told in the interview that Humicap® sensor technology introduced in
the beginning of 80’s improved the accuracy in comparison to the old hygrometer
technology. Every sensor has been always calibrated individually and any systematic
errors have never been noticed19.

8.3 Future scenarios

The SpectralCalc tool can be used to evaluate how the impact of a GH gas changes as
its concentration increases. The results for CO2 changes in the average global
atmosphere are depicted in Fig. 4. An increase of CO2 to a value of 550 ppm is equal
to a 0.23 K increase in temperature. An increase of CO2 to 800 ppm would increase
the GH warming by 2.75 Wm-2, which corresponds to an increase in the average
global surface temperature of 0.53 K. Miskolczi and Mlynczak have calculated that
doubling the CO2 would increase the same temperature by 0.48 K (2.53 W/m-2
warming), which is practically the same result. [18]
The IPCC has reported temperature changes based on six different scenarios
leading up to the year 2100. [8] Scenario B1 has the lowest increase of CO2; it
increases to 550 ppm, producing a temperature change of 1.8 K. This value can be
assessed on the basis of a present increase in temperature of 0.76 K, which was caused
by an increase in the CO2 of 99 ppm. If the same mechanism would be applicable, the
maximum increase would be 1.3 K only. Because the increasing concentrations of CO2
are in nonlinear portions, the effect should be even smaller than 1.3 K.

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

Based on the analyses in this study, the GH effects on GH gases are found to be radically
different (H2O 87% and CO2 10%) from the effects found by Kiehl and Trenberth (H2O
60% and CO2 26%), [14] which have been referred to on many occasions.
According to the radiation absorption calculations done by Freidenreich and
Ramaswamy, [20] the H2O heating rate from the ground up to 9 km (<300 mbar) is
almost exactly the same as the combined effect of H2O+CO2 and in the upper
troposphere (< 180 mbar) CO2 has a greater impact than H2O.
796 Energy & Environment · Vol. 23, No. 5, 2012

We should note that in carrying out the radiation absorption calculations based on
the measured values in space, the measuring sensors cannot define an absorbing GH
gas for each wavelength. Researchers must connect the absorbing GH gases to the
measurement results based on the available molecular spectroscopic data.
Based on the different results, it looks as though researchers have treated the
overlapping absorption bands of H2O and CO2 in different ways, which they have not
reported. Kiehl and Trenberth’s results14 could at least be partially explained if, in the
cases of bands overlapping with H2O, the absorption had always been linked to other
GH gases. In the SpectralCalc calculations, this problem does not exist because of the
calculation methods and the simulation done in an artificial atmosphere.
An important finding of this study is the saturation of CO2 absorption. An increase
of CO2 to 550 ppm from the present level produces a temperature increase of 0.23 °C,
whereas doubling the CO2 to a value of 800 ppm causes a temperature increase of only
0.53 °C without any water feedback effects. According to these results, global
warming would be considerably lower than in the past because of increasing CO2
values, even though the only reasons for warming would be the GH gases.
Pierrehumbert has stated: “Modern spectroscopy shows that CO2 is nowhere near
being saturated”. [21] The calculations done with the SpectralCalc tool show that the
warming effects caused by increasing CO2 values are moderate compared with
increasing CO2 concentrations. The explanation is that in an altitude range of from 0
to 1 km where 88 % of radiation absorption happens, the H2O concentration in the
average global atmosphere is between 14851 and 10858 ppm, respectively, which is
28-39 greater than a CO2 concentration of 379 ppm (2005).
In a waveband region that ranges from 13 to 18 µm, H2O and CO2 absorb the
radiation about in equal amounts – not only CO2 as usually stated. In the upper
atmosphere above the troposphere, it would still be possible for CO2 to absorb
radiation, but in the average global atmosphere the absorption would already be close
to complete in the troposphere at a waveband range between 13 and 22. The radiation
absorption would only be 2% higher if it is calculated up till 120 km in comparison
with the value for 11 km.
If the atmosphere applied in the simulations would be considerably drier - like the
U.S. standard atmosphere for the year 1976, with only 7750 ppmv of H2O at the
surface level – the effects of CO2 would be 26% in the GH phenomenon – exactly the
same figure as reported by Kiehl and Trenberth. [14]
The global warming simulation from the years 1750 to 2005 gives results for the
average global atmosphere such that the temperature rise has only been 0.2 K and that
it has nearly been compensated for by a water decrease of 0.6464% in the atmosphere
since 1948. On the other hand, if these simulations would be carried out in the U.S.
standard atmosphere for the year 1976, with the same constant relative humidity, the
warming effect would be 0.62 K (50% caused by H2O), which is close to the IPCC
results (0.76 K). [8]
The analyses provided in this study reveal that the IPCC’s model contains problems
and contradictions concerning the behaviour and the role of H2O: (1) the IPCC has not
reported any brief concentration values for H2O; (2) the IPCC has not reported any
warming potential values for H2O; and, (3) if H2O were to have a positive feedback,
The roles of greenhouse gases in global warming 797

it would result in a situation in which the temperature would spin out of control. There
are several simulations in this study which would roughly explain the IPCC results,
figuring the IPCC has utilized an atmosphere that is approximately 50% drier than the
average global atmosphere based on the TIGR and NOAA humidity libraries. This is
a kind of speculation, but it is justified as long as the IPCC does not report the
humidity values applied in its model.
The studies by Paltridge et al. on balloon-borne radiosonde humidity measurements
in the troposphere during the last 35 years reveal that the RH trends are negative in all
other layers except at the ground level, and that the magnitude of the RH decrease
globally is about 1.5 RH per cent [13], which is the author’s estimate based on the
graphical presentations. The TIGR and NOAA humidity libraries also prove a
decrease in the H2O values of 0.6466 during the last 61 years, as calculated by
Miskolczi. [7]
The fact that the humidity in the troposphere behaves in a different way than is
assumed by the IPCC indicates that we need to understand the role and the behaviour
of water vapour in the climate in more detail. It appears that water vapour plays one
of the key roles in explaining the climate’s warming processes. Some researchers, such
as Miskolczi, [7] have concluded, on the basis of some experimental data, that water
vapour has no positive feedback, which contradicts the IPCC’s model. However, water
vapour is a very strong compensating element with a negative feedback. The
correlation analysis of this study has also produced results which indicate a negative
feedback of increasing relative humidity.
There are two approaches that offer competing explanations for climate behaviour.
Beck has collected a large data bank on the former standard chemical CO2 analysis
results since 1810. [22] The measurement results cannot be regarded as totally
unreliable because the standard error is only about 3%. These results show, for
example, that in the 1940s the CO2 concentrations were over 400 ppm. This would
mean that the climate behaves in a very different way than that assumed by the IPCC.
Another theory is the so-called “sun theory”, which Svensmark & Christensen have
analysed. [16] The impact mechanism of the sun through cosmic rays and cloudiness
may have increased the temperature during the last 150 years. According to
Svensmark, [23] a 2% change in low cloud cover can cause a warming effect of 1.2
Wm-2 – as compared to a total anthropogenic warming effect of 1.6 Wm-2 reported by
the IPCC. Now it looks as if the sun has come into a lower level of activity. Even
including this change the correlation between cosmic rays and the global temperature
change may have remained high [24]. The latest global temperatures seem to trend
downwards.
A more comprehensive model on GH effects is needed, one that is in line with
water vapour measurement data for the atmosphere.
798 Energy & Environment · Vol. 23, No. 5, 2012

REFERENCES
1. Peixoto, J.P and Oort, A.H. Physics of climate. Springer-Verlag, New York, (1992).
2. Kushnir, Y. Solar radiation and the earth’s energy balance;
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/ (2011).
3. Gats, Inc. Spectral calculations tool; http://www.spectralcalc.com/info/about.php (2011).
4. Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, The Hitran database;
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/HITRAN/ (2011).
5. Gordley L.L., Marshall, B.T., Chu, D. LINEPAK: Algorithm for Modeling Spectral
Transmittance and Radiance. J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transfer 52, 563-580 (1994).
6. Ellingson, R.G., Ellis, J., Fels. S. The intercomparison of radiation codes used in climate
models, J. Geophys. Res. 96, 8929-8953 (1991).
7. Miskolczi, F. The stable stationary value of the earth’s global average atmospheric
Planck-weighted greenhouse-gas optical thickness, Ener. & Envir. 21, 243-262 (2010).
8. IPPC, 2007: Summary for policymakers in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
(2007).
9. Vingarzan, R. A. review of surface ozone background levels and trends. Atm. Env. 38,
3431-3442 (2004).
10. IPPC, 2007: Water vapor and lapse late and in radiative forcing in Climate Change 2007:
The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, (2007).
11. IPPC, 2007: Direct global warming potentials in Climate Change 2007: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
(2007).
12. IPPC, 2007: Global warming potentials and other metrics for comparing different
emissions in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (2007).
13. Paltridge, G., Arking, A., Pook, M. Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric
humidity from NCEP reanalysis data, Theor. Appl. Climatol. 98, 351–359 (2009).
14. Kielh, J.T. and Trenbarth, K. E. Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget, Bull. Amer.
Meteor. Soc. 90, 311-323 (2009).
15. Lacis, A.A., Schmidt, G.A., Rind, D. and Ruedy, R.A. Atmospheric CO2: Principal
control knob governing Earth’s temperature. Sc 330, 356-359 (2011).
16. Svensmark, H. and Friis-Christensen, E. Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud
coverage – a missing link in solar-climate relationships, J. Atmos. Solar Terr. Phys. 59,
1225-1232 (1997).
The roles of greenhouse gases in global warming 799

17. Held, I.M. and Soden, B.J. Water vapour feedback and global warming, Annu. Rev.
Energy Environ. 25, 441-475 (2000).
18. Miskolczi, F.M. and Mlynczak, M.G. The greenhouse effect and the spectral
decomposition of the clear-sky terrestrial radiation, Idöjaras 108, 209-251 (2004).
19. Antikainen, V., Vaisala radiosonde humidity technology. Interview, 30th of Jan, 2012.
20. Freidenreich, S.M. and Ramaswamy, V. Solar radiation absorption by CO2, overlap with
H2O, and a parameterization for general circulation models, J. Geophys. Res. 98, 7255-
7264 (1993).
21. Pierrehumbert, R.T. Infrared radiation and planetary temperature, Ph. Today, 64, 33-38
(2011).
22. Beck, E-G. 180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods. Ener. &
Envir. 18, 259-282 (2007).
23. Svensmark, H. Cosmoclimatology: A new theory emerges, A&G 48, 1.18-1.24 (2007).
24. Ollila, A. Changes in cosmic ray fluxes improve correlation to global warming.
Int.J.Ph.Sc. 7, 822-826 (2012).
View publication stats