Our Initial Comments on the Abraham et al. Critique of the Spencer & Braswell 1D model

October 23rd, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Our 1D forcing-feedback-mixing model published in January 2014 (and not paywalled, but also here) addressed the global average ocean temperature changes observed from the surface to 700 m depth, with the model extending to 2,000 m depth.

We used the 1D model to obtain a consensus-supporting climate sensitivity when traditional forcings were used (mostly anthropogenic GHGs, aerosols, and volcanoes), but a much smaller 1.3 deg. C climate sensitivity if the observed history of ENSO was included, which was shown from CERES satellite measurements to modulate the Earth’s radiative budget naturally (what we called “internal radiative forcing” of the climate system).

Abraham et al. recently published an open source paper addressing the various assumptions in our model. While we have only had a couple days to look at it, in response to multiple requests for comment I am now posting some initial reactions.

Abraham et al. take great pains to fault the validity of a simple 1D climate model to examine climate sensitivity. But as we state in our paper (and as James Hansen has even written), in the global average all that really matters for the rate of rise of temperature is (1) forcing, (2) feedback, and (3) ocean mixing. These three basic processes can be addressed in a 1D model. Advective processes (horizontal transports) vanish in the global ocean average.

They further ignore the evidence we present (our Fig. 1 in Spencer & Braswell, 2014) that a 1D model might actually be preferable from the standpoint of energy conservation, since the 3D models do not appear to conserve energy – a basic requirement in virtually any physical modelling enterprise. Some of the CMIP3 models’ deep ocean temperature changes in apparent contradiction to whether the climate system is being radiative forced from above. Since the 3D models do not include a changing geothermal heat flux, this suggests a violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. (Three of the 13 models we examined cooled most of deep ocean since 1955, despite increasing energy input from above. How does that happen?)

On this point, how is it that Abraham et al. nitpick a 1D model that CAN explain the observations, but the authors do not fault the IPCC 3D models which CANNOT explain the observations, and possibly don’t even conserve energy in the deep ocean?

Regarding their specific summary points (in bold):

1. The model treats the entire Earth as ocean-covered.
Not true, and a red herring anyway. We model the observed change in ocean heat content since 1955, and it doesn’t matter if the ocean covers 20% of the globe or 100%. They incorrectly state that ignoring the 30% land mass of the Earth will bias the sensitivity estimates. This is wrong. All energy fluxes are per sq. meter, and the calculations are independent of the area covered by the ocean. We are surprised the authors (and the reviewers) did not grasp this basic point.

2. The model assigns an ocean process (El Nino cycle) which covers a limited geographic region in the Pacific Ocean as a global phenomenon…
This is irrelevant. We modeled the OBSERVED change in global average ocean heat content, including the observed GLOBAL average expression of ENSO in the upper 200 m of the GLOBAL average ocean temperature.

3. The model incorrectly simulates the upper layer of the ocean in the numerical calculation.
There are indeed different assumptions which can be made regarding how the surface temperature relates to the average temperature of the first layer, which is assumed to be 50 m thick. How these various assumptions change the final conclusion will require additional work on our part.

4. The model incorrectly insulates the ocean bottom at 2000 meters depth.
This approximation should not substantially matter for the purpose the model is being used. We stopped at 2,000 m depth because the results did not substantially depend upon it going any deeper.

5. The model leads to diffusivity values that are significantly larger than those used in the literature.

We are very surprised this is even an issue, since we took great pains to point out in our paper that the *effective* diffusivity values we used in the model are meant to represent *all* modes of vertical mixing, not just diffusivity per se. If the authors read our paper, they should know this. And why did the reviewers not catch this basic oversight? Did the reviewers even read our paper to see whether Abraham et al. were misrepresenting what it claimed? Again, the *effective* diffusivity is meant to represent all modes of vertical heat transport (this is also related to point #8, below). All the model requires is a way to distribute heat vertically, and a diffusion-type operator is one convenient method for doing that.

6. The model incorrectly uses an asymmetric diffusivity to calculate heat transfer between adjacent layers, and
7. The model contains incorrect determination of element interface diffusivity.

The authors discuss ways in which the implementation of the diffusion operator can be more accurately expressed. This might well be the case (we need to study it more). But it should not impact the final conclusions because we adjust the assumed effective diffusivities to best match the observations of how the ocean warms and cools at various depths. If there was a bias in the numerical implementation of the diffusion operator (even off by a fact of 10), then the effective diffusivity values will simply adjust until the model matches the observations. The important thing is that, as the surface warms, the extra heat is mixed downward in a fashion which matches the observations. Arguing over the numerical implementation obscures this basic fact. Finally, a better implementation of diffusivity calculation still must then be run with a variety of effective diffusivities (and climate sensitivities) until a match with the observations has been obtained, which as far as we can tell the authors did not do. The same would apply to a 3D model simulation…when one major change is implemented, other model changes are often necessary to get realistic results.

8. The model neglects advection (water flow) on heat transfer.
Again, there is no advection in the global average ocean. The authors should know this, and so should the reviewers of their paper. Our *effective* diffusivity, as we state in the paper, is meant to represent all processes that cause vertical mixing of heat in the ocean, including formation of cold deep water at high latitudes. Why did neither the authors nor the reviewers of the paper not catch this basic oversight? Again, we wonder how closely anyone read our paper.

9. The model neglects latent heat transfer between the atmosphere and the ocean surface.
Not true. As we said in our paper, processes like surface evaporation, convective heat transfer, latent heat release, while not explicitly included, are implicitly included because the atmosphere is assumed to be in convective equilibrium with the surface. Our use of 3.2 W/m2 change in OLR with a surface temperature change of 1 deg. C is the generally assumed global-average value for the effective radiating temperature of the surface-atmosphere system. This is the way in which a surface temperature change is realistically translated into a change in top-of-atmosphere OLR, without having to explicitly include latent heat transfer, atmospheric convection, temperature lapse rate, etc.

Final Comments
If our model is so far from reality, maybe Abraham et al. can tell us why the model works when we run it in the non-ENSO mode (mainly greenhouse gas, aerosol, and volcanic forcing) , yielding a climate sensitivity similar to many of the CMIP models (2.2 deg. C). If the model deficiencies are that great, shouldn’t the model lead to a biased result for this simple case? Again, they cannot obtain a “corrected” model run by changing only one thing (e.g. the numerical diffusion scheme) without sweeping the other model parameters (e.g. the effective diffusivities) to get a best match to the observations.

These are our initial reactions after only a quick look at the paper. It will take a while to examine a couple of the criticisms in more detail. For now, the only one we can see which might change our conclusions in a significant way is our assumption that surface temperature changes have the same magnitude as the average temperature change in the top (50 m) layer of the model. In reality, surface changes should be a little larger, which will change the feedback strength. It will take time to address such issues, and we are now under a new DOE contract to do climate model validation.

40 Responses to “Our Initial Comments on the Abraham et al. Critique of the Spencer & Braswell 1D model”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. but it is still incomplete data when it comes to the climate.

    • yes, we only address the inclusion of ENSO as a natural climate forcing mechanism, and how it changes our interpretation of climate sensitivity from 50 years of ocean temperature data. How things might further change with the inclusion of other natural climate forcings, we don’t know.

      • Kristian says:

        Sorry, Spencer, but you’re not including ‘ENSO’ in your model. You’re only including the expressed tropical East Pacific part of the entire process. This is the same mistake as every study meant to ‘include the effect of ENSO on global climate’ makes.

        Read anything of what Bob Tisdale has to say about the ENSO phenomenon? If you include the West Pacific part of it, ‘global warming’ is explained since 1970.

  2. Let me modify my comment and say I venture to say it is still the best of what there is out there.

  3. Steve Fitzpatrick says:

    Hello Roy,

    Your paper (at the provided link) appears to be pay-walled. I can’t judge Abraham et al without seeing your paper first.

    • Hmmm. When people in our building click on it, they can then click and view the PDF. I don’t understand this. Anyone else out there who can’t access the paper?

      • Steve Fitzpatrick says:

        Maybe there is a local area network system that provides the appropriate login information for access. But for sure, it is not available for most people.

        Do you have a draft version or similar?

      • lewis says:

        “published” is pay-walled – “here” is not.

    • Pete Russell says:

      Steve, Dr Spencer’s first sentence has 2 links, one under the world ‘published’ and one under the word ‘here’. ‘published take you Springer, here takes to Dr Spencer’s site. you need the ‘here’ link, it works for me and I’m at home in CA.

  4. WizGeek says:

    It’s pay-walled for me as well. Maybe your associates are using an institutional or Athens login (possibly browser-saved) as apposed to outsider access?

  5. Tim says:

    The one that says “published” is pay-walled. The one in parentheses that says “here” gives me a pdf. I am browsing through a corporate server in California that originates at the corporate office in Texas. I seriously doubt they have subscribed to anything, but it is possible.

  6. The author’s not John Abraham of the “Climate rapid response team” – defend the AGW hypothesis at all costs and take no prisoners… ?

    It always amazes me that the same small group of names always pop up over and over again.

  7. Locke says:

    That is too funny Roy. It almost reminds me of the fiddle you did with the comparison of the CMIP5 data with the UAH data. Remember that?

  8.  Physicist. ↓ says:


    Because the temperature gradient in a planet’s troposphere is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium which the Second Law of Thermodynamics says will evolve, the planet’s supported surface temperature is autonomously warmer than its mean radiating temperature, so warm in fact on Earth that we need radiating gases (mostly water vapour) to reduce the gradient and thus cool the surface from a mean of about 300K to about 288K, this being confirmed by empirical evidence (as in the study in my book) which confirms with statistical significance that water vapour cools rather than warms, all these facts thus debunking the greenhouse conjecture.


  9.  Physicist. ↓ says:


    Man-made climate change proved wrong by leading meteorologist

    The debate about man-made climate change is finished – because it has been categorically proved NOT to exist, one of the world’s leading meteorologists has claimed. John Coleman

    John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, shocked academics by insisting the theory of man-made climate change was no longer scientifically credible.

    Instead, what ‘little evidence’ there is for rising global temperatures points to a ‘natural phenomenon’ within a developing eco-system. In an open letter attacking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he wrote:

    “The ocean is not rising significantly. The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number. Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing). I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid.”

    Mr Coleman said he based many of his views on the findings of the NIPCC, a non-governmental international body of scientists aimed at offering an ‘independent second opinion of the evidence reviewed by the IPCC.’

    He added: “There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future.

    “Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have failed.

    “There has been no warming over 18 years.”.


  10. The Abraham paper is a rather pointless in that it seems to be focused on critiquing the design of the model rather than the predictive capabilities of the model. All models contain simplifications. The interesting question is, given the simplifications, is the model useful as a predictive tool or not?

  11.  Physicist. ↓ says:

    We know water vapour reduces the temperature gradient. So consider water vapour levels in the range of 1% to 4% in the lower troposphere. Empirical evidence shows regions with 1% have higher mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures than those with 4% at similar latitudes and altitudes and more than 100Km from a large water body that may regulate temperatures. (That’s in my study.) We also know that the reduction in the gradient is less for 1% than it is for 4% water vapour, these being realistic extremes according to observation. So if the average is about 2% that would be about 15 degrees of warming for each 1%. Sketch the plot of temperature against altitude for these scenarios with 1% and 4%. How could there possibly be radiative balance if water vapour jacks up the surface temperature and reduces the magnitude of the gradient at the same time? There would be even more warming than 15 degrees per 1% in the upper troposphere because the gradient is less steep. That’s ludicrous! Radiative balance at TOA rarely gets out by more than 0.5%. This is such a glaring error in the GH conjecture that I’m astonished so many have been so seriously misled by so few.

    • Doug, I only hope I have your level of energy at your age.

    • RW says:

      Me too. Even the Energizer bunny would have given up by now.

    •  Physicist. ↓ says:

      Well Roy, my secret “energy” lies in approaching and analysing science in a scientific way, not just calling upon authority as you do. I have also recognised good medical science pertaining to supplementation which most certainly slows the process of human aging. You can read my site http://slower-aging.com if you wish. Meanwhile I’m off to play lawn bowls with my eight-year-old son Joshua (60 years younger) who’s quite a little champion, playing last weekend with a 17 year old partner in a juniors’ competition that attracted even international players. You can see his pic fourth one down here.

      What drives me in the climate field is that I know with 100% certainty that the greenhouse conjecture is false and violates the laws of physics. That’s why you can’t explain, Roy, how the Venus surface gets the required energy to rise in temperature by 5 degrees during its sunlit period. The required energy does not get there by radiation. Radiation is not the primary determinant of planetary surface temperatures: downward non-radiative heat flow (restoring thermodynamic equilibrium) is what supplies the missing energy that back radiation can’t deliver.

      There’s a comprehensive discussion of the science between Jeff Conlon and me here on The Air Vent at present.

      You haven’t seen much yet Roy. I now have inside connections to the key committee relating to climate change in the Australia Government and one member (whom I’ve know for years) is strongly persuaded that I’m correct. I predict that Australia may be the first country to openly declare the “science” invalid – within a few years, anyway. Meanwhile your monthly temperature charts will not show any warming until about the year 2029.

      Roy, there is overwhelmingly compelling evidence that all climate is natural and regulated by planetary orbits, being highly correlated with the inverted plot of the scalar sum of the angular momentum of the Sun and all the planets. Earth’s surface temperature is “propped up” by the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient, not by radiation from a colder atmosphere somehow able to be added to the solar radiation in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations. That, Roy, is a complete travesty of physics. For your part you really need to spend an hour reading my book and either understanding it or asking for further explanation which I am happy to provide here or in private emails.

      • RW says:

        “What drives me in the climate field is that I know with 100% certainty that the greenhouse conjecture is false and violates the laws of physics.”

        Come on, Doug. No scientist knows anything with 100% certainty.

      •  Physicist. ↓ says:

        I suggest that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is known to be valid with pretty good certainty. That’s what my hypothesis relies upon, namely that fact that the state of thermodynamic equilibrium (which that law says will evolve) has a gravitationally-induced temperature gradient which is what “props up” planetary surface temperatures, not back radiation. That is the state of maximum entropy. The fact that the greenhouse conjecture ignores all this proves it false.

        Perhaps you and Roy need to “collapse in deepest humiliation”…

        “The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”

        —Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)

  12. http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sfc_daily.php?plot=ssa&inv=0&t=cur

    Dr. Spencer this product has shown a very large decline in sea surface temperature anomalies over the last month or so.

    Do you think this data is accurate or in error?Thanks

  13. Icarus62 says:

    I suggest that when a study comes out with a value for fast feedback climate sensitivity which is less than half that needed to be consistent with the palaeoclimate data and modern observations, then the correct response should be “Back to the drawing board!”. In other words, it would be better to figure out where you’ve gone wrong than to ‘publish and be damned’.

  14.  Physicist. ↓ says:

    Roy and others: This is an important point which cast serious doubt on the GHE at the very least:

    Regarding Roy’s and the IPCC’s assumptions about the surface temperature in a GHG free atmosphere, there is no way you can prove that the surface temperature would be less than the existing 287.5K mean and thus prove water vapour or CO2 warms. You and the IPCC have forgotten that the flux you have assumed took account of the fact that about 30% of solar radiation is reflected by clouds, but there would be no clouds. So in fact something like 315W/m^2 would be the actual mean flux to the surface. Calculating the temperature correctly is no mean feat, as you should integrate over the whole globe using the T^4 relationship in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. If you just assume that there is homogeneous solar flux on a flat Earth 24 hours a day then you get 287.5K from 315W/m^2 if you use emissivity 0.813 which may not be all that unrealistic. For example, this reference gives some emissivity values – note Basalt = 0.72, lime clay= 0.43, shale = 0.69, granite = 0.45, gravel = 0.28 fine snow = 0.82, soil = 0.38. I venture to suggest the surface temperature could indeed be 300K as I have been suggesting it would be before water vapour cools it. Until you determine the proportion of such materials on the Earth and do the full integration with a sophisticated multi-million dollar model that uses the actual mapped surface taking into account the latitude of the various materials etc etc you have absolutely no grounds for assuming water vapour (or any GHG) warms the surface You don’t even know for sure that a minute portion of the molecules in any gas in the periodic table would not be able to absorb some solar radiation and then warm adjacent molecules by non-radiative processes. In contrast, at least in the real world, I have produced a study showing water vapour cools. The full methodology and the data and source thereof are all in my book, so you or anyone can check such and/or do your own study trying to prove the opposite. Do you ever wonder why the IPCC has not published such a study? I suggest that whenever they try to do such they find water vapour cools and so they censor the study. But tell me if you can find one like mine but showing the opposite.

    • Icarus62 says:

      “Regarding Roy’s and the IPCC’s assumptions about the surface temperature in a GHG free atmosphere…”

      The GHE is not about such an assumption. It’s about the observed difference in IR flux between the surface and the top of the atmosphere (which latter must be approximately in balance with absorbed solar radiation). That difference must be maintained by components of the atmosphere which affect the passage of IR – that is, carbon dioxide and the others, not oxygen and nitrogen.

      •  Physicist. ↓ says:

        No, the IPCC very specifically discusses their “33 degrees of warming” of the surface supposedly being the difference between a GHG free atmosphere and one with GHG. That’s how they estimate sensitivity, so each 1% of water vapour supposedly does about 10 to 15 degrees of that warming. That is totally contrary to empirical evidence which indicates about 4 degrees of cooling for each 1% of water vapour. That is in keeping with the valid physics I present. Now go to my comment below copied from The Air Vent’s dedicated thread regarding my hypothesis published in my book “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All” on Amazon.

      •  Physicist. ↓ says:


        Radiative imbalance at TOA (which is rarely more than 0.4%) is the consequence of natural climate change, not the cause.

        In the context of there being substantial evidence of natural climate cycles (predominantly those with periodicity of 1000 years and 60 years superimposed thereon) which are very, very strongly correlated with the inverted plot of the scalar sum of the angular momentum of the Sun and all the planets, and there being no evidence of temperature data varying from such cycles, you have absolutely no empirical evidence to support any contention of man-made climate change, nor any valid physics, because radiation to a planet’s surface is not the primary determinant of its temperature, and you cannot prove it to be the case on Earth or any other planet.

      •  Physicist. ↓ says:

        P.S. You don’t have to feed me the IPCC garbage. I’ve spent thousands of hours studying and discussing it with hundreds of others, all on top of thousands of hours in about 50 years of studying and helping students understand physics. When I apply valid physics to the IPCC garbage the errors therein are blatantly obvious.

      •  Physicist. ↓ says:

        And if you are not aware of what the IPCC says, you can “Look Inside” my book here and read the quotes from their website and my response.

  15. Nic Lewis says:

    From a quick read of the Abraham et al paper as well as yours, your comments about their criticisms appear to me to be pretty much correct. Regarding their criticism “The model incorrectly simulates the upper layer of the ocean in the numerical calculation.”, I don’t think they are actually arguing that the change in surface temperature must be greater than that of the top 50 m layer – their third alternative treatment posits the existence of a homogeneous mixed layer with the same tempj at the surface. Rather, they are arguing that in that case your diffusion equation is wrong for that layer. And as you say, errors or approximations in the diffusion equations should merely result in different effective diffusivity values.

    I am surprised, as are Abraham et al, at how high your effective diffusivity values are – and also at they way they increase with depth. It would be interesting to know how they change if more accurate diffusion equations are used, and also if allowance is made for a TOA radiative imbalance / positive heat inflow into the ocean in 1880, when the climate system was still recovering from the Little Ice Age. A figure of ~0.15 W/m2 over the Earth’s surface (60% of that implied by the Gregory et al 2013 sea level reconstruction) seems plausible.

    I like you think that certain modes of internal variability affect forcing as well as redistributing heat, although on a multidecadal timescale I had associated this more with the AMO than ENSO. It is conceivable that the AMO is modulating the average balance between El Nino and La Nina conditions on a decadal timescale.

    You refer in Fig.7 to CERES (TOA) raditive fluxes. For the avoidance of doubt, can you confirm that this refers to the net outgoing flux?

  16.  Physicist. ↓ says:


    Roy, the models discussed above are wrong in a number of ways, so much so that it is easier just to explain what does happen. These three comments that I have posted on Jeff Conlon’s “Air Vent” dedicated thread for my hypothesis cover pretty much all you need to understand, Roy and others.


    Comment 1:

    These two statements by Jeff are incorrect for the reasons documented in sufficient detail below. I make no apology for lengthy explanations as I consider it necessary to support my reasons with examples of empirical evidence, not just thought experiments, so silent readers should be disappointed if my explanation gets truncated. It is necessary to discuss the radiating greenhouse gas water vapour because that is the only one for which we can actually measure sensitivity. We can deduce from valid physics that other radiating molecules will act in a similar way, and thus we can discuss carbon dioxide in the context of supporting empirical evidence for water vapour..

    (1) “They experience the same solar input and all other features are the same.”

    (2) ” then the ground temperature of the CO2 planet must be warmer than the N2″


    1: All other “features” are not the same. A planet’s surface receives considerably less direct solar radiation if there are absorbing molecules in that atmosphere. If there is water vapour then there are also clouds reflecting solar energy back to space. On Venus the atmosphere is nearly all CO2 and nearly all the incident solar radiation is absorbed on the way in. Guess where its energy ends up – nearly all of it in carbon dioxide molecules before it can get to the surface. The solar radiation reaching the surface is about 10% of what Earth’s surface receives, yet the temperature rises by about 5 degrees from 732K to 737K while the Sun shines for 4 months. If radiation were doing that, then there would have to be an input flux of about 14,000 to 16,000W/m^2 which is far more than the Sun delivers to the top of the Venus atmosphere. And if radiation were raising the temperature it would do it in a day or so and not take 4 months.

    2: No, the radiating altitude is a fiction, because radiation emanates not from a single altitude but from the surface and all altitudes. Water vapour, for example, lowers the mean altitude of radiation because most of it exists below 5Km. But the main point is that radiating molecules reduce the magnitude of the temperature gradient (as is well known for water vapour) so the temperature profile rotates and this leads to lower supported temperatures at the surface. Radiating water molecules reduce the insulating effect between double glazed window panes for the same reason. Jeff could have leaned all this from my book “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All.” What I say is supported by empirical data for water vapour, but the very slight cooling effect of carbon dioxide is of the order of 0.1 degree and not measurable.

    In effect Jeff is saying that radiating molecules like water vapour and carbon dioxide cause higher planetary surface temperatures. They don’t and he can’t prove from valid thermodynamics that they do, and nor can he present empirical evidence to support his contention. He presents no empirical evidence, for example, that more moist regions are considerably hotter than regions with only a quarter as much water vapour above them. In contrast, I present a sound and comprehensive study using 30 years of temperature data from three continents and proving the opposite, namely that water vapour cools as is to be expected from my hypothesis.

    I have also proved what I say about the carbon dioxide atmosphere, based on comparative actual measurements by probes dropped onto Venus and good estimates from spacecraft passing close to Uranus. The Venus temperature gradient is reduced in magnitude by at least 20% to 25% by all the inter-molecular radiation between carbon dioxide molecules. In contrast, with barely 2% of radiating molecules in the Uranus atmosphere (mostly methane) the gradient is still about 95% of the expected “dry” gravitationally-induced temperature gradient based on the quotient of the acceleration due to gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases.

    So the more radiating molecules there are, the greater is the percentage reduction in the magnitude of the temperature gradient, and thus the lower is the supported surface temperature.


    Comment 2:

    Yes, well there’s no surface at the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus. All the solar radiation is absorbed 350Km further up, so there’s no direct solar radiation at that base either. Your problem is that there is a gravitationally induced temperature gradient which is 95% of the “dry” value based on -g/Cp and there absolutely must be non radiative heat flow from the 60K TOA to the base of the troposphere which is 320K – hotter than Earth but 30 times further from the Sun. I am one of only two researchers in the world who (to my knowledge) has published a valid explanation for downward non-radiative heat transfer up the temperature gradient from cooler to warmer regions, yet very strictly acting in accord with the process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. So if you can explain the downward heat flow in any other way, and also produce a study along the lines of that in my book, but instead proving water vapour warms to the extent the IPCC implies, rather than cools as I showed, then you or any reader here could be the first to do so and thus win the $5,000 reward that no-one has in nearly 8 months since my book as published.


    Comment 3:

    eff asks “why should that drop at the same rate” Because of the Equipartition Theorem. The equal sharing of kinetic energy among the degrees of freedom takes place during molecular collisions. In free flight between collisions gravitational potential energy exchanges with translational kinetic energy. This is where Roderich Graeff got his physics wrong (having admitted he had no formal education in such) and he multiplied the g/Cp gradient by the degrees of freedom. Never-the-less his 800 or more experiments did show clear evidence of a temperature gradient in nearly every one.

    You still don’t seem to understand that the gradient is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium. I’m sure you can understand that a density gradient develops. That also is a direct consequence of the process described in the Second Law, and it is one and the same state of thermodynamic equilibrium.



  17. phprof says:

    Curious. I’m a simple physics grunt working in a basic physics department at a simple UG institution and I could have figured this one out. Average over all the motion and you have to get zero otherwise mass would be flowing in and out of the system. If you include all the system then you better have this right.

    8. The model neglects advection (water flow) on heat transfer.
    Again, there is no advection in the global average ocean. The authors should know this, and so should the reviewers of their paper.

    • TomP says:

      My understanding is that Abraham is referring to the advective transport of heat to the polar regions – see his Figure 1 – and not the advective transport of mass. The surface water flowing to the polar region in the real world is transporting heat which is then lost to the system.

  18.  Physicist. ↓ says:

    Two simple SBL calculations show you that there must be other energy flows into Earth’s surface in the real world. In a nitrogen only atmosphere, let’s say the emissivity is still 0.95 (although I have suggested a rocky planet would be more like 0.8) and the surface receives a mean of a quarter of the 1360 W/m^2 at TOA. SBL gives a temperature for 340W/m^2 of nearly 282K. Now introduce the real atmosphere and, as per NASA, the surface receives only 48% of the incident radiation, so it receives 163W/m^2 and the temperature by SBL (using emissivity 0.95 again) is far colder, namely 236K.

  19. Joe Holiday says:

    You are a fraud as is you one sided data.