New Pause-Busting Temperature Dataset Implies Only 1.5 C Climate Sensitivity

July 14th, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Amid all of the debate over whether the global warming pause/hiatus exists or not, I’d like to bring people back to a central issue:

Even if it has warmed in the last 15 years, the rate of surface warming (and deep-ocean warming) we have seen in the last 50 years still implies low climate sensitivity.

I will demonstrate this with a simplified version of our 1D time-dependent energy balance model (Spencer & Braswell, 2014).

The reason why you can model global average climate system temperature variations with a simple energy balance model is that, given a certain amount of total energy accumulation or loss (in Joules) over the surface of the Earth in a certain amount of time, there will be a certain amount of warming or cooling of the depth-averaged ocean temperature. This is just a statement of energy conservation, and is non-controversial.

The rate of heat accumulation is the net of “forcing” and “feedback”, the latter of which stabilizes the climate system against runaway temperature change (yes, even on Venus). On multi-decadal time scales, we can assume without great error that the ocean is the dominant “heat accumulator” in climate change, with the land tagging along for the ride (albeit with a somewhat larger change in temperature, due to its lower effective heat capacity). The rate at which extra energy is being stored in the deep ocean has a large impact on the resulting surface temperature response.

The model feedback parameter lambda (which determines equilibrium climate sensitivity, ECS=3.8/lambda) is adjustable, and encompasses every atmospheric and surface process that changes in response to warming to affect the net loss of solar and infrared energy to outer space. (Every IPCC climate model will also have an effective lambda value, but it is the result of the myriad processes operating in the model, rather than simply specified).

Conceptually, the model looks like this:

Fig. 1. Simple time-dependent 1 layer model of global oceanic average mixed layer tamperature.

Fig. 1. Simple time-dependent 1 layer model of global oceanic average mixed layer tamperature.

I have simplified the model so that, rather than having many ocean layers over which heat is diffused (as in Spencer & Braswell, 2014), there is just a top (mixed) layer that “pumps” heat downward at a rate that matches the observed increase in deep-ocean heat content over the last 50 years. This has been estimated to be 0.2 W/m2 since the 1950s increasing to maybe 0.5 W/m2 in the last 10 years.

I don’t want to argue whether this deep ocean warming might not even be occurring. Nor do I want to argue whether the IPCC-assumed climate forcings are largely correct. Instead, I want to demonstrate that , even if we assume these things AND assume the new pause-busting Karlized ocean surface temperature dataset is correct, it still implies low climate sensitivity.

Testing the Model Against CMIP5

If I run the model (available in spreadsheet form here) with the same radiative forcings used by the big fancy CMIP5 models (RCP 6.0 radiative forcing scenario), I get a temperature increase that roughly matches the average of all of the CMIP5 models, for the 60N-60S ocean areas (average CMIP5 results for the global oceans from the KNMI Climate Explorer):

Fig. 2. Simple model run to match the average of all CMIP5 models under the RCP 6.0 radiative forcing scenario.

Fig. 2. Simple model run to match the average of all CMIP5 models under the RCP 6.0 radiative forcing scenario.

The climate sensitivity I used to get this result was just over 2.5 C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, which is consistent with published numbers for the typical climate sensitivity of many of these models. To be consistent with the CMIP5 models, I assume in 1950 that the climate system is 0.25 C warmer than the “normal balanced climate” state. This affects the model feedback calculation (the warmer the climate is assumed to be from “normal” the greater the loss of radiant energy to space). Of course, we really don’t know what the “normal balanced” state of the real climate system is…or even if there is one.

Running the Model to Match the New Pause-Busting Temperature Dataset

Now, let’s see how we have to change the climate sensitivity to match the new Karlized ERSST v4 dataset, which reportedly did away with the global warming pause:

Fig. 3. Simple model match to new pause-busting ERSST (v4) dataset.

Fig. 3. Simple model match to new pause-busting ERSST (v4) dataset.

In this case, we see that a climate sensitivity of only 1.5 C was required, a 40% reduction in climate sensitivity. Notably, this is at the 1.5C lower limit for ECS that the IPCC claims. Thus, even in the new pause-busting dataset the warming is so weak that it implies a climate sensitivity on the verge of what the IPCC considers “very unlikely”.

Running the Model to Match the New Pause-Busting Temperature Dataset (with ENSO internal forcing)

Finally, let’s look at what happens when we put in the observed history El Nino and La Nina events as a small radiative forcing (more incoming during El Nino, outgoing during La Nina, evidence for which was presented by Spencer & Braswell, 2014) and temporary internal energy exchanges between the mixed layer and deeper layers:

Fig. 4. As in Fig. 3, but with El Nino and La Nina variations included in the model (0.3 W/m2 per MEI unit radiative forcing, 0.4 W/m2 per MEI unit non-radiative forcing [heat excahnge between mixed layer and deeper layers]).

Fig. 4. As in Fig. 3, but with El Nino and La Nina variations included in the model (0.3 W/m2 per MEI unit radiative forcing, 0.4 W/m2 per MEI unit non-radiative forcing [heat excahnge between mixed layer and deeper layers]).

Now we have reduced the required climate sensitivity necessary to explain the observations to only 1.3 C, which is nearly a 50% ECS reduction below the 2.5C necessary to match the CMIP5 models. This result is similar to the one achieved by Spencer & Braswell (2014).

Comments

The simplicity of the model is not a weakness, as is sometimes alleged by our detractors — it’s actually a strength. Since the simple model time step is monthly, it avoids the potential for “energy leakage” in the numerical finite difference schemes used in big models during long integrations. Great model complexity does not necessarily get you closer to the truth.

In fact, we’ve had 30 years and billions of dollars invested in a marching army of climate modelers, and yet we are no closer to tying down climate sensitivity and thus estimates of future global warming and associated climate change. The latest IPCC report (AR5) gives a range from 1.5 to 4.5 C for a doubling of CO2, not much different from what it was 30 years ago.

There should be other simple climate model investigations like what I have presented above, where basic energy balance considerations combined with specific assumptions (like the deep oceans storing heat at an average rate of 0.2 W/m2 over the last 50 years) are used to diagnose climate sensitivity by matching the model to observations.

The IPCC apparently doesn’t do this, and I consider it a travesty that they don’t. 😉

I’ll leave it up to the reader to wonder why they don’t.


610 Responses to “New Pause-Busting Temperature Dataset Implies Only 1.5 C Climate Sensitivity”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. The problem is solar (visible light/UV light intensity) is the determining factor in how much/little the oceans will accumulate energy(heat) over the long term.

    I do not think the IPCC has come to grips with this fact and instead keeps trying to put way to much emphasis on IR radiation.

    AVERAGE SUNSPOT COUNT OF 40 – if above oceans gain energy via solar activity if below they lose it according to data plots of sunspots versus the temperatures of the oceans.

    The sunspot count has been way above 40 during the corresponding period of time in which the oceans have had an accumulation of energy.

    • steve koch says:

      Great points. Direct sunlight penetrates the oceans by as much as 100 meters. IR penetrates hardly at all, just a few millimeters. Direct sunlight heats the oceans, IR doesn’t.
      When direct sunlight hits water molecules in atmosphere, it gets converted to IR. The hotter the atmosphere gets, the more water vapor there is in the air, which increases the probability of sunlight hitting water molecules in the atmosphere.

      • Ragnaar says:

        Good point. If we get more water vapor which I am not sure the data supports. Then the water vapor prevents long term ocean storage in exchange for atmospheric warming now. Reduced water vapor might be causing the 90% to go into the oceans.

  2. gbaikie says:

    –The rate of heat accumulation is the net of “forcing” and “feedback”, the latter of which stabilizes the climate system against runaway temperature change (yes, even on Venus).–

    It seems likely to me, that Venus was never an Earth like planet which warmed up. But rather began hot and remained hot.

    Or just because people assumed a century or so ago that Venus might be like Earth- having oceans and etc, it doesn’t mean Venus was actually ever was such a planet.

    • JohnKl says:

      Hi gbaikie,

      Venusian solar input of 2400+ w/m^2 cannot account for the 14000+ w/m^2 emitted from the surface. However, a once incandescent planet in a cooling phase sure can. Hint: look up the term “ashen light.” Imo, Venus hasn’t always appeared as it does now.

      Have a great day?

      • gbaikie says:

        — JohnKl says:
        July 14, 2015 at 12:37 PM

        Hi gbaikie,

        Venusian solar input of 2400+ w/m^2 cannot account for the 14000+ w/m^2 emitted from the surface.–

        Venus distance from the Sun is 2700 watts per square meter.
        The surface of Venus is hot. But it does not emit 14000+ w/m^2
        into space.

        100 meter of ocean blocks most electromagnetic radiation. There would a lot military interest in being able to detect submarines which are tens of meters under the ocean.
        The 94 times more atmosphere than Earth, planet Venus similar to 100 meters of water [10 atm of mass, btw] it blocks electromagnetic radiation.

        It’s the clouds which are higher in the atmosphere and therefore have less Atmosphere above them, which radiate electromagnetic radiation into space. The very thick Venusian clouds other than radiating a lot of energy into space, also reflect amount enormous amount of sunlight, and absorb the heat from the sun. And the heated droplets of acid warm the air, and also condense and have real acid rain which never gets close to reaching the surface.

        Venus like any atmosphere has a lapse rate- which means that when air is less dense, it’s cooler. Or the opposite, lower in atmosphere with higher air density it’s warmer.

        So in the zones of clouds [30 to 70 km elevation] one find atmospheric pressure the same as Earth at sea level, and the temperature of this air [in sunlight of the day] is a bit warmer than Earth’s hottest air temperature.

        So any atmosphere which had say 50 C air temperature at say 50 km and at 1 Atm, as one goes 1 km lower would have a higher temperature, or if go 1 km higher the air becomes less dense and has lower temperature.
        And that is why Venus is much warmer.

        • JohnKl says:

          Hi gbaikie,

          Venusian solar irradiance falls at ~2613.9 w/m^2 not 2700 as you claim. Since I didn’t recall the figure at the time I posted the message on my cell phone, I correctly stated it was over (+) 2400. Venus’s near perfect circular orbit means the solar irradiance doesn’t very much. Please note I specifically stated that Venusian surface emits 14000 Plus watts per metre squared I never said anything about the Venus and atmosphere admitting to space. I HAVE TO RUN AND WILL STATE MORE LATER.

          Have a great day!

          • gbaikie says:

            JohnKl says:
            July 14, 2015 at 2:49 PM

            Hi gbaikie,

            Venusian solar irradiance falls at ~2613.9 w/m^2 not 2700 as you claim.

            The book Space Mission Analysis and Design says 2700, and also say 1418 for Earth in terms of maximum sunlight
            intensity. But if want to use ~2613.9 that fine. And probably the amount of sunlight reaching the clouds is below 2600 watts, even were the sunlight 2700 watts at the top of atmosphere of Venus. Or as guess the highest clouds get less than 2600 watts per square meter, and even if clear skies above the lowest clouds, the lowest clouds probably get well below 2400 watts.
            I have not given much thought to which elevation of the clouds heat the Venus by the most.
            Nor have thought about which elevation of earth clouds warm the most.
            I would say that for Earth the warming of Earth, from the sun warming all the clouds is probably a minor warming effect, whereas with Venus, the warming of droplets of acid of the cloud would be the major cause of warming Venus.

            Or were Venus to have water clouds rather than acid clouds, the warming effect of heating the Venus cloud would reduced by a significant amount.
            Or to quantify, it seems if one added say 10 trillion tons of water to Venus, Venus would cool by more than 100 K.
            But though this cools Venus, the water clouds would still be warming Venus- and a lot more than water clouds on Earth warm earth.

            Now, most believers of greenhouse effect theory would assume the opposite- that added 10 trillion tons of water
            would increase Venus average temperature.

            To further quantify, Venus has about 20 ppm of water vapor:
            “Atmospheric composition (near surface, by volume):
            Major: 96.5% Carbon Dioxide (CO2), 3.5% Nitrogen (N2)
            Minor (ppm): Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) – 150; Argon (Ar) – 70; Water (H2O) – 20;
            Carbon Monoxide (CO) – 17; Helium (He) – 12; Neon (Ne) – 7”
            http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html

            So if you added 10 trillion tonnes to Venus this “should” increase to 20 ppm of water vapor “near surface, by volume”.
            Or most of atmosphere is “near the surface” and even if most of the water vapor were added were to be high in the Venus atmosphere [most could be clouds [or the reverse of Earth which only about 1/4 is clouds, or as said here:
            “Clouds are, of course, the most visible manifestation of atmospheric water, but even clear air contains water—water in particles that are too small to be seen. One estimate of the volume of water in the atmosphere at any one time is about 3,100 cubic miles (mi3) or 12,900 cubic kilometers (km3). ”
            http://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleatmosphere.html

            So cubic km is 1 billion tonnes, and 12,900 cubic kilometers
            would be 12.9 trillion tonnes of water in Earth’s clouds.

            So if add 10 trillion tonnes of water to Venus, perhaps one would get less than half the amount of clouds of water as we have on Earth. And perhaps these clouds would be very high clouds.
            I would say the 20 ppm of water in Venus atmosphere is not
            very accurate, and therefore it does seem very important to
            be precise, therefore 20/1 million is close enough [rather worry about the different densities of gases]
            So from first link above:
            Total mass of atmosphere: ~4.8 x 10^20 kg
            So divide by 1 million, and times by 20
            ~4.8 x 10^20 kg divide by 1 million is
            ~4.8 x 10^14 kg. And times by 20 is
            9.6 x 10^15 kg. Or in tonnes 9.6 x 10^12
            So Venus already has 9.6 trillion tonnes of water,
            and 10 trillion added would double it.
            Hmm, so 10 trillion added is not much- it’s possible one would not get much water clouds.
            So let’s say one would have to add 100 trillion tonnes
            of water to get some water cloud and get the 100 K of cooling. So 100 trillion tonnes should provide clouds and
            and double the 20 to 40 ppm of water vapor “near surface”, and might even get another doubling to 80 ppm “near surface”, though maybe even 200 ppm. Or Mars has 210 ppm of water vapor and Venus could be as dry as Mars with all this water added. But it seems pretty certain one could get water clouds, and more certain the water would effect the acid clouds [this acid loves water].
            So not sure how many tens [or even hundreds] of trillions
            of tons of acid there is, hmm. Wiki:
            “Sulfuric acid is produced in the upper atmosphere by the sun’s photochemical action on carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and water vapour. Ultraviolet photons of wavelengths less than 169 nm can photodissociate carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide and atomic oxygen. Atomic oxygen is highly reactive; when it reacts with sulfur dioxide, a trace component of the Venusian atmosphere, the result is sulfur trioxide, which can combine with water vapour, another trace component of Venus’s atmosphere, to yield sulfuric acid. ”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
            So it’s the sulfur trioxide that loves waters.
            So, again roughly one could use the Sulfur Dioxide at 150
            as rough idea of clouds. So 150 vs 20 ppm of existing water
            and 100 trillion tonnes add 200 ppm of water.
            So one get more acid clouds, with weaker acid.

            So more acid clouds, but with lower boiling point, plus to seems one would get the higher a lighter water clouds.

            so if just added 10 trillion tons of water, this would dilute the acid of the clouds maybe it would be 10 to 20 K
            cooler, whereas it seems one would have to add around 100 trillion tonnes to further dilute the acid clouds and get a significant amount of higher water clouds- and thereby get around 100 K of cooling.

            Whereas greenhouse theory, would instead suggest one might add about 100 K to Venus temperature- or you are adding a lot of a potent greenhouse gas [doubling or tripling it]
            and greenhouse gases are the only thing which can warm a planet [droplets of acid, aren’t a gas]

          • gbaikie says:

            “and greenhouse gases are the only thing which can warm a planet [droplets of acid, aren’t a gas]”

            Just to be clear, I mean according to the Greenhouse Effect theory the general assumption is only greenhouse gases add to average temperature.
            Obviously I don’t agree with this theory. It’s lousy, and I don’t accept that it’s even a scientific theory.
            Rather I would prefer to call the “Greenhouse Effect theory” a pseudo scientific “theory”- authored by a committee.

            Or groupthink is also a useful description.

        • JohnKl says:

          Hi gbaikie,

          To continue, I don’t know nor believe that Venus has any liquid ocean at all. Some have speculated Venus has a liquid ocean composed of Liquid co2 under immense pressure. I don’t know that this is ever been confirmed. As to blocking out the Sun, Venus’s atmospheric particulate layer extends from the surface to 50 kilometers above the surface. Sulfur dioxide compounds and particulates blocks visible spectrum solar radiation from reaching the surface not co2.

          Venus has a mass only a little more than 80 percent that of the earth’s. Given the same gravity then the Earth’s atmosphere

          • JohnKl says:

            aikie,

            Given the same gravity the mass of Venus’s atmosphere exceeds that of the earth by over a hundred times.

            The region of Venusian atmosphere with similar pressure to the earth ranges between 50 to 65 kilometers above the Venusian surface not 30 to 70 kilometers. In other words, the region of the Venusian atmosphere similar to earth lies just above the particulate layer that blocks out incoming visible solar radiation. Venus, despite receiving almost twice the solar irradiance that earth receives in this region and having an atmosphere composed almost entirely of carbon dioxide has temperatures that fall within Earth’s normal warm range. If I remember correctly, the temperature 50 kilometers above the Venusian surface, at one Earth atmosphere or 1 bar, is about a hundred twenty degrees Fahrenheit at 65 kilometers above the Venusian surface the temperature is in the 80’s.

            Apparently, co2 doesn’t warm very much.

            Regarding the Venusian lapse rate, I’m quite aware that it exists and Proves quite similar to earth’s lapse rate. However, you seem to forget if you ever knew that the Venusian atmosphere is composed almost entirely of co2 and sulfur dioxide, in other words volcanic gases! The Venusian atmosphere is not an independent variable.

            Have a great day!

          • gbaikie says:

            –Regarding the Venusian lapse rate, I’m quite aware that it exists and Proves quite similar to earth’s lapse rate. However, you seem to forget if you ever knew that the Venusian atmosphere is composed almost entirely of co2 and sulfur dioxide, in other words volcanic gases! The Venusian atmosphere is not an independent variable.

            Have a great day!–

            It’s possible that the reason Venus is hot is due to volcanism- in recent news they appeared to measure a volcanic eruption on Venus- which adds to this being a possible cause.
            Here:
            https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/20/acitve-volcanos-on-venus-heat-gets-out-how/
            I think how heat would leave Venus is interesting as is the amount volcanic activity they could be measuring.

            Also another factor could heat added by impactors. I believe
            Venus does not get as much impactors as Earth. Just as I believe Mars gets about twice as much impactor as Earth.

            But because Venus has higher orbital speed than Earth plus it could hit by higher percentage of comets. Or Mars, Earth and Venus should roughly be hit by about the same amount of comets, but if Venus is hit by less asteroids, that means it hit by higher ratio of comets.
            So comet impactor has higher velocity at Venus distance [compared to Earth or Mars] and an asteroid would have higher impact velocity at Venus distance [or both comet and planet has faster velocity and vector differences].
            So as wild guess, average comet impact of earth might be about 50 km/sec whereas with Venus the average might be about 100 km/sec.
            The problem with volcanism or impact is problem of proving it.
            So I prefer theory of cloud warming Venus as this can be proven, and I think it’s more likely.
            Though I suppose if found more volcanic eruption on Venus, or found out more about the one linked, that could provide the proof needed.

  3. mcraig says:

    The Charney report (1979): “We estimate the most probable global warming for a doubling of CO2 to be near 3C with a probable error of +/-1.5C” http://web.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf

    Thirty six years and we are at the exact same place (re. AR5). But does the latest IPCC report really reflect the literature on climate sensitivity, especially lately?

    • The IPCC wasn’t formed to determine the truth, but to support desired governmental policies. That’s why only those scientists who support those policies are allowed to play in the IPCC sandbox, and the most vocal supporters are their leaders. Scientific integrity has been sold for 30 million pieces of silver.

  4. gbaikie says:

    –In fact, we’ve had 30 years and billions of dollars invested in a marching army of climate modelers, and yet we are no closer to tying down climate sensitivity and thus estimates of future global warming and associated climate change. The latest IPCC report (AR5) gives a range from 1.5 to 4.5 C for a doubling of CO2, not much different from what it was 30 years ago.

    There should be other simple climate model investigations like what I have presented above, where basic energy balance considerations combined with specific assumptions (like the deep oceans storing heat at an average rate of 0.2 W/m2 over the last 50 years) are used to diagnose climate sensitivity by matching the model to observations.

    The IPCC apparently doesn’t do this, and I consider it a travesty that they don’t. 😉

    I’ll leave it up to the reader to wonder why they don’t.–

    Well, as you said IPCC has allowed idea that earth could have a low sensitivity to CO2.
    But IPCC is like the Democratic Party- it’s been taken over by lefties, or totalitarians [Greenpeace- people who fascist, people who believe that democracy is not enough to save the world. This is not much different than organized religion permitting zealots to spread the word, and/or zealot driving the church policy].
    Or every Democratic party, the candidates run to the Left, and then after winning primary run towards the center. Everyone knows and accepts this.
    So IPCC is a constant campaign of running to the Left. Of course the Lefties are idiots, so they need people who actually do something rather than merely be religious fanatics.

    But anyhow, I don’t think CO2 has been driving global climate, but rather ocean have been warming. We had a cool period called Little Ice Age, and the ocean has been warming. Or if ocean had not been warming, we would still be in the Little ice age.
    Though in same sense the we are presently in an Ice Age, we are still in the Little Ice Age. Or we are “never” going to leave the Ice Age we in, and we stilling recovering from the Little Ice Age.
    So what causes the warm periods like the Medieval Warm period, was the ocean warming, and what caused the Little Ice age, was ocean cooling, and what causing the present warmer period, is the ocean warming.
    And we also probably get some additional warming from increased levels of CO2. And we get some cooling and warming from the changing solar activity, and likewise get cooling and warming related large volcanic eruption AND large increases/decreases in volcanic activity [not necessary large eruptions which throw tens of cubic km of rock into the stratosphere].
    Or CO2 is not the knob that controls everything, or when we had less scientific information, some thought CO2 level were a knob that caused Glacial and interglacial period. And everyone should know that this is not the case- or that hypothesis was dis proven, and apparently requires to be continued to be disproved, because their no shortage of fanatics these days- which definitional can’t be reasoned with.

  5. Bart says:

    On the other hand, if the hiatus is real, as attested to by the satellite data, and the “pause buster” is a bunch of hooey, then the theory hypothesis is truly broken, because relentlessly increasing CO2 does not produce consistent warming, no?

  6. Aaron Smith says:

    I believe the CO2 hype is exacerbated primarily due to a physical property of CO2 – its solubility in water. Oceans remain the largest CO2 sink (especially the cold oceans) and any warming of them will induce release of CO2 from them – including the deep oceans. The colder the water, the more CO2 it can hold. I believe the timing of our technological development (and industrial development) coincidentally paralleled with an increase in solar output that induced significant release of CO2 from earth. As a non-condensible gas, CO2 is not easily recaptured by the earth, especially when it is being warmed. It is free to rise to the upper atmosphere -into the the thermosphere and etc. Therefore, I believe it is unlikely that the continued rise in CO2 as measured at Mauna Loa is primarily due to man, but rather due to the oceans degassing. This degassing, is a natural means for the earth to cool itself as CO2 in the thermosphere forces IR radiation back to space. It is unfortunate that the Mauna Loa CO2 record only extends to 1958. I am quite certain that prior to this date, the fluctuations are better correlated with the solar activity. However, since the grand maximum spanned 1920 to 2008, the Mauna Loa chart can easily be used as propaganda. I suggest using the Law Dome ice core data set for CO2 ( ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law_co2.txt ) in combination with Mauna Loa to get an accurate depiction of exactly what is going on. Clearly it has a correlation with the Source satellite based Total Solar Irradiance reconstruction. If my hypothesis is correct, the rise in CO2 will stall sometime between now and 10 years and then fall again as the oceans temperature lowers and more readily absorbs CO2 as we enter an era of much lower solar activity.

    Observations: 400 ppm CO2 was first measured in the Arctic in 2012 – during the large ice melt. This confirms the ocean degassing is significant – Furthermore – immediately after the degassing/melt of 2012 – the ice recovered which basically put a lid on the best CO2 sink in the world. Meanwhile, Antarctica was surrounded by record sea ice which also sealed off the second best CO2 sink in the world for trapping CO2. Also the tropical sea surfaces remained warmer than normal. There has been no significant re-entry point on earth for the CO2 – yet.

    Sometimes being patient with nature is hard – especially when you have folks doing all they can to utilize the present conditions as leverage for political incentives. Time will tell us exactly what the truth of this matter is. If in 5-10 years, CO2 levels have not stalled, I’ll be surprised. We men are very minor contributors in comparison to mother ocean.

    • Bart says:

      It’s really not even a question. The correlation between temperatures and the rate of change of CO2 is readily observable to anyone with eyes to see and willingness to rise above the dogma.

      This integral relationship between CO2 and temperature comes about because it is a problem of dynamic flows, not unlike that underpinning the “greenhouse effect”. Every second of every day, new CO2 is coming into the surface system, and old CO2 is being swept away into myriad sinks. Any net imbalance between inflow and outflow creates a net rate of change, until such time as the flows can balance.

      Modulo an integration constant, the information in the CO2 derivative is the same as that in the overall accumulation. The relationship holds over the entire modern era since CO2 began being measured accurately. The trend in the rate of change, once all the variation, the ups and downs, are matched, is obtainable from the relationship. Human emissions also have a trend in appropriate units per unit of time, but since the trend is already significantly accounted for by the temperature relationship, there is little room for them to add any more. Hence, their overall effect is, at worst, small.

      I have gotten into no small number of intense arguments, with people who want desperately to believe that we have a significant impact, about this. They stridently maintain that the trend in temperature is not causing the trend in the rate of change of CO2, while acceding to the obvious fact that the variations in temperature are responsible for the variations in the rate of change of CO2. But, it is quite impossible to have one component, and not the other, producing the overall match. If the rate of change of CO2 were sensitive to temperature only in the higher frequency portion, there would be discernible phase distortion in the transition region. There is no observable phase distortion at all.

      Eventually, people will realize the truth, but I expect them to pull out all the stops to deny it for as long as they can. Already, the OCO-2 satellite has surprised a lot of people, with markedly different measurements from what they expected. I shudder to think the lengths they will go through to try to make that data match up with the result they desire. But, it will ultimately prove futile.

      • Mark Luhman says:

        The CO2 information from the satellite will be just buried since it won’t fit into there model on how thing are suppose to work, after all it just to had to kill that multi billion dollar habit.

    • gbaikie says:

      –Therefore, I believe it is unlikely that the continued rise in CO2 as measured at Mauna Loa is primarily due to man, but rather due to the oceans degassing. This degassing, is a natural means for the earth to cool itself as CO2 in the thermosphere forces IR radiation back to space. It is unfortunate that the Mauna Loa CO2 record only extends to 1958. I am quite certain that prior to this date, the fluctuations are better correlated with the solar activity.–

      I would add that we live in geological period, that has makes the atmosphere have less CO2 than is “normal” for earth.
      Or most of Earth’s history there has been a higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Or our plants have evolved thrive in higher CO2 levels then we have presently.

      The same long term “recent global geological activity” is factor related to the icebox climate we have been in for tens of millions of years. This geological activity is tectonic activity of India colliding with Asia and the general activity of pacific rim- ring of fire:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Fire

      Earth of course has had similar periods of high geologic activity which has also caused low levels of CO2, so it’s not as if our time is particularly unique, but rather it’s not “common or normal” over last most recent 500 million year period.
      So generally speaking our current world can’t sustain high levels of CO2 over long period. And in addition to geological factors the biosphere is adapting to the higher CO2 level- or it’s been nearly starved of CO2 and return to higher level of CO2 is allowing it to eat more. So greening of deserts and rapid forest growth are signs of this- though or doubt there other less visible biological activity occurring.

      So generally I think human CO2 emission though quite small in terms the carbon cycle, has had an effect, and a good effect, but I don’t think it’s a a permanent effect that some imagine it as being- or I think CO2 levels could lower within 50 years- fortunately for future generations there is plenty of minable CO2 in the Ocean and deliberately releasing this CO2 could become a governmental policy within say, 100 years [though it will be somewhat ineffective policy as the natural world will simply consume more and more of it. Or government policy may want more than 500 ppm, but would be difficult to get it.

      • aaron says:

        And methane. I think we should also consider releasing methane that is highly unlikely to be recoverable. I suspect that releasing methane into the ocean and atmosphere will also cause nitrogen fixing bacteria to bloom and further fertilize the planet.

        I think a combination of weather and biological responses will cause the methane to leave the atmosphere much faster than the simple chemical process we expect to break it down to CO2 in upper atmosphere. I think there will be bacterial, plant, cloud, and precipitation responses which will pull it from the air and feed the surface.

    • aaron s says:

      So how do you explain the delta 13 C isotope data that have gotten heavier as CO2 has increased? Ocean isotopes are well mixed so degassing does not yield fractionation.

  7. Mike Flynn says:

    Dr Spencer,

    You wrote –

    “there is just a top (mixed) layer that “pumps” heat downward at a rate that matches the observed increase in deep-ocean heat content over the last 50 years.”

    Unfortunately, without calling on divine intervention, you can’t “pump” hot water down through cold water. The damned hot water stubbornly keeps floating on the cold water – being less dense and all.

    It doesn’t “diffuse” downwards. It doesn’t “sink”. The cold water sinks, and displaces the warmer, which sits on top. Fancy multicoloured graphics showing a vertical circulation where cold water rises and warm water descends are pure nonsense, if the water is all the same salinity etc.

    If you think you are observing this, there are other factors involved – obviously.

    I know a solar pond can have water of 85C layered beneath water of 28C with no convection taking place. Other factors are at play here, and heat from the 28C layer is not “diffusing” into the 85C layer.

    Given that 70% or so of vulcanism occurs under the sea, it might be worth while to investigate where all that heat goes, on its way to the vasty deeps of space, in the fullness of time.

    Cheers.

    • Roy W. Spencer says:

      Mike, you would be right if there were no mixing forced by surface winds and tidal flows over bottom topography. But it’s well known that there IS vertical mixing in the ocean, against the buoyancy forces from the vertical temperature gradient. Cold water upwells near the western boundary of continents, which means warm water elsewhere is sinking.

      • gbaikie says:

        ** Roy W. Spencer says:
        July 15, 2015 at 4:25 AM

        Mike, you would be right if there were no mixing forced by surface winds and tidal flows over bottom topography. But it’s well known that there IS vertical mixing in the ocean, against the buoyancy forces from the vertical temperature gradient. Cold water upwells near the western boundary of continents, which means warm water elsewhere is sinking.**

        Warm water goes poleward and cools and falls.

        And with pacific ocean the winds blows westward piling up water- so that pulls cooler water up the western coast of South America- and guess perhaps tides are involved as this involves coastal waters, though it also seems tidal effects tend to be lower near equatorial regions.
        But it seems to main effect is winds piling up warmed waters in eastward part of Pacific.

        So I would large flows of ocean water can create various eddies which draw up cooler water.

        In terms non constant winds and waves this mixes the thermocline, which is relatively shallow water vs the +3000 meter depth of open oceans. And this well mixed thermocline
        acts as deterrence to further ocean mixing- or per meter of depth in the thermocline there is not difference in temperature.
        So in tropics where there is most of the warming from the sunlight one has thermocline of + 100 meters, whereas more poleward it’s shallower and seasonal, and the non constant winds and waves have larger effect in term mixing.
        So with tropical water with it’s thicker thermocline one needs a big effect like El Nino to cause these waters to mix and draw up colder waters

        • bit chilly says:

          a look at an aerial picture at the down wind end of any lake will show a similar effect (highlighted by suspended silt) as to what happens when winds pile up warm water at the eastern end of the pacific.
          the same effect occurs locally in any bay on open shoreline subject to onshore wind.

          • gbaikie says:

            Yes.
            And I would think if one has shallow and uniform temperature lake, then this effect would less.
            Or likewise less, if cold lake with just the surface warmer.
            Whereas if had meter or more of warmer water on the surface
            there would be larger effect.

            But with tropic one needs a constant wind for this mix the deep and uniform thermocline.

        • AJ says:

          Last year I put together some ocean temperature animations using Argo data. They might be of interest to you.

          https://sites.google.com/site/climateadj/argo-animations

          • gbaikie says:

            It’s interesting on second one, which in terms of deeper water
            there is cavity of cooler water near equator.
            Or shows the cooler water drawn up.
            And the horse latitude which the deep water remain warm- almost like walls of trough- which I wasn’t aware they exist, but kind of makes sense.
            And first animation as speeding thru time, it “looks” like broom sweeping across the equator. Not saying it has force of sweeping, rather kind of looks like it. Or if you “didn’t know any better” it looks like warm water is swept poleward out to horse latitudes. 🙂

      • aaron says:

        Not to mention deep ocean heat sources. In addition to the volcansim Mike mentions, I suspect there is a lot of bio-chemical heat potential.

        Copied from a previous comment @ judith curry’s:

        Ok, anaerobic menathogenesis produces methane, co2, and heat.

        Suppose we have an increase in clear skies and a good supply of co2 and other nutrient. The oceans bloom. Then the sun goes away a bit. The big plankton eaters, get lean. The little ones starve, are eaten by predators and scavengers and excreted. Malthus reigns in the ocean. Decomposition releases methane, co2, and heat. Some dissolves immediately into the water, perhaps clathrates form over some. Eventually heat causes the clathrates to release their gas… Point is perhaps the deep ocean isn’t a FILO but a mixture of FIFO and FILO processes. A tiny bit might of the action might not be on geological time scales.[There could be varying layers of clathrate and bio-mass of varying ages. Bio-mass buried under clathrate could continue to produce heat and methane, cause the clathrate above to release methane or break. Methane could seep and form new clathrate above…]

        Is it plausible? Probably not.

        Next episode…

        Trenberth’s Missing Heat is Carp

        Or…

        Global Warming is in the Tail-Pipeline

      • Mike M. says:

        Roy W. Spencer,

        “Cold water upwells near the western boundary of continents, which means warm water elsewhere is sinking.”

        I don’t think that part is quite right. It is even colder water that is sinking elsewhere (largely in the far north Atlantic). Both the MOC and deep convective mixing transfer heat from the deep ocean to the surface. In effect, the T difference between the equator and poles drives a heat engine that does mechanical work that pumps heat out of the deep ocean. That is what keeps the deep ocean cold.

        The heat transfer out of the deep ocean is balanced by downward heat flow over those parts of the ocean (the vast majority) in which warm surface water overlays cold deep water. As you point out, those areas have weak vertical mixing due to wind driven turbulence that is suppressed, but not eliminated, by the stable density gradient.

        • mpainter says:

          Mike M:

          ” largely in the far North Atlantic ”

          ####

          In fact, much more in the encircling zone around offshore Antarctica known as the convergence zone or the Antarctic Front. Here colder Antarctic waters sink beneath warmer oceanic waters. This great encircling feature is many thousands of km in circumference.

          Roy is mistaken in saying that warm water sinking is the general case in vertical oceanic circulation. It happens exceptionally, as in the outflow from the Mediterranean at the Straits of Gibraltar, or where the Labrador Current flows over Gulf Stream waters. In both of these cases, the warmer water is saltier, hence denser, than the cooler waters. The rule is that colder water sinking generates the overall vertical oceanic ciirculation.

          • Mike M. says:

            mpainter,

            You are failing to distinguish between deep convective mixing and the Meridional Overturning Ciculation (MOC). The former is indeed dominated by the region around Antarctica. But that are has net upwelling due to the Coriolis force giving the Circumantarctic current a component away from the continent. That creates strong upwelling in that region (the water being pushed away from the continent has to come from somewhere).

          • mpainter says:

            Mike M

            The Antarctic convergence zone is the oceanic overturning of the SH, coupled to the western boundary upwelling.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Dr Spencer,

        You wrote –

        “Cold water upwells near the western boundary of continents, which means warm water elsewhere is sinking.”

        Well no, it doesn’t. If you like, pour some oil (for simplicity – it’s hard to colour some water and keep it less dense at the same time), onto some water. Using a fan, pile the water up as much as you like. The oil still floats, even though the water level changes.

        Tidal movements are similarly incapable of “sinking” warmer water.

        In many cases, overlaying ocean currents flow in completely opposite directions. Wind has nothing to do with these. NOAA, for example, perpetuates impossibilities on its website – even though the brightly coloured graphics look plausible at first sight.

        Most people have difficulty in accepting the reason that the oceans get colder with increasing depth, unlike the solid crust, or, for that matter, the atmosphere. This simple fact tends to annoy the gravito thermal people, who have to introduce a few more epicycles to account for it.

        Sorry to blather on, but warm water does not “sink”, and the reasons for nutrient rich cold water “upwelling” from below 300 m or so, have precious little to do with surface winds, no matter how consistently ferocious.

        So no “missing heat” accumulating in the abyssal depths, or anywhere else for that matter. It was never there in the first place, just a figment of someone’s imagination.

    • Mike M. says:

      Mike Flynn,

      You can not determine the direction of vertical flow from the local density gradient. A stable density gradient suppresses turbulence and an unstable density gradient enhances turbulence. But turbulence is convective mixing (flow going both up and down, with no net flow), not a directional large scale convective flow. The latter is determined by the forces (i.e., pressures differences) acting across the entire body of the fluid.

      A sea breeze is not created by “rising air” over land. It is created by the air pressure over cold water being less than the air pressure over warm land. The pressure difference produces the flow.

      Upwelling is part of large scale convective flows occurring in the body of the ocean, not just at the surface. Those flows are due to horizontal pressure gradients in the ocean. Those gradients are due to density gradients and sea level gradients. The former are due to differences in temperature and salinity and create pressure gradients by changing the weight of a column of water of given depth. The latter are due to winds and change the pressure by changing the height of the water column as one moves horizontally from one place to another.

      By “horizontal” I mean along a surface of constant gravitational potential.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Mike M,

        You might care to explain –

        “The Leeuwin Current is a warm ocean current which flows southwards near the western coast of Australia. It rounds Cape Leeuwin to enter the waters south of Australia where its influence extends as far as Tasmania.

        The West Australian Current and Southern Australian Countercurrent, which are produced by the West Wind Drift on the southern Indian Ocean and at Tasmania, respectively, flow in the opposite direction, producing one of the most interesting oceanic current systems in the world.”

        It’s not sufficient to merely wave it away by saying –

        “Those flows are due to horizontal pressure gradients in the ocean. Those gradients are due to density gradients and sea level gradients.”

        By the time you play around with that one (the Leeuwin), and its countercurrent, I will produce a swag of others which will contradict whatever fanciful explanation you come up with. The fluid dynamics of the oceans are in some ways, even more complicated than those of the atmosphere. Questions of temperature, salinity, the peculiar behaviour of water, its largely incompressible nature, result in facile, but demonstrably incorrect statements from supposedly authoritative sources.

        it doesn’t matter, I guess. Nature will do as she wills.

        • Mike M. says:

          Mike Flynn,

          Your post is too garbled to permit a detailed reply, but it sounds like you are referring to surface currents driven by the winds and influenced by the Coriolis force and friction. I don’t see what it has to do with upwelling and the overturning circulation.

    • gbaikie says:

      — Given that 70% or so of vulcanism occurs under the sea, it might be worth while to investigate where all that heat goes, on its way to the vasty deeps of space, in the fullness of time.

      Cheers.–

      I think heat of all this vulcanism could have the most significant effect of mixing the ocean. Or the heat added is not as significant as the kinetic energy due to buoyancy of warmer water flowing upward.
      Therefore it causes more long term warming by mixing cold water with warmed water. Or larger volcanic events could more significant than just their joules of heat. But also think just the joules of heat is under estimated.
      Or there is big different between volcanic activity above the ocean- or huge eruption of lava field on land area would cause little global warming effect because rapidly is emitted into space, whereas same eruption under the ocean would take centuries for say 1/2 of the heat to be emitted into space.
      Or it’s difference of about 50 to 100 times to one.

      And though we have a lot of vulcanism under ocean, it’s possible currently it averaging far less less than is normal. Though I also assume we are underestmate the total amount under the ocean that is occurring, and generally we know very little about our ocean floor.

  8. mpainter says:

    In the final analysis, it will be seen that climate sensitivity is too low to be of any consideration.

  9. D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

    No, Roy.

    It’s not a case of it “still implies low climate sensitivity” because there is no sensitivity at all: the back radiation flux cannot be added to the solar flux and the total then used in Stefan Boltzmann equations to (supposedly) explain the surface temperature. The Sun can’t raise the surface to the observed temperature here on Earth, let alone on Venus.

    It is downward diffusion (involving molecules passing on kinetic energy in collisions) which is causing entropy to increase and transferring the necessary thermal energy into the surfaces of these planets. Only such non-radiative heat transfers can do so, not radiation. That is because non-radiative processes involve actual molecules (affected by gravity) for which entropy varies not only with kinetic energy (temperature) but also with altitude due to the differences in molecular gravitational potential energy.

    ALL OF WHAT I EXPLAIN HERE HAS NOW BEEN CONFIRMED EMPIRICALLY WITH HEAT TRANSFERS FROM COLD TO HOT IN CENTRIFUGE MACHINES AND VORTEX TUBES, ROY. I’M RIGHT AND YOU’RE WRONG. OVER 10,000 PEOPLE HAVE VISITED MY WEBSITE THIS YEAR – MAYBE IT’S TIME YOU STUDIED THE 21ST CENTURY SCIENCE THEREIN, ROY

  10. D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

    It’s ALL natural Roy – nothing whatsoever to do with carbon dioxide. Fortunately water vapor has a COOLING effect as is PROVEN from empirical data in studies such as my own in my peer-reviewed paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” which is linked at the foot of the “Evidence” page here. The study is also reproduced in my book.

    You should also read, and perhaps write about, the latest understanding of solar cycles as in this article which predicts the start of very significant global cooling between 2030 and 2040.

    • AnsgarJohn says:

      Hello Doug,
      I’ve never really been able to understand entropy. It is the basis of the second law of thermal dynamics. On Wikipedia I read “heat always flows spontaneously from hotter to colder bodies, and never the reverse,” It seems you think cold air cannot heat the earth.
      It might be interesting homework for a freshman science student to go through your work together with you. As a layman, I must say, it doesn’t seem to add up.
      You seem to be trying to disprove even the workings of actual glass greenhouses?

    • Roy W. Spencer says:

      Wow, Doug, you sure have accumulated a wide variety of online name style to avoid being banned. Well done.

  11. Thomas says:

    Dr. Spencer,

    dont you think that choosing 1965 as starting year (one year after the Agung eruption) in Figs. 3 and 4 necessarily leads to a reduced climate sensitivity estimation in comparison to Fig. 2 with starting year 1950?

    What happens if you use 1950 as starting year in Figs. 3 and 4 as well?

    • Roy Spencer says:

      If I match trends starting in 1950, rather than 1965, the with-ENSO model ECS increases from 1.3 to 1.4C. The no-ENSO case ECS increases from 1.5 to 1.8C (but considerably over-forecasts the temperatures post-1998).

      The reason I chose 1965 as the starting point is that there was (if the IPCC is to be believed) no net radiative forcing then (due to Agung cancelling out CO2), and so there is a maximum change in radiative forcing over the next 50 years to get a maximum temperature signal in all 3 forcing scenarios.

  12. AnsgarJohn says:

    An Amazon book review by Joel Shore of Doug Cotton’s “peer” who reviews his work. Fascinating stuff. Even worse than “cargo cult science”? The review:”As a physicist, I became so alarmed when I read a few chapters of this book available free online that I went to the website blog and engaged in a discussion with two of the books authors. Alas, this discussion did nothing but confirm my suspicions about this book and the authors. The arguments made in this book are so far out there that even well-known anthropogenic global warming (AGW) skeptics like Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, and Lord Monckton have apparently tried to distance themselves from its arguments. When there is an argument against AGW so bad that even Lord Monckton won’t embrace it, that’s saying something!

    The two chapters that I have read online, written by Claes Johnson, seem to adopt an interesting “strategy” (whether it is a conscious choice or not, since it is hard to tell whether or not the author is deluding himself along with his audience). He presents a lot of mathematics almost sure to go over the heads of most of the readers of the book, but interspersed with some simplistic conclusions and analogies related to AGW that don’t follow from the mathematics that he has presented. Thus, the reader who wants to believe these conclusions is left thinking, “See…Here is someone who has shown mathematically what I have suspected all along!” Alas, they don’t realize that they are simply being duped.

    One example of those who have unfortunately been duped is the reviewer here who states: “The global warming mechanism of carbon dioxide infrared radiation is impossible because heat can not flow from a cooler area (the atmosphere) to a warmer area (the earth surface). If this impossibility was the case it would violate the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.” I teach thermodynamics and have published many papers in top physics journals in the field of statistical physics, which provides the underpinning of thermodynamics, and I can state categorically that this claim is utterly wrong. In all models of the greenhouse effect, be they toy models that one can work out on the back of an envelope or full-blown climate models that occupy the world’s fastest supercomputers, the flow of heat is from the earth’s (warmer) surface to the (colder) atmosphere as the 2nd Law requires. In fact, the equations of radiative transfer are formulated in a way that there is never a violation of the Second Law if they are correctly applied.

    The role of increasing greenhouse gases is simply to reduce the amount of radiation that the earth sends back out into space for a given surface temperature, thus requiring the surface to warm in order to restore the radiative balance of the earth. It is really no more mysterious than a person putting on a coat rather than going out naked when the temperature is 40 below zero in order to prevent themselves from getting hypothermia!

    It is sad that some people with scientific and mathematical backgrounds who should know better have such strong ideological biases that they are led to write such pseudoscientific nonsense as this book.

    • gbaikie says:

      A coat or the panes of a greenhouse retain heat because they inhibit convection losses. Or a coat or pane of a greenhouse can be completely transparent to Longwave IR and this would have little effect in terms of prevention of heat loss.

      If a coat is wet, one would be better off without it, if you are in -40 C air.

      A wet coat would not effect it’s radiant properties but it would it reduce a coat ability to insulate from conventional heat losses.

      Or if you fall into lake, and get your clothes wet, and you in cold weather, one’s survival could depend on removing those wet clothes.

      Clothes keep someone warm, by shoes inhibiting heat conductive loss with the cold ground, and dry clothes reduce convection and evaporation losses.

      The effect of CO2 gases is quite small. If the doubling Earth concentration of CO2 would get as much as 1.5 C increase in temperature, then this involves adding trillions of ton of CO2 to the atmosphere and increasing the temperature by amount barely discernible without thermometer.

      • D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

        There is absolutely no physics to support any warming effect of any IR-active gas. The most prolific of all such gases in Earth’s atmosphere, water vapor, causes the surface temperature to be a few degrees lower than in dry regions where the temperature gradient is steeper. Empirical evidence supports this – see my study linked from the “Evidence” page at http://climate-change-theory.com.

        The thermal profile must rotate about a pivoting altitude, and thus it’s just so blatantly obvious that making the gradient less steep must lead to lower surface temperatures.

        The temperature gradient in “ideal” conditions represents the overall state of maximum entropy, and is thus stable and a direct result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, just as is the density gradient also stable and a result of entropy maximization.

          • D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

            No. The inter-molecular radiation between IR-active molecules has a temperature-levelling effect, as is well known for water vapor (moist rate less steep than dry rate) and so the thermal profile must rotate about a pivoting altitude, leading to lower supported temperatures at the surface end. So water vapor cools rather than warms, and my study supported that.

            For more detail read my 2013 paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” linked from the ‘Evidence’ page at http://climate-change-theory.com which will help readers understand entropy and the Second Law, based on my extensive study of such in conjunction with my assisting physics undergraduates these last 50 years or so.

            PS: I am not interested in studying papers such as you cite that have not demonstrated knowledge of recent understanding of entropy maximization and the Second Law, such as is mentioned at http://entropylaw.com because the temperature gradient is not established in accord with “equations of transfer” relating to radiation.

          • Geoff Wood says:

            Actually, from 2014 AMSU at 7.5km 400mb, the average temperature globally averaged was 237.55K. The globally averaged specific humidity for 2014 from NOAA was 0.5g/kg also at 400mb. From NCEP CFS2 the analysed T for 2014 was 287.7K with a globally averaged specific humidity of 10.6g/kg.

            Projecting a dry air lapse to the surface from 7.5km, 400mbar of 237.55K either by adding the gravitational potential energy to the available thermal energy states through Cp or using the isentropic flow equation yields a potential surface temperature of 310K for surface altitude (0) 1013mb.

            ΔE, the energy ‘difference’ through the specific heat capacity between dry air (0.5g/kg) at 310K and moist air at 288K is EXACTLY the energy required to vaporise the 10.1g of water found in surface air globally.

            The actual lapse ‘measured’ during 2014 was (287.7 – 237.55) / 7.5 or 6.69K/km and is calculable from 7.5km using the thermodynamic properties of the air there and factoring for the surface water uptake from measured values as indicated. I do no have to alter the lapse to factor for IR opacity as suggested.

            Likewise for Venus, the initial lapse calculated from 49.5Km overestimates the surface temperature by over 100K by assuming that 49.5km is in isentropic equilibrium with the surface. However, as the temperature rises so does Cp for CO2 as more ‘locked out’ vibrational modes become compatible with the available rising mean kinetic energy. Iteration using modified values for Cp for rising temperatures yields a surface equilibrium temperature of 759K for 10 step iteration. Still slightly too high, yet within some surface predictions. This despite massive changes in pressure broadened opacity near the surface. Ignoring opacity on both planets reveals the insignificance of fretting about the effects of matter and its equilibrium em field. Cp already includes the thermal effects of vibrational modes upon the temperature response to energy changes.

          • wayne says:

            Geoff Wood says: July 18, 2015 at 6:00 AM

            Yes, Geoff! You are talking about the same of what I have been investigating over the last couple of years. Can you follow this little printout?


            setprec(6) = {NoValue}

            γ.from.dof = function(dof) { (dof+2)/dof; } // for ease see wikipedia: heat cap. ratio

            // Yes, Geoff... without the vibrational!

            γ3 = γ.from.dof(3) // Jupiter
            1.66667

            γ5 = γ.from.dof(5) // Earth, Titan
            1.4

            γ6 = γ.from.dof(6) // Venus
            1.33333

            // At lower tropospheres

            dof.from.PT.data = function(P,P0,T,T0) { return log(P/P0) / log(T/T0); };

            dofEar = dof.from.PT.data(22632, 101325, 214.56, 288.15) // from Geoffs T data extened to 11 km
            5.08311

            dofVen = dof.from.PT.data(53500, 92*101325, 312, 737) // vega2 data
            6.00341

            dofJup = dof.from.PT.data(564500, 2249400, 246.1, 390) // galileo probe data
            3.00272

            dofTit = dof.from.PT.data(23932, 146700, 65.2, 93.7) // huygen probe data
            4.99994

            Sorry for the format but that is just the way my calculator spits it out.

            But do you see the incredible parallel here? Translation and rotational ONLY!! And that is all it takes. Polytropic, not adiabatic!

          • Geoff Wood says:

            Hi Wayne, thanks for the reply. I can read that format wrt heat capacity ratio and degrees of freedom. I have recently being calculating some specific thermodynamic heat capacities from kinetic theory and comparing them with engineering values at STP and other temperatures. It’s amazing how good classical theory is at or near STP! Talking to an engineer who has designed and built lasers who reckoned quantum physics was required, but strangely the answers seem less complicated. I have not considered discluding vibrational although I have done this automatically in rendering the atmosphere diatomic! I will check back here if you reply. Would like to continue dialogue here or wherever you may be contacted.

          • Geoff Wood says:

            Hi again Wayne. I am struggling to project to the surface or pressure indicated a temperature using the dof suggested. I always have to include a greater heat capacity (more dof). If you are using another projection other than the isentropic equation or one of its derivatives can you make that link more obvious please. The isentropic equation works for me as it is exactly the potential energy incorporated into the available kinetic states that exchange freely through the normalisation of equipartition. If you have come across a more succinct route I am very interested. The dof you are calculating are very close to integer values and that is very intriguing.

          • wayne says:

            Hi Geoff, I will try to make this clear but don’t make this too deep or complicated, it is not.

            Ok, you saw the log(P/P0)/log(T/T0)=constant, i will let that unknown constant be ‘z’, just an unknown free variable since the other four variables are coming right off the bottom end segments of actual probe P/T readouts, or you can estimate them from high resolution graphs from a trusted site or in Earth’s case maybe close to the 76 std. atm. On Earth i agree, the T at 11 km is a bit too warm, they say 216.65 K but it evidently is a couple of degrees colder as you showed, so I am using yours.

            What is that ‘z’?

            You can rearrange that equation as such:
            log(P/P0) / log(T/T0) = z
            log(P/P0) = log(T/T0) · z
            P/P0 = (T/T0)^z
            P = P0 · (T/T0)^z

            In like manner you can also solve for T. You can use log(P/P0) / log(D/D0) = z or log(T/T0) / log(D/D0) = z to get some very enlightened relationships giving you what is really exponents and they all will be recognizable if you take the time time to cycle through those many solutions. That is how I ended up with the appx 3, 5, 6 degrees of freedom (evidently), they just popped right out at me, too uncanny to ignore! In the case of log(P/P0) / log(D/D0) = z you will also find it is one less that what (P/P0) / log(T/T0) = z give you, exactly one! Not surprising that is why the lower segment of tropospheres are linear.

            The P = P0 · (T/T0)^z you will notice is very related to potential temperature but not using the ‘z’ values you will find most texts, papers and links on the web for they are always insisting on adiabatic and the ‘z’ is of course different and if you go backwards through that simple derivation above you will find that their using the ‘z’ given if adiabatic then does not match the data from the probes! So it is not adiabatic but look into the polytropic process in thermodynamics. There the ‘z’ can take on various values, not dictated by the adiabatic process.

            To date I cannot seem to get anyone else to also look into this sequence. maybe you will take the time to do it also and see what you come up with. i need some second-party verification or maybe to show me why all of the equations match the literal data but for some reason are wrong, if so, why are the equations wrong?

            Knowing the correct ‘z’ you can easily reproduce on just a spreadsheet the T/P profiles of all of the atmospheres listed but only while the linearity holds near the bottom deep into the atmospheres. To get those endpoints i had to graph the T/P profiles and get the bottom segment where no point along that segments was the T more than ±2C different than a straight line. None of the probes show exactly a straight line as expected, it is real data except in Earth’s case but you can do the same using some radiosonde data in mid latitudes.

          • Geoff Wood says:

            Hi again Wayne. I’ve had a busy day but enjoyed spending some time upon your data and analysis. I believe we are approaching this from opposite sides ( not that we are opposed in any way). I have started building an atmosphere from kinetic theory to reach through logic agreement with data, and you are analysing data to find the logic. I am not prioritising either. Where we differ is in the very question you asked, this is not conclusive. Just my thoughts to date.

            “What is ‘z’?”

            Well for me ‘z’ is (gamma/(gamma-1)), where gamma is dof+2/dof

            For Venus you have 6 dof with a gamma of 1.33333

            For me I require a gamma of 1.22 which is 9dof! (5.5/4.5)

            At STP CO2 has 3 tranlational, 2 rotational, stretching and bending. Cv = 7/2R per mole. Or 7 dof at STP.

            When I look up Cp for CO2 in engineering tables I find excellent agreement at STP.

            However, as temperature increases values of Cp also rise as harmonics are included such that some of the denied, higher frequency resonances become available as mean kinetic energy increases. So in projecting to the surface of Venus I find that DT/dh reduces as Cp increases due mainly to the variance in Cp.

            If you are using n=γ in a polytropic equation then you are selecting reversible adiabatic or isentropic flow. Without this selection of equilibrium whereby no heat enters or leaves, or the sum of diabetic processes is zero, then you need an offset heat source or sink.

            I will go through your data Wayne as you have suggested, because it is not a task, but a pleasure to do so. As yet I have not gone through the process of analysing the data as you requested, but I will. I feel my response at this time does not reflect the effort or thought you have prescribed to this endeavour. I feel we both share a similar passion for the truth. In what I have said above I have suggested from my understanding a reasoning that is not set in stone but rather seeks to bend in response to learning.

            Best regards Wayne. Please check back here I will reply again within 2days.

          • Geoff Wood says:

            Hi Wayne. I have found nothing incorrect about the relationships between initial and final pressures and temperatures with respect to the values of ‘z’ you have specified. This simple relationship must make people think about the unnecessary complications of back radiation and suggested ‘greenhouse gas’ forcing etc.

            We still differ over the physical interpretation of ‘z’ though.

            In a gravitationally bound gaseous envelope thermodynamic work becomes part of the respective gases heat capacity. Cv represents the sum of internal energy states that can store thermal energy. The ability of a gas to change volume in a pressurised environment reflects work being done on or by the gas,

            P.ΔV = R Where R is thermodynamic work, and

            Cp = Cv+R

            Returning to your expression then ‘z’ = Cp/R, or the numerical value of the total effective heat capacity and that which is not thermal energy but thermodynamic work which can be.

            Cp/R is also the numerical equivalent of γ/(γ-1) where γ is, as you know the ratio of heat capacities Cp/Cv

            To calculate the degrees of freedom from ‘z’;

            z = Cp / R

            Where Cp = Cv + R

            And Cv = dof/2R per mole

            Cp= (dof/2)R + (2/2)R

            Therefore z= ((dof/2)R + (2/2)R) /R , so all the ‘R’s’ go

            z= (dof + 2)/2

            So for Venus, if ‘z’ = 6 then dof =(6 x 2) – 2 or dof = 10 effective independent energy storage states.

            Hope that helps.

            Best regards, Geoff

          • Doug Cotton says:

            Geoff & Wayne

            Good work. I trust you are starting to understand why the temperature gradients are what they are.

            Planetary surfaces are not warmed by direct solar radiation, but by solar energy absorbed at higher altitudes which then moves so as to maximize entropy. Once you understand that the temperature gradient (that you correctly confirm is based on -g/cp in all planetary tropospheres – even the nominal troposphere of Uranus that has no surface at its base) is the state of overall thermodynamic equilibrium (ie maximum entropy) – that state also being modified by inter-molecular radiation – then the penny drops.

            It’s all at http://climate-change-theory.com and in my March 2013 paper linked therein.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      And yet, at night the radiative balance of the Earth seems to vanish. The surface continues to cool. No sign of radiative balance there. Nor in the morning, or the afternoon. Quite mysterious, don’t you think?

      You might try to sleep in a tropical arid desert at night, when ground is below zero, and see how warm your “blanket” of GHGs keeps you.

      The blanket analogy is both pointless and misleading. A long time ago, Fourier summed the situation up quite eloquently. I won’t bother repeating what he said about night and day. No doubt you have already read it, and no doubt dismissed it.

      I merely point out that nobody, not one person, has ever managed to actually demonstrate the wondrous greenhouse effect. You might be the first, but I doubt it.

      Cheers.

    • D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

      The Clausius (hot to cold) statement is merely a corollary of the Second Law which, for non-radiative heat transfer, is only applicable in a horizontal plane in a gravitational field. Entropy equations should include a term for gravitational potential energy, but don’t usually do so.

      This has now been proven to be the case in experiments with centrifugal force which sets up huge temperature gradients, even down to 1K at the center, as discussed here http://climate-change-theory.

      Entropy is in absolutely no way confined merely to the kinetic energy of molecules, namely thermal energy. The Second Law is about entropy maximization (see http://entropylaw.com for example) and in a gravitational field entropy varies as molecular gravitational potential energy varies.

      Hence you cannot possibly claim that entropy will always increase going from warmer to cooler regions in a vertical plane in a gravitational field. I have explained when, why and how the reverse can be the case.

      Hence you cannot possibly prove the Clausius statement could apply in such circumstances. Hence the whole of Joel Shore’s argument falls to pieces because he does not understand entropy and the relevant thermodynamics. Nor do most climatologists, including Roy understand why what I have explained is correct. Loschmidt has been proven correct empirically, and you cannot use the Clausius corollary of the Second Law to prove him wrong.

      The $5,000 reward for the first to prove me substantially wrong (and produce empirical evidence supporting such proof and contrary to my study regarding the cooling effect of water vapor) remains unclaimed.

      • Mike M. says:

        Doug Cotton wrote: “The $5,000 reward for the first to prove me substantially wrong (and produce empirical evidence supporting such proof and contrary to my study regarding the cooling effect of water vapor) remains unclaimed.”

        I’ll be glad to take your $5000. But before I invest my time, I need clarification as to the rules. First clarification: Who is to be the judge?

        • D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

          Just start by posting here and doing your study in which you will hope to prove my study wrong. I will pull your arguments apart (based on documented physics) and all the readers here will easily “judge” your submission. Let’s get something off the ground, my friend, so I throw down the gauntlet. You’d better study what I have written first though. Not surprisingly, no one who has done so has come back with any valid criticism of any of it. The reason is that the hypothesis can be used for all planets, and the basic underlying physics is supported by empirical experiments with centrifugal force.

          http://climate-change-theory.com

          • Mike M. says:

            Doug Cotton,

            Your offer of a $5000 reward is dishonest.

            The Chervenkov et al. paper has absolutely nothing to do with your ridiculous theory. They select a narrow range of velocities, thus creating a gas of low entropy. They do that under near collision-free conditions to prevent randomization of the internal energy. Then they use a centrifugal field to remove that remaining energy. Nowhere do they create a temperature gradient.

            Your nonsense is proven wrong by the fact that centrifugal fields do not produce T gradients.

            Your nonsense is proven wrong by the fact that temperature decreases as you go down in the ocean.

            Your nonsense is proven wrong by the fact that the temperature gradient in the stratosphere is the opposite of the gradient in the troposphere.

            Your nonsense is proven wrong by the fact that it violates the Second Law of thermodynamics.

            But of course you won’t admit this.

          • Doug Cotton says:

            Of course there’s a temperature gradient between the 1K temperature at the center (where molecules have gained incredible potential energy relative to the centrifugal force field – at the expense of their kinetic energy) and the far hotter molecules still further out.

            Likewise the Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube here has gas spiraling down its length and thus experiencing centrifugal force which sets up a very significant radial temperature gradient between the cold gas in the central regions and the much hotter gas in the outer regions.

            The reason why this happens is because entropy is being maximized in the process. If you want to argue that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is wrong good luck!

          • Doug Cotton says:

            Mike M. writes above as in italics and I reply in bold:

            Your nonsense is proven wrong by the fact that temperature decreases as you go down in the ocean.

            You, Mike, are mistaken on that point – the ocean surface is warmed a little by the Sun and mostly by the atmosphere and of course it is not warmed as much at greater depths. So we observed a thermocline as is common knowledge and well understood, except by yourself it seems.

            Your nonsense is proven wrong by the fact that the temperature gradient in the stratosphere is the opposite of the gradient in the troposphere.

            You, Mike, are also mistaken because it is well known that there is excessive heat absorption in the stratosphere, and it is well known that diffusion is a slow process that cannot dissipate such excessive heat quickly enough.

            Your nonsense is proven wrong by the fact that it violates the Second Law of thermodynamics.

            And you are wrong on that point also, because the whole hypothesis is actually developed from the Second Law with a correct understanding of the entropy maximization process which that law is all about. You can try bluffing the world with a “Clausius” corollary of that law which is derived by ignoring gravity in the entropy calculations, but you won’t pull wool over Cotton’s eyes.

    • mpainter says:

      Ansgarjohn says:

      ” Thus requiring the surface to warm in order to restore the radiative balance of the earth”

      ####

      That is the hypothesis, but what really goes on?

      The earth’s surface is 71% water and water is opaque to LWIR; this wavelength incident on water is converted to latent energy – more GHG. But water moderates temperature. Compare the Sahara to the ocean or the humid tropics. AGW is founded on an untenable hypothesis and is embraced by those who are incapable of assimilating observations.

      • D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

        Yes the study of real world data in my paper linked from http://climate-change-theory.com confirms that more moist regions have lower mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures than do drier regions at similar latitude and altitude.

        This PROVES ROY & THE IPCC WRONG.

      • mpainter says:

        Doug,
        I subscribe to the notion of a GHE, that is, a radiative flux in the atmosphere due to radiative gas. My argument is that the effects of this have been exaggerated and mischaracterized by AGW proponents, as in AnsgarJohn’s comment.

        Certainly the GHE can retard the cooling of the surface, under certain conditions. But the AGW hypothesis ignores the fact that the earth’s surface cools evaporatively, in the main.

        • Bart says:

          Yes. There are other avenues for egress of heat from the surface than radiation.

        • D o u g.   C o t t o n . says:

          Roy, also please note …

          Radiation from the atmosphere can only slow that portion of surface cooling which is itself by radiation. Two-thirds of the surface cooling is not by radiation, and that component accelerates to compensate and thus nullify any effect of radiation.

          Furthermore, you are thinking within the wrong paradigm altogether, because the Sun’s direct radiation of a mean of 168W/m^2 into the surface has a Stefan-Boltzmann BB temperature of a very cold -41°C. So, if you want to know why the surface temperatures of Earth and Venus are what they are you could read my website http://climate-change-theory.com that has had over 10,000 views this year. That’s the only place you’ll find correct physics pertaining to planetary core and surface temperatures. Note the peer-reviews papers linked from the “Evidence” page.

          Please also now go to this comment.

        • D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

          mpainter:

          No one disputes that there is radiation in the atmosphere, but radiation itself is not the GHE. I very strongly refute that such radiation which reaches the surface causes warming of the surface, which is already somewhat warmer than the source of that radiation. I have said over and over that water vapor causes the surface temperature to be lower – just read the reasons in other comments of mine in this thread and then see the study at the end of my paper on core and surface temperatures. It would be impossible for water vapor to both reduce the thermal gradient and yet raise the surface end of the tropospheric thermal profile: such would throw radiative balance out by a long shot.

    • Bart says:

      The claim that atmospheric CO2 cannot heat the surface is entirely wrong because it isn’t the CO2 that is doing the heating. It is the Sun. The CO2 is just preventing the heat from the Sun from dissipating as efficiently so, all things being equal, the temperature of the surface would rise.

      In a system with a consistent heat source, limited to purely radiative transport, a layer of some substance with radiative impedance will indeed cause the enclosed object to rise to a higher temperature than otherwise would be the case. If it didn’t, then this stuff wouldn’t work. It does work, and thousands of satellites orbiting the Earth depend upon it working as designed for them to function.

      For the surface of the Earth, there are other avenues for the egress of heat from the surface to radiating heights than just pure radiative transfer. So, all things are not constrained to be equal. The overall effect in the current state of the system could well be null. Not because there is any kind of 2nd Law violation, but because the rate of dissipation is not wholly dependent on radiative transfer alone.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Bart,

        The insulation, to which you refer, is used with manned vehicles, to prevent the occupants from getting too hot, rather than to heat them up.

        The big problem is getting rid of heat. Space suits are designed to reflect as much sunlight as possible for this reason (and a couple of others).

        You are misunderstanding the role of the atmosphere, perhaps. It intercepts radiation, and heats as a consequence. This radiation proceeds in all directions, with approximately 50% being radiated straight to space, so the surface receives less (than it would in the absence of an atmosphere). This can be seen in the temperatures of the Moon’s surface. The maximum on the Moon, after the same length of exposure, is much higher than that of Earth. The difference is that the Moon has no atmosphere.

        Observe the Earth’s surface temperature at night. It cools. Cooling less rapidly does not result in heating. It results in slower cooling. Arid deserts, with little CO2 and H2O, on cloudless nights, cool with extreme rapidity.

        The GHE is a collective figment.Hard to accept, but there it is.

        • Bart says:

          Incorrect. MLI insulation is routinely used on space vehicles of all kinds to maintain temperatures at levels that components need to function. The Wikipedia site I linked to specifically shows such applications as the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and the Huygens probe. The very first paragraph of the first section, under “Function and Design” gives an example of how MLI can be used to reduce radiative heat loss.

      • D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

        Your claim Bart that the Sun’s direct radiation to the surface can heat the surface to observed temperatures is totally incorrect. The “stuff” that works on all planets is explained here: http://climate-change-theory.com where you will read about how the entropy maximization dictated by the Second Law has been ignored by climatologists and yourself.

    • geran says:

      Joel Shore vs. Doug Cotton!

      Does it get any funnier?

      • D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

        Probably not. I’ve pulled him to pieces on other blogs: happy to do so here if he dares show his face again. But of course he doesn’t dare to discuss correct physics anyway – just resorts to personal smears and the like. Watch him. Someone invite him back to apply for the $5,000 reward. As I predicted, no one has posted a serious challenge that actually refers to the development of my hypothesis, because the hypothesis is correct and, even though 10,000 have visited the website this year, not a single one has come back and pinpointed any error of physics in the development of the “heat creep” hypothesis.

  13. Lewis says:

    As it becomes obvious to more and more people that the objectives of the authoritarian anti humans are destructive to the human race, it would seem that instead of trying to debunk the fraudulent science; pointing out the pain to the poor would be more worthwhile.

    But no, even that is useless. It has been done and the anti humans continue down their path of control and de-industrialization.

    I expect them to quit when the sustenance they extort from the working classes decreases to a point they have to actually work for a living instead of telling lies to a pliant press.

  14. Steve Fitzpatrick says:

    Hi Roy,
    The correlation of ENSO with surface temperatures and lower tropospheric temperatures (with a few months of lag) is well known and clear. But I think it is not simple to show that correlation is due to a ‘forcing’ associated with the state of the ENSO, rather than a re-distribution of ocean heat which drives the short term temperature changes. I suspect the very low sensitivity you estimate (1.3 C per doubling) is due to that assumed forcing (rather than an assumed redistribution of heat), and that absent the assumed forcing, the sensitivity value would be close to the empirical values calculated from a long term heat balance (Otto et al, Lewis, Lewis & Curry, and others), somewhere near 1.5 to 2C. The response of your simple model to changes in ENSO is slower than reality (too much lag), which suggests to me that the ocean surface temperature change is just due a redistribution of ocean surface heat rather than a forcing that drives a (necessarily lagged) temperature change in the mixed layer.

    • aaron says:

      There is a redistribution of heat, ocean to atmosphere during el Nino, but Roy has also found there is also usually a slight forcing; a decrease in outgoing SW radiation. So the earth releases more LW radiation but is taking in more SW.

      • D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

        Any variation in TOA net radiative flux (aka “forcing”) is the result of natural climate change, not the cause, because there’s a $5,000 reward if you can produce valid physics and empirical evidence to support the IPCC-type claims.

        • Nabil Swedan says:

          Doug,

          I am serious about claiming the $5,000. Let us have a judge (s) from the public who ensures money availability and transfer.

          Here is my answer: Variation of TOA are caused by humans. It is presently decreasing as a result of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere. This is a fact and it has been recently published:

          Anthropogenic and Natural Forcings as Functions of Emission Time, Development in Earth Science (DES) Volume 3, 2015, http://www.seipub.org/des doi: 10.14355/des.2015.03.001 1

          If you have any questions, let me know. I would like to see the $5,000 coming my way.

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Nabil Swedan,

            Ferenc’s statement indicates little if any greenhouse effect from gases. If a slight cooling effect or no effect results from the presence of increased greenhouse gases then that largely agrees with Doug’s statement. In any case, little agreement with the IPCC appears in your link. Please let me where I can find such agreement.

            Nice nice website for Pacific out Engineers PLLC.

            Have a great day!

          • David A says:

            “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015)
            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

            Press release: “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
            http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

          • geran says:

            “Variation of TOA are caused by humans.”

            Cool, now we are changing the height of the atmosphere!

            (Of course, my favorite is that we are warming the Sun. But, the Warmists and Lukers keep trying for new records.)

          • Nabil Swedan says:

            This is the link:

            Anthropogenic and Natural Forcings as Functions of Emission Time, Development in Earth Science (DES) Volume 3, 2015, http://www.seipub.org/des doi: 10.14355/des.2015.03.001 1

            Please search for the paper, it is not Ferenc’s paper.

            Greenhouse gas effect and radiative forcing are fiction.

          • D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

            To claim the $5,000 you have to pinpoint errors of physics in my development of the “heat creep” hypothesis and produce a similar study (which could be done in half a day) that shows the opposite to my study at the end of the paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” and also my book “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All” on Amazon.

            The money (AU $5,000) can easily be paid from my PayPal account. The hard part for you will be proving the physics wrong. The validity of my hypothesis in itself proves the concept of a radiative GHE to be not what causes a planet’s surface temperature to be hotter than the planet’s radiating temperature. Hence I dismiss material such as you referred to above.

            Radiative imbalance is the result of natural climate change, not the cause. Solar cycles probably are the main cause of natural cycles, and significant reductions in solar activity are predicted around the year 2030 I believe.

            http://climate-change-theory.com

          • tonyM says:

            David A says:
            July 16, 2015 at 3:43 PM

            Do you mean that of all the records available and all the periods available they could only find two such sites to determine an association with CO2 that fitted? It was a short period at that!

            My sympathies!

          • Nabil Swedan says:

            Dear Doug,

            You will not be able to see your hump, others will. So let others decide. They are too many and cannot be wrong. I feel that I have a good reason to claim the $5,000. I will use them to pay for the expenses of my next paper currently being reviewed. Your paying for the cost will be gratefully acknowledged.

        • Nabil Swedan says:

          There is quite a bit of agreement with IPCC and the work of others. Please read the full paper. This makes Doug wrong.

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Nabil Swedan,

            Last I checked the Law of Identity still exists and cognitive dissonance has never been a virtue. The last sentence in Ferenc’s statement apparently denies a significant greenhouse effect. Only one statement by Ferenc appears to exist in the link you provided. Do you refer to the statement by other authors? Where in the statement does he even mention the IPCC? Help me out a little, just seeking clarity if possible. Thanks for all your effort and…

            Have a great day!

          • Nabil Swedan says:

            This is the link:

            Anthropogenic and Natural Forcings as Functions of Emission Time, Development in Earth Science (DES) Volume 3, 2015, http://www.seipub.org/des doi: 10.14355/des.2015.03.001 1

            Please search for the paper, it is not Ferenc’s paper.

            Greenhouse gas effect and radiative forcing are fiction.

    • mpainter says:

      Steve Fitzpatrick says:

      “a re-distribution of ocean heat which drives the short term temperature changes”

      ####

      I think this is an incorrect characterization of ENSO. El Nino temperature spikes are due to insolation, not a shuffling of ocean heat. SST in the eastern tropical Pacific ultimately depends on upwelling west of South America, or lack thereof.

  15. Paul In Boston says:

    Isn’t the range of 1.5 to 4.5 C for doubling of CO2 the same that Arhennius computed by hand 100 years ago? Seems like the understanding hasn’t had improved much, has it.

    • D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

      All that all the 0.04% carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere can do is to lower surface temperatures but by less than 0.1°C. There’s a $5,000 reward if you can prove it warms 1 degree or more if doubled and produce valid physics and empirical support for your claim. Water vapor cools by a few degrees and cannot possibly warm. Studies of real world data establish that fact. Rain forests are not 30 to 60 degrees hotter than drier regions, as what the IPCC wants you to be gullible enough to believe implies.

  16. Mike M. says:

    Dr. Spencer,

    I have a question and a couple of quibble.

    The question: Am I right in concluding that the Karlized data gives a larger recent T trend, a smaller late 20th century trend, and essentially no change in the long term trend?

    First quibble: You wrote “There should be other simple climate model investigations like what I have presented above …”
    There have been, most notably by Nic Lewis.

    Second quibble: “The IPCC apparently doesn’t do this, and I consider it a travesty that they don’t.”
    Well, they kinda sorta do this. AR 4 gave the ECS range as 2.0 to 4.5 K, based on models. In AR 5 the range based on models was the same, but they extended the lower limit to 1.5 K to include the observation based estimates. That they give no preference to observations over models is indeed a travesty.

  17. Dan Pangburn says:

    The atmospheric CO2 level has been higher than now (even several times higher) for most of the Phanerozoic eon (last 542 million years). If CO2 was a forcing, temperature would respond as the time-integral of CO2 (or the time-integral of a function thereof) Thus if climate sensitivity was significantly above zero, we would not be here to talk about it.

    • David A says:

      CO2’s molecular properties were the same in the Phanerozoic as they are now. The Sun, though, was cooler — about 1% cooler every 110 Myrs you go in the past.

      • geran says:

        Davy, you might want to provide your TSI reading for 100 million years ago.

        Lest folks will think you are a phony….

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        Think about it. That the sun had less output in the past is not relevant to the proof that CO2 has no effect on climate.

        Proof that CO2 has no effect on climate is expressed in steps as follows:
        1) Atmospheric CO2 has been identified as a possible climate change forcing. Forcings, according to the ‘consensus’ and the IPCC, have units of J s-1 m-2.
        2) A forcing (or some function thereof) acting for a time period accumulates energy.
        3) If the forcing varies (or not), the energy is determined by the time-integral of the forcing (or function thereof)
        4) Energy, in units J m-2, divided by the effective thermal capacitance (J K-1 m-2) equals average global temperature (AGT) change (K).
        5) Thus (in consistent units) the time-integral of the atmospheric CO2 level (or some function thereof) times a scale factor must closely equal the average global temperature change.

        6) When this is applied to multiple corroborated paleo estimates of CO2 and average global temperature (such as extant examples from past glaciations/interglacials ice cores, and proxy data for the entire Phanerozoic eon), the only thing that consistently works is if the effect of CO2 is negligible and something else is causing the temperature change.

        Which of these steps is perceived to be invalid?

  18. Michal Garbers says:

    The atmospheric CO2 level has been higher than now (even several times higher) for most of the Phanerozoic eon (last 542 million years).
    If doubling of CO2 caused climate sensitivity significantly above zero, the thermal increase projected by the IPPC should already happened over 500 million years ago. And life would have been drastically impeded and we would not be here to talk about it.

    Also, to our best knowledge Earth’s climate appears to have fixed stops of 22C and 12C and the IPCC climatic models cannot explain how these hard stops occur. Previously the most common theory was that a completely cloud enveloped world causes the hard stop of 22C. But in the IPCC models invisible water clouds (Humidity with clear skies) outpace the formation visible clouds; so H20 becomes a net forcing. If H2O is net forcing the 22C hard stop has no explanation. The IPCC models would need to incorporate a hyperbolic self-reversing model for the effect of water vapor. The math in the IPCC model would need to show Water Vapor would be a forcing when convenient and a moderator when inconvenient.

    Since we are here talking about this issue the IPCC models must be ignoring or ignorant of the major factors of climate sensitivity.

    • gbaikie says:

      –But in the IPCC models invisible water clouds (Humidity with clear skies) outpace the formation visible clouds; so H20 becomes a net forcing. If H2O is net forcing the 22C hard stop has no explanation.–

      This hard stop should related to highest surface temperature of the tropical ocean. The highest average temperature should
      be around 35 C and highest average of about 30 C,
      whereas our tropical ocean temperature is about 25 C.
      Or roughly 40% of earth surface is +20 C and the other 60%
      is about 10 C.
      And more relevant to 22 C global average is average ocean temperature which could increase by more than 10 C without affect amount radiating into space. Or as far as space is concerned it doesn’t matter much if average ocean temperature is around 3 C, or if it was 15 C.
      And if ocean average was 10 C warmer, then the 60% half of the world could be much warmer [and allows tropics to be a bit warmer].
      So if tropics is about +25 C and 60% of rest of world was average of +15 C then you in this area of hard stop of 22 C.
      And vegetation become more tropical in the non tropics- or you grow oranges in Oregon or the UK.
      And for most of last 500 million years the ocean was 10 C warmer than the 3 C average temperature we have now.

      And most of last 500 million years earth emit 240 watts on average into space [about 100 watts on average is reflected- or sun’s has had about 1360 watts per square meter at earth distance and 1360 divided by 4 is 340 minus 100 watts which reflected.

      And there is no way that earth can have it’s ocean’s warm by 10 K [within 10,000 years], and it seems that when we in this current ice box climate, whenever the ocean warm by 2 K
      or more, we enter a glacial period. And it’s possible that such as warm ocean causes entering into glacial period or it’s possible there simply is not enough time to warm the oceans to such as temperature. Or to warm our average temperature of ocean by 2 C, should require about 2000 years
      or more.
      And therefore one can see that CAGW is complete nuttery.

      • Norman says:

        gbaikie

        Interesting post!

      • D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

        Increasing water vapor causes the surface temperature to be lower, and just as well. Surprising perhaps to some is the fact that the IPCC assumptions about mean water vapor levels raising the surface temperature by most of “33 degrees” imply that rain forests (with, say, 4% WV) should have their temperature raised by perhaps over 70 degrees. So are you gullible enough to believe the IPCC, or what’s your explanation?

  19. Michal Garbers says:

    Dan Pangburn,

    CO2 is a Forcing, your argument fails at this one point. In the reply above I have attempted to reword your point so it is more valid.

    Hopefully I have not offended

    • Mike Flynn says:

      CO2 is a gas. It has properties, as do all gases. It forces precisely nothing. It has no warming properties.

      The Earth has managed to cool from a molten blob in spite of GHGs, the Sun, internal heat sources, meteoric impacts, tidal friction, continental drift friction and all the rest.

      It cooled. It didn’t heat up. It is still cooling. Eventually, given enough time, it will be cool right through. Wouldn’t you agree?

      No offence intended.

      • Ball4 says:

        Mike Flynn 6:17pm: “CO2 forces precisely nothing. CO2 has no warming properties.”

        This is not quite experimentally correct Mike, since CO2, like any gas, has an intrinsic property in its mass extinction coefficient for how strongly the gas absorbs light at a given wavelength generally depending on pressure and temperature. Combined with the gas being present with a certain mass density in an atm., which also depends on pressure, this intrinsic property will affect the atm. IR opacity and tau (= optical depth of the troposphere) which changes the atm. thermal structure – meaning the upwelling and downwelling thermal IR in the atm. layer – hence modulating p vs. T profiles. For earth, in lower troposphere, water vapor mass extinction coefficient & mass mixing ratio is the primary clear sky opacity source forcing tau IR, CO2 et. al. are secondary tau IR forcings.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Ball4,

        Stripping out the verbiage, yes you can heat CO2. When you withdraw the heat source, the CO2 cools, in line with, say, Newtons Law of Cooling. No magic. Don’t you agree?

        I point out, again, that after four and a half billion years, the Earth has cooled, CO2 concentration notwithstanding. If you respond, “The atmosphere reduced the rate of cooling.”, I would not argue. A reduction in the rate of cooling, physically, is not the same as an increase in temperature. It is a specious argument, only accepted by Warmists.

      • Ball4 says:

        Mike Flynn – Newton April 1701: “..if equal times of cooling be taken, the degrees of heat will be in geometrical proportion, and therefore easily found by the tables of logarithms.” By degrees of heat, Newton meant what we now call temperature.

        So, yes, agree “you can heat CO2”, since if reduce the control volume energy in source with no change in energy out sink then the substance in the volume cools by 1st law, Newton’s law of exponential cooling obeyed, the experimental data will fall on semi-log straight line to ambient within experimental error (CI). The effect on Newton’s “degrees of heat” plot is the same whether source reduces or the sink similarly increases, i.e. the temperature plot will not know, it will be the same straight line on semi-log plot.

        You change the focus though. My verbiage was more than “you can heat CO2.” CO2 forcing is not precisely nothing in the troposphere, agree? Meaning CO2 gas experimental extinction coefficient & mass mixing ratio forces tau, earth troposphere optical depth, agree? Secondary, same method as primary wv on earth, agree?

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Ball4,

          You wrote –

          “CO2 forcing is not precisely nothing in the troposphere, agree?” Unless you define “forcing”, i can neither agree nor disagree. If you are trying to say that the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere results in higher surface temperatures, then, no, I don’t agree. Mainly because it’s nonsense.

          How much “forcing” does CO2 perform at night? Or does it only “force” in sunlight, but not in the laboratory where it can be measured? If you purge a vacuum chamber, allow the chamber to attain ambient temperature, and then allow it to fill with CO2, will the temperature rise? Of course not! Can you determine whether a cylinder contains CO2 or O2 or any gas by measuring its temperature? Of course not!

          I think you might be confusing a couple of atmospheric properties with their real effects.

          • David A says:

            Mike Flynn wrote:
            “If you purge a vacuum chamber, allow the chamber to attain ambient temperature, and then allow it to fill with CO2, will the temperature rise? Of course not!”

            Yes, it will. Though for a laboratory-sized chamber the rise will be very small.

            Here’s a simple demonstration that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot5n9m4whaw

          • geran says:

            Davy, do you do card tricks as well?

        • Ball4 says:

          Mike Flynn 9:32pm: “Unless you define “forcing”, i can neither agree nor disagree.”

          I already did define forcing Mike, (YOU didn’t define forcing I note), clipped verbatim from 7:31pm CO2 gas absorbs light at a given wavelength, focus on these but refer in full context I chose the wording carefully agreeing with eqn.s. The exact eqn.s are common, you can look them up in a source of your choosing, which you should have done to agree or disagree:

          “tau (= optical depth of the troposphere)”

          “For earth, in lower troposphere, water vapor mass extinction coefficient & mass mixing ratio is the primary clear sky opacity source forcing tau IR, CO2 et. al. are secondary tau IR forcings.”

          “How much “forcing” does CO2 perform at night?”

          The tau IR optical depth of an atm. does not have a term for “night” or “day”. Tau IR in the troposphere is a function of pressure, temperature, mass mixing ratio and constituent gas mass extinction coefficient. To find CO2 contribution, do the work. A hint can be obtained here though, where the sun forcing is removed overnight, so energy in source reduced, energy out sink reasonably same, find the volume of interest, water, cools differently & exponentially as expected under sky and shield:

          http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Ball4,

            With respect, you have not defined “forcing”. It does not appear in any list of physical properties of CO2 that I am aware of. Yes, I agree that CO2 absorbs energy. So does every other form of matter in the known universe.

            The optical depth of the atmosphere, or anything else, has precious little to do with the subject at hand. You supposed “forcings” are nothing more or less than Warmist doublespeak, to support the non existent “greenhouse effect”, which is yet another Warmist weasel word having nothing at all to do with “greenhouses”, as even Warmists now admit.

            Your CO2 “forces” nothing. Increasing the optical depth of the atmosphere reduces the ratio of transmitted radiation to incident radiation, for a given wavelength. As the depth tends to infinity, the amount of radiation transmitted tends to zero, or complete opacity. At that point, no radiation from the Sun, or from any external source for that matter, would reach the surface of the Earth. Good grief, Global Cooling unleashed!

            Luckily, enough sunlight is absorbed by the atmosphere, and subsequently returned to space, that we don’t boil, as would occur on the Moon in direct sunlight.

            Sorry, but look at your equations again. They don’t support your fantasy at all.

            Still no GHE. Not even a bit.

            Cheers.

          • gbaikie says:

            –Luckily, enough sunlight is absorbed by the atmosphere, and subsequently returned to space, that we don’t boil, as would occur on the Moon in direct sunlight.–

            Well I find absorbed by atmosphere, interesting.

            Now atmosphere is comprised of number of different things.
            One has gases. One has plasma [gas in different state of matter- ions [and what about ozone??] in upper atmosphere-http://www.universetoday.com/93002/cold-plasma-flourishes-in-earths-upper-atmosphere/
            In addition to gases or plasma, the atmosphere has liquids- so water droplets in clouds and water droplets not clumped into clouds. And one could have other liquid other than water.
            Then one has solids, water ice in clouds would common solid
            in the atmosphere, but also other solids- dust or aerosols
            and sea salt particles.
            In terms of gases, one has the greenhouse gases and non greenhouse gas, and vast majority of atmospheric gases are non- greenhouses gases.

            Now my understanding of liquid ocean is the sunlight is diffused and absorbed, and difference with ocean is if absorbed by the ocean it’s not re-radiated, or one call say photon has extinction rate- or the energy is converted into heat, or energy goes into vibrating the molecular structure of water in it’s liquid state.
            Also cloud have what one could call an extinction rate- or energy of photon heats the liquid water- though rather than warm the water, it could also cause water to evaporate- cause liquid to become a gas.
            But the gases of atmosphere [rather than the other states of matter- plasma, liquid, or solids] don’t have an extinction rate, or they absorb a energy of photon and then emit the photon.
            Or for a gas to absorb a photon and heat up, the absorption
            of energy of photon would need to increase the kinetic energy of the gas- increases the average velocity of the gas. Or liquids or solids don’t increase their velocity, as they are bonded to a molecular structure- only gases under a lot pressure, behave like liquids- they resemble having molecular structure. And Earth’s atmosphere does not have such high pressures needed for this.

            So sunlight entering earth atmosphere can have it’s spectrum
            “absorbed” by H20 {and other major ones are O3, CO2, and O2}
            As depicted, here:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg
            That graph also “says” all the yellow part is absorbed, but
            it’s not- it’s scattered/diffused. Or it’s scattered/diffused just as ocean would scattered/diffused
            sunlight. Or say large part of sunlight is converted into indirect sunlight or is reflected back into space by the clear sky [it’s a graph of spectrum of sunlight of clear sky when sun is at zenith [noon].

            Now one can get kinetic energy from a photon- it’s how solar sails work. And solar sails work best at creating velocity, if the photon is reflected vs absorbed.
            As far as I know such effect is not normally considered to apply to atmospheric gases- probably because it would be complicated and the effect should be quite minor, though it’s not clear whether this would warm or cool the gases [or it’s complicated] of the atmosphere.
            But getting back to the issue, the H20 in the clear sky
            is absorbing a big chuck of spectrum, and I assume this considered to be re-radiate in a random direction- or it’s not causing an extinction of the photon. Though if photon hit a droplet of water, it could be causing an extinction of the photon [warming the droplet of water].

            So anyways are the gases absorbing energy of sunlight- which is the same as is sunlight increasing the average velocity of the gases? And does any want to include the momentum of a photon, eg:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail
            and/or could anyone explain how absorbing and radiating a photon adds to the average velocity to gas.
            Or said differently does same amount energy absorbed by greenhouse gas become radiated, if not, what the difference of amount radiated?

          • Ball4 says:

            Mike Flynn 12:03am: “With respect, you have not defined “forcing….Your CO2 “forces” nothing.”

            Tau IR forcing by sources of atm. opacity is well defined in optics if you bother to look it up Mike, your obvious failing in that research effort is the root cause of your inaccurate statement “(CO2) forces precisely nothing” at 6:17pm. CO2 mass mixing ratio profile and mass extinction coefficient force tau IR, the grey IR opacity, of any planetary troposphere in which CO2 is an opacity source, all based on experimental evidence and supported by theory.

            “It does not appear in any list of physical properties of CO2 that I am aware of.”

            Do the research on physical property CO2 et. al. gas mass extinction coefficient experimental measurements, become aware Mike. Recommend for your advanced reading: McCartney E.J. “Absorption and emission by atmospheric gases”, John Wiley&Sons, 1983. Also there are many internet resources available that will make you more quickly aware.

            “The optical depth of the atmosphere, or anything else, has precious little to do with the subject at hand.”

            The subject at hand is a simple energy balance model vs. earth near surface temperature observations Fig. 3 above in which the physics of all atm. gas opacity sources on tau IR forcing are at work at near surface pressure, temperatures, become aware Mike. You write “greenhouse effect” (GHE) but do not define GHE Mike, so respectfully, please provide your definition of the GHE that you write is “non existent”.

            “As the depth tends to infinity, the amount of radiation transmitted tends to zero, or complete opacity.”

            Not in nature Mike, the opacity and mass extinction coefficient of a particular gas depend on and vary with pressure and temperature as determined by experiment & as I wrote, hence so does the tau IR for which observations & theory with increasing z height are readily available for you to become aware that there is no complete opacity in nature of gas atmospheres.

          • D o u g,   C o t t o n . says:

            GBaikie (and others):

            Your “warmed” water vapor and suspended water droplets are mostly up in the troposphere where it’s somewhat colder than the surface. By the time the solar radiation penetrates the surface layer of the oceans it is usually too weak to raise the existing temperature.

            You’re forgetting basic physics such as the Stefan Boltzmann law. The mean solar radiation reaching Earth’s surface is said to be about 168W/m^2. Sure it’s much more on a clear day in the relatively small proportion of the whole globe where the Sun is almost overhead – say between 70° and 90° roughly. Now 168W/m^2 corresponds to a frozen ocean at around -41°C and, even where the Sun’s radiation is around 400W/m^2 for a short part of the day, the mean (taking into account the night) would still leave the ocean frozen, I would say just about everywhere. Where there are any holes in the icy surface the Solar radiation at noon would largely penetrate a few meters down into colder regions in the thermocline and, even if it warmed such regions from, say, 4°C to 5°C, it would not explain temperatures above 18°C that are common in ocean waters.

            So, this is yet further confirmation that what I am saying about direct radiation into the surface not being the primary determinant of the surface temperature is correct. On Venus, S-B calculations tell us the solar radiation could only “warm” regions that are around 400K or less. Well the surface temperature rises from about 732K to 737K for a location on the equator of Venus over the course of its four months of sunlight. But the Sun’s direct radiation reaching the Venus surface is about 10% of what Earth’s surface receives and so it cannot do any of that warming.

            If you really want to know about and understand the now-proven physics which explains how the required thermal energy gets into such planetary surfaces, and down to the mantles and cores of these planets, then you will only find it fully explained in my writings:

            http://climate-change-theory.com

          • Ball4 says:

            Doug 6:03am: “By the time the solar radiation penetrates the surface layer of the oceans it is usually too weak to raise the existing temperature.”

            Wading around in lake depth up to my waist, this is decidly untrue as the direct sun markedly & most assuredly rises near surface water temperature above the deeper water Doug – esp. as the sunny day progresses. Ever been in a swimming pool on sunny day Doug? Same effect.

            The same water cools at night after the energy in source sets and the energy out sink is reasonably unaffected. I also observe repeatedly the night time water & air cooling rate is affected by suspended water droplets. As shown in this simple test which totally disproves Doug’s hypothesis:

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/

          • D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

            The mean solar radiation for the whole Earth’s surface would have to be in the vicinity of 500W/m^2 (after allowing for simultaneous non-radiative losses of about 100W/m^2) in order to support a mean temperature of 15°C. It’s not. It’s about a third of that.

            On Venus the mean solar radiation reaching the surface would have to be around 15,000 to 20,000W/m^2. It’s not. It’s less than 20W/m^2.

            Besides all that, there is a correct (and totally different) explanation of all these temperatures, including that at the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus, where it’s hotter than Earth’s surface without any solar radiation at all reaching down there. That correct explanation is in my writings linked to my latest climate website which has had over 10,000 hits this year here.

            If you wish to “take me on” then discuss the development of my hypothesis (based on entropy considerations) from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. There’s a $5,000 reward on offer, so I will reply and pinpoint your errors for all to read. This will be instructive for all readers, and that’s how science progresses. All major breakthroughs in science have had their skeptics – but that’s good for science.

          • Ball4 says:

            Doug 7:59am: Thanks for posting up your hypothesis yet again, convenient, saves me the trouble. Doug’s hypothesis was “taken on” by Dr. Spencer’s experiment linked here yet again and the data totally disproves Doug’s hypothesis. I’ve substantially replicated Dr. Spencer’s experimental data with different equipment and found experiment really does totally disprove Doug’s hypothesis.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/

            This experimental data result (as well as my substantial replication) also serves as an adequate explanation for the sun’s observed ability to raise earth near surface (+1.5m agl) median temperature to Doug’s 15C, Venus surface temperature measured locally to around 732K (and Doug’s 15,000 to 20,000 W/m^2), and explains the temperature reasonably at the base of Uranus nominal troposphere. Also, in addition Doug, the experiment substantially explains Mars locally observed near surface local temperatures.

            In the past on this site, I’ve pinpointed Doug’s errors calculating the precipitable water over arid and “rain forest” type locations and pinpointed where his conclusions drawn are substantially incorrect. I’ve supplied Doug a cite to those observed data & correct calculations. No need to repeat.

    • Dan Pangburn says:

      Michal – No offense taken. It appears we agree on the outcome although perhaps have somewhat different interpretations of the word ‘forcing’. I say that forcing of CO2 is zero because it has no effect on average global temperature. You say climate sensitivity is zero because if it wasn’t, the planet would be too hot.

      IMO saying CO2 forcing is zero and saying climate sensitivity is zero are saying the same thing.

      • Michal Garbers says:

        Dan,
        Yes, I believe we are mostly in agreement

        In my understanding,

        Forcing would be; what impact changing one variable would cause.
        CO2 is a forcing since and increase or decrease in CO2 would cause imbalance in radiated/absorbed energy until the Climate System came to a new equilibrium.

        Climate Sensitivity is how the Climate System as a whole responds to any forcing.

        While in the history of the Earth there have been many significant individual forcings; climate as a whole appears to have been remarkably stable. From this is reasonable to conclude that to an individual forcing; Earths climate must contain moderating feedbacks. The most likely predominate of these moderating feedbacks is Water Vapor clouds.

        Thanks for the discussion.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Dan Pangburn,

        Thanks. My main point is that Warmists seem to be incapable of using normal scientific terms to explain their ideas, and instead resort to coining new words which apparently have very flexible definitions.

        “Forcing” is one such. If the speculation about “greenhouse gases”, (which in the best Warmist tradition have nothing to do with greenhouses), either “changing the climate” (which has always changed anyway), or “raising the global average temperature” (which is incapable of measurement), happens to be true, then it should be explainable using physics which currently exist. “Climate sensitivity” is likewise a nonsense term. Apart from climate being the average of weather events over a nominal time, the Warmists cannot even define “climate”, in any meaningful way.

        For example, what is the “climate” of England, in any useful sense. What will adding more CO2 (lovely plant food) to the atmosphere do to this “climate”? Better? Worse? What will happen if you stop “climate change”? Unchanging weather forever?

        In addition, at least one reproducible experiment demonstrating the principle should exist. Alas, everyone who has rushed out to demonstrate the magical undefined ability of CO2 to force a body to increase its temperature has failed. All.

        I believe the atmosphere to act in a mathematically chaotic fashion. Under this scenario, an arbitrarily small change in input can lead to an arbitrarily large change in output. There is no “equilibrium”, no “reversion to the mean”, and no useful predicability. Of course, such a system is also deterministic, so there are limits. As an example, temperatures cannot drop below 0K, by definition.

        So the combustion of hydrocarbons of any amount may have a quite unfathomable effect on the system, as Lorenz pointed out many years ago. To my mind, this is not the same as the “forcing” beloved of Warmists. CO2 has certain well defined properties. “Forcing” is not one of them.

        Why use an ill-conceived and pointless term such as “forcing” which obviously means different things to different people? Physics definitions are difficult enough already. How many different definitions of “heat” can you find? Do we really need to complicate things?

        Have fun!

        • Michal Garbers says:

          Mike Fynn,

          Uncertain of your statement “There is no “equilibrium””.

          If energy is being put into a system; (Solar Radiance into Earths Atmosphere.) And the Net Energy of the System does not change. (in this case temperature of earths atmosphere. Then there must be some mechanism to create an equilibrium. And a equilibrium must exist.

          While i agree with you on that at least some of the terms manufactured by the “warmest” are crafted to bias opinions. If the terms are too offensive, innately bias, or unscientific. Please offer up better terms and definitions which explain the phenomenons.

          • gbaikie says:

            –While i agree with you on that at least some of the terms manufactured by the “warmest” are crafted to bias opinions. If the terms are too offensive, innately bias, or unscientific. Please offer up better terms and definitions which explain the phenomenons.–

            Problem is greenhouse effect theory is wrong.
            Or if your premise is the universe revolves around Earth
            then you going to have problems.

            So greenhouse effect theory starts with ideal blackbody.
            One should ask why the greenhouse effect theory is based
            upon a ideal blackbody?
            There could be a number of reasons.
            For instance with ideal blackbody the rotation of the body is irrelevant, no rotations, or 2000 mph rotation- doesn’t affect the result. And you ignore the tilt of axis and it’s seasons. You also ignore the heat capacity of planetary surface. And equilibrium is nothing to worry about, as temperature [or the amount absorbed and emitted] is instantaneous.
            A perfect blackbody which is a flat panel which perfectly insulated on side not facing the sun will radiate about 1360 watts per square meter and will have full blackbody spectrum of something which is about 120 C [393 K blackbody
            radiates 1352.54 watts per square meter [or somewhere around there].
            And ideal blackbody is sphere which absorbs all the sunlight
            and uniformly radiates the heat. And disk area of sphere times 4 is the area of a sphere.
            Or ideal blackbody should radiate 1360 divided by 4 which is
            340 watts per square meter. And perfect black body if radiating at 340 watts per square meter will emit full blackbody spectrum of about 5 C [278 K]

            Now Earth is not ideal blackbody nor does it emit the full spectrum of any kind of perfect blackbody.
            But despite this, will going to model Earth [and other planets] as though it was a ideal blackbody.
            So question is why do this?
            As said there could be number reasons- but you don’t have to worry about rotation, heat capacity, or equilibrium.
            Another reason is it provides you with a question- why is Earth AVERAGE temperature higher than a ideal blackbody UNIFORM temperature of 5 C.
            Now, a simple answer of why a ideal blackbody is cooler is
            it’s a perfect emitter of heat.
            But for whatever reason, this wasn’t a good answer.
            Another way to look at it, is that the ideal blackbody would be the coldest thing at earth distance which is in direct sunlight, or the ideal blackbody is a refrigerator in space.
            Because it uniformly radiate 340 watt which is 5 C, meaning at noon the surface is 5 C [as it is at midnight]. Or if lived on an ideal blackbody planet, we would not need refrigerators [would need freezers for the ice cream but not refrigerators]. And on earth at noon a surface can be a as warm as 70 C.

            Now it should understood that ideal blackbody not only does not exist anywhere in nature, but also is currently impossible for human to construct. We make a fake one, but not a “real” one, though whole idea of ideal blackbody is it’s not real- it’s a model.
            Again why use it?
            And as I said it does provide a question, why is it cooler than Earth.
            One difference is that the Ideal Black body does not have atmosphere. So perhaps the atmosphere or it’s greenhouse effect makes it warmer.
            Now if you put an atmosphere on top of ideal black body, you basically wreck the ideal black body. Or it was never designed for this purpose, it’s like using earth satellite on the Earth surface- it’s not designed to work there, it’s designed to work in space environment of orbit.
            In addition to the fact we have no clue how to actually make an ideal blackbody- or the idiots know nothing about satellites
            So basically allowing monkeys play with a satellite- and expecting Shakespeare to result. It’s the cargo cult religion.
            So if you squint the ideal black body has similar things about it as planet Earth. In terms of absorption, Earth is
            .7 vs black body of 1.
            If you times 1360 by .7 you get 952 watts per square meter and divide that by 4 and get 238 watts per square meter and Earth emits around 240 watts. So that’s somewhat close.
            One could ask [because you are monkey] what temperature is
            an ideal blackbody if it radiates 240 per square meter,
            and answer is -18 C [255 K].
            [So again, Earth is not ideal black body, nor are the fictional ideal black body suppose to go under an atmosphere. And what is effectively done is put the refrigerator about halfway to Mars from Earth. Though it’s actually freezer at this distance- some surface which wasn’t idea black body at noon would be 90 C, but the ideal blackbody surface at that distance it would have uniform temperature of -18 C].
            So earth as represented as ideal Black body under atmosphere is suppose to to have uniform temperature of -18 C, and the greenhouse effect is suppose to warm Earth by 33 to make uniform temperature of 15 C.
            Now somewhere around this point the ideal black body idea is forgotten about, so uniform temperature becomes an average temperature.
            But suppose we try to give it the old college try and try to imagine an ideal blackbody under the atmosphere, would/could the atmosphere warm the ideal blackbody?
            Well, we should know that the surface warms the atmosphere, or surface gets hotter during the day and this is associated
            with a warmer daytime. But as said the ideal blackbody [if it worked] cools the surface during daylight.
            Now, currently with earth, tropics stay fairly warm at night, or we could say that about 1/2 of more of the world stays pretty warm at night [doesn’t freeze] but other 1/2 of world can be pretty cold at night and the ideal black body would be heating this colder part. Or imagine trying to warm Siberia- that a lot of energy:) and a lot more energy would radiated into space compared to not trying to heat it.
            Now this is sort of like communism- trying to warm cold Siberia- and also like trying to use solar panels for supplying global electrical energy. The difference is that
            current technology we can harvest thermal solar heat with about 60% efficiency and electrical power at 20%, so got 3 times more likely thing here, with trying to heat Siberia in the winter. Of course in terms pouring wealth down the drain, it’s crazy. But we also got the magic of a ideal black body thing with 100% efficiency with zero transportation costs.
            Hmm, difficult. Now, what is pretty obvious, is that if tried to warm all the cold ocean and all the ice instantaneously, we would freeze to death. Or our average 15 C world, if wanted uniform heat, would plunge us near or below freezing. Or ocean is 3 C, and most ice caps are ice and -20 C at least. Or as they like to say if all polar ice were to melt, sea levels would rise 70 meter. Ocean or 70% surface area, so cover entire world with say 50 meter of -20 C ice.
            Now you might think it’s unfair to mention instantaneously
            warming, but the instantaneous nature belongs to ideal black body. Or turn off the sun and ideal black body could [since we don’t actually know what it is] immediately cool to 2 K.
            Or one benefits of idea blackbody was it’s instantaneous nature. And we are comparing to our present world.

            Now what would suggest using a model based upon reality, so start with world covered with water- then add land to it.
            The problem is, that it appears doing this difficult.
            No one seems to know what average temperature of world covered with oceans at Earth distance would be.
            My guess is such world without any greenhouse gases other H20 and without any land would be about 25 C.

    • D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

      CO2 is not a forcing. I hope I have not offended: but I have proved it, and likewise proved water vapor cools rather than warms.

      http://climate-change-theory.com

      • Ball4 says:

        Doug 4:20am: “CO2 is not a forcing….I have proved it,”

        Using incorrect physics Doug, proper experiments show CO2 forces up the surface opacity of earth atmosphere increasing its tau IR optical depth in lower layers. Study up, your proof has been pinpointed as to where your calculations are faulty.

        “..likewise proved water vapor cools rather than warms.”

        Your proof has been long known to be faulty Doug.

        Dr. Spencer’s test confirms your faulty physics as the shielded water cools relatively faster than unshielded water when the cirrus clouds of water droplets show up around 1:30am, the black curve trends down. If Doug were right, the black curve would have trended up to indicate atm. IR active water cools rather than warms but the black curve trended down by test. This result is confirmed in similar simple tests I’ve also conducted. These tests are supported by correct, long established atm. physics.

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/

  20. Svend Ferdinandsen says:

    I have allways found it a bit suspect, that they use highly complex weather models to find the energy balance.
    When you are interested in the global mean temperature, the general energy balance seems approbiate to start with. Then you could eventually use the models to refine regional climate (weather), but the other way around is bound to fail.
    I compare it with calculation of the internal temperature in a box with elektronics. Power dissipated in the box and the surface conditions gives a good estimate of the internal temperature. Then you can refine it with information of the internal stuff and the distribution of the dissipation.
    Starting with every single component in the box and working outwards is not going to work.

  21. Steve Fitzpatrick says:

    mpainter,
    Look at the depth of the well mixed layer across the Pacific with changes in ENSO. When the trade winds drop during an El Nino, warm water in the (deep) well mixed layer in the west Pacific actually spreads eastward, reducing the depth of the WML in the west, and increasing the depth, and temperature of the WML moving East. If you examine the trends in ocean heat content from ARGO in the 0-700 meter layer since ~2003, you will see that there is very little correlation of OHC with the state of the ENSO….. consistent with ENSO being mainly a redistribution of heat, not a change in net forcing (which would be expected to change OHC).

    Of course there has to be some influence of ENSO on net solar forcing (solar forcing net of clouds), but there seems to me little evidence this is the dominant process that influences average surface temperatures as the ENSO changes state. Longer term estimates of ECS based on heat balance, where ENSO is too short term to have much influence, give values that I think are more credible than what comes from assuming a large forcing effect from the ENSO (as Roy has done here).

    • D o u g.   C o t t o n . says:

      Roy and others

      The level of solar activity most definitely is the prime cause of the climate variations seen on Earth. Carbon dioxide does nothing and water vapor cools so much that we couldn’t survive without it and the clouds reflecting 30% of insolation back to space. WV reduces the temperature gradient and so the temperature profile in the troposphere rotates, becoming cooler at the surface end and warmer at the tropopause, so as to maintain radiative balance.

      It’s obvious that water vapor cools, really obvious, Roy, but you and so many are bluffed by the IPCC & Co.

      I suggest you read the article from the Daily Mail about the prediction of LIA-type cooling after 2020. It’s also written up on the Principia Scientific website. See also the last comment on the “ChE” thread there by “Retired Physics Educator” as it is of vital significance to the whole debate.

  22. mpainter says:

    Steve Fitzpatrick,

    You say: “Look at the depth of the well-mixed layer”

    ####
    I assume you are referring to the thermocline, which increases in depth from east to west in the tropical Pacific; “well-mixed layer” is the newspeak of AGW.

    I have studied the oceanographic aspects of El Nino in the eastern Pacific and the controlling variable is the upwelling. This upwelling is the cause of the “tilt” of the thermocline from east to west. The principle is very simple: upwelling deep water is cold, but in the west there is no upwelling.
    There is the misconception that warm water flows from west to east, hence the warming of the El Nino.

    In fact, there is a much simpler explanation: when the cold water stops upwelling, the ocean warms from insolation. There is no redistribution, that’s nonsense.

    • Steve Fitzpatrick says:

      mpainter,
      “well mixed layer” is comon terminology; I have no idea why you think it is “newspeak”. The west Pacific warmpool does indeed migrate eastwarx during an El Nino, and this process has been measured. Here is part of the Wikipedia discussion of the well mixed layer:

      “Prior to El Nino, the warm pool stores heat and is confined to the far western Pacific. During the El Nino, the warm pool migrates eastward along with the concomitant precipitation and current anomalies. The fetch of the westerlies is increased during this time, reinforcing the event. Using data from the ship of opportunity and Tropical Atmosphere – Ocean (TAO) moorings in the western Pacific, the east and west migration of the warm pool was tracked over 1992-2000 using sea surface salinity (SSS), sea surface temperature (SST), currents, and subsurface data from Conductivity, temperature, depth taken on various research cruises.[6] This work showed that during westward flow, the BLT in the western Pacific along the equator (138oE-145oE, 2oN-2oS) was between 18 m – 35 m corresponding with warm SST and serving as an efficient storage mechanism for heat. Barrier layer formation is driven by westward (i.e. converging and subducting) currents along the equator near the edastern edge of the salinity front that defines the warm pool. These westward currents are drivetn by downwelling Rossby waves and represent either a westward advection of BLT or a preferential deepening of the deeper thermocline versus the shallower halocline due to Rossby wave dynamics (i.e. these waves favor vertical stretching of the upper water column). During El Nino, westerly winds drive the warm pool eastward allowing fresh water to ride on top of the local colder/saltier/denser water to the east. Using coupled, atmospheric/ocean models and tuning the mixing to eliminate BLT for one year prior to El Nino, it was shown that the heat buildup associated with barrier layer is a requirement for big El Nino.[7] It has been shown that there is a tight relationship between SSS and SST in the western Pacific and the barrier layer is instrumental in maintaining heat and momentum in the warm pool within the salinity stratified layer.[8] Later work, including Argo drifters, confirm the relationship between eastward migration of the warm pool during El Nino and barrier layer heat storage in the western Pacific.[9] The main impact of barrier layer is to maintain a shallow mixed layer allowing an enhanced air-sea coupled response. In addition, BLT is the key factor in establishing the mean state that is perturbed during El Nino/La Nina [10]”

      Ther is an awful lot of discussion of eastward motion of warm water, considering this is something you claim does not happen. Seems to me you are just grossly mistaken.

      • mpainter says:

        Steve Fitzpatrick,

        The first step in an El Nino is a slowing of upwelling in the eastern tropical Pacific. This is the undisputed sine qua non of El Nino.

        Does this make the warm water of the western tropical Pacific flow easterly? Such a flow is a current, is it not? So, what is the measured rate of flow of this current, pray tell.

      • mpainter says:

        Also, Steve, I have found that, in matters pertaining to climate, Wikipedia articlestend to be unreliable. The AGW termites have made a nesting gallery of that otherwise worthy source.

        • Steve Fitzpatrick says:

          mpainter,
          Rather than writing of things you do not understand, maybe you should instead learn something: http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/PDF_files/book.pdf (free textbook on physical oceanography). As this text explains, there is indeed eastward movement of warm surface water associated with El Nino. Might I also suggest that you chuck the paranoia (“AGW termites”)? The physical processes asociated with ENSO were being studied in detail long before “global warming” became a hysterical political “cause”. The history of those studies is reviewed in the linked textbook.

          • mpainter says:

            But Steve,

            This current of El Nino warm water that flows west to east across 16,000 km of the equatorial Pacific, surely the rate of flow been measured.

            So, what is it?

            So far, you have ducked this simple question.

          • mpainter says:

            Steve Fitzpatrick, you say “There is an awful lot of discussion of eastward motion of warm water”.

            Next time you hear that sort of blather, Steve, just ask “At what velocity does this “eastward motion” move?”. That will end the blather.

          • gbaikie says:

            — mpainter says:
            July 17, 2015 at 7:00 AM

            Steve Fitzpatrick, you say “There is an awful lot of discussion of eastward motion of warm water”.

            Next time you hear that sort of blather, Steve, just ask “At what velocity does this “eastward motion” move?”. That will end the blather.–

            It appears to be about 20.5 miles per day- so less than 1 mph.

            ” US study of the prevailing wind and current conditions during the 13 months castaway Jose Salvador Alvarenga claimed to be at sea supports his remarkable tale of having drifted 8,000 miles across the Pacific.

            Mr Alvarenga made headlines when he washed up on far-flung Ebon Atoll in the remote Marshall Islands two weeks ago, 13 months after setting off from Mexico on a fishing trip.”
            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/marshallislands/10641690/US-drift-study-backs-Marshalls-castaways-remarkable-tale.html

          • mpainter says:

            gbaikie :

            Wrong way; does not fit.

  23. D o u g.   C o t t o n . says:

    Roy and others – please go back to this comment and the linked one.

  24. D o u g.   C o t t o n . says:

    Roy

    This comment on the “ChE” thread at Principia Scientific is worth copying …..

    # Retired Physics Educator 2015-07-14 20:15

    Several comments that contained sound science have been deleted above.

    The greatest single problem I found among my physics students was the propensity to use formulas, equations and laws of physics without understanding the prerequisites needed for these to be applicable.

    For example, Dr Latour (not being qualified in physics as I can detect) quotes an expression for entropy which very clearly ignores the fact that (and I quote from here) “certain forces, such as gravity, are typically disregarded” and this was explained to him in one of the deleted comments. The linked website (which is here) explains the significance of this in the climate debate and I recommend reading such.

    Gravity does act upon air molecules in our atmosphere and, with a correct understanding of the entropy maximization implied by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it can indeed be understood how thermal energy is transferred downwards by diffusion and convective heat transfer to warmer regions, because in that process entropy can increase.

    There is no violation of the Second Law, which is all about entropy maximization, not heat transfer supposedly only from warmer to cooler regions. That is not always the case in a force field, as modern experiments with centrifugal force have clearly demonstrated.

    It is not back radiation which supplies the thermal energy required to raise Earth’s surface to observed temperatures: it is the above-mentioned downward diffusion and convective heat transfer (by molecular collisions) which does so.

    This is a major breakthrough in our understanding of surface temperatures.

  25. Steve Fitzpatrick says:

    Gbaikie
    A gas phase molecule which absorbs a photon (eg water vapor) is “promoted” to a higher quantum energy state; the higher energy state can be a vibrational or rotational change for low energy photons (visible, infrared, and lower energies), or could be a change in electronic state (eg free radical, ionization) with higher energy photons (deep ultraviolet, x-rays). Ozone production from oxygen in the stratosphere is an example of the consequence of absorbance of a high energy photon. Lower energy photons “promote” molecules to higher rotational or vibrational states; these molecules are almost always quickly “quenched” by physical contact with other molecules, which just means the photon energy is converted to translational energy of the gas ensemble; the energy in the absorbed photon is coverted to heat.

    The spectrum of absorbance just tells us which photon energies correspond to the energy differences between different allowed quantum states for the molecules; for example, CO2 has an absorbance band at ~15 microns wavelength, corresponding to a very small “step” in the energy state of a CO2 molecule.

    Of course a promoted molecule could “re-emit” the photon, and so return to its “ground state” before it is quenched, but that is very unlikely unless the pressure of the gas is very low, so for practical purposes, virtually all absorbed photons in the atmosphere are immediately “thermalized”. You might wonder: Why does molecular motion and impacts between molecules not lead to “promoted” molecules which can emit a photon? The answer is: it can, but the key issue is what the chance of that happening is. Unless the gas is very hot (>1000C) the chance of a molecule being promoted to an energy state where visible light is emitted is very near zero. However, lower energy photons in the infrared are constantly emitted if the gas contains water vapor or CO2, because normal impacts of gas molecules can promote a water or CO2 molecule to an energy state which can emit a low energy photon. (The atmosphere’s “back-radiation”.) So the atmosphere can both absorb and emit photons at specific infrared wavelengths which correspond to the differences in quantum energy states.

    • gbaikie says:

      Due to large amount collisions the gas gets a average velocity, but it seems the effect you talking about might cause the average velocity, to be more average?
      Yes?
      Or does it have opposite effect, causing wider range of velocity?

      • Steve Fitzpatrick says:

        Solar energy absorbed by the atmosphere causes general warming… an increase in the average speed of molecules and atoms (inert gases like argon exist as atoms in the air); the entire ensemble is warmed, not the indivual molecules which absorbed photons. The distribution of energies within the ensemble at any instant is described by the Boltzman distribution.

        • gbaikie says:

          –Solar energy absorbed by the atmosphere causes general warming… an increase in the average speed of molecules and atoms (inert gases like argon exist as atoms in the air); the entire ensemble is warmed, not the indivual molecules which absorbed photons. The distribution of energies within the ensemble at any instant is described by the Boltzman distribution.–
          It seems to me the Boltzmann distribution is related to liquids and solids whereas the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution is related to ideal gases, wiki:
          “The Boltzmann distribution should not be confused with the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. The former gives the probability that a system will be in a certain state as a function of that state’s energy. When applied to particles such as atoms or molecules, it gives the distribution of particles over energy states.
          Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution is used to describe particle speeds in idealized gases.”
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_distribution

          Yes I know that temperature of gas is not related to velocity of one molecule, rather it is the averaged velocity
          of a bunch of gas molecules.
          And I know that a mass of gas molecules will make average velocity. Likewise if gas were heated by high temperature source it tend make the gas have a less averaged velocity, which over time would be more of average velocity- or the gas molecules would cause the gas to become more averaged.

          So that what I meant, does the spin in addition to mass of molecules increase the amount of the averaged velocity- becoming a more uniform average velocity [and yes, different density gas has different averaged velocity at same temperature- not what I mean, but rather as assembly of gases one can get a more or less averaged temperature. Or you say this related to entropy]. So does this rotation spin of molecules make a more or less averaged temperature.

          Why I ask, is because as air get less dense, it seems to me the gas is less averaged- due to to there being less molecules in a given volume.

          So what I hear you saying is that the Shortwave radiation of the sun which H20 molecule adsorbs, do not warm the gas of the atmosphere and that only the long wave IR warms the gas because this wavelength causes molecule rotation, and the shortwave does not.
          So in sense I asking “how” this rotation warms gas, in sense of how does it affect the averaged velocity of gases- does make the gas more averaged or less averaged- either way I could see how it could warm, but it must be one way or the other- or I guess it’s possible, that this changes in “different environments”.

          • D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

            The translational kinetic energy is shared equally with each of the three translational degrees of freedom having the same energy as each rotational and vibrational degree of freedom. See Equipartition Theorem.

            Entropy, however, is also affected by gravitational potential energy, as explained at http://climate-change-theory.com and this is CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT in understanding planetary surface temperatures.

          • D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

            The specific heat (being a measurement) automatically takes into account the energy that is stored in the vibrational and rotational degrees of freedom. Whilst only the translational DoF’s affect temperature, all DoF’s vary up and down together as the energy is distributed during molecular collisions. So, if a molecule is warmed it also needs equivalent energy to increase the rotational and vibrational DoF’s as much as each of the three translational DoF’s. Vice versa when it cools.

          • D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

            PS: In some temperature ranges some degrees of freedom are “frozen out” and so are not active.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Steve Fitzpatrick,

      And of course you can heat CO2 with any wavelength at all. As an example, you might allow a container of CO2 to be heated to 100 C by immersing it boiling water, or to a lesser temperature by allowing the water to cool. CO2 at -20 C emits exactly the same energy photons as a concrete block at -20 C.

      The absorption or emission spectrum of a substance has no relevance at the temperatures we normally experience. CO2 can be warmed. It can also cool. CO2 at close to absolute zero emits very little radiation of any sort, certainly not significantly in the 15 micron band.

      I trust you will agree that there is a lot of rubbish talked about the absorption and emission characteristics of GHGs, but very little understanding of reality.

      • D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

        MF wrote: “CO2 at -20 C emits exactly the same energy photons as a concrete block at -20 C.”

        The concrete block’s emission would closely resemble a full Planck distribution, whereas the CO2 emission would be just a few fine spectral lines.

        Emission from CO2 to the surface is like a picket fence with most of its pickets missing, standing up against the full spectrum torrent of radiation from the surface.

        Besides, it can only slow radiative cooling and it has no effect on the rest of the surface cooling that is about twice as much and which can and does accelerate to compensate for any slower radiative cooling. The timing may not exactly coincide, but the supporting temperature that almost stops all cooling in calm conditions in the early pre-dawn hours is not affected, because that is established and maintained by all the thermal energy in the troposphere. That’s why the Venus surface cools only about 5 degrees during 4 months of darkness: the whole troposphere has to cool by 5 degrees at every altitude, thus maintaining the state of maximum entropy, namely thermodynamic equilibrium, with its associated temperature gradient. It’s the same for Uranus: it’s the same for Earth.

        It’s all explained at http://climate-change-theory.com

    • gbaikie says:

      oh, I was wondering, if CO2 gas can not increase the average velocity of gas by absorbing long wave IR, would that mean CO2 could not warm atmosphere?
      Or you think this is only way CO2 could warm the atmospheric
      gases?

  26. D o u g,   C o t t o n . says:

    I’ve written another new comment up thread here about why direct solar radiation cannot explain planetary surface temperatures.

  27. WizGeek says:

    Doug Cotton, you are the boy who has cried wolf too many times, so you have no credibility here.

    Everyone Else, don’t dignify Cotton’s presence with a response other than “COTTON TROLL”, and maybe he’ll stop trolling.

    • D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

      Then, WizGeek apply for the $5,000 reward for proving my physics wrong and carrying out a study that gets opposite results to mine that shows water vapor cools. You demonstrate absolutely no understanding of entropy or the laws of thermodynamics. If I’m wrong about you then you will be able to put forward an alternative hypothesis (derived from the laws of physics as mine is) and explaining all planetary temperatures in tropospheres, surfaces, mantles and cores as mine does. So go ahead: study what I’ve written at http://climate-change-theory.com and try to pinpoint any error in this 21st century breakthrough in our understanding of climate science.

      I throw down the gauntlet to you (and anyone else): talk physics not waffle (like your above comment) and prove me wrong. Be the first in the world to claim this $5,000 that’s been on offer since my book was published in March last year.

      • WizGeek says:

        COTTON TROLL

      • David A says:

        Doug: There’s a simply way to show your ideas have any validity — like a real scientist, get them published in a good peer reviewed journal, not one of the fake vanity “journals” you all have created.

        Of course, this is the one thing you will never attempt.

  28. Thanks, Dr. Spencer.
    The “pause”, as a flattening of the global temperature variations means a lower climate sensitivity. The longer the “pause”, the longer the sensitivity. Your simple model is really good.

    • David A says:

      Andres, that isn’t true. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is the surface temperature change after all feedbacks, short and long, play out, and after all natural variability plays out. This takes hundreds of years, at least. The current “pause,” which appears only in the lower troposphere data, is the result of natural variability — a predominance of La Nina conditions in recent years, a slightly cooler sun, some volcanic activity. Pauses have happened before — several times in the 20th century — and will happen again, though with less frequency, as have “anti-pauses,” when temperature increased faster than expected. Short-term changes (~ decade or two) have no bearing on the long-term warming, which is determined by energy conservation.

      • The “pause” is shown by all global temperature data sets. Some have it longer, some shorter, a couple show it ended already.
        I think global temperature is mainly the result of natural causes (oceanic circulations and maybe the Sun), not of the man-made increase in atmospheric CO2 (which is probably small compared to natural sources).
        There is no data to support CAGW.

        • David A says:

          “The “pause” is shown by all global temperature data sets. Some have it longer, some shorter, a couple show it ended already.”

          There has been no pause in the increase in ocean heat content.

          http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

          For GISTEMP, the lowest the 15-year trend got down to was 0.11 C/decade, in August 2012. For HadCRUT4 its minimum was 0.04 C/decade, around the same time.

          • geran says:

            The oceans are boiling!

            (Don’t think so, just wait for the next “adjusted” temps.)

          • gbaikie says:

            “There has been no pause in the increase in ocean heat content.”

            This almost the same as saying there is no pause in rise of sea level- as thermal expansion is large factor is sea level rise.
            And during the Little Ice Age sea levels dropped, though during entire interglacial period there has been average of rise in sea levels. Or though most of the interglacial period sea level has risen, and large part of rise is due to thermal expansion of the ocean, or the increase ocean heat.

            So even prior to the end of little Ice age, sea levels have been rising, or the ocean heat content has been increasing.
            Or one could say the rising heat content of the Oceans is evidence that we continue to recover from the Little Ice Age and continue the long term warming of our interglacial period, or we are not immediately returning to a glacial period. Or as long as heat content of the ocean continue
            we still in the interglacial period [though it can dips during long periods [centuries] of cooler periods- and there were many such cooling period in the Holocene period, as well as in other interglacial periods in the past.

          • David A says:

            “This almost the same as saying there is no pause in rise of sea level- as thermal expansion is large factor is sea level rise.”

            Thermal expansion is responsible for only about 1/3rd of sea level rise.

            The other 2/3rds comes from the increase in ocean mass — mostly from melting land ice.

            See the third graph here:

            http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/07/interesting-graphs-from-noaas-press.html

            There was a significant pause in sea level rise around 2011, when a large La Nina dumped a lot of rain onto land. That water has now drained off and sea level is rising again at its earlier rate.

            http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

          • David A says:

            “So even prior to the end of little Ice age, sea levels have been rising, or the ocean heat content has been increasing.”

            Sea level rose only about 1 meter in the 5,000 years before the Industrial Revolution:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#/media/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

            It’s now rising about 15 times as fast.

          • gbaikie says:

            — David A says:
            July 16, 2015 at 5:09 PM

            “So even prior to the end of little Ice age, sea levels have been rising, or the ocean heat content has been increasing.”

            Sea level rose only about 1 meter in the 5,000 years before the Industrial Revolution:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#/media/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

            It’s now rising about 15 times as fast.–

            Broadly I will refer you to Curry’s post:
            http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/12/historic-variations-in-sea-levels-part-1-from-the-holocene-to-romans/
            And quote her summary at the end:
            “So notwithstanding the statements of the IPCC AR4 who assert a sea level status quo from ancient until modern times, there are many studies that point to a picture of relatively static sea levels after the initial Holocene rise. These then show that some 3000 years ago there was a further inundation (think Lyonesse in Cornwall) and in early Roman times levels were somewhere around current levels. Levels then rose significantly through the Roman period peaking around the 700 AD Byzantine period at levels higher than today, which concludes at this period of study for Part 1.”

            Or as said, during the Little Ice Age, sea levels lowered.
            There has been many cooler periods over last 2000 or 5000 years, and there also has many warmer periods.
            The trend over last 8000 year has been a slight amount of cooling, the it’s warming the ocean in general, though one periods of ocean cooling and warming.
            In last 200 years the sea level has risen, probably will continue to rise for next 50 year even it one had the unlikely event of severe cooling. Or one should expect the sea level to rise in next 50 years, though the rate of warming can fluctuate and has has been fluctuating. The lack of warming, or lack of expected warming, should make you suspect that a meter rise in sea level before 2100 AD is not going to happen, but a 1/3 of meter is still possible, and idea wiping the the rise of sea level we have had is very unlikely- or massive catastrophic events would need to occur [which is unlikely]- and such events would far more significant than lowering sea level by say, 8 inches. And we would probably see glaciers rapidly advancing before this could *begin* to happen.
            So what is most likely is that the glacial which were created in the Little Ice Age will continue to melt, and in 50 years polar sea may diminish, despite recent recovery and despite the likely possibility of increase in polar ice is possible [as part of cycle].
            Or it’s likely that we will continue to recover from the Little Ice despite cooling and warming 30 year periods and despite the possibility of a more inactive sun in next couple decades or more.

          • David A says:

            “The lack of warming, or lack of expected warming, should make you suspect that a meter rise in sea level before 2100 AD is not going to happen.”

            What lack of warming??

          • David A says:

            “Broadly I will refer you to Curry’s post:
            http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/12/historic-variations-in-sea-levels-part-1-from-the-holocene-to-romans/

            I don’t see anything there that contradicts the 1 meter in 5000 years number. There was some variation over that time. OK. But the average was 0.2 mm/yr.

            And it’s just a blog post with what looks like a lot of speculation and handwaving. If it was published somewhere that’d be different.

          • D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

            Everyone who has written in comments above implying that radiation into a planet’s surface is what determines its temperature is mistaken.

          • WizGeek says:

            COTTON TROLL

      • mpainter says:

        David A,

        Then there is the granddaddy of pauses:
        The step down into the next ice age.
        We all pray that you are right about CO2.

  29. David A says:

    Re: “New Pause-Busting Temperature Dataset”

    Interestingly, the recent changes from Karl et al are far smaller than UAH’s recent changes:

    http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/06/noaas-data-changes-actually-smaller.html

    • tonyM says:

      Problem is that all the changes are small but we are rarely informed.

      Cumulatively they have resulted in far greater distortions in rate and absolute measures.

      • David A says:

        “Problem is that all the changes are small but we are rarely informed.”

        What do you mean? They wrote a paper about it that gots lots of attention, with ten pages of supplementary material to further explain their methodology.

        And a long press release with details and links:

        http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/noaa-analysis-journal-science-no-slowdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html

        What more are scientists supposed to do?

        Where is UAH’s paper explaining their new methodology and dataset?

        • mpainter says:

          David, you say

          “What more are scientists supposed to do?”

          ###

          Eschew the use of spurious data.

          • David A says:

            What does “spurious” mean in the case?

          • mpainter says:

            NASA cloud data shows reduced global cloud coverage circa 1985-1998. This is the reason for the warming of that period. CO2 had nothing to do with it.Need a reference, David?

          • David A says:

            Of course I want a reference — you have a history of saying things you can’t back up.

        • tonyM says:

          David A:

          Well the Kurt paper was just the latest junk from NOAA. Better you go tell Tisdale that the numerous past adjustments are really good science much like doctors and nurses go changing historical T charts of patients. But then that field is not science.

          So now we have a set of numbers that show in the last 10 years say:
          a) earth surface heating (NOAA)
          b) Karling upper atmosphere heating
          c) deep ocean heating according to you
          d) Sun TSI down or constant (you)
          e) albedo constant (IPCC)
          f) OLR increasing (NOAA via KNMI )

          That adds up to falsifying the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Good one; in Noah we trust.

          • David A says:

            When Bob Tisdale gets his silly ideas published somewhere, I’ll take a look. Until then he is just a another blogger who is wrong about the science.

            You didn’t explain why the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is falsified by observations. (Of course, it isn’t.)

  30. David A says:

    I think your assumed deep ocean heat storage, 0.20 W/m2, is now way too low. For the last 10 years, I find it to be 0.62 W/m2 for the 0-2000 region, according to NOAA’s data. And it’s accelerating upward, by 0.08 W/m2/yr.

    http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/3month/ohc2000m_levitus_climdash_seasonal.csv

    • JohnKl says:

      Hi David A,

      If Ocean depths have actually warmed, visible spectrum solar radiation would be the most likely proximate cause not IR.

      Have a great day!

      • David A says:

        Why?

        Cycle-averaged total solar irradiance has been decreasing since about 1950, not increasing.

        • mpainter says:

          David A asks “Why?”

          #####

          Increased insolation

          • David A says:

            But there has been no increase in solar radiation for over 60 years (5 solar cycles):

            http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html

          • mpainter says:

            David A,
            You are confused. Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) is to be confused with insolation

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi David,

            Liquid water proves transparent to the visible spectrum. Mutation of particulate matter at any given depth can increase or decrease warming in that region whether or not any change occurs in solar irradiance. Solar irradiance tells me nothing about how much the oceans absorb due to changes in albedo, etc., ( insolation falls within this category ).

            IR can only penetrate a few centimeters of water at most. Funny you obsess with weak radiation that barely penetrates water while ignoring higher energy/frequency radiation that does.

            Thank you MPAINTER for your well made reply to David in this regard.

            Have a great day!

          • David A says:

            “IR can only penetrate a few centimeters of water at most.”

            1) Increased IR warms the air above the ocean surface, and through conduction that heat can pass into the ocean.

            2) The surface of the ocean is turbulent, not glass smooth. What’s a few millimeters on the surface at one moment doesn’t stay there very long.

          • mpainter says:

            Surface insolation has increased via reduced cloud coverage, globally, this from data provided by NASA.

          • gbaikie says:

            — David A says:
            July 16, 2015 at 5:11 PM

            But there has been no increase in solar radiation for over 60 years (5 solar cycles):

            http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html

            If that applies to tropics, that graph seems to clearly show
            the warming from the end of Little Ice Age.
            In terms of recently, it’s all higher. But the 1978 to 2002
            has more Solar Irradiance than cooler period of 1961 to 1978
            And 1950+ more Solar Irradiance than 1950 -.

            And I would expect warming at depth [+1000 meters] to have been a delayed effect from past higher Solar Irradiance.

            Or glacier have delayed effect from warming- generally said to be about 50 years. Ocean should longer delayed effects than glaciers. Or there nothing in the graph to indicate that in future ocean depths will get cooler. And even were drop to levels before 1750, it would take decades to show up as cooling in the deeper ocean.

          • mpainter says:

            David A says that air can warm the ocean “through conduction”

            ####
            Air temperature is always lower than SST,as a general rule. Your physics needs to be de-twisted.

          • David A says:

            But the recent decreases in TSI are in opposition to the strong, steady increase in ocean heat content.

            Yes, changes in TSI were probably responsible for some of the warming after the LIA (+volcanic aerosols clearing out +GHGs). But the climate’s sensitivity to solar radiation is small.

            If you take the elementary energy balance equation

            (1-albedo)S/4 = sigma*T^4

            where S is the solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere, then

            dT/dS = T/4S ~ 0.05 C per W/m2

            That doesn’t include possible changes in albedo (clouds), but everything I’ve read, including recently, is that the surface temperature change is <= 0.1 C for a 1 W/m2 change in TOA solar irradiance.

          • David A says:

            “Surface insolation has increased via reduced cloud coverage, globally, this from data provided by NASA”

            Link to that data?

          • David A says:

            “Air temperature is always lower than SST,as a general rule. Your physics needs to be de-twisted.”

            Doesn’t matter. If the air temperature increases, more of the heat in the air will conduct into the water, decreasing any net ocean-to-air conductive heat flow. Less net heat loss from the ocean means a warmer ocean.

          • mpainter says:

            Still twisted, David.

          • David A says:

            It’s basic thermodynamics.

          • mpainter says:

            Here is some basic thermodynamics for ya,David:

            warmer SST—> increased evaporation—> higher humidity—>increased clouds—> increased albedo—>cooling

            So, relax, have a beer, think happy thoughts; everything is gonna be fine.

          • David A says:

            Earlier you wrote, “Surface insolation has increased via reduced cloud coverage, globally, this from data provided by NASA.”

            I asked for a link to that data?

            So what is it?

          • Bart says:

            “dT/dS = T/4S ~ 0.05 C per W/m2”

            Not so fast. That is only the equivalent blackbody result, not the actual result at the surface. Moreover, it is arbitrarily holding albedo constant and with constant emissivity of one across the spectrum.

            Highlighting how inappropriate it is, it has no effect from greenhouse gases. So, relying upon it makes the entire GHE vanish in a puff of oversimplification.

          • mpainter says:

            I have no link. It’s there, go look. A number of studies have utilized this data. Roy knows about it for sure. See John McLean, 2014, as one of the latest. I believe that I have referred the McLean study to you before. Seems that anything contrary to the AGW meme does not stick with you.

          • David A says:

            “I have no link.”

            Just what I suspected. Make a claim about what the data say, then be unable to back it up with actual data. Typical.

          • David A says:

            “That is only the equivalent blackbody result, not the actual result at the surface. Moreover, it is arbitrarily holding albedo constant and with constant emissivity of one across the spectrum.”

            Yes, of course. It’s just the first-order approximation.

          • mpainter says:

            David has to have links. He can’t do without them.

          • gbaikie says:

            “…dimming is found between 1983 and 1991, followed by 3.17 W m brightening from 1991 to 1999, returning to 5.26 W m dimming over 1999–2004 in the SRB global mean.
            This results in an insignificant overall trend for the entire satellite period.”
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JD011004/pdf

            And generally:
            This map of net radiation (incoming sunlight minus reflected light and outgoing heat) shows global energy imbalances in September 2008, the month of an equinox. Areas around the equator absorbed about 200 watts per square meter more on average (orange and red) than they reflected or radiated.
            Areas near the poles reflected and/or radiated about 200 more watts per square meter (green and blue) than they absorbed. Mid-latitudes were roughly in balance.
            (NASA map by Robert Simmon, based on CERES data.)
            http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page3.php

          • David A says:

            “David has to have links. He can’t do without them.”

            I expect that if someone makes a claim about what the data show, they can point to the data and research showing it.

            Otherwise a claim isn’t worth anything.

    • geran says:

      “I find it to be 0.62 W/m2 for the 0-2000 region…”

      Hilarious! Davy thinks the deep ocean is producing warming along with CO2.

      When the oceans boil, we won’t have to burn fossil fuels to cook our seafood.

      Saving the planet!

      • David A says:

        “Davy thinks the deep ocean is producing warming along with CO2.”

        That’s not what I wrote.

        • Dr No says:

          David,

          Good comment. You have identified the flaw in Roy’s argument in that he has not described the sensitivity of his model to variations in the prescribed parameters.

          It is a common mistake of students to assume that, because their simple model can be tuned to match some set of observations, that their tuned parameters represent the gospel truth.

          We do not know how the implied sensitivities vary with over a range of plausible parameters (including deep heat storage, starting date etc. ). For all we know, Roy has selected the best/worst case set of parameters in order to produce the lowest sensitivity.

          How likely is his implied (low) sensitivity compared to all other values?
          or
          Is it possible to select a combination of plausible parameters to arrive at a 4.5 deg sensitivity?

          i.e. what does the PDF of sensitivities look like?
          Unless this is done, simply showing one result of many possible results is of limited value.

          BTW- acknowledging the possibility a low sensitivity is a major step in the re-education of some sceptics.
          (Of course – I must exclude Doug Cotton as he continually refuses to do his homework and keeps disrupting the class).

          • D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

            You Dr No, don’t do your homework studying the “heat creep” hypothesis which is what can be used to explain tropospheric, surface and sub-surface temperatures on all planets with significant atmospheres, and which hypothesis is supported by copious evidence as well as recent experiments with centrifugal force.

            It’s at http://climate-change-theory.com as you know, but don’t deign to study.

          • Dr No says:

            Doug, your home-work assignment should be very simple given your new theory:

            Please estimate the surface temperature of Pluto given what we know about its distance from the sun, its size and composition of its atmosphere.
            Please indicate how you arrive at this estimate.
            This should take not more than about 300 words.

          • D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

            Go to this comment and the one after.

  31. RW says:

    David A.,

    “Short-term changes (~ decade or two) have no bearing on the long-term warming, which is determined by energy conservation.”

    How is long term warming determined by COE?

    • David A says:

      I assume you mean “CO2,” not “COE,” and the science of how it causes warming is well known and available everywhere. Go read it.

      • RW says:

        No, by COE I meant Conservation of Energy. I do not understand how long term GHG warming of any amount, large or small, is determined by COE. BTW, I accept the basic physics of GHG warming.

        • D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

          The “basic physics” of GH warming is basically based on the basic assumption that the back radiation can be added to the solar radiation and the total (about 500W/m^2) less non-radiative losses (about 100W/m^2) used in Stefan Boltzmann calculations to “explain” the mean surface temperature of about 288K which would require 390W/m^2 for a true blackbody.

          You can’t confirm any of that nonsense from standard physics, now can you?

          The Sun’s direct radiation of about 168W/m^2 is roughly equivalent to that from an object at a very cold -41°C. That’s what physics tells us. The mean temperature in the troposphere isn’t much above that either. You are trying to “explain” that these two sources of radiation can somehow add together and make the surface much hotter than either.

      • RW says:

        David,

        You do understand that additional GHGs, including additional CO2, are not additional sources of energy to the system, right? The way they supposedly act to further warm the surface is by further delaying the release of absorbed solar power back out to space. For this reason, I fail to understand how COE itself somehow dictates warming.

        • RW says:

          Long term, short term or anything else.

        • David A says:

          Of course CO2 isn’t an additional source of energy into the system.

          But it impacts the distribution of that energy, with more of it retained in the lower atmosphere. Then less energy escapes through the top of the atmosphere. But at equilibrium, the incoming and outgoing energy must be the same, so the planet must warm up, thereby emitting more energy so the balance is restored.

          • RW says:

            David,

            “But it impacts the distribution of that energy,”

            Theoretically it does (or is at least supposed to in a way that causes further warming), but not because of COE. Moreover, even if added GHGs cause an imbalance (which they at least should), this is no guarantee that it must further warm, because any change is driven by the sum of all the pushes, warming and cooling.

            You do understand that it’s perfectly possible for the enhanced GHE warming to be correct even if the climate cools in the long-term, right? And with COE fully satisfied, right?

          • David A says:

            “You do understand that it’s perfectly possible for the enhanced GHE warming to be correct even if the climate cools in the long-term, right?”

            Of course manmade GHGs aren’ the only factor that determines climate. (It’s getting tiring pointing that out again and again.) But now and for the foreseeable future, it’s a significant one, and getting larger.

          • RW says:

            “Of course manmade GHGs aren’ the only factor that determines climate.”

            OK, but then why say that long term warming (even if it occurs) is dictated or required by COE? That makes no sense at all and is not correct. COE only requires that every joule of post albedo solar power (and a tiny amount of geothermal power) be conserved, i.e. not disappear or spontaneously vanish somewhere in the system.

            There is nothing I know in the GHE warming theory that says it’s required by COE. That’s nonsense.

          • David A says:

            I already explained that — at equilibrium, energy in must equal energy out (COE). With a greenhouse effect, the Earth will warm up until that equality is restored.

          • D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

            Yes energy in = energy out, but you have no idea how much energy is supplied to a planet’s surface by “heat creep” now do you? See http://climate-change-theory.com

          • RW says:

            David A,

            “I already explained that — at equilibrium, energy in must equal energy out (COE).”

            Yes, of course.

            “With a greenhouse effect, the Earth will warm up until that equality is restored.”

            Not necessarily since we don’t know the extent of all the other pushes. In particular, those pushes in the cooling direction. Ultimately, the greenhouse effect theory only says the system *should* be pushed in a warming direction by added GHGs. It in no way says the Earth must warm.

          • David A says:

            RW wrote:
            “Not necessarily since we don’t know the extent of all the other pushes. In particular, those pushes in the cooling direction. Ultimately, the greenhouse effect theory only says the system *should* be pushed in a warming direction by added GHGs. It in no way says the Earth must warm.”

            We know from paleoclimate data that the net feedback is positive and significant.

            That’s also what climate models show.

        • D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

          RW: Your “absorbed solar power” is a mean of 168W/m^2 and that could only raise an iceberg to a cold -41°C. The Sun’s radiation can’t warm the surface in the first place, let alone the region at the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus. See my other comment on that just written.

          If you think in terms of radiation supposedly determining such temperatures then you still think in terms of the old 20th century paradigm which has been proven totally incorrect and which is not what explains any such temperatures, as is obvious for Venus.

          • RW says:

            Doug,

            I’ve already been through this with you. The total absorbed solar power is about 240 W/m^2. It doesn’t matter that not all of it passes straight to the surface, as all of the 240 W/m^2 is new energy added to the system and thus is acting to warm it and ultimately the surface in the process.

            The GHE is not driven by the amount of IR passed from the atmosphere to the surface, but is instead driven by radiative resistance to outer space cooling by radiation from the atmosphere into space. Or simply the absorption of upwelling surface IR that would otherwise pass into space which is subsequently re-radiated back downward towards (and not necessarily back to) the surface. That is, the atmosphere must above all make the push toward radiative balance with the Sun at the TOA via re-radiating absorbed IR up towards space, but in order to do that, it must also push back the other way toward the surface because absorbed IR re-radiated by the atmosphere both up and down.

          • D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

            Point 1: 240W/m^2 gives 255K nearly half way up the troposphere.

            Point 2: The surface is simultaneously losing about 102W/m^2 by non-radiative processes.

            Point 3: Even K-T, NASA and the IPCC realize we have to deduct that 102W/m^2 from the direct solar radiation. Apparently you don’t realize what they do in their energy diagrams, so I suggest you study them.

            Point 4: Deducting this 102W/m^2, leaves 138W/m^2 if we accept your 240 figure.

            Point 5: 138W/m^2 gives 222K.

            You’re not even in the ball park, RW. What happens is in the three comments of mine currently at the end of this thread.

        • David Appell says:

          “Not necessarily since we don’t know the extent of all the other pushes. In particular, those pushes in the cooling direction. Ultimately, the greenhouse effect theory only says the system *should* be pushed in a warming direction by added GHGs. It in no way says the Earth must warm.”

          Calculating all the feedbacks is what climate science & climate models are all about. All calculations — and all paleoclimate information — show that there is a significant net positive feedback and the Earth warms.

          And, to no one’s surprise, we see the Earth warming now.

          • Based on unvalidated models, something like 97% of which show more warming than observed. Claiming we’ve been in a decade of unusual cooling (which is a claim more based on hope than science) doesn’t help support models. If models incorrectly capture natural variability, which is what they have done beyond dispute, then that works both ways. A model tuned to the temperature rise between 1980-1998 is going to be wrong because the natural warming rate was under estimated. Models predicted 0.3C of warming over the last decade and we got zero.

            There is no escape, all else being equal, GHG’s warm the planet by 1.1C for a doubling. Probably closer to 1.5C factoring in some theoretical water vapour feedback. Result: net benefit to the planet. However, the situation on Earth is never that “all else is equal”.

          • gbaikie says:

            — There is no escape, all else being equal, GHG’s warm the planet by 1.1C for a doubling. Probably closer to 1.5C factoring in some theoretical water vapour feedback. Result: net benefit to the planet. However, the situation on Earth is never that “all else is equal”.–

            It seems quite doubtful the CO2 had little to the cooling of Little Ice Age or ended the Little Ice Age. Or CO2 levels had nothing to do with global advancement of glaciers, nor the cause of their retreat. But apparently before we had accurate system of measuring CO2, it is said that during the Little Ice age [prior to 1850 AD] it’s considered that global CO2 levels were 260 to 290 ppm, and some like to pick 280 ppm
            as it’s about halfway in this range.
            So doubled that would be 560 ppm. Or 50% increase would be
            420 ppm.
            So if assume that increase from 280 ppm to 560 ppm would cause
            1.5 C, then the increase from 280 to 420 ppm must cause more than 1.5 C divided by 2. So since we at 400 ppm, we should have had an .75 C increase due to CO2.
            The IPCC seems to think that most of warming from CO2 occurred after 1950.
            It seems that after China equaled the US CO2 emission and then went on to have twice US’s emission, the world has not warmed much.
            When China has tripled US emission [and India has added a lot to the yearly total also ] I also expect little increase in global temperature. Or the Pause will continue for quite a while.
            It also seems to me, that if want to do anything about Global CO2 emission, one should learn to speak Chinese.
            And US CO2 is falling due mainly to fracking- which should become more robust in coming years. Or it seems with US coal and natural gas in terms of electrical power generation are going to cross:
            http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/weekly/archive/2015/07_16
            /index.cfm

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        Paraphrasing Richard Feynman: Regardless of how many experts believe it or how many organizations concur, if it doesn’t agree with observation, it’s wrong.

        The perception that CO2 causes warming is an egregious mistake. All it takes to prove it is a grasp of the relation of mathematics and the physical world and access to estimates of paleo temperatures.

        • gbaikie says:

          Well, maybe.
          I think there is enough doubt for me, that I think it’s possible that a doubling of CO2 would result in about 1 C increase in global temperature.
          I mean potential rather will cause. I see no evidence that CO2 is control knob. And there is not “fingerprint” of warming from any increase [or decrease] of CO2.
          Or I would say an increase in CO2 level is not a good way to increase average temperature- assuming you wanted a warmer world [which might be good idea now, and much better idea thousands of years from now].
          And I think a cheaper way and more sure way of warming the Earth would be to green the Sahara desert. Or this might cause say 1/2 C or more to average global temperatures.
          And of course turning a desert into farmland would have other benefits other than warming the world.

          It seems obvious that a warmer world would be better for Canada and Russia, but also better from US and China, nor can think of country or animal which would not benefit from warmer world. And plants don’t like freezing.

          I think a better thing for world to want is more abundant supplies of freshwater- so more dams and there are other things one could do.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            gbaikie,

            Of course, when you burn a hydrocarbon, you get at least two combustion products – CO2 and H2O. Want more water? Burn more hydrocarbons. The only problem is that you will no doubt get more plant growth, as plants appear to do better with more plentiful food and water.

            Or you could follow the Warmist advice, and treat carbon as evil.

            That way, we can all starve together in the freezing dark! What joy!

            Sorry for the somewhat oblique humour. I think you’ll understand.

            Cheers.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            gbaikie – I too perceive that intelligent supply/management of fresh water is the most important issue facing humanity now and I expect that a solution is possible. Perhaps nuclear powered desalinization. That would also help take some of the bite out of the coming cold.

          • gbaikie says:

            — Dan Pangburn says:
            July 17, 2015 at 7:47 PM

            gbaikie – I too perceive that intelligent supply/management of fresh water is the most important issue facing humanity now and I expect that a solution is possible. Perhaps nuclear powered desalinization. That would also help take some of the bite out of the coming cold.–

            Well, I like idea of putting nuclear reactors in the ocean.
            And if going to desalinize with nuclear power, it seems like the way to go.
            This also ties in with ideas I have about having people live on continental shelves.
            The problem with colonizing continental shelf starts with political and legal.
            The fundamental problem is lack of fresh water and electrical power- plus rapid “commute”. So favor flying car type solution. But one could also do the mass transit type solution. Though mass transit is a political/legal problem.
            Or one might get mass transit if you alread had community living on the ocean and politically causing it to happen.
            Whereas “flying cars” is path to starting it, and once their enough people living there, one possibly get “subways” or whatever.
            Of course if one had nuclear power on the ocean and they were making fresh water, then one would evolve into settlements on the ocean.
            Living on the ocean can be a lot safer than living on the land, one can design structure which survive any kind of weather and things like earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, fires, and oceanic asteroid impactors.
            As idea one look at what already exists:
            Oil platforms in general or Floating Production, “Storage and Offloading (FPSO) unit is a floating vessel used by the offshore oil and gas industry for the production and processing of hydrocarbons, and for the storage of oil.”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_production_storage_and_offloading
            But more aligned what mean is this:
            http://www.sevanmarine.com/component/content/article?id=16:fpso-sevan-voyageur

            Another idea would dragging sea ice [hundreds of cubic km chunks] and use nuclear tugs to save in terms of fuel costs

            I once suggested making a tropical resort from them them- or the big burgs float for about decade [crashing into Australia or something. So it’s sort of temporary “land” for resort, and have ice hotels:
            “An ice hotel is a temporary hotel made up of snow and sculpted blocks of ice. They may be visited by adventurous travelers that are comfortable with the outdoors. Ice hotels are dependent upon sub-freezing temperatures, are constructed from ice and snow, and typically have to be rebuilt every year. Ice hotels exist in several countries, and they have varying construction styles, services and amenities, the latter of which may include ice bars, restaurants, chapels, saunas and hot tubs. ”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_hotel
            So in tropics and resort is on huge island of ice, and beaches of snow, etc.
            Again transportation is problem, but one also make airport on the ice island.

  32. Mike Flynn says:

    David A,

    Why do want to turn the planet into a barren, unpopulated dust bowl?

    Do you not realise that CO2 is a desperately needed plant food? Already, the regreening of the deserts is happening. More CO2, rather than less, is a good thing! More food, reduced temperatures due to increased vegetation cover – what’s not to like?

    Go and live without plant life in your below 200 ppm paradise, along with all the other fools trying to abolish CO2. I’m for more plant food not less. Even Svante Arrhenius realised that, and hoped for warmer temperatures as well. Read what he wrote. You don’t need to just make it up as you go along, getting it wrong as you go!

    Have fun!

    • David A says:

      Mike Flynn says:
      “David A,
      Why do want to turn the planet into a barren, unpopulated dust bowl?”

      That kind of B.S. doens’t fly with me.

      If you want to discuss the science, then do it without the gratuitous insults.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        David A,

        Judging by your comments, I thought you enjoyed gratuitous insults. As for science, you appear to know very little. I you don’t want to be offended, the solution is pretty simple. Don’t take offence!

        You still haven’t given a single cogent reason for wanting to reduce the amount of that wonderful plant food, CO2, in the atmosphere.

        If you don’t like the opinions of Fourier and Arrhenius, or the experiments of Tyndall, then maybe you should seek the opinions of a journalist. They appear to know everything.

      • David A says:

        Why do plants need more food?

        • Mike Flynn says:

          David A,

          Maybe your English comprehension needs improvement, if you are referring to my statement ” . . . needed plant food?”

          Word games won’t allay your hunger as much as food might. If you believe you can live in the absence of plants, you might choose to join the Breatharians. You’ll no doubt lose a lot of weight before you die.

          You still haven’t provided a single cogent reason for reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Surprise me! Or are you going to plead that you just believe the “experts”? Good luck with that!

          • David Appell says:

            I never said we could live in the absence of plants. It’s a silly idea to begin with.

            I asked why plants need more food. Why?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David A,

            Do you not know why plants need food? To grow. Why do you consume more food than you need? Gluttony.

            I didn’t say plants need more food, and if you are not suffering from a mental deficit, you would be aware of this.

            As a Warmist, you apparently cannot successfully read even the simplest sentence, without attempting to change the writer’s words to your own liking. Unfortunately, you appear unable to master the art of “copying and pasting”, let alone direct quotation.

            Your supposed question, as you have so poorly expressed it, is obviously incomplete, and as such, unanswerable.

            You asked –

            “Why do plants need more food?” More than what? You don’t really know what are saying, do you?

            Why do you wish to know? Do you really believe that starving people do not have a “need” for food? Do you not know that the human food chain is based on photosynthesis? Do you not inderstand the implications of removing CO2 from the atmosphere?

            Warmists are so terrified of CO2, they appear quite willing to accept the deaths of millions from starvation by calling for a reduction in the amount of food available to an ever increasing global population. Do you support this approach?

            You are either a fool, or pretending to be one, judging by your written utterances. If you can offer any facts to the contrary, I’m sure commenter’s here would be grateful to see them!

            If you ask a properly phrased question in good faith – that is, you are genuinely seeking to improve your knowledge – I will do my best to help. On the other hand, if you wish to play puerile mind games, I will be happy to oblige. You will doubtless lose.

            Over to you.

        • mpainter says:

          Plants have leaves, David, and leaves are GREEN. You have heard of GREEN, I’m sure.
          So the more leaves, the GREENER the globe.

          Now what is wrong with Global Greening, pray tell.

          It seems that we will not get the promised Global Warming, but you can’t take from us our Global Greening.

  33. jerry l krause says:

    Hi Mike,

    Just a few words of encouragement. Usually you appear and quickly disappear. This time your efforts appear more sustained and that is good. Finally I find someone using the words: heat engine and talking about circulations. I have frequently quoted R. C. Sutcliffe from his book Weather and Climate. In its 11th chapter titled The Winds of the World he wrote: “All this may seems a far cry from the general circulation of the world’s atmosphere but the detail serves to point the moral, that one cannot explain the broad features of world climate if one does not know the actual mechanisms involved.”

    I do not have time, at this time, to share more but keep up the good work

    Have a good day, Jerry

  34. D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

    If there were a solid surface at the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus, that surface would be hotter than Earth’s surface. My hypothesis says it should be about 320K and it is about that. But there would be no solar radiation striking that surface, and the Sun is about 30 times further away anyway. Why is it so?

    If your physics can’t explain it, as mine can, then your physics is wrong and your physics cannot be applied to Earth either, because it is founded on an incorrect guess that entropy is not affected by variations in molecular potential energy. But it is, and experiments with centrifugal force (as here) prove your hypothesis to be incorrect, as does the fact that it does not explain why water vapor cools the surface, a fact that is observed and explained by my hypothesis.

    • Norman says:

      DC

      You are dense or dumb or both. I have pointed out on other threads that there is no empirical proof of Uranus nominal troposphere temperature. What you present is merely speculation as a possibility but not a measured reality. Yet you keep using it as it is. I do not think you are a true human. NO HUMAN could be so unable to learn anything. That is why I think you are a clever BOT, an animation of reality. Even the worst of the posters seem to have a slight learning ability but you have absolutely none. Weird

      • D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

        What nonsense, Norman. The precise temperature is not important. The small solid core of Uranus (55% the mass of Earth) is thought to be around 5,000K. I couldn’t care if it’s ±1000K around that sort of temperature, but it should not then surprise anyone that the base of the troposphere is around 320K. You can try editing Wikipedia* if you wish and get back when your edit sticks for a few days. Until you do, the exact temperature is not critical.

        The troposphere of Uranus, like any planetary troposphere, gets hotter as altitude decreases because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and you will be hard pressed to prove the physics wrong that establishes that.

        And there is still the $5,000 reward that remains on offer. Not a single comment of yours (or anyone’s) argues against the physics I have developed based on the Second Law, because that law holds everywhere as the fundamental law of nature. Read more about it at http://entropylaw.com and until you really understand entropy I suggest you cease putting your foot in it.

        * Wikipedia reads here: “The troposphere is the lowest and densest part of the atmosphere and is characterized by a decrease in temperature with altitude.[12] The temperature falls from about 320 K at the base of the nominal troposphere at −300 km to 53 K at 50 km.[69][72] The temperatures in the coldest upper region of the troposphere (the tropopause) actually vary in the range between 49 and 57 K depending on planetary latitude.[12][66] The tropopause region is responsible for the vast majority of Uranus’s thermal far infrared emissions, thus determining its effective temperature of 59.1 ± 0.3 K.[66][67]”

  35. D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

    So, let me explain THE BIGGEST SINGLE PROBLEM with the Radiative GH CONJECTURE which is this …

    Climatologists still think in terms of their school-boy physics in which they were taught a corollary of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (the Clausius statement) that heat transfer is only from hot to cold.

    This Clausius statement is merely a corollary of the Second Law because it only applies in a horizontal plane in a force field like gravity. It does not apply between regions where there is a difference in potential energy relative to that force field. For example, experiments show that it does not apply in a centrifugal force field where heat transfers out of the central region and the central temperature can get down to 1K as here.

    So experiments with centrifuges (including Ranque Hilsch vortex tubes also which develop centrifugal force) clearly demonstrate that I am right in saying that there can be heat transfers (via molecular collisions) from cooler to warmer regions where the gravitational potential energy reduces whilst the kinetic energy increases. This is explained in the “heat creep” diagrams on my website linked above.

    And that, friends, is the real mechanism which supplies the extra thermal energy to a planet’s surface and enables us to explain how and why the surface temperature rises on the sunlit side. Radiation cannot explain it, because the back radiation is not raising the temperature of a surface that is already hotter due to the “heat creep” energy. And because of all this, carbon dioxide is totally irrelevant.

  36. D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

    And to cross the T’s and dot the I’s, before someone jumps in and says “Ah, but the Clausius statement can be proved from the standard equation for entropy” then I need to point out that an equation for entropy which has only a term in temperature (kinetic energy) and no term for gravitation molecular potential energy merely begs the question. You can read here that such equations are developed by ignoring gravity – and that’s obvious anyway because there’s no g in such equations. And so that’s why the Clausius statement only holds true in a horizontal plane (where gravitational PE does not vary of course) and the very fact that they admit that “certain forces, such as gravity, are typically disregarded when formulating expressions for potentials” establishes my point.

    You will never understand how planetary surface temperatures are what they are until you understand the “heat creep” process which is maximizing entropy, just as the Second Law of Thermodynamics says must happen.

  37. Lewis says:

    Mike Flynn,

    I have asked David A. and others why they would prefer less CO2 and colder weather, meaning more snow and ice. So far as I know, they have never answered.

    So I suspect, as I have stated, their purpose is control over industrial man, and the to inflict difficulties on poor people.

    ie. The high price of electricity and fuel (see California) is more detrimental to poor people than on those who advocate the policies causing the rise in prices. And these people call themselves progressives?

    • David Appell says:

      Now we’re on conspiracy theories?

      No, I’m not interested in controlling industrial man — I’m interested in not letting industrial man control everyone else.

      We need less CO2 because it is a strong greenhouse gas that warms planets, and that has many deleterious effects on human civilization and on other animals and ecosystems.

      Because the poor need cheap energy is not a reason why you or I do. We’re rich enough to afford clean energy, subsidizing it for the poor if necessary. It’s also not clear that clean energy is more expensive than fossil fuels, since the latter have signficant negative externalities that cost real money.

      I buy 100% green offsets from my power company, at $0.008/kWh. The average cost over the last 12 months is $2.42/month.

      • Norman says:

        David Appell

        “We need less CO2 because it is a strong greenhouse gas that warms planets, and that has many deleterious effects on human civilization and on other animals and ecosystems.”

        I do not think your claim has any science in it. It is a speculation, a guess on what might take place. You claim many deleterious effects, this language is the language of the propagandist. Highly emotionally charged but not at all verifiable by any scientific facts to back it up. The word many is loose but indicates something really bad in your use. That is the problem with alarmism.

        You may not see it but the blind faith you have in the position you are at is not much different from the blind faith of Doug Cotton.

        Keep to the science and facts, evidence and proof. This is much better position for a science writer.

        Your other very unscientific statement: “We need less CO2 because it is a strong greenhouse gas”

        Carbon Dioxide is not a strong greenhouse gas and without the speculative positive feedback of water vapor taking place a doubling of this gas would only warm the Earth surface by about 1 Celsius degree. Why do you choose this unscientific language to try and convince with emotional charged language and not solid scientific language?

        • gbaikie says:

          –Carbon Dioxide is not a strong greenhouse gas and without the speculative positive feedback of water vapor taking place a doubling of this gas would only warm the Earth surface by about 1 Celsius degree. Why do you choose this unscientific language to try and convince with emotional charged language and not solid scientific language?–

          Yes it’s interesting question.
          It could be David is believer in theology of CO2 causing all warming.
          Or CO2 is strong because it requires colder temperatures to condense- as compared the far more abundant water vapor, which has larger spectrum that it absorbs- particularly if include clouds as H20 greenhouse gas.
          In mythology, the earth would be -18 C, and at -18 C CO2 does not condense into a liquid or solid- or it remains in the atmosphere.
          Unfortunately, for this silly myth H20 also does not freeze out of the atmosphere at -18 C, though one certainly has the potential higher amount of water vapor in a warmer warm.
          So in the warm tropics one can get 40,000 ppm of water vapor, and in the colder air in tropics it’s less than 10,000 ppm.

          So even is this fantasy land of world with average temperature -18 C, one have somewhere around 10,000 ppm of water vapor in the tropics. Or even if it was 5000 ppm it should, according their theory, be stronger than 5000 ppm of CO2.
          And David should know this, so puzzling why he should imagine CO2 is powerful. Though terminology of the ideology does focus on CO2 and considers CO2 as most important forcing agent. Sort of like the masses are the H20 and CO2 is brilliant political agitator, who most significant or most powerful agent for changing the world. H2O is the “little people”.

        • David A says:

          “It could be David is believer in theology of CO2 causing all warming.”

          Hardly. I know the basic temperature change from a doubling of CO2. And I know there are feedbacks, net positive.

          You all are very keen here to distort what I say and make it into something else, or like painter, just make up lies about what I said.

          • gbaikie says:

            As said it’s interesting question.

            And you still didn’t explain why you think it’s a strong greenhouse gas.

            Therefore it’s reasonable to assume you don’t know, and therefore it’s interesting that you continue on with such unsupportable idea, so perhaps it’s some kind of unconscious impulse, or result of brainwashing.

            And not just you, there many which hold such a delusional idea- so it’s not all about you, Dave.

            For example Ted Turner appears far more delusional:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSlB1nW4S54
            I think it’s reasonable guess that Ted Turner is only saying this because he has had too much to drink, but that again hints to some unconscious process going in his skull.

          • David A says:

            “And you still didn’t explain why you think it’s a strong greenhouse gas.”

            Yes, I did, on another reply on this post.

            It’s a strong greenhouse gas because its radiative forcing is now 1.9 W/m2, and it’s increasing by a significant 0.2 W/m2 per decade:

            “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015)
            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

            Press release: “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
            http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

          • gbaikie says:

            — David A says:
            July 18, 2015 at 10:57 PM

            “And you still didn’t explain why you think it’s a strong greenhouse gas.”

            Yes, I did, on another reply on this post.

            It’s a strong greenhouse gas because its radiative forcing is now 1.9 W/m2, and it’s increasing by a significant 0.2 W/m2 per decade:–

            According to your refs they measured 0.2 W/m2 per decade
            between year 2000 and 2010.
            Also according to your ref:
            “Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade. This increase is about ten percent of the trend from all sources of infrared energy such as clouds and water vapor.”

            So CO2 increase according to them was 1/10th of all other sources of infrared energy.
            So assuming they are correct [and I don’t] they say it’s 10%
            and of course none of it has shown much evidence of it warming the world by much, at this time of 2015, July.
            So if 10 times as much not doing much why should a 1/10th do
            much- and getting back to whole point, why call it a strong greenhouse gas if it’s 1/10th.
            And there measurement don’t fit well with:
            http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
            Are they continuing to measure it, and improving their ability to accurately measure, has anyone replicated it [as expected in science]. They seems to imply it was important.
            The impressive I get is it was hard to do. And that indicates it’s quite likely they got it wrong.
            It’s like our temperature record which is so hard to do that it needs constant adjustment made. So I don’t trust their groupthink. There some very good reasons not to trust
            any groupthink.
            Imagine what were they to do if they could not get the results they expected to get- no paper and million of dollars wasted- not a very good situation if you want objective results.
            Anyhow, to quote from it again:
            “Radiative transfer models calculate that the increase in CO2 since 1750 corresponds to a global annual-mean radiative forcing at the tropopause of 1.82 ± 0.19 W m−2 (ref. 2). However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2.”
            I would say they managed to get this right.

            But let’s go with idea that they measured a .2 watts increase in a decade. And it was very difficult requiring very good instruments to measure this small signal and the group did a good job. Perhaps what was important about it is work later allowed a satellite to measure CO2 global {maybe,just guessing} and we presently we do have satellite which global measures CO2- and it show no obvious evident of human adding CO2 to the atmosphere as can be seen from orbit [of course it’s possible it had nothing to do with this satellite| and maybe it’s part of building ground stations which continue measuring it.
            That would be things one would do if CO2 were important.
            And one US president who says it’s the most important issue in the world.

            But then again .2 watts is about same as moonlight, and measuring Moonlight will not give you a paper in Nature.

        • David A says:

          “Sort of like the masses are the H20 and CO2 is brilliant political agitator”

          CO2 is a direct forcing. Water vapor changes are a feedback.

      • Lewis says:

        David,

        No, no conspiracy theory. You admit yourself that you don’t like what industry is doing or has done. This while you sit at your desk, in a heated and or a/c house, typing on a keyboard and computer under lights produced by industrial man, eating food, supplied by industrial man. The list goes on.

        Yet you have to tell me why cold weather is preferred to warmer weather. This, to be exact, is thoughtless. Tell me why a glacier is preferred to a lake. Why snow is preferred over rain. Why a frozen field is to be preferred over arable land.

        In all, your position is mindless along with being detrimental to those who can’t afford the higher price of energy you put on them.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        David Appell,

        You wrote –

        “We need less CO2 because it is a strong greenhouse gas that warms planets, and that has many deleterious effects on human civilization and on other animals and ecosystems.”

        This is a stupid statement. You say “we” when you presumably refer to yourself, as you don’t mention anyone else. You say that CO2 is ” a strong greenhouse gas”, which is complete nonsense. You cannot say what “strong” means, or indeed provide any facts to contradict the fact that CO2 is used in greenhouses to promote plant growth by increasing CO2 concentrations within the confines of the greenhouse.

        Nothing has managed to warm the Earth since its creation. It is no longer molten, and is cooling at a rate of between one and three millionths of a degree C per annum, according to real scientists, known as geophysicists. The exact quantum is uncertain, of course. Any planet with a molten core, even the Moon, is still cooling, by definition.

        CO2 has no deleterious effects on human civilization at all. It is exhaled with every breath by all mammals. It is a natural consequence of energy production which maintains cellular activity.
        It has no deleterious effects on other animals or other ecosystems at levels well in excess of the historically low levels of the present.

        You do not appear to appreciate that CO2 is vitally necessary for plants to survive. Without plants, we all die. You may not realise there is a level of CO2 below which plants die. Literally. Do you know what it is? If you don’t, your calls to reduce CO2 levels may appear to be the ill-informed, deluded demands of the gullible Warmist acolyte.

        We need more CO2, not less. If you do not understand why, no further explanation is possible. You have a phobia, which is by definition, an unreasoning fear.

      • David A says:

        “You say that CO2 is ” a strong greenhouse gas”, which is complete nonsense.”

        The current increase in CO2’s radiative forcing is about 0.2 W/m2 per decade. That’s quite high. This was recently shown from 10-years of observations:

        “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015)
        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

        Press release: “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
        http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

      • David A says:

        “You cannot say what “strong” means, or indeed provide any facts to contradict the fact that CO2 is used in greenhouses to promote plant growth by increasing CO2 concentrations within the confines of the greenhouse.”

        This comment is nonsense. We don’t live in a greenhouse, in case you didn’t know that. We live in an atmosphere that is subject to significant radiative transfer from CO2 and other GHGs. A greenhouse is not.

      • David A says:

        “It is exhaled with every breath by all mammals.”

        Respiration is carbon neutral. Tell me that you know that much, at least.

        • gbaikie says:

          car·bon-neu·tral
          adjective
          adjective: carbon-neutral

          making no net release of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, especially through offsetting emissions by planting trees.

          If you don’t plant a tree, you don’t breath.
          Though probably, if someone like Ted Turner who largest land owner in America, just owning all that land is enough.

        • David A says:

          That’s right, breathing contributes no net CO2 to the atmosphere.

          If it did, why were atmospheric levels essentially flat for several millennia before the Industrial Revolution, despite untold trillions of animals breathing?

          • gbaikie says:

            “The Great Oxygenation Event (GOE), also called the Oxygen Catastrophe, Oxygen Crisis, Oxygen Holocaust, Oxygen Revolution, or Great Oxidation, was the biologically induced appearance of dioxygen (O2) in Earth’s atmosphere. Geological, isotopic, and chemical evidence suggest that this major environmental change happened around 2.3 billion years ago.”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event

            Or briefly, once god made all the iron into rust, then animals could exist.

          • David A says:

            Yes, the GOE. So what? What does it have to do with carbon emissions from respiration?

      • David A says:

        Lewis,

        Please stop it with the strawmen.

        Of course I use energy. Where I live most of it comes from hydro, but regardless, everyone needs energy. But we need clean, noncarbon energy, not energy whose pollution changes the climate for the next 100,000 years.

        As I said, 100% carbon offsets cost me $2.42/month. Are you telling me you can’t afford $0.008/kWh?

        • gbaikie says:

          — “Scottish Power, who run the wind farm, denied causing the pollution but admitted that they hadn’t warned residents that their water supplies may be contaminated.”

          In other words, “we couldn’t have caused this problem, but maybe we should have warned you.” Right. So we’ve gone from wind farms chopping up birds to poisoning the water supply. They’re not economically viable without public subsidy, they never meet their promised power generation or reliability, but, hey, they do give you diarrhea. And maybe kill your unborn child. All to fight catastrophic man-caused global warming, a problem that does not exist.–
          https://pubsecrets.wordpress.com/2015/07/18/green-fail-windfarms-contaminate-the-water-supply/

        • Mike Flynn says:

          David A,

          I see you have declared carbon to be a pollutant, by implication. Burning fossil fuel also creates H2O. Will H2O also “change the climate for the next 100,000 years?”

          Don’t be stupid, David A. You can’t even define what climate change is. You haven’t the faintest idea whether anything could stop “climate change”, or what the result would be. Unchanging climate? I’d like to see that!

          The Warmists are reduced to “adjusting” history, kreiging, infilling, smoothing, interpolating and all the rest, so that “now” can be proclaimed “the hottest EVAH!”. Talk about Dumb and Dumber! Even Svante Arrhenius, worshipped by Warmists, hoped that increased CO2 levels would lead to a more “equable climate” and a warmer world, with increased plant life.

          Not too sure whether the “more equable climate” or a warmer world will result, but I can’t see anything wrong with more food. I’m guessing you get through your fair share, and maybe enough extra to save the odd person from dying of starvation. You wouldn’t really care, would you? As long as you’re paying an extra $2.42/month, your conscience is clear as crystal.

          You’re not even a good propagandist! Nature isn’t taking any notice by the look of things. Ask any real scientist.

          Have fun.

        • David A says:

          “I see you have declared carbon to be a pollutant, by implication. Burning fossil fuel also creates H2O. Will H2O also “change the climate for the next 100,000 years?””

          Actually the Supreme Court declared CO2 to be a pollutant (Mass v EPA 2007).

          You need to learn some basic science. The amount of water vapor a gas will hold depends on its temperature. Any more and the water vapor leaves as rain or dew. Ever hear of the “dew point?”

          The saturtion vapor pressure of a condensable substance is determined, as a function of temperature, by the Clausius-Claperyon equation.

          http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/cact/c123/clausius.html

          The amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold changes only when its temperature changes. This is why scientists say “water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing.”

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David A,

            It just goes to show why the U.S. is an object of derision in many places. No wonder the country’s going broke, and has to borrow money to buy tickets from the Russians to get to the International Space a Station. I suppose they’ll declare water a pollutant on the basis it’s a GHG, Fools.

            Warmists say “water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing.” Real scientists just laugh.

            Have fun.

        • David A says:

          “Not too sure whether the “more equable climate” or a warmer world will result, but I can’t see anything wrong with more food.”

          Food is of a LOWER quality in a higher CO2 world.

          The nutritional value of plants depends on fixing nitrogen, not carbon.

          Meanwhile, more CO2 means a warmer world, more droughts, more extreme rainfall. More pests moving north. More weeds. None of these are good for the crops we depend on.

          “Nitrate assimilation is inhibited by elevated CO2 in field-grown wheat,” Arnold J. Bloom et al, Nature Climate Change, April 6 2014.
          http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2183.htm

          “Increasing CO2 threatens human nutrition,” Samuel S. Myers et al, Nature 510, 139–142 (05 June 2014).
          http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v510/n7503/full/nature13179.html

          “We also find that the overall effect of warming on yields is negative, even after accounting for the benefits of reduced exposure to freezing temperatures.”
          — “Effect of warming temperatures on US wheat yields,” Jesse Tack et al, PNAS 4/20/15

          “Correction: Plants Will Not Flourish as the World Warms: A new study contradicts the notion that higher temperatures will enhance plant growth,” Mark Fischetti, Scientific American, June 10, 2015
          http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/correction-plants-will-not-flourish-as-the-world-warms/

          • mpainter says:

            A warmer world 50 million years ago:
            Tropical forests where now London stands, palms where now Anchorage stands, deciduous forests at 80 North Latitude, Ellsmere. Estimated 8-12°C higher then than today. Lots and lots of CO2. Please take your junk science and thrust it where it belongs, David. Thank you.

        • David A says:

          So you’re saying it was a warmer world back then when CO2 was higher.

          Hmm, that sounds familiar….

          • mpainter says:

            Well tell that CO2 to get off its lazy butt and do what you mean for it to do.

          • David A says:

            CO2 is increasing. The world is warming. Just as physics requires.

          • mpainter says:

            Your reply here reveals your problem:

            “Just as physics requires”

            #####

            All theory and __no__ observations, just as the AGW cult requires.

      • D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

        David Appell wrote: “We need less CO2 because it is a strong greenhouse gas that warms planets.”

        No it’s not. All the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (i.e. all 0.04% of the atmosphere) can only have a cooling effect, but less than 0.1° – possibly a lot less. There’s a $5,000 reward if you can prove IR-active gases (notably water vapor) cause Earth’s surface to be of the order of 33 degrees warmer. You cannot present any valid physics which proves it should warm like that. Just try, and I will pull your pseudo physics apart and pinpoint where and why its is wrong.

        What does cause the surface to be that much warmer than the Earth’s radiating temperature (about 255K) is the “heat creep” process which is obeying the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If your hypothesis elects to ignore what that law tells us, then it crumbles.

        Details at: http://climate-change-theory.com

      • David A says:

        “It is no longer molten, and is cooling at a rate of between one and three millionths of a degree C per annum.”

        Not any longer. The heat flux through the surface, from the interior of the Earth, averages 0.09 W/m2.

        But now our emitted GHGs emit much more than this downward.

        That’s why the surface, atmosphere and ocean are warming up.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          David A,

          It might not have occurred to you that there are actually some real scientists in the world, who have actually won Nobel Prizes for things like Physics, Chemistry and so on. Warmist “scientists” pretend to have won Nobel Prizes, but it turns out that they didn’t actually understand how the system works. Real scientists depend on fact, not fantasy. Climate science is a contradiction in terms. You can’t even define the climate of California, let alone predict what it will be in the future.

          I love your redefinition of “warming”. As a matter of interest, if a body is losing energy at a rate 0.09 W/m2, is it

          A) warming
          B) cooling
          C) gone to the store for a six pack and some doughnuts?

          I’m afraid your heat emitted by GHGs is a chimera. They emit just as much “back radiation” at night as during the day, and the surface, atmosphere, and ocean surface cool. A fellow named Fourier spelled it out fairly well, and a guy named Tyndall did a heap of experiments which verified Fourier’s conclusions. You might just as well try to warm a thimble of water using the >300 W/m2 emitted by an iceberg. Specious nonsense, but you have convinced yourself it can be done.maybe you can “force” an increased temperature in your thimbleful of water by using a parabolic mirror to “multiply” the radiation?

          Nobody has yet demonstrated the stupidly misnamed “greenhouse effect” and no one ever will. Dream on.

          Have fun.

      • David A says:

        Norman says:
        “I do not think your claim has any science in it.”

        Norman, when I give you science, like the recent Feldman et al paper I linked to, you ignore it.

        You’re the one avoiding the science.

  38. tonyM says:

    David A:

    The Kurt paper was just the latest junk from NOAA added to the previous book fiddling. This ongoing fiddling does wonders for making the data fit the conjecture. Real scientists ought to try it; follow the conjecture not the data.

    By listening to you I then make some observations on the data over say the last 10 years (or more if you wish):

    a) global surface is heating (David A)
    b) upper troposphere is heating (Karling)
    c) deep ocean is heating ( David A)
    d) OLR increasing (KNMI via NOAA )
    e) TSI decreased or constant (David A)
    f) albedo constant (IPCC)

    Other things being basically equal, that adds up to falsifying the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.
    Great one David; in Noah we trust.

    • David Appell says:

      The paper is by Karl et al, not Kurt.

      Why is it “junk?” What about their methodology do you disagree with?

      Are the recent UAH changes (to v6) — changes much larger than Karl et al — also “junk?”

      • mpainter says:

        David,
        I doubt that none but the frothing global warmers would second your suggestion that Roy’s work is junk. The UAH satellite dataset has endured for over 35 years and you see fit to make such innuendo.You should apologize.

        Concerning the Karl work, he has fabricated data in order to give plausibility to a spurious temperature trend. That is what’s known as “junk science”.

        For a recent study on cloud data and increased insulation, see the paper by John McLean, 2014. This study shows an increase in insulation, via reduced global loudness, of from 2.5 W/square m to 5 W/square m. This is the third time that I have referred this to you.

        • Norman says:

          David Appell

          I did look up mpainter’s article and it is a good read.

          file:///C:/Users/Norman%20&%20Lori/Downloads/ACS_2014102414474452.pdf

          I do think it is a poor reasoned position to somehow assume cloud cover stays at some constant. This paper is similar to other material I have read which shows just a small change in albedo can bring about all the warming or cooling we are seeing at this current time.

          Here is an albedo calculator. Change the % by just one 0.30 or 0.32 from the initial value of 0.31 and you get a full degree of difference in one Celcius either way.

          http://www.geo.umass.edu/courses/climat/radbal.html

          Since you claim yourself a science minded person. When you have more than one variable that can achieve similar effects why do you just go with one? How is that reasonable, logical, or scientific?

          Eliminate the effects of albedo changes (and why does any scientist assume it does not change over time?) and then you can more fully debate the effects of Carbon Dioxide on warming. Otherwise you are not the true scientist but on some emotional direction.

          • Norman says:

            David Appell,

            I linked to my downloaded version of the John McLean, 2014 paper.

            This link should be workable

            http://file.scirp.org/Html/22-4700327_50837.htm

          • David A says:

            Norman: Your link doesn’t work for me, since it points to your own hard drive, not the Web.

            I never said clouds or albedo don’t change with warming. Again, people are putting words in my mouth that I never said.

            If you think the global albedo has changed, prove it. I don’t know of any published studies on global albedo changes — and I’ve asked several scientists. If you know of any, please let me know.

            I do know about this:

            “We find that the Arctic planetary albedo has decreased from 0.52 to 0.48 between 1979 and 2011, corresponding to an additional 6.4 ± 0.9 W/m2 of solar energy input into the Arctic Ocean region since 1979. Averaged over the globe, this albedo decrease corresponds to a forcing that is 25% as large as that due to the change in CO2 during this period, considerably larger than expectations from models and other less direct recent estimates. Changes in cloudiness appear to play a negligible role in observed Arctic darkening, thus reducing
            the possibility of Arctic cloud albedo feedbacks mitigating future
            Arctic warming.”

            — K. Pistone, I. Eisenman, and V. Ramanathan (2014). Observational determination of albedo decrease caused by vanishing Arctic sea ice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111, 3322-3326.
            http://eisenman.ucsd.edu/papers/Pistone-Eisenman-Ramanathan-2014.pdf

          • Norman says:

            David Appell,

            Your statement: “If you think the global albedo has changed, prove it. I don’t know of any published studies on global albedo changes — and I’ve asked several scientists. If you know of any, please let me know.”

            Is my point. Why are there not many published studies on global albedo changes? Global albedo has a significant effect on global temperatures and it seems that climate scientists are just ignoring it or making an assumption that it does not change.

            How can anyone hope to determine the effects of carbon dioxide on Earth’s surface temperature if they do not determine contribution of albedo on the system?

            Here is one link that shows how variable albedo is. Seasons actually change it. If you take the time to look at this link check out the section Importance of Albedo.

            http://www.climatedata.info/Forcing/Forcing/albedo.html

            Since it has the potential to vary and cannot be assumed to be a constant, it should really be studied just as vigorously as carbon dioxide.

            If you look at Roy Spencer’s global temperature graphs you see the global temp can swing 0.3 C in just a couple of months. If the solar input is the same and you have the same amount of GHG present (at least CO2) why do you vary this much on a global scale? Regional temps could vary drastically but why global?

          • David A says:

            Norman wrote:
            “Is my point. Why are there not many published studies on global albedo changes?”

            Because its a damn hard series of measurements, that’s why.

            Why don’t you show us how it should be done?

            PS: A greener planet has a lower albedo — a positive feedback on global warming.

          • David A says:

            “How can anyone hope to determine the effects of carbon dioxide on Earth’s surface temperature if they do not determine contribution of albedo on the system?”

            Norman, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

            Here is a description of the atmospheric part of one climate model:

            “Description of the NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM 3.0),” NCAR Technical Note NCAR/TN–464+STR, June 2004.
            http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/atm-cam/docs/description/description.pdf

            Please search through this document for occurrences of the word “albedo,” and note the text around them.

            Let me know what you find.

          • Norman says:

            David Appell,

            I did look through your link on the equations used in climate models. I can’t follow the math, complex equations and I do not have background studies to properly interpret them. I did find albedo concerning ice and snow but I did not see much with the clouds.

            From your post you say: “Because its a damn hard series of measurements, that’s why. (for albedo)

            Why don’t you show us how it should be done?

            PS: A greener planet has a lower albedo — a positive feedback on global warming.”

            On albedo measurements I would think measuring the visible reflected solar energy would do it. Have distant satellite measure the incoming solar visible radiation and the visible solar radiation reflected back. One sensor pointed at the sun to get a spectrum of incoming light and the other pointed at Earth to subtract the reflected light. The incoming minus the reflected would give you an albedo change wouldn’t it?

            Your PS is of limited thinking like Doug Cotton. Plants do have a lower albedo than sand but they also generate a whole lot more cloud cover which greatly reduces incoming solar radiation and cuts off high temperatures so really I don’t see how you conclude greener earth is a positive feedback except if you totally eliminate clouds from the picture.

            Here look at this and you will understand.
            http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/US/cloud-fog-city-annual.php

            Green areas have much more cloud cover over than the year than sandy non green areas.

          • David A says:

            Norman wrote:
            “I did look through your link on the equations used in climate models. I can’t follow the math, complex equations and I do not have background studies to properly interpret them. I did find albedo concerning ice and snow but I did not see much with the clouds.”

            So you can’t understand the science, but you are so very sure it’s all wrong. How typical. It sums up your comments perfectly.

          • Norman says:

            David Appell,

            I am not sure how you conclude your argument. What form of logic are you using with this?

            Your conclusion: “So you can’t understand the science, but you are so very sure it’s all wrong. How typical. It sums up your comments perfectly.”

            Two things wrong with this statement which does not follow logical thought process. How did you arrive at the conclusion that I did not understand climate science because I could not follow the complex equations used in your link. They are not beyond my ability but it has been many years since I took calculus and when not used you do lose some of the ability to follow the math. But not following hundreds of complex math equations is not an indication I can’t understand the science. Your next conclusion seems to have about zero logical basis or maybe you don’t read the post but respond like a programmed robot.

            When did I ever state that “I am so very sure it’s all wrong”???

            My point was not complex or difficult to grasp and it in no way would lead to a conclusion that I am very sure the science is wrong.

            The point stated (If you actually do read this, which seems doubtful) is how can you determine correctly what part of warming or cooling is caused by GHG’s when you do not consider the other variable (albedo) which has just as much significant bearing on warming or cooling as GHG’s would have on the Earth’s energy balance or how warming or cooling can effect albedo. It needs to be included in any discussion of warming or cooling of the globe.

          • aaron says:

            Plants also increase transpiration. Increased CO2 also reduces water demand making water more availible for plants to grow over larger areas. Existing plants don’t just darken, plants grow over greater area. Light doesn’t just become heat, it becomes part of new chemicals.

          • aaron says:

            Dave, your typical link to papers that don’t say what you think they say.

            Wheat uptake of nitrogen doesn’t grow with increaed uptake of CO2 to form carbohydrates.

            It means that if you rely on wheat as your primary source of protein, you’ll have to burn off a lot more carbs, if you sole source your wheat and don’t believe in refining and blending.

            If you’ve ever made a home made pizza, you’d know that flour can be bought in various carb:protein ratios.

            The http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n6/full/nclimate2183.html simply means the protein:carb ratio of wheat may shift toward cards. Reduced Gluten Wheat!

            Maybe as that happens, one day bio-fuels will become economical.

            The Lagoom paper is more interesting, unfortunately the abstract doesn’t give any clue as to what is going on (methodology, and why zinc decreases with co2–does the plant consume less because it doesn’t need it? Is the soil depleted faster? Is it simply not availible on a per mass basis–seems most likely?) When and where is this a problem and how does the change compare to existing deficiencies? How can this be remidied.

        • David A says:

          I didn’t say Roy’s work was “junk” — stop lying.

          I said his corrections were much larger than Karl et al’s corrections. And they are, as these graphs show:

          http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/06/noaas-data-changes-actually-smaller.html

          Moreover, the Karl et al paper passed peer review and was published in a major journal. UAH’s hasn’t yet been published.

        • David A says:

          mpainter wrote:
          “Concerning the Karl work, he has fabricated data in order to give plausibility to a spurious temperature trend.”

          That’s a very serious allegation — even actionable. If I owned this blog I would immediately delete your claim unless you could prove it.

          So prove it.

          • mpainter says:

            Karl is a fabricator of data. Specifically, he has eliminated actual data from the temperature record and substituted data of his own invention.

            He has done this to give plausibility to a spurious trend purported to show an actual temperature trend.

            That this work has passed peer review signals the abandonment by the AGW cult of any pretense at acceptable science to support its cause. You are a part of that abandonment of science, David.

            So sue me, you ever flowing spout junk science.

          • David A says:

            “Specifically, he has eliminated actual data from the temperature record and substituted data of his own invention.”

            Your mistake is thinking the raw data doesn’t need to be analyzed via models.

            All experiments and measurements use models. RSS and UAH analyzes and adjusts their data (which aren’t even temperatures) before publishing their monthly numbers for the atmospheric temperatures.

            Are you even aware that UAH uses a data model to extract temperatures from the raw measurements?

            Are UAH and RSS frauds too?

    • David A says:

      Normam wrote:
      “I linked to my downloaded version of the John McLean, 2014 paper.”

      Well, the first thing I note is that this journal doesn’t even have an impact factor. So right away it looks no better than 2nd tier.

      http://www.scirp.org/journal/FAQ.aspx?JournalID=492#.VarszflViko

      There are a lot of very junky journals out there now. One needs to be careful.

      • mpainter says:

        If it’s not junk science, it comes with three strikes against it, in David’s view.

        This is public data, available from NASA
        and shows a decrease in global cloud cover, from circa 1985-99. The increased insolation more than accounts for increases in surface temperature and SST, as well.
        The work has never been challenged but it has been ignored by the cultists.

        Is it any wonder that our cultist voyeur wrinkles his nose at it and says “three strikes; yer out”.

        Hello insolation; bye bye CO2.

        • D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

          Yes, I have said all along that climate change must be all natural and that variations of just a few percent in cloud cover can easily explain the long term (~1,000 year) cycles, whilst variations in the Earth’s eccentricity can likewise explain the frequency of glacial periods because the annual mean distance of the Earth from the Sun varies. The 255K figure probably varies roughly in the range 255±0.8K. The Earth will see long-term (~500 year) cooling starting within the next 20 to 100 years, maybe as soon as the 2030’s according to recent studies of solar activity which, via cosmic rays, could very well affect cloud cover.

        • David A says:

          Painter, you did’t even read this paper. You just like its abstract, and for you that’s all that matters. It says what you want, so it must be true. No need to bother with all the details.

          I haven’t seen a scientific ounce out of you yet.

          • mpainter says:

            You aspire to be the personification of junk science? The Karl paper is the antithesis of science with its fabrication.Do you imagine to hide this fabrication by invoking the word “model”? How pathetic! Karl has fabricated half the data, it appears.

            Karl’s paper is pure invention and you embrace it as science,David A.

            The McLean study is irrefutable and it accounts for all warming this past 35 years, both surface and SST.

            CO2? Entirely beneficial.
            Your consensus is me-e-e-el-ting.

            Say, David, ain’t it great to have the UAH dataset as a reality check? Roy’s done a great job, don’t you agree?

          • David A says:

            T”he Karl paper is the antithesis of science with its fabrication.”

            Again, you offer no science or reasons at all. WHY do you think Karl et al is wrong? Did you even read the paper? (Be honest.)

            Unless you start supporting your many claims, with data, papers, and thinking, I’m going to ignore you in the future.

            “The McLean study is irrefutable and it accounts for all warming this past 35 years, both surface and SST.”

            Funny, but I can’t find a single citation to that paper. Can you?

          • mpainter says:

            David sez: “I’m going to ignore you in the future”

            Make that a promise, please, you silly ass.

    • tonyM says:

      David Appell

      You are quite right it was Karl et al. That paper has been sufficiently criticised by various writers. I won’t waste any more time on it. It’s flaws are irrelevant to the changes made by UAH.

      You missed my other error. I was referring to Sherwood in upper troposphere warming; I will indulge in less wine before I write in future.

      Now, does your answer in any way address the real issue that your beliefs and comments end up violating the 1st Law of T?

      That was my main point!

      • David A says:

        “That paper has been sufficiently criticised by various writers. I won’t waste any more time on it.”

        You mean “criticized” by some biased bloggers, none of whom ever have their criticisms published, even as letters to the editor. And that’s good enough for you, because you’re just looking for any excuse to dismiss a paper whose results you don’t like.

        Did you ever read the Karl et al paper? Be honest.

      • David A says:

        “Now, does your answer in any way address the real issue that your beliefs and comments end up violating the 1st Law of T?”

        Because your little bullit list came nowwhere close to even beginning to show any such violation.

        • tonyM says:

          David A:

          Typical non answer which is your your way to obfuscate or hide under the sheets when flak starts to fly in your direction.

  39. D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

    And still, after 16 months for which the $5,000 reward has been on offer since my book “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All” was published, there is not a single comment anywhere on any climate thread (to my knowledge) which says words to the effect that in my paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” (linked at the foot of this page and free to read) I say such and such, but that point is invalid because … and nor has anyone produced any study with similar sample size and methodology to my study at the end of that paper that shows totally different results contrary to my study showing water vapor cools.

    • Dr No says:

      Doug,
      Please pay attention.
      I asked you about PLUTO, not URANUS.
      And I asked about SURFACE TEMPERATURE – not TROPOSPHERIC TEMPERATURES.

      “Please estimate the surface temperature of Pluto given what we know about its distance from the sun, its size and composition of its atmosphere.
      Please indicate how you arrive at this estimate.
      This should take not more than about 300 words.”

      Here is a clue:
      Pluto’s average distance from the sun is 3.67 billion miles.

      You do the rest – it should be relatively easy given your new theory.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Dr No,

        I have to say I’m pleased you didn’t ask Doug about his anus (“not URANUS”). That was uncalled for, and awful, I know! I’ve waited a long time.

        While I’m here, I’ll estimate the surface temperature of Pluto as very cold. I’m told it’s got areas of frozen CO2 on the surface – dry ice is very cold. David A would say the CO2 makes the surface warm, but I think he’s silly. I think Doug’s a bit misguided too, but he disagrees.

        I arrived at this conclusion because it’s a long, long, way from the Sun, and it has cooled even faster than the Earth for this reason, plus the fact that it has a far greater surface to volume ratio than the Earth.

        Must go. Have fun!

      • Doug Cotton says:

        The radiating temperature of Pluto (sometimes called the surface temperature) is around 37K but varies between about 35K and 45K because the distance form the Sun varies a lot.

        The planet was found this week (by the New Horizons spacecraft) to be about 50 miles bigger in diameter than previously thought, being a total of 1473 miles in diameter. I would say that the center of the core could be 100K maybe even 200K or 300K, but I haven’t worked it.

        People often refer to the surface of these planets as the top of the atmosphere. So if you read that the surface temperature of Uranus is 53K, that is not what I am talking about 350Km further down at the base of the nominal troposphere where the force of gravity has “trapped” thermal energy from the Sun over the life of the planet.

        OVER THE COURSE OF BILLIONS OF YEARS NO PLANET IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM WILL COOL FASTER OR SLOWER THAN THE SUN IN PERCENTAGE TERMS IF ITS MEAN DISTANCE FROM THE SUN REMAINS AS IS.

        • Doug Cotton says:

          Well, strictly speaking I should not have said “in percentage terms” because of the T^4 relationship in the Stefan Boltzmann calculations.

          If the Sun’s radiation were somehow switched off then all planets and moons would cool relatively rapidly. The dark side of Venus cools about 5 degrees in 4 months, so work it out. But, if the Sun were then switched back on, then the planets (including their cores) would warm back up to existing temperatures. You’ll understand why from my 2013 paper Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures.

  40. RW says:

    David A.,

    “We know from paleoclimate data that the net feedback is positive and significant.”

    No we don’t. It depends on the what the primary cause was, which is Milankovitch forcing.

  41. MikeR says:

    Well, I find it pretty annoying that Dr. Spencer makes a very interesting post, with a very relevant result, and everyone including David Appell goes off chasing rabbits. One cryptic comment by Appell about Karl’s forcings and that’s it.
    Please let’s stick to the topic.

    • mpainter says:

      Roy’s last sentence:

      “I’ll leave it up to the reader to wonder why they don’t”
      #####

      That sort of opens things up, does it not?

      But climate sensitivity is all guesswork, unless you base it on a specific dataset, as Roy has in this post. Then it is half guesswork.

    • David A says:

      I already wrote (but most ignored) that Roy’s assumptions about deep ocean heating are too low, currently by a factor of 3.

  42. Doug Cotton says:

    Mike – you too can go and edit Wikipedia where it clearly states that the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus is about 320K. It’s in two places: the above linked article and this one.

    By my calculations I estimated it would be about (330±50)K quite independently. Yes, the radiating temperature of the planet is around 59K which I also confirmed using the fact that it is about 30 times further from the Sun than Earth. It is in the upper troposphere where that temperature is found because that’s where the methane layer does most of the planet’s radiating. That layer is the only heat source for the whole planet, stabilizing the temperatures right down to the core by maximizing entropy as the Second Law of Thermodynamics says there will always be a propensity so to do.

    So what’s your problem, Mike? Why does it surprise you? Planets are not cooling off. They all warm on the sunlit side every “day” to compensate for cooling on the dark side. One of the noted facts about Uranus is that there is no convincing evidence of significant net energy loss above about 0.5W/m^2. Even that could be just due to long term climate cycles and could have been a net gain even just a few hundred years ago. Uranus is probably affected in the same way as Earth in that regard, seeing that we have the same Sun.

    What your problem really is, Mike, is that you haven’t a clue what my “heat creep” hypothesis is all about or why the state of maximum entropy (ie thermodynamic equilibrium) is so important.

    Wouldn’t it be the polite thing to do not to (try to) criticize someone’s hypothesis until you’ve read it and at least understood the argument, even if your understanding of thermodynamics is too limited to be able to come to an agreement about it?

  43. D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

    Roy (and others)

    There is absolutely NO (warming) sensitivity to carbon dioxide or water vapor. There’s enough water vapor for us to see by measurement that more moist regions have lower mean daily maximums and minimums, as my study with data from 15 inland tropical regions on three continents showed to be the case.

    All planets and moons have inner regions (lower troposphere, mantle, core etc) which are maintained at higher temperatures than the effective radiating temperature. This requires an input of thermal energy to those lower regions, but that energy does not mostly come from direct solar radiation, let alone back radiation. It comes from the non-radiative mechanism about which you can read here and that is confirmed by a correct application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is all about entropy maximization and nothing else.

    You cannot prove me wrong on this. Your discussion of so-called “radiative forcing” is about a totally imaginary process which simply does not happen because all that back radiation can do is slow the rate of radiative cooling, not the rate of non-radiative cooling. But the Sun’s direct radiation cannot explain the existing surface temperatures on Earth or Venus, just for starters. So the rate of cooling is irrelevant. You think in the wrong paradigm altogether because you have been gullible enough to believe James Hansen and his cronies who simply do not understand entropy and the related thermodynamics.

    • Ball4 says:

      Doug 4:58pm: “There is absolutely NO (warming) sensitivity to carbon dioxide or water vapor….You cannot prove me wrong on this.”

      Once again, Doug, Dr. Spencer’s test proves you are wrong – when the cirrus clouds show up around 1:30am, the black line trends down not up as your hypothesis claims which experimentally demonstrates your claim is incorrect.

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/

      “The relative faster cooling of the unshielded cooler was slowed when high-level clouds moved in around 1:30 a.m. (as deduced from GOES satellite imagery).”

    • Norman says:

      Doug Cotton,

      I will regret this but once again I will attempt the impossible. Getting you to understand some really simple ideas and give supporting evidence for it. Please try to think and reason.

      Here is a really simple to understand explanation of why moist areas are cooler than drier areas even though both are at similar latitudes (would have same solar insolation at TOA).

      Here is the first link for you. You will not look at it, you will not read it and you will not even entertain it as a possible explanation for what you observe in your study of temperature. It is expected from you. But so others can observe how you will not learn maybe your tiresome posts will some day end as the audience of potential targets is no more.

      http://www.ftexploring.com/solar-energy/clouds-and-pollution.htm

      At high noon a lot of locations can receive 1000 watts/meter^2 at the surface. The article describes the various types of clouds and their overall effect. Thick heavy clouds can reduce this 1000 watts/meter^2 down to only 150 watts/meter^2. If you are willing to think wouldn’t that explain why you see moist areas cooler than dry (at similar latitude)? Moist areas have much more cloudy days than drier areas and if raining alot will have the low thick clouds that do an excellent job of lowering the amount of energy reaching the Earth’s surface.

      For this next link you do not even have to go to a different area. Same location (Amazon jungle) wetter and drier periods.

      http://www.unique-southamerica-travel-experience.com/amazon-rainforest-climate.html

      The temperature goes up during the less rainy season. You would conclude (for reasons known only to yourself) that this is proof that water vapor actually cools the Earth’s surface and cannot act as a GHG by slowing down radiation loss. Why not conclude correctly that your theory is crap and that it is the increased cloud cover that is actually causing the temperature to be lower in moist areas and you conclusion was based upon incorrect thinking?

  44. David A says:

    As I wrote above, Roy’s deep ocean heat storage is too low.

    Over the last 10 years, heat in the 0-2000 m region has been increasing by 0.62 W/m2.

    Using NOAA’s pentadal data, which they give from 1957-2012, the increase is 0.28 W/m2, 40% higher than Roy’s value.

    http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/pentad/pent_h22-w0-2000m.dat

    Roy, there’s something about your spreadsheet I don’t understand. In cells F5 and F6, why are you measuring deep ocean heat storage in W/m2/month?

    It should be J/m2, relative to the starting year. And then its change with time will be just W/m2. I think you have a unit error and wonder how that propagates through the calculation.

  45. gallopingcamel says:

    Dr. Spencer said (above):

    “The climate sensitivity I used to get this result was just over 2.5 C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, which is consistent with published numbers for the typical climate sensitivity of many of these models.”

    That suggests there is an equation at the heart of these models and it probably looks something like this:
    ΔT(Kelvin) = 2.5*log(base 2){[CO2 in ppm]/280)}

    This equation should fit data starting at 1850 when the [CO2] was roughly 280 ppm.

    You seem to think that changing the sensitivity constant to 1.5 K per doubling somehow improves your model. It won’t because this equation is total BS regardless of what sensitivity constant you choose, given that it fails several sanity tests. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

    Here is one of those sanity tests you should consider. Imagine reducing the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere by 50%. According to your model the temperature will fall by 1.5 Kelvin. Now keep halving the pressure until there is exactly one molecule of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere. This process will require a total of 115 halvings so the temperature change should be 288 – (115*1.5) = 116 Kelvin.

    Your old sensitivity constant of 2.5 K per doubling implied a temperature of one degree above absolute zero for a CO2 free Earth……..obviously insane. While you may take comfort that your new sensitivity constant is less insane, you still need to explain why our CO2 free Moon has an average temperature of 196 Kelvin according to the Diviner LRE data. Are you comfortable with the idea that a CO2 free Earth would be 80 Kelvin colder than our airless Moon?

    If you want to get a better understanding of the effect of gas composition on planetary temperatures please study this letter:
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n1/abs/ngeo2020.html

    Given the fact that the IPCC models such as CMIPs can’t even do a decent backcast let alone explain the “Pause” I am astounded that you continue to give credence to the failed Arrhenius theory.

    I support most of the things you say on your blog so it pains me to disagree so strongly on this issue. I hope you are big enough to admit you are wrong to suggest that the “Sensitivity Constant” helps our understanding of global climate.

  46. Norman says:

    Doug Cotton,

    Still not convinced and you want to cling to your irrational understanding that water vapor acts as a global coolant because of your study?

    Here is one more link to look at (again you will not look at it or consider it but I will post it anyway…maybe David Appell will look at it and consider the point I was making to him about albedo).

    http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/135642main_balance_trifold21.pdf

    Look at figure 4 of this article. Low thick clouds have a net cooling effect (the type that form in rain events). They reflect incoming solar energy but because they are still fairly warm do not change the outgoing IR much (they are relatively warm and continue to radiate energy to space)

    I think this more than explains why wet areas are cooler than dry ones without the need to rely upon our fony fisics of heat creep.

    • Doug Cotton says:

      Your linked NASA article is incorrect when (referring to the remaining solar radiation) it says “The remaining energy strikes Earth and warms the surface.” That remaining flux is 168W/m^2 which has a blackbody temperature -41 degrees C. (I won’t use ALT 2-4-8 for the degree sign because it appears as ° here.)

  47. Norman says:

    Doug Cotton,

    You state: “I say such and such, but that point is invalid because … and nor has anyone produced any study with similar sample size and methodology to my study at the end of that paper that shows totally different results contrary to my study showing water vapor cools.”

    I have just shown you different results contrary to you study showing water vapor cools.

    Email me for mailing address I will accept your generous $5000 reward for proving your understanding wrong and your physics incorrect. Thanks in advance.

  48. L Morgan says:

    Doug Cotton:

    I will make you an even better wager. I will give you $10,000 if you can prove that the
    direct measurements of the greenhouse effect are wrong.

    You can start with a ground based measurement, such as

    https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

    and then move on to satellites:

    http://tes.jpl.nasa.gov/uploadedfiles/WordenSatellite2008.pdf

    (I just picked one, there actually are many)

    All you need to do is provide your own experimental evidence
    that refutes every one of the multiple sources of direct confirmation of the greenhouse effect and I will gladly give you $10,000.

    Best of luck,
    L. Morgan, PhD.

    • gbaikie says:

      L Morgan says:
      July 19, 2015 at 11:41 PM

      Doug Cotton:

      I will make you an even better wager. I will give you $10,000 if you can prove that the
      direct measurements of the greenhouse effect are wrong.
      These indicate 20 ppm swing due to season:
      https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
      http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
      Here it’s 10 pmm seasonal change

      Both are direct measurements of the greenhouse effect. One has to be wrong.

      • tonyM says:

        If it was an even money chance does that mean you only qualify for half the prize-money?

        And if the paper had extended its data to include 2011 it may have inflicted its own mortal wound. The start period was 2000 (La Nina) and ended with a high El Nino 2010. The 2011 was a dip but more interesting is that Alaska dropped by over 4.0C cf to 2000.

        Now that is real juggling. Does that help explain why they stopped at 2010 given it was published in 2015?

    • mpainter says:

      Hello? L Morgan?

      Hello?

  49. mpainter says:

    L. Morgan, PhD,
    Where may I find you so that I can collect the $10,000?, should I disprove your assertion? In other words, who and where are you?

  50. Doug Cotton says:

    L. Morgan and Norman

    Norman and I agree of course that increasing cloud cover will increase albedo. Hence the solar radiation that gets through to the atmosphere and surface will be less as cloud cover increases, and so the effective radiating temperature of the planet will be lower. (In many regions only the atmosphere is cold enough to have its temperature supported by direct solar radiation, not the surface. The mean solar radiation near the surface is like that from a nearby iceberg.)

    I’ve explained all this in my paper and many comments. The calculation of that 255K figure is based on 30% albedo, and so they use 70% of the incident solar radiation and put the result into Stefan-Bolztmann calculations, getting the 255K temperature. If we increase albedo to 31% (more cloud cover) we see a reduction of the 255K figure by about 0.9°C. But there is another and greater effect of water vapor, namely that it radiates, and radiation has a temperature leveling effect between any two radiating altitudes. This is the principal reason why water vapor reduces the magnitude of the temperature gradient, not latent heat release. Thus the whole temperature profile in the troposphere rises near the tropopause and falls at the surface, thus lowering the supported surface temperature. But of course you know all that from my paper Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures.”

    Now, L.Morgan links to studies that effectively prove that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere leads to more radiation from CO2. That’s a no-brainer. But seeing that there is no radiative greenhouse effect in the first place (because planetary surface temperatures are not determined primarily by radiation) what they measured does not prove “radiative forcing” is increasing the surface temperature. Any natural increase or decrease in surface temperature (perhaps due to variations in cloud cover) will lead to net radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere and at the surface. A warming surface must be absorbing more thermal energy than it is releasing. But they don’t simultaneous measure the non-radiative heat losses, so they have no evidence whatsoever as to whether the grand total is a net increase or decrease. In fact, when back radiation slows radiative cooling, the non-radiative cooling accelerates to compensate and thus nullify the effect of back radiation on the overall cooling rate. They might as well just measure the surface temperature and deduce that there is a net increase when its temperature rises. We know that, since 1998, there has been an overall net loss of energy from the surface, simply because it’s colder now than it was at the peak temperatures in 1998. But of course it would have been easy to pick an intermediate period when there was warming – just don’t publish any experiments done when it was cooling /sarc.

    Both of you assume I subscribe to the incorrect concept that surface temperatures are determined by radiation. That’s why I point out that there is no solar radiation reaching down through 350Km of the nominal troposphere of the planet Uranus, and likewise for Neptune, and hardly any for Venus.

    So, you demonstrate no understanding of reality in these matters until you can explain how, for example, a location on the equator of Venus rises a little in temperature over the course of 4-months on the Sunlit side, compensating for the inevitable cooling on the dark side. To rise in temperature (about 5° – but the exact magnitude is not important) requires an input of thermal energy. That does not come from the core or volcanoes, because the surface cools at night and neither the core nor the volcanoes would “know” the difference between day and night. In fact it comes by way of heat creep from the atmosphere that is obeying the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but I’m not here to reproduce about 20 pages of explanation that you could have read in my paper.

    • Ball4 says:

      Doug 6:47am: “But they don’t simultaneous measure the non-radiative heat losses, so they have no evidence whatsoever as to whether the grand total is a net increase or decrease.”

      I’ve read and understood your paper. “They” measured both at the same time & reported the time frame of the measurements. Perhaps you did not read the reports in enough detail. Look again. Dr. Spencer’s test also proves you are wrong since it does measure the net simultaneously. Meaning the water is free to evaporatively cool.

      “In fact, when back radiation slows radiative cooling, the non-radiative cooling accelerates to compensate..”

      Dr. Spencer’s test proved this notion is wrong. The black line turned down ~simultaneous with presence of cirrus clouds.

      “..explain how, for example, a location on the equator of Venus rises a little in temperature over the course of 4-months on the Sunlit side.”

      The sun came up over Venus horizon. The optical depth of Venus atm.

      “it comes by way of heat creep”

      Diffusion experimentally takes several years for this distance not several months Doug.

      “..you could have read in my paper.”

      I did.

      • Doug Cotton says:

        The compensation is not always perfectly synchronized, but the non-radiative cooling catches up later in the night.

        The nightly minimum (when all cooling stops in calm conditions) is supported by the state of thermodynamic equilibrium (with its associated temperature gradient) and the required input of thermal energy to stop the cooling is supplied by the “heat creep” process, not by back radiation from a still colder troposphere.

        In their measurements of non-radiative heat transfers they are totally incorrect, just as they are with “measurements” of heat loss in the outer crust, because there they merely use temperature measurements at different altitudes or different depths in bore holes and assume heat transfers based on what would happen in a horizontal plane where entropy would not be affected by any changes in gravitational potential energy.

        A vertical temperature gradient in a gravitational field does not imply that there is necessarily heat transfer happening towards the colder region.

        You need to understand the effect of a force field in these matters, such as has been proven to occur with centrifugal force, as here.

        In summary, radiation into a planet’s surface is not the primary determinant of the temperature thereof.

        Solar radiation of 168W/m^2 has a blackbody temperature of -41°C and so there is no way that mean solar radiation reaching the surface explains the mean surface temperature, now is there?

        NASA is blatantly misrepresenting what is happening in the article Norman linked where they said the Sun’s direct radiation warms the surface. They know full well from their own energy diagrams (as here) that they have added 324W/m^2 of back radiation and used the total in Stefan Boltzmann calculations to get the 288K figure. You just can’t do that, now can you?

      • Doug Cotton says:

        PS There has been the life of the planet for diffusion to establish the state of thermodynamic equilibrium with its associated temperature gradient. On a daily basis there only needs to be a propensity to “repair” that gradient due to minor perturbations resulting from weather changes, and also from new solar energy absorbed in the atmosphere each morning. You can get an idea as to the rate of diffusion in a well insulated room in your house. It’s not all that slow: just warm some air on one side of a room, remove the heater, close doors and measure temperatures on the other side. Remember that individual molecules move at about 1,700 Km/hour between collisions. Diffusion and natural convective heat transfers are the same thing in physics – it’s just a matter of degree. The more is the excess energy in one region (above what it would be in the state of maximum entropy) then the faster is the heat transfer in all directions away from the region with excess thermal energy, as shown in my “heat creep” diagrams. Do you get it yet?

      • Doug Cotton says:

        And no, Ball4 your simplistic answer “The sun came up over Venus horizon. The optical depth of Venus atm” won’t do. The solar radiation reaching the surface of Venus is usually less than 20W/m^2 which is about a tenth of what Earth’s surface receives. That radiation is not what raises the Venus surface temperature from 732K to 737K over the course of four months. Yes it’s a slow process, and that’s why the rise is only about 5 degrees in 4 months because of the height of the Venus atmosphere and the fact that it absorbs nearly all the insolation.

      • Doug Cotton says:

        And, by the way, look at their cherry-picked period from 2000 to 2010 and note on Roy’s temperature chart the relatively low temperatures in 2000 and high temperatures in 2010.

        From all this we learn nothing more than we could have learnt from temperature records and CO2 levels. Between the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age there must have been net energy loss from the surface. Before that, in the 500 years before the Medieval Warming Period there were rising temperatures (similar to the period since the LIA) and thus net absorption of thermal energy, which mostly came from “heat creep” not direct radiation from the Sun or back radiation from the colder atmosphere.

      • Ball4 says:

        Doug 7:53am: “..the non-radiative cooling catches up later in the night.”

        There is no sign of this happening in Dr. Spencer’s test. This is not observed in all night NOAA clear sky graphs nor on my local home thermometer overnight on clear nights. And you know what Dr. Feynman said if an effect is not observed.

        “..required input of thermal energy to stop the cooling is supplied by the “heat creep” process.”

        Diffusion experimentally takes months&years to change the surface temperature from that distance, so measured not physically possible in 8 or so overnight hours.

        “…their measurements of non-radiative heat transfers they are totally incorrect…because there they merely use temperature measurements at different altitudes”..

        You again show you haven’t read the papers which use rainfall, river runoff rates et. al. besides what you mention.

        “..they..assume heat transfers based on what would happen in a horizontal plane..”

        No such assumption is made, Doug simply hasn’t read the papers.

        “Solar radiation of 168W/m^2 has a blackbody temperature of -41°C and so there is no way that mean solar radiation reaching the surface explains the mean surface temperature, now is there?”

        There IS, namely conservation of energy! A really easy balance that matches observations, measurements, and experiments, and of course matches Dr. Spencer’s experiment which shows the 1st law is good, backed up by observed nature.

        “..they have added 324W/m^2 of back radiation and used the total in Stefan Boltzmann calculations to get the 288K figure. You just can’t do that, now can you?”

        You CAN do that! Since follows directly from the 1st law, conservation of energy (COE) at the surface. The avg.d 324 isn’t destroyed at the surface Doug, no energy can ever be simply destroyed like you imply. And of course COE is backed up by Dr. Spencer’s experiment observing the effects of the avg. 324.

        8:06am: “That radiation is not what raises the Venus surface temperature from 732K to 737K over the course of four months.”

        There are no 4 month surface temperature observations on Venus Doug, the landers didn’t last that long. You are simply speculating about the 5K delta. Which is easily explained by conservation of energy & atm. optical depth anyway.

        Venus ~730K measured surface temperature is maintained by an efficient atmospheric optical mechanism from 1) net downward thermal flux ~15,000 W/m^2 and 2) There are no true atmospheric windows at IR wavelengths greater than 3 microns. The surface T simply modulated by sun coming up, adding energy. About half that absorbed solar flux is deposited within or above the cloud tops (~65km). Visible absorption and near IR absorption of the H2SO4 clouds and CO2.

        • Norman says:

          Ball4 best to you in trying to open up Doug’s mind. I will be amazed if you are even a tiny bit successful. Empirical testing does not phase him, water off a duck.

        • D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

          The minimum temperate at night in calm conditions is supported by the process of entropy maximization in the troposphere. In Singapore it is the same (within about a degree) every night of the year regardless of weather conditions the previous day. The back radiation has no warming effect on the supporting surface temperature, and in fact that temperature is lowered when water vapor levels increase for the reasons here and my study of real world data (considerably more comprehensive than Roy’s experiment) confirms that.

          The experiments with diffusion (shifting masses of energy) are altogether different from the marginal adjustments by diffusion and natural convective heat transfer in the troposphere. Whatever you say, the Second Law tells us it must happen.

          I have read some of the papers and I know that they use “standard” equations which I also know are developed by ignoring the component of entropy attributable to molecular gravitational potential energy. You likewise ignore such. Go and edit the Wiki article on thermodynamic potentials and remove the reference to gravity if you think you’re right.

          No you can’t add back radiation and use the total to estimate the surface temperature. If you were consistent in doing so, then regions where the direct solar radiation from overhead on a clear day can be above 800W/m^2 (like at the top of Mt Everest in mid summer, or at sea level in the tropics) would be far hotter than observed if you also added back radiation of at least 324W/m^2 (arguably much more) to the 800W/m^2.

          If you want to learn about heat transfer by radiation, then read my 2012 paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” because you exhibit no understanding of the resonance process which prevents electro-magnetic energy being converted to thermal energy in a warmer target. The paper is linked at the foot of the “Evidence” page at http://climate-change-theory.com

          A location on the Equator of Venus must cool to some extent during four month of darkness. Temperature measurements of the Venus surface can also be made from Earth and it varies between about 732K and 737K. You have no argument that could prove that it would not cool at all at night, and so it must warm again the next day, just like Earth’s surface and that on all other planets and moons with surfaces.

        • Ball4 says:

          Doug 5:50am: “The back radiation has no warming effect on the supporting surface temperature, and in fact that temperature is lowered when water vapor levels increase…

          This is falsified by Dr. Spencer’s 6/30 experiment, the black line trends down not up as Doug asserts it should.

          “..my study of real world data (considerably more comprehensive than Roy’s experiment) confirms that.”

          Previously around here I pinpointed where Doug’s study calculations are incorrect, including a cite to the correct calculations. Look it up.

          “No you can’t add back radiation and use the total to estimate the surface temperature.”

          This is done successfully per experiment & routinely Doug. Look it up.

          “..you exhibit no understanding of the resonance process which prevents electro-magnetic energy being converted to thermal energy in a warmer target.”

          Doug’s assertion here is falsified with this famous experiment published May 1898, Doug is behind in his reading, google it with the title and Mendenhall key words, over the temperature range from dry ice (and lower) to 1100C, see the 1st and 3rd hits:

          Title: The Radiation of a Black Body
          Authors: Mendenhall, C. E. & Saunders, F. A.
          Journal: Astrophysical Journal, vol. 13, p.25

  51. Norman says:

    Doug Cotton,

    For the last time would you please quit using the false information that Venus surface has a 5 C dinural variation. Your source had stated the 5C dinural variation was for the upper troposphere or maybe even the tropopause NOT surface.

    Here is the Venus fact sheet. Scroll down and look at Venus dinural temp change. It is around 0 C not 5!

    http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html

    For the sake of sanity please quit using incorrect facts as if they were blessed and made true by your endless repetition of them. Sorry pal, reality does not work like that.

    • gbaikie says:

      When consider the global wind and other factors it’s possible upper atmosphere changes do not correspond to lower atmospheric temperature changes.

    • wayne says:

      Thank you Norman for pointing that out to Doug Cotton, He does need to stop spouting that 5°C difference, it is basically zero. I don’t think he has ever looked at a co2 chemical state diagram, any co2 above about 30°C and above about 73 bar (at surface it is about 93 bar) is a supercritical fluid much like there being an ocean of co2 at and near the surface and like water is very hard for any density strata to change its vertical altitude therefore only tiny temperature differences in the deep troposphere on Venus, anywhere.

    • D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

      Norman – go back to this comment and you stop falsely claiming that the Venus surface would not cool at all in four months of darkness. There are accurate measurements made from Earth of such temperatures that are know to vary between 732K and 737K. Of course the mean temperature on the light side is around the mid-point 734.5K and likewise on the dark side, and that’s why they say there’s no difference. But any particular location on the Equator will cool by 5 degrees over the course of the night (what would prevent it?) and we know it must warm again by that much during 4 months on the sunlit side because there is no evidence of long term cooling of the planet in the decades over which measurements have been made.

      Besides all that, Norman, correct physics tells us why the surface will receive some of the solar energy by downward diffusion and natural convective heat transfers and thus rise in temperature in accord with the troposphere, thus maintaining the temperature gradient that represents the state of maximum entropy.

      • Norman says:

        Doug Cotton,

        Do you have any supporting evidence that the surface of Venus on the Equator has a dinural temperature change. You said that there are measurements. Can you link to this data so we can all verify what you claim?

  52. aaron says:

    Dave, your typical link to papers that don’t say what you think they say.

    Wheat uptake of nitrogen doesn’t grow with increaed uptake of CO2 to form carbohydrates.

    It means that if you rely on wheat as your primary source of protein, you’ll have to burn off a lot more carbs, if you sole source your wheat and don’t believe in refining and blending.

    If you’ve ever made a home made pizza, you’d know that flour can be bought in various carb:protein ratios.

    The http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n6/full/nclimate2183.html simply means the protein:carb ratio of wheat may shift toward cards. Reduced Gluten Wheat!

    Maybe as that happens, one day bio-fuels will become economical 🙂

  53. There is a simple question demanding explanation.

    Rate of tropospheric warming over the oceans during the last 36 years is 0.84 K/decade (see eg. UAH 6.0beta). The rate is much higher than that according to ERSST.

    Now, the latter one measures surface temperature, while the former one that of the bulk troposphere. Anyway, this finding means average marine lapse rate is increasing.

    Dry adiabatic rate is much higher than moist one, so marine lapse rate is getting closer to the former one. That is, average humidity of air over oceans is decreasing. At the same time, as average sea surface temperature is increasing, evaporation should increase as well. Which means more atmospheric moisture, not less.

    The only reasonable solution is that distribution of humidity is changing. While the boundary layer is getting more humid, the upper troposphere does just the opposite. That is, precipitation should become more efficient with increasing surface temperatures.

    Water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas. As its concentration decreases high above the surface, its contribution to the greenhouse effect is also decreasing with time.

    Which is a negative feedback to the greenhouse effect provided by well mixed GHGs.

    Unfortunately computational climate models fail to replicate this effect, in fact they predict just the opposite of it.

    Why?

    • Rate of tropospheric warming over the oceans during the last 36 years is 0.84 K/decade

      My bad. Should read 0.84 K/century.

    • mpainter says:

      Why?

      ###

      Because water is a coolant in that the surface cools evaporatively and each gram of water vapor represents so many joules of surface cooling i.e., latent energy carried aloft and radiated to space. The AGW hypothesis holds that water vapor is net warming, which is simply false. In fact, water vapor merely moderates the diurnal temperature range: compare the Sahara with the humid tropics or oceans.

    • Ball4 says:

      mpainter 3:00pm: “..water vapor is net warming, which is simply false.”

      Not false in observations, as I’ve been pointing out to Doug, Dr. Spencer’s simple test & analysis 6/30 post experiment means that atm. water vapor shows “the cooler with the IR shield stayed a little warmer. The relative faster cooling of the unshielded cooler was slowed when high-level clouds moved in around 1:30 a.m. (as deduced from GOES satellite imagery).”

      • mpainter says:

        If you are going to put clouds into the balance, you must consider their daytime effect as well.

        A cloud in the tropics with the sun high can bring upwards of 1000W/sq m of negative forcing. How now, night cirrus cloud?

      • mpainter says:

        There is also the consideration that clouds represent the phase change of water vapor to water, with the release of latent heat aloft. The name of the game is cooling of the surface.

      • Ball4 says:

        mpainter 5:01pm: The C in CERES stands for “clouds” so cloud global daytime effect on albedo is now well known. The global cloud albedo effect IS measured significantly larger than the effect of clouds on atm. optical depth. Dr. Spencer’s experimental results are at work in daytime (meaning in the presence of SW) as well as night.

        • mpainter says:

          And so full circle and my statement stands

        • Ball4 says:

          mpainter 6:22pm: No sir, your statement “that water vapor is net warming, which is simply false” is itself falsified by the black curve, does not stand, is wrong per Dr. Spencer’s 6/30 experimental observations. Check with Dr. Feynman’s writings.

          Albedo is a reflection, solar flux that does not enter the system. For the global system surface flux, an increase in atm. water vapor always and everywhere increases the atm. optical depth day and night, results in the night curves he found. Comparable rising curves will be found during SW periods. Try it yourself. Let us know. Pretty simple experiment. Stop speculating.

          Or produce experimental evidence showing Dr. Spencer is in error & why.

          • mpainter says:

            My statement stands. Water vapor moderates temperature, it does not raise temperature. Compare diurnal range of Sahara (85°F) with diurnal range of tropical oceans (4° F). Compare tmax of the same.The GHE, as posited by AGW, is error. There is no amplification of temperature via water vapor.

          • Ball4 says:

            mpainter 10:14pm: Indeed Dr. Spencer’s experiment shows LW IR moderates water temperature (red curve above grey) and does increase temperature as the black curve trends down with increasing atm. wv after 1:30am, opposite & falsifying your assertion, your statement has no experimental backing.

            Earth GHE is measured, observed by calibrated, reasonably precise instruments. CERES takes into account your diurnal range of Sahara (85°F) (a region of descending air) with diurnal range of tropical oceans (4° F) et. al. spatially and temporally over enough annual periods for all sun angles.

          • mpainter says:

            I have real world observations:
            Water vapor moderates diurnal temperature range. You ignore these observations, citing failed AGW hypothesis. Water vapor does not amplify temperatures; it moderates them.

          • Ball4 says:

            mpainter 6:34am: “You ignore these observations,”

            Nope, CERES includes them all, every one mentioned, since it started observing in March 2000. Water vapor moderates the surface temperature as shown by Dr. Spencer 6/30: surface water T increases with increasing column water vapor as shown by the black curve trending down after 1:30am when the cirrus show up. All it takes is one proper test to falsify mpainter assertion. There are actually many more tests supporting Dr. Spencer, I will let mpainter do the research.

          • mpainter says:

            You will be lost in the AGW tangles for as long as you ignore real world observations. Water vapor moderates temperature, it does not amplify it.

          • Ball4 says:

            mpainter 7:54am: ”..you ignore real world observations.”

            I don’t ignore any real world observations at all, neither does CERES which includes real world observations of the two regions you mention (Sahara, tropical oceans). It is real world observations by Dr. Spencer that falsify your assertion: ”..water vapor is net warming, which is simply false.”

            Your use of “amplify” term is 1st use in this thread, nice attempt to change the subject. Please expand on what you mean, thx. Please climb out of the agw tangles in which you are evidently lost.

          • mpainter says:

            CERES data does not obviate real world observations, as you maintain.These show that water vapor moderates temperature by reducing diurnal temperature range. You seem incapable of assimilating such observations to your views. Nor do any AGW proponents take cognizance of such observations, in my experience.

            My statement stands: real world data show that water does not raise temperatures; it moderates them.

            By the way, you seem to have misapprehend the import of Roy’s experiment; water cools mainly through evaporation. Roy’s experiment showed only that the shield interfered with the removal of latent heat from the interface.
            The deceleration of cooling was due mainly to approaching dewpoint conditions.

          • Ball4 says:

            mpainter 9:41am: “My statement stands: real world data show that water does not raise temperatures..”

            No, it doesn’t, your statement is proven false mpainter by real world test.

            Again your statement was easily falsified by Dr. Spencer’s real world testing 6/30 with the black curve turning down as the cirrus clouds arrive with water droplets and water vapor overhead adding wv in the column & the black curve is observed turn down not turn up. mpainter continues to ignore real world observations.

            ..water vapor moderates temperature by reducing diurnal temperature range. You seem incapable of assimilating such observations to your views.”

            Sure, there is text book moderation as you write mpainter changing the subject again, which adds support to Dr. Spencer’s testing and further falsifies your statement. You don’t have to do any calculations to recognize that the avg. emissivity of the liquid water in the cirrus clouds observed by Dr. Spencer is higher than that of water vapor. And the emissivity of an even thicker cloud of water droplets is essentially the same as that of a liquid water layer (the precipitable water content).

            The rate of overnight cooling of the ground (L&O) depends on the difference between its rate of emission and the rate at which it absorbs radiation emitted downward from the sky above. The lower this net radiation, all else equal, the greater the cooling rate. Because emission by clouds, all else equal, is greater than emission by clear sky, as Dr. Spencer test demonstrates for you et. al., radiative surface cooling is lesser on cloudy nights even with water free to evaporatively cool, free to convect, assuring the moderation you mention just as is shown in Dr. Spencer’s real world observations.

            So, uh, does Dr. Spencer testing support or disable your “amplify”? Your other attempt to change the subject.

          • mpainter says:

            Ball4,
            I regret to say that your lack of comprehension precludes any further discussion, as does your egregious science when you say such things as “as the cirrus clouds arrive with water droplets” and “the avg. emissivity of the liquid water in the cirrus clouds observed by Dr. Spencer is higher than that of water vapor.” I urge you to undertake a reading and self education program to remedy your misunderstanding of the basics.

          • Ball4 says:

            mpainter 12:47pm: Uh-huh. I see. No comment on “amplify”.

            Now I do see why you have shown no foundation, no attempt at all to defend and support your Dr. Spencer falsified assertion: ”..water vapor is net warming, which is simply false” as you haven’t accomplished even the most basic science in this field mpainter. As with Doug, your assertions can be completely unfounded, not defensible so you don’t/can’t try. Study up mpainter, nature is really interesting when you can handle it.

          • mpainter says:

            Ball4 says “study up mpainter”

            ####

            Still uncomprehending, ball4?
            I tried to help by quotes, but you prefer to plow ahead in ignorance, thinking that cirrus clouds are “water droplets” or “liquid water”.

            Cirrus clouds are ICE, not water. My advice was good advice: you should learn the basics before you start to comment on public blogs.

          • Ball4 says:

            mpainter 1:48pm: The water vapor in cirrus condenses at the dew point on a microparticle or ice crystal and the new water droplets freeze mpainter. Doesn’t change the emissivity story at all, as on earth this is water ice, you will have to go to Titan find much methane ice up in the cirrus. My advice is once your public statement has been easily falsified by real world observation/experiment, change your statements, improve your understanding of the basics.

            “…classical nucleation theory is believed to account reasonably well for the observed growth of condensed forms of water in the upper atmosphere.”

            http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/361/1804/557.long

          • mpainter says:

            And ball4 shows that he has yet to understand that cirrus clouds are composed of ice crystals:

            “and the new water droplets freeze”

          • Ball4 says:

            Nope, mpainter 3:41pm, I understand, imo you do have a good point, the water droplets can freeze. Besides cirrus, there are even frozen water droplets in thunderstorm clouds (cumulonimbus), generally called collected lumps of solid water ice, hail. All components of the precipitable water in the column radiating LW as picked up by Dr. Spencer’s real world experiment posted 6/30.

    • D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

      But empirical evidence in my comprehensive study of 30 years of temperature and precipitation data from three continents showed that more moist regions have lower mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures than drier regions at similar latitude and altitude.

      If about 1% water vapor really were doing most of 33 degrees of warming, then rain forests would be at least 50 to 100 degrees hotter than drier regions with only a quarter as much water vapor above them.

      Correct physics using entropy maximization (as per the Second Law) enables us to understand the observed fact that increasing the level of water vapor leads to a less steep temperature gradient and thus a lower supporting temperature at the surface, with higher temperatures in the upper troposphere.

      • Ball4 says:

        Doug 6:08am: See my comment 6:14am above, your study miscalculated the precipitable wv in the column and I pinpointed your mistake, leading to your incorrect assertions. Increasing wv in the column leads to Dr. Spencer’s experimental black line trending down; the line does not trend up decreasing temperature with increasing wv as you assert it should Doug.

  54. wayne says:

    Better. I was about to hit the gong on that figure.

    • wayne says:

      Except my comment should have been placed under Berényi Péter’s comment. Still don’t understand why that mis-nesting occurs sometimes. (test: this should be placed under my own comment to Berényi)

  55. Norman says:

    Doug Cotton,

    One more try at reason and facts with you to demonstrate why your current thought process on water vapor is flawed.

    First point is you claim water vapor is cooling the surface because it can radiate. You have to know that radiation will be given off in all directions by a radiating source. Why would water vapor (a radiator) cool the Earth’s surface faster than it already can do without water vapor?? None of your logic makes sense. With GHG present some of the radiation given off by the surface will be absorbed by the GHG and then some of that will return to the surface. With no GHG present NONE returns. How does water vapor enhance radiative cooling of the surface?

    Now some reality.
    Birmingham, Alabama is 33.31 North
    Phoenix, Arizona is 33.45 North

    Fairly close for solar insolation purposes.

    Using this information for Birmingham:
    http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/birmingham/alabama/united-states/usal0054

    Note it has annual averages with one important feature: Annual hours of sunshine included.

    Now here is the same type of information for Phoenix:
    http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/phoenix/arizona/united-states/usaz0166

    Here is the calculations.
    Phoenix receives 3832 hours of sunlight a year
    Birmingham receives 2662 hours of sunlight a year

    Take the ratio 3832/2662 and you get around 1.44 times more sunlight in Phoenix.

    Now take the annual average temperatures.
    Phoenix averages 75.05 F
    Birmingham averages 52.8 F

    Take this ratio of 75.05/52.8 and you get around 1.42 times warmer.

    Really closely matches the variation in sunlight for the two locations with no need to speculate that water vapor acts as a surface coolant (liquid water will but water vapor will not).

    Another one to look at is a solar insolation graph they use for determining locations for solar panels or other solar energy devices.

    http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/eere_csp/national_concentrating_solar_2012-01.jpg

    If you look at this one it will show you that Phoenix surface does receive a lot more energy than Birmingham hence it will have a higher temperature and have zero to do with your false conjecture based upon faulty reasoning that water vapor cools because wet areas are cooler than dry ones at similar latitudes.

    • Ball4 says:

      Norman 6:03pm – Yes, you are demonstrating the importance of albedo over atm. optical depth as I just noted for mpainter.

      However as I’ve demonstrated for Doug in the past, Phoenix being in a desert region may have low precipitation i.e. low annual rainfall, not necessarily low atm. water vapor. I looked up the precipitable water above Phoenix and Birmingham tonight and they are comparable, roughly in the range 36mm to 42mm or so. The local time equiv. surface temperatures are also comparable so the radiation from the atm. is to those extents comparable at the moment even though one location is arid and one not so arid.

      To more or less confirm, I looked up the DWIR at closest ESRL stations and found for the same local time yesterday, measured comparable numbers on the order 400 W/m^2.

      • Norman says:

        Ball4,

        I could not locate the DWIR measurements of 400 W/m^2. I thought the DWIR was a lesser value but I would like to see a link to the ESRL stations. I found some but they were just of OLR (outgoing longwave radiation). Thanks.

        • Norman says:

          Ball4,

          Thanks for the link. This will be of valuable information in my continuing understanding of climate science.

          • Norman says:

            Ball4,

            Are the graphs of actual instrument readings or a modeled DWIR?

          • Ball4 says:

            Instrumental. Click on instrument descriptions, SURFRAD Network for a picture of the Desert Rock site, and see calibration facilities.

          • Norman says:

            Ball4

            Since it is actual instrumentation wouldn’t that convince the posters who don’t think back radiation exists (downwelling IR) that it is a reality and maybe they need to reevalutate their current understanding of how radiation works?

            Thanks again!

          • Ball4 says:

            Norman 3:02pm – Good point imo; the subject is simply changed to attempt an attack on the instruments in that event.

    • gbaikie says:

      –Doug Cotton,

      One more try at reason and facts with you to demonstrate why your current thought process on water vapor is flawed.

      First point is you claim water vapor is cooling the surface because it can radiate. You have to know that radiation will be given off in all directions by a radiating source. Why would water vapor (a radiator) cool the Earth’s surface faster than it already can do without water vapor?? None of your logic makes sense. With GHG present some of the radiation given off by the surface will be absorbed by the GHG and then some of that will return to the surface. With no GHG present NONE returns. How does water vapor enhance radiative cooling of the surface?–

      Above in thread:
      ” Steve Fitzpatrick says:
      July 16, 2015 at 5:51 AM
      … Lower energy photons “promote” molecules to higher rotational or vibrational states;
      these molecules are almost always quickly “quenched” by physical contact with other molecules,
      which just means the photon energy is converted to translational energy of the gas ensemble;
      the energy in the absorbed photon is coverted to heat. ”

      Though, it possible Steve is another one of Doug’s sock puppets. I don’t spend much time, sorting out sock puppets

      It seems if radiant light can be converted into translational energy, then translational energy
      can be converted into photons [particularly in regards to water, as H20 is recognized as not an
      ideal gas [though generally this because it condenses in Earth temp and pressure- but it’s seen as not an
      ideal gas, whereas CO2 is seen an ideal gas].

      I don’t think the radiant energy is converted into translational energy, nor translational energy
      [kinetic energy of gases] is converted into radiant energy.

      I think you need liquids or solids to do
      this [and all gases would have such interaction with liquid or solids].

      But point is not just Steve thinks this, and fair amount of greenhouse believers, thinks this way.
      So, I don’t Doug is deviating much from the believers.

      Or if H20 converted kinetic energy into radiant light, it would be a cooling effect. Whereas H20 converting kinetic via condensation is well known and would involve making radiant energy.

      • Norman says:

        gbaikie

        I read through Steve Fitzpatrick’s post. I believe he is stating that at IR emissions it will be a back and forth situation. O2 and N2 will collide with a CO2 and raise its vibrational energy to a state where it can emit an IR photon or an excited CO2 can collide with an O2 or N2 and convert this energy to randomized heat.

        I do not think this will support Doug’s conclusion.

        If you take the Earth’s surface at average temperature it will emit around 390 W/m^2. If the atmosphere has no GHG in it all this radiation is emitted to space. If you add water vapor to the mix you have the same 390 W/m^2 emitted by the surface but now the H2O molecule will absorb some of this radiation. What happens next, maybe it will collide with an N2 and warm it but then a high energy N2 will hit the non-excited H2O and raise it to a higher vibrational state where it emits an IR photon. The biggest thing is the direction of the emitted radiation from H2O is random. It may go out to space or it may return to the surface. You would have roughly 50% of the energy of the surface returning in the presence of H2O with just a single layer (there is the theory of multiple layers of GHG that make it tough for a photon to get to outer space). Anyway you can see that if you add H2O it can’t cause the surface to cool faster by radiation (evaporation yes, radiation NO). If you have anything that causes some radiation to return, the surface will cool at a slower rate. Does this post make sense to you?

  56. JohnKl says:

    Hi Norman,

    At this very moment I’m drafting this post from Phoenix Arizona and I can assure you Phoenix has received considerably more rain than usual so far this summer. Despite this fact when the Monsoon clouds clear temperatures go back up well over 100 degrees F. A satellite in earth orbit will quickly reach 120 degrees centigrade after only a few moments, radiative balance quickly follows. Higher temperatures during summertime do not result so much from the longer daytime hours as the more direct overhead sunlight resulting from the Earth’s axial tilt toward the sun. You should re-think your position.

    Have a great day!

    • Norman says:

      JohnKl,

      Here is a clear June day in Phoenix of this year.

      http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KPHX/2015/6/20/DailyHistory.html?req_city=Phoenix&req_state=AZ&req_statename=Arizona&reqdb.zip=85001&reqdb.magic=1&reqdb.wmo=99999

      June 20.

      Notice that as long as the incoming solar energy exceeds the outgoing radiant energy the temperature goes up. So the total amount of incoming solar energy will add to the overall energy of the area. Birmingham receives a lot less solar energy during the year because of clouds so it is much cooler than Phoenix even though they receive the same amount of solar energy at the TOA. Only difference is the cloud formation and this is why wet areas are cooler than dry ones. If you could disrupt the cloud formation Birmingham would be as hot as Phoenix (or maybe somewhat less as it takes more energy to heat wet air than dry, enthalpy).

      Have a nice day!

      • JohnKl says:

        Hi Norman,

        Your reasoning fails to an extent. Please note I’m quite aware that clouds reduce solar input and therefore can lower temperatures on the days that the clouds appear. However, regions that have on average higher cloud formation may still have higher temperatures. For example, Ontario California recorded a high temperature of a hundred twenty seven degrees Fahrenheit in the 1974 while the highest temperature ever recorded in Phoenix is a hundred twenty three degrees Fahrenheit. Ontario has higher median cloud cover a 15 to 63 percent while Phoenix has a median cloud cover of 0 to 11 percent. Cloud cover proves only part of the picture and doesn’t resolve the issue.

        Have a great day!

        • Norman says:

          JohnKl

          I like you but I think you have some poor reaoning skills with this post.

          A record temperature at one location has little to do with anything as there can be many reasons why one location has such a record high.

          The argument I am making is one of an overall basis of why wet areas are cooler (in GENERAL NOT SPECIFIC!!) than dry ones. Cloud cover explains this far better than Doug’s arguments. Lower overall solar energy hitting one surface vs another more than can explain it. Air does move about so on a sunny day in some place you might have a cooler temp than somewhere else because colder air is moving in. Local or daily events have lots of reasons and cannot be used to develop long term conditions.

          Thanks for listening.

          Have a nice day!

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Norman,

            We’ve already agreed that more cloud cover will lower temperature on the day and time of such coverage, but it cannot be used as a general rule to apply all circumstances in that many regions with significant cloud coverage can still be plenty hot when the clouds aren’t present. This seems to me perfectly reasonable. As to Doug’s argument consult Doug.

            Thanks and have a great day!

  57. JohnKl says:

    Hi Norman,

    Also consider water vapor (wv) can as it rises from the planet surface convey thermal energy from slower cooling O2 and N2 molecules and other gasses like CO2, CH4 and then emit them to space in the broad range of IR spectrum unique to wv. It can do this at a very low altitude of ~10+ km or near the tropopause.

    Have a great day!

  58. Norman says:

    Hi JohnKl,

    Nice to hear from you again. About water vapor rising and converting thermal energy of non-radiating molecules into IR via collisions…I do not see evidence of this taking place. The wet adiabatic lapse rate is much lower than the dry lapse rate. Totally saturated air has a lapse rate of only 5.5 C/km. The dry rate is 10 C/km. If water vapor had a cooling effect the wet adiabatic would be greater than the dry lapse rate. The water vapor would be acting to cool the other molecules even more than the cooling caused by the energy lost in expanding. You would have a super cooling effect. Since this is not taking place I do not think I can agree with your post. Also the radiation would still go both directions, some to outer space but just as much would return to the Earth’s surface and would act to slow down surface cooling.

    Have a wonderful evening!

    • D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

      Norman wrote: “If water vapor had a cooling effect the wet adiabatic would be greater than the dry lapse rate.”

      Nonsense, Norman. If that were the case then radiative balance with the Sun would be thrown way out, whereas in fact it rarely varies outside the range ±0.4%. Just imagine lowering the surface end of the thermal profile and then making it steeper throughout the troposphere.

      The exact opposite is the case. The thermal profile rotates about a pivoting altitude, becoming lower at the surface end and higher at the tropopause so as to maintain radiative balance as water vapor levels increase.

      It really is time you repeated my study for your own satisfaction, Norman, because empirical evidence supports what I say, not the IPCC garbage about WV warming by about 30 degrees for a mean level just over 1%. How much warming would the IPCC conjecture imply where it’s 4% concentration above a rain forest?

    • JohnKl says:

      Hi Norman,

      Your reasoning appears to fail on a couple of points. First, the lower wet adiabatic lapse rate proves that WV cools (conveys and absorbs energy from) the surface and near surface atmosphere and as it rises transfers energy throughout the troposphere and level temperature!!! Second, convection allows WV to absorb thermal energy from surrounding gas molecules at most only to the extent the WV temperature falls below the surrounding gas molecules it contacts. It tends to level temps not necessarily “SUPERCOOL” as you appear to suggest.

      Have a great day!

      • Norman says:

        JohnKl,

        Your reasoning is opposite of what a lower wet adiabatic rate means. The air cools as it rises because of work done in expanding the gas and would be 10 C/km if dry. The lower rate (caused because of energy released by condensation which warms the rising air) means this air is warmer than the dry air. Both need the same energy to expand but the wet air has added energy via condensation so it cools slower as it rises. If it also was radiatng away energy from the surface it would cool faster than dry adiablatic since it would lose energy by two mechanisms. Energy lost by expansion and energy lost via radiation.

        Have a terrific afternoon in hot Phoenix!

        • gbaikie says:

          It seems if you add energy in the form of mixing the air, it seems one should be able to turn a wet lapse of 5.5 into a lapse rate of 10 C per 1000 meter.

          Assuming one agrees that one alter lapse rate with mixing [updraft, downdraft, and/or wind of some sort], now assume this addition of energy stops being added, and therefore it should return to 5.5 lapse rate.

          I assuming one is standing under this body of air, what is occurring. Is it raining, are clouds forming, is it warming or cooling by any significant amount?

          We had weird weather in LA area last weekend, so first it rained- that is unusual event in LA during the summer, not only did it rain, rained fair amount and for three days and it had lightning and thunder occurring. Friday rain with thunder rain, and Saturday calm and raining, Sunday clear sunny and windy but as late afternoon approached, wind stops, cools, cloud form, and become very warm and muggy, and rains, remained very humid/muggy for hours.
          Now on Sunday, it looked like the forecast was wrong- suppose to rain, and it looked like it was going to clear up, except it was somewhat windy, but then cloud rolled in stopped being windy and become muggy.

          So would guess what happened in afternoon on Sunday would be a wet lapse rate mixed and not being 5.5 C per 1000 meters, but I don’t know how close it was to 10 C per 1000 meter

          • wayne says:

            “We had weird weather in LA area last weekend …”

            Now come on gbaike, are you now complaining? Ordered some rain for y’all out in LA but only OK brand was in stock at the time, unpredicable I know, noisy I know, but did you like it or not? 😉

          • gbaikie says:

            Does rain give our fascist governor less justification for to his water Nazis program?
            Maybe, so that is good.
            Of course small brained tyrants can get no end of help to find other reasons for their wanton oppression.

            But it doesn’t rain in Californian- there is a song about it. And when rains it’s in another season- in which it pours.

            Or we set a new rain record for one of those day, more rain than in 1800s [1820 or something] and it didn’t rain a lot- less than 1/2 inch. So sometimes in summer one get some morning drizzle, but even that is pretty unusual.
            Or we have wet seasons and dry seasons and July is the dry season.

            But as said anything that confound a Nazis, is always good.
            And when the last year imperial rating of a bridge on I-10 freeway is “A” and it washes out, that too has good aspects to it. Though not good for the drivers- they took one for the team.

          • Norman says:

            gbaikie

            Am I understanding your post correctly, you do not approve of the leadership of Jerry Brown? When he ran for President a few years back he was labeled “MoonBeam”

          • gbaikie says:

            Wiki says, Moonbeam may refer to:

            “Moonlight, the light that reaches Earth from the Moon
            Moonbeam, series of five aeroplanes built by Powel Crosley, Jr.
            Moonbeam II, plane flown by aviation pioneer Edwin Moon in 1910
            Moonbeam III or Moonbeam IV, yachts designed by William Fife
            Moon Beams, jazz album by Bill Evans
            “Moonbeam”, a song from Men Without Hats’s album Pop Goes the World
            Moonbeam, Ontario, a township in Canada

            Jerry Brown, governor of California, nicknamed ‘Governor Moonbeam’ by Mike Royko, a Chicago Sun-Times columnist”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonbeam

            It seems the nickname, Moonbeam is unique to one pol, don’t know why the Lefty Mike Royko called Jerry that.

            I always assume the term meant psycho/crazy.
            But I didn’t know that one lefty was insulting another crazy lefty, maybe it was meant to be more of a general disparagement of California, as in Lala land.
            la la land:
            20 Words related to la la land
            los angeles beverly hills city daydream demi dreamer dreamland hot toddy idiot l.a. lovato space codet state of mind the nods usa idealist junkies nirvana nods unreal
            http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=la+la+land

            Also

            20 Words related to Moonbeam

            beam doggie style flashlight glimmer moon beam moonbeams moonlight moonshine moonwalk nayrat rainbows rim job atlanta box cunt fanny gt pussy skygazer vagina
            http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Moonbeam

            I guess Californians just think of Jerry Brown as just crazy, whereas I guess non-Californians may think Jerry is crazy because he is a prominent California politician. My guess is the Dems made him governor because they were just showing off- as in: “we can make someone who no one likes, the Governor of California”.

            Though I don’t know, maybe Mike Royko was complimenting Jerry- maybe they were buddies or something.

            Brown seems a bit like the vice president, Joe Biden.
            Or someone who appears to have consumed far too many drugs.
            Probably, the people who actually voted for him, thought he was harmless.
            But it should be noted that too many people once thought Hitler was harmless.

        • JohnKl says:

          Hi Norman,

          You seem to have failed in addressing my point. Rising WV (H2O) being lighter than air (O2, N2, CO2 etc.) reduces the lapse rate by freeing energy trapped near the surface that would otherwise remain until normal convection and radiation allowed it to slowly rise. Please note WV does not rise because it’s warmer than surrounding air but because the molecule proves lighter than the other main gasses listed above. This process helps to convey and radiate energy upward allowing the air above to warm a little faster reducing the lapse rate. Average sea surface temps fall below land temperatures in similar regions. WV COOLS when it CONDENSES to the liquid phase, otherwise it remains in the gas phase! (Hint: the gas phase is a higher energy phase than liquid). Will you please clarify, perhaps I’m missing something?

          Have a great day!

          P.S. WV looses energy FASTER than the other main atmospheric gas molecules because it radiates higher energy IR over a broader spectrum, in addition to cooling from gas expansion. However, some of the energy emitted by WV gets re-absorbed by other WV molecules and other gas compounds with similar absorption spectra. This helps retain thermal energy in the lower troposphere until finally irradiated away just above the tropopause in spectra unique to WV.

      • Ball4 says:

        Norman – The 10C/km considers the process undergone by the gas to be both at the same temperature AND same pressure as that of the surroundings. So no work is done. You are right about any condensation (to moisture hence wet) releases LH and adds energy so the rate of T decrease reduces from 10C/km in reality.

        • Norman says:

          Ball4 in an adiabatic process no energy is exchanged with the environment. The gas cools because internal energy is used to expand against the surrounding air and the gas ends up with less overall energy. They did an experiment a long time ago with a compressed gas. If you release it into a vacuum chamber the gas does not cool. If you release compressed gas in atmosphere it cools since it will expand until its pressure is equal to the surrounding gas and moving the other air around it requires real work. Anytime you move a mass some work must be expended.

          Here is a link for you that explains the process. Thanks.

          http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter6/adiab_cool.html

          • Norman says:

            Ball4

            Here is another link that describes the process.

            http://www.luc.edu/faculty/dslavsk/courses/phys478/classnotes/rising-air.pdf

          • Doug Cotton says:

            You need to discuss entropy, not “work” which is inappropriate.

          • Ball4 says:

            Norman – You were writing 12:08pm about the 10C/km (rounded) DALR. Neither of those links is discussing the DALR, they are discussing the ELR (in tropics avg.s 6.5C/km) because they are allowing work to be done.

            ——

            Doug – The 10C/km Norman wrote about considers no change in entropy and no change in work + or -, the derivation considers the process acting on the air is always at the same temperature of surroundings and the same pressure of surroundings as z increases, this was worked out by Poisson in the 1890s. Nothing new. Entropy held constant in the process.

    • JohnKl says:

      Hi Norman,

      To reiterate any WV cooling via convection will result merely from temperature differentials if WV proves cooler than surrounding air. This must be a marginal transaction, not one of SUPER COOLING! Oh, my God we’ve discovered another climate disaster (guffaw!).

      Have a great day!

  59. D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

    Norman asked: “Why would water vapor (a radiator) cool the Earth’s surface faster than it already can do without water vapor?”

    Well my study shows higher levels of water vapor are associated with lower temperatures, and the correct physics explaining why is in my paper Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures.

    There are also other comments of mine above on this subject.

    Where’s your own personal study, Norman – like mine but showing the opposite result? Mine took less than a day’s work. You’re one who likes empirical evidence, so go and check the data in my study – it’s all in detail in the above linked paper and you could check it on-line at the cited website.

    • D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

      And just to clarify, Norman, some very basic physics: radiation between two objects at different temperatures always has a temperature leveling effect. So if we have clouds at different altitudes, or just water vapor at different altitudes, then the radiation between these water vapor molecules and suspended water droplets at different altitudes (and between CO2 molecules etc) will have a temperature leveling effect, and that’s why the moist gradient is less steep, not because of latent heat release. Entropy maximization establishes (or tries to establish) the dry temperature gradient, and then inter-molecular radiation reduces the magnitude of that gradient until an overall equilibrium (“environmental”) gradient is established and maintained.

      • gbaikie says:

        So you have a 1 billion ton cloud meeting another 1 billion ton cloud in a bar.

        — So if we have clouds at different altitudes, or just water vapor at different altitudes, then the radiation between these water vapor molecules and suspended water droplets at different altitudes (and between CO2 molecules etc) will have a temperature leveling effect, and that’s why the moist gradient is less steep, not because of latent heat release.–

        The first cloud is 1 km higher and it’s minus 10 C and the other cloud is 10 C. They do a “temperature leveling effect”
        and become 5 C.
        What did the two clouds do?

        • Doug Cotton says:

          The same as two parallel metal plates at different temperatures. You can read about it in a physics textbook.

  60. Norman says:

    Doug Cotton,

    “[13] The in situ measurements of Venera 9 to 11 and the
    four Pioneer Venus descent probes reviewed by Seiff [1983]
    agree with each other within approximately 12 K at the
    same pressure level in the atmosphere below the clouds.
    The temperature increases toward the surface close to the
    adiabatic gradient. Diurnal variations are less than 1 K and
    latitudinal variations are less than 5 K in the data from the
    Pioneer Venus probes.”

    From this paper:
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JE003118/pdf

    It may vary 5 C from equator to pole but the dinural variation is less than 1 K. Supply another source before you keep using this in your posts please. Thanks!

  61. Doug Cotton says:

    You are talking about diurnal variations between the means but if you only want to accept 1 degree, so what? Any location on the equator must cool during 4 months of darkness. I don’t care if it’s 1 degree or 5 degrees. What you can’t explain is how does it get the required thermal energy to warm back up by 1 degree or 5 degrees or whatever the next Venus day?

    Heat creep supplies the required thermal energy to all planetary surfaces, crusts, mantles and cores.

    I’m betting $5,000 you can’t prove the Second Law of Thermodynamics wrong, because that is the physics that enables us to deduce that heat creep happens. Your problem is that you don’t understand entropy and how and when it is maximized.

    Roy Spencer has the same problem.

  62. Norman says:

    JohnKl

    Not sure where this post will land, the webpage is in a strange mode where all posts are sorted by time of post and not based upon the “reply” tab.

    Anyway you might want to understand that moist air is not pure water vapor. In fact saturated air of the tropics only has about 20 grams of water vapor per kilogram of air. That is about 2% of the air’s mass.
    http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~joel/g266_s10/lecture_notes/chapt03/oh10_3_01/oh10_3_01.html

    I am linking you to an actual air density calculator. You can play with different values and see how they relate to air densities.
    http://physics.holsoft.nl/physics/ocmain.htm

    Please note (using the calculator)
    At 20 C, air at 100% R.H. will have a density of 1.194 kg/m^3 (I am leaving the air pressure at one atmosphere)
    At 20 C, totally dry air has a density of 1.205 kg/m^3

    If you now change the temp of the dry air from 20 to 23 C the density of this air is less than the totally saturated air at 20 C. When you consider that the Earth’s surface gets very warm in direct sunlight depending upon the surface you can see that it really is temperature that is the major player in causing air to rise. I am sure the greater density difference the faster the air will move up.

    If the moist air is a little cooler than the dry air (it takes more energy to heat moist air because of the water has a higher heat capacity than air)
    Look at the second graph on this page. It has enthalpy of different types of air. Moist air has a lot more energy than dry air. It takes more energy to warm similar mass of wet air vs dry air.
    https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/Applied/Chapt.7_11/Chapter10b.html

    • JohnKl says:

      Thank you for the reply Norman. There may exist a misunderstanding. My post simply concerned movement of WV not air in general. Certainly as you suggest in other posts as WV rises and expands it will COOL and it will do so in part by conveying energy to gasses it comes in contact with as well as receive energy from warmer gasses expanding into it. Warm air will certain rise faster than cool air and WV will rise no matter what due to relative mass. Your link from a previous post explaining how expanding gas will not cool in a vacuum but will when expanding into other gasses makes perfect sense. However, motion proves relative. Light gasses can often rise because heavier gasses push them out of the way. In other words, heavier gasses expand and push the lighter gasses upward. Energy can be conveyed in different directions. WV can rise into the lower Stratosphere just above the Tropopause. If WV simply lost energy in it’s ascent it would likely condense or crystalize far before reaching that level. Eventually, as some of it reaches apex of ascent just above the Tropopause much of it’s energy has been conveyed or radiated away. Thanks and …

      Have a great day!

      P.S. – Just a Newtonian thought. Force and energy depend on MASS. A larger object ( or gas molecule ) can convey greater energy to a lighter molecule moving at greater velocity if the mass proves sufficient.

  63. Norman says:

    Ball4,

    Here are a couple more links on lapse rates. The articles are quite clear as to why expanding air masses cool. It is work required to expand against the surrounding air. It applies to the DALR as well as the ELR all the same reason. Since no heat is entering or leaving an adiabatic process, what do you believe causes a dry air mass to cool as it rises?

    http://littleshop.physics.colostate.edu/tenthings/ExpansionCooling.pdf

    This statement from another link: “This can be stated in this simple formula: Q = T + W. The internal energy (heat content) Q of an air parcel subject to movement within the atmosphere may be changed, either by a change in temperature or by doing work on its surroundings. When the parcel rises, its density decreases as the parcel expands (does work on its surroundings); conversely, a downward moving parcel is compressed (increases its density) and warmed. (Expansion reduces pressure; contraction increases P.) (One way to look at this: less dense gas has its particles further apart, so the number exerting impacts per unit area decreases [lowering pressure]; contraction pushes particles closer so as to increase impacts (raising pressure].) If the change in density is adiabatic (no energy added or removed, i.e., Q = 0; if there is heat exchange one outcome could be a constant temperature – the isothermal case), then expansion is accompanied by cooling (W is +; T is -) whereas contraction (compression) involves warming (W is -; T is +). This is a fundamental property of the thermodynamics of gases and is a key concept in dealing with air parcels and masses since the general response of rising or falling air is always adiabatic.”

    http://fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect14/Sect14_1b.html

    • Doug Cotton says:

      “The internal energy (heat content) Q of an air parcel subject to movement within the atmosphere may be changed, either by a change in temperature or by doing work on its surroundings”

      Nope. Those are not the only ways.

      Read http://climate-change-theory.com and you should then be able to explain the very important third way – of which you are unaware.

    • Doug Cotton says:

      Suppose you have a horizontal tube with a removable division in the middle. Air in one half is cooler but more compressed than in the other half. Remove the partition. The cooler air will expand, partially entering the other half, and yet ending up warmer.

    • Doug Cotton says:

      Norman asks: Since no heat is entering or leaving an adiabatic process, what do you believe causes a dry air mass to cool as it rises?

      Nothing happens adiabatically in an isolated system unless entropy can increase. When entropy reaches a maximum all further transfers of energy or mass across any internal boundary cease.

      Because the molecules in any rising air are gaining molecular gravitational potential energy, they will lose some kinetic energy and thus cool.

      Thermodynamic equilibrium is attained when that state of maximum entropy is reached. At that time, molecules moving upwards between collisions will lose exactly the amount of kinetic energy as they gain in gravitational potential energy.

      If we ignore intermolecular radiation (and so have dry air, or better still pure argon) then the state of thermodynamic equilibrium has a temperature gradient -g/cp where cp is the specific heat of the gas.

      If you now add more thermal (kinetic) energy at the top or the bottom of, say, a tall vertical sealed cylinder of gas in this state of thermodynamic equilibrium, you will get heat transfers away from that new source of kinetic energy, until a new, warmer state of thermodynamic equilibrium is attained with the same -g/cp temperature gradient.

      When the new thermal energy is added at the top, that’s when we get “heat creep” which is downward diffusion and natural convective heat transfer, not necessarily involving detectable air movement on a macro scale.

    • Ball4 says:

      Norman 10:10pm: “Since no heat is entering or leaving an adiabatic process, what do you believe causes a dry air mass to cool as it rises?”

      Ideally believe PV=nRT or P=density*R*T. Here P=Ps, T=Ts subscript s meaning surroundings. Your 1st link uses the results, does not discuss the derivation.

      The process considered for DALR needs the temperature the same as the surroundings (thus no thermal energy exchange) AND pressure same as surroundings (thus no work energy exchange). This last one comes from the hydrostatic condition.

      This is simply stated in your second link: “(no energy added or removed)” & “if no energy exchange with surroundings”. This includes thermal energy and work energy when one goes thru the detail derivation.

      You should look up the detail derivation in a good text Norman since you seem interested and possibly capable to follow the math. Starts with Poisson’s relation between pressure and temperature in any ideal process: P^(1-gamma/gamma)*T = constant where gamma=Cp/Cv.

      Here, for an atm. column, P and T are functions of z height, so Poisson differentiated this function w.r.t. z subject to the 2 considerations above to find dT/dz.

      Whenever the ELR, a real not ideal process, is discussed, both T and P are allowed to be different than surroundings as z increases.

      —-

      NB: Heat doesn’t exist in nature Norman, only in vocabulary. One has to be careful with vocabulary to match it against nature.

    • Ball4 says:

      Doug 5:03am: “Thermodynamic equilibrium is attained when that state of maximum entropy is reached.”

      Agreed.

      “..the state of thermodynamic equilibrium has a temperature gradient -g/cp..”

      Disagree.

      Doug:

      Compute a real air column entropy from your dT/dz = -g/Cp. Find a number. I can find a higher entropy number with a different profile.

      Poisson found an even higher entropy number when he did that having the profile T=To*(P/Po)^R/Cp. You will too. This has since been proven mathematically as THE highest entropy number and no other profile can possibly produce a higher entropy. So what does that mean?

      As you write: Thermodynamic equilibrium is attained when that state of maximum entropy is reached with Poisson’s profile….but with the profile T=To*(P/Po)^R/Cp since it produces a higher entropy number than your -g/Cp.

      Run the entropy numbers for a m^2 column of real, standard air say from 1000mb up to 200mb. Check it out.

    • jerry l krause says:

      Hi Norman,

      You asked: “Since no heat is entering or leaving an adiabatic process, what do you believe causes a dry air mass to cool as it rises?”

      You know the traditional expansion reasoning. However, it seems not to satisfy you as it never has satisfied me. Too much reasoning involved. Try the following:

      1. Elzevirs, the publishers of Galileo’s Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences, wrote (as translated by Crew and de Salvio) that a common saying was: intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition. What is this thing we call temperature?
      2. Before we accurately define temperature, we need to consider what Richard Feynman taught physics students at Caltech. (Feynman Lectures On Physics) “If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the next generation of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words? I believe it is the atomic hypothesis (or the atomic fact, or whatever you wish to call it) that all things are made of atoms—little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another. In that one sentence, you will see, there is an enormous amount of information about the world, if just a little imagination and thinking are applied.”
      3. On page 39-6 Feynman began to teach the students about Temperature and kinetic energy. On pages 39-9&10 he stated: “The mean kinetic energy is a property only of the ‘temperature.’ Being a property of the ‘temperature,’ and not of the gas, we can use it as a definition of the temperature. The mean kinetic energy of a molecule is thus some function of the temperature. But who is to tell us what scale to use for the temperature? We may arbitrarily define the scale of temperature so that the mean energy is linearly proportional to the temperature. The best way to do it would be to call the mean energy itself ‘the temperature.’ That would be the simplest possible function. Unfortunately, the scale of temperature has been chosen differently, so instead of calling it temperature directly we use a constant conversion factor between the energy of a molecule and a degree of absolute temperature called a degree Kelvin. The constant of proportionality is k = 1.38 X 10-23 joule for every degree Kelvin. So if T is absolute temperature, our definition says that the mean molecular kinetic energy is 3/2 kT.”
      4. The ideal gas law suggests each atom or molecule is moving independently of each other. Hence, when I consider little particles that move around in perpetual motion moving around in the gravitational field of a planet I must consider their behavior is like that of a baseball I throw upward, away from the planet’s center of mass. I know (see) that the motion of the ball is decelerated by the action of gravity upon it, hence the ball’s kinetic energy is being converted into gravitational potential energy (conservation of energy) as it rises. In the same way, a little particle that moves away from the planet’s center of mass has its kinetic energy converted into gravitational potential energy and it ‘cools.’

      I do not know if this will answer your question better than the traditional explanation of why a adiabatic rising mass of atmosphere cools. I only know it better satisfies me.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      • Norman says:

        For Both jerry l krause and Ball4,

        You can actually do a real test to show that air cools when it expands (jerry it will do it even if it is not rising, the only item required is expansion against air pressure which requires work). I already told Doug Cotton to try this but he ignores it, he is hopeless, with you maybe hope.

        Take a can of computer duster. It is compressed gas. Let it out and feel the can cool and take a thermometer and put it in the path of the expanding air (which is not rising at all in a gravity field) and the temperature drops drastically!

        At my workplace we have air pumps that pump sump pits. If there is some moisture in the air-line you get frost forming on the metal exhaust muffler even in summer with 90F temperature. Expanding gas in an atmopshere will cool. Do the test and get back to me with your results. You will see great cooling as the expanding gas is released to expand. It does work in moving the sourrounding air molecules. Going back to good old Newton. If you have a mass and you move it, it requires force to change its direction. W=FS. So if you have to move air molecules a distance it requires work to do this. The gas molecules of the expanding gas are doing the work and losing energy in the process and getting colder than the surrounding air. If you expand compressed air in an evacuated chamber it does not cool down, it is not doing any work in filling the volume and it can’t push the sides of the container outward (which would require work). Hope you can understand this as it is a proven fact that you can easily experiment with.

        • jerry l krause says:

          Hi Norman,

          I did not intend to imply that the traditional explanation of expansion was wrong. As I look back at your discussions, I sorry I got involved in a debate about words.

          Have a good day, Jerry

      • Ball4 says:

        Norman 3:00pm – Again, all the tests you describe, and any that I could do, are all real world tests, comparable to the ELR where T and P are not considered to be held same with surroundings as in the DALR process Poisson considered.

        By the way Norman, what color gas do you see in the exhaust when you used the computer duster? Same as say in the exhaust when a CO2 fire extinguisher is used? What color is the metal exhaust muffler gas on those 90F say 85% humid days?

        • Norman says:

          Ball4

          The color of the gas is colorless, clear gas. Same as with the muffler gas. Why do you ask?

          • Norman says:

            Ball4,

            The Carbon Dioxide in an extinguisher is very dry. The white is a combination of frozen water vapor and some dry ice. The gas within is at room temperature but it cools as it expands. The question is why it does this. If you took a CO2 extinguisher and opened it in a vacuum chamber it would not cool so much. It has NOTHING whatever to do with losing energy in moving against a gravity field as Doug and others for some odd reason believe (not based upon anything except their own misunderstanding of physics).

            http://www.uregina.ca/hr/hse/assets/docs/pdf/Emergency-Management/The-ABCs-of-Fire-Extinguishers.pdf

            http://www.safefiredirect.co.uk/Page/32/carbon-dioxide-(co2)-fire-extinguisher.aspx

          • gbaikie says:

            — Norman says:
            July 24, 2015 at 4:54 AM

            Ball4,

            The Carbon Dioxide in an extinguisher is very dry. The white is a combination of frozen water vapor and some dry ice. The gas within is at room temperature but it cools as it expands. The question is why it does this. If you took a CO2 extinguisher and opened it in a vacuum chamber it would not cool so much.–

            The CO2 would not cool the air [you removed the air being in a vacuum] but the CO2 would be cold. In vacuum the CO2 would be more explosive [it would have more rocket power], but if filled the vacuum chamber with CO2, you would have very cold CO2. If in a pressure suit in chamber, it could freeze you to death. The cold CO2 would not effect you if it were at low pressure [say 1/10th of Atm of this CO2, but if had enough CO2 or big enough chamber, and got 1 atm of CO2 gas, that would be very cold.

          • Norman says:

            gbaikie

            Joule performed this experiment long ago. The gas does not change temperature (if ideal and CO2 is close to an ideal gas).

            http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/JouleExperimentOnFreeExpansion/

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas

            The temperature would be about the same as the initial temp of the gas. If the fire extinguisher was at room temp then opening the nozzle into a vacuum would keep the gas temp about the same, not cooling effect.

          • gbaikie says:

            — Norman says:
            July 25, 2015 at 1:04 AM

            gbaikie

            Joule performed this experiment long ago. The gas does not change temperature (if ideal and CO2 is close to an ideal gas).

            http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/JouleExperimentOnFreeExpansion/

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas

            The temperature would be about the same as the initial temp of the gas. If the fire extinguisher was at room temp then opening the nozzle into a vacuum would keep the gas temp about the same, not cooling effect.–

            You changing it’s density, volume, and pressure, it’s average velocity could remain the same.
            How cool do imagine CO2 at average velocity of say 200 m/s
            in one atm is?
            Air at 20 C has average velocity about 500 m/s- [ btw, CO2 as denser molecule would be have lower average velocity than N2 and O2- as does argon. So anyhow, the CO2 would be explosive and have rocket power- but it left at say 200 m/s, that fits that description, but at average velocity of 200 m/s it’s very cold. And as pressure increase in vacuum chamber, it will be so cold that the CO2 will form into ice [which would be a warming effect, btw. But say -140 C at 1 atm is death. Much different than low pressure at Mars at -140 C].
            Granted I am just guessing, I don’t know what average velocity of the CO2 would be. But if the CO2 cools air, it’s slowing the average velocity of air- that why it cools air.

        • Ball4 says:

          Ok, clear. Then the process acting with the computer duster was with dry air, same meaning as DALR, no moisture condensed. I do think they put dry air in there on purpose. The room air and can air were dry enough.

          Ever see the color of the gas around a CO2 fire extinguisher blasting away? And what about your exhaust muffler?

          • Norman says:

            Ball4

            Maybe you should try the test yourself and you can see what you get. With the computer duster can if you have one.

          • Ball4 says:

            Norman – What I was looking for is the CO2 fog coming out, many people think of that as the CO2 but it is really the condensation of the water vapor.

    • wayne says:

      Doug Cotton says:

      “… Because the molecules in any rising air are gaining molecular gravitational potential energy, they will lose some kinetic energy and thus cool. …”

      jerry l krause says:

      “…. I know (see) that the motion of the ball is decelerated by the action of gravity upon it, hence the ball’s kinetic energy is being converted into gravitational potential energy (conservation of energy) as it rises. In the same way, a little particle that moves away from the planet’s center of mass has its kinetic energy converted into gravitational potential energy and it ‘cools.’ …”a

      No, neither of you are even close to correct, both of you speak of kinetic energy but it is the wrong type of kinetic energy. Let me try to explain from a different direction. Are you able to comprehend vector math and concepts? Know what random motion is (molecular) and what motion is when not random (bulk)?

      The positive potential energy that is gained in that example is all in an upward component even on each molecule, lets label it +z. This action is all in that one vector component z, upward, and is a bulk energy exchange on the bulk mass’s altitude going upward which is not randomized, and that is required for thermal temperature effects (kinetic theory). But that potential energy is not random which would be required to affect the temperature (kinetic energy, the velocity of individual molecules). And not only that, if it were ‘g’ gravity via potential energy causing the cooling (which it is not), but if it were, the ‘g’ acceleration would have to always spookily “know” at a distance the direction of some molecule’s velocity so it could oppose it, and slow each molecule, and cool that portion of air rising. Don’t you see how convoluted your statements are above. You are both mixing bulk effects (kinetic energy) with random molecular effects (also called kinetic energy), usually a bad idea, one is randomized vectors, the other is not.

      Also you both seem to not quite understand exactly what “temperature” is in relation to the random molecular motion of atoms or molecules in a gas. In order for a gas to be defined to be in LTE (local thermal equilibrium, careful, not related to term ‘thermal equilibrium’) and an accurate temperature even exists, what you are measuring when you state a mean rms velocity is that velocities relation to some nearby central point where the sum of the angular momentum of all considered molecules is a null vector. That is the local frame of reference origin at that point. If a volume of air is rising and gaining bulk potential energy then that ‘sum of angular momentum null vector’ is still the null vector in relation to that local frame of reference of that central null point, so the temperature cannot change at all by some bulk movement even if there is a bulk transfer of bulk kinetic energy to bulk potential energy, or something else, like the velocity of wind changing. Not sure if either of you can fathom what I just spoke to you but it is so and would help you if you could concentrate on that until understood.

      Norman has it correct, it is the work against the pressure of surrounding gas that causes the cooling. Just raising/lowering air vertically against gravity, which does give it’s bulk mass more/less potential energy, never affects temperature, either way.

      • gbaikie says:

        –Doug Cotton says:

        “… Because the molecules in any rising air are gaining molecular gravitational potential energy, they will lose some kinetic energy and thus cool. …”

        jerry l krause says:

        “…. I know (see) that the motion of the ball is decelerated by the action of gravity upon it, hence the ball’s kinetic energy is being converted into gravitational potential energy (conservation of energy) as it rises. In the same way, a little particle that moves away from the planet’s center of mass has its kinetic energy converted into gravitational potential energy and it ‘cools.’ …”a

        No, neither of you are even close to correct, both of you speak of kinetic energy but it is the wrong type of kinetic energy. Let me try to explain from a different direction. Are you able to comprehend vector math and concepts? Know what random motion is (molecular) and what motion is when not random (bulk)?–

        Motion not random would actual movement of air- wind.
        So a glider, remains aloft due to the not random motion of air- updrafts, otherwise it could not gain altitude.
        Or glider is a heavier than air vehicle, and needs the upward force of wind to keep it up. Whereas lighter than air vehicle such a hot air balloon, does not need updraft to remain in the air.
        So a glider is lifted with an airplane, and without updrafts, once released from the airplane, it needs to constantly head downward towards the ground, but by using updrafts a glider could rise higher than the airplane originally lifted it to.
        Now it’s the random motion of molecules that keeps a balloon in the air. It’s volume is lighter than the volume of air that the balloon displaces- it floats, it’s buoyant- just a boat displaces a greater weight of water, in order to float.
        And with random motion of molecules, most of gas molecules aren’t going anywhere- they are like pool table with hundreds of pool balls zipping around on it, and wind [or bulk motion] would be like moving the entire pool table.

  64. Doug Cotton says:

    Mike M

    I have replied to your nonsense here.

  65. Doug Cotton says:

    Ball4

    You use an inapplicable equation for entropy in that it has no term for variations in entropy caused by variations in molecular gravitational potential energy. Others can see I’m right from, for example, this article where we read: In thermodynamics, certain forces, such as gravity, are typically disregarded when formulating expressions for potentials. For example, while all the working fluid in a steam engine may have higher energy due to gravity while sitting on top of Mount Everest than it would at the bottom of the Mariana Trench, the gravitational potential energy term in the formula for the internal energy would usually be ignored because changes in gravitational potential within the engine during operation would be negligible.”

    In the troposphere we are not talking about an “engine” confined to a small volume.

    So next time read all my comments and my paper before you even contemplate “taking me on” Mr Anonymous Ball4. You know it’s all at http://climate-change-theory.com

    • Massimo PORZIO says:

      Hi Doug,
      For what it’s worth, I fully agree with you.
      It seems to me that many here believes that since the exchange of energy between contiguous molecules is very low and for that negligible, it was negligible also when we are looking for a column of myriads those little molecules piled up together.

      Have a great day.

      Massimo

    • Ball4 says:

      Doug – I can make the PE in the steam engine top of Mt. Everest equal to the PE bottom of Mariana Trench, in fact both can equal 0, in a flash, just by redefining its reference level. That should bother you. Yet entropy always increases in real processes.

      I would rather spend time reading another J. Willard Gibbs paper than read any of yours again; yours contain much speculation with very few tests that Gibbs, Maxwell and Clausius et. al. relied on and performed profusely. The one sort of “test” you did looking at meteorological records was done with faulty calculations where I pinpointed the faults for you.

      I am trying to be helpful, use more testing, get a lab like M. Faraday, use accurate calculations as shown in prior work, readily available to anyone.

      • Doug Cotton says:

        No, Ball4, you can’t change your reference altitude for gravitational PE values in an isolated system without getting meaningless results. When applied correctly, and we equate PE loss with KE gain, we get

        m.g.dH = m.Cp.dT
        which gives the “dry” temperature gradient
        dT/dH=-g/Cp
        – a meaningful result.

        My hypothesis is backed up by copious evidence, from the planetary temperature data to the experiments with centrifugal force and vortex tubes, to the study showing water vapor cools rather than warms, and more.

        The “tests” that Clausius relied on were typically in a lab at roughly constant altitude of course. The Clausius statement is merely a corollary of the Second Law which, in a gravitational field, applies only in a horizontal plane, because the entropy calculations ignore gravity.

        You have a lot to learn, yet, it seems, Ball4. I suggest you read my paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” more carefully next time. Without that knowledge you have no valid explanation for the warming of planetary surfaces in the sunlit period.

        • Bart says:

          “which gives the “dry” temperature gradient
          dT/dH=-g/Cp”

          So, you integrate that differential equations, and you get the solution

          T = T_ERL + k*(H_ERL – H)

          where

          H_ERL = the effective radiating height
          T_ERL = temperature at the effective radiating height
          k = g/Cp is the dry adiabatic lapse rate

          At the surface height

          T_Surf = T_ERL + k*(H_ERL – H_SURF)

          So, the conjecture that added CO2 produces heating is basically saying that H_ERL increases while everything else remains nominally the same, leading to a general increase of T_Surf.

          But, this is the dry adiabatic lapse rate, and so is only an upper bound. Water vapor results in a reduction in k (producing the “moist adiabatic lapse rate), and I would think increased CO2 should do the same. As best I understand it at this time, they’ve worked out that the simultaneous change in k and H_ERL results in maximum heating at the troposphere, the “tropospheric hot spot”, which nobody has observed.

          We can generally say that

          dT_Surf = dT_ERL + H_ERL*dk +k*dH_ERL

          AFAIK, we could easily have the case that, in the current system configuration, dT_ERL = 0 and (H_ERL*dk + k*dH_ERL) = 0, for a net change of zero. As far as I can tell, this is basically what has actually been observed.

          Anyway, the point I am trying to make here is that the lapse rate alone does not tell the whole story – you have to integrate it, and you then must determine what happens with the boundary conditions to influence the overall temperature profile. So, saying that the dry adiabatic lapse rate is a constant does not disprove GHE heating of the surface.

        • Norman says:

          Doug Cotton,

          In your study: “to the study showing water vapor cools rather than warms, and more.”

          Did you ever once consider what effect moist areas have on cloud formation and how the resulting clouds will greatly lower the solar radiation input to the surface hence lowering the surface tempearture of moist areas as compared to dry ones? I have shown you and demonstrated this effect. Because you ignore reality does not mean it is ignored. It just means you are too dense to learn anything and just repeat things over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over….. with no ability to learn even when pointed in the right direction.

          I do not think you can learn anything. The only purpose for responding to your complete nonsense is because you can for some reason convince others of your junk science. We already have a scientific illiterate society without you adding to the problem and acting like you know something.

          Ball4, Tim Folkerts, Curt Wilson, wayne have all tried to help you see the flaws in your thinking but you can’t learn.

          • mpainter says:

            Norman, you say

            ” Did you ever consider what effect moist areas have on cloud formation and how the resulting clouds will greatly lower the solar radiation input to the surface hence lowering the surface temperature…”

            ####

            All very true, Norman, but you left out a few steps between surface moisture and cloud formation:

            greater surface moisture —> more H2O vapor (enhanced greenhouse effect)—>more convection—> increased cloud coverage/albedo—> lower surface temperature

            Note how the enhanced GHE leads to lower surface temperature.

            🙂

          • Norman says:

            mpainter,

            I believe that is what Roy Spencer believes happens and why the CAGW crowd may not be correct since it is very possible that increased surface temperatures will produce more thick low clouds which will act to then have an overall cooling effect on the surface, a negative feedback.

      • Ball4 says:

        Doug – “..dT/dH=-g/Cp – a meaningful result. My hypothesis is backed up by copious evidence,..

        Again, show your copious evidence test results, can’t find them in your paper. Under what assumptions did you (actually Poisson) find this result?

        “..from the planetary temperature data…”

        No planet with any atm. shows the above result. Show the probe test data.

        “..the study showing water vapor cools rather than warms..”

        Show your data using the corrected calculations from the cite I provided long ago. Dr. Spencer’s real world test data shows the opposite result linked below, confirming the correct calculations I pinpointed for you, & ESRL data, and similar tests I’ve run, the black line trends down with added precipitable water in the column from the added cirrus, you say it should trend up (additional cooling with added water):

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/

        This is helpful science Doug, you reject it only for your own political reasons.

        • Bart says:

          He’s right, insofar as that is the dry adiabatic lapse rate. But, he hasn’t made the next step forward. See comment above.

        • Ball4 says:

          Bart – Doug was trying to have us believe the DALR has been measured on all planets, yet it is ideal, a constant entropy process (isentropic) so cannot possibly be observed in nature. DALR is a useful approx. given the derivation assumptions Poisson made as is PV=nRT, however integrating DALR is not going to find or disprove a “hot spot” as DALR is not possible in nature.

          • Bart says:

            What I was trying to point out is that, Doug has an even more basic problem than that.

            Say he were right, and the lapse rate, wet, dry, adiabatic or whatever, were a constant completely independent of, well, anything. It still doesn’t tell you that the temperature profile does not depend on GHGs.

            The lapse rate is a rate. To solve for the temperature profile, you have to have boundary conditions. And, those boundary conditions depend on atmospheric constitution.

            It’s like saying, you can’t have traveled from Boston to Phoenix because you were only going 20 miles an hour. It does not follow from just the measure of velocity. You’ve also got to specify a time interval.

            For the lapse rate, you’ve got to specify the height of the ERL. And, if it changes based on atmospheric constitution, then temperature at the surface will be dependent on atmospheric constitution.

          • Bart says:

            Maybe my point is inapposite. Probably, you all understand this perfectly well, and maybe you are arguing over the existence of a tropospheric hotspot or something.

            But, I keep seeing people saying “here is my formula for the lapse rate, it is independent of GHG concentration, therefore AGW is disproved,” and I want to shout, “no, no, that is not enough to disprove it!”

          • Ball4 says:

            Bart – The hot spot comes from the CMIP5 type models if I understand correctly, and is at least more intensive than observed. For me, with little knowledge of CMIP5 stuff, it seems the models are not able to disperse this energy like the real atmosphere can do. I guess that is from the heuristics the models are forced to use. The chaos modeling molecule by molecule from first principles being far beyond current computer ability. I expect with $ the heuristics will reduce over time and the efficiency of the dispersal improved.

            Think we agree in general. Need a slope and intercept. Both are pretty well done these days from RTM, just not able to go more than 5 days usefully into the future. Meaning a sounding rocket thermometer test profile can be matched very close by coincident RTM analysis.

            Doug has yet to be assimilated by RTM, but the Borg might yet get him, resistance is futile.

          • Doug Cotton says:

            Roy, Ball4 and silent readers:

            My hypothesis can be used successfully to explain the temperatures and the necessary energy transfers in the 350Km high troposphere of the planet Uranus, as well as what has been observed on all planets and moons.

            The James Hansen-cum-IPCC hypothesis of radiative forcing cannot do so for the simple reason that there’s no solar radiation reaching down into the lower (nominal) troposphere of Uranus and no surface at the base thereof anyway. Yet it’s around 320K down there, compared with the planet’s radiating temperature that is colder than 60K and found around the methane layer close to the top of the troposphere where most of the absorbing of less than 4W/m^2 of incident solar radiation takes place.

            If your hypothesis doesn’t work at least throughout our Solar System, and is proven wrong for even just one planet, then it is wrong and you and the IPCC need to come to grips with this fact. My hypothesis does work and it is radically different – in a wholly different paradigm – and it is the correct one, supported by copious evidence.

          • Doug Cotton says:

            I have no “problem” what-so-ever thank you young Bart. I’ve been teaching physics to arrogant students like you for about 50 years, so I know your type.

            You have the problem. You don’t even realize that you can’t add back radiation flux to solar flux and determine a planet’s surface temperature by bunging the total into Stefan-Boltzmann on-line calculators. Even Roy realizes there’s something wrong with that: he just doesn’t realize that’s what the energy diagrams imply.

            The Sun cannot supply sufficient thermal energy via its direct radiation into the surfaces of a planet such as Earth and Venus to explain (with S-B calculations) the observed temperatures.

            So called “lapse rates” are not the results of some hot surface just sending up gas that then cools as fast as it can as it supposedly rises all the way to the tropopause but never supposedly falls and warms. They even claim that upward and downward winds act the same as natural convection in forming the temperature gradient, and that’s easily refuted with correct physics.

            The temperature gradient forms in any force field (like gravity or centrifugal force) because we can deduce from the most profound law of all in physics (the Law of Entropy – see http://entropylaw.com ) that it is the state of maximum entropy.

            IR-active gases (such as water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane) do affect the temperature gradient because they radiate to other identical molecules at different altitudes and this has a temperature leveling effect. You know this full-well because you know the moist rate is less steep. The incorrect “explanation” using latent heat can be shown to be wrong with physics.

            The Earth-atmosphere system could not possibly maintain radiative balance with the Sun if increasing water vapor were to raise the surface temperature whilst at the same time making the temperature gradient less steep.

            The IPCC claim which implies that a mean of just over 1% of water vapor does most of 30 degrees of warming is ludicrous. How much hotter would a rain forest be due to there being 4% water vapor above it?

            You people just don’t think.

          • mpainter says:

            Doug Cotton says

            “The Earth-atmosphere system could not possibly maintain radiative balance with the sun if increasing water vapor were to raise the surface temperature whilst at the same time making the temperature gradient less steep.

            The IPCC claim which implies that a mean of just over 1% of water vapor does most of 30 degrees of warming is ludicrous. How much hotter would a rain forest be due to there being 4% water vapor above it.”

            Here Doug makes a cogent point. Anyone care to try refuting this? Because my view is that the above considerations justifies the labeling of AGW as a “perpetual motion machine”.

            Ball4?.. Bart?…Norman?…Anyone?

            I would like to see what might be said from the contrary viewpoint.

          • Ball4 says:

            mpainter 9:30am: The water vapor can’t do the warming as Doug writes because it doesn’t use up a fuel, the sun does warming by using up a fuel.

            The water vapor is a gas with a mass extinction coefficient, a mass mixing ratio, and partial pressure in the atm. so its presence affects the optical depth of the atm. which enables the sun to achieve higher global median surface temperature than without the vapor & other constituents. Proven by Dr. Spencer’s night time test in the 6/30 post when added water ice in the column from high cirrus clouds showed up after 1:30am, the black line trends down. If Doug were correct about water vapor cooling, the black line would have trended up & it didn’t. This same cloud detection, and in the same direction, is made at Desert Rock, Nv. and other places everyday at NOAA ESRL.

          • Bart says:

            “The Earth-atmosphere system could not possibly maintain radiative balance with the Sun if increasing water vapor were to raise the surface temperature whilst at the same time making the temperature gradient less steep.”

            I agree with that. I pointed out above that

            dT_Surf = dT_ERL + H_ERL*dk +k*dH_ERL

            and that I would expect dk to be negative with increasing cp, and that would tend to counter any putative positivity in dH_ERL. The AGW crowd claims the balance is on the positive side. Yet, the almost 20 year hiatus tells us plainly that the overall effect is negligible. Whether that is because of a flaw at this fundamental stage, or because of additional feedback (e.g., from cloud cover), I cannot say.

            I do know that the aggregate effect for the present climate state is, at best, negligibly positive because I know that an increase in temperature drives an increase in CO2. If an increase in CO2, in turn, drives an increase in temperature, then there is a positive feedback loop which cannot be stabilized even with T^4 radiation, and the system would have shifted into a runaway condition eons ago.

            Where you go wrong, Doug, is in claiming that the GHE is inherently impossible. I know very well that the equations of radiative balance work, because I have met and worked with guys who apply it with this stuff, and I know that their systems work. In a purely radiative environment, such as is the case for vehicles orbiting the Earth outside of the atmosphere, a material which impedes the outward flux of radiation WILL make the enclosed volume hotter than it would otherwise be. It is proven on thousands of vehicles orbiting above us every minute of every day, and is non-negotiable.

            The difference for the Earth is that it is not a purely radiative environment. Convective transport of heat to the radiating levels of the atmosphere short circuits the radiative exchange.

            So, I am open to your message if you were to stop issuing categoricals as to the fundamental impossibility of the GHE, and start addressing the reasons that it may not work for the specific case of a planetary system with convective exchange between radiating components.

            Also, you should strive to winnow your expostulations to the minimum possible length. Lengthy diatribes have “crank” and “crackpot” written all over them. People do not even bother to read it. They just assume you fall into those categories, and move on.

            Thread bombing is also hurting you more than it is helping you.

          • Doug Cotton says:

            Bart:

            My comment on the other thread (written before reading yours of 11:53am) covers the issue of radiative forcing, TOA imbalance etc. The back radiation cannot cause the surface temperature to rise, and nor can anything but natural warming and cooling affect overall radiative balance.

            You still think within the wrong paradigm altogether. Consequently you have no explanation as to how the necessary thermal energy actually gets into a planet’s surface in order to warm it in sunlit hours.

            It’s all very well observing the geometric fact that the surface temperature is determined by the extrapolation of the thermal profile whose gradient is pre-determined by gravity, specific heat etc and whose overall level is determined by insolation levels but, as Prof Julius Sumner Miller used to teach us in lectures I attended in the 1960’s, we need to ask “Why is it so?” and that is the key question that I appear to have been the first in the world to answer.

            It is because the thermal energy to the surface is primarily provided by the “heat creep” process on Earth (and entirely on Venus) that the concept of radiative forcing is invalid. Any forcing on Venus, for example, must be non-radiative.

            Please read the final comment of mine on the other thread. I make no apology for the length thereof, because the detail is needed and it is, after all, far shorter that the original paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures.”

          • Doug Cotton says:

            PS:

            With regard to your reference to convective exchange, Bart, the following paragraph is from my paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” published on several websites in March 2012:

            “In fairness, there would be a slight slowing of the rate of cooling when the temperatures approach each other, because of the way in which the area between the Planck curves reduces. But this only applies to radiation, so evaporation and diffusion could easily compensate and it does not mean energy is added to the surface or the atmosphere.”

            Or, in other words, back radiation can only slow that portion of surface cooling which is itself by radiation. About two-thirds of Earth’s surface cooling is by other processes and the overall rate of that other cooling can accelerate and/or last longer into the night so as to compensate for any slower radiative cooling, and thus negate any overall effect upon the minimum temperature for that night. It is the temperature at the base of the troposphere which “supports” the minimum, and that’s why Singapore always cools to about the same (25°C to 26°C) temperature every night of the year, irrespective of the cloud cover, humidity or weather conditions the previous day.

        • Doug Cotton says:

          1. I have no “political reasons” ..

          2. “under what assumptions” – that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is correct

          3. All planets with significant atmospheres show the expected -g/cp result made a little less steep in accord with expected intermolecular radiation. My calculations for the nominal troposphere of Uranus showed the temperature gradient as being within 5% of the g/cp value. Physics is universal.

          4. I have shown my data in the study and you can check it on-line from the cited source, although current figures for 30 year moving means may be a little different of course, but close. Dr Spencer failed to make the necessary adjustments for altitude and latitude and to exclude locations that were likely to be affected by large bodies of water.

          See the “Evidence” page at http://climate-change-theory.com

          Regarding the paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” (linked at the foot of that page) you didn’t even read the Contents page, now did you. It’s copied below with bold to help your failing eyesight …

          Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures

          February 15, 2013

          CONTENTS

          1. Radiation and Heat Transfer
          2. The Problems with the Greenhouse Conjecture
          3. The Venus Dilemma
          4. The Second Law of Thermodynamics
          5. The State of Greatest Entropy
          6. Quantification of the Thermal Gradient
          7. Explanation at the Molecular Level
          8. The Concept of “Heat Creep”
          9. How Earth’s Surface Temperature is Supported
          10. Laboratory Evidence for the Gradient
          11. Planetary Evidence for the Gradient.
          12. The “Pseudo” Lapse Rate.
          13. Non-Radiative Heat Transfer Processes
          14. Rebuttal of Counter Arguments
          15. Support for the Mantle and Core Temperatures
          16. Conclusions
          17. Appendix – Study of Temperature / Rainfall Correlation
          18. References

          • jerry l krause says:

            Hi Doug,

            You wrote: “2. “under what assumptions” – that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is correct”

            For your information the following is what Richard Feynman taught (wrote) in the Feynman Lectures On Physics. “It is obvious that this is a difficult subject, and that we have to deal with it differently than we have dealt with the other subjects so far. In the case of mechanics and in the case of light, we were able to begin with a precise statement of some laws, like Newton’s laws, or the formula for the field produced by an accelerating charge, from which a whole host of phenomena could be essentially understood, and which would produce a basis for our understanding of mechanics and of light from that time on. That is, we may learn more later, but we do not learn different physics, we only learn better methods of mathematical analysis to deal with the situation. We cannot use this approach effectively in studying the properties of matter. We can discuss matter only in a most elementary way; it is much too complicated a subject to analyze directly from its specific basic laws, which are none other than the laws of mechanics and electricity.” Chapter 39, vol. I (The Kinetic Theory of Gases)

            Have a good day, Jerry

  66. Doug Cotton says:

    Please go to this comment which applies to comments on both these threads of Roy’s.

  67. Doug Cotton says:

    Roy and others

    See also this detailed comment (also on the other thread) which covers just about all you need to know on the issue of sensitivity.

    Whether or not any of you chooses to learn from the many thousands of hours of research that I’ve put into this is your prerogative of course.

  68. Doug Cotton says:

    If you want to call it a GHE, then it’s a Gravity and Height of atmosphere Effect.

  69. Norman says:

    Doug Cotton,

    Do write things thinking know one will check out your “facts”?

    You claim “It is the temperature at the base of the troposphere which “supports” the minimum, and that’s why Singapore always cools to about the same (25°C to 26°C) temperature every night of the year, irrespective of the cloud cover, humidity or weather conditions the previous day.” and use this in to prove your phony speculations.

    Reality again (not that you care about it)
    http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/WSSS/2015/7/26/MonthlyHistory.html?req_city=Singapore&req_state=&req_statename=Singapore&reqdb.zip=00000&reqdb.magic=1&reqdb.wmo=48698

    July Singapore temp:

    Down to 21C up to 27. Busted again!!

    • Doug Cotton says:

      Thanks for that correction – I guess I shouldn’t believe what the locals there say.

      Actually it’s more understandable, because around 21 July and 21 December the Sun’s path is furthest from passing directly overhead. Its intensity is thus about equal to the maximum (March 21 and September 21) multiplied by about sin 66°. Note however, that there is still just a 6 degree variation between day and night.

  70. Norman says:

    mpaitnter,

    Reply to you post above: “The IPCC claim which implies that a mean of just over 1% of water vapor does most of 30 degrees of warming is ludicrous. How much hotter would a rain forest be due to there being 4% water vapor above it.”

    Here Doug makes a cogent point. Anyone care to try refuting this? Because my view is that the above considerations justifies the labeling of AGW as a “perpetual motion machine”.

    Ball4 already explained it. Water vapor does not warm the surface. The excess temp comes from solar input. If you had 100% backradiation (say a mirror arrangement so all radiant energy leaving the surface was reflected back to the surface) the surface would not warm at all. It would not cool at all either. It would stay the same temperature until something upset this equilibrium. More water vapor in the atmosphere will not warm the surface.

    You and Doug have the same disconnect in your thinking which is why you probably thought Doug’s point was logical. It seems you only can focus on one energy flow at a time. Energy returning from the atmosphere. You have no ability to understand the simultaneous process of energy leaving the surface at the same time and all the back-radiation is, is some of the surface energy returning to the source that created it (it is very similar to reflection, maybe not in reality but in what they both do). You have this notion back-radiation should increase water evaporation rate if it where real. Why should it, it is not heating the surface. It is in reality only slowing down the cooling. The amount of back-radiation will always be less than the surface that created it. It will never warm the surface, ever. It is not a new source of energy that warms.

    • mpainter says:

      Norman

      A discrete radiant energy flux absorbed at the surface of the ocean

      1.does
      2. does not

      raise the kinetic energy of the absorbing molecules accordingly

      Norman, if you choose #1, I can show that you are wrong.
      If you answer #2, I can show that you are an idiot..

      • Norman says:

        mpainter,

        You cannot understand the most simple physics so your points are not really as awesome as you seem to think they are.

        The back-radiation is radiation coming from the surface, being redirected and some returns to the surface. It is less than the energy that was lost, it can’t raise the kinetic energy of the absorbing molecules. You can’t grasp for any reason no matter how many times people explain it to you that the surface of the ocean is losing energy at the same time it is gaining energy from back radiation. The big thing however is that the rate of energy loss (via radiation) is greater than the returning energy so it IS NOT POSSIBLE for the back radiation to raise the kinetic energy of the molecules. The kinetic energy lost by the surface ocean molecules is greater than the kinetic energy gained by reabsorbing this lost radiation. If you do not understand this be careful of trying to show I am an idiot as this will reflect back at you and won’t show you as an idiot just as clueless and unable to learn. You and Doug should start a school together, students would love it. No one has to work to learn, you already know it all and no facts, or counter information will change this state of perfection.

        So how does ocean surface increase in kinetic energy when the energy lost is greater than the energy gained? I would really like to understand how you come up with this stuff and believe it.

        Now show, with reason, why I am an idiot for explaining in detail why back-radiation cannot warm the ocean surface, or speed up evaporation. But, if you can listen and think (which is debatable at this time) you will someday be able to understand this most simple concept. Until then, as JohnKl would say.

        Have a great day!

        • mpainter says:

          Norman,
          Do I correctly understand you to say that you select #2?

          Then you claim that the DWLWIR is absorbed without adding its energy to the surface. I need make no further comment.

          • Norman says:

            mpainter,

            You do not need to make a further comment. You need to read some thermodynmaics texts to understand the science rather than rely on your own biased mind. Break out of the prision of thought you have put yourself into and learn to reason and think again. Your thoughts drown out reason as you are convinced so strongly of your incorrect understanding (probalby fueled by a superego).

            You are as clueless as Doug Cotton. Maybe you studied physics at the same University. You do not comprehend NET radiation. No amount of logic or reason can get you to comprehend this concept. You will continue to post your beliefs like Doug does and never stop to think or learn or reason things through to see how your current understanding is very flawed and NOT correct.

            NET radiation mpainter. The surface is losing at a rate of 396 watts/m^2 (average) for radiation and gaining 333 via DWIR. That means the net is -63 watts/meter^2. How in your twisted and convulated thinking does minus energy add positve energy to the water surface. You really are not very bright if you can’t understand this. So if you comment no more to me. Thanks your posts are ignorant of science and add no value or learning, they only can convince those who have limited science background. You can be a hero to zero but will never convince any actual scientist with your mindless posts.

          • mpainter says:

            Thanks for the insults, Norman.

            I wonder how many physicists would agree with you that 324 W/sq m of DWLWIR would not raise the kinetic energy of the absorbing molecules accordingly.

            I look at energy budget diagrams that show the surface of the ocean radiating over twice the energy absorbed via insolation and I wonder who could swallow such garbage. Such a diagram implies that the oceans froze solid billions of years ago.

            Will you now say that back radiation makes the difference? And in the next breath claim that DWLWIR adds no energy to the absorbing molecules?
            The energy budget diagrams are egregious, a perpetual motion machine that invites people to believe in make-believe science.

          • Ball4 says:

            mpainter 12:53pm – Your reasoning leading to “egregious” is faulty. The energy diagrams make use of similar testing as Dr. Spencer did 6/30. Examine your reasoning against that test.

            In both coolers overnight, the temperatures steadily decline with some instrumental noise ever present meaning they both are steadily cooling off. The mean KE of the molecules around each temp sensor steadily declines.

            Yet in one of the coolers, the one exposed to the high cirrus, the steadily slowing KE shows a different temperature from the cloud’s water ice absorbing radiative energy (black line), slowing KE loss in that cooler compared the other cooler, same time stamp, since some energy is added, the exact same thing the energy budgets are trying their best to communicate to you, nothing “egregious” (mpainter term) in them except in your flawed view that differs with the 6/30 test.

            Fun with vocabulary:

            The added “back radiation” from the cirrus never warms up either water yet one water is warmer than the other, same time stamp!

            See how vocabulary has trouble explaining the math? You have to match the science with vocabulary.

            I could go even further and based on this test, correctly write cold (the cirrus water ice) has heated up hot (the warmer liquid water) – which T is shown higher than the other! And I could correctly do so because there it is – by test data. Cold has heated hot! Really the science meaning is the net black line trends down with the cirrus added.

            Definitely not a 2nd law violation – there it is in the test data, which I have similarly replicated, to be sure. Just learn to be very careful with vocabulary, write it out so as to match the eqn.s of Newton’s law of cooling or use the eqn.s please – if you are serious about learning.

          • mpainter says:

            Ball4

            Regarding back radiation,do you see the words “absorbed by the surface” on the energy budget diagrams? What do these words mean to you?

            By the way, Norman, I have Curt Wilson on an earlier post asserting that back radiation does in fact increase the kinetic energy accordingly. Your appeal to Curt’s superior understanding will not help your case.

            The energy budget diagrams are egregious. They depict an energy flux that does not exist in the real world.

          • Ball4 says:

            mpainter 2:56pm – I wouldn’t expect to see those words as the L&O surface is not a BB, writing the total incoming is “absorbed by the surface” would be egregious, since the L&O surface is a natural gray body. The downwelling radiation is all absorbed, transmitted and reflected at the L&O surface. Just as in Dr. Spencer’s test where the water surface transmits, absorbs and reflects radiation. Curt was right in what he wrote as demonstrated by Dr. Spencer’s 6/30 test, as Curt’s science meaning is confirmed by that test: the net black line trends down with the cirrus added. Only your unsupported view is egregious.

          • Ball4 says:

            mpainter 2:56pm: If the energy flux from the cirrus didn’t exist, the net black line would have continued unchanged when these clouds showed up at 1:30am. Black line turned down in test, just as it does in all the NOAA ESRL cloud detections, and in my own similar replication, showing your view to be egregious, not the energy budgets.

          • Scott says:

            mpainter says:
            July 26, 2015 at 9:33 PM

            Norman,
            Do I correctly understand you to say that you select #2?

            No, you don’t understand him correctly. You asked a question that depending on the illogic being applied at the time (chosen by you) can never be answered correctly. So he explained in much greater detail than either option. Summing up his answer: discrete absorbance = increase in energy (1st Law of Thermo), more energy is lost by IR from the water than is gained through the absorbance (result of 2nd Law of Thermo), so the net energy change is not a gain but a loss, just less of a loss (1st Law of Thermo). This is all just a repeat of the 06/30 thread–you guys just don’t get net transfers and no amount of experimentation or molecular-level reasoning will convince you.

            Then you claim that the DWLWIR is absorbed without adding its energy to the surface.

            No he doesn’t, you just don’t understand what he wrote. All qualitative conclusions and no quantitative reasoning, just like the 06/30 thread.

            Norman and Ball4 – I applaud you for trying to be reasonable with these people. But as the 06/30 thread demonstrated, they can’t be reasoned with. At least four experiments on that thread, multiple explanations of the net energy flows and at what depths things occur, and even an electrical equivalent circuit diagram. They just don’t get it. I ran two experiments that they literally asked for and they wouldn’t accept it. They’d make wild claims but could never back them up quantitatively. When shown quantitative evidence, they ignored it.

            -Scott

          • mpainter says:

            Ball4 says that he agrees that the Keihl-Trenberth global energy budget diagram is egregious.

            quoting Ball4:

            “mpainter2:56 pm – I wouldn’t expect to see those words as the L&O surface is not a BB, writing the total incoming is “absorbed at the surface” would be egregious since the L&O surface is a natural gray body”

            For referred Keihl-Trenberth diagram, see Roy’s post 6-13-2015.

            Quoting from that diagram:

            333W/sq m back radiation ===> Absorbed by the surface

            Repeat, the energy budget diagrams are egregious.

          • mpainter says:

            Scott: Norman speaks for himself.

          • Ball4 says:

            mpainter 4:33pm: Applause, mpainter, if you change the wording slightly to “absorbed by the surface”, do find an egregious mistake not searchable in part of the cartoon only, those words total “absorbed by the surface” not found in LW discussion. Note they handled solar ok with those words because also show SW reflection. For some reason I lament, the 1997 324 is never broken down into components with the reflection et. al. broken out & shown separately as it should be – as in solar. You can sort of now claim part of the cartoon is egregious for not showing LW reflection, but do use the correct phrase. The Stephens 2012 correctly handles the cartoon wording: “all-sky emission to surface” which is not egregious. KT97 on SW:

            “Thus, incident radiation will either be absorbed by the surface–atmosphere system and be available to heat the system (shortwave radiative forcing) or will be scattered back to space.”

          • Scott says:

            mpainter says:
            July 27, 2015 at 4:35 PM

            Scott: Norman speaks for himself.

            Ok.

            mpainter says:
            July 26, 2015 at 9:33 PM

            Then you claim that the DWLWIR is absorbed without adding its energy to the surface. I need make no further comment.

            Oh wait, I must’ve misunderstood your 4:35 comment. Looks like I need to translate it. A proper translation might be “Norman speaks for himself unless I’m the one paraphrasing him, then I can misrepresent his text at will.” There, fixed.

            -Scott

        • Doug Cotton says:

          1. The ocean is NOT “gaining energy from back radiation.”

          2. Even Roy knows that back radiation does not penetrate water by more than a few nanometers – basically to the first molecule it resonates with.

          Read what I have explained over and over – originally in my paper on “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” (March 2012) because every pencil of radiation obeys the Second Law and only transfers that thermal energy which is represented by the area between the Planck curves from the body with the greater area under its Planck curve to the other both. These computations have been used by engineers for yonks.

          • Ball4 says:

            Doug 4:45am – Dr. Spencer proved you wrong on counts 1. and 2. by real world experiment 6/30 post.

            Take a vacation, think about it, read a modern text intro. chapters for your answer to: “Would any reader like to explain how they think mean solar radiation of 168W/m^2 reaching Earth’s surface can account for a mean temperature of about 288K which is about 15°C?”

            1st law explains 288K in a simple analogue, in accord with 2nd law & a modicum of beginning radiation test results at least starting with an experiment in 1898.

          • gbaikie says:

            — Doug Cotton says:
            July 27, 2015 at 4:45 AM

            1. The ocean is NOT “gaining energy from back radiation.”

            2. Even Roy knows that back radiation does not penetrate water by more than a few nanometers – basically to the first molecule it resonates with.–

            Yes. It safe to say that ocean gains no heat from back radiation.
            One could argue about whether the ocean could cool faster
            were the mythical back radiation were having some effect.

            A more challenging question is does the energy of the atmosphere cause the ocean to increase in temperature.
            Or to re-phrase does the kinetic energy of atmosphere. latent heat or any type of Long wave radiation warm the ocean. And if true how much. How much is more important any any at all.
            As science is about measuring and measuring is about how much.

            It is my assumption that ocean is primarily warmed from only two source, direct and indirect sunlight and the internal heat of Earth. So I would say at least the amount is 99 % of all warming of the Ocean.

            Now the other part is does atmosphere prevent the ocean from cooling as fast.
            This is problematic question. Which summed up with liquid water does not exist in a vacuum. H20 gas and H20 solid exists in a vacuum.
            So liquid water required pressure to exist, vacuum of space does not have pressure [or enough pressure].
            One can provide pressure to water in space without needing an atmosphere.
            And in space one could have atmosphere with pressure that was solely H20 gas.
            So to have atmosphere is don’t need any other gas other than H2O.
            Anyhow, it’s a more complicated question of whether an atmosphere [and it’s pressure] causes an ocean to cool slower. And complicated part because it is a somewhat absurd question.

          • gbaikie says:

            “…were the mythical back radiation were having some effect.”

            Should have been:
            “…were it not for the mythical back radiation having some effect.”

            Or if back radiation could warm anything or were back radiation to inhibit any significant amount of cooling
            it could effect the evaporation of the Ocean.
            And if something affecta the evaporation of the ocean one could less cooling [though there are numerous negative and positive “feedbacks”- less cloud formation in tropic would cause more direct and indirect sunlight [less reflected sunlight] or say, the Iris effect:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_hypothesis

            Or anything effecting evaporation gets into the complicated matter of clouds.
            And clouds have different effects, when and where they are formed and continue to exist. Where being elevation and geographical location: ie, tropics or elsewhere. When is season/part of year and time of day.

    • Doug Cotton says:

      Norman says “It would not cool at all either.”

      Of course it would cool. Have you never heard of sensible heat transfer processes (called conduction, diffusion, convection) and evaporative cooling? Back radiation has absolutely no effect on the rate at which these processes occur, and it certainly doesn’t stop them.

      The Sun’s direct radiation has to compete with these simultaneous processes. Even James Hansen realized that, and so all the energy diagrams deduct 102W/m^2 for this non-radiative heat loss. Those diagrams show …

      Solar radiation: 168W/m^2
      Plus back radiation: 324W/m^2
      Less non-radiative heat loss: 102W/m^2
      Net total of thermal energy supposedly delivered: 390W/m^2

      By “coincidence” 390W/m^2 would make a black body have a temperature of 15°C.

      Sadly they made the mistake of including back radiation, which is not correct physics.

      The extra 324W/m^2 does not come from back radiation: it comes from the process of entropy maximization which the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us will occur.

      Hence James Hansen, the IPCC and ROY SPENCER all ignore what the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us will happen.

      Yes, back radiation striking the warmer surface is pseudo scattered, which creates an end result that looks like diffuse reflection, but there is a very big difference. Reflected radiation is not a part of the target’s quota of radiation as per its Planck function, whereas pseudo scattered back radiation is. Hence back radiation slows that portion of surface cooling which is by radiation, whereas reflection does not. So what? The Sun’s direct radiation can’t, on average, raise the surface temperature to a mean of 15°C in the first place.

      This is critical and explained in my 2012 paper. Back radiation (carrying electro-magnetic energy) is not thermalized in a warmer surface. It cannot deliver thermal energy into the surface. If it did, that energy could escape and stay in the surface, raising its temperature, and so the Second Law would be violated. Only the process of resonant (pseudo) scattering retains the energy as electro-magnetic energy – temporarily electron energy – but never thermal (kinetic) energy. Once energy becomes kinetic energy the process is complete (and qualifies as a completed process in so far as the Second Law is concerned) and those molecules can pass on the extra kinetic energy in collisions, which are new processes that also must obey the Second Law. There is no “obligation” to send compensating radiation back out of the surface. Thus the initial process would violate the Second Law.

  71. Doug Cotton says:

    If you don’t understand how and why the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us entropy will be maximized (and density and temperature gradients thus form in a planet’s troposphere because of the force of gravity) then you understand nothing of the very relevant physics which enables us to explain planetary surface temperatures.

    The Earth’s surface, on average, warms by day. That requires an input of thermal (kinetic) energy, meaning molecules start to move faster. The electro-magnetic energy in back radiation is not converted to such kinetic energy where the target surface region is warmer than the source of spontaneous radiation from the atmosphere.

    You can’t use Stefan Boltzmann calculations to determine the surface temperature because the surface does not act remotely like a black body. Only the whole Earth+atmosphere system acts like a black body. Because it does so, no amount of internal manipulation by mankind will alter the effective radiating temperature of the Earth. That temperature is found nearly half way up the troposphere because there is a temperature gradient in the troposphere.

    As we know, the Earth’s surface temperature is higher than that radiating temperature by about 33 degrees. The Venus surface is hundreds of degrees hotter. The reason such surface temperatures are higher is primarily because of the fact that entropy maximization (the process that the Second Law says will happen) causes there to be both a density and a temperature gradient.

    Now, IR-active gases (so-called greenhouse gases like water vapor, CO2 etc) cause thermal energy to pass from warmer to cooler regions (mostly upwards in the troposphere) and so this transfer works against the gravitationally induced temperature gradient, reducing its magnitude by up to about a third in all planetary tropospheres, although the reduction can be as little as 5% as for the planet Uranus. The temperature at the base of the troposphere “supports” the surface temperature, but that temperature is determined by the planet’s radiating temperature, the mean altitude for the radiation and the factors that affect the temperature gradient.

  72. Doug Cotton says:

    Here are some black body temperatures and corresponding flux values as per Stefan-Boltzmann calculations ..

    230K: 158.7 W/m^2
    235K: 172.9 W/m^2
    240K: 188.1 W/m^2
    245K: 204.3 W/m^2
    250K: 221.5 W/m^2
    255K: 239.7 W/m^2
    260K: 259.1 W/m^2
    265K: 279.6 W/m^2
    270K: 301.3 W/m^2
    280K: 348.5 W/m^2
    290K: 401.0 W/m^2
    300K: 459.3 W/m^2
    310K: 523.6 W/m^2
    320K: 594.5 W/m^2
    330K: 672.4 W/m^2
    340K: 757.7 W/m^2
    350K: 850.9 W/m^2
    360K: 952.3 W/m^2

    Would any reader like to explain how they think mean solar radiation of 168W/m^2 reaching Earth’s surface can account for a mean temperature of about 288K which is about 15°C?

    • gbaikie says:

      At Earth distance from the Sun an ideal blackbody would radiate 340 watts square square uniformly. And a blackbody which radiate 340 watt per square meter would be about 5 C.

      And something not blackbody which radiated 340 watts would be warmer than 5 C. Or at given temperature a blackbody emits the most watts per square meter.

      Earth radiate 240 watts per square meter. If earth were a blackbody and radiated 240 watts is would be about -18 C.
      Anything not a blackbody would be warmer than -18 C.

      Earth’s surface absorbs about 170 watts per square meter on average of direct sunlight.

      Earth is sphere, and sphere would be not warmed uniformly.
      Moon is a sphere, and because it’s a sphere it is not uniformly warmed. As is indicated here:
      http://www.diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml
      So at the equator at noon the sunlight warms the surface to about 390 K [117 C] on average. Where at 40 degree latitude
      at noon is looks like about +360 K [87 C].
      So on sphere below 40 degree latitude one gets the most amount of heating.
      On Earth the tropics is 23 degree north and south latitude and this region is about 40% of the earth surface and receive most of the sunlight which reaches the earth surface.
      On sphere 40 degree north and south is more than half of the surface area of the surface. And if rotating [or not] has zero tilt to the Sun, this bigger half of the sphere receives about 80% of the sunlight at it’s surface- meaning the other half +40 degree latitude [poleward] receives about 20% of the sunlight.
      So half the moon receives far less sunlight at it’s surface than the half which includes the equator.
      So under the surface of the moon one expect that average temperature is warmer at the equator.

      The earth has 23 degree degree angle tilt. So when sun at mid Summer for northern hemisphere the Sun is directly above 23 Degrees N [or the tropic of Cancer] and therefore at noon at tropic of Capricorn at noon at same time the sun is 90 minus 46 degree [sun is 44 degree above the horizon].
      This means that whatever the season the tropics gets the most amount of sunlight- because the sun remains fairly high above the horizon regardless of the season.
      Whereas outtside of the tropics one only gets sunlight “like the the tropics” in the summer.
      In the polar regions on Earth one never gets a sun like the tropics. Or 23 plus 40 is 63, and arctic circle is 66 degree north or south. So when at arctic circle at midsummer and at noon the highest the sun gets is 47 degree.
      Oh, ok at mid summer at noon it’s kind of like tropics. But most of polar region and/or most of the summer and most of daylight it’s not like the tropics. Or at the pole it’s not vaguely close to being like the tropics at any time.

      In terms intensity of sunlight per day on average the tropics on Earth get more energy of the sun per square meter of surface.

      In addition in tropics about 80% of surface area is ocean.
      So in terms of total sunlight average of 170 watts per square meter more of it is being absorbed by the ocean.
      And when most of sunlight hits the ocean it passes thru the surface and warms the ocean below the surface.

      So if all the surface of the ocean were cold, it would warm up from the sunlight within a short period of time. And this would make Earth’s average temperature very cold.

      Now Earth started it’s life as molten ball of rock [though basically it still is] and so the ocean and it’s surface has never been cold in the tropics.
      But if we were to mix the ocean water at the present the surface would be 3 to 4 C. And therefore things [impactors] could mix the ocean so we could say it’s possible tropic were surface was say 4 C- and say, most of rest of ocean was 3 C.
      And in that situation [before the sunlight could warm the surface] what would the average temperature of Earth be?

      So right now about 1/2 world is 20 C and other half is about 10 C. And it’s 20 C and 10 C because the ocean surface is warm. With ocean cold, it would be about 5 C, and -10 C. So average of about -5 C. It could colder as polar region in winter could get very very cold very quickly and would have “weather effects” of it dumping towards equator [so it effect that entire hemisphere in winter. Or if at time of equinox- both poles could be causing havoc].
      Anyhow this severity would only last weeks or months- until surface waters warmed up rather than centuries or something, though one would not 100 meter of warm tropic water, earth would on cold side for quite a while.
      Anyways what the question, again:
      “Would any reader like to explain how they think mean solar radiation of 168W/m^2 reaching Earth’s surface can account for a mean temperature of about 288K which is about 15°C?”

      Well, normally we live in a period about 10 C cooler than 15 C, and in our interglacial period, the ocean is warming and that why it’s about 15 C

  73. Doug Cotton says:

    “Anything not a blackbody would be warmer than -18 C.”

    Absolute garbage. For a given radiative flux a black body gets hotter than anything else: just as a black asphalt road surface gets hotter than your grassy lawn.

    The whole Earth+atmosphere system sends back to Space close enough to the same total radiated energy that it receives from the Sun when you count the 30% that is reflected.

    One thing Hansen did get about right was the calculation of the 255K figure. Because we have already deducted 30% for the albedo, we use the rest of the flux (and correctly use emissivity = 1.00) and we get the 255K mean temperature which is indeed a fairly average temperature for the troposphere and surface.

    “at the equator at noon the sunlight warms the surface to about 390 K [117 C] on average.”

    Who are you kidding now? Singapore (close to the Equator) rarely gets above 32°C – hardly 117°C.

    Ocean surface is about 70%, not 80%.

    “Now Earth started it’s life as molten ball of rock [though basically it still is] and so the ocean and it’s surface has never been cold in the tropics.”

    There has been ample time to cool off. Initial heat at time of formation has nothing to do with current temperatures, even in the core, for the reasons in my paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures.”

    The mean of 168W/m^2 would only raise a black body to a very cold -41°C. When the IPCC works out a mean of 15°C they take into account temperatures colder than -50°C at the South Pole etc. Then, they (IPCC, Trenberth et al) all agree they would need a mean input of radiation of about 492W/m^2 to account for the observed 288K mean temperature. But, in reality, they have treated the back radiation just as if it were Solar radiation, but it is nothing at all like that.

    I have shown that regions receiving over 900W/m^2 still only rise in temperature (like Singapore) to about 32°C in moist regions. That 900W/m^2 uses up a lot of the radiation which contributes to the mean of 168W/m^2 over the whole surface. In fact, a flat disc all receiving 168W/m^2 would have a higher temperature (-41°C) than would any surface receiving a range of different flux that averaged 168W/m^2. That is because the temperature achieved by radiation only increases as the fourth root of the flux.

    No one has a hope of proving that the Sun’s direct radiation accounts for the observed surface temperatures. And if I haven’t satisfied you of that, then try your calculations for Venus where the surface receives less than 10% of the solar radiation that Earth’s surface receives, but the temperature is around 735K.

    • jerry l krause says:

      Hi Doug:

      7/25/15 at 6:28pm I informed you what Richard Feynman had taught and written about using laws such as the 2nd law to understand the properties of matter. You have not yet responded to what Feynman, not me, stated.

      Have a good day, Jerry

    • gbaikie says:

      — Doug Cotton says:
      July 27, 2015 at 5:16 AM

      “Anything not a blackbody would be warmer than -18 C.”

      Absolute garbage. For a given radiative flux a black body gets hotter than anything else: just as a black asphalt road surface gets hotter than your grassy lawn.–

      Per definition a blackbody is perfect absorber and emitter
      of radiant energy.
      So, it’s two things- if say 300 watt shines on it, it absorbs all this energy.
      But at given temperature a blackbody emits the most radiant energy- because it’s a perfect emitter.

      So, something not blackbody would require to be warmer to emit
      the same amount energy as blackbody.

      This not an argument this is merely it’s definition.

      A blackbody absorbs the most and radiates the most, therefore a non blackbody absorbs less and radiates less.

    • gbaikie says:

      –The whole Earth+atmosphere system sends back to Space close enough to the same total radiated energy that it receives from the Sun when you count the 30% that is reflected. —

      Yes. But this again is also defintional, rather than saying anything.
      Any world does this. But btw, it does not explain temperatures one could find on any world. Though the closeness to the Sun indicates the hottest temperature the Sun can create- so earth distance that is 120 C, and accounting 30% reflection it’s 70 to 80 C.

      Or if sun suppose to be warming something and that object is warmer than 80 C, that requires an explanation- because it should not be warmer than 80 C.
      So for example when someone reports that solar pond can reach a temperature of over 90 C- that requires an explanation.

      –One thing Hansen did get about right was the calculation of the 255K figure. Because we have already deducted 30% for the albedo, we use the rest of the flux (and correctly use emissivity = 1.00) and we get the 255K mean temperature which is indeed a fairly average temperature for the troposphere and surface.–
      Hansen has never got anything right.
      Hansen is merely Lefty who imagines he knows something, and he doesn’t [which is not vaguely unusual].
      What was done right was measuring the amount of radiation at Earth distance- which roughly 1360 watt per square meter.

      All Hansen managed to do was believe in some existing pseudo science. As others have also managed the same achievement.

    • gbaikie says:

      –“at the equator at noon the sunlight warms the surface to about 390 K [117 C] on average.”

      Who are you kidding now? Singapore (close to the Equator) rarely gets above 32°C – hardly 117°C.–

      On the Moon,
      according to:
      http://www.diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml
      “Equator Average Temperature (K) ~206K (390K at noon; ~95 K at midnight)”
      [[Copy & pasted]]
      I provided a link for a reason, obviously you ignored it.

    • gbaikie says:

      -Ocean surface is about 70%, not 80%.-
      Globally it’s about 70%, but it has higher percentage in the tropics.
      So to correctly quote what I said:
      “In addition in tropics about 80% of surface area is ocean.”
      Would be what I said.

      –“Now Earth started it’s life as molten ball of rock [though basically it still is] and so the ocean and it’s surface has never been cold in the tropics.”

      There has been ample time to cool off. Initial heat at time of formation has nothing to do with current temperatures, even in the core, for the reasons in my paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures.”–
      Most of mass of Earth is hot- not arguing this has anything to do with current surface temperature [also not arguing to has nothing to do with current temperatures] what I am saying is Earth started hot and remains hot.
      And I see no reason the assume or imagine that ocean of the tropics of Earth was ever sub-zero temperatures.

      [[And if you can’t believe that, let’s change it, to in last 50 million years the tropical ocean was never had sub-zero temperatures. Because you can’t find anyone who would claims otherwise [though wacky creationist don’t think earth existed for 50 million years- so that might complicated it- so for sake of silly creationists, I will change it to since the time God created the world, the tropical ocean has never been at sub-zero temperatures].]]

      But it’s possible the tropical ocean surface was near freezing. And this possible, because in the tropics the current average ocean temperature of the massive and deep ocean is 3 to 4 C. So all that is needed is for the water to “somehow” mix. That’s is slightly possible rather than impossible.

      And finally:
      –The mean of 168W/m^2 would only raise a black body to a very cold -41°C. —

      I already explained why this is wrong. And you obviously misunderstood what I said.
      To summarize:
      Earth is unevenly heated by the sun.
      The tropics receives the most amount of sunlight.
      This is not news.
      It’s known by anyone who knows anything about the Earth.
      Most people know nothing about the Earth or science in general. And Hansen is typical.

      • mpainter says:

        Like the climate scientist who drowned in a stream whose average depth was 1.12 meters.

  74. Norman says:

    mpainter,

    I may get frustrated with your reasoning but that frustration amounts to nothing. Sorry for any insults directed at you. I am sure that approach will do very little in a debate format. You have reasons you think the way you do.

    My question to you would be what do you believe the radiant flux is from the ocean’s surface. You can use an average or actual ocean surface temperature. What is the loss of energy through radiation?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_surface_temperature#/media/File:Weeklysst.gif

    If you use 28 C for tropical water (some colder some hotter). What is the radiant flux from the water surface?

    Here is an article that gives some estimates for the emissitivity of ocean water.
    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.371.781&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    Let me know what you get.
    I get 456 watts/m^2

    • mpainter says:

      Norman

      Stefan-Boltzmann formula cannot be applied to the ocean, which is not a black body. DWLWIR does not warm the ocean, SST is due to insolation and this energy is cumulative because sw penetrates to depth.

      The emission of energy at the ocean surface is partitioned between latent heat, radiation, and conduction as we have previously discussed. The accumulated energy is dissipated as currents move surface waters to higher latitudes.

      The AGW fails to take full account of the accumulation of energy (insolation) by the ocean. The egregious energy budget diagrams ignore it.

      • Ball4 says:

        mpainter 7:52am: “..Stefan-Boltzmann formula cannot be applied to the ocean..”

        Where did that egregiousness come from? Substantial testing over decades by diverse authors over wide expanses (airplane), local (ships & fixed tower) shows S-B holds to within precision instrument accuracy when compared to thermometer. Your view is egregious, not the energy budget diagrams which are from similar test.

        NB: CERES radiometers look at wide expanses of ocean and S-B worked out fine.

      • Scott says:

        mpainter says:
        July 28, 2015 at 7:52 AM

        DWLWIR does not warm the ocean

        Repeat this all you want–it won’t make it any less false. You have been shown repeatedly that it can, which you ignore or handwave away without any quantitative substance. If you believe water can’t be warmed/less cooled from above, then stop putting lids on your insulated cold beverages (e.g. Thermos) because clearly the lids won’t do anything.

        -Scott

      • Norman says:

        mpainter,

        You are displaying the fact you have never studied science at any higher level. You are a google wannabe with a streak of aggogance.

        Stefan-Boltzmann is valid for all radiating surfaces because you add the emississivity factor into the equation to determine the rate of radiation at a given temperature. Water is nearly a black-body.

        You should take a class in physics and see what you know and don’t know.

  75. mpainter says:

    All: please explain what evaporation has to do with BB and S-B theory. I will listen.

    Ball4, Norman needs help. Please explain to him that the ocean is not a BB but a gray body, as per your comment at July 27, 3:26 pm.

    Norman, explain to Scott that back radiation does not add its energy to the absorbing molecules, assuming that you have not changed your views.

    Scott, have you learned the difference between microwave and LWIR?

    Norman, there is a lot I don’t know. But I do know the energy emission of the ocean is mostly latent heat…Do you?

    • Scott says:

      mpainter says:
      July 28, 2015 at 11:36 AM

      All: please explain what evaporation has to do with BB and S-B theory. I will listen.

      I actually doubt you’ll listen, but they operate in parallel at the ocean’s surface. Thus, both contribute to net energy flow.

      Scott, have you learned the difference between microwave and LWIR?

      Depends on if you mean recently or ever. Recently? No. Decades ago? Sure. It was clear to any knowledgeable person in our first encounter that I did–that I did not is just a figment of your imagination. But instead arguing over it, how about an actual link to the discussion so the reader can see it themselves:

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/05/new-satellite-upper-troposphere-product-still-no-tropical-hotspot/#comment-192354

      It also seems like you’re full of questions and commands. I have tons of questions for you that you’ve ignored or flippantly brushed aside over the last month or two, maybe I’ll type them all out sometime. But how about we start with an easy one that doesn’t even involve numbers (since you don’t like/ignore them): if I take two aliquots of cold water at the same temperature and put them into two identical insulating containers at room temperature but only put a lid (which is also insulating) on one of them, which one warms up faster?

      Have a good day!

      -Scott

      • mpainter says:

        So, explain. I will repeat the question for your benefit:

        What does evaporation have to do with S-B?

        In case you are confused, this means the removal of energy from the ocean by means of latent heat.

        • Scott says:

          And I will repeat my answer.

          They operate in parallel, all contributing to the net energy flow.

          Since you don’t seem to understand net flow, I will break it down further.
          Evaporation: an endothermic process whereby heat is lost from the liquid water.
          S-B can be broken into two flows: photons leaving and photons arrive. Photons leaving: loss of EM energy, primarily in the far- and mid-IR. Photons arriving: gain of EM energy, including visual and near-, mid-, and far-IR.

          Now I will repeat my question for your benefit:
          If I take two aliquots of cold water at the same temperature and put them into two identical insulating containers at room temperature but only put a lid (which is also insulating) on one of them, which one warms up faster?

          Have a good day!

          -Scott

          • mpainter says:

            Scott, the correct answer is that evaporation has nothing to do with the S-B law, nor does latent heat, nor does the surface of the ocean. All that S-B garbage swallowed in one gulp..tsk tsk

          • Scott says:

            mpainter,

            Are you being paid to be this clueless, or is this your real self?

            -Scott

          • mpainter says:

            The fact that the Stefan Boltzmann Law has nothing to do with the ocean, nor latent heat, does not deter the AGW types from pretending that it does.

            Thus S-B principles and BB principles are applied to the ocean which loses over 70% of its energy via non-radiative processes.. tsk,tsk.

            ####

            Ball4 @ July 27 3:26 pm : “the L&O surface is not a BB….The L&O surface is a natural gray body”

            Scott @ July 28, 3:24 pm : “Are you being paid to be this clueless, or is this your natural self?”

          • Scott says:

            mpainter,

            Wow, I finally get it. Thanks for explaining it to me. Because radiative transfer is a non-dominant factor in the energy budget then radiative transfers play no part. I need to apply this thinking to my household budget–taxes are less than 40% of my total income, so they’re overwhelmed by my gross pay and therefore have no effect on my net balance. Thanks for opening my eyes, I can’t wait to rebudget and spend so much more lavishly!

            [To everyone else, sorry for the satire form of communication, but when someone’s had things explained to them repeatedly and had multiple real-world experiments conducted, some of which they specifically requested, to show them they’re incorrect and continue to ignore the blatant obvious…well, you have to try to communicate at their level.]

            -Scott

          • mpainter says:

            Your reply shows that you don’t get it and that you probably never will.

          • gbaikie says:

            A canvas water bag will keep water cooler.
            http://www.damnyak.ca/2012/05/canvas-water-bags.html

            But generally a thermos bottle with lid off should tend
            to warm quicker. But evaporative cooling and other factors
            could alter it.

  76. Norman says:

    mpainter from your 11:36 AM post above,

    You are saying “Ball4, Norman needs help. Please explain to him that the ocean is not a BB but a gray body, as per your comment at July 27, 3:26 pm.”

    Just curious, when did I say that the ocean is a BB? I posted a link to the ocean’s emissitivity which is not 1 (close but not there). What lead you to form this conclusion?

    I think Scott knows enough physics on his own that he does not need my help to understand the radiation process. NET radiation he understands, you do not so I will help you that has a need to understand.

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html

    Maybe you have only been introduced to one aspect of the Stefan-Boltzmann law and that is for an ideal black-body. The equation is used in radiative heat transfer of all types. They still use the equation with an emissisivity factor. Look at section two of the link. Title “Heat Radiation”. Look at what is being calculated. NET RADIATED POWER!!

    Your final point: “Norman, there is a lot I don’t know. But I do know the energy emission of the ocean is mostly latent heat…Do you?” This is were you will have to take a leap to understand. Not sure you will ever understand NET radiation. Scott has explained it to you many times and seems to have endless patience. The reason radiation is not the primary form of energy emission of the ocean is because of back radiation. The radiating molecules in the atmosphere are returning 333 watts of energy to the ocean surface of the 396 it is emitting (all averages, local regions will deviate considerably from this global average). That makes the radiation loss only 63 watts/m^2 so the loss by evaporation at 80 is greater than the radiation loss. Only because of back radiation lowering considerably how much energy is lost by the ocean surface by radiation. Without GHG present and no back radiation the loss by radiation would be much larger than that by evaporation. About 5 times more energy loss via radiation than evaporation if you removed all the GHG’s from our atmopshere (396/80). Is the picture becoming more clear to you at this point?

    It is a long post so I don’t expect you to read it, I was attempting to answer your concerns in a post. Thanks for any time you invest in this post.

    Have a nice day!

    • Ball4 says:

      Norman 8:59pm: “That makes the radiation loss only 63 watts/m^2 so the loss by evaporation at 80 is greater than the radiation loss.”

      Be careful here, Norman, to have your vocabulary match the science, you are mixing net and gross in these words the science does not do so hence you commit a vocabulary error, the net latent is not 80, that is the gross LH up. 80 is also the gross LH down, so correct vocabulary, mpainter should also pay attention, after TFK09 balance:

      Net LW radiation: = 63
      Net latent: = 0 meaning none of the 80 LH is released in space, 80 is all returned to the atmosphere when LH condenses as no condensation occurs in space.

      • Norman says:

        Ball4

        That is an interesting observation but I am not sure it is the correct view. mpainter may have this one correct.

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/greenhouse-gas-and-KT-diagram.jpg

        On the diagram all your energy flows leaving the surface are radiation 396, LH 80 and thermals 17 for a NET surface loss of 493 watts/m^2. You have 161 of solar and 333 of GHG returning for a NET of 494 watts/m^2 (for a warming effect of 1 watt/m^2). If the 80 watts/m^2 were returned to the surface it would imbalance your surface energy by a positive gain of 81 watts/m^2 which would not be a slow warming effect.

        I tried to find some information on it but I could not yet find what is the temperature of a tropical rainfall. If the ocean surface was 28 C the rainfall would have to be 28 C to return all the energy. If rainfall was cooler the returning latent heat would not keep the ocean the same temperature (which is required for a 0 net energy exchange).

        When I look at the global energy budget is shows the energy going into the atmosphere where it is then radiated away into space. The energy from evaporation goes high enough that it is closer to the TOA and able to radiate its energy away.

        I could be wrong and I will listen to your information. You do have good ideas and points and seem grounded in real science.

        • Ball4 says:

          Norman – Unfortunately TFK09 did not publish the components of their 333. The components consist of the returning 80 from LH dumped in the atm. net 0, the returning 17 from thermals dumped in the atm. net 0, the 78 SW dumped in the atm. since none of these are directly dumped to space and have cycled in steady state for eons give or take.

          All by itself left on its own the atm. at its avg. T looking up radiates the remainder diffusely toward the surface a component global spatial and temporal annual avg. of 157 DW IR per the TFK09 balance. With 1 absorbed, rounded. This is how TFK09 derived the components of the 333.

          80+17+78+157+1=333 all-sky emission to surface

          • Norman says:

            Ball4,

            Okay that makes sense. Thanks again.

            Good luck with Doug and mpainter. I know mpainter has not had much real physics classes (I have had only one College level course basic physics). Doug claims he has but he is not doing much to sell his Sydney University. If their physics department is turning out this terrible muddled understanding of basic well established physics concepts then I would think this would be a very negative selling point. I wouldn’t pay money to get a Cotton education. I can just sit home and make up stuff that I like how it sounds. He can’t do an experiment which is odd for University level physics students.

            I think you may have more luck with mpainter. He is very convinced of his own conclusions but one day may start thinking things over and understand what you are trying to tell him.

          • mpainter says:

            And thus the energy radiated at cloudtops and the upper troposphere gets returned to the surface as back radiation.
            And you ball4 and Norman believe it.

            I don’t. Never will. I got a picture called Ceres that proves otherwise.

          • Doug Cotton says:

            Back radiation certainly goes back to the surface. They measure it and anyone would be a fool to disagree. It just doesn’t have its electro-magnetic energy converted to thermal energy in a hotter surface, and the only heat transfer by radiation between a warmer surface and a cooler atmosphere is a transfer from the warmer surface to the cooler atmosphere, with some also going out the window to Space.

          • Ball4 says:

            Doug 3:41am: “It just doesn’t have its electro-magnetic energy converted to thermal energy in a hotter surface..”

            The classic test in 1898 proved this wrong.

        • Norman says:

          mpainter,

          Question for you. You are saying you don’t believe in back radiation and never will. My question is if the Earth radiates an average of 396 watts/m^2 (more in some places, less in others) and only 239 watts/m^2 are leaving the Earth system (which is the same as the amount of solar energy that is being added to the system…not reflected). What is happening to this 396 watts/m^2?
          Does it just vanish, is gone? Energy is being destroyed by a mechanism not yet understood? Does this violate the first law of thermodynamics?

          If you have 396 going up and only 239 leaving something must be happening to this energy. Maybe you should really rethink your current position. It may be very wrong if you think about it. Maybe you have an emotional attachment to it but that does not make it correct.

          • Doug Cotton says:

            There is absolutely no top of atmosphere measurement that demonstrates a difference like that, young Norman.

            All such measurements rarely indicate a difference outside the range of ±0.4%. You have absolutely no understanding of radiation and limited knowledge even of what climatology puts out. The K-T and NASA energy diagrams rarely show more than 0.1W/m^2 as the net amount supposedly trapped. Of course, with the error in all the individual figures there is no way that the 0.1 figure is correct to one significant figure, and it could easily be -0.1 anyway.

            If ever there is a comment of yours that I have read which really demonstrates your lack of understanding, Norman, I’d say the above one takes the cake.

  77. Norman says:

    mpainter,

    The reason I brought up the Stefan-Boltzmann equation in an earlier post (you do not think it is important). Let me explain and I will keep it short.

    Answer this one. The moon’s surface receives well over 1000 watts/m^2 at its surface but the daytime temperature only goes up to 123 C at the hottest.

    http://www.space.com/18175-moon-temperature.html

    Why does it not continue to rise? (Hint, the answer is NET energy)

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/08/the-moon-is-a-cold-mistress/

    Thanks for your time and have a good day!

    • Doug Cotton says:

      And Norman, there is absolutely nothing about “NET” energy in Stefan Boltzman calculations. Try searching “Stefan Boltzmann calculator” and use the one from tutorvista.com with the Soar constant 1367W/m^2 and emissivity 0.98 for the Moon you get a temperature of 396K which is about 123°C. But that is only for a very small portion of the surface where the Sun is directly overhead. The mean flux for the sunlit side is of course half that, and the temperature for such is 333K which is about 60°C. But that is overestimated because the sunlit side is a hemisphere and not a flat disk. The mean temperature for the whole surface (including the dark side) is somewhat below 0°C because the Moon has no atmosphere.

      Only planets and moons with significant atmospheres exhibit surface temperatures that are hotter than the mean radiating temperature, and that’s because of the gravito-thermal effect brought about by entropy maximization, which is what the Second Law of Thermodynamics says will tend to occur by minimizing unbalance energy potentials. Which part of that statement would you like help understanding Norman?

  78. mpainter says:

    Norman
    This is tiresome. You say above at 9:09 pm that for ocean with SST of 28° you calculate the radiant emmissivity at 456 W/sq m, according to S-B formula. Now you say that it is less and besides you never said that the ocean was a black body. So much for you Norman.

    • Norman says:

      mpainter,

      I used the S-B with ocean emissitivity of around 0.98 to get the 456. You can use the S-B equation on surfaces that are not blackbodies. Did you look at the link in my post?? Wow and you are tired of it. You should really work to get what a person is saying and understand it before making incorrect conclusions.

      Look at the link please!

      • Doug Cotton says:

        But Norman, nowhere on the planet is there a mean (24 hour) input of thermal energy from the Sun that can supply 456W/m^2 of warming solar energy that gets the ocean to that temperature in the first place, especially when it would also have to supply at least an extra 102W/m^2 to compensate for simultaneous heat losses by evaporation, conduction and convection.

        • gbaikie says:

          456W/m^2 over 24 hours would be 10.944 kW hours on average per day.
          On the Moon one can get 16 kw hours [1.36 times 24 hrs divide be 2]- if you point at the sun.
          Not pointing it’s less but as guess it’s somewhere 10.9 Kw at the equator.
          Or if point at the sun it’s 16 Kw anywhere on Moon, but on level surface one get less [particularly if not near equator].

          Generally speaking any area on Earth which gets 8 Kw one average day is pretty good location for harvesting solar energy, but this refers to direct sunlight. If include indirect and direct sunlight, it could possible to get somewhere near to 10.9 kw hours on average day at the earth surface.

          I am not sure if anyone has ever measured the combination of direct and indirect sunlight at given location.

          In terms of heating the ocean, it seems to me, it does not matter whether the sunlight is direct or indirect.

          I will repeat, wiki:
          “The total amount of energy received at ground level from the Sun at the zenith depends on the distance to the Sun and thus on the time of year. It is about 3.3% higher than average in January and 3.3% lower in July (see below). If the extraterrestrial solar radiation is 1367 watts per square meter (the value when the Earth–Sun distance is 1 astronomical unit), then the direct sunlight at Earth’s surface when the Sun is at the zenith is about 1050 W/m2, but the total amount (direct and indirect from the atmosphere) hitting the ground is around 1120 W/m2”
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight

          –But Norman, nowhere on the planet is there a mean (24 hour) input of thermal energy from the Sun that can supply 456W/m^2 of warming solar energy that gets the ocean to that temperature in the first place, especially when it would also have to supply at least an extra 102W/m^2 to compensate for simultaneous heat losses by evaporation, conduction and convection.–

          It seems if kept jug of water in room with some constant temperature, the water will reach room temperature. Or it doesn’t continue to radiate and lower it’s temperature.
          It could continue to evaporate, but if there is enough partial H20 pressure, it won’t.

          So room temperature could be 10 C or say 40 C and same applies.

          Now, were you to increase the water in jug temperature by say 5 C, it would not radiate huge amount difference as compare to 10 C vs the 40 C room. Though there should be some difference.
          And this would apply were the room 5 meter cube or 100 meter cube- or it has little to do with walls and all to do with ambient air temperature.

          • Doug Cotton says:

            “but as guess it’s somewhere 10.9 Kw at the equator.”

            Which part of the equator? All you can easily calculate is that in one very small spot on the Moon that is directly under the Sun (not necessarily on the equator) we can expect 1367W/m^2 (the mean Solar constant) to give 123°C using emissivity of 0.98 in S-B calculations.

            For the whole sunlit hemisphere we can easily calculate the mean radiation to be half the Solar constant and that would make a flat disk 60°C but not make the hemisphere quite that hot on average because of the T^4 relationship in S-B calculations.

          • gbaikie says:

            — Doug Cotton says:
            August 2, 2015 at 3:36 AM

            “but as guess it’s somewhere 10.9 Kw at the equator.”

            Which part of the equator? All you can easily calculate is that in one very small spot on the Moon that is directly under the Sun (not necessarily on the equator) we can expect 1367W/m^2 (the mean Solar constant) to give 123°C using emissivity of 0.98 in S-B calculations.–

            What part of equator? Say within 10 degree or about 20% of entire surface of the Moon. It would be a fairly small spot at any given point in time, but over time it travels the circumference of the Moon.
            Moon has diameter of 3475 km. So circumference 10,917 km
            And spot is about 30 km per degree, if 10 degrees, it’s 300 km radius.
            So roughly it’s 600 by 10900 km band around the Moon, or 6,540,000 square km and
            Australia is 7.692 million square km {Google]. It’s a small spot which a quite a bit smaller than Australia.
            Or total area of Moon is “37.9 million square kilometers{”
            http://www.universetoday.com/19925/area-of-the-moon/
            So the small spot less than 20% of the surface area of the Moon.

            As far as calculating it, it has complication of terrain and how reflective it is. But roughly speaking if sun is within 45 degree of the spot, it will receive about 1360 watt per square meter. And you have 360 degree per lunar day/night cycle. So daytime is 180 degree. So having sun
            within about 45 degrees is 90 degrees of the total 180 degree arc.
            You can pretend the Moon has 24 hour day [like earth] so this spot is getting 6 hours of about 1360 watts. Or 8.16 kW hours or more precisely about 8 kW hours.
            As the sun moves further away from 45 degree, one gets progressively less sunlight per square which level to the surface.
            Or the first hour of morning and last hour of afternoon, one gets some average around 100 watts per square meter of area which level to surface. If you were pointing at the sun, it’s instead about 1360 watts per square meter. Or if standing on the Moon during these two hours one have shadow with average length of about 10 time your height. Or if 1 meter square is pointing at the sun it would on average shade 10 times it’s area of level ground.
            So those two hours have an insignificant amount of sunlight,
            and you also get almost anything having higher amount of reflection- particularly in regards to natural materials.
            Also during this time terrain features have more profound effect. So it’s all rather complicated, but roughly it’s about 1/10th of sunlight.
            The remaining 4 hours [6 + 2 and minus it from 12 is 4} has about 1/2 of sunlight. So spot should have about 11 to 12 kW hour on average per day. Or one gets about 50% more sunlight if point at the sun, if at the the equator on the Moon. If pointing at the Sun when at higher latitude on the moon one get twice of sunlight. And it doesn’t work, this way on Earth, because when sun is lower on the horizon, it has to go thru more atmosphere, which blocks direct sunlight.
            But on Earth one gets considerable more indirect sunlight in hours near morning and dust. Well, actually you get near zero indirect sunlight on the Moon, though one could get sunlight reflected off the lunar surface and indirectly heating some other part of the surface.

            In summary, if you count the direct and indirect sunlight at the equatorial region of Earth, one can get closer to the amount of sunlight one gets at level surface in region near the equator of the Moon.

  79. tonyM says:

    Doug Cotton says:
    July 31, 2015 at 2:30 AM

    Calculations using S-B are simply determining the area between the two Planck curves for, as I hope you know, S-B is based on the integral of the Planck function.

    —————–

    Doug,
    Thanks for agreeing with me.

    That is the only statement of relevance. It is short and sweet and did not require you to be sidetracked and so verbose.

    It requires the two way S-B relationships unless you wish to do it line by line.

    Good luck as these are continuous functions so you will be there til infinity to try to sort out the overlap and pseudo scatter. You could always approximate!

    Or you can simply use the standard procedure by subtraction of the two integrals as is the norm AND NOT ARGUE!

    • Doug Cotton says:

      No it doesn’t “require” two-way anything. Just because you do a mathematical subtraction does not mean that each calculation represents thermal energy being transferred one way or the other in the real world. Thermal energy is only transferred one way. It is converted to electromagnetic energy in radiation from a source, and some, and only some of that EM energy is converted to thermal energy if and only if the target has a lower Planck curve than the effective Planck curve of the source after attenuation. Because the lower Planck curve can be shown mathematically always to be contained within the area under the higher Planck curve, then the difference of the integrals is represented by the area between the curves. That is the radiation which cannot resonate and thus gets converted to kinetic energy.

  80. Doug Cotton says:

    And so TonyM, you have thermal energy transfers out of the surface by both radiation and by non-radiative processes and, you have a mean of 168W/m^2 of solar radiation striking a surface that is nearly everywhere hotter than the S-B temperature for 168W/m^2 (namely about -40°C) and so, TonyM you have no way of estimating the surface temperature, because the solar radiation is not raising the existing temperature for nearly all the surface in the first place.

    Was that “short and sweet enough” ?

    • tonyM says:

      Doug Cotton:

      Totally irrelevant to the discussion.

      In any case you can’t estimate it either by simply using overlapping Plank curves. Try it and show your calcs.

      • Doug Cotton says:

        Very relevant to the top post on sensitivity. If you can’t calculate the correct temperature with whatever algorithm you use, then you can’t calculate sensitivity because you have no base temperature that you can confirm with the algorithm that you think you can use to determine sensitivity. In other words, if the method you use and the assumptions you make do not give you the right “answer” in terms of surface temperature, then nor will they do so for any attempt to calculate a change in the temperature – ie sensitivity – ie the subject of the Roy’s top post.

      • Retired Physics Educator says:

        So, tonyM, I know I can’t calculate the Earth’s surface temperature from any Planck curves or Stefan Boltzmann calculations. That’s my whole point. Nobody can. Such calculations are irrelevant because radiation into the surfaces of planets like Earth and Venus (with significant atmospheres) is NOT the principal determinant of the surface temperature, as I told Roy at least two years ago.

    • Doug Cotton says:

      The mathematics is identical to using the difference of the two Stefan Boltzmann calculations. Such has been used by engineers and physicists for many decades.

  81. Doug Cotton says:

    Silent readers (not TonyM) could read Section 2 of my 2012 paper entitled …

    2. Does radiation transfer heat in both directions simultaneously?

  82. Doug Cotton says:

    MikeM:

    You don’t prove anything wrong about my hypothesis until you discuss correctly what it is and how it is derived from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I have explained the process of entropy maximization, whereas you have just discussed a lot of red herrings. You have no explanation as to how solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface can explain its temperature, now do you? I do – and mine is based on physics and empirical results throughout the Solar System. The biggest joke is how you admit that they “use centrifugal force” – which is analogous to Nature using gravity also to produce a temperature gradient. That’s the whole point, MikeM. The centrifugal force they “use” makes the central molecules cold – like -272°C cold, thus creating a huge radial temperature gradient because of the propensity for entropy to be maximized. You just don’t have a clue about entropy – I think you confuse the word with energy. And where is your study showing water vapor warming?

    • Ball4 says:

      Doug 12:13am: “You don’t prove anything wrong about my hypothesis until you discuss correctly what it is is..

      Dr. Spencer’s 6/30/15 test put up correct physics that refutes Doug’s hypothesis that the black line will trend up when the cirrus show up in view, it didn’t, the black line trended down. Even Dr. Feynman would say Doug’s hypothesis is thereby refuted by test. That was easy. The 2LOT is ok, Doug invokes it incorrectly as I have pinpointed in the past.

      • Doug Cotton says:

        Roy’s “experiment” (supporting what I wrote about in my 2012 paper regarding backradiation slowing the rate of surface cooling that is itself by radiation) has got nothing what-so-ever to do with the (2013) hypothesis that is all about entropy maximization. Do you deny that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is all about entropy maxization via the process of diminishing unbalanced energy potentials? Perhaps you haven’t a clue what it’s all about.

        • Ball4 says:

          Doug 4:58am: “Do you deny that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is all about entropy maxization via the process of diminishing unbalanced energy potentials?”

          I do not. 2LOT: Entropy always increases.

          Dr. Spencer’s 6/30/2015 test put an end to Doug’s 4:45am hypothesis when the black line trended down with cirrus: ” The ocean is NOT gaining energy from back radiation.” The black line trending down showed beyond doubt water gaining energy from backradiation per 1LOT. Basically NOAA ESRL supports this with every day cloud detection testing of its own.

          It also puts an end to Doug’s hypothesis “back radiation does not penetrate water by more than a few nanometers – basically to the first molecule it resonates with.” The thermometers measuring temperature were several inches down in the water.

          It also puts an end to Doug’s 3:42am hypothesis: “water vapor cools rather than warms, and my study supported that.” as the black line trended down not up (meaning added wv did not show the cooling purported to occur, it showed the added energy from the cirrus per 1LOT).

          I’ve pinpointed here in the past where Doug’s study calculations fail to get the physics right, this test proves Doug’s calculations really are incorrect. Doug can look for the correct calculations in the cite I provided and issue corrigenda.

          • Retired Physics Educator says:

            Roy’s experiment does nothing of the kind. It just proves what has been known to be the case for over 100 years, namely that radiation from a cooler source slows radiative cooling of a warmer target. I have explained how and why that happens – about three or four years back.

            Back radiation cannot raise the temperature of a warmer surface. Where the surface is warmer than the atmosphere, radiation from the surface to the atmosphere is cooling the surface; radiation the other way is slowing that portion of the surface cooling which is by radiation. It is not slowing non-radiative cooling, and it is certainly not helping the Sun to raise the surface temperature on a clear sunny morning.

            I’m really not interested in your assertive claims without one iota of reference to the development of my hypothesis from the Second Law.

            Roy’s experiment confirms precisely what I have explained over and over about radiation slowing radiative cooling. It’s there in my 2012 paper, for example. It’s no big deal, and it’s totally irrelevant in the 21st century new paradigm in climate science.

            My hypothesis is not about radiation of any kind supposedly explaining the temperatures in planetary tropospheres, crusts, mantles and cores. You limit your thinking to a paradigm which is incorrect and which cannot be used to explain sub-surface temperatures for a start, or how the energy gets there to raise surface temperatures and temperatures further down.

          • Retired Physics Educator says:

            Entropy always increases in the process described and explained in my hypothesis, so you agree my hypothesis is in keeping with the Second Law. It’s good that you’re off Square One, even before you have any idea as to what my hypothesis is saying, or why it is describing what the Second Law implies will happen as entropy tends towards a maximum.

            All diffusion and NATURAL convective heat transfer happens as a result of the Second Law process which involves the dissipation of unbalanced energy potentials. Such energy potentials can be calculated, but you MUST include a term for molecular gravitational potential energy, not just a term for mean kinetic energy. That’s what my hypothesis enlarges upon, showing just what must happen when the energy potentials diminish.

            Strictly speaking, entropy doesn’t increase indefinitely: it can stop increasing when a maximum is reached, that is, when thermodynamic equilibrium is attained. If that state is then disturbed by an external influence (like absorption of new solar energy in the upper troposphere each morning) then there will be a propensity to maximize entropy again, and, in plain language, that enables us to work out what will happen.

          • Retired Physics Educator says:

            The overall “energy balance” is the state of maximum entropy and, for there to be “overall energy balance” there must be no remaining unbalanced energy potentials. The dissipation of such energy potentials is represented by an increase in entropy, and when all such potentials are gone we have the state of thermodynamic equilibrium which is of course the state of maximum entropy.

            And because the energy potentials have all dissipated we have a homogeneous distribution of total molecular energy (including gravitational potential energy) and, in the absence of reactions and phase changes, that comes down to a homogeneous sum (PE+KE) which implies a vertical temperature gradient, because temperature is proportional to mean molecular kinetic energy and potential energy varies with altitude.

            THE SLOPING THERMAL PLANE WHICH THUS EVOLVES WITH ENTROPY MAXIMIZATION ACTS LIKE A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD OVER WHICH ANY NEW “HEAP” OF THERMAL ENERGY WILL SPREAD OUT IN ALL DIRECTIONS AS HERE.

          • Ball4 says:

            REP 5:01am: “..radiation from a cooler source slows radiative cooling of a warmer target.”

            Yes, the added backradiation incident on Dr. Spencer’s warmer water from the cooler cirrus source with the test black line trending down puts an end to Doug’s hypothesis: ” The ocean is NOT gaining energy from back radiation.” as well as putting an end to his “merely resonates” at surface hypothesis. This was proven by test in 1898. Long before Doug wrote on the subject 3 or 4 years ago, he could have simply looked it up.

            “Back radiation cannot raise the temperature of a warmer surface.”

            Yet the temperature of Dr. Spencer’s warmer water in view of the added incident backradiation from the cooler cirrus is higher than the temperature of the control water blocked from viewing the cooler cirrus. This is the 1LOT in action, REP. In full compliance with 2LOT.

            Test results put an end to Doug’s 3:42am hypothesis from incorrect calculations: “water vapor cools rather than warms, and my study supported that.”

            “It is not slowing non-radiative cooling..”

            Dr. Spencer’s warmer water in view of the cooler cirrus is free to evaporatively cool (non-radiative cooling) yet the water temperature is higher than the water blocked from cirrus view. This shows nature’s true workings are not as Doug writes.

            “Roy’s experiment confirms precisely what I have explained..”

            This 6/30/15 testing puts an end to many of Doug’s hypotheses, Doug’s writings should not be referred to until he issues corrigenda to line his writings up with natural test results.

            “My hypothesis is not about radiation of any kind…”

            Doug forgot about his own writing, this test proves his statement incorrect as non-1LOT compliant, thus abandoning: “Back radiation cannot raise the temperature of a warmer surface.” The water within view of the cooler cirrus has a higher temperature than the other water due added incident radiation, shown by the black line trending down. Doug needs to issue corrigenda.

          • Ball4 says:

            REP 5:14am: “Strictly speaking, entropy doesn’t increase indefinitely: it can stop increasing when a maximum is reached, that is, when thermodynamic equilibrium is attained.”

            REP should know entropy maximization (thermodynamic equilibrium) can’t happen in any real process in nature since no perfect insulation exists as there is in thought experiments with totally isolated columns of air.

            Do not refer to Doug’s writings REP, until corrigenda are issued to line them up with test.

          • Retired Physics Educator says:

            All that matters, Ball4, is that there is a propensity to move towards thermodynamic equilibrium. A ball on the slope of a hillside has a propensity to roll downhill, thus increasing entropy. Likewise we need to understand in which direction(s) thermal energy has a propensity to move, and when it would stop doing so in the limit.

            I will repeat the comment below (from another thread) because you, in particular, Ball4 have a lot of learning to do regarding entropy and the laws of physics:

            Based on the mean flux of radiation …

            (a) The effective temperature of the Sun’s radiation reaching the surface of Earth is about -40°C. Yes, minus 40.

            (b) The effective temperature of the Sun’s radiation reaching the surface of Venus is about -140°C

            (c) The effective temperature of all the radiation from Earth’s atmosphere to its surface is about 3°C.

            Because these planets are rotating spheres, the actual mean temperature that any of the above radiation could achieve is a few degrees colder than would be achieved with uniform orthogonal flux striking a flat non-reflecting surface. The reason for this relates to the fact that the achieved temperature is only proportional to the fourth root of the flux. So, because the flux varies with the angle of incidence, flux that is above the mean achieves only a relatively small increase in temperature above that achieved by the mean flux.

            From this it is obvious that the mean temperatures of the surfaces of Earth and Venus are not achieved by direct radiation into those surfaces. Some relatively small regions on Earth may rise in temperature due to direct solar radiation, but overall, the observed global mean temperature cannot be explained by solar radiation. Atmospheric radiation would also not keep the mean temperature above freezing point (0°C) either.

            Hence we need to consider a totally different paradigm (based on entropy maximization and the laws of thermodynamics) which can and does explain the actual observed temperatures, not only for Earth and Venus, but for all planets and even the regions below any solid surface. Correct physics produces correct results that agree with data from the real Solar System.

            The breakthrough has come in this 21st Century and the science stands up to the test, being supported by copious evidence from planetary data, studies and experiments such as outlined at http://climate-change-theory.com so you will learn what is really happening if you read and study such.

          • Ball4 says:

            RPE 5:22pm: “All that matters, Ball4, is that there is a propensity to move towards thermodynamic equilibrium.”

            That is good 2LOT RPE, but there is more that matters, namely 1LOT. A balanced energy diagram of any arbitrary volume will inform the steady state median temperature in that volume.

            “..it is obvious that the mean temperatures of the surfaces of Earth and Venus are not achieved by direct radiation into those surfaces.”

            Correct RPE, some of the sun load is dumped in their atm.s so that energy needs to be included. Let’s do it for Earth now that we have Dr. Spencer’s 6/30/15 test to guide us, it demonstrates we have to add the avg. DW LW (aka backradiation) as shown by the black line trending down to satisfy 1LOT. Any modern text book on the subject will show you how to do so.

            “Atmospheric radiation would also not keep the mean temperature above freezing point (0°C) either.”

            Dr. Spencer’s 6/30/15 test demonstrates this is incorrect physics RPE, atm. radiation DW LW needs to be added to solar as Dr. Spencer test black line demonstrated, in order to balance the 1LOT budget annually. Global annual DW LW avg.s about 158.6W/m^2 and it is on all the time. This is just enough, when added to solar load, as both are DW, to get the Earth median T to 289.5K (61.4F) after Stephens 2012. Again, any modern text on the subject will walk you thru the simple 1LOT balance analogue, be sure to include thermals, evaporation. MS Excel will help with the calculations.

            Again, I see no need to go to Doug’s link after discovering his physics errors there and pinpointing them for him on this site, with citation, and all others should take heed, until Doug issues the required corrigenda to line up with test.

          • Retired Physics Educator says:

            “some of the sun load is dumped in their atm.s so that energy needs to be included”

            Yes, that is a fundamental fact and my hypothesis explains with correct physics how that new energy each morning (mostly only raising the temperatures in the upper troposphere and above, where it’s cold enough for the Sun’s radiation to be able to raise the temperature and thus deposit new thermal energy) – how that new energy then actually gets into the lower troposphere and thence the surface.

            My study of real world temperature and precipitation records supports the theoretical reason in the hypothesis as to why increasing water vapor lowers the thermal profile at te surface end as it reduces the magnitude of the temperature gradient. It’s damn obvious that if it did the opposite then radiative balance with the Sun would be thrown way out. I suggest you think on that.

            I will not discuss further anything other than genuine questions that show clear evidence that the questioner has read and at least tried to understand the hypothesis at http://climate-change-theory.com because I am not here to defend it, but to help readers understand it.

          • Retired Physics Educator says:

            PS: The energy diagrams show a net combination of thermal energy and electro-magnetic energy (some of which never becomes thermal energy in the surface) all supposedly adding to a net 390W/m^2 and then supposedly “explaining” a mean temperature of 15°C using Stefan Boltzmann calculations for perfect black bodies. (390W/m^2 gives 287.9853443979743K.) The problem is, that for variable flux striking a rotating sphere (rather than the flat Earth assumed by deducing the temperature is 15°C from 390W/m^2) the real mean temperature achieved by a mean flux of 390W/m^2 would be close to 0°C if not below, not 15°C because of the T^4 relationship in the Stefan Boltzmann calculations. In any event, it is wrong to add the backradiation. If you add it for the mean then you must also add it where there is solar radiation from directly above on a clear day in a tropical desert, and if you do so you will calculate temperatures over 90°C (probably over 110°C if you use appropriately higher than average back radiation) which you are assuming all contribute to your invalid mean of 15°C.

            WHEN WILL YOU GET IT INTO YOUR HEAD THAT THE EXTRA ENERGY FROM THE UPPER TROPOSPHERE GETS INTO THE SURFACE BY THE THERMODYNAMIC, NON-RADIATIVE PROCESS INVOLVING ENTROPY MAXIMIZATION, AND NOT BY RADIATION OF ANY KIND?

            It’s all explained at http://climate-change-theory.com

          • Retired Physics Educator says:

            According to energy diagrams, the Energy balance at the surface is …

            Mean energy from Solar radiation: 168W/m^2

            Less:

            Thermal energy transferred out of surface
            by all radiation other than solar: 66W/m^2

            Non-radiative transfers by evaporation,
            conduction and convective heat transfer: 102W/m^2

            Total out: 168W/m^2 = total in.

            And it’s all crap. The Sun’s radiation does not all get converted to thermal energy because the surface is already warmer than that radiation could make it nearly everywhere except around noon on a clear day in the tropics.

            What is omitted is the additional non-radiative transfers into and out of the surface by day and by night.

            We know everything balances because the top of atmosphere measurements over several decades have never shown an imbalance of more than about 0.5% for any significant period, and the error margins in the measurement of both the incident and the emitted radiation at TOA each have errors of about 0.5% anyway, so no-one has any convincing evidence of significant energy trapping because the difference could be positive or negative. In fact, since mean global temperatures have fallen since the peak in 1998, there must have been a net energy loss over that 17 year period.

          • Retired Physics Educator says:

            Ball4 (and others who want to know why he’s wrong:

            When you fill your bath tub with hot water you may have noticed that the walls of the tub also get warmer under the water. That’s the Second Law in operation. There’s no violation of the First Law in that process and neither is there in my hypothesis which is analogous. At equilibrium in your bath tub the energy balance is quite simple – nil either way between the tub and the wall. Likewise with the non-radiative processes at the surface-atmosphere interface over the full day/night cycle, though in the real rotating world there is of course equal energy in (mostly during the day) and out at night. In tropical regions there will be a little extra energy in from the solar radiation (where it is actually of sufficient intensity to raise the temperature) and that will be balanced however Nature sees fit, some by radiation out the window to Space and some by extra radiative and/or non-radiative transfer to the atmosphere, mostly late afternoon and night.

            So what’s your problem, Ball4? There’s no violation of the First or Second Law in my hypothesis. Your problem is that you haven’t the vaguest idea as to what that hypothesis is all about.

          • Ball4 says:

            RPE 9:07pm: “My study of real world temperature and precipitation records supports the theoretical reason in the hypothesis as to why increasing water vapor lowers the thermal profile at te surface..

            Dr. Spencer’s real world test 6/30/2015 determines increasing water vapor raises the thermal profile at the surface when the black line trended down by the cirrus adding energy per 1LOT so puts an end to Doug’s hypothesis. Corrigenda to Doug’s site are required as Dr. Feynman writes – if your hypothesis does not line up with test, then it is wrong.

            In addition RPE, I’ve shown Doug on this site in the past precisely where his study’s calculations are physically incorrect causing his faulty conclusion and provided him a cite as to the correct calculations already in the literature.

            “It’s damn obvious that if it did the opposite then radiative balance with the Sun would be thrown way out.”

            That’s obviously faulty conclusion because Doug’s calculations are precisely shown incorrect.

            “I will not discuss further..

            On to the 9:19pm further RPE discussion…

          • Ball4 says:

            RPE 9:19pm: further discussion anyway “..(some of which never becomes thermal energy in the surface)..”

            Dr. Spencer’s 6/30/2015 test put an end to this “merely resonates” hypothesis, in addition to the more formal test in 1898 & NOAA ESRL everyday observations.

            “The problem is, that for variable flux striking a rotating sphere…”

            The KT97 390 is based on ERBE satellite results at all viewing angles, at all annual sun angles, all variable flux so no problem. The earth is assumed to be a sphere which is actually really, really close – actually it is an oblate spheroid as observed by ERBE.

            “In any event, it is wrong to add the backradiation.”

            Dr. Spencer’s 6/30/2015 test put an end to this hypothesis, in addition the hypothesis was ended by the more formal test in 1898 & 1LOT.

            “If you add it for the mean then you must also add it where there is solar radiation from directly above on a clear day in a tropical desert, and if you do so you will calculate temperatures over 90°C..It’s all explained at…”

            Not when calculated correctly, as I’ve shown here previously, by not using Doug’s faulty calculations, one gets close to 35C which is supported by NOAA ESRL observation at Desert Rock, Nv. The explanations at Doug’s site are thus faulty and in need of corrigenda as demonstrated by Dr. Spencer’s 6/30/2015 test.

            ——

            RPE 9:07pm: Agrees “Yes (some of the sun load is dumped in their atm.s so that energy needs to be included) is a fundamental fact..”

            Then forgets that agreed fundamental fact in:

            RPE 9:40pm: “the Energy balance at the surface is …Mean energy from Solar radiation: 168W/m^2..”

            Adding the agreed fundamental fact for the correct physics:

            Mean energy from Solar radiation: 168W/m^2 + sun load dumped in atm. 67 W/m^2 = 235 W/m^2

            235in – (390-155)out = 235in – 235out = balanced at surface w/288K Tmedian

            Or showing all the KT97 surface arrows:

            (235+78+24)in – (390+78+24-155)out = 235in – 235out = balanced at surface w/Tmedian=288K, 255K at TOA

          • Ball4 says:

            RPE 9:55pm: “So what’s your problem, Ball4? There’s no violation of the First or Second Law in my hypothesis.”

            I have no problem understanding modern texts RPE as you do. Here is where Dr. Spencer’s 6/30/2015 test shows Doug’s hypotheses violate the 1st and 2nd laws, at a minimum:

            1) Doug’s hypothesis that added atm. water vapor (wv) cools violates the 1LOT, his hypothesis that wv would further cool the water in view of the cirrus was ended by test when the black line trended down not up as required by his hypothesis which fails 1LOT.

            2) Doug’s hypothesis that radiation from a cooler cirrus source “merely resonates” with the warmer water was also ended by this test with thermometers detecting the cirrus several inches deep in the water. This hypothesis fails 2LOT which tells entropy always increases.

            “Your problem is that you haven’t the vaguest idea as to what that hypothesis is all about.”

            I’ve read Doug’s site, found the incorrect calculations, pinpointed them & showed Doug precisely where, and provided Doug a cite to the correct calculations. Desert Rock, Nv. only gets to about 35C, rounded, air temperature at high Noon under 8/4/2015 1100 DW sun load plus 400 DW LW, rounded, (aka backradiation) despite Doug’s demonstrated faulty claim of 90C.

            Issue the corrigenda based on the 6/30/2015 test, Doug, and I will revisit your site, until then all readers should be wary of doing so.

          • Doug Cotton says:

            Ball4 writes: “Doug’s hypothesis that added atm. water vapor (wv) cools violates the 1LOT”

            Assertive statement – rejected.

            Study at back of “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” shows more moist regions are cooler.

            The hypothesis shows why water vapor causes temperature gradient to be less steep.

            Empirical evidence shows the same, as is well known.

            Radiative balance at TOA is measured and shown not to be out side the range ±0/5%.

            If the surface end of the thermal profile were raised by water vapor (warming) and, at the same time the temperature gradient made less steep, then there would be far more outward radiation (roughly related to area under that profile) than inward radiation. The is no evidence of such.

            Ball4 doesn’t even get off Square One

          • Doug Cotton says:

            Then Ball4 writes:

            “Desert Rock, Nv. only gets to about 35C, rounded, air temperature at high Noon under 8/4/2015 1100 DW sun load plus 400 DW LW, rounded, (aka backradiation) despite Doug’s demonstrated faulty claim of 90C.”

            He really puts his foot in it here. Of course the real temperatures are far lower than what he calculates by incorrectly adding backradiation.

            That proves that you won’t get a mean global temperature of 15°C either when (as the IPCC do) you add back radiation and solar radiation to get a mean of 390W/m^2 for which the blackbody temperature is 278.98K. Real world temperatures (as he showed with Desert Rock) would be far lower than the calculated ones.

            So Ball4 proves my point beautifully with his “own goal” and it is damn obvious that not even the sum of backradiation and solar radiation can explain the actual observed temperatures, the calculations being far too high. If you think you can calculate a global mean that way (as the IPCC claims) then EVERY application of your conjecture (such as at Desert Rock) would also have to give the correct observed temperature – but it’s way out in his example. Thus all such regions especially in the tropics, would drag the global mean right down, as is obvious.

            So Ball4 is wrong and way off track, using a totally incorrect paradigm with which he has been brainwashed by the likes of James Hansen and faithful believers of the cult.

            QED

          • Doug Cotton says:

            And Ball4 is just trying to bluff silent readers when he writes “his hypothesis that wv would further cool the water in view of the cirrus” because there is no statement in any writings of mine that says anything remotely like that. Quote page and paragraph, Ball4. Do likewise for these “calculations” you say you found in my website or linked papers.

          • Ball4 says:

            Doug 2:42am: “Study at back of “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” shows more moist regions are cooler.”

            This doesn’t line up with 6/30/2015 test black line trending down, Dr. Feynman writes if not, it is incorrect. I’ve pinpointed where Doug’s calculations showing effects of radiation go wrong in the past, the correct ones are available in the literature, I’ve provided the citation, do the research Doug.

            “The is no evidence of such.”

            Dr. Spencer’s test on 6/30/2015 provides the evidence, NOAA ESRL measures the evidence everyday. Many of Doug’s hypotheses are ended by those observations, falsified by test.

            “That proves that you won’t get a mean global temperature of 15°C either..”

            Nope, this is falsified by Dr. Spencer’s test also, when the black line trended down it shows the mechanism by which the 255K, 288K operate (as in next paragraph).

            “If you think you can calculate a global mean that way (as the IPCC claims) then EVERY application of your conjecture (such as at Desert Rock)..”

            I know so, Dr. Spencer’s test proved it and some time ago showed the supporting calculations as in many modern texts, do the research. Doug must have missed the simple calculations from measured input showing RPE all the KT97 surface arrows add up to 288K:

            (235+78+24)in – (390+78+24-155)out = 235in – 235out = balanced at surface w/Tmedian=288K (the 390), 255K at TOA (the 235).

            “And Ball4 is just trying to bluff silent readers when he writes “his hypothesis that wv would further cool the water in view of the cirrus” because there is no statement in any writings of mine that says anything remotely like that. Quote page and paragraph, Ball4.”

            Doug Cotton July 17, 3:42am: “So water vapor cools rather than warms, and my study supported that.”

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/07/new-pause-busting-temperature-dataset-implies-only-1-5-c-climate-sensitivity/#comment-195238

            This hypothesis ended by Dr. Spencer’s test showing Doug’s calculations really are incorrect, the exact details pinpointed on this site for Doug in the past, only needs to be done once, research it Doug and look up the citation, or find it on your own as silent readers can do/have done.

            “Do likewise for these “calculations” you say you found in my website or linked papers.”

            Done, look it up. Silent and active readers find the existing literature has the correct calculations, should be wary of reading anything on Doug’s site.

          • Doug Cotton says:

            You are laughable, Ball4.

            Roy’s experiment proves back radiation slows that portion of surface cooling which is itself by radiation, and my first paper (March 2012) outlines the physics which confirms that very fact, and I state that fact also in that paper. Roy is nearly three and a half years behind me on that one.

            But then you want to argue that my study of the temperature and precipitation records from thirty years of record keeping for 15 locations spread over three continents is somehow proven wrong by Roy’s little experiment. The data is listed in the paper, together with the on-line source, so you could check it and even do your own study along similar lines in about half a day. But you won’t, will you?

            Roy has admitted in a comment at least a year ago that “everyone knows backradiation does not penetrate water” and I have explained that it can only slow radiative cooling of the water surface. Furthermore, I’ve explained at the atomic level the process whereby it does that way back in my 212 paper. Do you seriously think you’re teaching me anything new?

            In short your “black line trending down” shows a rate of cooling, not a gaining of energy with some magical transfer of thermal energy by radiation from a cold atmosphere to a hot surface.

            You have never shown calculations that are legitimately proving radiation “explains” the observed surface temperatures. The IPCC includes back radiation, but excludes radiation out of the surface in their S-B calculations, which are for a flat Earth anyway receiving uniform flux.

            Only uniform flux achieves the temperatures in black bodies which we use Stefan Boltzmann calculations to determine. Those calculations are based on temperature being proportional to the fourth root of the flux. So if the flux varies a lot in different locations, the mean temperature for those locations cannot be derived simplistically from the mean flux. Temperature is NOT proportional to flux – it is proportional to the FOURTH ROOT of flux.

            For example:

            Say (in whatever units we need) we have these T temperatures and fluxes that are then based on T^4:-

            Temperature T … Flux (T^4)

            2 units ……… 16
            4 units …….. 256
            6 units ……. 1296

            Mean temp …. Mean Flux
            4 units ……. 522.7

            Now, if you were told the mean flux is 522.7 you might think the mean temperature would be far higher than 4 units because the flux for 4 units is only 256. This applies in all such cases:

            A variable flux ALWAYS produces a lower mean temperature than a homogeneous flux that is equal to the mean of the variable flux values. So, even if you incorrectly claim the mean flux into the Earth’s surface is 390W/m^2, that does not produce a temperature anywhere near as high as the estimated actual mean of at least 14°C. That is an example as to just how simplistic the IPCC models are, and they should NOT be counting back radiation whilst ignoring outward radiation anyway.

          • Doug Cotton says:

            Now go to this comment, Ball4.

          • Ball4 says:

            Doug 6:33am: “But then you want to argue that my study of the temperature and precipitation records from thirty years of record keeping for 15 locations spread over three continents is somehow proven wrong by Roy’s little experiment….so you could check it and even do your own study along similar lines in about half a day. But you won’t, will you?”

            Not the test, you are confused as usual Doug, I’ve already checked your calculations, done my own work, & shown your calculations are incorrect at this site, given you the correct calculations and the cite for them. These were in the literature before you wrote in 2012 and you simply didn’t do the research to find them.

            “Do you seriously think you’re teaching me anything new?”

            Yes, Doug demonstrates not researching the existing literature before writing incorrect calculations. Now Doug is faced with issuing corrigenda to line up with test and existing correct physics. No wary reader should reference his site until this is done.

            “You have never shown calculations that are legitimately proving radiation “explains” the observed surface temperatures. “

            These numbers all come from instrumental test and using 1LOT at earth surface after KT97, all the KT97 surface arrows add up to 288K:

            (168+67+78+24)in – (390+78+24-155)out = 235in – 235out = balanced at surface w/Tmedian=288K (the 390), 255K at TOA (the 235).

          • Doug Cotton says:

            My response, Ball4, is here in 43 minutes of comprehensive explanation rigorously based on the laws of physics …

            https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-TXYe4rJp0xmbBh51AD8jptu34LAJc-b

          • Ball4 says:

            Doug 5:28am: Dr. Spencer’s 6/30/2015 test falsified much of your video and your writings; the wary reader & viewer well advised to avoid both until corrigenda are issued to line up your physics with real world observations. Dr. Feynman taught if your physics aren’t supported by test, they are wrong.

      • Doug Cotton says:

        Maybe this site will help you learn more about the Second Law:
        http://entropylaw.com

        • Doug Cotton says:

          The observed temperature of a planet’s surface is attained over the life of a planet and then maintained by the state of maximum entropy which, in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the associated process of dissipation of unbalanced energy potentials, will have both a stable density gradient and a stable temperature gradient.

          The overall level of the thermal profile in the troposphere is anchored by the need for radiative balance with the insolation, but then the temperature gradient sets (by extrapolation) the surface temperature. That temperature is lower where the magnitude of the gradient is lower, as in more moist regions, and that is why increasing water vapor will lower the surface temperature.

          Real world temperature and precipitation records demonstrate that there is a correlation whereby increasing precipitation corresponds with decreasing mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures.

          • Ball4 says:

            Doug 7:13am: “..that is why increasing water vapor will lower the surface temperature.”

            Doug’s hypothesis falsified by Dr. Spencer test 6/30/2015 when the black line trended down, not up as Doug hypothesized it would.

          • Doug Cotton says:

            Doug’s hypothesis (complete with study of real world data showing water vapor cools) is here in 43 minutes of full HD video, all based on the laws of physics and thoussands of hours of research …

            So my response, Ball4, is here …

            https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-TXYe4rJp0xmbBh51AD8jptu34LAJc-b

          • Ball4 says:

            Doug 5:28am & 5:30am: Dr. Spencer’s 6/30/2015 test falsified much of your video and your writings; the wary reader & viewer well advised to avoid both until corrigenda are issued to line up your physics with real world observations. Dr. Feynman taught if your physics aren’t supported by test, they are wrong.

          • Doug Cotton says:

            I “hypothesized” no such thing. Link silent readers to any such comment of mine.

            If you think that Roy’s little test (which I agree with and actually wrote about that very thing – back radiation slowing radiation from a warmer surface – in my 2012 paper) somehow over-rides the effect of thermodynamics on surface temperatures, even though you cannot possibly quantify mean surface temperatures with radiation calculations, then you need to take a long hard look at some real world data such as in my study and in this comment I just wrote on a newer thread.

          • Ball4 says:

            Doug 8:17pm: “I “hypothesized” no such thing. Link silent readers to any such comment of mine.”

            Removing links, here 5:30am: “Doug’s hypothesis (complete with study of real world data showing water vapor cools)”

            Here 3:42am:“So water vapor cools rather than warms, and my study supported that.”

            Here 8:39am: “Water vapor cools by a few degrees and cannot possibly warm.”

            Here 4:20am: “but I have proved it, and likewise proved water vapor cools rather than warms.”

            Need I show more?

            Dr. Spencer test proving incident cirrus energy increasing the pool of water temperature above the pool of water temperature NOT viewing the cirrus, by the black line trending down is here:
            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/
            therefore Doug is proven wrong as added water vapor & water ice in the cirrus does NOT cool by test, his calculations must therefore be in error as I pointed out to him, and as Dr. Feynman taught if your hypothesis doesn’t line up with test, then it is wrong.

            Dr. Spencer’s 6/30/2015 test falsified much of Doug’s video and writings; the wary reader & viewer well advised to avoid both until corrigenda are issued to line up Doug’s physics with real world observations. Issue your corrigenda without delay, Doug, based on the 6/30/2015 test and I will revisit your site, until then all readers should be wary of doing so.

          • Ball4 says:

            Doug –

            1) “back radiation slows radiative cooling”
            2) “My study showed water vapor cools.”

            Which one is correct Doug? Dr. Spencer’s 6/30/2015 showed added cirrus atm. water vapor raised the temperature of the water pool compared to the one not viewing the cirrus. So 1) is correct by test and 2) fails because Doug didn’t do the precipitable water calculations correctly so Doug’s study is demonstrated faulty.

            “..where does the required thermal energy come from in order to raise the surface temperature each morning?”

            The sun comes up.

  83. Doug Cotton says:

    Please read this comment as that’s all I have to say for today.