Too Much Cotton Leads to Meltdown

August 27th, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

no-kangaroo-sock-puppetsI try to be patient with folks. Give them the benefit of the doubt. I have allowed just about any kind of comments to be posted (and remain posted) on this blog in the name of free and open debate.

But I am beginning to fear for the emotional health of myself and others.

One of our avid commenters from down under, Doug Cotton, has overstayed his welcome. Doug has a maddening adeptness at pushing his own view of the physical universe, erecting strawman arguments and challenges faster than a random number generator on a supercomputer. He belittles others who do not agree with him.

He is on continual output mode, impervious to reason, shedding physical laws like water off a platypus’s back.

Doug has made up many email addressess, names, and has posted from many IP addresses as he circumvents bloggers’ attempts to restrict him. He has already been banned from most climate blogs. A humorous post by Anthony Watts over a year ago (A Critical Mass of Cotton) will give you some idea of what we have had to put up with over the years.

I have tried to restrict him, but he keeps returning. I have automated restrictions on dozens of screen names, email addresses, and IP addresses.

Yes, Doug, I realize that we are a bunch of dolts who have not been ordained with the secrets of the universe the way that you have been. Maybe you should put your efforts into your own blog, and let your followers congregate there for your sermons on how gravity explains temperature.

Now, lest some people fear this will be the end of Doug on Dr. Roy’s site, fear not: Doug will not be going away…

What WILL be happening is I will be a little more proactive about deleting every comment I see from Doug. Since he sometimes uses fake names, I won’t always be successful. So, you should stay alert for his nuggets of wisdom before they disappear.

After all, I have nothing better to do with my time.


266 Responses to “Too Much Cotton Leads to Meltdown”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Steve Ta says:

    I’ve been impressed in some ways by DCs ability to subtly alter his own arguments when faced with overwhelming evidence of his errors in such a way that he can then claim that his new position was clearly what he meant all along and it’s everyone else’s fault for not understanding him.

    • JohnKl says:

      Hi Steve Ta,

      Good observation! On a previous thread he dubiously claimed that direct solar radiation could not transfer thermal energy into the Earth’s surface. When I proved him wrong using William Herschel’s experimental discovery of infrared energy via a prism he admitted to his mistake but suggested his other posted statements made it clear what he really meant. If Doug makes a completely erroneous statement he seems to believe everyone must read his prior work to comprehend what he really meant. He apparently places much less value on what he actually claims at any given moment.

      Wouldn’t it have been great if when we attended school we could insist that our teachers not grade us based on the answers we gave on a test. Instead the teacher should peruse our entire history of written communication to discover if at some point in the past we actually new the correct answer to a question. If the teacher found we did know the answer once, the prior correct understanding would be applied to our new test.

      Have a great day!

  2. geran says:

    I agree. “Too much Cotton”!

    Doug’s endless comments are not about science, they are about selling his book.

    Thanks for taking the extra effort to “clean house”.

  3. Doug’s basic understanding of conduction and convection is certainly screwed up in my humble opinion and his methods of self promotion are infuriating as well as couterproductive but I advise against using him to smear all those who consider mass and gravity to be involved in a mass induced greenhouse effect.

    • no one says mass and gravity aren’t important…they are what “concentrate” IR absorbers in the lower atmosphere. But they are insufficient to tell you what the average equilibrium temperature of an atmosphere will be, at any altitude. I’ve explained this ad nauseum, as have others.

      For example, the dry adiabatic lapse rate tells you NOTHING about what the temperatures will be at any given altitude…only how they decrease with altitude under the process of dry convective overturning. Differential temperature effects versus absolute temperature.

      • With respect, Roy, the DALR tells you the thermal gradient that convection always works towards in order to maintain hydrostatic balance within an atmosphere.

        That isn’t just an idea invented by me:

        http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_06.pdf

        Clicking through the whole lecture might be helpful for some.

        Convection negates radiative imbalances caused by GHGs or particulates.

        • Mike M. says:

          Stephen Wilde,

          “the DALR tells you the thermal gradient that convection always works towards in order to maintain hydrostatic balance within an atmosphere”

          The effect is one sided. The adiabatic lapse rate sets a rough limit to the thermal gradient. A higher lapse rate (the negative of the gradient) than adiabatic leads to strong convection that reduces the lapse rate to near the adiabatic value. But any lapse rate less than adiabatic gives a stable hydrostatic balance, so convection does not act to increase the lapse rate. As a result there are many parts of the atmosphere with lapse rates less than adiabatic and the average lapse rate is significantly less than adiabatic.

          I base the above on my own understanding, as a person who knows a little meteorology and a lot more than a little fluid mechanics and thermodynamics. I think it is also what the lecture you linked to says, although I did not study it closely.

          • The effect is not one sided if one considers ascending columns and descending columns separately, as I think one must.

            In ascending columns the ideal lapse rate set by mass and gravity is distorted to the warm side and in descending columns it is distorted to the cool side.

            The net effect is zero but the differentials between ascending and descending columns keep convective overturning going even in the absence of radiative gases.

        • Stephen, please. That lecture deals with basic hydrostatic balance, which I had as an undergraduate in the 1970s, and which was probably my strongest course in atmospheric science. It is at the BEGINNING of every college level book on atmospheric thermodynamics. Importantly, it contains NOTHING that contradicts what I said. This is wasting my time.

          • Actually, Roy, it does contradict what you have been saying.

            If you note the material about conversion of KE to PE in ascent and of PE to KE in descent you should quickly realise that such a phenomenon will in itself produce cooling with height since PE is not heat. Radiation to space not needed.

            Uneven surface heating is inevitable for a rough surfaced rotating sphere illuminated by a point source such as a sun and that causes density differentials in the horizontal plane which causes convection if there is a temperature decline with height so there can be no isothermal atmosphere even without GHGs.

            Do you not see?

          • geran says:

            Stephen, the conversion of KE to PE does not imply “cooling”. You are confusing KE with “internal energy”. If you move a book from a lower shelf to a higher shelf, do you “cool” the book?

          • geran,

            A book being a solid is barely compressible at all and so the Gas Laws do not apply.

            For gases compression involves conversion of PE to KE and thus warming.

          • geran says:

            Of course, compression involves warming. But, that is a “red herring”. You were talking about convection, not compression.

            Nice attempt at obfuscation.

          • Air decompresses during convective ascent and compresses during convective descent descent.

          • geran says:

            You seem very confused.

            Atmospheric pressure decreases as altitude increases.

            Does that help?

          • Mack says:

            Yes geran,
            Although the pressure is greater at lower altitudes, there is no COMPRESSION by the higher atmosphere on the lower atmosphere. ie there is no work done to generate heat.

          • Comptression or decompression occur as a consequence of movement within a gravitational field.

            The atmosphere is never static.

          • Mack says:

            The compressions and decompressions, up or down, round and round, simply cancel each other out…net result..zero ,there’s still no work done by the atmosphere to generate its own heat. Yes, the atmosphere is very energetic, but the only 2 sources of energy for the atmosphere would be the sun, acting upon it, and the Earth’s surface, (bearing in mind the surface is 71% water with all the associated evaporation convective energy),and the west-east energy flow generated by the revolving planet.

          • Mack,

            The repeated compressions and decompressions continuing indefinitely only net out to zero in the sense that once the process is established and stabilised no more energy moves in or out of the process.

            The process still requires a non zero store of kinetic energy at the surface to keep the atmosphere suspended off the surface in hydrostatic balance against the constant downward pull of gravity.

            All movement within a gravitational field requires energy, both movement up and movement down. Where do you think that energy is situated?

            Do you think that continuous convective overturning against gravity can somehow be achieved without any energy to support or drive it as would be the case if the surface were only at the S-B temperature of 255K?

            A surface at 255k needs all its energy to support 255k radiating out to space. What,then, keeps the atmosphere in hydrostatic balance if it is not that extra 33k at the surface?

            Are you somehow magicking all that energy from nowhere?

          • geran says:

            Stephen, you are so confused there is no good place to start. That’s why many people think that trying to help you is just a waste of time. But, just for those reading your comments, who don’t want to also be confused, here are some thoughts:

            1) The “lecture” that you linked to above, does NOT imply, in any way, that conversion of KE to PE causes the lapse rate. In fact, the very first graphic of the lecture shows the lapse rate. IOW, the lecture accepts the lapse rate as a “given”. There was NO attempt to state that “KE to PE” causes the lapse rate. That was your misinterpretation of the lecture. The lecture is about “hydrostatic balance”, not what causes the lapse rate.

            2) You appear to be confusing “micro” atmosphere with “macro” atmosphere. IOW, you appear to be trying to mix and match the gas laws, PE/KE, heat transfer, all in some “broth” that fits your belief system. You do not proceed logically. You misapply definitions and concepts. It all just makes for confusion.

            3) The lapse rate is a natural result of heat energy being moved to space. The process begins at Earth’s surface (hot) with convecting, conducting and radiating, and ends at the upper levels of the atmosphere with heat energy being radiated into space (cold). The “lapse rate” is just “obeying” the laws of physics. No magic, no confusion.

      • Doug  C o t t o n   says:

        Firstly, Roy, I suggested three comments per thread would be a realistic restriction/compromise and I will adhere to that, not counting the three comments you deleted on this thread which will appear on a new page of “Roy Spencer Errors” on my website soon.

        It is not appropriate for you to delete correct physics, Roy, just because it is new 21st Century science about which you did not learn in the 1970’s. There have been significant advances in the understanding of the Second Law since 1988. What I teach you Roy will serve your purpose in trying to defeat the hoax.

        You wrote, Roy, “no one says mass and gravity aren’t important…they are what “concentrate” IR absorbers in the lower atmosphere.”

        But that’s not the reason why the temperature gradient forms in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Roy, as unbalanced (PE+KE) energy potentials dissipate and the troposphere of any planet (with or without a surface) tends towards maximum entropy, which is the state that physicists call thermodynamic equilibrium.

        Then, diffusion and natural convective heat transfer (both by molecular collision processes only) occur in all accessible directions away from any new source of thermal energy, such new sources normally being mostly new solar energy absorbed in the clouds, upper troposphere and above. This process is restoring the thermodynamic equilibrium (and the associated temperature gradient) which was disturbed by the new energy, and that is how some of that new energy is transferred downwards by way of molecular collision.

        • WizGeek says:

          Buh-bye, Dug Koht’n. A late Friday night snipe post (with yet another imaginative rendering of your name) is a desperate and disrespectful attempt to be relevant instead of so much background noise. Please respect the wishes of this site’s owner by taking your subtle invective elsewhere.

    • Ken Gregory says:

      The “mass and gravity” theory of the greenhouse effect without IR absorbing gases (greenhouse gases) doesn’t work. You need greenhouse gases to create a lapse rate, and you need a lapse rate for the greenhouse effect.

      Dr. Clive Best has an excellent post at http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=6305
      titled “The role of gravity in the greenhouse effect”. The conclusion of his post is:
      Conclusions:

      1. There can be no greenhouse effect without gravity.
      2. Atmospheric pressure gradient is caused by gravity.
      3. The lapse rate scale is defined by gravity but is generated by convection.
      4. Convection is induced by Radiative transfer of heat through the atmosphere
      5. Radiative transfer is due to greenhouse gases.
      6. There can be no greenhouse effect without greenhouse gases. Gravity alone will not work.

      • Let’s consider that from first principles.

        The initial convective ‘push’ from the surface is due to insolation but once a parcel of lower density air leaves the surface no further ‘push’ is required.

        In true adiabatic ascent the relative buoyancy with surrounding gases is retained throughout ascent (assuming no radiative losses or work done against surrounding molecules) but when one reaches the point of hydrostatic balance the amount of KE providing the upward pressure gradient force falls below the amount of PE representing the downward force of gravity so that further uplift slows and eventually stops.

        When uplift stops at the top of an atmosphere the higher air is colder and denser than the air coming up from below and so it is pushed sideways and begins to descend.

        If one introduces an inversion such as the tropopause then uplift stops there rather than at the top of the atmosphere but the higher layers do still exhibit a separate regime of convective overturning such as the Brewer Dobson circulation in the stratosphere.

        Note that adiabatic overturning is neutral overall if one sums up ascending and descending columns but it is not neutral in either ascending or descending columns. You can have vigorous convection arising from that difference between ascending and descending columns.

        So what we have here is maximum buoyancy from KE at the surface and the parcel’s buoyancy relative to the lower buoyancy of the surrounding gases is maintained BUT the parcel’s absolute buoyancy ( the amount of KE relative to the downward force of gravity represented by PE) declines throughout the uplift process.

        Once above the point of hydrostatic balance the downward force of gravity steadily overcomes the remaining upward pressure gradient force until descent is unavoidable.

        I think that dividing buoyancy into relative (to the other surrounding gases) and absolute (in relation to gravity) does provide the necessary means of reducing buoyancy with height so as to permit convective overturning without any need for radiative gases.

        The fact is that PE is energy and is carried by molecules in addition to their KE and due to the force of gravity KE is replaced by PE as a molecule moves up the vertical column.

        PE represents the downward force of gravity and KE represents the upward pressure gradient force.

        Due to PE not being heat and being unable to radiate, it cannot be lost to space and since it is not heat its increase relative to KE with height provides the necessary cooling with height to keep convective overturning going and thereby preventing the development of an isothermal atmosphere.

        Is that not a reasonable interpretation of the established science?

      • Mike M. says:

        Stephen Wilde,

        You might find your interpretation reasonable, but it is wrong.

        Ken Gregory wrote: “Convection is induced by Radiative transfer of heat through the atmosphere … Radiative transfer is due to greenhouse gases.”

        That is mostly true, but some convection is induced by horizontal temperature gradients. If the surface were uniform and uniformly illuminated by the sun (a nice trick if you could do it) and the atmosphere were transparent to radiation, then the surface and the atmosphere would be at uniform temperature, horizontally and vertically. And there would be no convection, absent a disturbance.

        • mpainter says:

          Convection- is that not due to the buoyancy of surface air due to higher water vapor content? Add heat from the surface and up she goes, right? Get to the cloud base and phase change boosts the process, creating draft.

          • mpainter says:

            [email protected]#*%# spell checker! I meant UPdraft. Can’t see convection in any other way but as a buoyant force.

          • mpainter,

            Buoyancy from water vapour being lighter than air is a separate process from buoyancy caused by temperature and density differentials in the horizontal plane.

          • mpainter says:

            “buoyancy caused by temperature and density differentials in the horizontal plane”.

            Hmmm. That’s the thing that I like about this site, always learning something new. Perhaps you refer to such effects as the sea breeze on coasts, and otherlandform type effects. But buoyancy is defined as a vertical force.

          • mpainter,

            Are you intending sarcasm?

            Warm less dense air at a surface alongside colder more dense air at a surface will result in buoyancy within the less dense parcel. Water vapour not needed.

          • mpainter says:

            No sarcasm intended. Are talking about air mass fronts? such as a cold front or, as termed in squall lines, the dry line. Is this your meaning? If not, please give a specific example, because sea breezes and land breezes are as you describe, a warm air mass juxtaposed to a cooler.

          • mpainter

            Uneven surface temperature differentials occur constantly across a surface due to elevation, vegetation, composition, angle of incidence of insolation, earth’s rotation, latitudinal positioning and seasonal changes.

            Those differentials induce convection and then winds and then one sees the phenomena you refer to.

          • mpainter says:

            Then you must be referring to small scale features that give a “kick-start” to convection. These should be inconsequential in considering the big picture. Most of the earth’s surface lacks such features. The oceans, for example, also vast interior plains; the selva of the Amazon drainage, etc.

          • mpainter,

            The small scale features resolve into large scale circulation patterns. The Amazon generates its own low pressure cell due to humidity from all the trees and rivers.

            All convection everywhere begins as small scale features interacting with one another.

          • mpainter says:

            Steven,
            Show a little consistency, why not?

            Stephen Wilde says:
            August 27, 2015 at 11:52 PM
            mpainter,

            Buoyancy from water vapour being lighter than air is a separate process from buoyancy caused by temperature and density differentials in the horizontal plane.

            And then, just above,

            “The Amazon generates its own low pressure cell due to humidity from all the trees and rivers.”

            Sorry, Steven, but any old rebuttal that pops into your head?

          • mpainter says:

            Also, you say “All convection everywhere begins as small scale features interacting with one another.”
            ###

            Manifestly untrue. Most convection occurs on the ocean. Where on the ocean are such “small scale features”?

            To help you remember :

            Stephen Wilde says:
            August 28, 2015 at 12:16 PM
            mpainter

            Uneven surface temperature differentials occur constantly across a surface due to elevation, vegetation, composition, angle of incidence of insolation, earth’s rotation, latitudinal positioning and seasonal changes.

          • gbaikie says:

            — mpainter says:
            August 28, 2015 at 2:08 PM

            Also, you say “All convection everywhere begins as small scale features interacting with one another.”
            ###

            Manifestly untrue. Most convection occurs on the ocean. Where on the ocean are such “small scale features”?–

            Most convection occurs on the ocean. Hmm.
            Trying to figure out what you mean.
            Now if you said tropical ocean, I probably would not ponder
            about what you mean. Not saying it would be correct, but there is a lot heating done in the tropics.

            But not sure where there is most convection.
            Where you see a lot of thermal uplift, seems like a clue.
            Maybe migratory birds know. Hmm, can’t tell by looking at
            migratory maps- of course too much convection might be a problem for birds.
            I tend to think of tornado prone midwest as due to tendency to having a lot of convective- which is pretty far from a ocean.
            So, I give up. Why?

          • mpainter says:

            gbaikie, mine was poor choice of words.

            I should have said “most convection occurs over the ocean”. If only because ocean’s are 71% of the surface. Think about it. The oceans are the source of precipitation.

        • Mike,

          You should specify why you think it is wrong.

          Your reply to Ken suggests that you agree with my basic point about convection being inevitable even without radiative gases.

          • Mike M. says:

            Stephen Wilde,

            “You should specify why you think it is wrong.”

            I did. You did not understand. Judging by your other comments here, there is nothing I can do about that.

        • mpainter says:

          Also, you say “All convection everywhere begins as small scale features interacting with one another.”
          ###

          Manifestly untrue. Most convection occurs on the ocean. Where on the ocean are such “small scale features”?

          To help you remember :

          Stephen Wilde says:
          August 28, 2015 at 12:16 PM
          mpainter

          Uneven surface temperature differentials occur constantly across a surface due to elevation, vegetation, composition, angle of incidence of insolation, earth’s rotation, latitudinal positioning and seasonal changes.

      • David Appell says:

        “1. There can be no greenhouse effect without gravity.”

        There can be no atmosphere without gravity.

        Worse, there can’t even be a planet…..

    • gbaikie says:

      Another way to talk about it, is that sphere in space will be unevenly heated.
      A disk facing the sun is evenly heated by the the sunlight and hemisphere is unevenly heated.
      So the part of sphere which facing most directly [is nearest- though the nearness is not a significant factor] the sun
      is warmed the most. And since it’s warmed the most, it also radiates the most.
      And if you remove heat from that which radiant most, what radiates most, radiates less [and this complexity is resolved
      by modeling something so it has uniform heat [ideal blackbody
      at Earth distance from Sun uniform heat of 5 C]. Nut that just to find some answer, the reality is the sphere is unevenly heated from the Sun.
      In terms of heating or reduction of cooling from greenhouse effect equal amount of greenhouse effect heats evenly.
      So sun unevenly heats sphere, same amount of greenhouse effect
      evenly heats.
      There is more greenhouse gases in tropic, so since more greenhouse effect the greenhouse heats more in tropics.
      So sunlight unevenly heats tropics and greenhouse effect unevenly heats trpoics. Though in terms of greenhouse gases other than water vapor, they are distributed evenly so they evenly cause warming.
      So if greenhouse effect warms by 33 K on average, than where there is less greenhouse effect it warms by less than 33 K. So in tropics where there is more greenhouse effect
      it increases the average temperature by more than 33 C.

      So if have simple model of earth being -18 C on average, one adds more than 33 C to tropic because greenhouse effect.
      Plus you add more to tropics because it gets more sunlight.

      So if say without greenhouse gases the earth average temperature was -18 C. Such a world would NOT have uniform temperature, the sun would heat the tropics more.
      Just picking number [feel free to pick whatever you think could be better] say tropics had average temperature of 0 C and say average temperature outside the tropics would be -30 C. So 40% of surface area of tropics average 0 C and 60% of rest of world average is -30 C.
      So now you add the greenhouse effect, and there more green effect in tropics, so you add +33 C to average temperature of tropics, and add less 33 C to the remaining 60% of the world.
      Now since tropics has 4 times more water vapor then remaining 60% of the earth [and is getting more heating] the +33 C, it could be say 50% or more than 33 C.
      So 33 times 1.5 is 49.5 C added to 0 C. Or as said could be more, but let’s just say the tropics would have average temperature of 40 C. So without any convection the tropic would radiate a lot more in tropic and lost in space.

      And rest of world gets some number less than 33 C from greenhouse effect, say 20 C, so it’s average is -10 C.
      And since colder [than our world] it radiate less energy than our world. But global effect could radiating the same- 240 watts on average.
      But if add convection, than tropics cool, and radiate less and the rest of most world warms and radiates more into space. So why is that not a warming effect?

      Now with convection instead of making some place hotter, it’s mostly about warming where it is cooler. So it’s balancing the uneven heating at the tropics.

      Of course I don’t believe that greenhouse gases cause 33 C of warming. And I believe clouds are like convective- they warm cooler areas.
      But even if count clouds and a greenhouse gas, I don’t think clouds and greenhouse gases add 33 C, instead I think Clouds and greenhouse gases net about 15 C.
      The problem with saying how much warming caused by convection is that H20 becomes a gas and condenses- it’s a part of convection.
      Or if removed the water, one lowers the amount of convection, but it’s not radiant aspect of water, it’s because H20 evaporates and condenses at Earth temp and pressure. And another part is that water vapor has latent heat [again not related to it’s radiant properties].
      With great deal of certainty I can say convection does not add 33 K. Just as I can say that greenhouse gases and clouds don’t add 33 K.
      Or don’t think that without convection, Earth would be 33 K cooler. Nor do I think without greenhouse gases and convection earth would be 33 K cooler.
      And I think the oceans cause about as much or more warming than greenhouse gases or convection. But I also don’t think the ocean, convection, and greenhouse gases cause 33 K of warming, because other than stopping Earth rotation, you can have a 1 atm atmopshere at earth distance sun have an average temperature of -18 C.
      Or the theory of snowball earth is as much pseudo science as Greenhouse effect theory is.
      And with our glacial periods, we are about as cold as Earth could get- or this ice box climate doesn’t get much colder then it is.

    • David Appell says:

      Stephen Wilde: Frankly, your ideas are just as ludicrous as DC’s. Just not expressed as obnoxiously.

      • Well, you would say that wouldn’t you.

        I don’t find my interpretation of established science as bizarre as the radiative theory that you support.

        Roy doesn’t yet realise how his ideas are inconsistent with the lecture that he has known all about since his student days.

        That lecture clearly describes the conversion of KE to PE in ascent plus conversion of PE to KE in descent yet Roy has not ‘grocked’ that such a phenomenon must cause declining temperature with height even without radiative gases.

        Combine that with the inevitability of uneven surface heating causing density differentials in the horizontal plane and convective overturning becomes unavoidable with GHGs unnecessary.

        Simple really.

        • David Appell says:

          You have been hawking this for how long now?

          Roy is well aware of the basic laws of physics, including potential energy. So are all physicists.

          It’s impossible for me to understand why you keep pretending they don’t.

          • Steve Ta says:

            It is odd – how DC and SW both seem to think they they alone have a revealed truth that nobody else understands, and that they both have to repeat the same arguments ad nauseam to try and teach us ignoramuses – but at no time does it ever occur to them that they may be mistaken.

          • Steve Ta.

            Unlike DC I am directing attention to established science and pointing out a discrepancy between what Roy and others say and that established science.

            The lecture clearly points out that KE becomes PE in uplift whereas PE becomes KE in descent and that process is directly involved in the observed cooling and warming.

            Such a process must obviously result in reducing temperature with height without any need for GHGs radiating to space.

            An isothermal atmosphere in the absence of GHGs is therefore impossible contrary to what Roy and others say.

            Established pre AGW science, not just my assertion.

          • Stephen, what you are missing is that convection only occurs if the atmosphere is continuously destabilized, and the GHE performas that destabilization by making lower layers warmer (and just as importantly, upper layers cooler) than they would otherwise be. Yes, sunlight is the original energy source, but the GHE, in effect, slows the flow of thermal energy upward, trying to push the lapse rate well beyond dry adiabatic.

            If the atmosphere could not absorb/emit IR, then any convection would gradually cease because there would be no way for convective heating accumulated in the upper layers to be dissipated. Without convection, which requires the GHE, the adiabatic lapse rate would not exist.

            This is the basic situation in the stratosphere, which is nearly isothermal, and covers an air pressure range of 2 orders of magnitude (approx. 200 mb to 2 mb in the global average).

          • Roy, I don’t wish to annoy you or waste your time but you just don’t see it.

            If the conversion of KE to PE causes a decline in temperature with height and if there is uneven surface heating causing density variations in the horizontal plane then the atmosphere is permanently unstable even without GHGs.

            Convective overturning will inevitably ensue and the atmosphere cannot tend towards isothermal.

            That is the lesson of the lecture that I linked to.

            The stratosphere has less convection due to warming of ozone by direct absorption of insolation but even there we see convective overturning in the Brewer Dobson Circulation so the stratosphere is a bit of a red herring.

          • Note that GHGs only move the lapse rate away from the dry adiabat towards the warm side in ascending air. In descending air they move it away from the dry adiabat towards the cool side as per diagram 2 here:

            http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/erasing-agw-how-convection-responds-to.html

          • Roy said:

            “the GHE performs that destabilization by making lower layers warmer (and just as importantly, upper layers cooler) than they would otherwise be. ”

            Established science says that the air just above a surface is warmest because it is closer to that surface and thus better able to receive conduction from that surface.

            Established science also says that the denser the air above the surface the greater the proportion of solar energy reaching the surface can be conducted to the air.

            That lecture (established science) says that cooling with height is achieved by conversion of KE to PE as work is done against gravity in the process of maintaining the hydrostatic balance of the atmosphere. Gravity, being constant, requires a constant flow of energy to offset it and that constant flow of energy is derived from the additional surface warmth (33K for Earth) provided by conduction, not radiation.

            Why is downward radiation from GHGs necessary to achieve the same effect?

            Wouldn’t that be double counting?

            You could suggest that DWIR from GHGs is an additional warming influence but how large would that be relative to the surface warmth caused by conductive absorption by the entire mass of an atmosphere?

            It would count for nothing.

            If GHGs do cause a radiative imbalance then that same lecture confirms that convection changes to negate it:

            http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_06.pdf

            “Radiative equilibrium
            profile could be unstable;
            convection restores it
            to stability (or neutrality)”

          • gbaikie says:

            –Stephen, what you are missing is that convection only occurs if the atmosphere is continuously destabilized, and the GHE performas that destabilization by making lower layers warmer (and just as importantly, upper layers cooler) than they would otherwise be. Yes, sunlight is the original energy source, but the GHE, in effect, slows the flow of thermal energy upward, trying to push the lapse rate well beyond dry adiabatic.–

            I think the evaporation and condensation of H20 does destabilized the atmosphere, but this is not a radiant process.
            So wondering what evidence there is of radiant process of greenhouse gases which destabilizes the atmosphere.
            I think the lack of it, is one reasons that it seems all
            wrong, particularly where it is suppose to be occurring and the lower density of the air at that elevation.
            Or we should something like a vast hurricane occurring constantly 6 to 9 km up in the sky.

            Or I think the surface of the ground radiate most of the IR energy into space, and it passes thru the atmosphere with sizable amount being absorbed and re-radiate in random directions. And that doesn’t/wouldn’t destabilizes the atmosphere.

    • David L. Hagen says:

      Atmospheric Lapse Rate Thermodynamics
      Robert H. Essenhigh developed a systematic thermodynamic model of the atmospheric lapse rate based on the Schuster-Schwarzschild integral (S-S) Equations of Transfer that govern radiation through the atmosphere including absorption and radiation by greenhouse gases. Prediction of the Standard Atmosphere Profiles of Temperature, Pressure, and Density with Height for the Lower Atmosphere by Solution of the (S-S) Integral Equations of Transfer and Evaluation of the Potential for Profile Perturbation by Combustion Emissions, Energy & Fuels, 2006, Vol. 20, pop 1057-1067.

      “The solution predicts, in agreement with the Standard Atmosphere experimental data, a linear decline of the fourth power of the temperature, T^4, with pressure, P, and, at a first approximation, a linear decline of T with altitude, h, up to the tropopause at about 10 km (the lower atmosphere).”

      Sreekanth Kolan extended Essenhigh’s model to include the energy balance for the lower and upper atmospheres.
      “Study of energy balance between lower and upper atmosphere, Sreekanth Kolan, 2009, Ohio State University OSU1259613805

  4. Erik Magnuson says:

    I’m glad to see you take this action, and sorry to hear about the additional work to keep this blog going as you have provided a lot of useful information on atmospheric physics.

  5. Mark Bofill says:

    Good call.

    After all, I have nothing better to do with my time.

    I appreciate the time and energy you put into maintaining this blog, thank you. It’s a shame you have to waste your time dealing with this nonesense. Maybe after a while Doug will leave you be.
    Regards sir.

  6. Grant Ceffalo says:

    Roy,

    Thank you for this action. I agree that if he wants to pontificate, he should do so from his own blog.

    Perhaps you could sequester every post with more than one bolded word, or names with more than three spaces? You could then allow in the ones that are NOT DC.

  7. Eric H. says:

    Well Roy, the second law of thermodynamics….Just kidding, I’m not Doug!

  8. Ball4 says:

    Dr. Spencer – Good move. Good luck. Good graphic. The irony is that if only Doug could improve his various theories to properly agree with observations & tests, then there would be little or no damage to his political views. His unique assault on the 100 Australian career politicians would then be fairly informative. If not his blog posts.

  9. ossqss says:

    Thanks Doc, that is good news and will save many pixels on monitors across the globe 🙂

  10. mpainter says:

    Doug will not be missed here. I wish him good luck with his own blog, assuming that he realizes that is what he needs.

  11. Eric Barnes says:

    Thanks Dr. Spencer, but I don’t mind Doug. A simple ctrl-f allows me to follow the threads I care about and whizz past Doug. Thanks for your continued interesting commentary on Climate and other topics. 🙂

  12. I do not mind Doug all that much but do not agree with his reasoning.

    He does post probably more then anyone by far.

    • gbaikie says:

      The problem with Doug is that he like all the Dem pols. No dialogue, just a repeat of the talking points.

      Obama might be interesting to talk to, but if he were reading from a teleprompter, it might be amusing, but the substance has to be boring.

  13. Milton Hathaway says:

    Dr Spencer, perhaps you could use your readers to do the cotton picken’ for you, and then alert you (assuming there is a ‘report abuse’ or some such feature you could enable)?

  14. richard says:

    i pop in here now and again, a lot of it is over my head but actually enjoy Mr Cotton,

    It would be awful if it turned out like this-

    “An Israeli scientist who suffered years of ridicule and even lost a research post for claiming to have found an entirely new class of solid material was awarded the Nobel Prize for chemistry on Wednesday for his discovery of quasicrystals”

    • mpainter says:

      B.s. on the controversy. Your source is a novelist?

      • richard says:

        Your source is a novelist?

        “An Israeli scientist who suffered years of ridicule and even lost a research post for claiming to have found an entirely new class of solid material was awarded the Nobel Prize for chemistry on Wednesday for his discovery of quasicrystals”

        but is it true?

        • mpainter says:

          Is what true? The Wikipedia account on quasicrystals gives a full account of the discovery and publishing. No controversy whatsoever. I note that you provide no source of your quote. B.s. button on you, Richard whomever.

          • Mike M. says:

            The Wikipeadia article on Dan Schechtman says that he was subject to ridicule, especially from Linus Pauling.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Shechtman#Work_on_quasicrystals

            But Schectman had evidence and mathematics on his side. Cotton only has his own sense of self-importance.

          • mpainter says:

            Still no source for the quote by Richard.

            Their work brought immediate recognition, but it had to be completed.Yes,Pauling, among others, disputed the conclusions of co-authors Blech and Schechtman, who is now a professor at the U of Iowa in Ames. Pauling: “There are no quasi crystals, just quasi-scientists.” So there were skeptics? So what? It is now widely accepted that quasicrystals are a new class of solid material sharing characteristics of both glass and symmetrical crystals, but not by everyone, even yet. See how science works.

      • richard says:

        I wonder if they actually did according to my source-

        “People just laughed at me,” Shechtman recalled in an interview this year with Israeli newspaper Haaretz,

        • mpainter says:

          Shechtman is now a politician, having run for President of Israel, and having received one vote. People laugh at him yes, ridiculing him as a “quasi-president”. This is not a political blog, Richard.

          • richard says:

            how does the comment

            “People just laughed at me,” Shechtman recalled in an interview this year with Israeli newspaper Haaretz

            make this political ?

          • richard says:

            lets see what he said-

            “People just laughed at me,” Shechtman recalled in an interview this year with Israeli newspaper Haaretz, noting how Linus Pauling, a colossus of science and double Nobel laureate, mounted a frightening “crusade” against him, saying: “There is no such thing as quasicrystals, only quasi-scientists.”

      • Ric Werme says:

        It matches my memory around the time he was awarded the prize.

        In another case, not so long ago, a researcher who was having trouble getting people to accept his hypothesis that bacteria, not stress, was the root cause behind peptic ulcers and that antibiotics, not dietary restrictions would be a better cure.

        http://discovermagazine.com/2010/mar/07-dr-drank-broth-gave-ulcer-solved-medical-mystery

        Barry Marshall and Robin Warren also went on to win a Nobel Prize.

        This is not to say Cotton will follow in those footsteps….

        The Discover Magazine article is quite good, there are several sentences that read like they’ve been taken from the Consensus Science playbook.

    • geran says:

      “i pop in here now and again, a lot of it is over my head but actually enjoy Mr Cotton”

      Yes, Richard, a lot of it is over your head. Doug is not being censored or abused. He has at least two blogs of his own. He only comes here to promote himself and his book. He will often completely dominate a thread, not allowing others a chance. HE is the abuser.

      Point of interest, Richard: Doug does not allow comments AT ALL on his blog. Go figure.

  15. If it will help, I’ll be happy to send you my cotton filters. They remove about 99% of the pollutants. The other 1% is left to pattern recognition by the Mark 1 eyeball.

    • Roy W. Spencer says:

      “cotton filters”. I like that. I’m sure the guy passionately believes what he says. It’s just that so much of it is…well…wrong.

    • David Appell says:

      Yes, Anthony has a long, long, LONG list of filters. Use them, and you can eliminate *all* contrary points of view from your blog.

      • Sunsettommy says:

        Gee David, you are still able to post here despite your suggestion.

      • Phyte On says:

        One thing is for certain. There are so many different scientific points of view on the tiny amount of global warming in recent history that one can only come to the conclusion….the science is not settled. Yet we have a political ruling class in America running around like chickens with their heads cut off screaming that the sky is falling and we are doomed. In fact, California has instituted silly cap & trade scheme that is all cost and zero benefit. Founded on blind faith that government policy and regulations will lower the sea level and lower global temperature.

        Madness.

      • jin says:

        Roy—“It’s just that so much of it is…well…wrong”
        ME — Are you sure that Cotton i not one of Appell’s hundreds of false names?

    • mpainter says:

      Hi Anthony,
      I see that you still employ that hack Eric Worrall. You must be getting tired of science?

  16. JohnKl says:

    Hi Roy,

    It remains your blog to do as you please. However, other people as well as myself have made attempts to post comments only to have them removed. We are not Doug nor Cotton wannabes. Please exercise due discretion.

    Have a great day!

    • mpainter says:

      Cotton is not welcome by most bloggers here, John, who are tired of their exchanges being interrupted by his intrusions and self-promotion.

      • JohnKl says:

        Hi mpainter,

        Having posted here for some time, I’m quite aware of Doug and his tactics. Roy has warned him in the past and I understand the frustration. Doug has manipulated the site for his use. Roy shouldn’t allow others to get caught up in the Cotton purge and I doubt if he will, but lately posts having nothing to do with Doug seem to have been flushed away as well. Hopefully it proves to be just some over sites. Just saying…

        Have a great day!

        • JohnKl says:

          Mpainter,

          By posts having nothing to do with Doug I mean posts by people other than Doug, not that the posts did not communicate with him.

          Have a great day!

  17. Stevek says:

    Dr. Spencer,

    I appreciate your blog because you do not restrict who can post. I urge you still let Doug post. Perhaps just allow one or two posts if they do not insult people. Have a policy that applies to all. I don’t mind Doug’s posts except ones that insult others. But also apply same policy to others that insult. However I feel for you having to waste time being a policeman.

  18. Stevek says:

    Dr. Spencer,

    What I’m saying is do not do the same thing to others that the agw community has done to skeptics. However there does need to be some limits on someone abusing free speech.

    • mpainter says:

      Come, come. It was not Cotton’s views so much as his obnoxious methods that made him objectionable, as Roy clearly stated. Please do not compare this to what is done at the execrable AGW blogs like SKS, HotWhopper, RealClimate™, etc.

      • I agree, and if Doug, approached this in a different manner he would have been more receptive.

        The guy has knowledge, that know one can dispute and I respect him for that even if I do not agree with his conclusions.

        Dr. Spencer , has been fair to him and I agree with most of his points of view when it comes to the GHG effect and how it works.

        My only major disagreement is I think the GHG effect is more a result of the climate rather then an initiator for the climate because studies show time and time again temperature changes first followed by CO2. I also think it is water vapor not CO2 which is the main engine for the GHG effect and how effective it may be which in turn is tied into oceanic temperatures and other natural global effects such as land use (forestation ) ,volcanic activity , the biosphere, global convection etc.

        • Nabil Swedan says:

          “I also think it is water vapor not CO2 which is the main engine for the GHG effect”

          It can only be water vapor. I will explain:

          Surface temperature rise is of the order of 0.0000006 degree kelvin per hour. The heat transfer coefficient required to explain the observed heat exchanged, 0.05 watts per meter square, must be greater than 4400 joules per square meter per hour per degree kelvin. Only water vapor condensation can provide such a high heat transfer coefficient. Infrared radiation or convection simply cannot. They have a negligible heat transfer coefficient at such a low ambient temperature or temperature gradient. Just check any heat transfer manual.

  19. Steve Fitzpatrick says:

    Roy, Lucia has managed to banish Mr Agodao. I’m sure she could make suggestions.

  20. jimc says:

    Right on doc. He has become abusive and more. Enough is enough.

  21. Brad says:

    Imagine if Cotton Mouth used his energy in a way that was not self destructive. It must take an enourmous amount of the stuff to continually try to subvert Dr. Spencer’s efforts to thwart his posts.

  22. jerry l krause says:

    Hi Roy,

    Am I banished from your site also? As I have tried several times to submit a comment and it has not flown.

    Have a good day, Jerry

  23. jerry l krause says:

    Hi Roy, Stephen Wilde, and everyone else,

    Since, I have now been successful, I will try DC in my comment.

    I am going to step into it. DC was correct in that you (we) must explain the known facts about the Venus atmospheric system. Because of this I went to his individual email and for a little while we had a good dialogue. But then DC decided I was wasting his time and I do not want to waste anyone’s time; so I stopped corresponding with him.

    DC ignored the 10km thick cloud deck beyond the fact it produced a very significant albedo so that reasonably very little solar radiation could reach the surface of Venus. He regularly ignored the fact that the cloud deck and its atmosphere has long been observed to rotate with a diurnal period of 4 to 7 earth days as he constantly referred to the 224 earth day diurnal period of the planet. But I never once read anyone correcting him on this fundamental point (of course I cannot claim to have read every response to what he wrote).

    The base of this cloud deck is at an approximate altitude of 50km where the atmospheric pressure is approximately that at the earth’s surface. Again, I never read DC or anyone else acknowledging this observed fact. And below this base the temperature gradient not precisely that of the predicted dry adiabatic lapse rate; but it is close to it. The reason it is not precisely the predicted lapse rate is that the system is not precisely adiabatic. Sulfuric acid cloud droplets are reasoned, it not observed, to precipitate from the cloud deck where first water is thought to be evaporated from the droplets as they fall into the ever increasing temperature gradient. But from my less than exhaustive literature search, I have not read that sulfuric acid decomposes at about 330oC. Which according to the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics it does. So these are factors which produce less than an adiabatic condition.

    However, I consider DC is correct when he recognizes that the Venus surface is not heated as the Earth surface is. So there can be no convection below the cloud deck. But a balloon was floated in the cloud deck and convection was observed to occur within it.

    The problem (question) is: Is convection necessary to establish the dry adiabatic lapse rate? There can be no convection below the cloud deck. There is a temperature gradient which approximates the dry adiabatic lapse rate. This question must be answered if one is to claim they understand the Venus atmosphere. Yes, there is much more which needs to be considered but first it seems that everyone must admit that they do not yet fundamentally understand the Venus atmosphere system; and hence the Earth atmosphere system.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      Jerry says: “ … you (we) must explain the known facts about the Venus atmospheric system.

      One of those known facts is that convection exists on Venus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus

      So when you start by asserting that convection cannot exist, you are starting with a “fact” that contradicts established understanding. It seems that both theory and observation support this convection. So you have a bit of work to do if you want to convince others of this bold assertion.

      ***************************

      When you ask “Is convection necessary to establish the dry adiabatic lapse rate?” you are kinda looking at is backwards. Any heat flow through the atmosphere (or through any sort of object for that matter) will set up some sort of temperature gradient ie lapse rate. Since there is a net upward heat flow through Venus’ atmosphere (even below the cloud deck), there will be a lapse rate. The only question is whether the observed lapse rate will be less than the adiabatic lapse rate or equal to the adiabatic lapse rate. (it can’t be significantly larger or convection would kick in and reduce the lapse rate back toward the adiabatic lapse rate).

      • jerry l krause says:

        Hi Tim:

        Read your link. I stated: “But a balloon was floated in the cloud deck and convection was observed to occur within it.” Did you carefully read what I wrote? Evidently not! Maybe I am wrong, but I thought vertical convention required that there be heating at the base of the fluid.

        Have a good day, Jerry

        • dave says:

          jerry l krause wrote:

          “I thought vertical convention [sic, convection?] required that there be heating at the base of the fluid.”

          Absolutely not. Merely that the buoyancy force on a parcel of the liquid exceed its weight. Water escaping into the air as vapour, and reducing the local density, is enough to set it off.

          Of course, heating from the bottom is one effective way of inducing convection. That is why many experiments in calorimetry stipulate that heat be applied from the top.

          • dave says:

            I wrote parcel of the liquid. I meant parcel of the fluid.

          • jerry l krause says:

            Hi Dave,

            Almost missed your comment: “Water escaping into the air as vapour, and reducing the local density, is enough to set it off.” But I have to ask: Why is (can be) water escaping (escape) into the air as vapour if it has not been heated at the base of the atmosphere? It can only escape into the atmosphere if the dewpoint temperature of the atmosphere in contact with the surface is less than the temperature of the surface, the source of the vapor.

            However, what you purpose is exactly how I imagine hurricanes are conceived in the large region of oceans or seas known as the doldrums with a very warm uniform surface temperature. The water molecules continually escape from the surface into the atmosphere and then rapidly diffuse upward (because their mass is appreciably less than of nitrogen and oxygen molecules). Thus, a great volume of atmosphere continually becomes less dense. But there is no vertical convection because there no nearby atmosphere of greater density to lift because of the uniformity of the surface temperature. Hence the more dense lifting atmosphere can only exist hundreds of miles away.

            While I have done a calorimetry experiment in a physical chemistry lab I am not aware of the condition necessary to which you refer. This does not mean it does not exist, just I am not familiar with it.

            Have a good day, Jerry

    • yes, convection is required to maintain close to the dry adiabatic lapse rate…but remember, it is the GHE which continually works to make the lapse rate super-adiabatic, not just by making the lower layers warmer, but by cooling the upper layers.

      Thus, as I have repeatedly stated, without the GHE, we basically would not have weather…at least not anything like what we currently see.

      If DC admits that convection exists, how does all of this upward heat transfer not lead to ever increasing temperatures in the upper troposphere? IR emission is required to lose that energy to outer space. And an IR emitter must also be an IR absorber.

      • jerry l krause says:

        Hi JohnKl, Roy, and everyone else,

        No, I have not gone into hiding. Went to the Oregon State Fair today with the family. So this is just a note that that I will have more comments tomorrow.

        August 10-12, 1992 I attended the International Colloquium on Venus because my poster-presentation on the super-rotation of its atmosphere had been accepted. And I already knew that the composition of the cloud droplets of the cloud deck had been confirmed to be sulfuric acid solutions. So when at the presentation (s?) about the composition of its atmosphere that had been observed to include sulfur dioxide but no sulfur trioxide, I was puzzled. For as a chemist it was my understanding that a sulfur dioxide molecule reacted with a water molecule to form a sulfurous molecule, not sulfuric acid molecule. It was my understanding that a sulfur trioxide molecule reacted with a water molecule to form a sulfuric acid molecule. These are gas phase reactions. So I went back home questioning from where did the necessary sulfur trioxide come?

        Obviously, I have had a long time to consider what is occurring in the Venus Atmosphere so I have come up with some ideas that you are not likely to read about on Wikipedia. And as I have begun to read your comments and make my comments, I have come the conclusion that I am one of very few chemists who seem to participate in this forum. And maybe you have heard chemists claim that chemistry is the central science. Central between what? Physics (the extremely quantitative and theoretical science) and the more ‘natural’ sciences of meteorology, oceanography, geology, botany, zoology, etc. (which I term qualitative sciences until chemistry becomes involved in their studies). The world of the chemists has always been imaginary.

        Einstein is said to have stated: “To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science.”

        So I understand what I bring to the table is not conventional, but what I bring to the table will be based on generally accepted observations and knowledge—like photons. Hopefully, you will allow me to present my case that will be simple but not short.

        Have a good day, Jerry

        • jerry l krause says:

          Hi JohnKl, Roy, Tim, any others,

          Previously I referred to a quote attributed to Einstein. I did this because of a well-known quote attributed to Newton: “If I have seen further than others, it is by standing on the shoulders of giant’s.” Richard Feynman is a giant on whose shoulders we must stand if we are to begin to understand what is observed relative to the atmosphere of Venus and the atmosphere of Earth. I as a chemist do not claim to understand the ‘physics’ of Feynman, or of Einstein, or of Newton; but I claim to understand the consequences which they claim their physics has.

          I wrote: “DC was correct in that you (we) must explain the known facts about the Venus atmospheric system.” These known, fundamental, facts are that the surface temperature of this planet is extremely great. That it has a continuous cloud deck that is about 10km thick and whose base is about 50km above the planet’s surface at near the temperature of the ‘average’ Earth surface average temperature. This difference in temperature between the surface of Venus and the base of the cloud forces there be an atmospheric temperature gradient that is near the dry adiabatic lapse rate for this planet. And we know that the cloud droplets of this cloud deck are composed of sulfuric acid solutions.

          A most obvious fundamental question is: How can (does) the Venus surface have such an extreme temperature?

          After briefly teaching his students at Caltech about light scattering (which I conclude was formerly known as Rayleigh scattering although Feynman never referred to it as such), he stated (Feynman Lectures On Physics, pp. 32:8,9): “There are several points to be made about the above results. One interesting question is, why do we ever see the clouds? Where do the clouds come from? Everybody knows it is the condensation of water vapor. But, of course, the water vapor is already in the atmosphere before it condenses, so why don’t we see it then? After it condenses it is perfectly obvious. It wasn’t there, now it is there. So the mystery of where the clouds come from is not really such a childish mystery as “Where does the water come from, Daddy?,” but has to be explained.”

          He continued: “We have just explained that every atom scatters light, and of course the water vapor will scatter light, too. The mystery is why, when the water is condensed into clouds, does it scatter such a tremendously greater amount of light?” He then proceeds to explain some physics which I do not pretend to understand. I pick up his lecture again when I can understand what he taught.

          “So as the water agglomerates the scattering increases. Does it increase ad infinitum? No! When does this analysis begin to fail? How many atoms can we put together before we cannot drive this argument any further? Answer: If the drop get so big from one end to the other is a wavelength or so, then the atoms are no longer all in phase because they are too far apart. So as we keep increasing the size of the droplets we get more and more scattering, until such a time that a drop gets about the size of a wavelength, and then the scattering does not increase anywhere nearly as rapidly as the drop gets bigger. Furthermore, the blue disappears, because for long wavelengths the drops can be bigger, before this limit is reached, than they can be for short wavelengths. Although the short waves scatter more per atom than the long waves, there is a bigger enhancement for the red end of the spectrum than for the blue end when all the drops are bigger than the wavelength, so the color is shifted from the blue toward the red.”

          Again he continued: “Now we can make an experiment that demonstrates this. We can make particles that are very small at first, and then gradually grow in size. We use a solution of sodium thiosulfate (hypo) with sulfuric acid, which precipitates very fine grains of sulfur. As the Sulphur precipitates, the grains first start very small, and the scattering is a little bluish. As it precipitates more it gets more intense, and then it will get whitish as the particles get bigger. In addition, the light which goes straight through will have the blue taken out. That is why the sunset is red, of course, because the light that comes through a lot of air has had a lot of blue light scattered out, so it is yellow-red.”

          Feynman’s last sentence must generate some confusion because the scattering referred to is not of cloud droplets but of the atmospheric atoms. For Feynman cites the observed evidence commonly referred to that supports Rayleigh scattering, not this different scattering of cloud droplets that scatters such a tremendously greater amount of light.

          Roy, I have photographic evidence that clearly shows how small smoke particles scatter such a tremendously greater amount of light. I wish I could share these images with you so you could share them with the readers of your blog. But you no longer offer an email address and I discovered that when you did there was no evidence that you read emails sent to that address. But you have my email address and can contact me if you wish. In the meantime my description of what I saw and photographed will have to suffice.

          You have posted satellite images of the smoke from wildfires burning in the western states and Alaska. So I was going to state that anyone in these regions could observe what I have. But I am not sure if this would be the case. For my case is very specific. I live in the Willamette Valley to the west of the Cascade Mountain Range and I can see the crest of this range which is about 60 miles distant. Most of the wildfires are burning east of this range so I see a smoke bank that extends a considerable distance above the horizon defined by the crest. My images are of the dark red disk (what I see) of the sun rising from the horizon to the top of the smoke bank. However, I must enhance the color and reduce the brightness to make the actual dark red disk to appear a somewhat intense pink in the image. But more important (my opinion) is the entire face of the smoke bank is a uniform, intense, navy blue. This color must be due to the light being strongly scattered by the smoke particles which, according to Feynman’s scattering explanation, must be about the size of the blue wavelength.

          Once, the phenomenon of Feynman scattering is accepted, we can conclude that the cloud droplets of the Venus cloud deck are at least the size of red light because the light scattered from the top of the cloud deck is white. Now, if we assume that the droplet size (diameter) could be as great as 20µm (which is common for water droplets in Earth clouds, we must conclude that the IR being emitted by the extremely hot Venus surface is extremely strongly scattered back toward the surface and very little can be transmitted through the 10km thick cloud deck.

          However, once we assume that sulfuric acid cloud droplets of Venus could have diameters as great as 20µm we must acknowledge that the invisible IR portion of the solar radiation would be even more strongly scattered than the visible portion. What I do not know is how a planet’s albedo is observed. A question is: Is a planet’s albedo based upon the observation of solar radiation’s visible portion or is it based upon the observation of both its visible portion and its invisible IR portion?

          However, the question, How can (does) the Venus surface have such an extreme temperature?, had not yet been answered. It has only been explained how such an extreme temperature could be maintained.

          To keep my comments somewhat short, I will further address this fundamental question in my next comment.

          Have a good day, Jerry

        • jerry l krause says:

          Hi JohnKl, Roy, Tim, any others,

          In this comment I will continue to try to answer the fundamental question: How can (does) the Venus surface have such an extreme temperature? In my previous comments, if valid, it was established that the most of the upward emission from the hot surface was scattered back toward the surface by the cloud droplets and that most of the downward solar radiation was scattered back toward space by the cloud droplets, from which I must accept that little radiation can be transmitted through the cloud deck or absorbed within the cloud deck. Previous to the last comments I had stated that vertical convection within a fluid required that the fluid be heated at the base of the convection. But previously I had also acknowledged (reviewed) that vertical convection had been observed within the cloud deck. So to be consistent, I must propose a mechanism, other than direct radiation, by which the cloud deck can be heated at its base at the same time that it is acknowledged that the source of this energy must ultimately be from the solar radiation from the sun.

          John, you wrote: “However, you failed to mention that the temperature 50 km above the Venusian surface falls around 100 F and descends to 75-80F about 65 km above the Venusian Surface.” I have tried to check out these numbers and I find it depends upon where I look as to what the numbers are that I find. This does not surprise me because I know these numbers are based upon less than 10 actual soundings of the atmosphere at less than 10 actual locations. John, I can state the reason I did not mention is this quantitative information diverts attention from the central issue. How, do I know this? I probably wrote a couple of pages about the uncertainty of the altitude data because the altitude of a temperature observation is seldom ever directly observed. What is directly observed at the time of the temperature observation is the atmospheric pressure. Then, I finally remembered the purpose of this comment was to try to answer the fundamental question: How can (does) the Venus surface have such an extreme temperature? So I deleted the distracting pages.

          Tim referred me to the Wikipedia article about the Venus Atmosphere and there I find information that makes my task easier.

          For there I found: “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.

          CO2 → CO + O (A)
          SO2 + O → SO3 (B)
          SO3 + H2O → H2SO4 (C)

          Venus’s sulfuric acid rain never reaches the ground, but is evaporated by the heat before reaching the surface in a phenomenon known as virga.”

          So this photochemistry seems to be common knowledge which I do not need to convince anyone is only what I think. Recently I brought Newton’s first rule of reasoning to Roy’s and everyone else’s, who cared to read it, attention. I will not repeat it now (It can be found at the beginning of the 3rd book of The Principia. But it seems to have been endorsed by Einstein, who is credited with stating: “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” But here I will quote Newton’s second law of reasoning (as translated by Motte): “Therefore, to the same natural effect we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.” And his commentary was: “As to respiration in a man and in a beast; the descent of stones in Europe and in America; the light of our culinary fire and of the sun; the reflection of light in the earth, and in the planets.”

          I have previously suggested the scattering of light by smoke particles that I have observed applies to the scattering of both solar radiation and of the longer wave radiation emitted by the extremely hot Venus Surface by the cloud droplet of the Venus Cloud Deck. Now, I draw attention to the photochemical oxygen-ozone system observed in the Earth Stratosphere. Which basic reactions could also be described by three chemical equations.

          O2 → O + O (1) O2 + O → O3 (2) O3 → O2 + O (3)

          In reaction one, oxygen molecules are photodissociated by ultraviolet photons. Hence, the ‘energy’ of the photon is converted into the ‘chemical energy’ of the two oxygen atoms which are very reactive. In reaction two, the reactive oxygen atom combines with a molecule of oxygen forming a stable ozone molecule of lesser ‘chemical energy’ than the oxygen molecule plus the oxygen atom had. In reaction three, the stable ozone molecule is photodissociated, by ultraviolet photons having longer wavelengths (less energy) than the photons capable of photodissociating the oxygen molecules, back to an oxygen molecule and a reactive oxygen atom. Hence, reactions two and three recycle and remove those ultraviolet photons capable of photodissociating the ozone molecules from the incident solar radiation. But these three reactions cannot complete the oxygen-ozone system. For the continual solar radiation from one day to the next must eventually convert all the oxygen molecules to ozone molecules and oxygen atoms. There must be a fourth reaction which is the reverse of the first reaction.

          O + O → O2 (4)

          Now, when chemists began to teach the oxygen-ozone system to our students this is how the four reaction equations were written. Some later, someone wised up and recognized the reactions two and four, as written, did not obey the law of conservation of energy; nor were they consistent with the chemical kinetics observed. The last sentence is pure fiction on my part because I honestly do not know the history involved that led to reactions two and four as being correctly described by the following equations.

          O2 + O + N → O3 + N* (2) O + O + N → O2 + N* (4)

          Here N is any third molecule (particle) that must be simultaneously involved with the collision of the other two reactants. Its purpose is to carry away, as its increased kinetic energy, from the collision of the excess ‘chemical energy’ which would not allow a stable ozone or oxygen molecule to be formed. Instead the ‘excited’ molecule of ozone, or oxygen, formed by the most probable two body collision would not, could not, be stable. The excess energy must be removed by the formation N* which has a greater kinetic energy after the collision than N had before the collision. In the case of the oxygen-ozone system, the production of N* is what causes the warming observed in the stratosphere.

          Hence, I propose the reaction B needs to be changed to reaction D and maybe there needs to be a reaction E to reverse reaction A so that all the carbon dioxide will not be converted to carbon monoxide.

          SO2 + O + N → SO3 + N* (D)
          CO + O + N → CO2 + N* (E)

          Now, for reasons still to be addressed, I suggest that reaction C does not occur, as has been considered to occur, above the top of the cloud deck where a haze is observed. C. Donald Ahrens in his popular textbook, Meteorology Today 9th Ed., defines a haze as: “fine dry or wet dust dispersed through a portion of the atmosphere.” My Handbook of Chemistry and Physics states the melting temperature of sulfur trioxide is about 17oC and its boiling temperature at 1 atm pressure is 44oC. So, given the earth-like temperatures where the haze above the cloud deck is observed, it is plausible the haze could be composed of sulfur dioxide and not the sulfuric acid commonly considered.

          The reason, or reasons, I proposed that the haze above the cloud deck is sulfur trioxide and not sulfuric acid or solutions thereof, is that sulfur trioxide can only be formed if reaction A first occurs. For only if reaction A occurs can reaction D occur. For reaction C to occur there must be water molecules available and free water molecules are not necessarily an abundant component of the atmosphere above the cloud deck. Only below the cloud deck, where water molecules must be evaporating from the cloud droplets as the droplets precipitate into the ever increasing temperature of the atmosphere below, can we be sure there are free water molecules in the atmosphere. And finally after all of the water of the solution has evaporated, what must be left is the sulfuric acid molecule. Which, my Handbook of Chemistry and Physics states decomposes at a temperature of 330oC, which is well below the surface temperature of 457oC.

          Now, as strange as what I have written might seem, you have to thoughtfully consider the fact there is no sulfuric acid lake or sea on the surface of Venus at the same time there is observed evidence of the precipitation of sulfuric acid droplets from the base of the cloud deck just as there is observed evidence of a haze of something above the top of the cloud deck. It is very difficult to not conclude that something, other than a gas, is being formed well above the top of the cloud deck is ending up well below the bottom of the cloud deck. While the concentration of sulfur dioxide is observed to be about 150 ppm, which is still reported to be nearly 10 times that of water vapor. So it is easier for me to imagine the sulfur dioxide slowly diffusing upward from the altitude at which the sulfuric acid decomposes and carbon monoxide diffusing downward from where it must be formed by a photochemical reaction well above the top of the cloud layer than to imagine the water molecules diffusing upward through the cloud deck of descending sulfuric acid droplets which have a very great affinity for water molecules. Much easier it to imagine the water molecules diffusing upward after being evaporation into the base of the clouds where they are exothermal absorbed in the tiny droplets formed at the top of the cloud layer by reaction of slowly descending sulfur trioxide particles which readily react with any water molecules that do actually diffuse to the top of the cloud layer. Even harder to imagine is the water molecules somehow rise to the uppermost altitudes, above the cloud deck, at which the upper haze is observed to begin. Chemist know how exothermic the mixing of concentrated sulfuric acid with water is; so we warm to always add water slowly to concentrated sulfuric acid to dilute it and other strong acids because if the acid is added to water it will immediately sink to the bottom of the water, because the acid is considerably more dense than water, where the exothermic solution of the acid will quickly raise the temperature of the surrounding water to its boiling point and there will be a violent eruption of a boiling solution as well as possibly some of the concentrated acid that had not yet been diluted.

          So, I imagine that it the dilution of the small droplets of concentrated acid at the base of the cloud deck which produces the vertical convection observed there. And by localized reactions of this type, it is easy to imagine that less concentrated droplets of sulfuric acid could be lifted quickly to the top of the cloud deck. So it is by this mechanism I propose that the solar energy was converted to chemical energy and that this chemical energy was transferred to the base of the cloud deck where the chemical energy was converted to thermal energy which maintain the temperature at the top of the cloud deck so the longwave radiation emitted by the droplets at the top of the deck balanced the solar energy used to dissociate carbon dioxide molecules into carbon monoxide and oxygen atoms. And the oxygen atoms in reacting with the sulfur dioxide molecules also locally heated the upper atmosphere in such a way that the super-rotation of the atmosphere was a result.

          But this creative reasoning does not answer the fundamental question: How can (does) the Venus surface have such an extreme temperature? It only explains the temperature at the cloud base and above. But I have another creative, imaginative, idea which I can see that might simply answer the question. The newest information presented at the International Colloquium on Venus I attended concerned the radar mapping of the planet’s surface. According to the reports I heard there is very little doubt that Venus has been volcanically active and probably still is like the earth still is. We consider that upward heat flux from the hot center of our planet is of little significance relative to the amount of solar radiation the earth’s surface directly intercepts and absorbs. However, the earth’s atmosphere is not totally overcast with a 10km thick cloud deck.

          Roy, to this time, you have not responded to my request that you send me information of how I can send you photographic evidence that strongly supports Feynman’s light scattering by cloud droplets. In fact you have not responded in any way to my comment of 8/29/2015 at 10:30 am. So I have no idea that you actually read it.

          Have a good day, Jerry

        • jerry l krause says:

          Hi JohnKl, Roy, Tim, any others,

          I just wrote: “Chemist know how exothermic the mixing of concentrated sulfuric acid with water is; so we warm [warn] to always add water slowly to concentrated sulfuric acid to dilute it and other strong acids because if the acid is added to water it will immediately sink to the bottom of the water, because the acid is considerably more dense than water, where the exothermic solution of the acid will quickly raise the temperature of the surrounding water to its boiling point and there will be a violent eruption of a boiling solution as well as possibly some of the concentrated acid that had not yet been diluted.”
          But it is a long time since I taught so I began to question my reasoning. So I turned to the internet and found. “A large amount of heat is released when strong acids are mixed with water. Adding more acid releases more heat. If you add water to acid, you form an extremely concentrated solution of acid initially. So much heat is released that the solution may boil very violently, splashing concentrated acid out of the container!”

          I hope I am correcting my error before anyone else catches it. But there is another reason for not keeping silent and hoping no one catches my error. For I previously focused upon the density difference between water and concentrated sulfuric acid and the author of the correct (accepted?) reasoning ignored it.

          Now, a young man named Cody actually tried to demonstrate what would happen if one did add water to concentrated sulfuric acid. And his demonstration failed to produce the predicted result of adding water to concentrated sulfuric acid. But he was honest and placed his failed demonstration on the internet for anyone who cared to watch his video of his failure. And he tried to produce the predicted results by a comparative demonstration and again the solution being formed when water was added to the acid did not boil violently. So, Cody demonstrated that his first observation was reproducible. And because the observation was reproducible a scientist must conclude that the rule to always add acid to water was a myth.

          The lesson here is there is no substitute for actually observing what can be observed. I focused upon the difference between densities and maybe this is the explanation why the demonstration failed to produce the expected results. I do not know if my reasoning explains this failure but I do know what the result of the demonstration was. And that is what practically needs to be known.

          Have a good day, Jerry

          • jerry l krause says:

            Hi Roy and others,

            The fundamental question I am trying to answer is: How can (does) the Venus surface have such an extreme temperature? I have acknowledged that I am not satisfied (content) with my last attempt to answer this question. This dissatisfaction was not that I believed I had written something which was incorrect; it was that I judged that what I wrote was not as simple as it seemed to me it could have been written. The problem is I am not sure how to simplify what needs to be written to eventually accurately and simply answer the fundamental question.

            Then I reviewed that Richard Feynman taught we cannot explain atomic behavior with classical physics. Instead, in Volume III of his lectures he taught we must turn to the mysteries of quantum mechanics. However, in Volume I, section 42-5 (Einstein’s laws of radiation) he taught (wrote): “Thus Einstein assumed that there are three kinds of processes: an absorption proportional to the intensity of light, an emission proportional to the intensity of light, called induced emission or sometimes stimulated emission, and a spontaneous emission independent of light.” I cannot find Feynman defining what a spontaneous emission independent of light is. I assume that this spontaneous emission is related to the temperature of the atom’s, or molecule’s, environment just as Einstein assumed his three kinds of processes. But a little later Feynman stated: “So Einstein discovered some things that he did not know how to calculate, namely that the induced emission probability and the absorption probability must be equal. This is far as Einstein or anyone else could go using such arguments. To actually compute the absolute spontaneous emission rate or the other rates for any specific atomic transition, of course, requires a knowledge of the machinery of the atom, called quantum electrodynamics, which was not discovered until eleven years later. This work of Einstein was done in 1916.” Then Feynman reviewed the invention of masers and lasers which had occurred by 1962 when it seems likely that he delivered this lecture. And one can go Wikipedia and read about carbon dioxide masers which must strongly support the truth of Einstein’s assumption and reasoning and the machinery of the atom called quantum electrodynamics which followed eleven years later.

            While this does little to answer the fundamental question it seems to explain how there can exist a temperature gradient between the surface of Venus and the bottom of the cloud deck and how greenhouse can absorb longwave infrared photons without warming the environment. For, if I understand what Feynman taught, this is because the probability of induced emission is equal to the probability of absorption and both are related to the same intensity of light. Roy, this seems to be a theoretical explanation that there cannot be a greenhouse effect as you state that you understand it.

            Since I have not yet answered the fundamental question I find to go forward with my project I must review some history described by Sutcliffe and attempt to apply some of the wisdom offered by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Since I have no idea of where this will lead, I submit this comment and begin another.

            Have a good day, Jerry

        • jerry l krause says:

          Hi Roy and others,

          I am not really content with my last attempt to answer the fundamental question: How can (does) the Venus surface have such an extreme temperature? Maybe it does not matter what I write because there is little, to no, evidence that anyone is reading my comments. But, Roy and others, one of my life-long objectives has been to present my unique ideas, which I obviously consider worthy of being considered, to others so they cannot state at a later time I never heard of this or that idea before. It is enough that I know I put the ball in their court and I have no control over what is done with it. I have started a project and I will try to complete this project to my satisfaction.

          One objective of this project is to demonstrate how I, a chemist, approach my science. Which I consider how many other chemists approach chemistry. Another objective is to bring information to your attentions that I do not find a common part of the landscape of meteorology and climatology for almost 50 years as the primary focus of these disciplines became global warming (now climate change) which was clearly based upon the hypothesis known as the greenhouse effect. Whose generally accepted result is that the earth’s temperature would be approximately 70oF less than it now is if not for certain trace gases in its atmosphere. Roy, you have even written that this difference would even be greater according to your reasoning. So, I cannot understand, if these trace gases produce such a significant result, how you, or anyone, can reason that small changes in their concentrations do not have a significant result.

          If I had it in my power I would make R. C. Sutcliffe’s book, Weather and Climate, required reading for anyone who thought they were qualified to discuss these topics. It was published in 1966 by W. W. Norton at the edge of the 50 years to which I just referred. After Chapter One (Introduction), Two (Troposphere, Stratosphere and Beyond), Three (Exploring the Free Atmosphere), Chapter Four is The Classification of Clouds and Chapter Five is The Microphysics of Clouds. Why the immediate focus upon clouds? On the first page of the Chapter Four he wrote: “It would be difficult to overstress the importance of clouds as the necessary intermediary between invisible vapour and falling precipitation in the water cycle upon which all land-life depends, but their importance by no means ends here. Clouds which do not give rain, which never even threaten to give rain but which dissolve again into vapour before the precipitation is ever reached, have a profound effect on our climate.”

          Hence, I repeat: “DC was correct in that you (we) must explain the known facts about the Venus atmospheric system. … DC ignored the 10km thick cloud deck beyond the fact it produced a very significant albedo so that reasonably very little solar radiation could reach the surface of Venus.” A few of you responded to this particular comment but no one commented about the possible influence of the cloud deck beyond that addressed by DC.

          Upon repeated occasions I have drawn attention to (quoted) what Richard Feynman taught physics students at Caltech about light scattering by clouds during the 1961-62 academic year (a little more than 50 years ago). But, to my memory, no one on this site has responded to what he taught. When I bought the three volumes of The Feynman Lectures on Physics, because it seemed the thing a physical chemistry graduate student should do, about fifty years ago, I could not understand anything I read so I set them aside except to sometimes look to see if he had written about some topic in which I desired to learn more from someone I thought I could trust. From the first time I read the less than two pages he taught about light scattering by clouds I could understand the result of which he taught even if I understood nothing of the physics he also taught about it. I have searched to references to this scattering theory without success.

          So I began to question the validity of his theory for I understood its significance to understanding the influence of clouds upon longwave IR radiation being emitted from (by) the earth’s and the Venusian surfaces. Which in the case of the earth surface, Sutcliffe knew. For, Sutcliffe did not stop writing where I stopped quoting. He continued: “This is obvious enough if we only think of the difference between a cloudy day and a sunny day in summer or between an overcast and a clear frosty night in winter. Taking an overall average, about 50 per cent of the earth’s surface is covered with cloud at any time whereas precipitation is falling over no more than say 3 per cent. Non-precipitating clouds are thus the common variety, rain clouds are the exception.”

          I wrote: If I had it in my power I would make R. C. Sutcliffe’s book, Weather and Climate, required reading for anyone who thought they were qualified to discuss these topics. Now, I write: If I had it in my power I would make anyone who thought they were qualified to discuss weather and climate to first read the first section (Atomic mechanics) of the first chapter (Quantum Behavior) of The Feynman Lectures on Physics Vol. III. I will only quote the last paragraph of this first section: “In this chapter we shall tackle immediately the basic element of the mysterious behavior in its most strange form. We choose to examine a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery. We cannot make the mystery go away by “explaining” how it works. We will just tell you how it works. In telling you how it works we will have told you about the basic peculiarities of all quantum mechanics.”

          Roy, DC, and others, Feynman has just stated it is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain (understand) the interaction of light with atomic sized matter in any classical way as has been only attempted in the case of the greenhouse effect hypothesis. As had been done in failing to consider what should be termed the phenomenon of Feynman scattering because it seems few physicists even know that it (the phenomenon) exists. At the beginning of the third paragraph Feynman had written: “There is one lucky break, however—electrons behave just like light.” I wonder how many physical scientists now know what the observation was that forced the conclusion that electrons behave just like light?

          Have a good day, Jerry

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Jerry L Krause,

            Thank you for your post. Feynman aside De Broglie who worked with Einstein believed electrons like light had a wave nature not a particulate one. Please let me know if you find anything out.

            Have a great day!

          • jerry l krause says:

            Hi John,

            Had to check what I thought I knew was still generally accepted. I did find it generally accepted that an electron has a rest mass and a charge which light (waves) do not have. The rest mass and charge qualify them as matter, albeit a very small particle; but still matter and not energy which has no rest mass.

            I have not directly responded to your comment of 8/28/15 at 12:03pm. Why? Tim had already claimed I had ignored that vertical convection had been observed in the Venus Atmosphere, which I had not. You seemed to claim I had disregarded what you had written. Which I still cannot understand how I had done this. I never questioned, to my memory, the information that you claimed I had not read. My project was and is to explain (understand) to my satisfaction the extreme temperature of the Venus Surface. Which was DC’s also. You are correct in pointing out that there is basically no evidence of any greenhouse effect above the cloud deck but that does not address what is observed below the cloud deck.

            At the beginning of my announced project I wrote: Hopefully, you will allow me to present my case that will be simple but not short.

            I have just come to the point where to keep it simple I must present information that might not seem at all related to my project. When I was in graduate school we often referred to the fact that one needed to begin with first principles of which observations are in the science I try to practice. Hopefully, we can still be friends.

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Jerry L Krause,

            Don’t worry I like your observations and consider you a friend as well.

            Have a great day!

        • JohnKl says:

          Hi Tim Folkerts,

          You stated:

          “I agree that wikipedia can be wrong sometimes and going to a scientific paper is better. However, Figure 1 in your paper seems to show that the temperature @ 50 km is ABOVE 75C. So if the numbers from wikipedia are “contrived”, it is because they don’t make my point strongly enough!”

          Hmmh! It does not appear to me above 75C. However, figure 1 does suggest that while the the 50km region is above a haze layer and sits smack dab in the middle of a cloud layer another haze layer appears above it. Other data I’ve read in the past suggested the haze/particulate layer extended from 0-50 km above surface and that was it. The figure if accurate may suggest then other reasons why the region above 50 km proves inordinately cool for receiving double the solar irradiance. Good catch. Thanks, and…

          Have a great day!

        • dave says:

          j l krause writes on Sep 5:

          “…why…water…into air…?”

          Because it is a statistically governed process, in which occasionally a water molecule picks up enough kinetic energy to reach “escape velocity” as a result of random collisions in the water. The comparison of “dewpoints” you attempt to make much of is simply irrelevant. If the air immediately above water is in fact saturated then, of course, the extra water vapor will simply be returned to the water or appear as droplets in the air. But that is just to do with the air itself – unless the water is much hotter than the air. It is almost self-evident that in fine weather the air below the cloud level will be unsaturated.

          In gases, a similar interplay of chance gives rise to the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of velocities. A gas made from light molecules, such as hydrogen, literally reaches escape velocities and escapes totally from earth, over time.

          “…there is no vertical convection in a hurricane…”

          Yes, there is – lots. In the annulus the air is going up; in the eye and towards the outside of the hurricane it is coming down.

          I really think you ought to read the whole of a basic book such as “Heat” by J J Thomson and J Poynting.

    • JohnKl says:

      Hi Jerry L Krause,

      Thank you for the post. However, you do err. For example, I have on multiple occasions in the past discussed the Venusian 50 km high particulate/cloud layer that reflects ~90% of the incoming solar back to space and surface emitted IR back to the surface. In addition, I’ve mentioned that at 50 km the atmospheric pressure is about 1 bar. However, you failed to mention that the temperature 50 km above the Venusian surface falls around 100 F and descends to 75-80F about 65 km above the Venusian surface. Iow temps fall in normal Earth range at normal Earth pressure even though that atmospheric region receives almost twice the incoming solar radiation that Earth receives because the region extends above the 50 km high cloud/particulate layer. Imo this invalidates much of greenhouse conjecture. All these observations and others I have mentioned multiple times on multiple threads and possibly even to yourself. In the past you’ve complained that other people don’t read and respond to your posts. You have nothing to complain about. You know what they say about what goes around comes around.

      Have a great day!

      • JohnKl says:

        Hi Jerry L Krause and everyone,

        Just to reiterate a basic fact. The Venusian atmosphere extending from 50 km above the surface (or from the upper edge of the cloud/particulate layer) to 65 km above the Venusian surface experiences normal Earth temperatures at normal Earth pressure but has an atmosphere composed of over 93% CO2 and receives almost twice the solar irradiance the Earth receives! What a GREENHOUSE EFFECT!

        Have a great day!

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          John,

          1) Venus also reflects away much more of the incoming solar energy. The ratio of bond albedos is 2.94:1, so even though Venus receives ~ 2x more sun light, it absorbs ~ 1/3 as well, so the net absorbed sunlight is LESS on Venus. So you are misleading when you tout Venus’s higher irradiance.

          2) According to Wikipedia, @ 50 km, the pressure on Venus is 1.066 atm — ie just lightly higher than earth’s surface pressure. But Venus is 75 C at this altitude, ie considerably warmer than earth. (even @ 55 km where the pressure is 0.53 Atm, it is 27 C = *still* warmer than earth’s surface). So you are wrong when you claim these are “normal earth temperatures.

          Combining these ideas, Venus absorbs LESS energy, but is a HIGHER temperature. Hmmm …. suddenly the GHE seems pretty plausible.

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Tim Folkerts,

            Your post has problems lets address them.

            1. Yes, as I mentioned Venus reflects 90+% of the radiation it receivyes and as you not asorbs very little. That was my loin. The atmospheric region above 50 km and a 1 bar pressure sits above the particulate layer that reflects said radiation and therefore receives most if not all the incoming and reflected solar irradiance (2613.0 w/m^2 per NASA) spread over that region.

            2. You quote Wikipedia:
            “According to Wikipedia, @ 50 km, the pressure on Venus is 1.066 atm- ie just lightly higher than he earth’s surface pressure. But Venus is 75 C at this altitude, ie considerably warmer than Earth. (even @ 55 km where the pressure is .53 Atm, it is 27 C + *still* warmer than the earth’s surface). So you are wrong when you claim these are “normal earth temperatures.”

            Tim 27 deg C falls around 80.6 deg F that’s below normal temperature for Phoenix in July. I should know I was there. Noticed I mentioned “normal” not “average” temperature. So yes that is a temperature normally found on Earth. As to your Wikipedia ( anyone could have updated your numbers ) contrived figures, why don’t we look at NASA information.

            http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110016033.pdf

            To be fair as you point out the region of the Venusian atmosphere at 1 bar is slightly above 50km. So remember this when you read:

            “…at an altitude slightly above 50km above the surface, the atmospheric pressure is equal to the Earth surface pressure of 1 Bar. At this level, the environment of Venus is benign.

            – above the clouds, their is abundant solar energy temperature temperature is in the habitable “liquid water” range of 0-50C atmosphere contains the primary volatiles required for life (Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, and Sulfur) Gravity is 90% of the gravity at the surface of the Earth.

            While the atmosphere contains droplets of sulfuric acid, technology to avoid acid corrosion are well known, and have been used by chemists for centuries.

            In short, the atmosphere of Venus is most earth like environment in the solar system…”

            Hmmh! 50C falls around 122 deg F a warm day in Phoenix not unknown on Earth. Granted the temperature is on the high side, but that region receives almost double the solar irradiance.

            Have a great day!

          • JohnKl says:

            Corrections:

            Statement should have read:

            “Yes, as I mentioned Venus reflects 90+% of the radiation it receives and as you note asorbs very little. That was my point. ”

            Have a great day!

          • gbaikie says:

            “2) According to Wikipedia, @ 50 km, the pressure on Venus is 1.066 atm — ie just lightly higher than earth’s surface pressure. But Venus is 75 C at this altitude, ie considerably warmer than earth. (even @ 55 km where the pressure is 0.53 Atm, it is 27 C = *still* warmer than earth’s surface). So you are wrong when you claim these are “normal earth temperatures. ”

            There is no air surface on earth, other than in tunnels, which is 1.066 atm. Or 14.7 times 1.066 is 15.67 psi.
            Or: “-2000 ft -610 meters is 15.8 psi”
            http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-pressure-d_462.html
            And:
            “Dead Sea (Jordan/Israel) -1360 feet (-414 m)
            Lake Assal (Djibouti, Africa) -509 feet (-155 m)
            Turpan Pendi (China) -505 feet (-154 m)
            Qattara Depression (Egypt) -435 feet (-133 m)
            Vpadina Kaundy (Kazakstan) -433 ft (-132 m)
            Denakil (Ethiopia) -410 ft (-125 m)
            Laguna del Carbón (Argentina) -344 ft (-105 m)
            Death Valley (United States) -282 ft (-86 m)”

            http://www.nps.gov/deva/learn/nature/lowest-places-on-earth.htm

            And death valley has highest air temperature ever recorded.
            And if some place in the future breaks the record, it will also be at some lower elevation.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            gbaikie says: “There is no air surface on earth, other than in tunnels, which is 1.066 atm. Or 14.7 times 1.066 is 15.67 psi.”

            Well … if you REALLY want to nitpick, the world record barometric pressure is 15.75 psi. (http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/highest-barometric-pressure-). And i suspect that whenever high pressure systems move through the Dead Sea region that the pressure would climb to 15.67.

            But, of course, you ought to know that this is completely unimportant to the discussion at hand. The numbers were given for reference. As I pointed out, EVEN when the pressure was 0.53 Atm, the temperature was STILL higher than earth’s average. Do the interpolation and tell us what the temperature would be at exactly the 1.00000 Atm reading you seem to think is critically important.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            JohnKl says: “The atmospheric region above 50 km and a 1 bar pressure sits above the particulate layer that reflects said radiation and therefore receives most if not all the incoming and reflected solar irradiance (2613.0 w/m^2 per NASA) spread over that region.

            The issue is not how much is RECEIVED, but how much is ABSORBED. Irradiance that is not absorbed cannot do any warming. So even though 2600 W/m^2 travels into this region, all but ~ 260 W/m^2 reflects back out. Due to the geometry of a sphere, this is cut to an average of ~ 260/4 = 65 W/m^2 that is absorbed.

            A dark object at this altitude might well get rather hot (way above 75C) , but the mostly transparent atmosphere stays relatively cool.

            So (1) is not a problem.

            [NOTE, i made one mistake in my previous comment about this. Venus’ albedo maybe be ~ 3x higher than earth, but I really should have compared the amount ABSORBED, not reflected. Earth absorbs ~ 70% and Venus ~ 10%, for a factor of ~ 7x better at absorbing. Combined with the ~ 2x higher irradiance, this works out to ~ 3.5x more absorbed energy, which agrees pretty well with 240 W/m^2 (for earth) / 65 W/m^2 (for Venus).

            ****************************************

            “Noticed I mentioned “normal” not “average” temperature. “

            Well, you specifically said “experiences normal Earth temperatures at normal Earth pressure”. But the “normal” (but still above average) temperature of 27 C is at 0.53 Atm. So the “normal pressure” has abnormally high temperature, while the “normal temperature” has abnormally low pressure.

            So I don’t know that this objection stands up, either.

            ***********************************

            “As to your Wikipedia ( anyone could have updated your numbers ) contrived figures, why don’t we look at NASA information.”

            I agree that wikipedia can be wrong sometimes and going to a scientific paper is better. However, Figure 1 in your paper seems to show that the temperature @ 50 km is ABOVE 75C. So if the numbers from wikipedia are “contrived”, it is because they don’t make my point strongly enough!

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Tim Folkerts,

            Thank you for a well thought out reply. However, you still have problems. You stated:

            “The issue is not how much is RECEIVED, but how much is ABSORBED. Irradiance that is not absorbed cannot do any warming. So even though 2600 W/m^2 travels into this region, all but ~ 260 W/m^2 reflects back out. Due to the geometry of a sphere, this is cut to an average of ~ 260/4 = 65 W/m^2 that is absorbed.

            A dark object at this altitude might well get rather hot (way above 75C) , but the mostly transparent atmosphere stays relatively cool.

            So (1) is not a problem.”

            Almost exactly! Which remains why (1) is a problem for you! The Venusian atmosphere above 50 km proves mostly transparent to the incoming visible spectrum (so is the Earth’s atmosphere by the way) but not incoming IR (double the Earth’s) or IR from below which by your own account proves hotter than the Earth’s surface at 75C (assuming the figure proves correct). So given all that CO2 the temps should be much hotter. Yet despite all the CO2 the Venusian lapse rate exceeds the Earth’s by only a small amount (10 vs 9) if I remember correctly.

            You go on:

            ““Noticed I mentioned “normal” not “average” temperature. “

            Well, you specifically said “experiences normal Earth temperatures at normal Earth pressure”. But the “normal” (but still above average) temperature of 27 C is at 0.53 Atm. So the “normal pressure” has abnormally high temperature, while the “normal temperature” has abnormally low pressure.

            So I don’t know that this objection stands up, either.”

            Again not abnormal when you consider the REGION RECEIVES DOUBLE THE IRRADIANCE!

            More later.

            Have a great day!

        • JohnKl says:

          To be fair Jerry I will endeavor to read more of your posts and probably could have applied myself more to responding to them! However, the problem remains that the CAGW conjecture conflicts with so much readily available data one staggers to think how such speculative nonsense survived any analyst trained in even high school physics or the peer review of any well staffed high school freshman class.

          Have a great day!

    • gbaikie says:

      “The problem (question) is: Is convection necessary to establish the dry adiabatic lapse rate? There can be no convection below the cloud deck. There is a temperature gradient which approximates the dry adiabatic lapse rate. This question must be answered if one is to claim they understand the Venus atmosphere. Yes, there is much more which needs to be considered but first it seems that everyone must admit that they do not yet fundamentally understand the Venus atmosphere system; and hence the Earth atmosphere system.”

      Basically/essentially/practically there is no difference of temperature/heat/average velocity of molecules below the cloud
      deck.

      Now, if you detonated a nuke bomb below the cloud deck you would add heat, and it would cause convection of heat.
      But such explosive would not resemble a nuclear detonation on Earth- not vaguely. It would resemble vaguely a nuclear explosion underwater. So detonate a nuke, say 1 MT, at the surface of Venus and it would be like a 1 MT nuke, couple km
      underwater.
      And a 1 MT nuke detonated a couple km under the ocean will cause convection of water, as it would cause convection of Venus air. But from 1 atm of Earth or Venus, it will not be very noticable.
      Anyhow the air below Venus cloud deck is not being warmed much and one say the same of ocean depth over 100 meters.
      Sunlight does reach Venus surface, and sunlight does reach below 100 meter depth of ocean, the the heating from the energy of sunlight at 100 meter depth of the ocean is not much. Over entire year [rather than seconds] it might warm a bit in the ocean- unlikely it does as much warming under the Venus cloud decks.

    • Norman says:

      jerry l krause

      Here is a paper that uses models to simulate how Venus temperature works. The equations are given in the paper, not for the light-weight.

      They use their model to figure out Venus temperature profile and the results come very close to the actual measured Venus atmospheric temperatures.

      http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1209/1209.1833.pdf

      • jerry l krause says:

        Hi Norman,

        Thank you. At least I have the Venus International Reference Atmosphere as of 1997, which should be as accepted as it gets.

  24. I agree with Dr. Spencer on his above post.

    Where I differ below.

    My only major disagreement is I think the GHG effect is more a result of the climate rather then an initiator for the climate because studies show time and time again temperature changes first followed by CO2. I also think it is water vapor not CO2 which is the main engine for the GHG effect and how effective it may be which in turn is tied into oceanic temperatures and other natural global effects such as land use (forestation ) ,volcanic activity , the biosphere, global convection etc

    • Salvatore, even if you are correct that CO2 followed temperature in the ice core record, we are now emitting twice as much CO2 as is needed to explain the current rise in CO2 concentration. This puts us in the opposite cause-vs-effect regime as the ice ages and interglacials.

      • My reply to Dr. Spencer, is I think we could be focused on the wrong Green House Gas?

        I think perhaps more attention should be directed to water vapor atmospheric content concentration changes rather then CO2 changes in concentration in the atmosphere going forward to see what kind of future effect if any, the GHG effect will have on the global temperatures going forward.

        Thus far the GHG effect due to CO2 increases does not seem to be having the predicted effects upon the climate.

        It could be as you have said Dr. Spencer, that upper atmospheric water vapor content might be at play here.

        Maybe I might add that this upper atmospheric water vapor content ,along with the water vapor in totality in the atmosphere might be the controlling factor as to how vigorous the GHG effect is upon the climate.

        If water vapor content through out the entire atmosphere responds to the climate (oceans, convection, etc ), and is the main factor in a resultant GHG climatic effect then maybe CO2 concentration changes would not be at the heart of this discussion and would explain why CO2 concentration changes still fail to produce a situation where the data shows the temperature following CO2 which is true up to today.

        Why can I say this is true up to today? It is because since 1998 the temperature trend has not correlated with CO2 concentration increases, despite as you have said Dr. Spencer, the rapid increases in CO2 during modern times.

        Will this continue is the question?

        • Let me add the missing hot spot, which I think lends support to my argument that it is water vapor not CO2 which is the main Green House Effect factor.

          What I have done in my above post is taken this a step further in saying not only is there no positive feedback between CO2 and water vapor but the feedback could be negative because the controlling factor for water vapor concentration changes is the climate not CO2.

          • The other explanation would be other natural factors are stronger then AGW due to CO2 increases when it comes to the climate, if not what I said in my previous post.

            In any event so far CO2 is still not dictating the global temperature trends and the change in global temperature trends post 1940 is not even close to being something that has never occurred before through out the climatic historical temperature record.

  25. One of the biggest misconceptions Doug has is that the rate of energy input somehow determines or limits how high temperature can rise. Given ANY input of energy, the amount of temperature rise is only limited by a system’s ability to LOSE energy.

    This is why those of us who actually use equations to calculate temperature change must specify both rates of energy gain AND loss. Ask any physicist or thermodynamicist. The GHE affects the loss of energy to outer space.

    The issue is so basic that I have to wonder whether Dick Lindzen is right…maybe people like DC are actually paid to waste our time.

    • mpainter says:

      Roy says “maybe people like DC are actually paid to waste our time.”
      ###

      And to discredit skeptical points of view. As a theory, that has the attraction of explaining his methods and behavior without attributing some sort of personality defect. By my estimation, DC owes some $235,000 to various bloggers at this site.

    • pochas says:

      “The GHE affects the loss of energy to outer space.”

      But, since the climate no longer responds to CO2 concentration we may reasonably assume something else is going on. I’ll specify that cooling rates at night and at high latitudes are affected by CO2, but these effects are obliterated as soon as the sun comes up. Also we have by now learned that the gravito-thermal effect successfully predicts surface temperature of several planets and moons. Now we must reconcile the broken radiative models with the gravito-thermal effects which apparently dominate.

      • Joel Shore says:

        “But, since the climate no longer responds to CO2 concentration we may reasonably assume something else is going on…”

        These next several days here in Rochester, the temperatures are going to be warmer than they’ve been the last few days. Since the climate no longer responds to the seasonal changes in solar insolation, we may reasonably assume something else is going on.

        So, maybe we can have the gravito-thermal effect (and other cool physicsy-sounding words) explain summer and winter too.

    • Joel Shore says:

      Joe Postma also promulgates that very same misconception and, unlike Doug, he seems to have a fair amount of groupies who actually believe his nonsense.

    • gbaikie says:

      == Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
      August 28, 2015 at 11:27 AM

      One of the biggest misconceptions Doug has is that the rate of energy input somehow determines or limits how high temperature can rise. Given ANY input of energy, the amount of temperature rise is only limited by a system’s ability to LOSE energy. ==
      A solar pond greatly limits the loss of energy. The sunlight goes in and heats surface below the surface and the infrared can’t radiate through the water, and only way to lose energy is by convection of heat to the surface- which saline density gradient stops.
      And there is a limit to how warm the water can get- or could get hotter but not magnified sunlight has limit to how hot it gets. Or one design greenhouse [or parked car] so it has very low convection losses and the sunlight reaches a limit in terms of it’s temperature. Of course in terms thermal mass, there is unlimited amount joules of heat stored if one has an unlimited amount of thermal mass.

  26. There is nothing in your cryptic comment to not understand.

    • THat was a reply to MikeM, wrongly placed in the thread.

      • WizGeek says:

        @Stephen Wilde: What are your academic and professional qualifications regarding meteorology and climatology? From what I can find, your “Fellow” classification at the RMS is an unearned title bestowed before the RMS required substantive credentials. It seems the official title “F.R. Met. S” was a publishing error, yes?

        If so, then it may be best you take what the learned people here offer as wisdom, and use it to gain real insight into ever evolving (and incomplete) understanding of Earth’s complex and climate.

        A little humility is in order here.

        • WicGeek,

          I try to express my humility in the form of politeness and, hopefully, clear logic rather than emotion.

          60 years of observation and study of climate and weather, even as an amateur, have value.

          The outstanding query which Roy has not yet addressed is as to why he thinks the radiative qualities of GHGs are required to cause convection when there is already a decline of temperature with height as a result of KE being transformed to PE within adiabatic uplift and the opposite in adiabatic descent.

          He has accepted the validity of the lecture I linked to which explains the process but he does not seem to have absorbed the implications.

          • mpainter says:

            It seems that you have it backwards, Stephen Wilde. The PE is in the buoyancy of warm, humid air at the surface, which PE is realized via convection. At the top of the convection, the PE is zero.

          • mpainter,

            Heat is kinetic energy.

            Kinetic energy is maximum at the ground and least at the top as is heat.

            Potential energy is not heat so it must be least at the bottom and highest at the top.

            What you have suggested is potential potential energy in the sense that kinetic energy can potentially become potential energy but that is not a helpful way of expressing it, hence your confusion 🙂

          • mpainter says:

            You ignore the buoyancy. The humidity is not KE, is it? A humid mass of air at the surface is buoyant. At the top of convection it is dry. A balloon filled with helium at the surface has PE, right? Float it to 20 km, the PE is less, not greater, right?
            Likewise, a hot air balloon floats by principles of buoyancy.
            Also, the physics involves the density of the air mass, and this is not, of itself, kinetic energy but a property and thus its buoyancy.You can only adhere to your views by ignoring these considerations. The confusion is yours, I’m afraid.

            There is also the consideration that air lofted by convection cannot be said to increase in PE, no more than it can be said that water at the surface of the ocean has greater PE than water at depth. However, a deeper layer of less dense (warmer) water has PE due to its buoyancy. If it convects to the surface, it has no PE. Your principles would reverse this by assigning PE according to the height of the fluid column.

          • Ball4 says:

            Stephen – Cold is also kinetic energy. And to say potential energy is not heat is exactly the same in thermo. as saying potential energy is not energy. You need to clear up your logic.

          • Bryan says:

            Stephen Wilde

            Lets try once again to help you out of your intellectual blind spot regarding PE to KE over simplistic conversion.

            Lets say on a very calm day a balloon with a mass of 10Kg is let go at the Earth surface
            It rises very slowly at a constant speed to a height of 100m.

            An on board thermometer records that the temperature has not changed
            The balloon has undoubtedly gained gravitational potential energy.

            In fact we can work it out!
            PE = mgh =10 X 9.81 X 100 = 9810Joules

            Where has this energy come from?

            It has come from the buoyancy of the balloons surroundings
            As the balloon rises an exactly equal by weight volume of air drops
            The loss in potential energy of the falling parcel of air is the source of the 9810Joules gained by the balloon.
            It is exactly equal to the gain of PE

            Another help in visualising the situation is the Cartesian Diver experiment (google and find utube video)

            Not one person who has taken a physics course will agree with your present take on this topic.
            This is a pity since you may well have a contribution to make on meteorology.

            I for one cannot take seriuosly any comment of yours that starts with air KE turns to air PE etc,etc.
            This might mean I also inadvertantly disregard some valid point that you are trying to get across.

          • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule%E2%80%93Thomson_effect

            “As a gas expands, the average distance between molecules grows. Because of the attractive part of the intermolecular force, expansion causes an increase in the potential energy of the gas. If no external work is extracted in the process and no heat is transferred, the total energy of the gas remains the same because of the conservation of energy. The increase in potential energy thus implies a decrease in kinetic energy and therefore in temperature.”

            Since no adiabatic process is perfect one can have some work being done on surrounding molecules during uplift but that still leaves the adiabatic portion which is work done against gravity alone.

            Note that this process is limited to gases which are magnitudes more compressible than liquids or solids.

            My detractors here just do not know the established science that pre-dates AGW radiative theory.

          • Ball4 says:

            Stephen – Your clip is the PE to KE between molecules Maxwell published c. 1870s. So this description doesn’t matter if the parcel moves vertical or horizontal perpendicular to isobars. And doesn’t matter if gravity field exists. In the case of adiabatic g/Cp in gravity field, the P*V energy from this process is held constant. No P*V or thermal energy exchange with surroundings.

            If parcel moves vertical in gravity field, there is independant PE to KE added in to the mix.

          • Ball4.

            Cold is a lack of kinetic energy.

            You just jumped the shark.

          • Ball4,

            Of course it matters if the parcel moves up or down in a gravitational field.

            Gravity working on mass causes a pressure and density gradient so that gravity determines the distance between molecules.

            Moving up the density gradient allows more space between molecules for conversion of KE to PE and a cooling effect since the molecules then move about less which generates less heat in the form of IR release.

            The opposite when there is movement down the density gradient.

            The lack of knowledge about the established science here is breathtaking.

          • Ball4 says:

            Stephen: “Of course it matters if the parcel moves up or down in a gravitational field.”

            It matters just the same if the parcel moves horizontally down a pressure gradient perpendicular to isobar. There the horizontal PE to KE comes from forces between molecules as in your clip, Maxwellian P*V.

            The gravitational PE to KE comes about from gravity. Two distinct processes which you don’t seem to grasp. Clear up your logic.

          • Bryan says:

            Stephen Wilde you say

            “The lack of knowledge about the established science here is breathtaking.”

            For once I agree with you!

            Back to the 10Kg balloon
            Weight = mg = 98.1 Newtons acting down

            If the buoyancy force(acting up) is ever so slightly more say 98.10000001N for even a very short time say 0.000001second the balloon will slowly rise.

            Once moving up the buoyancy force can even equal the weight and the balloon still keeps rising at a constant slow speed.
            (This is known as Newtons first law)

            In the constant temperature specified the balloon gains gravitational potential energy yet the balloons molecular speeds on average stay the same.

            Where does the rising PE come from?

            From a falling volume of surrounding air of the same weight.

          • mpainter says:

            Stephen Wilde says:

            The lack of knowledge about the established science here is breathtaking.

            ###

            Apparently Steven has taken a breather. 😉

          • mpainter says:

            Correction: Stephen, not Steven, ‘scuse me por favor.

        • Ball4 says:

          Stephen: “Cold is a lack of kinetic energy.”

          That is unobtainable. Consider a glass of hot tap water. Is there more KE in that heated glass or in all of cold Loch Ness? If heat is kinetic energy then Loch Ness has plenty of heat. Loch Ness is also considered quite cold. Clear up your logic.

          • geran says:

            Stephen: “Cold is a lack of kinetic energy.”
            _____

            So, a baseball thrown towards a batter instantly drops in temperature when it hits the catchers glove?

            “Wilde science”, I love it!

  27. geran says:

    Objectivity?!?!

    Tim, EVERYTHING a Warmist sees each day is proof of, and due to, AGW! If there is drought in West Texas, it is due to AGW. If there is flooding in West Texas, it is due to AGW. If sea ice is growing in Antarctica, it is due to AGW. If the sea ice is receding, it is due to AGW. If a new high temperature record is broken, it is due to AGW. If a new low temperature record is broken, it is due to AGW. If the Great Lakes are frozen over, it is due to AGW. If the Great Lakes are thawing, it is due to AGW.

    Please get back to us when you understand the word “objectivity”, and how to use it objectively.

    🙂

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      geran, I was replying to specific examples that had been presented. Can you look at the article about the ““stunning satellite image” and say it is objective & unbiased? That is is an example of fair and balanced reporting?

      If you agree with with me that is it NOT objective, then you seem to agree with my understanding of “objective. In that case, there is no need to get back to you, since you already KNOW that I understand “objectivity”. 🙂

      • geran says:

        Tim asks, “Can you look at the article about the ““stunning satellite image” and say it is objective & unbiased?”

        If a satellite image has not been “adjusted”, then it is not biased. You are used to the “adjustments”, so therefore, an “actual” image appears, to you, to be “biased”.

        Tim asks, “That is an example of fair and balanced reporting?”

        “Truth” is not “fair and balanced”. “Opinions” are considered “fair and balanced”. But, “truth” has no bias. Many people never learn that simple fact of life.

  28. mpainter says:

    Also, Tim, regarding the long term question for climate, the last half of the Holocene has been a step-down into a new ice age, this shown by ice core data (d18O, the only reliable temperature proxy). This step-down is the norm, as shown in past interglacials (ice core data).

    The real killer is cooling, not warming, which is beneficial. I do not expect an ice age in the next century, but all the concern about non-existent global warming is the drivel of idiots, imo.

  29. MPAINTER -what do you say to what I say in this post? Do you think this could be the correct approach and if not why?

    Thanks.

    My reply to Dr. Spencer, is I think we could be focused on the wrong Green House Gas?

    I think perhaps more attention should be directed to water vapor atmospheric content concentration changes rather then CO2 changes in concentration in the atmosphere going forward to see what kind of future effect if any, the GHG effect will have on the global temperatures going forward.

    Thus far the GHG effect due to CO2 increases does not seem to be having the predicted effects upon the climate.

    It could be as you have said Dr. Spencer, that upper atmospheric water vapor content might be at play here.

    Maybe I might add that this upper atmospheric water vapor content ,along with the water vapor in totality in the atmosphere might be the controlling factor as to how vigorous the GHG effect is upon the climate.

    If water vapor content through out the entire atmosphere responds to the climate (oceans, convection, etc ), and is the main factor in a resultant GHG climatic effect then maybe CO2 concentration changes would not be at the heart of this discussion and would explain why CO2 concentration changes still fail to produce a situation where the data shows the temperature following CO2 which is true up to today.

    Why can I say this is true up to today? It is because since 1998 the temperature trend has not correlated with CO2 concentration increases, despite as you have said Dr. Spencer, the rapid increases in CO2 during modern times.

    Will this continue is the question?

    Let me add the missing hot spot, which I think lends support to my argument that it is water vapor not CO2 which is the main Green House Effect factor.

    What I have done in my above post is taken this a step further in saying not only is there no positive feedback between CO2 and water vapor but the feedback could be negative because the controlling factor for water vapor concentration changes is the climate not CO2.

    The other explanation would be other natural factors are stronger then AGW due to CO2 increases when it comes to the climate, if not what I said in my previous post.

    In any event so far CO2 is still not dictating the global temperature trends and the change in global temperature trends post 1940 is not even close to being something that has never occurred before through out the climatic historical temperature record.

    • mpainter says:

      Well, Salvatore, I can’t disagree with the essentials of your comments.
      1. Yes, no question that the GHE = water vapor and that the role of CO2 in the GHE has been greatly exaggerated.

      2. In fact, I believe that the GHE has been mischaracterized by AGW types. The energy budget diagrams are jokes, imo.

      3. The late warming trend circa 1979- 2000 was due to decreasing cloud albedo, not CO2, as shown per cloud data provided by NASA.

      4. The feedback from water vapor is not positive, and is probably negative.

      In sum, the AGW types are theoreticians who fall short in their science because they cannot/will not assimilate observations to their thinking, cannot admit to the shortcomings and failings of their hypothesis and indeed ignore all data to the contrary and even fabricate data to support their views. You probably would agree that their science is execrable.

      • David Appell says:

        “The late warming trend circa 1979- 2000 was due to decreasing cloud albedo, not CO2, as shown per cloud data provided by NASA.”

        Where is this data? Link please.

        ast time I asked you, you couldn’t produce it. Or a source for the calculation using it.

        • mpainter says:

          Simply untrue, David. I have provided you the reference on several occasions in the past. I will not call you a liar, because perhaps you only suffer from some debilitating memory impairment. But perhaps you are a liar. Or perhaps it is simply substance abuse. And get your own links, impaired person.

          For any who are interested in the study, it is McLean, 2014, and he uses data from the NASA cloud data bank. He estimates an increase in insolation of 2.5 W/sq m to 5 W/sq m during circa 1985 to circa 2002 due decrease in cloud albedo, globally.

  30. Let me add instead of a negative or positive correlation between CO2 and water vapor there may be just a random correlation between the two of them ,in other words no correlation at all.

  31. geran says:

    I’m going with +0.39 for August UAH Global.

    (Go El Niño!)

  32. Doug  C o t t o n   says:

    The “greenhouse” radiative forcing conjecture is wrong for one key reason: it incorrectly assumes that the surface temperature of a planet with an atmosphere is determined by radiative flux, and the “science” is supposedly verified by calculations based on the flux of all such radiation reaching the surface.

    In physics the only link between temperature and radiative flux is via the Stefan Boltzmann Law, and calculators are available on-line at sites like tutorvista.com. That law is based on the integral of a function derived by Nobel Prizewiner Max Planck which describes the spectral distribution emitted spontaneously by a so-called black-body. That is full spectrum radiation with (effectively) all frequencies between certain limits. Radiation from carbon dioxide is far less effective because of its limited number of specific frequencies. But, more important is the fact that a “black body” is (by definition) perfectly insulated against gain or loss of heat by any non-radiative process. Of course that is not the case for the thin surface layer of the Earth’s surface which is continually exchanging thermal energy with the atmosphere and regions beneath the surface.

    Never-the-less, Hansen & Co tried to fool the world into believing we could explain Earth’s mean surface temperature with radiation calculations. Well, the surface receives a mean of 168W/m^2 of solar radiation (after about half is reflected or absorbed by the atmosphere) whereas the Moon’s surface receives nearly twice that flux which reaches Earth’s surface.

    Stefan Boltzmann calculations for the Earth’s surface flux yield a temperature of about -40°C, whilst for the Moon’s mean flux (about 340W/m^2) those calculations yield about 5°C. These calculations are based on a uniform flux being received continually over a long period, but flux is far from uniform for spherical rotating bodies, and correct calculations involving integration over the whole surface yield far colder mean temperatures in all cases.

    For example, the Moon’s mean surface temperature is not 5°C but is instead negative on the C scale and that is because the flux varies and because even the Moon’s surface (let alone Earth’s) does not act like a true blackbody because of conduction to sub-surface regions.

    No one has been able to submit calculations based on verifiable radiative flux levels which come anywhere near explaining Earth’s mean surface temperature.

    So there is absolutely no empirical evidence supporting the contention that radiative flux calculations can be used to determine what Earth’s surface temperature ought to be. Hence it cannot be correct to assume that radiation from carbon dioxide warms the surface. In fact, all that the radiation between the warmer surface and carbon dioxide molecules in the cooler troposphere is doing is transferring thermal energy out of the surface. No amount of slowing of cooling is relevant if you can’t explain how the surface temperature got to its daily maximum in the first place.

    • Ball4 says:

      The proprietor’s top post shows you are not welcome here b/c he has refuted your same repeated theory by test. Of course the thin surface layer of the Earth’s surface is not a black body. And NOAA ESRL empirically measures the radiative flux that can be used to determine what Earth’s surface temperature ought to be and is each & every day/night.

  33. Vincent says:

    Why are my posts being censored?

  34. D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

    Roy

    Right of reply is a common courtesy and, I would suggest, a necessary right if science is to advance. Whilst SkS, SoD and WUWT deny it, I never thought you would stoop to their tactics in order to support yourself in what you say, and possibly also financially.

    Just because you think what I write is wrong Roy is not a valid reason for you to delete comments which happen to be contrary to your beliefs, especially when the only support you have for your beliefs comes from the closed circle of climatology and/or dates back to thermodynamics taught priority to the significant expansion in understanding of such that has occurred since 1988 in particular.

    Now I know you’re busy, Roy and so am I busy pointing out on scores of climate blogs and social media threads just precisely why the radiative forcing GH conjecture is flawed, and the correct physics which does indeed explain temperatures throughout the Solar System, something the GH conjecture never could and never will.

    You need to pause and consider at least one of the major dilemmas that spring from the false science of radiative forcing. That dilemma is obvious for all planets with significant atmospheres, but I would suggest that the nominal troposphere of Uranus makes it easier to understand. There, Roy, you cannot “explain” the lapse rate as being due to imaginary cooling off of a very hot core, because there is no compelling evidence of significant net energy loss at TOA. You can’t explain the lapse rate as being due to convection triggered by uneven heating of a surface, because there is no surface and no solar radiation reaching down through the 350Km of that troposphere on Uranus. That’s why Stephen Wilde is so very wrong in his explanation.

    But the dilemma for you Roy is, why is the temperature of about 320K at the base of that troposphere just about the right level such that the temperature gradient then takes on the expected g/cp “dry” value all the way to the methane layer near TOA, which is obviously anchoring the whole thermal profile with temperatures at just under 60K, these being what we would expect the solar radiation to support? You see, Roy, it’s just too much of a coincidence, especially when it happens on all planets with atmospheres.

    So you have to dismiss the radiative forcing GH conjecture because it is proven wrong by Nature and it never did and never will be able to be used to correctly determine why surface temperatures are what they are. In contrast, Roy, the correct physics I present does explain all these temperatures and why the temperatures on all planets are what they are. And yet you reject it, Roy. Present reasons that support the radiative forcing guesswork, and which refute what I have explained.

    • Norman says:

      DJC

      I think this may be at least a dozen times I have asked you for proof of your claim on Uranus temperature. You use it constantly but what is your proof of this nominal surface temperature? How do I know it is not much colder than what you claim? You may be right or your may be wrong. I was unable to find actual measurements of such a nominal surface, where do you get this information from that you are so sure of?

      http://www.space.com/18708-uranus-atmosphere.html

      From this article the claim is that just above the surface (defined as the same pressure as Earth’s surface not a solid one) of Uranus the temperature is -243 F and drops more as you go up to -370 F.

      Where do you get your information from? It is one thing to suggest the possibility that Uranus is as warm as you claim, it is a whole different matter to insist on this temperature and use it to prove your thesis on planetary surface warming. So why do you keep using it? What is your motive? What is your thought process? You know it is not an established fact but use it as it is. Why? Will you always do this? When people confront you with alternate facts you choose to totally ignore them, why? What drives your fanatic mind that believes it is incapable of error in reasoning?

      • Dr Alex H says:

        Maybe this will help you, Norman ..

        https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tropospheric_profile_Uranus.png

        Height of troposphere = 56 -(-300) = 356Km

        I’ll leave it to you to read the graph and determine temperatures. It seems to agree with what is in Wiki.

      • Dr Alex H says:

        Just out of interest I thought I’d do a few calculations:

        The extrapolated section of the above graph of the thermal profile in the troposphere of Uranus goes from about 105K at -27Km altitude to about 330K at -300Km which would be a linear gradient of 0.82K/km as is mentioned in the article.

        Now, using atmospheric composition from your link …

        Molecular hydrogen: 82.5%
        Helium: 15.2%
        Methane: 2.3%

        let’s calculate what the lapse rate ought to be:

        From: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-gases-d_159.html

        we get specific heat of …

        Hydrogen: 14.32 kJ/kg K
        Helium: 5.19 kJ/kg K
        Methane: 2.22 kJ/kg K

        So mean specific heat:

        0.825 x 14.32 + 0.152 x 5.19 + 0.023 x 2.22
        = 12.654 kJ/kg K

        From http://www.ask.com/science/gravity-uranus-631738be9774c5af

        we get gravity on Uranus: 8.69 meters per second squared

        Hence expected lapse rate …

        -8.69/12.654 = -0.69K/Km

        The calculated value (0.69) is about 84% of the 0.82 value used in the extrapolation and this seems reasonably close enough, given the likely error in the 0.82 figure.

        Using the graph and extrapolating from 105K at -27Km to the base of the troposphere at -300Km and using the calculated value of 0.69K/Km would give a temperature of 293K at the base which is not very different from 330K in the graph.

        • Norman says:

          Dr Alex H

          That is the graph DJC uses for his posts but does the lapse rate work on Uranus? Do you need convection in order to establish a lapse rate? Gas rising and falling? I think the line is dashed since this is what it could be but no one has an actual reading to verify it. Without convection does the temperature still follow a lapse rate or is it isothermal and cold? I do not know for sure and would like some actual measured temperatures before making this conclusion. Thanks again, maybe you have answers for this. Without convection why does the temperature change and increase? What is the source of energy? Does it come from the core and move outward or is DJC’s conjectures on this correct?

          • Dr Alex H says:

            Yes the line is a theoretical extrapolation. On further consideration, I think that the temperature would be between 260K and 290K. The reason I say that is because the methane layer is contained within the unbroken section, and that would reduce the specific heat of that region, thus explaining the steeper lapse rate. So I would say they are incorrect in extrapolating with their 0.82 value in the lower region where there is little CH4.

            The temperature gradient cannot possibly be isothermal in a force field because entropy could increase from such an unbalanced state. The lapse rate forms at the micro level.

          • Dr Alex H says:

            I’m sorry but I don’t have time to continue this discussion. It should be apparent from my review published last year what answers I would give, but you can probably imagine the consequences resulting from writing such.

          • Norman says:

            Dr. Alex H,

            That is you DJC isn’t it?

            Your claim: “The temperature gradient cannot possibly be isothermal in a force field because entropy could increase from such an unbalanced state. The lapse rate forms at the micro level.” That is straight out of the DJC playbook.

            That would not explain the isothermal profile of the Earth’s Tropopause which may extend kilometers and is isothermal. The big difference with the tropopause and troposphere is there is no convection going on in the topopause. The stratosphere is not isothermal because ozone absorbs UV light and turns it into heat energy.

    • Ball4 says:

      ”Just because you think what I write is wrong Roy”

      He proved you wrong by doing the work and presenting a test counter to your theory. You are not welcome to keep repeating incorrect theory. No one is actually, it is so irritating causes melt downs. Learn from the test. Advance in understanding nature, drop the stuff proven wrong by test. This is 5-3=2 you have exceeded your own self imposed limit.

  35. Norman says:

    David Appell,

    If you pop back in this thread you responded to a link I had about the high levels of Carbon Dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere eons ago.

    http://courses.washington.edu/ocean450/Discussion_Topics_Papers/Berner1990.pdf

    These super high levels of CO2 did not wipe out life on Earth and such conditions lasted hundreds of millions of years nor even come close to catastrophic warming.

    Your argument is that the Sun was much fainter and produced less energy than today (based upon stellar evolution models, as stars age they get warmer) so that kept the temperatures down.

    My problem with this explanation is it only helps explain one set of data (high CO2 and no dangerous temperatures). How does it even come close to then explaining this evidence?

    http://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/warm-or-cold-mars-history-takes-a-watery-new-twist/

    If scientists are correct that Mars had flowing water on its surface at about the same time the Sun was faint and weak how does this work? How could a faint and weak Sun have enough energy to heat Martian surface so it could support liquid water?

    Others have speculated our sun was more massive in the past and more energetic and has actually become cooler. Not sure what the actual truth is here but science needs to be logically consistent. If the sun was so weak that super high levels of Carbon Dioxide did not fry the Earth’s surface (if one is to believe the CAGW line of thought) then how could such a weak sun warm the Martian surface?

    • Slipstick says:

      Norman,
      The problem I have with the “but CO2 was much higher in the past and everything was just honkey-dorey for life” argument is that the lifeforms on Earth were significantly different. I don’t see a whole lot of Apatosauri wandering through forests of giant ferns in my neighborhood. It is quite possible, in fact, necessary, that the biochemistry of these lifeforms was different from modern flora and fauna; the biomechanisms were undoubtedly similar, but their operating ranges “tweaked” by adaption to the environment.

      Certainly, the levels of CO2 we have and are expected to produce are in no way a threat to the totality of “life”, but the relatively rapid change could pose a threat to specific species or local ecosystems. Anecdotally, I’ve noticed in the last decade or so that vines have “gone nuts” in my region, the N.E. U.S., scaling trees (and my house, requiring more frequent trimming) at an increasing rate. This can’t be good for the deciduous forests.

  36. Norman says:

    Meant to post it here at end of thread but posted up higher.

    David Appell,

    If you pop back in this thread you responded to a link I had about the high levels of Carbon Dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere eons ago.

    http://courses.washington.edu/ocean450/Discussion_Topics_Papers/Berner1990.pdf

    These super high levels of CO2 did not wipe out life on Earth and such conditions lasted hundreds of millions of years nor even come close to catastrophic warming.

    Your argument is that the Sun was much fainter and produced less energy than today (based upon stellar evolution models, as stars age they get warmer) so that kept the temperatures down.

    My problem with this explanation is it only helps explain one set of data (high CO2 and no dangerous temperatures). How does it even come close to then explaining this evidence?

    http://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/warm-or-cold-mars-history-takes-a-watery-new-twist/

    If scientists are correct that Mars had flowing water on its surface at about the same time the Sun was faint and weak how does this work? How could a faint and weak Sun have enough energy to heat Martian surface so it could support liquid water?

    Others have speculated our sun was more massive in the past and more energetic and has actually become cooler. Not sure what the actual truth is here but science needs to be logically consistent. If the sun was so weak that super high levels of Carbon Dioxide did not fry the Earth’s surface (if one is to believe the CAGW line of thought) then how could such a weak sun warm the Martian surface?

    • David Appell says:

      Your astrobio.net link doesn’t work for me.

      “Before about 3.8 billion years ago, Mars may have had a denser atmosphere and higher surface temperatures,[12][13] allowing vast amounts of liquid water on the surface,[14][15][16] [17][18] possibly including a large ocean[19][20][21][22] that may have covered one-third of the planet.[23][24][25]”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars

      and references therein (especially 12 and 13).

      • Norman says:

        David Appell,

        In an earlier post you stated: “Norman: The Sun was weaker in the past. Its intensity is increasing by 1% about every 110 M years.”

        That means 3.8 billion years ago the Sun was putting out 34% less energy than today. Currently Mars is receives 590 watts/m^2 at TOA.

        http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19890018252.pdf

        This means Martian solar radiation 3.8 billion years ago when it may have been wet was only receiving 390 watt/m^2 wheras the Earth currently is receiving 1360 watt/m^2 and we still have glaciers and freezing conditions on this planet. What type of dense and GHE would Mars have to have billions of years ago to sustain temperatures warm enough to sustain liquid water? Has anyone calculated how much GHE would be needed and if that is even possible with Mars?

  37. Slipstick says:

    “Temperature then estimated at 14-19°C (25-34°F) higher than today’s.” I hope that sentence is missing a comma; if not, can you provide a source for those values?

    • mpainter says:

      Slipstick: Strathcona Fiord, Wikipedia. Interesting that this sort of biota existed during the polar winter at 80°N lat

      • mpainter says:

        I should finish: during the late Pliocene circa 3 million ya.

        • Slipstick says:

          The higher latitudes were significantly warmer during the mid-Pliocene than the present, although globally temperatures were 2 – 3 deg C above those of the pre-industrial era. This was accompanied by a MSL about 25 m higher than the present; do you think that is something that should be of no concern?

          • mpainter says:

            You are an incurable alarmist. You should be concerned with your mental health, not SL rise.

          • dave says:

            There was a time in the mid-Pliocene when the sea level was forty meters LOWER than at present. All beachfront property became worthless over night.

  38. Gordon Robertson says:

    @geran “Stephen, the conversion of KE to PE does not imply “cooling”. You are confusing KE with “internal energy”. If you move a book from a lower shelf to a higher shelf, do you “cool” the book?”

    geran…I am just offering an opinion here, not pretending it is fact.

    I think what Stephen Wilde is talking about is the kinetic energy related to nitrogen and oxygen molecules which make up 99% of the atmosphere.

    The term KE is generic, it applies to all energies. There is a KE specific to electrical energy, another to chemical energy, another to thermal energy, another to gravitational energy, and so on.

    KE also applies to internal energy wrt to atoms and molecules. In fact, the KE associated with atoms and molecules is heat. When Clausius did his work on the mechanical theory of heat he included that internal energy in his heat equation. Later, he explained that it was not required because heat could be described externally based on work and other factors.

    In that context the energy in question is thermal energy. The KE involved in moving a book to a higher shelf increases it’s PE wrt to the floor and that represents gravitational energy.

    If an atom absorbs EM, it responds by having its atomic electrons rise to a higher energy level. That corresponds to an increase in KE and heat. Or, in molecules, the electrons in the covalent bonds vibrate harder. Even in solids, like pure iron, heating the iron causes the covalent bonds binding the iron atoms to vibrate harder. That’s why metal expands when heated since the mean free paths of the atoms joined by covalent bonds increases. Heat it enough and the bonds will break, producing melting.

    Radiative theory related to climate science would have us believe that only certain molecules can absorb electromagnetic energy. That’s simply not true. All atoms and molecules can absorb EM, albeit in specific frequency bands.

  39. jbsay says:

    I primarily read Dr. Spensor’s blog posts rather than the comments. And I do not post here much, so I can not claim to grasp the Cotton picking problem. But I am concerned that the solution is a bigger problem than the problem.
    This is a blog – not a government sponsored public forum, so there are no actual rights to free speech here, but Brandeis’s near century old observation that the best response to bad speech is more speech still holds.
    I someone wants to post prolifically and repeat the same error over and over – so what ? The world will not come to an end. We re not forced to correct every error in every post anywhere on the internet. Mr. Cotton probably should start his own blog. But I do not understand why banning him at substantial effort to yourself is better than ignoring him.

  40. Nabil Swedan says:

    Salvatore Del Prete Says:

    “I also think it is water vapor not CO2 which is the main engine for the GHG effect”

    It can only be water vapor and no other. I will explain:

    Surface temperature rise is of the order of 0.0000006 degree kelvin per hour. The heat transfer coefficient required to explain the observed heat exchanged, 0.05 watts per meter square, must be greater than 4400 joules per square meter per hour per degree kelvin. Only water vapor condensation can provide such a high heat transfer coefficient. Infrared radiation or convection simply cannot. They have a negligible heat transfer coefficient at such a low ambient temperature or temperature gradient. Just check any heat transfer manual.

  41. Nabil Swedan says:

    Salvatore Del Prete Says:

    “I also think it is water vapor not CO2 which is the main engine for the GHG effect”

    It can only be water vapor and no other. I will explain:

    Surface temperature rise is of the order of 0.0000006 degree kelvin per hour. The heat transfer coefficient required to explain the observed heat exchanged, 0.05 watts per meter square, must be greater than 4400 joules per square meter per hour per degree kelvin. Only water vapor condensation can provide such a high heat transfer coefficient. Infrared radiation or convection simply cannot. They have a negligible heat transfer coefficient at such a low ambient temperature or temperature gradient. Just check any heat transfer manual.

  42. David Appell says:

    mpainter says:
    “More BS from the U of Colorado,David?”

    And the data source for your claims about Arctic sea ice is?

    The conclusions aren’t much different with the JAXA data.

  43. David Appell says:

    mpainter says:
    “The real killer is cooling, not warming, which is beneficial.”

    What data, evidence and studies show it is beneficial?

    And beneficial to whom?

  44. David Appell says:

    Tim Folkerts says:
    “2) There is the further “inconvenient truth” that Antarctic sea ice recently took a huge nose dive. After setting a record last winter, it is currently running below the long term average and and the maximum this year (in a month or so) may well end up below average.”

    By the same as you wrote for Arctic SIE, though, the long-term trend is still upward.

  45. David Appell says:

    mpainter says:
    “Actually the downward trend ended in 2007.”

    Sorry, no.

    The trend from this day in 2007 until today is -16,000 km2/yr.

  46. David Appell says:

    mpainter says:
    “Tim, also, you say “noisy data”. Hah, the “noisy” data was 2012, right? When the great August Arctic Super Cyclone obliterated the sea ice and pushed the remnants down the east side of Greenland, right? The single, noisy exception to the flat trend, so let us just replace 2012 with some nice, quiet data.”

    Do you think there’s never been a summer cyclone in the Arctic before?

    The point is that Arctic sea ice had already thinned enough by 2012 to make its compactification event significantly lower than previous compactification events.

    That’s just what you’d expect to observe with a long-term melt of Arctic sea ice.

    • mpainter says:

      The trend is flat now, but Arctic sea ice extent will expand when the AMO turns blue. Greenland ice mass has increased these past two years.

  47. David Appell says:

    richard says:
    “and what was the ice extent back in the 1930s?”

    I know of four sources on historical Arctic sea ice. All conclude that late 20th-century sea ice was significantly lower than earlier in the century:

    “History of sea ice in the Arctic,” Leonid Polyak et al, Quaternary Science Reviews 29 (2010) 1757–1778.
    http://research.bpcrc.osu.edu/geo/publications/polyak_etal_seaice_QSR_10.pdf
    (see Figure 2a)

    “Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years,” Christophe Kinnard et al,
    Nature 479, 509–512 (24 November 2011)
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/abs/nature10581.html

    Walsh and Chapman (2000)
    Graph here on top right: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_untersteiner.html

    “Sea ice before satellites:
    http://nsidc.org/icelights/2011/01/31/arctic-sea-ice-before-satellites/

  48. dave says:

    Slipstick says,

    “MSL [Mean sea Level] was about 25 m higher than present during the [300,000 years of the] mid-Pliocene…”

    The Mean Sea Level was the SAME as now. However, there were several fluctuations AROUND this level.
    25 m was the most extreme of the “Highstands”. There were also “Lowstands” of as much as -40 m.

  49. nigel says:

    “…what does a decrease mean…?”

    It means that some people are hoist with their own petard, while stuck on the horns of a dilemma, in a fog of cognitive dissonance, floating down a green river in Egypt. But they are not bothered.

  50. richard says:

    According to David Appell link

    “Before the 1950s, the data are patchier. So researchers also use clues from the environment to look into past sea ice conditions”

    We don’t need clues we go straight to what was happening with the shipping –

    Cargo ships were using the NWP and the NSR in the 1930s. Alarmists like to point out that these routes were only used in the last few years because
    of the melting of the ice due to AGW- they cannot even get this right!!!

    NOAA flag up that the best info was the DMI maps but points out that these were estimations.

  51. dave says:

    “…’St Roch’…”

    One can view this ship at the Vancouver Maritime Museaum.

  52. Jeff Id says:

    Good luck Doc. It takes many long months to cure the infection but eventually the sun will come out.

Leave a Reply